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 ESTTest 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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
447 Comments
View All Comments
Daeros - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link
The only mitigation for MDS is to disable Hyper-Threading. I feel like there would be a pretty significant performance penalty for this.Irata - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
Well, at least Ryzen 3000 CPU were tested with the latest Windows build that includes Ryzen optimizations, but tbh I find it a bit "lazy" at least to not test Intel CPU on the latest Windows release which forces security updates that *do* affect performance negatively.This may or may not have changed the final results but would be more proper.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
Lazy doesn't even begin to describe it.Irata - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
Thing is I find this so completely unnecessary.Not criticising thereview per se, but you see AT staff going wild on Twitter over people accusing them of bias when simple things like testing both Intel and AMD systems on the same Windows version would be an easy way to protect themselves against criticism.
It the same as the budget CPU review where the Pentium Gold was recommended due to its price/ performance, but many posters pointed out that it simply was not available anywhere for even near the suggested price and AT failed to acknowledge that.
Zombieload ? Never heard of it.
This is what I mean by lazy - acknowledge these issues or at least give a logical reason why. This is much easier than being offended on Twitter. If you say why you did certain things, there is no reason to post "Because they crap over the comment sections with such vitriol; they're so incensed that we did XYZ, to the point where they're prepared to spend half an hour writing comments to that effect with the most condescending language. " which basically comes down to saying "A ton of our readers are a*holes.
Sure, PC related comment sections can be extremely toxic, but doing things as proper as possible is a good way to safeguard against such comments or at least make those complaining look like ignorant fools rather than actually encouraging this.
John_M - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
A good point and you made it very well and in a very civil way.Ryan Smith - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
Thanks. I appreciate the feedback, as I know first hand it can sometimes be hard to write something useful.When AMD told us that there were important scheduler changes in 1903, Ian and I both groaned a bit. We're glad AMD is getting some much-needed attention from Microsoft with regards to thread scheduling. But we generally would avoid using such a fresh OS, after the disasters that were the 1803 and 1809 launches.
And more to the point, the timeframe for this review didn't leave us nearly enough time to redo everything on 1903. With the AMD processors arriving on Wednesday, and with all the prep work required up to that, the best we could do in the time available was run the Ryzen 3000 parts on 1903, ensuring that we tested AMD's processor with the scheduler it was meant for. I had been pushing hard to try to get at least some of the most important stuff redone on 1903, but unfortunately that just didn't work out.
Ultimately laziness definitely was not part of the reason for anything we did. Andrei and Gavin went above and beyond, giving up their weekends and family time in order to get this review done for today. As it stands, we're all beat, and the work week hasn't even started yet...
(I'll also add that AnandTech is not a centralized operation; Ian is in London, I'm on the US west coast, etc. It brings us some great benefits, but it also means that we can't easily hand off hardware to other people to ramp up testing in a crunch period.)
RSAUser - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
But you already had the Intel processors beforehand so could have tested them on 1903 without having to wait for the Ryzen CPU? Your argument is weird.Daeros - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link
Exactly. They knew that they needed to re-test the Intel and older Ryzen chips on 1903 to have a level, relevant playing field. Knowing that it would penalize Intel disproportionately to have all the mitigations 1903 bakes in, they simply chose not to.Targon - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
Sorry, Ryan, but test beds are not your "daily drivers". With 1903 out for more than one month, a fresh install of 1903(Windows 10 Media Creation tool comes in handy), with the latest chipset and device drivers, it should have been possible to fully re-test the Intel platform with all the latest security patches, BIOS updates, etc. The Intel platform should have been set and re-benchmarked before the samples from AMD even showed up.It would have been good to see proper RAM used, because anyone who buys DDR4-3200 RAM with the intention of gaming would go with DDR4-3200CL14 RAM, not the CL16 stuff that was used in the new Ryzen setup. The only reason I went CL16 with my Ryzen setup was because when pre-ordering Ryzen 7 in 2017, it wasn't known at the time how significant CL14 vs. CL16 RAM would be in terms of performance and stability(and even the ability to run at DDR4-3200 speeds).
If I were doing reviews, I'd have DDR4-3200 in various flavors from the various systems being used. Taking the better stuff out of another system to do a proper test would be expected.
Ratman6161 - Thursday, July 11, 2019 - link
"ho buys DDR4-3200 RAM with the intention of gaming would go with DDR4-3200CL14 RAM"Well I can tell you who. First Ill address "the intention of gaming". there are a lot of us who could care less about games and I am one of them. Second, even for those who do play games, if you need 32 GB of RAM (like I do) the difference in price on New Egg between CAS 16 and CAS 14 for a 2x16 Kit is $115 (comparing RipJaws CAS 16 Vs Trident Z CAS 14 - both G-Skill obviously). That's approaching double the price. So I sort of appreciate reviews that use the RAM I would actually buy. I'm sure gamers on a budget who either can't or don't want to spend the extra $115 or would rather put it against a better video card, the cheaper RAM is a good trade off.
Finally, there are going to be a zillion reviews of these processors over the next few days and weeks. We don't necessarily need to get every single possible configuration covered the first day :) Also, there are many other sites publishing reviews so its easy to find sites using different configurations. All in all, I don't know why people are being so harsh on this (and other) reviews. its not like I paid to read it :)