AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Cinebench R20 score
|
|
|
|
|
Processor performance AMD Ryzen 7 3700X in the Cinebench R20 benchmarking platform.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the link above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
| Cinebench R20 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
|
Intel Core i9-7900X |
450 5.180 |
|
Intel Core i9-10900 |
523 5.128 |
|
Intel Core i9-11900 |
538 5. |
|
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT |
540 5.000 |
|
Intel Core i7-10700K |
520 4.970 |
|
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X |
510 4.970 |
|
Intel Core i9-9900KF |
500 4.920 |
|
Intel Core i9-9900K |
500 4.910 |
|
Intel Core i7-10700KA |
513 4.882 |
|
Intel Core i7-10700 |
495 4.830 |
|
Intel Core i7-10700F |
492 4.802 |
|
Intel Core i5-12400 |
659 4.  776 |
|
Intel Core i9-10900T |
470 4.770 |
|
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X |
480 4.760 |
|
Intel Core i5-12400F |
661 4.723 |
|
Intel Core i9-9820X |
420 4.670 |
|
AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5750GE |
592 4.546 |
|
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G |
563 4.502 |
|
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X |
605 4.434 |
|
Intel Core i5-11600KF |
598 4.264 |
|
Intel Core i7-9800X |
418 4.  226 |
|
AMD Ryzen 5 5600 |
540 4.214 |
|
Intel Core i5-11600K |
563 4.174 |
|
Intel Core i7-7820X |
463 4.163 |
|
AMD Ryzen 5 5500 |
536 4.141 |
|
Intel Core i5-11500 |
536 4.015 |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R20 is a multi-platform test software which allows to evaluate the hardware capacities of a device such as a computer, a tablet, a server.
This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant.
Disclaimer:
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
This page includes affiliate links for which the administrator of GadgetVersus may earn a commission at no extra cost to you should you make a purchase. These links are indicated using the hashtag #ad.
Information:
We do not assume any responsibility for the data displayed on our website. Please use at your own risk. Some or all of this data may be out of date or incomplete, please refer to the technical page on the respective manufacturer’s website to find the latest up-to-date information regarding the specifics of these products.
Trading System Forex
W3Ask
W3Ask Brasil
W3Ask Deutschland
W3Ask España
W3Ask France
W3Ask Italia
W3Ask Nederland
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X Review
Having reviewed Ryzen 5000 12-core and 16-core models, today we’re testing the Ryzen 7 5800X, AMD’s latest 8-core CPU. So far we’ve been impressed by the Ryzen 9 5900X and 5950X, so let’s continue to work our way down the product stack.
Probably this won’t be the best way to start the review, but we’ve got to say the 5800X looks like the least compelling processor in the new series. There’s certainly nothing wrong with an 8-core, 16-thread processor clocked at up to 4.7 GHz with high IPC. In fact, you could argue that’s the sweet spot for gamers. The problem is price. At $450, it’s just $100 cheaper than the 5900X, and while that nets you almost 20% in savings, you’re also getting 33% fewer cores.
Whereas the 5900X costs $46 per core, the 5800X costs 22% more at $56 per core — and even 12% more than the 5950X flagship.
If you’re wondering why AMD has positioned the 5800X so poorly, the answer is simple: it doesn’t make sense for them to sell it any cheaper.
As you’re likely aware, Ryzen processors consist of multiple chiplets or smaller dies, rather than a single monolithic die like what we see with Intel processors. In the case of Zen 3, a CCD or ‘Core Complex Die’ packs 8 cores, so a CPU like the 5950X features two CCDs with all cores enabled for an 8+8 core configuration. Then there’s a third die, called the I/O die which houses the dual-channel DDR4 memory controller, PCIe 4.0 root-complex, and a number of SoC features such as SATA and USB ports.
Making up a CPU like the 5950X are two CCDs and a single I/O die, and the same configuration is used by the 5900X, but the 12-core version doesn’t require fully working CCDs, rather detective silicon with one or two failed cores can be used. Each CCD only has 6 of the possible 8 cores enabled, resulting in a 6+6 core configuration. That makes these 6-core CCDs less valuable as they can’t be used in the more expensive 5950X.
So you see where this is going…
The Ryzen 7 5800X and R5 5600X only use a single CCD, but the 5800X requires top shelf silicon with all cores enabled whereas the 6-core 5600X receives the same lower binned silicon used by the 5900X.
If the 5800X was to come in at roughly the same cost per core as the 5900X, it would cost just $370. But for the sake of this comparison, let’s bump it up to $400 to price match the 3800X, which is also half the price of the 5950X. At that price, AMD is making less profit on the highest quality silicon, so rather than sell it at a lower margin in a $400 5800X, they’re better off saving it for the $800 5950X, or alternatively selling the 5800X at an increased price, which is what they’ve been forced to do. It appears as though these 8-core chiplets are very valuable to AMD and we suspect they’re also wanting to save as many as possible for Epyc 3 server processors, where the margins are even greater.
All of this leaves the 5800X in an unfortunate position where it ends up costing more per core than any other Ryzen 5000 series processor.
For that reason we feel most will either end up being upsold to the 5900X, or opt to save some money and go for the cheaper 6-core 5600X.
Either way, it’s time to test and then we’ll re-evaluate the value of the 5800X towards the end of the review. For testing the AMD CPUs we’re using the MSI X570 Godlike with four 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 CL14 memory modules for a 32GB capacity and then cooling all test systems is the Corsair iCUE h250i Elite Capellix AIO. All productivity testing was performed using a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, but for the gaming benchmarks we used the top-of-the-line RTX 3090 GPU.
Benchmarks
As usual we’ll start with Cinebench R20. The 5800X scored 5982 pts in the multi-core test and that meant it was 22% faster than the 3700X, a serious performance uplift and it’s what we’ve come to expect from Zen 3. We didn’t bother retesting the 3800X as it’s really no faster than the 3700X. In this test we’re talking about a 3% performance boost.
When compared to the 10700K, the new AMD CPU is 20% faster even though both chips pack 8 cores with 16 threads.
In fact, the 5800X is just 7% slower than the 10900K which features 25% more cores.
When testing with Cinebench we measured the 5800X’s clocks. For the multi-core test where all cores are heavily loaded, the 5800X clocks at around 4.55 GHz which is well above the advertised 3.8 GHz base clock frequency. AMD also advertises a max boost clock frequency of 4.7 GHz and this should be achieved in single core or lightly threaded workloads. In the Cinebench single core test the 5800X typically operated at 4.85 GHz, so that’s 150 MHz over the advertised spec.
The 7-zip compression performance is excellent. The 5800X even managed to edge out the 10900K as it was 24% faster than the 3700X and 22% faster than the 10700K. In other words, the 5800X is now the fastest 8-core desktop CPU by a country mile.
Decompression performance is also good, though the margins do shrink a little. Compared to the 3700X, the 5800X is 19% faster and it’s also 31% faster than the 10700K, so a brutal 8-core smackdown there.
AES performance has improved by 12% over the 3700X and that made the 5800X a whopping 54% faster than the 10700K.
We’re looking at a 16% performance uplift over the 3700X in Blender making the 5800X 12% faster than the Core i7-10700K. It was also 16% slower than the 10900K and 31% slower than the 5900X, which makes sense given it packs 33% fewer cores.
As we saw with the 5950X and 5900X, the gains for Zen 3 in V-Ray are extreme. The 5800X was 30% faster than the 3700X and not a great deal slower than the 10900K.
Performance gains in the Corona benchmark have also been strong and we’re seeing a 26% performance uplift for the 5800X over the 3700X. Compared to the Intel competition we’re talking about an 11% boost over the 10700K.
Code compilation performance gains are smaller, though a 12% performance uplift is nothing to sneeze at. It means AMD is 15% ahead when comparing the 5800X and 10700K, too.
In DaVinci Resolve Studio 16 the CPU doesn’t have a huge impact on performance, but we’re still looking at a 6% increase for the 5800X over the 3700X.
It’s a similar story in Premiere Pro. The 5800X is beating the 3700X and 10700K by a 14% margin, while it was just 2% slower than the 10900K.
Photoshop relies heavily on single core performance and with Zen 3’s massive improvement on this aspect, the 5800X is 27% faster than the 3700X. Moreover, because the 5800X, 5900X and 5950X all feature similar single core performance, they deliver comparable results in this benchmark.
After Effects is another program that relies heavily on single core performance and as a result the 5800X is able to beat the 3700X by an impressive 23% margin. It was also 12% faster than Intel’s best mainstream desktop CPU and 26% faster than the 10700K.
Power Consumption
The Ryzen 7 5800X uses ~20 more watts than the 3700X, though that’s not entirely surprising as the 3700X is in that sweet spot for efficiency. The 3800X, for example, consumes 20 watts more, which would make the 5800X and 3800X fairly even in terms of power usage.
It’s also worth noting that the 5800X was 16% faster than the 3700X in this test, so a 13% increase in total system power is still very good in terms of efficiency. It’s also 30 watts less than Intel’s 10700K.
In terms of temperatures, we ran a quick comparison between the Ryzen 7 3800X and 5800X tested in a 21C room using Corsair’s iCUE h250i AIO, MSI X570 Godlike, installed inside the Corsair Obsidian 500D. We saw the 5800X running 3 to 5 degrees hotter than the 3800X, which is pretty good given it’s clocking just over 400 MHz higher at a similar voltage.
Gaming Performance
For our gaming tests we used Nvidia’s RTX 3090. Checking out Far Cry New Dawn first, we find that in this latency-sensitive title the 5800X is a whisker faster than the 5900X and 5950X, basically it matched the 10700K making it just 3% slower than the 10900K.
That’s an 18% performance uplift from the 3700X, which can be seen trailing even the Core i5-10400, at least when comparing average frame rates.
Performance in Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege is strong. The 5800X matches more expensive Zen 3 processors with 508 fps on average. That made it 2% faster than the 10700K and 19% faster than the 3700X, another big generational performance leap.
We’re also looking at a 16% performance uplift in Watch Dogs Legion, going from 99 fps up to 155 fps. The 5800X matched the higher-end 12 and 16-core models and both the Intel 10700K and 10900K.
The 5800X was blazing fast in F1 2020, beating its predecessor by a 20% margin and even edging out the 10700K by 5%. Basically it matched the 5900X and 5950X to come in just 3% behind the 10900K.
As seen previously with the 5900X and 5950X, Zen 3 offers solid performance in Horizon Zero Dawn and the 5800X drops just a few frames when compared to higher-end models. That meant it was 3% faster than the 10700K, matching the Core i7’s level of performance and this was possible due to an 18% performance boost over the 3700X.
The gains seen in Borderlands 3 are less impressive, here the 5800X was 7% faster than the 3700x and that meant it was a little slower than competing Intel parts. It was just 4% slower than the 10700K though, which we’d generally deem a tie.
Where we don’t see a tie is in Death Stranding, here the 5800X was 12% faster than the 10700K and you’d be hard pressed to make up that margin by overclocking the Core i7 part. The 5800X is also 33% faster than the 3700X which is great, though having now looked at the 5900X and 5950X, we’re starting to get spoiled to seeing margins like this.
The 5800X managed to match the 10900K in Shadow of the Tomb Raider with 165 fps on average and that made it 28% faster than the 3700X and 9% faster than the 10700K, while it was just 4% slower than the higher-end Zen 3 base models.
Interestingly, the 5800X isn’t as impressive as the 5900X and 5950X in Hitman 2, pushing the RTX 3090 to 151 fps at 1080p, placing it on par with the 10900K.
Certainly not a bad result but we also weren’t expecting it to be 7% slower than the 5900X.
The 5800X performed well in Star Wars: Squadrons, basically matching the higher core count parts to match the 10900K and beat the 10700K by an 8% margin. We’re also looking at a big 27% performance uplift over the 3700X.
Last up we have Serious Sam 4 where the 5800X is seen matching the 5900X and 5950X with performance that placed it 11% ahead of the 10900K and a whopping 27% ahead of the 10700K. Moreover, we’re looking at an insane 51% performance increase over the 3700X.
Now, if we average the gaming performance seen across all our game sample, we find that the 5800X is roughly on par with the 10900K and for the most part isn’t much slower than the 5900X and 5950X. It also comes out 6% ahead of the Core i7-10700K and 23% ahead of the older 3700X.
Overclocking
We were able to hit an all-core 4.7 GHz overclock with our Ryzen 7 5800X using 1.375v, so the same frequency achieved by the 5950X.
In the case of the 5800X though, this only boosted multi-core performance by 5% as the all-core frequency was increased from 4.5 GHz to 4.7 GHz.
This overclock reduces single core performance as we’re now operating 150 MHz slower and as a result the Cinebench R20 performance dropped by 3%.
We’re also only seeing a 4% performance uplift in Blender, so it hardly seems worth the trouble, especially given the decline in single thread performance.
The upshot being that we’re only looking at a 3% increase in power consumption, so that won’t really affect thermals.
The hit to gaming performance isn’t huge, as we saw in the single core Cinebench R20 test, we’re looking at a low single digit percentage drop, in Rainbow Six Siege we’re talking about a 4% performance loss.
Performance in Far Cry New Dawn though goes unaffected, we’re looking at the same 132 fps on average. Still although we didn’t see a performance decline here, it seems quite clear that overclocking is pointless for this CPU.
Price to Performance
Unfortunately the massive price hike does mean that the 5800X is worse value than the previous generation 8-core parts such as the 3700X. You’re paying a 12% price premium, though that does place it on par with the 10700K despite being much worse than the 5900X.
It’s a similar story in Premiere Pro, the 3700X is better value and the 5800X is even edged out by the 10700K. At this price point, you’re actually better off with the Ryzen 9 3900X.
Then for gaming the 5800X comes out costing slightly more per frame than the 3700X despite the massive 28% performance uplift. It also loses out to the Core i7-10700K in terms of value, though it does make out better than the 5900X as most games can’t utilize the extra cores.
Looking at the value equation across all games tested, it’s clear that while faster, Zen 3 isn’t as good as Zen 2 in terms of value. The 5800X is edged out by the 3700X and even Intel’s 10700K presents itself as a better value option at the more affordable $380 price point.
What We Learned
Based on what we’ve already seen from Ryzen 9 parts and how AMD has positioned its 8-core variant this generation, it’s not surprising to learn that the Ryzen 7 5800X is a bit disappointing. In our opinion, AMD has unwisely afforded Intel some breathing room here, as the 5800X isn’t the obvious choice for those looking to spend up to $450.
At least for gamers, the much cheaper Core i7-10700K offers more value. Yes, it’s a little slower, but at $380 it’s the better deal. The only weakness on Intel’s platform is the lack of PCIe 4.0 support, but not everyone is planning to take advantage of that right away. Buyers may be faced with a situation where those looking to spend ~$400 are better off saving a few bucks by going with Intel, or alternatively they will need to dig deeper and come up with another $100 to land the Ryzen 9 5900X.
It’s the same story for productivity, where the Ryzen 9 5900X offers a lot more bang for your buck while the Core i7-10700K is fairly similar in terms of value.
Compare that to the match up we see between the 5900X and 10900K and it’s hard not to walk away disappointed with the 8-core model. The 5900X dominates the 10900K in everything: performance, substantially better efficiency, and a better feature set, all for about the same price.
Sure, if we put pricing aside for a minute, the Ryzen 7 5800X remains a phenomenal leap forward from AMD’s previous-gen 8-core processors. A 23% gaming performance uplift on average is amazing, and as we said earlier, AMD now offers the world’s fastest 8-core desktop CPU.
But at $450, we’d recommend skipping the R7 5800X. You can either spend less on the 10700K or maybe the 5600X will be what you need. Alternatively, you could spend more to get the 5900X, or keep your eye open for a good deal on a 3rd-gen Ryzen part.
Shopping Shortcuts:
- AMD Ryzen 9 5900X on Amazon
- AMD Ryzen 7 5800X on Amazon
- Intel Core i9-10700K on Amazon
- AMD Ryzen 5 5600X on Amazon
- AMD Ryzen 9 5950X on Amazon
- Intel Core i9-10900K on Amazon
- Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 on Amazon
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs.
Apple M2
Cpu Benchmark with benchmarks
| AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | Apple M2 | |
| 3.60 GHz | Frequency | 3.50 GHz |
| 4.40 GHz | Turbo (1 Core) | No turbo |
| 4.00 GHz | Turbo (All Cores) | No turbo |
| 8 | Cores | 8 |
| Yes | Hyperthreading ? | No |
| Yes | Overclocking ? | No |
| normal | Core architecture | hybrid (big.LITTLE) |
| no iGPU | GPU | Apple M2 (8 Core) |
| DirectX Version | ||
| Max. displays | 3 | |
| DDR4-3200 | Memory | LPDDR5-5500 |
| 2 | Memory channels | 2 |
| Max. Memory | ||
| Yes | ECC | No |
| — | L2 Cache | 16. 00 MB |
| 32.00 MB | L3 Cache | — |
| 4.0 | PCIe version | 4.0 |
| 20 | PCIe lanes | |
| 7 nm | Technology | 4 nm |
| AM4 | Socket | N/A |
| 65 W | TDP | 15 W |
| AMD-V, SVM | Virtualization | None |
| Q3/2019 | Release date | Q1/2022 |
| show more detail | show more detail |
Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R23 is the successor of Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R23 is the successor of Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms.
The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor of Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor of Cinebench 11.
5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is a worldwide used software to create 3D forms. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The single-core test only uses one CPU core, the amount of cores or hyperthreading ability doesn’t count.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a cross plattform benchmark that heavily uses the systems memory. A fast memory will push the result a lot. The multi-core test involves all CPU cores and taks a big advantage of hyperthreading.
iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)
The theoretical computing performance of the internal graphics unit of the processor with simple accuracy (32 bit) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS indicates how many billion floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.
Blender 2.81 (bmw27)
Blender is a free 3D graphics software for rendering (creating) 3D bodies, which can also be textured and animated in the software. The Blender benchmark creates predefined scenes and measures the time (s) required for the entire scene. The shorter the time required, the better. We selected bmw27 as the benchmark scene.
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
Some of the CPUs listed below have been benchmarked by CPU-Benchmark. However the majority of CPUs have not been tested and the results have been estimated by a CPU-Benchmark’s secret proprietary formula. As such they do not accurately reflect the actual Passmark CPU mark values and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.
Monero Hashrate kH/s
The crypto currency Monero has been using the RandomX algorithm since November 2019. This PoW (proof of work) algorithm can only efficiently be calculated using a processor (CPU) or a graphics card (GPU). The CryptoNight algorithm was used for Monero until November 2019, but it could be calculated using ASICs.
RandomX benefits from a high number of CPU cores, cache and a fast connection of the memory via as many memory channels as possible
Popular Comparision
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs. Apple M2 — Cpu Benchmark Specs & Test
4.7 of 36 rating(s)
Apple M1 vs. AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
Apple M1
Apple M1 runs with 8 and 8 CPU threads It runs on No turbo base No turbo all cores while TDP is set to 15 W .CPU connect to CPU socket N/A This version includes — L3 cache on a single die , supports 2 to support LPDDR4X-4266 RAM , and supports 4.0 PCIe Gen . Tjunction is kept below — degrees C. In particular, the M1 architecture is advanced in 5 nm and supports None . The product was launched Q4/2020
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X runs with 8 and 8 CPU threads It runs at 4.40 GHz base 4.00 GHz all cores while TDP is set to 65 W .CPU connects to AM4 CPU socket This version include 32.00 MB of L3 cache on a single die, supports 2 to support DDR4-3200 RAM, and supports 4.
0 PCIe Gen 20 . Tjunction is kept below 95°C degrees C. In particular, Matisse (Zen 2) architecture is advanced over 7 nm and supports AMD-V, SVM . The product was launched Q3/2019
Apple M1
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
Compare details
Apple M1 (8 Core)
displays Show more details
Show more details
Cinebench R23 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R23 is the successor to Cinebench R20 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite.
Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D shapes. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R23 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R23 is the successor to Cinebench R20 and is also based on Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor to Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor to Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a memory-intensive, cross-platform benchmark. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a memory-intensive, cross-platform benchmark.
A fast memory will greatly push the result. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)
Theoretical processing performance of the processor’s internal graphics unit with simple precision (32 bits) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS specifies how many billions of floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second.
Blender 2.81 (bmw27)
Blender is a free 3D graphics software for rendering (creating) 3D bodies that can also be textured and animated in the program. The Blender test creates predefined scenes and measures the time(s) required for the entire scene. The less time it takes, the better. We chose the bmw27 as our reference scene.
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
Some of the processors listed below have been tested with CPU-Comparison. However, most of the processors were not tested and the results were evaluated by the secret patented CPU-Comparison formula.
As such, they do not accurately reflect the actual values of Passmark CPU ratings and are not endorsed by PassMark Software Pty Ltd.
Monero Hashrate kH/s
Monero has been using the RandomX algorithm since November 2019. This PoW (proof of work) algorithm can only be computed efficiently using either a processor (CPU) or a graphics card (GPU). The CryptoNight algorithm was used for Monero until November 2019, but it could be calculated using ASICs. RandomX benefits from a large number of CPU cores, cache, and fast memory connectivity through as many memory channels as possible.
Energy usage estimate
Average hours of use per day
Average CPU usage (0-100%)
Cost of electricity, USD/kWh
Energy usage estimate
Average hours of use per day
Average CPU usage (0-100%)
Cost of electricity, USD/kWh
| Apple M1 | AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | |
| 15W | Max TDP | 65W |
| NA | Power consumption per day (kWh) | NA |
| NA | Operating cost per day | NA |
| NA | Power consumption per year (kWh) | NA |
| NA | Operating cost per year | NA |
Popular comparison
The performance of 4 cores, if any, and performance per core has the greatest impact on the result, since most games do not fully use more than 4 cores.
The speed of caches and working with RAM is also important.
Speed in office use
Performance in everyday work such as browsers and office applications.
The performance of 1 core has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.
Similarly, many professional applications such as various CADs ignore multi-threaded performance.
Speed in heavy applications
Performance in resource-intensive tasks loading a maximum of 8 cores.
The performance of all cores and their number have the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications willingly use all the cores and increase the speed accordingly.
At the same time, certain periods of work can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.
Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values corresponding to the processor.
Speed of numerical operations
Simple household tasks |
||
| Minimum | Average | Maximum |
| 69 | Memory: 80 | 90 |
|
Memory 84.5 |
||
| 121 | 1 core: 135 | 141 |
|
1 core 65.9 |
||
| 237 | 2 cores: 268 | 280 |
|
2 cores 66.4 |
||
Demanding games and tasks |
||
| Minimum | Average | Maximum |
| 445 | 4 cores: 514 | 549 |
|
4 cores 64. |
||
| 805 | 8 cores: 928 | 1031 |
|
8 cores 60 |
7
Extreme |
||
| Minimum | Average | Maximum |
| 1280 | All cores: 1416 | 1497 |
|
All cores 26 |
Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.
We believe that a minimum of 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.
Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.
When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.
Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum).
A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.
Benchmarks
Benchmarks were run on stock hardware, that is, without overclocking and with factory settings. Therefore, on overclocked systems, the points can noticeably differ upwards. Also, small performance changes may be due to the BIOS version.
Cinebench R23 Single Core
Intel Core i7-10700K
1309
Intel Core i7-10700KF
1309
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
1302
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
1301
Intel Core i9- 10980HK
1294
AMD RYZEN 7 3700X
1294
Intel Core i9-10980HK
1294
Intel Core i5-10600
1286 9000 9000
1287 AMD Ryzen
287 AMD0387 Intel Core i9-9900
1284
Intel Core i9-9900K
1284
Cinebench R23 Multi Core
Intel Core i7-10700K
12678
Intel Core i5-12400
12454
Intel Core i5 -12400F
12454
Intel Core i9-9900KF
12450
Intel Core i9-9900k
12450
AMD Ryzen 7 3700x
12355
2222222222222222222222222222222222222220387 Intel Core i9-11900H
12345
Intel Core i7-10700
12250
Intel Core i7-10700F
12250
Intel Core i9-9900
12205
Cinebench R20 Single Core
AMD Ryzen 5 3600x
501
AMD Ryzen 9 4900h
501
Intel Core i5-10600kf
501
Intel Core i5-10600k
AMD Ryzen
.
AMD 9000 AMD 9000 AMD0003
501
Intel Core i5-10600KF
501
Intel Core i5-10600K
501
AMD Ryzen 9 4900H
501
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
501
AMD Ryzen 9 4900U
501
Cinebench R20 Multi Core
Intel Core i7-11800H
4930
Intel Core i9-9900X
4855
Intel Core i7-10700F
4834
AMD Ryzen 7 4700G
4834
Intel Core i7-10700
4834
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
4834
AMD Ryzen 7 4700G
4834
Intel Core i7-10700
4834
Intel Core i7-10700F
4834
Intel Core i5-12400
4784
Intel Core i5-12400F
4784
Cinebench R15 Single Core
Intel Core i7-10750H
204
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
204
Intel Core i5-9600K
204
AMD Ryzen 9 4900H
204
AMD Ryzen 9 4900U
204
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
204
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
204
AMD Ryzen 9 4900H
204
Intel Core i7-10750h
204
AMD Ryzen 9 4900u
204
AMD Ryzen 7 4700g
204
Core000
387 AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS
2154
Intel Core i9-10900T
2136
AMD Ryzen 7 4700G
2114
Intel Core i9-9900X
2114
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
2114
AMD Ryzen 7 4700G
2114
Intel Core i9-9900X
2114
Intel Core i9-9820X
1987
AMD Ryzen 5 5600x
1970
AMD Ryzen 9 4900H
1937
Geekbench 5 Single Core
Intel Core i7-10700F
1267
Intel Core i7-10700
1267
Intel Core i7-10750H
1264
Intel Core i5-9600K
1256
AMD Ryzen 7 4700G
1252
AMD RYZEN 7 3700X
1252
AMD Ryzen 7 4700G
1252
Intel Core i5-8600k
1251
AMD Ryzen 5 3600x
77700k I7777777777777777777777777777
AMD Ryzen 9 4900U
1225
Geekbench 5 Multi Core
Intel Core i7-7820X
8916
Intel Core i9-9900KF
8779
Intel Core i9-9900K
8779
Intel Core i9 -10900T
8743
AMD Ryzen 7 4700G
8732
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
8732
AMD Ryzen 7 4700G
8732
AMD Ryzen TR 2920X
8714
AMD Ryzen 95900HS
8577
AMD Ryzen TR 1920X
8449
AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS
8434
Blender 2.
81 bmw27
Intel Core i9-9900X
169.7
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X
167.6
Intel Core i9-9900KF
165.4
Intel Core i9-9900k
163.8
AMD Ryzen 7 4700G
160.8
AMD Ryzen 7 3700x
160.8
9000 AMD Ryzen TR 19200002 160.5
Intel Core i9-9820X
155.6
Intel Core i9-9900KS
148
AMD Ryzen TR 2920X
148
Intel Core i9-9920X
138
Passmark
Intel Core i9- 11900f
23180
AMD Ryzen 9 5900h
23091
AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS
23078
AMD RYZEN TR 1920X
23033
22 9000 INTEL CORE I9-102 220002 AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
22805
AMD Ryzen 5 5600x
22194
AMD Ryzen 7 5800H
22080
AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS
22040
Intel Core i9-9900X
21666
Intel Core i9 -7900X
21444
Game Benchmarks
Our measured FPS in popular games on AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and system requirements.
Please note that the official requirements of developers in games do not always match the data of real tests. Also, the result is strongly influenced by the overclocking of the system and the graphic settings in the game. We test at high settings in FullHD resolution to get numbers close to real gameplay.
The most popular config: motherboard for AMD Ryzen 7 3700X — Gigabyte X570 AORUS ELITE, video card — R7 265, RAM — Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB, SSD — 970 Evo Plus NVMe PCIe M.2 500GB.
Characteristics
The data is not yet filled in, so the tables may lack information or omit existing functions.
Main
| Manufacturer | AMD |
| Release dateMonth and year of the processor’s availability. | 11-2021 |
| Cores The number of physical cores. | 8 |
ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees. |
16 |
| Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technology, one physical core is recognized as two logical cores by the operating system, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications. | SMT (note that some games may not work well with SMT, for maximum FPS, you can disable the technology in the BIOS of the motherboard). |
| Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher one. | 3.6 GHz |
Turbo frequencyThe maximum frequency of one processor core in turbo mode. Manufacturers allow modern processors to independently increase the frequency of one or more cores under heavy load, due to which performance is noticeably increased. It may depend on the nature of the load, the number of loaded cores, temperature and the specified limits. Significantly affects the speed in games and applications that are demanding on the frequency of the CPU. |
4.1GHz |
| Embedded Options Available Two enclosure versions. Standard and designed for mobile devices. In the second version, the processor can be soldered on the motherboard. | No |
Video core
RAM
PCI
Data protection
Design
Competitors
Please note that competitors are selected automatically based on performance in a particular task. Therefore, some may puzzle you. We are improving our selection algorithm, treat with understanding.
Compare
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs Intel Core i5-10400
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs Intel Core i7-7700K
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs Intel Core i7-10700F
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs Intel Core i5-8600
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs Intel Core i7-11375H
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X vs Intel Core i9-9820X
Testing AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and 3800X and Ryzen 9 3900X and 3950X processors and comparing them to Intel Core i7 and i9 for LGA1151
Testing Intel Core i5-9600K, i7-9700K, i9-9900K, i9-9900KF and i9-9900KS processors using the new 2020 methodology
We recently conducted our first «zero» testing using the new methodology, which involved five processors for LGA1151: older Core i5, i7 and three modifications of the same «older» Core i9.
Naturally, there were no oddities and peculiarities — and indeed they could not: these are processors of the same generation of the same microarchitecture and for the same platform, differing only quantitatively, but not qualitatively. “Qualitatively”, they can already be characterized very briefly — the fastest in the corresponding Intel lines, but not the fastest desktop solutions on the market, even with reference to the price. A year ago it was completely different, but in the summer of 2019th AMD has seriously updated the Ryzen line. So serious that the models of the 3000 line (the real ones, of course, and not some APUs masquerading as it) can be considered new semiconductor devices, and not an upgrade of a two-year-old platform. This is especially true for Ryzen 9 — eight-core processors have been around for a long time (in the «regular» desktop segment — since 2017 and just thanks to AMD too, but appeared even earlier as HEDT solutions), but 12-16 cores — fundamentally new word (at least in the application to mass platforms).
Well, Ryzen 7 is perhaps just the best eight-core processors: which are at the level of Core i7, but work faster than them and Core i9, and any old Ryzen. We all already know this, since all models were tested according to the old method. And we also know that the new Ryzen has not only advantages, but, let’s say, some features of the . Today on the agenda is a simpler issue — testing the same processors using a new method. Or, more correctly, testing a new technique on older Ryzen processors under the AM4 sample of the outgoing 2019.
Test participants
| AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | AMD Ryzen 7 3800X | AMD Ryzen 9 3900X | AMD Ryzen 9 3950X | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core name | Matisse | Matisse | Matisse | Matisse |
| Production technology | 7/12 nm | 7/12 nm | 7/12 nm | 7/12 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3. 6/4.4 |
3.9/4.5 | 3.8/4.6 | 3.5/4.7 |
| Number of cores/threads | 8/16 | 8/16 | 12/24 | 16/32 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 256/256 | 256/256 | 384/384 | 512/512 |
| L2 cache, KB | 8×512 | 8×512 | 12×512 | 16×512 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 32 | 32 | 64 | 64 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-3200 | 2×DDR4-3200 | 2×DDR4-3200 | 2×DDR4-3200 |
| TDP, W | 65 | 105 | 105 | 105 |
| Number of PCIe 4.0 lanes | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Integrated GPU | no | no | no | no |
As mentioned above, they are all familiar to us. Ryzen 7 is somewhat similar to the older Ryzen 7 or Core i9 for LGA1151 quantitatively, but they use a new microarchitecture and a new process technology: which made it possible to implement it — and work very quickly and very “energy efficiently”.
And in general — is enough economically and in absolute terms. In Ryzen 9, power consumption can be considered a weak point, but it is difficult to deceive the laws of physics — the chiplet layout made it possible to “shove” twice eight cores into the dimensions of AM4 (which was previously impossible), but if one chiplet consumes up to 100 W, then two such under heavy load, they will naturally reach up to 200 watts. Of course, this could be combated by making them «not like that», i.e. by reducing the operating frequencies. But the company could not go for this — it needed processors that would not be inferior to the younger lines (Ryzen 5 and 7), as well as Intel processors, in any scenarios — regardless of the number of working cores (or better — would surpass all those listed in any conditions). And, at the same time, it was also required to replace the old Ryzen Threadripper — since the new ones have definitely gone into the segment above $ 1,000. It turned out that it is possible to meet a decent framework with six-core chiplets, but not easy — therefore Ryzen 9The 3900X started shipping at the same time as the Ryzen 7 back in the summer, but until recently it managed to disappear from retail or be sold at significantly higher than the recommended prices.
But for the physical release of the Ryzen 9 3950X, I had to take a timeout of a couple of months, which eventually stretched to four — but even now the “struggle” for it continues. It is quite possible that in its process we will see more economical new steppings — however, the optimism of statements about TDP 105 W will clearly remain excessive for a long time. More so than Ryzen 93900X or Ryzen 7 2700X (when this value debuted within AM4), although these both or two s “climb out” far in practice. Intel processors, however, have been doing the same thing for a long time (at least since the resumption of competition in the market), so there is nowhere to go anyway — you will have to understand and forgive , since the performance still corresponds to power consumption. You just have to stock up on money not only for the processor itself, but also for a powerful power supply, a suitable motherboard and cooling system. And even then — rather, to large manufacturers who love to optimize every cent, and not to DIY fans, who usually purchase hardware with a margin (those who save money are still looking at completely different processor families).
And now we’ll check how modern programs work on all this.
| Intel Core i7-9700K | Intel Core i9-9900KS | |
|---|---|---|
| Core name | Coffee Lake Refresh | Coffee Lake Refresh |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3.6/4.9 | 4.0/5.0 |
| Number of cores/threads | 8/8 | 8/16 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 256/256 | 256/256 |
| L2 cache, KB | 8×256 | 8×256 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 12 | 16 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2666 |
| TDP, W | 95 | 127 |
| Number of PCIe 3.0 lanes | 16 | 16 |
| Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 630 |
Let’s take the Core i7-9700K and i9-9900KS as reference points — fortunately, the formal positioning of these lines is similar.
The recommended prices for models with the same second digit in the number are also similar. Retail — behave differently, so it’s better to look at them directly in your «favorite» stores and before buying.
As for other environments, only motherboards were different: ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming X based on AMD X570 chipset and Asus ROG Maximus X Hero based on Intel Z370 chipset. And, also, the frequency of RAM is DDR4-2666 for Intel and DDR4-3200 for AMD. It is clear that the same frequencies could be set on these boards, but… After all, since Intel still does not officially support high-frequency memory, this is its choice, and it is worse for it. Moreover, the efficiency of memory controllers is also different, so the question is what to count equal terms , completely separate. Therefore, this: in strict accordance with the specifications.
Test Method
Methodology for testing computer systems of the 2020 sample
The testing methodology is described in detail in a separate article, and the results of all tests are available in a separate table in Microsoft Excel format.
Directly in the articles, we use the processed results: normalized with respect to the reference system and grouped according to the areas of computer application. Accordingly, all diagrams related to applications have dimensionless scores — so more is always better. And starting from this year, we are finally transferring game tests to an optional status (the reasons for which are discussed in detail in the description of the test methodology), so that only specialized materials will be available for them. In the main lineup there are only a couple of «processor-dependent» games in low resolution and medium quality — synthetic, of course, but conditions close to reality for testing processors are not suitable, since nothing depends on them in such conditions.
iXBT Application Benchmark 2020
It is symbolic that Ryzen 7 starts where Core i9 for LGA1151 already ends. 3800X, however, looks strange here, but nothing more: it’s just that the “established mode” of both new “sevens” is close.
«Nines» — fundamentally higher.
And here the load changes a bit, and the victory in the eight-core segment seems less convincing (excluding prices) — but the meaning of the existence of two such models in the AMD line becomes clearer: the 3800X is needed to provide it even in not the most convenient conditions. And regardless of the prices — taking into account them, the 3700X looks great. From Ryzen 9an unconditional victory was required — and it is. True, such “uncompromisingness” also leads to difficulties in production — hence, limited supplies, retail shortages, inflated real prices … But this can be fixed with time.
Vegas Pro 16 is clearly better optimized “for Intel”, which, in principle, is understandable without conspiracy theory : the processor architecture for LGA1151 has not changed significantly since 2015. As a result, in this program, the Core i7-9700K is already enough to overtake any Ryzen — the performance of which increases with the increase in the number of cores, but very «sluggishly».
However, the price still “remains on their side” (it just “votes” more strongly for Ryzen 7, not 9), and in other programs of the group there are no problems at all. Except for the fact that in Photodex ProShow Producer there is already another version of , the multi-threaded optimization of on all platforms, without exception, continues to leave much to be desired. Based on a combination of factors, in the end, we tend to consider the Ryzen 7 3700X the winner of on average . In specific disciplines, anything can happen: for example, in the Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2019 test task, the Ryzen 9 3950X is almost twice as fast as its Core i9-9900KS. So just have to choose thoughtfully and carefully . But, in any case, if you focus only on performance, then choose only from solutions for AM4, since we are no longer talking about platform parity.
As we have already noted, these programs are not very sensitive to the number of cores, so the whole difference between Ryzen 7 and 9 is mainly due to the twofold difference in L3 cache capacity.
On the other hand, this does not interfere with intercompany competition. And in general (according to the totality of these two groups), we can conclude that “optimal” for creative work processors have not risen in price over the past two years — although the maximum prices have increased, the (relatively) inexpensive Ryzen 7 3700X allows you to save money. Remaining, at the same time, a very productive processor — a year and a half ago there were no such processors (and for that kind of money — all the more so) on the market. And this is generally good 🙂
This kind of load scales almost linearly, and the program is quite «cache-loving», so in this case there is nothing to compare.
«Moving» the memory controller to a separate chip, of course, could not but increase the access delay to it — and all archivers are very susceptible to such. However, this was largely compensated by an increase in the capacity of the cache memory, and the “grown up” frequency of the RAM itself is already by default.
Technically, the victory, it seems, is still for Intel — but, generally speaking, the wrong «rival» Core i9-9900KS should win. Not at all. But the «too large» number of cores while maintaining the same memory subsystem, as we see, is already practically useless. At least in such algorithms as are used in both programs.
Another canonical case — where the Core i9-9900 of all modifications can still somehow compete with the Ryzen 7 3700X in terms of performance, the Ryzen 7 3800X comes to the rescue and reduces the problem to an already solved one. And the fact that not all applications react in the same way to an increase in the number of cores usually only affects the question: “Is Ryzen 9 3950X necessary or can I get by with cheaper processors in the line.” This does not apply to inter-company (and simply cross-platform) competition.
And the overall result is natural. The Core i9-9900KS can somehow «butt» with the Ryzen 7 3700X — but the Core i7 should do it.
Moreover, there is not one model in the line for nothing, but two — the second is more expensive than the faster , but it is already enough to leave no chance for any processors for LGA1151; including and more expensive. And Ryzen 9 remains out of competition in terms of performance among all desktop processors.
Energy consumption and energy efficiency
To some extent, they are, of course, out of competition in terms of power consumption — more precisely, here they will have to look for rivals on HEDT platforms. Moreover, it is very likely that the tuning of the scheduler in the new assemblies of Windows 10, which some users were waiting for, did a disservice to Ryzen in tasks with a minimum load, which we traditionally use as disk operations: they do not allow both chiplets to “sleep”. However, here the AMD X570 chipset itself may also “get hot”, but we will postpone this topic for later . But the LGA1151 of the «second version» in this regard does not differ from the «first» — power consumption is reduced almost to the level of CULV processors, i.
e. below what is required by the board, memory, etc. However, it is worth loading the processor with work, and the «hot temper» of the Core i9-9900KS immediately makes itself felt. It consumes, of course, less than Ryzen 9 — but more than both Ryzen 7, which are no worse than Core i7 in this regard.
And taking into account the significant difference in performance, we can conclude that Intel’s dominance in «energy efficiency» has come to an end. At least in the desktop segment. Notebook processors are a separate story (albeit for many years and more massive): until recently, there has been direct competition between multi-core processors (where many — from six or more) there were no processors from the two companies, since they were actually found only in the assortment of Intel. Now AMD also has interesting models, but laptops on them still need to get to users in order to draw any conclusions. But today we are dealing with just desktop processors — with which everything is simple.
The energy efficiency of the Ryzen 3000 family is very high. This is especially true for Ryzen 7 — these processors are even more economical than Core i7 / i9 in absolute terms.at higher performance. Ryzen 9 is a little worse (this is especially true for the “budget” 3900X) — but here the performance is of a completely different level, so there is simply no one to compare these models with.
Games
As already mentioned in the description of the methodology, it makes no sense to keep the «classic approach» to testing gaming performance. Since video cards have long been not only determining performance, but also significantly affecting the cost of the system, you need to “dance” in gaming PCs exclusively from them. In addition, in modern conditions, fixing a game set for a long time does not make sense, since literally everything can change with the next update of the game. But we will conduct a brief test, albeit in relatively synthetic conditions, using a couple of games in the «processor-dependent» mode.
But even such tricks do not make it possible to detect any noticeable difference between the processors of the top families. Formally, the Core i9 can, of course, without much prevarication, call the best gaming processor : after all, these models are the fastest, and Ryzen of the “3000” family (which should not be extended to processors of previous generations — the differences between them are very serious) work only at the level core i7. In fact, we are talking about only 5% — and even then only when the frame rate goes off scale for a couple of hundred, what else does the video card need to «reach» with the selected settings. Well, since with such a “margin” of performance, in practice, everyone prefers to improve the quality of the picture (the hypothetical owners of the RTX 2080 with a 15″ CRT monitor should not be taken into account), in practice there is nothing to talk about.
Total
This testing is only the second one according to the new method, so the main task, like the first time, was its debugging and creation of a “supporting” database of results.
The processors themselves are already familiar to us — with the exception, perhaps, of the Ryzen 7 3800X, but there is nothing fundamentally new in it: the internal structure of the processor is similar to the 3700X, but it uses a little more selected grains . In combination, this is the fastest desktop eight-core processor on the market, but it is also more expensive than its «brother» — which, in general, is often enough for cross-platform competition.
The Ryzen 9 family occupies a special position on the market — in fact, this is a niche for junior HEDT processors in terms of price and power consumption. The performance is higher than that of the «old» lines for TR4 and LGA2066, and the last platform was not helped much by the update with a radical price reduction, and the first (own) company can absolutely painlessly «shoot». It is clear that a direct comparison should be very careful — after all, the HEDT segment has always offered a larger number of not only processor cores, but also memory channels and PCIe lanes.