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 ESTConclusion: Shy Of The Very Best, Overall Absolute Winner
Overall, we’ve been eagerly awaiting today’s launch for months, and all the while AMD has certainly given us some high expectations for their 3rd generation Ryzen CPUs. At the end of the day I think that AMD was able to deliver on all of their promises, and hitting all of the performance targets that they needed to. Furthermore, where AMD kills it is in terms of value, as both the 3700X and the 3900X really deliver in terms of offering outstanding alternatives to the competition.
The New Zen 2 µarch & Chiplet Design
The basis for the new 3rd generation Ryzen processors is AMD’s new high-risk high-reward bet on moving away from a single monolithic die to a chiplet-based MCM (Multi-chip module) design. What this has allowed AMD to do is to maximise the performance characteristics of their 7nm design for the new Ryzen 3000 chipsets. Meanwhile, having the I/O components and the memory controllers on a 12nm process node not only allows AMD to minimise the cost of the platform, but also allows them to optimise the silicon for their specific use-cases.
The actual CPU chiplets (CPU-lets?) are manufactured on TSMC’s leading edge 7nm process node and AMD has seemingly been able to take full advantage of the process, not only lowering the power consumption of the cores, but also raising the clock frequency at the same time, bringing some impressive power efficiency benefits.
The new design did seemingly make some compromises, and we saw that the DRAM memory latency of this new system architecture is slower than the previous monolithic implementation. However, here is also where things get interesting. Even though this is a theoretical regression on paper, when it comes to actual performance in workloads the regression is essentially non-existent, and AMD is able to showcase improvements even in the most memory-sensitive workloads. This is thanks to the new Zen 2 CPU core’s improved microarchitecture, with new improved prefetchers and overall outstanding Memory Level Parallelism (MLP) designs. Further helping AMD's memory/cache situation is the doubling of the CCX’s L3 cache from 8MB to 16MB, which on average, ends up with better workload memory performance.
Not that Zen 2 is solely about memory performance, either. The CPU core's front-end improvements such as the new TAGE predictor – and in particular the much increased capacity of the operation cache – is very visible in some workloads. We’ve also seen the core’s new 256-bit (AVX2) vector datapaths work very well.
In the majority of controlled tests, AMD has done something they haven’t been able to achieve in almost 15 years, since the tail-end of the Athlon 64's reign in 2005: that is to have a CPU microarchitecture with higher performance per clock than Intel's leading architecture. Zen 2 finally achieves this symbolic mark by a hair’s margin, with the new core improving IPC by 15-17% when compared to Zen+.
Having said that, Intel still very much holds the single-threaded performance crown by a few percent. Intel’s higher achieved frequencies as well as continued larger lead in memory sensitive workloads are still goals that AMD has to work towards, and future Zen iterations will have to further improve in order to have a shot at the ST performance crown.
Beyond this, it’s remarkable that AMD has been able to achieve all of this while consuming significantly less power than Intel's best desktop chip, all thanks to the new process node.
The 3700X & 3900X Versus The Competition, Verdict
Office CPU Performance and Productivity
It’s in these categories where AMD’s strengths lie: In the majority of our system benchmarks, AMD more often than not is able to best Intel’s Core i7-9700K and i9-9900K in terms of performance. It was particularly interesting to see the new 3rd gen Ryzens post larger improvements in the web tests, all thanks to Zen 2’s improved and larger op cache.
In anything that is more than lightly multi-threaded, AMD is also able to take the performance crown among mainstream desktop processors, thanks to their inclusion of 12 cores in their top SKU Ryzen 3900X. For total MT throughput, Intel can still beat this with their massive X-series HEDT chips, but these server-derrived parts are in a completely different class in both features and price, and AMD has their own Threadripper parts to rival that. All of this means that for heavily threaded scenarios, the 3900X rules the roost among true desktop processors.
Meanwhile, even when AMD doesn't have a core count advantage – as is the case with the Ryzen 3700X – the chip is still extremely competitive. Overall the 3700X falls in-between the more expensive 9700K and 9900K when it comes to multi-threaded workloads – and sometimes it even beats the 9900K, a respectable result indeed.
Gaming Performance
When it comes to gaming performance, the 9700K and 9900K remain the best performing CPUs on the market. Even without an IPC advantage anymore, Intel's high clockspeeds and supporting elements such as the core ringbus still give them the best performance in the kind of lightly-threaded and tightly-threaded scenarios that games often follow.
That being said, the new 3700X and 3900X are posting enormous improvements over the 2700X. And we can confirm AMD’s claims of up to 30-35% better performance in some games over the 2700X. So AMD has not been standing still.
Ultimately, while AMD still lags behind Intel in gaming performance, the gap has narrowed immensely, to the point that Ryzen CPUs are no longer something to be dismissed if you want to have a high-end gaming machine. Intel's performance advantage is rather limited here – and for the power-conscientious, AMD is delivering better efficiency at this point – so while they may not always win out as the very best choice for absolute peak gaming performance, the 3rd gen Ryzens are still very much a very viable option worth considering.
Everything Tied Together: A Win For AMD
What really does make the Ryzen 3700X and 3900X winners in my eyes is their overall packages and performance. They’re outstanding all-rounders, and AMD has managed to vastly improve some of the aspects it was lagging behind the most. While AMD still needs to further push total single-threaded performance in the future and continue working on improving memory performance, they’re on Intel’s tail.
Perhaps the best arguments for the 3700X and 3900X is their value as well as their power efficiency. At $329 the 3700X particularly seems exciting, and gamers will want to take note that it posts the same gaming performance as the $499 3900X. Considering that AMD is also shipping the CPU with the perfectly reasonable Wraith coolers, this also adds on to the value that you get if you’re budget conscious.
The 3900X essentially has no real competition when it comes to the multi-threaded performance that it’s able to deliver. Here the chip not only bests Intel’s mainstream desktop designs, but it's able to go toe-to-toe with the lowest rung of Intel's more specialized HEDT platforms. Even AMD’s own Threadripper line-up is made irrelevant below 16 cores.
All in all, while AMD still has some way to go, they’ve never been this close to Intel in over a decade. This is no longer the story of the AMD that is trying to catch up to Intel; this is now the story of the AMD that is once more a formidable rival to Intel. And, if the company is able to continue to execute as well, we should be seeing even more exciting things in the future.
And, for these reasons, we are awarding AMD's 3rd generation Ryzen processors an AnandTech Editor's Choice Silver award for their value and energy efficiency. AMD has raised the bar indeed.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
447 Comments
View All Comments
Korguz - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link
what ever phynaz... anandtech did a write up on the power intel uses for their chips : https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-pro...that link you posted, looks like a mistake was made with communication between several different parties, as the poster said, considering this is a new cpu, and accompanying mobo/chipset, things like this do happen, even intel has had its own issues with a new platform, and we will have to see how it levels off in the coming few weeks. amd does stay within its TDP limits better then intel.. at least when amd says their cpus use XXX watts, it uses around that number, unlike intel, where a 95watt cpu, cause use up to 200 watts, as the link i posted shows...
you sure like to throw insults around dont you ? does it make you feel better about your self ? in the end.. maybe its YOU that cant handle the truth about your beloved intel ? face it, compared to zen2/ryzen 3, intels cpus use more power, and cost LESS then intels equivalent cpu, and amd has IPC parity with intel.
Xyler94 - Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - link
Phynaz... you may wanna rethink your TDP argument there...Intel's i9 9900k's TDP is 95W, however regularly hits over 200W without an overclock.
just4U - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
The silver award seems apt. Since it certainly lived up to expectations and in some instances surpasses them. gold if it's the clear winner in everything, platinum if it beats out all expectations..Meteor2 - Monday, July 15, 2019 - link
Ryzen 3000 beats Intel ST and MT per Watt or per dollar, which are the only metrics which matter. Otherwise how are you comparing like with like?patmanRR - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
Using llvm for c/c++/Fortran codes is most likely to result in slower performance than gcc (and even more likely than Intel compilers) .I do not know if the performance impact is more/less/the same among Intel and and CPUs but I do not really trust these numbers in the first pages of the review.Dragonsteel - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
I'm excited by the 3800X, which based on this article, may showcase a much higher performance (and power) output at higher multi threaded applications.I'm very much looking forward to the inclusion of the 3800X numbers. Would also like to see some game updates with the 2080 and such at 1440p as most of the test either skipped that resolution and went to 4K. The 4K results mostly showed the GPU bottleneck.
danjw - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
I was really looking forward to reading this review. I look forward to finding out what is going on with your PCMark numbers. I appreciate that you guys are willing to go the extra mile when you see something not looking right. Thank you and keep up the great work guys!AshlayW - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
Great review, thanks. Gains are good but I'm more than happy with my 2700X for now so I'll likely be waiting for Ryzen 4000. Seems like Intel CPUs are more or less obsolete at their current prices now unless you absolutely need the best possible gaming performance at any cost. (more money than sense).One nitpick, though. I completely disagree with this statement:
"Ultimately, while AMD still lags behind Intel in gaming performance, the gap has narrowed immensely, to the point that Ryzen CPUs are no longer something to be dismissed if you want to have a high-end gaming machine."
Specifically, about "dismissing" AMD Ryzen CPUs for high end gaming machines, I mean the 2nd and 1st gen ones. I have built many "high end" gaming machines, with Ryzen 1800X and 2700X and they are excellent. Anyone that "dismisses" Ryzen 1 or 2 for a high end gaming machine is a tool. (I'm gaming at 144Hz on a 2700X, lol).
But I understand the point trying to be made. Gaming was the last bastion for Ryzen in absolute performance and now they have sort of cracked it. 9900K for 480+ bucks is going to be a hard sell with these new chips onm the market. Where are these rumoured Intel Price cuts? or is chipzilla really that arrogant?
GlossGhost - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
I think he said that because most people want to see AMD close to/or beat Intel in order to finally look at the processors as a proper alternative. I am playing on an R5 2600 daily and in what I need it to perform, it does great. People like us who have long researched and dug into those Ryzens will probably have already switched. Now it's time for those like my colleagues whom, when I showed the performances, went into deep thoughts as to how to plan their next Ryzen builds.ballsystemlord - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
Spelling, grammar, and 2 technical corrections (thus far):"...meaning for the very vast majority of workloads, you're better off staying at or under DDR4-3600 with a 1:1 MC:IF ratio."
Acutally, AMD's graph shows DDR4-37333, not DDR4-3600 before the 2:1 IF ratio sets in.
"...meaning for the very vast majority of workloads, you're better off staying at or under DDR4-3733 with a 1:1 MC:IF ratio."
"...this put a lot more pressure on the L2 cache capacity, ..."
Missing "s":
"...this puts a lot more pressure on the L2 cache capacity, ..."
"AMD here has essentially as 60% advantage in bandwidth as the CCX's L3 is much faster than Intel's L3"
"a" not "as. Maybe get rid of the "essentially"?
"AMD here has essentially a 60% advantage in bandwidth as the CCX's L3 is much faster than Intel's L3"
"The X570 chipset is the first chipset its manufactured in-house using ASMedia's IP, whereas previously with the X470 and X370 chipsets, ASMedia developed and produced it based on its 55nm architecture."
This sentence makes absolutely no sense. Have another cup of coffee? :)
"...on top of being able to run them on more memory limited platforms which we plan on to do in the future."
Excess "on".
"...on top of being able to run them on more memory limited platforms which we plan to do in the future."
"We're seeing quite an interesting match-up against Intel's 9700K here which is leading the all the benchmarks."
Extra "the":
"We're seeing quite an interesting match-up against Intel's 9700K here which is leading all the benchmarks."
"In our test, we take v1.3.3 of the software with a good sized data set of 84 x 18 megapixel photos and push it through a reasonably fast variant of the algorithms, but is still more stringent than our 2017 test."
Replace "is" for "they are" as the word algorithms is plural.
"In our test, we take v1.3.3 of the software with a good sized data set of 84 x 18 megapixel photos and push it through a reasonably fast variant of the algorithms, but they are still more stringent than our 2017 test."
"Please note, if you plan to share out the Compression graph, please include the Decompression one. Otherwise you're only presenting half a picture."
Excess words, try:
"Please note, if you plan to share our Compression graph, please include the Decompression one. Otherwise you're only presenting half a picture."
"but actually also raising the clock frequency at the same time, bringing for some impressive power efficiency benefits."
Excess "for" or bringing:
"but actually also raising the clock frequency at the same time, bringing some impressive power efficiency benefits."
OR
"but actually also raising the clock frequency at the same time, for some impressive power efficiency benefits."
"Not that Zen 2 is soley about memory performance, either."
Missing "l":
"Not that Zen 2 is solely about memory performance, either."
"We've also seen the core's new 256-bit (AVX2) vector datapaths to work very well."
Excess "to":
"We've also seen the core's new 256-bit (AVX2) vector datapaths work very well."
"Intel's higher achieved frequencies as well as continued larger lead in memory sensitive workloads are still goals that AMD has to work towards to"
Excess "to":
"Intel's higher achieved frequencies as well as continued larger lead in memory sensitive workloads are still goals that AMD has to work towards"
"The new design did seemingly make some compromises, and we saw that the DRAM memory latency of this new system architecture is slower than the previous monolithic implementation. However, here is also where things get interesting. Even though this is a theoretical regression on paper, when it comes to actual performance in workloads the regression is essentially non-existent, and AMD is able to showcase improvements even in the most memory-sensitive workloads."
Not strictly accurate. AMD is showing a regression in performance compared to themselves in the "3DMark Physics - Ice Storm Unlimited" and "AppTimer: GIMP" benchmarks. GIMP is single threaded and the 3900X is loosing to the 2700X. Again, the same with "Ice Storm Unlimited", but I suspect that we're hitting a performance ceiling here.
I suspect if deep dive into the regression in GIMP you'll find something more interesting than just a memory bottle-neck.