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 ESTSection by Gavin Bonshor
X570 Motherboards: PCIe 4.0 For Everybody
One of the biggest additions to AMD's AM4 socket is the introduction of the PCIe 4.0 interface. The new generation of X570 motherboards marks the first consumer motherboard chipset to feature PCIe 4.0 natively, which looks to offer users looking for even faster storage, and potentially better bandwidth for next-generation graphics cards over previous iterations of the current GPU architecture. We know that the Zen 2 processors have implemented the new TSMC 7nm manufacturing process with double the L3 cache compared with Zen 1. This new centrally focused IO chiplet is there regardless of the core count and uses the Infinity Fabric interconnect; the AMD X570 chipset uses four PCIe 4.0 lanes to uplink and downlink to the CPU IO die.
Looking at a direct comparison between AMD's AM4 X series chipsets, the X570 chipset adds PCIe 4.0 lanes over the previous X470 and X370's reliance on PCIe 3.0. A big plus point to the new X570 chipset is more support for USB 3.1 Gen2 with AMD allowing motherboard manufacturers to play with 12 flexible PCIe 4.0 lanes and implement features how they wish. This includes 8 x PCIe 4.0 lanes, with two blocks of PCIe 4.0 x4 to play with which vendors can add SATA, PCIe 4.0 x1 slots, and even support for 3 x PCIe 4.0 NVMe M.2 slots.
| AMD X570, X470 and X370 Chipset Comparison | |||
| Feature | X570 | X470 | X370 |
| PCIe Interface (to peripherals) | 4.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Max PCH PCIe Lanes | 24 | 24 | 24 |
| USB 3.1 Gen2 | 8 | 2 | 2 |
| Max USB 3.1 (Gen2/Gen1) | 8/4 | 2/6 | 2/6 |
| DDR4 Support | 3200 | 2933 | 2667 |
| Max SATA Ports | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| PCIe GPU Config | x16 x8/x8 x8/x8/x8* |
x16 x8/x8 x8/x8/x4 |
x16 x8/x8 x8/x8/x4 |
| Memory Channels (Dual) | 2/2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Integrated 802.11ac WiFi MAC | N | N | N |
| Chipset TDP | 11W | 4.8W | 6.8W |
| Overclocking Support | Y | Y | Y |
| XFR2/PB2 Support | Y | Y | N |
One of the biggest changes in the chipset is within its architecture. The X570 chipset is the first Ryzen chipset to be manufactured and designed in-house by AMD, with some helping ASMedia IP blocks, whereas previously with the X470 and X370 chipsets, ASMedia directly developed and produced it using a 55nm process. While going from X370 at 6.8 W TDP at maximum load, X470 was improved upon in terms of power consumption to a lower TDP of 4.8 W. For X570, this has increased massively to an 11 W TDP which causes most vendors to now require small active cooling of the new chip.
Another major change due to the increased power consumption of the X570 chipset when compared to X470 and X370 is the cooling required. All but one of the launched product stack features an actively cooled chipset heatsink which is needed due to the increased power draw when using PCIe 4.0 due to the more complex implementation requirements over PCIe 3.0. While it is expected AMD will work on improving the TDP on future generations when using PCIe 4.0, it's forced manufacturers to implement more premium and more effective ways of keeping componentry on X570 cooler.
This also stretches to the power delivery, as AMD announced that a 16-core desktop Ryzen 3950X processor is set to launch later on in the year, meaning motherboard manufacturers needed to implement the new power deliveries on the new X570 boards with requirements of the high-end chip in mind, with better heatsinks capable of keeping the 105 W TDP processors efficient.
Memory support has also been improved with a seemingly better IMC on the Ryzen 3000 line-up when compared against the Ryzen 2000 and 1000 series of processors. Some motherboard vendors are advertising speeds of up to DDR4-4400 which until X570, was unheard of. X570 also marks a jump up to DDR4-3200 up from DDR4-2933 on X470, and DDR4-2667 on X370. As we investigated in our Ryzen 7 Memory Scaling piece back in 2017, we found out that the Infinity Fabric Interconnect scales well with frequency, and it is something that we will be analyzing once we get the launch of X570 out of the way, and potentially allow motherboard vendors to work on their infant firmware for AMD's new 7nm silicon.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
447 Comments
View All Comments
Irata - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
Thanks for your reply Ryan. I did not intend to be rude when saying "lazy" but rather show that I do not think this is something that was done by intent.Like I said - mention these things and it helps clear up misunderstandings.
It is definitely very positive that you test the Ryzen CPU with the latest builds though.
I also like that you mention if prices include an HSF or not, but it would have been nice to mention the price of HSF used for Intel systems (when not boxed), as e.g. the Thermalright True Copper is a rather expensive CPU cooler.
I think you already addressed not using a faster nVME drive (a PCIe 4 version would have been ideal if available - this would also have given an indication of potentially increased system power use for the Ryzen with PCIe 4 drives) on Twitter.
Those are little nitpicks, so not intended to be a criticism of the overall article. It is just that people tend to be rather sensitive when it comes to Intel vs. AMD CPU comparisons, given Intel's history of things they are willing to do to keep mind- and marketshare.
Daeros - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link
Whether or not it is intentional, AT has had an increasing Intel bias over the last several years. Watch to see how long it takes for an AMD article to get pushed down by rumors or vaporware from Intel or Nvidia.rarson - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
I think Ryan brings up several salient points, and whether or not you think that they did or did not have the time to do what you wanted (they were also a man down without Dr. Cuttress), the fact of the matter is that AMD dropped a bunch of CPUs and GPUs all at once and literally everyone was scrambling to do what they could in order to cover these launches.I don't think it's coincidence that even in the tech Youtube space, if you watch 10 different reviews you'll largely see 10 different testing methodologies and 10 (somewhat) different results. Every single reviewer I've talked to said that this was one of, if not the most, difficult launch windows they've ever dealt with. Additionally, launching on a weekend with all of its associated complications (not just on reviewers' ends, but partners as well) is a bitch, with everyone scrambling at the last minute on their days off getting in last-minute updates and whatnot.
When AMD tells you at the last minute, "Oh, the brand new Windows 10 update includes something new" you don't necessarily have time to go back and redo all the benchmarks you had already done on the Intel platform.
TL;DR while there may have been flaws in some of the testing, take the details with a grain of salt and compare them to the myriad of other reviews out there for a better overall picture if necessary.
Irata - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link
You are making a good point and unfortunately this was an - unfortunately - typical AMD CPU launch with things still being beta. I would assume testers are none too happy about having to re-do their tests.What I don't get from AMD (even if (and that's a capital IF) it's not their fault, it's their responsibility) is how they cannot see how this makes their products appear in a less favorable light. Let's say the buggy bios cost them 5%, the conclusion with a 5% better performance would have been even more in Ryzen 3000's favor.
It's a bit like showing up to a job interview wearing the clothes you wore for the previous day's physical activity.
Daeros - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link
Lazy isn't in it. Intentionally misleading is more like it. On one page, where AMD wins more than it looses in the charts, out of 21 paragraphs, 2 had something positive to say about AMD or Ryzen 3k without following up with something along the lines of "but we know Intel's got new tech coming, too"Ryan Smith - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
To be sure, they're still valid. The patches for Fallout and ZombieLoad are not out yet (I only mention them because the vulnerabilities have already been announced).RSAUser - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
They've been out since 14 May, what are you talking about?djayjp - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
Don't forget RIDLMeteor2 - Sunday, July 14, 2019 - link
RIDL and Zombieload are the same thing.Yes, the Intel CPUs should have been re-benchmarked on 1903, updated after 14 May when the OS-side fixes for the new MDS-class flaws were released. That's only fair and it's quite reasonable to expect that users will apply security updates, not leave their systems unpatched and vulnerable for perhaps a percent or two of performance.
FireSnake - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
Ryan: how is this not explained in the article? I am reading this site for more then a decade and I trust you most. and I trust you will provide such information. I would expect, you update the article with this info.