AMD Ryzen 9 3900X CPU Review

First of all, massive props for listening @Dan_D re the after effects benchmark, the content creation crowd will be chuffed. (You are the first person who has included an After effects test for the ryzen 3900x on the net! - huge!)

Second, I thought the 3900x was a 12 core chip.. you’ve listed it as an 8c/16 thread in quite a few of the charts...

Also would like to know more about the test setups, was 5ghz on the 9900k with 0 AVX offset or default (-3)?

Overall though, massive props on getting a polished review out on time! I know it’s not easy at the best of times!
 
Last edited:
Nice review. Since I mostly game on my main PC at 1440p, I don't see the real benefit of upgrading from my 8700k. If I was building from scratch then the new 3000 series AMD's would be the way to go.
 
keljian said:
Second, I thought the 3900x was a 12 core chip.. you’ve listed it as an 8c/16 thread in quite a few of the charts...
Click to expand...

That must be from the IPC page - read the intro paragraph to understand what was done. Goal of that test was to give equal threads/cores to each competitor, so 4 cores were disabled.
 
Good review, really glad you all continued on with the tech reviews. I am considering a 3900X, but my 6800K is still doing good for my needs as of now.
 
great review!
Will you be doing the 3700x anytime soon? ..or do you think running the 3900x with 4 cores disabled netted you the same performance?
 
Great review. Will need to reread it in more detail but took a high level look and was impressed. I was a very early adopter of a Ryzen 1700X and have had a great experience with it. Seeing as how the 3000 series compares to the 2000 series makes upgrading from my 1000 series very, very tempting.
 
Looks great! Review is great!
I guess I gotta buy one now.
 
That's a ton of compute power for $499. Great review. I look forward to the 3700X review. I expect there is gonna be some serious bitch slapping at the lower levels of the product stacks.

I wonder how that 5700XT runs on that 3900X/570 rig. Any discernable difference with pcie 4?
 
Thank you, great review. Pretty much what I expected, except I was hoping it would be able to be overclocked more with good cooling.

Maybe I just missed it, but did you state anywhere what cooling you used? Probably not relevant though,a s you stated your instability when pushing higher clocks came in the 65-70C range, which isn't typically considered particularly high temps for a CPU.
 
JosiahBradley said:
Wooo AMD is back. Finally I can upgrade my 4790k. Now to wait on water blocks.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JosiahBradley said:
Wooo AMD is back. Finally I can upgrade my 4790k.
Click to expand...

Agree, it's finally got me itching to upgrade my 4790k as well. Waiting to see how the 3950X fairs before I pull any triggers though. Not because I ~need~ 32 threads, just because I think it would be gloriously fun overkill.

I had hoped for more on the overclocking front, but I didn't really expect it. Not really disappointed though, still good news on nearly every front.
 
keljian said:
First of all, massive props for listening @Dan_D re the after effects benchmark, the content creation crowd will be chuffed. (You are the first person who has included an After effects test for the ryzen 3900x on the net! - huge!)

Second, I thought the 3900x was a 12 core chip.. you’ve listed it as an 8c/16 thread in quite a few of the charts...

Also would like to know more about the test setups, was 5ghz on the 9900k with 0 AVX offset or default (-3)?

Overall though, massive props on getting a polished review out on time! I know it’s not easy at the best of times!
Click to expand...

That's on the IPC page. If you look, there are two sets of similar looking benchmarks. I did the normal tests against a wider range of processors and settings. Then I ran the Core i9 9900K, the Ryzen 7 2700X and the Ryzen 9 3900X @ 4.2GHz. I also configured the Ryzen 9 3900X to use only 8c/16t to take the extra cores it has over the other CPU's out of the equation.

Zarathustra said:
Thank you, great review. Pretty much what I expected, except I was hoping it would be able to be overclocked more with good cooling.

Maybe I just missed it, but did you state anywhere what cooling you used? Probably not relevant though,a s you stated your instability when pushing higher clocks came in the 65-70C range, which isn't typically considered particularly high temps for a CPU.
Click to expand...

I don't think I did. That's an oversight on my part. I checked my spec sheet and didn't have it on there. For reference, I always use a Koolance Exos 2.5 with a CPU-390 for Intel CPU's and an Alphacool Eisblock XPX in hideous chrome for socket AM4 processors. I actually have two of these Koolance systems, two top deck open air test platforms, matched drives, etc.
 
Brian_B said:
Agree, it's finally got me itching to upgrade my 4790k as well. Waiting to see how the 3950X fairs before I pull any triggers though. Not because I ~need~ 32 threads, just because I think it would be gloriously fun overkill.

I had hoped for more on the overclocking front, but I didn't really expect it. Not really disappointed though, still good news on nearly every front.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dan_D said:
I don't think I did. That's an oversight on my part. I checked my spec sheet and didn't have it on there. For reference, I always use a Koolance Exos 2.5 with a CPU-390 for Intel CPU's and an Alphacool Eisblock XPX in hideous chrome for socket AM4 processors. I actually have two of these Koolance systems, two top deck open air test platforms, matched drives, etc.
Click to expand...

I was about to push back on the ugly chrome statement, but ****, that block is pretty ugly :p

Chrome can be done right though. I like the chrome and black Heatkiller IV from Watercool.

28

I'm torn between this one and the all black version. If I do wind up with that Asus WS board, the all black one might just be too black. Some contrast would be nice.

As far as the Koolance Exos goes, 'm not that familliar with those. From pictures it looks like it contains a rather small dual 120mm radiator, correct?

It looks like the unit has a thermal probe that reads loop temp. Did you by any chance note the loop temp you got under full load?

I tend to set my fan profiles to keep my loop at or under 34C, as going lower doesn't seem to result in any higher overclocks with my current CPU or GPU, and it is fairly OK from a fan noise perspective. This tends to result in sub 40C GPU temps at load. CPU temps are more variable for me though, but my current CPU is probably not a very good comparison, being 32nm, 1.445v and 4.8Ghz. :p I'm planning on trying the Heatkiller IV block. Between that and the new 7nm process, I kind of feel it should run cooler than my current heat monster, despite having many more cores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top