Test Bed and Setup

As per our processor testing policy, we take a premium category motherboard suitable for the socket, and equip the system with a suitable amount of memory running at the manufacturer's maximum supported frequency. This is also typically run at JEDEC subtimings where possible.

It is noted that some users are not keen on this policy, stating that sometimes the maximum supported frequency is quite low, or faster memory is available at a similar price, or that the JEDEC speeds can be prohibitive for performance. While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS, and most users will fall back on JEDEC supported speeds - this includes home users as well as industry who might want to shave off a cent or two from the cost or stay within the margins set by the manufacturer. Where possible, we will extend out testing to include faster memory modules either at the same time as the review or a later date.

Test Setup
AMD 3000*1 R9 3900X
R7 3700X
MSI MEG X570
Ace
7C35v12

7C35v11*2
Wraith Prism G.Skill TridentZ
4x8 GB
DDR4-3200
CL16
16-16-16-36
AMD 2000 R7 2700X
R5 2600X
R5 2500X
ASRock X370
Gaming K4
P4.80 Wraith Max* G.Skill SniperX
2x8 GB
DDR4-2933
AMD 1000 R7 1800X ASRock X370
Gaming K4
P4.80 Wraith Max* G.Skill SniperX
2x8 GB
DDR4-2666
AMD TR4 TR 1920X ASUS ROG
X399 Zenith
0078 Enermax
Liqtech TR4
G.Skill FlareX
4x8GB
DDR4-2666
Intel 9th Gen i9-9900K
i7-9700K
i5-9600K
ASRock Z370
Gaming i7**
P1.70 TRUE
Copper
Crucial Ballistix
4x8GB
DDR4-2666
Intel 8th Gen i7-8086K
i7-8700K
i5-8600K
ASRock Z370
Gaming i7
P1.70 TRUE
Copper
Crucial Ballistix
4x8GB
DDR4-2666
Intel 7th Gen i7-7700K
i5-7600K
GIGABYTE X170
ECC Extreme
F21e Silverstone
AR10-115XS
G.Skill RipjawsV
2x16GB
DDR4-2400
Intel 6th Gen i7-6700K
i5-6600K
GIGABYTE X170
ECC Extreme
F21e Silverstone
AR10-115XS
G.Skill RipjawsV
2x16GB
DDR4-2133
Intel HEDT i9-7900X
i7-7820X
i7-7800X
ASRock X299
OC Formula
P1.40 TRUE
Copper
Crucial Ballistix
4x8GB
DDR4-2666
GPU Sapphire RX 460 2GB (CPU Tests)
MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G (Gaming Tests)
PSU Corsair AX860i
Corsair AX1200i
SSD Crucial MX200 1TB

**Crucial MX300 1TB
OS Windows 10 x64 RS3 1709
Spectre and Meltdown Patched


**Windows 10 x64 1903
Spectre and Meltdown Patched
*1 Ryzen 3000 series has been tested in a different environment.

*2 Initial Review BIOS - Graphs results are marked with **
 

We must thank the following companies for kindly providing hardware for our multiple test beds. Some of this hardware is not in this test bed specifically, but is used in other testing.

Hardware Providers
Sapphire RX 460 Nitro MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X OC Crucial MX200 +
MX500 SSDs
Corsair AX860i +
AX1200i PSUs
G.Skill RipjawsV,
SniperX, FlareX
Crucial Ballistix
DDR4
Silverstone
Coolers
Silverstone
Fans

Security Mitigrations

The systems have applied the latest Spectre and Meltdown mitigation patches where applicable. Meanwhile we should note that while the ZombieLoad exploit was announced earlier this year as well, the patches for that have not been released yet. We'll be looking at those later on once they hit.

Article Testing Methodology Update (July 8th):

We ran our original review numbers with the latest available firmware for the MSI MEG X570 ACE motherboard last week (Version  7C35v11). On Saturday the 6th MSI had shared with us a notice about a new version coming out, which became available to download to us on Sunday the 7th, the launch day and date of publication of the review.

We’ve had more time to investigate the new firmware, and have discovered extremely large changes in the behaviour of the frequency boosting algorithm. The new firmware (Version 7C35v12) for the motherboard contains AMD’s new ComboPI1.0.0.3.a (AGESA) firmware.

We discovered the following direct measurable effects between the two firmware versions:

(Note: This is a custom test that uses a fine-grained looping timed fixed instruction chain to derive frequency; it showcases single-core frequency)

We notice a significant change in the CPU’s boosting behaviour, now boosting to higher frequencies, and particularly at a faster rate from idle, more correctly matching AMD’s described intended boost behaviour and latency.

We’re currently in the process of re-running all our suite numbers and updating the article where necessary to reflect the new frequency behaviour.

Article Testing Methodology Update (July 9th):

We've updated the article benchmark numbers on the Ryzen 9 3900X. We've seen 3-9% improvements in exclusive ST workloads. MT workloads have remained unchanged, Gaming had both benefits and negatives. We continue to work on getting updated 3700X numbers and filling out the missing pieces.

Original BIOS results are as of first publication are marked with ** in the graphs.

Article Testing Methodology Update (July 10th):

We've also updated our Ryzen 7 3700X results now. Ultimately our conclusions haven't changed, but AMD does narrow the gap a bit more. For a full summary of our findings, please check out this article.

Benchmarking Setup: Windows 1903 SPEC2006 & 2017: Industry Standard - ST Performance & IPC
Comments Locked

447 Comments

View All Comments

  • generalako - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link

    The only one being an apologist here is you CityBlue. In all your rage about Anandtech not testing with mitigations in place, you failed to every take up the fact that Anandtech has also tested the Intel setup with lower RAM speeds than the AMD one. Which is, to use your own words, "hard to take seriously...for not testing with a level, real-world playing field". Changing RAM speed is a simple push of the button on XMP, and both easily support time (not to mention that x570 motherboards isn't something the overwhelming majority of people, for obvious reasons, will buy). Remember, this was a traditional complaint from many users back when Zen 1 came out, and was tested by various vendors out there (like Gamersnexus) with lower RAM speeds and Intel counterparts.
  • CityBlue - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link

    @generalako as I said in a previous comment, this article and it's benchmarking is so fundamentally flawed that I'm not willing to invest the time to read the article (I mean, seriously - what's the point?) so forgive me for not mentioning other errors/omissions that may have favoured AMD but two wrongs do not make a right, and especially not when the mitigation omission is so egregious.
  • Meteor2 - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link

    CityBlue, you're spot-on. +1.
  • GreenReaper - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link

    This is true for the HEDT X-series motherboard as well. 1.40 is from March 2018. There have been three updates since then, including two new instances of microcode, the last from 6 June 2019:
    https://www.asrock.com/MB/Intel/X299%20OC%20Formul...

    This does *not* apply in quite the same way for the GIGABYTE X170 ECC Extreme used for the 7th- and 6th-gen Intel CPUs... but only because it hasn't been updated *by Gigabyte* since the very first patches for Meltdown and Spectre at the start of 2018:
    https://www.gigabyte.com/uk/Motherboard/GA-X170-EX...
  • MLSCrow - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link

    Some of those benchmark results with the i9-7920X are very fishy. In some cases, out-performing Intel CPU's with more advanced cores that have 2/3rd the cores, yet, it somehow manages to score 550% better? Please explain.
  • madseven7 - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link

    Seems like Anandtech is becoming PCPerspective.
  • GreenReaper - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link

    Well, it *is* an X-series. Perhaps it has a bit more cache? Or AVX-512 support with more modules? But I also see it's using a BIOS from March 2018 - not the latest from June 6 with microcode allowing MDS mitigations to be used by the OS (see my comment in the previous page).
  • mattkiss - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link

    There are multiple errors in the "X570 Motherboards: PCIe 4.0 For Everybody" section. Check the second paragraph and "AMD X570, X470 and X370 Chipset Comparison" table that follows it.
  • Ryan Smith - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link

    Could you please be more specific? I'm thumbing through the specs right now, and I'm not seeing an issue.
  • Maxiking - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link

    So any plans to cover the huge fraud and misleading AMD marketing about frequency and the boost frequency? The majority of 3900x have such poor silicon quality they can't reach 4.6 GHz on a single core.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now