First AMD Ryzen 3900X gaming benchmarks leaked, faster than i9 9900K in heavily multi-threaded games

DSOGaming writes: "The first gaming benchmarks for the AMD Ryzen 3900X (as well as the 3700X) have been leaked online. These benchies originate from PCGamesHardware and according to the German website, AMD’s brand new CPU is faster than the Intel Core i9 9900K under heavily multi-threaded games."

[Tapani]

It's like Richard at Digital Foundry said, it took a die shrink to 7nm to be able to compete with Nvidia top Mid-range GPUs at 16nm (pseudo 12nm) and Intel's best 12nm CPUs. Even with 7nm AMD can't compete with 12nm single-core performance, and with 7nm GPUs they can't compete against Nvidia's pseudo 12nm top range (2070 super, 2080, 2080 super, 2080 ti.) Plus the CPUs and GPUs run louder, hotter and need relatively a lot of wattage to keep up. GPUs lack extra features such as ray tracing and DLSS.

So what's the fuzz about Ryzen and Navi then?

At least we know what the next-gen consoles will be like. I really hope there's a Pro model available at launch, I don't care how much it costs, I just want to play Sony exclusives without stutter and at native 4K/60fps, and without an upgrade three years later.

[harmny]

The fuzz about ryzen 3900x is that it offers 4 more cores (and 8 threads) than the 9900k for the same price and it even beats it on some single threaded benchmarks. Of course in multi threaded tests it absolutely DESTROYS the 9900k

That means you have no reason to buy a 9900k unless you love Intel.
Single thread performance was all they had until now

Nvidia is still way ahead though

[Tapani]

Yeah sure, I buy the Ryzen argument to an extent. But I have hard time believing it will beat Intel's 10nm CPUs, and what happens when Intel moves to 7nm and 5nm? Would they be moving to 5nm or 3nm faster than Intel, and if the benefits are diminishing, can't Intel just lower their prices? Plus, it doesn't beat 9900K in every single test, just some of them. But yeah, it is bang for the buck, I won't deny that.

And yes, Nvidia is ahead by two generations still. Plus, AMD is losing market share to Intel as we speak.

[harmny]

and where are intel's 10nm cpus? i dont see them here. the only thing i see is AMD cpus beating intel.
when they are here we shall see. until then. no reason to buy intel.

[RizBiz]

Is it the same price? I thought it was a lot cheaper.

*checks online*
Ah yeah, wow. Almost exactly the same.

[derektweed1]

@Tapani

"moving to 5nm or 3nm faster than Intel"

Please tell me you know that nm (nano-metre) is a size and not a speed.

[Tapani]

Ok Ok I give up! I give it to Ryzen 3700X, but still not impressed by Navi. While AMD stock has been quite high recently, they are still losing CPU market share to Intel, and that's a fact. Let's see if that turns around. Also, AMD consecutively lost market share to Nvidia up in 2018 for full 4 quarters, they've been able to get some % back after a long losing streak. I think it's 77.3% Nvidia and rest AMD mostly, plus Intel.

What I'm saying is that they have just caught up with CPUs due to hitting 7nm processes first by doing a pre-emptive move with TSMC to block Intel's / Nvidia's access to it, and still have just caught up with CPUs, and GPUs are still behind. If they hadn't done that, they would have been decimated. Good move by Lisa Su, but just have to remember it was a company saving move and the last ace they had up their sleeve. They've also lost a lot of talent on the technology side recently to Intel. I'm forward looking, not focused on today, because I trade stocks, and look at businesses long-term in mind.

CPU market: https://www.techacrobat.com...
GPU Market: https://marketrealist.com/2... (just one recent quarter AMD has gained)

[chrono1205]

Did you just say the CPU runs louder?

[quent]

Stop talking out of you're ass kid

[xenz]

I dont understand your critisism about Navi. Tell me why I should buy RTX 2070 Super over RX 5700 XT when they are evenly matched in performance, power draw and the fact that 5700 XT costs 100$ less?

Same could be said for RX 5700. It outperforms RTX 2060 Super, cost less and has lower power consumption.

I know your argument will be that RTX supports Ray Tracing, but my problem is that there's barely any games that support it right now, and if you want good performance at an acceptable solution you would have to go for 2080/2080 Super at the very least.

And DLSS is a joke too.

Also, AMD is known for it's "fine wine" driver updates. If you look at older GPUs compared to Nvidias, you'll see a performance gain up to 15% after 2-3 years.

[Sophisticated_Chap]

Looking at benchmarks for most of the day today, and I was surprised that the Ryzen 5 3600 out performs the Ryzen 7 2700X in gaming. I was considering going with Zen+ with the discounts that are now happening, but it isn't worth it. I'll probably go 3700X or 3800X, but I'm really not excited about having a motherboard with a chipset fan built onto it. Might be better to go with a B450 board and flash the bios, but I havent made up my mind yet.

[XxINFERNUSxX]

Going to upgrade my 2700x to the 3900x. I use win 10 LTSC 1809 because I hate win 10 home/pro I hate all that useless crap they add. Being on LTSC I know there is no upgrade to 1903 and want to know the difference between the two. So far I see no reviews comparing the two versions. I know 1903 fixes the thread scheduler and I want to see if there is a difference.