Ryzen 3000 hype and review oddities - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

Ryzen 3000 hype and review oddities

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-12-2019, 07:38 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Morkai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 62
Rep: 4 (Unique: 4)
Ryzen 3000 hype and review oddities

I, like many others, am in the situation that I'm sitting on a slightly aged (but well performing 24/7 overclocked) intel quadcore 6700k ,and considering upgrading.

I haven't owned an AMD cpu since the Athlon 1800+ and ABIT were royalty, and I was cautiously set on getting a 3000-series ryzen this time.

For the very sad reason that my dog was sick and old and needed looking after, I had all the time in the world to sit with her and read all the major reviews in detail, and i noticed some interesting things.


Of course, disclaimer, all this could change with bios upgrades, windows patches etc, but as it looks now;


If you just scratch the surface of reviews, there so so much hype and it'll look like AMD caught up, whipped intel, out-cored them, all this with better power efficiency, price etc etc. The fact that Intel is still slightly ahead in games is acknowledged, but considered unimportant because intel is just 5% ahead or so (according to LTT video average, for example). It might be a bit more than 5%, and certainly more overclocked as the 3000-series hardly overclocks at all.

Many reviews did not include overclocked gaming performance.


This fact alone is pretty big. Many people only do low-intensive tasks or work on their computers, and the only demanding task they do is play games.

5% (+ optional overclock) for the main task while not having to worry about the existing and still not fixed issues with chiplet/cluster latency is pretty solid (LTT vid at this point in time describes inconsistencies probably caused by this
) . This will probably be optimized in windows scheduler and/or in newer games, but it is not today.

The new xbox and playstation will also use this architecture, so it will help prioritize solving the issues but it might not happen fast. (And it can never be completely solved since its a physical design, only software workarounds can be created).


Next, lets look at power efficiency. The pre-release hype was big on this, but lets look at benchmarks.

First of all, many review sites use blender. and use a fixed load to process, such as "rendering the gamers nexus logo" etc.

I noticed that in blender, the ryzen 3000 simply outperformed the intel lineup.

https://www.sweclockers.com/test/277...sse/17#content

Here ryzen3000 outperforms the intel lineup by a fair amount. But for a fixed workload, efficiency is just slightly better:

https://www.sweclockers.com/test/277...sse/27#content

The GN test have it as 87 for the 3700x stock vs 91 for the 9900k stock. between several benchmarks like this, it seems that in blender, a best case ryzen3000 scenario, the power efficiency is equal or less than the figures it also outperforms the intel lineup in.

Best case it looks like about 9% better efficiency-wise. (also, blender is probably a bad benchmark to use as it performs better on gpu or hybrid; https://blog.render.st/blender-2-8-h...d-and-quality/ )


So did anyone test real world scenarios for power efficiency? one of the few was https://www.techpowerup.com/review/a...-3700x/18.html

Here we can still see stress test slightly in ryzen3000's favor, but everything real-world intel is ahead (of course, full load over all cores can be a real world scenario but probably more rare on consumer parts).

To sum it up, ryzen 3000 might have a small efficiency advantage in full load all core workloads, and be slightly behind in everything else. Its very equal overall and seems to just have been hype/marketing.

Considering we are comparing 7nm to 14nm, a case can be made that matisse is either inherently extremely power hungry, or simply doesn't make use of the 7nm process power advantages.


Which brings us to temperatures. It's almost like the review kit asked reviewers to leave this out. Almost no none published temperature results.

For those that did, it looks quite bad, and might be the main reason the ryzen3000-series doesn't overclock almost at all.

Those tightly packed 7nm cores might just be really hard to cool, as power efficiency seems about equal.

These are the only two reviews i saw with temperatures, and the techspot one didn't include an intel reference.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/a...-3900x/19.html

https://www.techspot.com/review/1869...x-ryzen-3700x/


Personal thoughts

I am still strongly considering a 3900x as it is a unique 12-core product for a great price, and the chiplet/cluster issues might very well be optimized in the future.

If i decide against the 3900x i see no reason to buy the rest of the 3000 lineup, and will either go for a 9900k or wait for the next generations and re-evaluate as the 6700k is really still quite strong. The minor difference in price simply does not seem worth gambling on the chiplet/cluster design for.
Morkai is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-12-2019, 08:32 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
rdr09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: From the US but lives in Africa
Posts: 18,274
Rep: 861 (Unique: 630)
Really hard to go by TPU's reviews. In an older test the power consumption of the 9900K was much higher. Not sure. Maybe the 1080Ti consumes more than the 2080Ti?

Checkout the Multi-threaded.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/i...-9900k/16.html

From 198W to 143W. Hmmm.


EDIT: BTW, op, it was discovered that either the wrong bios or a broke bios was used during the early tests of the Ryzen 3000 (July 7 or so). So, all those tests are not valid.

[email protected] 6 http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2211392 4.6 @ 4 http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2216580
5.0 @ 8 http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2511322
2nd AMD Build
(10 items)
CPU
2700
Motherboard
X470
GPU
290
RAM
3200 CL14
Hard Drive
1000
Power Supply
700
Case
212
Operating System
10/64
Monitor
40 1080
Keyboard
M100
▲ hide details ▲

Last edited by rdr09; 07-12-2019 at 08:39 AM.
rdr09 is offline  
post #3 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-12-2019, 08:42 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Spectre73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 116
Rep: 5 (Unique: 5)
I think you are overanalyzing this. Just go by these two charts for gaming and application performance and choose what you need:

http://www.3dcenter.org/news/ryzen-3...-im-ueberblick
http://www.3dcenter.org/news/ryzen-3...-im-ueberblick

White Lion
(12 items)
CPU
AMD Ryzen 1600x
Motherboard
ASRock X370 Taichi
GPU
AMD Vega 64
RAM
32 GB G.Skill 3200C14
Hard Drive
Samsung 960 EVO
Power Supply
Seasonic SS-660XP Platinum
Cooling
Custom water
Case
Phanteks Enthoo Evolve ATX
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro x64
Monitor
HP LP2475w
Keyboard
Ducky Shine Zero (brown)
Audio
Audiotrak Prodigy Cube Black Edition USB soundcard/ DAC
▲ hide details ▲
Spectre73 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-12-2019, 09:29 AM
⤷ αC
 
AlphaC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 10,716
Rep: 874 (Unique: 577)
Here's how I see the Ryzen lineup for gaming:
R5 3600 = cautiously optimistic , worst case scenario is you paid $200 for non-delid i7-8700k-like performance

R7 3700X = hoping for console Zen 2 to use all 8 physical cores and get optimizations


R7 3800X = doesn't read reviews or care about price/performance or price/core



R9 3900X = "all in" without regard for reviews


For productivity it's R9 3900X all the way.

► Recommended GPU Projects: [email protected] , [email protected] (FP64) (AMD moreso) ► Other notable GPU projects: [email protected] (Nvidia), GPUGrid (Nvidia) ► Project list


AlphaC is online now  
post #5 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-12-2019, 09:52 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Morkai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 62
Rep: 4 (Unique: 4)
Quote: Originally Posted by rdr09 View Post
EDIT: BTW, op, it was discovered that either the wrong bios or a broke bios was used during the early tests of the Ryzen 3000 (July 7 or so). So, all those tests are not valid.
Some did, but most didn't and most tests were valid. If they followed amd's instructions, they were ok (there was an official amd comment). Some decided to use a different version.
For example anandtech which i did not reference used the wrong version, sweclockers used the right one. The rest I don't know but as far as i understood it the difference was small enough to not change the overall relative outcome.

Anandtechs re-test:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14632...s-update-recap
"Overall Conclusion: Better Single-Threaded Results, But Same Positioning"
Morkai is offline  
post #6 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-12-2019, 10:32 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Morkai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 62
Rep: 4 (Unique: 4)
Quote: Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post
Here's how I see the Ryzen lineup for gaming:
R5 3600 = cautiously optimistic , worst case scenario is you paid $200 for non-delid i7-8700k-like performance

R7 3700X = hoping for console Zen 2 to use all 8 physical cores and get optimizations


R7 3800X = doesn't read reviews or care about price/performance or price/core



R9 3900X = "all in" without regard for reviews


For productivity it's R9 3900X all the way.
Completely agree with the 3900x as it has no counterpart in it's price range (though it is a gamble on that they optimize games/windows scheduler for this design), it just seems that the rest of the 3000-lineup is a bad gamble for gaming on the chiplet/cluster design when you can simply have the same performance without potential issues from intel, and that the price difference in the lower/mid segment is minor. The windows scheduler has never even been optimized properly for the previous ryzen generations, though it hopefully will be now that the new generanation is more popular.

I don't care personally about the low/mid end segment myself, but it just seems like a bad choice to buy ryzen there unless the small price difference completely makes or breaks the budget or pci-e 4 is somehow really important.
Also I vividly recall the wasp-death-fans on older motherboards that sounded like a jetplane after a year or two. The x570 fans look just like them, which makes me scared and suspicious, and I hope someone makes a x570 with a larger heatsink or so instead of a fan. They claim it is really borderline if it needs a fan or not, so should be doable.
Morkai is offline  
post #7 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-12-2019, 10:36 AM
⤷ αC
 
AlphaC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 10,716
Rep: 874 (Unique: 577)
All the 8 and 6 cores run on B450 and X470 so you should only be looking at the CPU performance unless you're going for R9 3900X/R9 3950x.

► Recommended GPU Projects: [email protected] , [email protected] (FP64) (AMD moreso) ► Other notable GPU projects: [email protected] (Nvidia), GPUGrid (Nvidia) ► Project list


AlphaC is online now  
post #8 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-12-2019, 10:53 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
obiwansotti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 103
Rep: 7 (Unique: 6)
As someone who is solely interested in gaming, AMD has made it easy for me to wait and see Intel's response.

To AMD's credit and detriment, they appear to get everything out of the silicon for all their chips, but without any room for overclocking. So it leaves me comparing their stock chips to 5.1-5.2ghz all core i7/i9 chips.

obiwansotti is offline  
post #9 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-12-2019, 11:03 AM
Vandelay Industries
 
maltamonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: US/UK
Posts: 1,378
Rep: 78 (Unique: 59)
Also remember that Ryzen 3 were tested using stock coolers in most reviews where Intel typically (for some odd reason) was tested with a 240aio. Not only that, but as OP noted Ryzen will get better as bugs get ironed out and optimizations come forth. Unless Intel drops their prices I can't see any logical reason to get one over Ryzen 3 (except maybe apu's idk anything about them).
maltamonk is offline  
post #10 of 32 (permalink) Old 07-12-2019, 11:15 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Morkai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 62
Rep: 4 (Unique: 4)
Quote: Originally Posted by maltamonk View Post
Also remember that Ryzen 3 were tested using stock coolers in most reviews where Intel typically (for some odd reason) was tested with a 240aio. Not only that, but as OP noted Ryzen will get better as bugs get ironed out and optimizations come forth. Unless Intel drops their prices I can't see any logical reason to get one over Ryzen 3 (except maybe apu's idk anything about them).
The only one i saw that I linked above and listed temps used the same cooler; "We used a Noctua NH-U12 to measure CPU temperature". Many other serious reviews tried both stock and aftermarket cooler but did not report temps.
Morkai is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off