The AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 3700X and 3900X Raising The Bar
by Andrei Frumusanu & Gavin Bonshor on July 7, 2019 9:00 AM EST** = Old results marked were performed with the original BIOS & boost behaviour as published on 7/7.
Benchmarking Performance: CPU Legacy Tests
3DPM v1: Naïve Code Variant of 3DPM v2.1
The first legacy test in the suite is the first version of our 3DPM benchmark. This is the ultimate naïve version of the code, as if it was written by scientist with no knowledge of how computer hardware, compilers, or optimization works (which in fact, it was at the start). This represents a large body of scientific simulation out in the wild, where getting the answer is more important than it being fast (getting a result in 4 days is acceptable if it’s correct, rather than sending someone away for a year to learn to code and getting the result in 5 minutes).
In this version, the only real optimization was in the compiler flags (-O2, -fp:fast), compiling it in release mode, and enabling OpenMP in the main compute loops. The loops were not configured for function size, and one of the key slowdowns is false sharing in the cache. It also has long dependency chains based on the random number generation, which leads to relatively poor performance on specific compute microarchitectures.
3DPM v1 can be downloaded with our 3DPM v2 code here: 3DPMv2.1.rar (13.0 MB)
x264 HD 3.0: Older Transcode Test
This transcoding test is super old, and was used by Anand back in the day of Pentium 4 and Athlon II processors. Here a standardized 720p video is transcoded with a two-pass conversion, with the benchmark showing the frames-per-second of each pass. This benchmark is single-threaded, and between some micro-architectures we seem to actually hit an instructions-per-clock wall.
CineBench 11.5 and 10
Cinebench is a widely known benchmarking tool for measuring performance relative to MAXON's animation software Cinema 4D. Cinebench has been optimized over a decade and focuses on purely CPU horsepower, meaning if there is a discrepancy in pure throughput characteristics, Cinebench is likely to show that discrepancy. Arguably other software doesn't make use of all the tools available, so the real world relevance might purely be academic, but given our large database of data for Cinebench it seems difficult to ignore a small five minute test. We run the modern version 15 in this test, as well as the older 11.5 due to our back data.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
447 Comments
View All Comments
Maxiking - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
LOOOOOOL, so we have a guy confirming AMD doing fraund by misleading people about the frequency, instead of acknowledging the fraund, we gonna talk about semantics.Yeah, if you get sentenced for a sexual assault, you should sue then anyone who has accussed you of raping. Just wow.
Brilliant logic, sir.
Maxiking - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
*fraudQasar - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
still valid there buddy.. like has been said, you are the only one throwing the word fraud around, and that amd should be sued over this. so what everMaxiking - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
And again... let me copy paste."You are uneducated, TDP doesn't mean power consumption or the highest peak but the amount of heat dissipated, it informs you how much of heat the cooler must be able to dissipate in order to keep the cpu cool enough to run.
Get it? 1700x TDP was 95W yet there were tasks it managed to consume 120 or even 140w on stock settings. Like do you even watch reviews? It was the same with 2700x.
but mimimimimimi AMD good mimimimimi Intel bad"
Korguz - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
and yet, you still refuse to admit, that intel has its own issues with fraud and misleading its own customers.does he actually say its fraud ?? not directly, seems only YOU keep saying that, and only YOU say amd should be sued for it. again.., i would love to see YOU file a suit against amd for it, considering you are so hung up about it but you wont, cause you are all talk, no action, and probably know.. you wouldnt get very far with that law suit
Maxiking - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
I said a few times... I don't tend to buy amd products so no, I am not gonna sue anybody.And as pointed out in the video, in his German one, he works for a retailer selling prebuilt pcs.. People keep returning pcs with AMD cpus becaue they do not boost to the promised frequency. You there, there are something like laws, if you write on the box 4.6ghz, it must reach it.
You are so knowledgeable, sharp minded and analytical when comes to meaning of words and what people want to say, you should sue Intel on your own, should be easy.
Korguz - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link
why not ?? going by how dead set you are about this.. seems like it would be an easy win for you.. ooooohhhh in the german one.. i understand now.. too bad i dont speak german so i cant confirm this... and if some one writes on the box that something uses a certain amount of power.. then it should use it.. not 50 to 100 watts more.. i have a few friends that buy intels cpus.. they see it uses 95 watts of power.. so they get a HSF that can dissipate that much power.. then wonder why their cpu throttles and runs slow when under load... then i point then to the link i just posted,and they are not happy.. and now need to go buy yet another HSF to handle the extra power.You are so knowledgeable, sharp minded and analytical when comes to meaning of words and what people want to say, you should sue Amd on your own, should be easy. again, too bad you wont.. cause you are all talk. have a good day sir..
Maxiking - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
Again, you have once again showed your AMD fanboyism.There is written: TDP 95W. I already explained what TDP means. AMD's TDP isn't accurate either.
AMD has 4.6ghz on the box whilst a bing number cpus does not REACH IT AT ALL. There is no "*" moniker next the 4.6ghz claim and they do not say that their cpu may not reach the frequency at all. In fact, there is a video from AMD on youtube promised even higher frequency, lol. Up to 4.75 ghz.
So yeah, stop being desperate and forcing Intel into the debate.
Because your childish attempts are futile, this is not about AMD or Intel. It is about us consumers. What will be next? 6 Ghz on the box?
Maxiking - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
AMD has 4.6ghz on the box whlist a big number of cpus do not REACH IT AT ALL under any load, conditions. Typing on phone is just cancer.Korguz - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link
and again, like in another thread, you showed how much you hate amd, and are biased against them, and you call me an amd fanboy, you are just as much an intel fanboy. FYI, IF you actually READ the link i posted, you would see that intels 95 watts, is pretty much a MINIMUM their chips use, in reality, its more like 50 to 100 ABOVE that, and also.. amd is A LOT closer then intel is to the TDP they state, but again.. to be fair, amd AND intel use and come do different values for TDP, but you cant see passed your hated for amd to see this.. you are the one that has to resort to name calling, so WHO is being childish ?? what wil be next, intel claiming their cpus use 100 watts, but in reality, they use 300 ?