Tech Gaming Hardware discussion (& Hardware Sales) thread

[Madmick]

Nobody can make sense of this. Passmark is not typically a benchmark where you see any kind of funny business in a published score:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-5-3600-benchmark-beats-core-i9-9900k,39768.html

However, it does have to be said; this sounds just a little too good to be true. The $200 CPU has lower clock speeds and fewer cores, making the test results dubious. Matching the -9900K, let alone beating it, seems too good to be true. Luckily, Passmark lets you look at the five most recent benchmarks for any given CPU, and at the time of writing, there are three we can examine (seemingly from the same test system).

The system reportedly uses a B450 Aorus M board, not an X570 board. According to the reported clock speed, the CPU doesn't seem to be overclocked either; all three tests show the same turbo of 4.21 GHz, and one result shows a "measured speed" of 3.37 GHz, and the other two 3.61 GHz. It doesn't seem like there was some sort of trick making this 3600 so fast, at least not something we can glean from Passmark's reported information.

Interestingly, the third benchmark for the 3600 uses a 16GB kit of 3200 MHz CL14 G Skill RAM, unlike the first two benchmarks which used a single stick of Crucial RAM at 2666 MHz CL16. The third benchmark reports a score of 7% faster than the two previous scores, which implies that Zen 2 and/or Passmark benefits heavily from having high-speed low-latency dual-channel RAM, something which previous iterations of Zen also benefit from.

Overall, this result seems legitimate, but AMD's lowest-end Zen 2 CPU beating the -9900K overall seems unrealistic at best, especially when AMD positions the beefier Ryzen 7 3800X against the Core i9-9900K. This benchmark does, however, prove that Zen 2 does some things far better than Coffee Lake, which bodes well for Zen 2's overall performance. July 7th is just eight days away now, so it won't be long before we know what the Ryzen 5 3600 can really do.

Hell, even AMD wasn't hyping anything this big. The most brazen claim I saw them make was that Ryzen 3000's IPC would be 15% better than Coffee Lake (the Intel Core 8000 series). That's the sort of claim that historically would turn out to be a 500% inflation of an already well-delivered reality. Yet this benchmark would appear to put that IPC at ~22% superior to the Coffee Lake Refresh (Intel Core 9000 series).

This just can't be real. It can't be. I'm dumbfounded.

 

[PEB]

 

[Woldog]

Strongly considering the Ryzen 9 3900X now, it's out next week right?

 

[rob mafia]

Strongly considering the Ryzen 9 3900X now, it's out next week right?

yup, 7/7 for all except the 3950x (sept)

 

[Woldog]

yup, 7/7 for all except the 3950x (sept)

If those benchmarks are true, I would consider the switch back to AMD over Intel. I'll just wait on the pricings to see what would be the better deal at the best performance.

 

[Madmick]

If those benchmarks are true, I would consider the switch back to AMD over Intel. I'll just wait on the pricings to see what would be the better deal at the best performance.

If that benchmark isn't a mirage you might have trouble getting an AMD processor at MSRP. The market will be willing to pay way above pricing for that. You could find yourself in the same place as those when NVIDIA GTX 980 or GTX 1080 first launched. No cryptosurge at the time, but it still took buyers 3-4 months just to get their hands on one, and most were paying above the MSRP when they finally jumped on a freshly updated inventory by one of the tech sites. Not sure how that played out in AUS.

This is were pre-orders are actually the best strategy, but I'm still extremely skeptical. This benchmark doesn't just contradict common sense. It contradicts every other leak's indication we have seen so far. Nevertheless, again, Passmark is a benchmark that I can't recall ever publishing a sample leak that turned out to be pure bullshit.

 

[Woldog]

If that benchmark isn't a mirage you might have trouble getting an AMD processor at MSRP. The market will be willing to pay way above pricing for that. You could find yourself in the same place as those when NVIDIA GTX GTX 980 or GTX 1080 first launched. No cryptosurge at the time, but it still took buyers 3-4 months just to get their hands on one, and most were paying above the MSRP when they finally jumped on a freshly updated inventory by one of the tech sites. Not sure how that played out in AUS.

This is were pre-orders are actually the best strategy, but I'm still extremely skeptical. This benchmark doesn't just contradict common sense. It contradicts every other leak's indication we have seen so far. Nevertheless, again, Passmark is a benchmark that I can't recall ever publishing a sample leak that turned out to be pure bullshit.

My local computer mega store has preorders and 40 day change of mind returns, I can just preorder the top one and see what the reviews say

 

[Madmick]

My local computer mega store has preorders and 40 day change of mind returns, I can just preorder the top one and see what the reviews say

Perfect strategy. We'll know as soon as they hit the market and consumer samples starting showing up on the benchmark charts (as well as reviewer labs) what is what.

 

[ssBaldy]

Nobody can make sense of this. Passmark is not typically a benchmark where you see any kind of funny business in a published score:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-5-3600-benchmark-beats-core-i9-9900k,39768.html

Hell, even AMD wasn't hyping anything this big. The most brazen claim I saw them make was that Ryzen 3000's IPC would be 15% better than Coffee Lake (the Intel Core 8000 series). That's the sort of claim that historically would turn out to be a 500% inflation of an already well-delivered reality. Yet this benchmark would appear to put that IPC at ~22% superior to the Coffee Lake Refresh (Intel Core 9000 series).

This just can't be real. It can't be. I'm dumbfounded.

Yeah, that seems too good to be true. If Ryzen 3000's indeed perform that well it will change the market.

 

[Woldog]

If Ryzen 3000's can do this and Intel take 6 months to respond they could lose a big chunk of marketshare. It'd be an interesting few years of pricewars that's for sure.

 

[ssBaldy]

Ho Lee Fuk that 3900 looks sweet. Also $200 3600 is kicking some ass too, will be a very good cheap processor it seems.

 

[Madmick]

Ho Lee Fuk that 3900 looks sweet. Also $200 3600 is kicking some ass too, will be a very good cheap processor it seems.

Okay, so we're back to reality. That's still incredibly promising, and would have AMD restored to a neck-and-neck race for the leaderboard; maybe enjoying the advantage. The R7-3700X is the weaker of the R7's, so the +100 MHz advantage to the R7-3800X means it should leap ahead of the 9900K enough to be a clear winner (especially if we assume from its much higher TDP it will enjoy a more significant boost in terms of sustained all-core turbo).

But it sure as hell doesn't suggest a 4.2 GHz turbo on a Ryzen 5 3000 processor will smash the 9900K by ~17% in single core performance.

Something must be going on with Passmark.

 

[Woldog]

Okay, so we're back to reality. That's still incredibly promising, and would have AMD restored to a neck-and-neck race for the leaderboard; maybe enjoying the advantage. The R7-3700X is the weaker of the R7's, so the +100 MHz advantage to the R7-3800X means it should leap ahead of the 9900K enough to be a clear winner (especially if we assume from its much higher TDP it will enjoy a more significant boost in terms of sustained all-core turbo).

But it sure as hell doesn't suggest a 4.2 GHz turbo on a Ryzen 5 3000 processor will smash the 9900K by ~17% in single core performance.

Something must be going on with Passmark.

What do you think the cost will be for anything that manages to beat a 9900k though.

 

[ssBaldy]

Okay, so we're back to reality. That's still incredibly promising, and would have AMD restored to a neck-and-neck race for the leaderboard; maybe enjoying the advantage. The R7-3700X is the weaker of the R7's, so the +100 MHz advantage to the R7-3800X means it should leap ahead of the 9900K enough to be a clear winner (especially if we assume from its much higher TDP it will enjoy a more significant boost in terms of sustained all-core turbo).

But it sure as hell doesn't suggest a 4.2 GHz turbo on a Ryzen 5 3000 processor will smash the 9900K by ~17% in single core performance.

Something must be going on with Passmark.

Still, an 8-core, $329 3700x performing on par with 9900K is very good, don't you think?

 

[Madmick]

What do you think the cost will be for anything that manages to beat a 9900k though.

The three top Ryzen processors. That's why this benchmark is still incredible news for AMD (again, if giving us an accurate idea).

As baldy notes, if the R7-3700X (8c/16t) equals the i9-9900K (8c/16t), since both are in the 24K-25K score range here, then one can expect the R7-3800X (8c/16t) to beat it. That means Ryzen will still enjoy single core supremacy because these are apples to apples: all are 8-core CPUs.

But those aren't the top processors AMD will be releasing; not even for single core. Just like the 9900K enjoys the highest single core scores for Intel, due to the highest frequency over processors with fewer cores like the 9700K and 9600K, AMD has positioned the R9 processors to step up the frequency. For review:

Thus, not only with the R9-3900X and R9-3950X enjoy even more significant single core advantages over the i9-9900K than the R7-3800X should, they will simultaneously achieve this with 1.5x and 2.0x the total cores/threads. That should amount to a strong advantage in game performance over the 9900K, and much stronger future-proofing.

R9-3950X will reign supreme. If you don't want to spend quite that much the R9-3900X looks it has your name on it.

 

[Madmick]

Well, bad news for internet consumers, but a move in the right direction for a level playing field among merchants:





Apparently California will be added on October 1st.

 

[jefferz]

Adata SU635 960gb for $68 on Amazon after coupon on the page.
Amazon product ASIN B07PQNHZ7Y@Madmick

 

[Woldog]

The three top Ryzen processors. That's why this benchmark is still incredible news for AMD (again, if giving us an accurate idea).

As baldy notes, if the R7-3700X (8c/16t) equals the i9-9900K (8c/16t), since both are in the 24K-25K score range here, then one can expect the R7-3800X (8c/16t) to beat it. That means Ryzen will still enjoy single core supremacy because these are apples to apples: all are 8-core CPUs.

But those aren't the top processors AMD will be releasing; not even for single core. Just like the 9900K enjoys the highest single core scores for Intel, due to the highest frequency over processors with fewer cores like the 9700K and 9600K, AMD has positioned the R9 processors to step up the frequency. For review:

Thus, not only with the R9-3900X and R9-3950X enjoy even more significant single core advantages over the i9-9900K than the R7-3800X should, they will simultaneously achieve this with 1.5x and 2.0x the total cores/threads. That should amount to a strong advantage in game performance over the 9900K, and much stronger future-proofing.

R9-3950X will reign supreme. If you don't want to spend quite that much the R9-3900X looks it has your name on it.

749 USD is 1075aud, add on tax and the importation fees distributors add so it'll be my guess around $1200 here
My girlfriend will probably murder me in my sleep if I buy a CPU that's worth more than the entire computer I just built her lmao. very tempting but If the 3900x is better than the 9900k I'll go with that, however if it's around the same I'll go with the 9900kf as it may be slightly cheaper than both.

 

[My Spot]

749 USD is 1075aud, add on tax and the importation fees distributors add so it'll be my guess around $1200 here
My girlfriend will probably murder me in my sleep if I buy a CPU that's worth more than the entire computer I just built her lmao. very tempting but If the 3900x is better than the 9900k I'll go with that, however if it's around the same I'll go with the 9900kf as it may be slightly cheaper than both.

Why not get an i5 or 3600 instead? Those are overkill for gaming.

 

[Woldog]

Why not get an i5 or 3600 instead? Those are overkill for gaming.

Because I like to have the best, I already have an i7 7700k, doesn't make sense to me to drop back down to an i5. I also do a lot of photoshop, rendering and modelling. It's not just for gaming.