** = Old results marked were performed with the original BIOS & boost behaviour as published on 7/7.

Power Consumption & Overclocking

Power consumption of the new Ryzen 3900X and 3700X are of particular interest because it’s a very key aspect of the new generation chipsets, and AMD promises some extremely large improvements thanks to the new 7nm process node as well as the optimised chiplet design.

When comparing the single-chiplet Ryzen 3700X to the previous generation Ryzen 2700X, we’re seeing quite some dramatic differences in core power consumption. In particular power consumption at each chip’s respective peak frequency is notably different: Although the new 3700X has a 100MHz higher clock speed and thus is further up the exponential power curve, it manages to showcase 32% lower absolute power than the 2700X.

We have to remember that we’re talking about overall absolute power, and not efficiency of the chip. When taking actual performance into account through the higher clock as well as Zen2’s increased performance per clock, the Performance/W figures for the new 3700X should be significantly higher than its predecessor.

What is curious about the new chip is just how closely it follows its power limitations. The new boosting algorithm on the Ryzen 3 series is a particularly “opportunistic” one that will go as high in frequencies as it can go within its constraints, no matter the amount of CPU cores.

The constraints are as follows:

  • Package Power Tracking (PPT): The power threshold that is allowed to be delivered to the socket.
    • This is 88W for 65W TDP processors, and 142W for 105W TDP processors.
  • Thermal Design Current (TDC): The maximum amount of current delivered by the motherboard’s voltage regulators when under thermally constrained scenarios (high temperatures)
    • This is 60A for 65W TDP processors, and 95A for 105W TDP processors.
  • Electrical Design Current (EDC): This is the maximum amount of current at any instantaneous short period of time that can be delivered by the motherboard’s voltage regulators.
    • This is 90A for 65W TDP processors, and 140A for 105W TDP processors.

Looking at the total power consumption of the new 3700X, the chip is very much seemingly hitting and maintaining the 88W PPT limitations of the default settings, and we’re measuring 90W peak consumption across the package.

When having a closer look at the new Ryzen 9 3900X, first we have to enjoy the sheer amount of cores of this processor!

Following that, we see that this CPU’s per-core peak power consumption is quite notably higher than that of the 3700X, which is not a surprise given that the chip is clocked 200MHz higher at 4.6GHz versus “just” 4.4GHz. However even at this much higher clock, the 3900X’s power consumption remains notably lower than that of the 2700X.

Scaling up in threads as well as cores, we’re seeing a similar scaling behaviour, with the large difference being that the 3900X is maintaining higher power consumption per core (and frequency) than the 3700X. Fully loading the chip we’re seeing 118W power on the CPU cores while the package power is falling in at the exact 142W that AMD describes as the PPT limit of 105W TDP processors such as the 3900X.

Another thing to note in the results between the 3700X results and the 3900X, is that un-core power on the latter is quite higher. This really shouldn’t come as a surprise as the processor has a second chiplet who will have L3 and Infinity Fabric that will use more power.

Graphing the three processors together, we see two main aspects: Again the 3900X and 3700X both consuming notably less power than the 2700X, and the 3700X’s hard limit when reaching the 88W PPT limit while the 3900X is able to scale further up till it hits the 142W limit.

Power (Package), Full Load

Comparing the full load power characteristics of both SKUs, they end up extremely competitive in both their respective categories. The 3700X’s 90W hard-limit puts it at the very bottom of the CPUs we’ve used in our testing today, which is quite astonishing as the chip is trading blows with the 9700K and 9900K across all of our test workloads, and the latter chip’s power consumption is well over 60% above the 3700X’s.

The 3900X is also impressive given that it’s a 12-core CPU. While posting substantial performance improvements of the 12-core Threadripper counterparts, the 3900X still manages to be significantly less thermally constrained thanks to its much lower power consumption, peaking in at 142W.

The most interesting aspect of AMD’s new opportunistic power boost mechanism lies in a CPU we weren’t able to test today: the Ryzen 7 3800X. At stock behaviour, the chip’s 105W TDP should allow it to behave a lot more like the 3900X when it comes to the higher thread-count frequencies, at least until it maxes out its 8 cores on its single chiplet, which might really put it ahead of the 3700X in terms of multi-threaded performance workloads.

Overclocking: PBO & All-Core

POV-Ray 3.7.1 Benchmark (Overclocking)

In POV-Ray, running the 3900X at a flat 4.3GHz at 1.35V gives it a 8.2% performance boost over stock. Enabling PBO doesn’t make much difference in multi-threaded workloads for the 3900X as it’s still being limited by the 142W PPT limit.

Unfortunately we weren’t able to further investigate raising the PPT limit for this article due to time contraints as well as currently non-final firmware version for X570 motherboards from the vendors.

Cinebench R15 Single Threaded (Overclocking)

Turning on PBO will increase the single-threaded performance of the 3900X by a few percent, scoring just slightly higher than the stock settings. Naturally the 4.3 GHz flat overclock will regress in performance as it loses out 300MHz peak frequency compared to stock.

Cinebench R15 Multi-Threaded (Overclocking)

Finally, a Cinebench R15 MT run shows similar multi-threaded behaviour, with the 4.3GHz flat overclock achieving a 9.2% better score, whilst the PBO overclock isn’t able to further increase frequencies beyond the default power limits of the chip.

Gaming: F1 2018 Conclusion: Shy Of The Very Best, Overall Absolute Winner
Comments Locked

447 Comments

View All Comments

  • Tkan215 - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link

    I dont think so its not easy to refine 10nm like you think how many year it take Intel to refine 10nm it has been already 4 to 5 years dont get your hope up. If volume aint there there is no chance. AMD surelly moving to 7nm euv quicker then 5nm
  • Tkan215 - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link

    I havent seen them drop any price i9900k went back up at amazon.com. Intel continue to ignore, non response and not caring for their competition. they want their margin this is all this company care about not your feeling or desire
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    It's summer time in Michigan and I have no desire to upgrade right now... I can wait for the flagship 3950X in September.
  • Maxiking - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Local anandtech yield and node experts got hit again. I wonder how many hits you can take before you shut up.

    As predicted, Intel still faster in games and AMD OC ability more or less unchanged, slighty worse. It is a new node after all buy yeah, you know better, so keep dreaming about those 5ghz on the majority of chips.
  • Teckk - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    So more cores at the same TDP as 2000 series Ryzen is nothing? Ok.
  • Maxiking - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    That isn't the thing I was talking about. My point was that local experts, I mean, trolls, know nothing about the manufacturing cost, yields, about the node in general. As it has been showed recently in the reviews, OC ability of the chips is terrible and lower core count parts tend to perform worse, reaching only 4.1 - 4.2 ghz.
  • Teckk - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    Ah, got it. It is an improvement, but not good enough.
  • Maxiking - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    It is good enough in terms of competition and that we can get things cheaper.

    But not when the raw performance is tconsidered. It is a hypothetical scenario, but had there been no 10 nm problems for Intel, AMD would have been in the bulldozer position again.
  • catavalon21 - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    I haven't owned an AMD CPU since my K500 a very long time ago, but let's call it what it is - AMD has a CPU at the $500 price point that Intel is charging $1200 presently to compete with, and Intel's solution uses far more power. That's a win for AMD in any domain.
  • imaheadcase - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link

    The problem is that the PC market is stagnant atm, if you are already a intel owner, absolutely no reason to upgrade to amd CPU. Most people who have systems now don't really have any need to upgrade like it used to be.

    He stated in article it took amd 15 YEARS to get this good CPU finally out and sounded like he was impressed by that?

    Its a impressive CPU, but lets be real here, Intel has dominated the market already for years because it has better marketing, better suppliers.

    Based on previous article comments, most people are still rocking 2600K CPU..FROM 2011! They still are very good CPU.

    Thats not counting the price difference, while yes the one intel cpu is crazy expensive, its not a normal CPU most people have to go by, if you a regular user with the previous mentioned 2600K CPU..that requires a total system overhaul if you wanted to go AMD route...which to be honest is a risk on betting that a new amd system is not going to last as long as a 2600K did for you.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now