AMD Ryzen 9 3900X CPU Review

Zarathustra said:
Same here, I don't NEED 16C/32T. Heck, I barely even need 8C/16T. The selling point when it comes to the 3950x to me is that it has higher boost clocks and higher binned chiplets. I want to get as much clock speed as I possibly can. Hopefully with decent cooling and a motherboard with good VRM's that means PBO + Auto-OC will make 4.9Ghz possible with lightly threaded applications.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet on a Ryzen 9 3950X reaching 4.9GHz in lightly or single threaded applications. While PBO+200MHz offset is certainly possible, I rarely saw those speeds. In my tests, I generally still didn't break 4.5GHz very often. PBO and the offset isn't guaranteed to hit those clocks. Its based on an algorithm that requires conditions to be right to boost that high. I rarely saw the 4.6GHz boost clocks as is.
 
Seriously interested in either a 3900X for the allure of more coars vs a 3800X for more game boost at 105W for pure gaming.

Thanks for this review. Great as always!
 
Great job with the review! It's the only one I actually took the time to read and didn't just rushed over to some charts.
The direct IPC comparison section was very interesting!

I was not sure what to expect for gaming performance but I was hoping for more.
I'm not sure it's enough to upgrade from my 2600x since it already has more multitasking power then I need.
 
Last edited:
My favorite line, and what Intel fanbois are DETERMINED to not acknowledge. "The differences are largely academic outside of competitive gaming or trying to use a 240Hz monitor or something like that."
 
Well, in fanboy defense (playing Devil's Advocate here)

AMD has long been in the position of being "close enough to not matter". With respect to gaming, Zen2 still doesn't change that. The fact is Intel is still faster (notwithstanding how little that statement actually means anymore).

Zen2 does vault AMD forward in almost every other category now though. But Intel does still win at Gaming. That difference may largely be academic, but that doesn't mean it still doesn't exist, and no matter how awesome it is at everything else, AMD will still have a hard time of shaking that stigma of being second fiddle in the Gaming community - which is very vocal and has a very large social media presence.
 
Damned awesome review!

Good gravy...these Ryzen 3000 series are THE choice for their price points, IMO.

~$330 =
R7 3700X 8c/16t @ 3.6/4.4 GHz 32MB L3 w/ HSF
i7-9700 8c/16t @ 3.0/4.7 GHz 12MB L3 w/ HSF

~$400 =
R7 3800X 8c/16t @ 3.9/4.5 GHz 32MB L3 w/ HSF
i7-9700KF/K 8c/16t @ 3.6/4.9 GHz w/o HSF


I game with a 24" 1080p 144Hz monitor right now, but hope to upgrade to a larger diagonal 1440p 144+Hz, someday.
Even though the Intel might be the better choice for providing a slight edge with higher refresh/fps displays (that's a huge maybe), it's going to be very difficult for me to justify the significant increase of the price tag to get that slight edge (which probably won't even be discernable outside of canned benchmark utilities at resolutions greater than 1080p): I'd rather spend $330 for a 3700X than $380-410 for a 9700KF/K and dump the savings into more RAM, better GPU, a bigger NVMe SSD, etc.
Plus, there's always the path of plopping in a used R9 3950X (or even better future gen, if socket compatible) years down the road, if moving on to even more cores is warranted.
 
ofacesig said:
My favorite line, and what Intel fanbois are DETERMINED to not acknowledge. "The differences are largely academic outside of competitive gaming or trying to use a 240Hz monitor or something like that."
Click to expand...

But its absolutely true. Especially beyond
DejaWiz said:
Damned awesome review!

Good gravy...these Ryzen 3000 series are THE choice for their price points, IMO.

~$330 =
R7 3700X 8c/16t @ 3.6/4.4 GHz 32MB L3 w/ HSF
i7-9700 8c/16t @ 3.0/4.7 GHz 12MB L3 w/ HSF

~$400 =
R7 3800X 8c/16t @ 3.9/4.5 GHz 32MB L3 w/ HSF
i7-9700KF/K 8c/16t @ 3.6/4.9 GHz w/o HSF


I game with a 24" 1080p 144Hz monitor right now, but hope to upgrade to a larger diagonal 1440p 144+Hz, someday.
Even though the Intel might be the better choice for providing a slight edge with higher refresh/fps displays (that's a huge maybe), it's going to be very difficult for me to justify the significant increase of the price tag to get that slight edge (which probably won't even be discernable outside of canned benchmark utilities at resolutions greater than 1080p): I'd rather spend $330 for a 3700X than $380-410 for a 9700KF/K and dump the savings into more RAM, better GPU, a bigger NVMe SSD, etc.
Plus, there's always the path of plopping in a used R9 3950X (or even better future gen, if socket compatible) years down the road, if moving on to even more cores is warranted.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the $500 point.
Ryzen 9 3900X 12c/24t @ 3.8/4.6GHz 70MB L3 w/HSF
Intel Core i9 9900K 8c/16t @ 3.6/5.0GHz 16MB L3 w/o HSF

Due to the extra cores, Intel gets beaten down in anything highly multi-threaded. However, keep in mind that X570 board prices are pretty astronomical compared to the other options from AMD's last generation and Intel's Z390 offerings and that's saying something. Hell, X570 is costlier than many X399 motherboards unless you go with a $160 X570 motherboard. Boards that seem questionable to me at best. On the socket compatibility front, AMD seems pretty committed to AM4 and promises compatibility through 2020, but after that there are no guarantees. Frankly, I hope they ditch it. I much prefer the LGA sockets and if you look at the problems that extremely long lived sockets bring into the equation, it doesn't make sense to keep running those sockets longer than they absolutely have to.

AMD had a hell of a time maintaining socket compatibility with Ryzen 3000 series CPU's due to the switch to chiplets and the rearranging of everything inside the CPU package. Back in the Bulldozer days, AMD stuck with the platform for way too long and it made Bulldozer less appealing than it already was. About the only saving grace is that Phenom I/II owners didn't have to buy a new motherboard, and frankly, that's the only way the CPU held any real appeal for anyone.
 
X570 seems pretty pointless for most people, especially since the CPUs adhere to the TDP pretty closely. Without a ton of overclocking potential, you aren't missing out on much either by having the crazy VRMs of the X570's. Kinda crazy you can technically run a 12c/24t cpu on a $100 Mobo without any real performance penalties.
 
Dan_D said:
But its absolutely true. Especially beyond


Don't forget the $500 point.
Ryzen 9 3900X 12c/24t @ 3.8/4.6GHz 70MB L3 w/HSF
Intel Core i9 9900K 8c/16t @ 3.6/5.0GHz 16MB L3 w/o HSF
Click to expand...

I didn't forget about it...it's just not a CPU price point that I'm going to make relevant to my wallet. :p
 
ofacesig said:
I think 3700x is my next jump point. Higher frequency, more cache, more cores, and better IPC than my current 4960x.
Click to expand...

I'm leaning towards the same as an upgrade for my 3770K.
Should be one hell of a jump for us both!
 
DejaWiz said:
I'm leaning towards the same as an upgrade for my 3770K.
Should be one hell of a jump for us both!
Click to expand...

I'm debating on getting the 3600X, not sure if the 3700X really adds much more for gaming and the general stuff I do.
 
Strelok said:
I'm debating on getting the 3600X, not sure if the 3700X really adds much more for gaming and the general stuff I do.
Click to expand...

That's the best part of these Ryzen parts. They have so many parts that so accurately cover so many price points, that many are very reasonable upgrade paths for a huge portion of the market.
 
ofacesig said:
That's the best part of these Ryzen parts. They have so many parts that so accurately cover so many price points, that many are very reasonable upgrade paths for a huge portion of the market.
Click to expand...

And the line-up starts with a 6 core that boosts to 4 GHz for $100! That kind of bang for the buck is hard-pressed to beat, IMO.
 
I ended up with a 3700X. I missed out on stock of the 3800X, but that would have been nice. The 3900X was a game time decision and my wallet took over :|

That, and I stuck with my existing X470 Crosshair. The 2700X moves to a new B450 I picked up.

STILL, based on a quick check, this thing is a monster for what I do.
 
Zarathustra said:
Shouldn't need to wait. Anything AM4 compatible should just work.

I wouldn't recommend ever using Monoblocks. Sure, they help with the VRM's, but in doing so the tolerance stackups are almost always worse, resulting in worse mounts on the CPU, and thus worse CPU cooling.

Best thing you can probably do is get a CPU only block, and just make sure you have good airflow over the VRM's or if you REALLY want water cooled VRM's, plumb some separate low restriction dedicated blocks on the VRM's.

For mine, I'm probably going to use a Heatkiller IV block.
Click to expand...

I'm curious if the new chip layout requires reworking the cold plate to increase flow over the cpu dies themselves as they are no longer centered.

I've got a watercooler IV Pro on my 4790k right now and it is amazing. Also my mobo came with native VRM watercoling block so I do cool my VRMs now.
 
It's surprising that I can 'feel' a tangible difference just sitting on the desktop with the 3700X over the 4770K in terms of responsiveness.

Maybe the NVME drive helps, but a little frame stutter when loading new areas in Division 2 is also gone. That's all I can say after less than 2 hours on the PC.

Not really a worthwhile upgrade just for those 2 improvements but I bought it knowing that it's just a 'want' more than a need. Also, the 4770K won't be retired anyway.
 
I ended up just getting a 2600X since there was a deal with the Strix F gaming for $210. Worst case I upgrade to ryzen 4000 next year :)
 
That was a well done review sir! Look forward to more. Seems to be a great season!

You should drop some affiliate links for those looking to purchase. Unless I missed them of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top