AMD’s Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X CPUs reviewed

Javascript benchmarks

In 2019, Javascript comprises the majority of what most people ever do on a computer. Javascript benchmarks are typically single-threaded synthetic tests that can give you a vague idea of how a given machine will handle script-intensive webpages and web applications. Because these tests generally involve a succession of multiple short-but-intense workloads, the responsiveness gains from UEFI CPPC2 (see page 2) play a big part here.

These tests were performed in Chrome 75 on Windows 10 1903 with all updates installed and all hardware vulnerability mitigations active.

Even though Intel still holds a solid lead in Jetstream, the massive improvement from the Ryzen 7 2700X to the Ryzen 7 3700X is praiseworthy. Other tests see similar score uplifts, with AMD even claiming the Kraken benchmark. Performance gaps between the Coffee Lake and Zen 2 processors in these benchmarks seem to correlate with clock rate, which is quite a win for AMD.

WebXPRT 3

The WebXPRT 3 benchmark is meant to simulate some realistic workloads one might encounter in web browsing. It’s here primarily as a counterweight to the more synthetic microbenchmarking tools above.

Once again, the difference here seems to mostly be down to clock rates.

Webassembly

Webassembly, often abbreviated to “Wasm,” was created by an assortment of browser builders in cooperation with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) with the intention of producing a portable binary format and programming language for high-performance web applications. PSPDFKit’s WASM benchmark simulates real-world Wasm workloads, and is intended to give an impression of a given machine and browser’s performance in the new format.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

73 Comments
    • sluggo
    • 4 days ago

    “aside from 1-2 nanoseconds of wire latency”

    Hmm. Signals travel through bond wires at no less than ten inches per nanosecond.

    Those are some long bond wires. My guess is they’re including every possible gate delay and adding a few clock cycles into this “1-2 nanoseconds” quote.

    Reply
  1. I was thinking about upgrading to the 3700x until I saw some benchmarks that had the i5-9600K in it. IMO the i5-9600K would be a better / slightly cheaper purchase.

    Am I wrong?

    7
    6
    Reply
    • Opps. I was not seeing my comment posted so I tried again and it said about a duplicate comment detected, even after refreshing the page so I entered another name and it posted and my original posted as well….

      not a fan of this new comment section on the main site.

      6
      1
      Reply
        • b00nd0ggie
        • 4 days ago

        I love how some incel thumb downed ur comments. u made an innocent mistake and attempted to correct said mistake. Thumbs up from me!

        5
        3
        Reply
      • f0d
      • 4 days ago

      i agree and in some areas (australia at least) the 9600k has had a price dump to in between the 3600 and 3600x but it seems usa doesnt have the price drop for them yet (at least newegg that i checked)
      a z170 motherboard is close to the price of a decent b450 motherboard too

      i just sold my 1700x and im actually going 9600k myself

      Reply
        • f0d
        • 4 days ago

        argh i meant z370 motherboard

        Reply
  2. I was thinking about upgrading to the 3700x until I saw some benchmarks that had the i5-9600K in it. IMO the i5-9600K would be a better / slightly cheaper purchase.

    Am I wrong?

    4
    3
    Reply
      • Aduljr
      • 4 days ago

      Frame times on the 9600k make it not that good.

      Reply
        • f0d
        • 4 days ago

        i have only seen that in one review and one game (gamers nexus and assassins creed)
        might be that one game that does it which is fine as i dont have any plans on playing it

        2
        1
        Reply
    • I am going off of a review I found on PCper. In the CPU Bench test the AMD 3700x outperforms the Intel i5-9600k but in the gaming the i5-9600 runs neck and neck with 3700x

      Reply
        • JustAnEngineer
        • 3 days ago

        https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/
        [quote=”Steven Walton”] Ryzen 5 3600 offers a tremendous value. It smoked the Core i5-9600K in every single application benchmark we ran and worst case matches its single core performance. You get 12 threads opposed to just 6, so it’s no doubt going to age better, but this time you don’t have to roll the dice on Ryzen’s longevity, as it’s already faster today. [/quote]

        Reply
    • bonusbartus
    • 4 days ago

    Does anyone have a clue about what is going on with the AIDA Memory bandwidth results?
    I noticed the same performance on other review sites.
    The Ryzen 3 3700X has a very low write bandwidth, and also its read bandwidth is lower than all the other cpus.
    On the other hand, the Ryzen 9 3900x performs great. The latency is about the same between the two.

    Reply
      • enixenigma
      • 4 days ago

      Memory write bandwidth is halved on the single chiplet parts. This was an intentional move on AMD’s part.

      Reply
    • ushio
    • 5 days ago

    Out of curiosity does anyone know which of TSMC’s 7nm processes is used? Intel made a big fuss over millions of transistors per millimetre squared so I was wondering which one AMD used the 96MTr/mm2 or the 113MTr/mm2 one

    Reply
    • Morjens
    • 5 days ago

    Impressive. Well done AMD, again.

    Reply
    • Gastec
    • 6 days ago

    SAY WHAT!? Where is the drop-down menu for selecting between the pages of the article?

    35
    1
    Reply
      • Cyber
      • 5 days ago

      There isn’t even a next button or link!

      13
      Reply
    • Cuhulin
    • 6 days ago

    Zak: Great review of really interesting new chips! The look may be different, but the content is the TR many of us have come to know and look forward to! And now that it is above the fold for those of us using PC’s, I hope many others will give you the kudos you deserve for a job well done.

    18
    3
    Reply
    • Superscroller
    • 6 days ago

    So much whitespace, so much scrolling, so many page numbers without page titles not listed in a handy dropdown box.

    33
    Reply
    • unknown-error
    • 7 days ago

    I very rarely criticise TR, but this new “look and feel” is absolutely hideous.

    45
    3
    Reply
      • Gastec
      • 6 days ago

      Yes, basic functionality is missing, like the drop-down menu for selecting between pages.

      17
      Reply
        • Dennis Clay
        • 5 days ago

        I was looking for the most commented stories and most liked comment links. It may just be me, but couldn’t find them. I frequently learn more from the comments than the stories. Sometimes they’re even funny, though not as often as the people writing think they are.

        7
        2
        Reply
    • MrJP
    • 7 days ago

    Many thanks for the nice review. It’s great to have some new meaty content, and good luck with getting the redesign sorted out.

    14
    2
    Reply
    • Mr Bill
    • 7 days ago

    Zach, A nicely done review! The 3900X is really an upgrade. I like you putting all the traces in a grid. Its easier to compare them; good idea. Can one say that one advantage of the chiplet architecture is that the fastest chiplets can be reserved for the high end CPU? It seems it must be that way when a CPU with more cores can clock higher than one with less cores. It lets AMD turn the paradigm on its head. Faster CPU’s are assembled with the faster chicklets. Period.

    9
    2
    Reply
      • juzz86
      • 6 days ago

      Agreed Mr Bill – a top effort Zak, well done on a very special flagship review mate. It reads very well mate.

      11
      Reply
    • srsly_bro
    • 7 days ago

    Let’s call this what it is…

    Comment gate

    Reply
    • Ninjitsu
    • 7 days ago

    Curious why 9-series i5s and i7s weren’t included?

    p.s. why do i need to input my name and email to post a comment, if i’m already logged in?

    Reply
      • Krogoth
      • 7 days ago

      They would be outclassed by the items in the current line-up more notably on the productivity side.

      Reply
    • Ivanek
    • 7 days ago

    Hardware Unboxed recently made a video comparing the 7700K and 1800X with more recent games.
    Could you please include the 7700K test results as well?
    Comparing it to 1800X could be interesting (and might indicate the gaming performance of the 9900K vs the 3900X a couple of years from now).

    3
    1
    Reply
    • I don’t have a 7700K on-hand to test, sorry. Thanks for commenting.

      Reply
    • JVee
    • 1 week ago

    Too bad the reviewer didn’t have time to do audio benchmarks.
    What’s the use of accepting professional tools from NI, RME and DAWBench if the CPU reviewers cant use the tools, don’t have them or don’t want to.

    Had high hopes for this review site.
    Well at least TR received nice hardware and software, hopefully you got to keep everything.

    20
    7
    Reply
      • Vince Rove
      • 7 days ago

      Really disappointed myself. Looks like another bunch of lazy reviewers who just wanted to cash in on whats hot right now rather than sticking to their guns and providing great, hard to find content.

      14
      16
      Reply
      • Mister Lemiwinks
      • 7 days ago

      I’m disappointed too. It’s not all about gaming and creating YouTube videos.

      15
      5
      Reply
    • Unfortunately, TR doesn’t exist in one big office. The Focusrite audio interface we have used in previous reviews was purchased out-of-pocket by Jeff Kampman, our previous editor in chief, and I don’t have access to any such device.

      There’s also the matter of the complicated licensing for the expensive software required to run DAW testing. In the end, no matter how much I wanted to do it — and I did — there was simply no way.

      17
      8
      Reply
        • sreams
        • 6 days ago

        Audio benchmarks can be run with onboard soundcards if you use ASIO4All.

        10
        Reply
        • Nuno Pimenta
        • 6 days ago

        Daw benchmark was what took me to TR. i hope you manage to get Daw benchmarks again soon. There are actually a couple of people that care a lot for them.
        Asio4all may solve you problem. but i don´t know if it has an impact in audio performance that ruins your benchmarks. But it shouldn´t be hard to try

        8
        1
        Reply
        • enixenigma
        • 4 days ago

        Comments like the ones you are replying to make me quickly miss having to be registered to comment. Not that it stops such ignorance, but at least they would have to jump through more hurdles first.

        Maybe the community can come together to help TR acquire the necessary tools to resume DAW testing? I know I have consumed enough content here to warrant putting a few bucks up for the cause.

        4
        3
        Reply
    • Mostly Sane
    • 1 week ago

    Re: website design change
    Longtime lurker/fan here; TR (was) my favorite go-to tech site. The new change is awful, dumb, and a complete waste of space! At the *very least*, give us a switch at the bottom or top so we can *choose* between mobile and desktop formats. Oh, and if the purpose of the change was *increase* ad revenue, you’ve accomplished the exact opposite (can’t see much now)! Sorry to pile, but…. 🙁

    15
    2
    Reply
    • This is welcome commentary, but please help us out by sharing it in this thread where I’m trying to keep everything organized.

      7
      3
      Reply
      • srsly_bro
      • 7 days ago

      Srsly. The comments and regulars are the reason I come here. The comment section is unusable and I can’t see where my bros at.

      Send help.

      10
      Reply
    • Dposcorp
    • 1 week ago

    I got beat on the web navigator comment 🙂

    Excellent review guys……….off to read the Radeon RX 5700 sutff

    Reply
    • Stephen Pampell
    • 1 week ago

    The page navigator with the summary of each page’s contents, along with the next and previous buttons are sorely missed. Please, bring those back.

    12
    Reply
    • DPete27
    • 1 week ago

    Where’d all the comments go with the new website design?

    Anyway (if this is the right place) [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk3PD-4zPN0]Here’s Der8auer’s video on X570 chipset power consumption[/url] (skip to 14:00 for full results table).

    Looks like AMD REALLY borked their attempt at an in-house chipset design. Power consumption is 2x what the X470 chipset needed. PCIe4.0 imparts nearly zero extra power consumption from the chipset. And he was able to keep the chipset at 73C under a comically tiny passive heatsink.

    4
    2
    Reply
    • The previously existing comments will be back soon. We’re working out some things. Use href for links now, BTW.

      2
      1
      Reply
      • Waco
      • 1 week ago

      The rumor mill is circulating the idea that the X570 is just one of the IO dies without any real power-gating.

      Reply
        • Waco
        • 7 days ago

        …and since I can’t quote myself, it appears this is common knowledge and was announced about a month ago.

        Reply
        • It’s also mentioned in the article. 😛 Specifically, it’s an IOD fabricated on 14nm instead of 12nm.

          Reply
            • Waco
            • 6 days ago

            Yep, I’m an idiot. 🙂

      • bonusbartus
      • 7 days ago

      I think that video skips a few important parts.
      Firstly, the older chipsets didn’t even have PCIe 3, which is a very important distinction. PCIe used a different encoding scheme than the older versions and has quite different transceiver requirements.
      To support PCIe 3 (or 4) the chipset also needs to support PCIe 2 and 1, meaning it needs all the hardware for both transceiver standards.
      As you know form all the benchmarks, tests, overclockin etc, Power consumption has a linear relation to switching frequency. as PCIe 4 switches literally twice as fast as PCIe 3 the dynamic power consumption will also double. PCIe 3 again is 1.6x the switching speeds as PCIe 2.
      Also PCIe uses line-encoding to enforce enough 1 – 0 transitions to be able to do clock/data recovery, making it switch almost independent of the amount/sort of data.

      That (including the video above) would just be the impact of 1 lane of PCIe. As the X570 has 4 lanes to the cpu, it would stand to reason at least those would be active most of the time. Then there is the amount of connections to the outside world from the X570. I count 16 endpoint PCIe 4 lanes, 8x 10GBit USB3.2 lanes, 4 SATA ports and some usb2 ports. Going from 4 lanes to all these outputs will need quite some internal switching, routing, buffering etc.

      Lastly, PCIe 3 has some stricter specs on signal quality and might need better (re)-drivers.
      That said, the high idle power draw, might just be an early version bug which keeps the chipset from power gating, or even just from downtraining back to PCIe 1 speeds when idle

      4
      2
      Reply
    • Pettytheft
    • 1 week ago

    What is going on here!! Well I’m glad TR is back in the saddle as I was wondering if there would even be a review up. All this brightness on my screen though! Also thanks for mentioning that all the current patches are installed for mitigations. Some of the reviews I don’t know if I’m looking at old or new data.

    Reply
    • Krogoth
    • 1 week ago

    [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo]AMD: You can’t touch this [/url]

    Reply
    • I’m asking about how to do links, I tested with HTML and it didn’t work.

      Reply
    • Jay
    • 1 week ago

    Dropped the ball by not doing a DAWBench test this time around. That’s literally the only thing I want to see. Improved memory and core to core latency is a huge deal for audio production and many of us have been waiting quite a while for this because we need cores and speed but don’t want to blow $1200 on a 9920X.

    7
    3
    Reply
    • As Zak mentioned in the comments that got wiped by the redesign launching, it wasn’t intentional. Moving the licensing around is complicated and he simply couldn’t do it in time. There’s a chance we’ll be able to run those test later, though.

      7
      5
      Reply
        • Nathan Ford
        • 1 week ago

        When do you hope to have the DAWBench results up? Would love to see them….

        Reply
        • We’ll try, but no promises or estimates at this time.

          2
          4
          Reply
            • albackwardz
            • 1 week ago

            I’m a music producer and I found this site by googling DAWbench. You guys give some excellent info for the music producer community. I hope you guys find the time after this big release to get the tests done again. Thanks again.

            10
            2
            • JustAnEngineer
            • 7 days ago

            3 characters per line are visible with Safari at 1920×1080, landscape.

            I.was really looking forward to TR’s gerbildom commenting on these new CPUs.

            2
            2
        • Jay
        • 1 week ago

        Here’s hoping you can get it done. Should generate some extra traffic too because not that many reviewers test audio software in their productivity tests(not that there’s a very straightforward and consistent way to do it lol).

        7
        2
        Reply
    • Austin
    • 1 week ago

    Great review as usual thank you so much.
    Memory latency was the only weakness i saw from AMD Ryzen 3000 series, other than that they are great cpus for any workloads!

    1
    2
    Reply
    • JustAnEngineer
    • 1 week ago

    It’s a great review.

    The layout change is a bit jarring.

    10
    Reply
    • srsly_bro
    • 1 week ago

    Where are all the comments from earlier???

    Reply
    • They didn’t survive The Click. I’m hoping they can be ported over soon.

      Reply
    • Jigar
    • 1 week ago

    I like the new layout and nice review.

    1
    1
    Reply
    • Paul
    • 1 week ago

    You note a regression in the memory latency test. However, I note that the Ryzen 3000 CPUs are being tested with 16-16-16 timings vs. the 14-14-14 timings of the others. This is likely because the Ryzen 3000 is at 3600 while the others are at 3200. Can you tell us what the AIDA 64 memory latency is when the memory is at 3200 14-14-14 speeds? I think that memory latency tests are usually used to show theoretical architectural differences, so the other variables in memory speed should be held constant.

    On another note, the auto-scaling of the charts causes several of the fields to text wrap in the middle of product names or words (in a maximized 1080p browser window). I thing that perhaps you should just upload the charts as images and only allow the auto-layout tool to handle the text wrapping for the main body text of the article.

    Reply
    • BIF
    • 1 week ago

    This is of course not the first time it’s being done, but I’m not fond of the concept of “chiplets” for CPU tasks. Is AMD in trouble here? I thought they were starting to kick some ass with their recent offerings, but now I’m not so sure. Are they having trouble making the new fab process work for full-blown CPUs? Or have they hit a limit (cost, reliability, whatever) designing CPU stuff to all fit inside a single CPU chip? Or a combined CPU+GPU chip?

    Reply
      • just brew it!
      • 1 week ago

      I am guessing it was a combination of yield concerns on the new process, and wanting extra flexibility to mix-n-match compute dies in different combinations to meet different needs. They’d already started down this path with Threadripper and Epyc; splitting out the I/O was kind of a logical next step I guess.

      The smaller process node is also less of an advantage for I/O; you don’t have transistor-dense structures like cache and vector ALUs/FPUs, and you need larger transistors to drive the external buses anyway. So you might as well use a more mature process for that.

      Reply
      • TurtlePerson2
      • 1 week ago

      Multi chip modules (MCMs) have become a lot more popular in the semiconductor world outside of the CPU business. There are a lot of advantages of MCMs and AMD probably just realized that the performance advantage of using a single die wasn’t worth giving up all the advantages of an MCM.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if we see Intel do the same thing in the near future.

      Reply
      • Brother Michigan
      • 1 week ago

      Costs per wafer increased pretty dramatically with the move the 7 nm and, being a new manufacturing process, yields are going to be lower. The chiplet strategy allows AMD to produce smaller dies that increase effective yields for the same defect density, allows them to bin more aggressively because of the larger number of dies, and allows them to reuse the 7 nm parts across multiple product lines. It’s certainly an economical decision first and foremost, but it’s not without its benefits.

      Reply
      • Mr Bill
      • 4 days ago

      The fastest chiplets can be selected to make a very fast multi-core while leaving the slower chiplets for less expensive models. Otherwise the base and max clock could not be going up as core count goes up. This is a great new paradigm!

      Reply
    • just brew it!
    • 1 week ago

    *tap* *tap* *tap*
    Is this thing on?

    Reply
    • It’s on now. I have power to approve posts and will try to stay on top of things today as the dust continues to settle.

      Reply

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This