AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, Ryzen 7 3800XT and Ryzen 5 3600XT Review: Small Gains, Big Price Tag
Tom’s Hardware Verdict
AMD’s Ryzen 9 3900XT brings improvements to lightly- and mid-threaded performance to bear, but the gains are minor enough in most applications that it isn’t worth the high price and associated cost of an aftermarket cooler, especially in light of the value of AMD’s own X-series processors.
Pros
- +
Improved single-threaded performance
- +
Improved mid-threaded performance
- +
Support for PCIe 4.0
Why you can trust Tom’s Hardware
Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
Today’s best AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT deals
$349.99
View
$499. 99
View
$799.99
$745
View
Reduced Price
AMD’s new Ryzen XT lineup comes as a refresh that’s designed to tackle Intel’s new Comet Lake processors. The XT family brings three new flagships to bear: The Ryzen 9 3900XT, the Ryzen 7 3800XT, and the Ryzen 5 3600XT that will all vie for a spot on our list of Best CPUs. Surprisingly, on the surface, the XT lineup looks a lot like what we’ve seen in the past from Intel: An iterative lineup of chips with small differentiation from their predecessors in terms of features and clock speeds, not to mention the same number of cores, same process node/density (albeit with some refinements), and the same microarchitecture as their predecessors.
AMD even eliminated bundled coolers from two of its three new models, which runs counter to its standard value proposition of throwing in all the goods with each chip. Overall, the Ryzen XT series doesn’t appear to have the explosive gains like we’re used to with AMD’s gen-on-gen improvements, but there’s a lot more nuance to the XT story than what we see on the spec sheet.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
| XT Series | RCP (MSRP) | Cores / Threads | Base / Boost GHz | TDP | L3 Cache |
| Ryzen 9 3900XT | $499 | 12 / 24 | 3.8 / 4.7 | 105W | 64MB |
| Ryzen 9 3900X | $499 / $434 | 12 / 24 | 3. 8 / 4.6 |
105W | 64MB |
| Ryzen 7 3800XT | $399 | 8 / 16 | 3.9 / 4.7 | 105W | 32MB |
| Ryzen 7 3800X | $399 / $339 | 8 / 16 | 3.9 / 4.5 | 105W | 32MB |
| Ryzen 5 3600XT | $249 | 6 / 12 | 3.8 / 4.5 | 95W | 32MB |
| Ryzen 5 3600X | $249 / $205 | 6 / 12 | 3.8 / 4.4 | 95W | 32MB |
A quick glance at the spec sheet shows most of the key specifications remain unchanged, with the most substantial change being that the 12-core 3900XT comes with a 100 MHz higher boost, the 8-core Ryzen 7 3800X gains 200 MHz, and the 6-core Ryzen 5 3600XT gains 100 MHz.
Due to refinements to the 7nm node, AMD says it improved boost frequencies by 2-4%, but it also improved boost residency, or how long the processor remains at its boost frequency, by up to 80%. Combined with the incrementally higher clock speeds, AMD says the improved boost residency improves lightly-threaded performance by 4-5%.
As we’ll cover below, the minor increases to boost frequencies that we see on the spec sheet don’t take into account that the processors now have more room to boost higher in mid-threaded workloads (those that don’t fully saturate all of the cores). That capability delivers up to 10% more performance in some workloads, but we found those are pretty rare. AMD wrung out this extra performance while leaving key power limitations unchanged, meaning you get more performance within the same maximum power envelope.
We also see some gains in gaming performance, albeit not of the explosive sort. AMD says you can expect about a 2% improvement with the 3900XT and a 4-5% improvement with the 3800XT, depending on the title.
We didn’t see as much uplift, though. As expected, games that respond to lightly-threaded performance benefit the most, so gains can be scattered.
AMD advises that these processors aren’t meant to be a direct upgrade path from existing Ryzen 3000 processors. Instead, the existing chips will still be available at retail. The new XT-branded chips will serve as another choice for customers if they’re upgrading to a Ryzen processor for the first time, or refreshing an older rig.
You’ll need to bring your own 280mm (or greater) AIO liquid cooler for Ryzen XT 9 and 7 chips, though, which adds to the pricing significantly. We did record slightly improved performance from the auto-overclocking PBO feature over prior-gen models, but AMD also says you shouldn’t expect higher manual overclocking frequencies from the new chips.
Overall the Ryzen XT processors offer incremental performance increases in gaming that aren’t worth a direct upgrade, and most gamers are better suited with either AMD’s existing models or Intel’s competing chips – The Ryzen XT series doesn’t change the gaming landscape much.
If gaming is your primary focus, you’ll be better served with less expensive Ryzen alternatives, like the Ryzen 7 3700X or the Ryzen 5 3600X. The Core i5-10600K is another solid choice that leads our list of Best CPUs.
Due to the performance characteristics of the XT models, they’re a decent step up over the standard models if you frequently use productivity applications that aren’t exclusively heavily-threaded. The Ryzen 9 3900XT and Ryzen 7 3800XT, in particular, deliver great gains in a few productivity apps, like Photoshop and Adobe Premier, so paying a bit extra for the chip only makes sense if you already plan on using an aftermarket cooler and use those types of apps almost exclusively.
AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, Ryzen 7 3800XT, and Ryzen 5 3600XT
The Ryzen XT processors come with a familiar piece of branding — the ‘XT’ moniker from AMD’s Radeon Technology Group (RTG). AMD brought the XT branding to its CPUs to denote they are refresh chips with higher performance potential than their X-series counterparts.
That works well for the company from a ‘cross-branding’ standpoint, and we could see more XT-branded chips in the future, too. AMD says it didn’t add a 16-core 32-thread Ryzen 9 3950X «XT» model to the stack because it already has the performance crown on the mainstream desktop.
Like the other Ryzen 3000 series chips, the XT models are drop-in compatible with any existing motherboard with a Ryzen 3000-ready BIOS and all 500-series motherboards. As before, the chips support up to DDR4-3200, but official support varies based on the type of DIMM and number of populated channels.
The $499 Ryzen 9 3900XT, $399 Ryzen 7 3800XT, and $249 Ryzen 5 3600XT land with the same suggested pricing as the existing Matisse models, meaning the XT models aren’t a price-reducing update. Both lineups will coexist in the market.
AMD’s SEP (Suggested Etailer Pricing) has little connection with the reality you see at retail, so you can already find the existing Ryzen 3000 series processors far below the SEP.
We could see the already-solid pricing on X-series Ryzen chips get even better in the wake of the XT models, too.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
| Row 0 — Cell 0 | MSRP / Retail | Cores / Threads | Base / Boost GHz | TDP | L3 Cache | PCIe |
| Ryzen 9 3900XT | $499 | 12 / 24 | 3.8 / 4.7 | 105W | 64MB | 16+4 Gen4 |
| Ryzen 9 3900X | $499 / $434 | 12 / 24 | 3.8 / 4.6 | 105W | 64MB | 16+4 Gen4 |
| Core i9-10900K / KF | $488 (K) / $472 (KF) | 10 / 20 | 3. 7 / 5.3 |
125W | 20MB | 16 Gen3 |
| Ryzen 7 3800XT | $399 | 8 / 16 | 3.9 / 4.7 | 105W | 32MB | 16+4 Gen4 |
| Ryzen 7 3800X | $399 / $339 | 8 / 16 | 3.9 / 4.5 | 105W | 32MB | 16+4 Gen4 |
| Core i7-10700K / KF | $374 (K) / $349 (KF) | 8 / 16 | 3.8 / 5.1 | 125W | 16MB | 16 Gen3 |
| Ryzen 5 3600XT | $249 | 6 / 12 | 3. 8 / 4.5 |
95W | 32MB | 16+4 Gen4 |
| Ryzen 5 3600X | $249 / $205 | 6 / 12 | 3.8 / 4.4 | 95W | 32MB | 16+4 Gen4 |
| Core i5-10600K / KF | $262 (K) / $237 (KF) | 6 / 12 | 4.1 / 4.8 | 125W | 12MB | 16 Gen3 |
Given the volatile pricing we see with existing AMD chips, the new XT models will probably retail below MSRP in due time, too, muddying the competitive landscape. For now, the Ryzen XT 9, 7, and 5 processors square up with Intel’s flagship Core i9, i7, and i5 chips, particularly the -KF models that, like the XT chips, come without integrated graphics.
AMD didn’t improve the base frequencies because the company says the processors rarely operate in these low frequency ranges, even during heavily-threaded workloads that fully stress the processor and trip power governors.
That’s a fair argument, and unlike Intel, AMD doesn’t spec Ryzen 3000’s TDP metrics solely at the base frequency, so the base frequency specification isn’t as important.
The XT processors adhere to the same 105W and 95W TDP ratings as their predecessors, but more importantly, feature the same PPT (Package Power Tracking) variable that defines the upper limit of power delivered to the socket. That means the Ryzen 9 and 7 models can peg the needle at 142W of maximum power draw, while the Ryzen 5 3600XT tops out at 88W.
AMD’s boost frequency improvements also apply when the processor is under load, so multi-core boosts are also improved. However, that comes with a caveat: The core-heavy 3900XT can hit its PPT limit before all of its cores are stressed, which restricts possible performance gains. AMD also enforces its other existing power limits, like the TDC (sustained current) and EDT (spontaneous current) variables, at the same levels as previous-gen models. As a result, most of the 3900XT’s enhanced boosting capability occurs during light- to mid-threaded workloads where those limits aren’t a factor.
Meanwhile, the Ryzen 7 3800XT and Ryzen 5 3600XT have fewer cores, and thus don’t encounter the limits as easily. That means we should see higher performance gains with the Ryzen XT 7 and 5 models in threaded workloads.
AMD claims the 3900XT now holds the single-threaded performance crown, wresting it from Intel’s aging Skylake architecture, but it’s noteworthy that distinction appears to be based specifically on Cinebench benchmarks. Our testing found that Intel still holds the overall single-threaded crown when we look at a broader spate of workloads and data types. However, as you’ll see on the following page, AMD has significantly increased both its boost speed and boost duration with the XT models.
What? No Cooler with Ryzen XT Processors?
AMD’s unrestrained feature sets have earned it plenty of cachet with enthusiasts and casual users alike. Things like multi-threading and overclockability come standard with nearly every model, and the company used to provide bundled coolers with all SKUs.
However, the Ryzen 9 3900XT and Ryzen 7 3800XT models both come without a bundled cooler: You’ll need to provide your own 280mm (or greater) AIO liquid cooler (or equivalent air cooler), which adds to platform costs. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 5 3600XT comes with a bundled Wraith Spire cooler like its X-series counterpart, the 3600X.
This isn’t entirely without precedent – AMD also doesn’t provide a cooler with the 16-core 32-thread Ryzen 9 3950X, and for many of the same reasons. AMD defines important characteristics of chip performance based upon the bundled coolers’ ability to dissipate thermal load, so the company uses the bundled cooler to define the frequency, power, and performance targets. (Intel also takes the same approach with its chips that come with bundled coolers.)
Due to AMD’s adaptive Precision Boost 2 algorithms, much of the Ryzen 3000 series processors’ performance relies upon the capabilities of your motherboard and cooling, with the latter having a big impact on peak frequencies and boost duration/residency.
By requiring a larger cooler, AMD can spec the processor and define performance targets based on the improved thermal dissipation capability, thus ensuring that you realize longer and higher boost frequencies. Given that the cooler plays a big role in the performance uplift we see with the new chips, it’s hard to say how much of the performance gains stem from cooling or the enhancements to the 7nm node, but it’s probably a mix of the two. However, given like-for-like AIO cooling, the XT models have proved to be faster than the previous-gen models in our testing.
AMD also says that 60% of enthusiasts don’t use the bundled cooler, but the company didn’t cite a source for that prediction. As such, the company feels that these performance-oriented models will most likely be paired with an aftermarket cooler. In contrast, the Ryzen 5 3600XT comes with a bundled Wraith Spire cooler because AMD feels that enthusiasts shopping in this price range are more likely to use the bundled cooler.
AMD Ryzen XT Architecture and 7nm Process Node
The Ryzen XT models come with the same Zen 2 microarchitecture as their predecessors, so transistor density, CCD alignments, and other particulars are the same. AMD says it uses a ‘better recipe’ for the same 7nm node, so it «contain(s) materially better transistors than those found in prior third-gen AMD processors.»
(Image credit: AMD)
AMD cites reduced voltage and leakage along with improved operating frequencies as a result of node enhancements, but the company will not share details of the specific optimizations. We do know the XT models use the same node as the original 3000-series processors, though. According to monitoring utilities, the XT models even come with the same B0 stepping die as the preceding X-series models.
TSMC has three 7nm options. N7 is the DUV node largely thought to be used in Ryzen 3000 series processors. N7P (Performance Enhanced) is a second-gen version of N7 that comes with up to 7% more performance at iso-power (or 10% lower power at iso-speed) but remains on DUV manufacturing.
Finally, N7+ comes with EUV lithography and is ~1.2X denser and isn’t IP-compatible with the preceding two nodes, meaning it requires a significant amount of design work and validation to port over an architecture.
AMD hasn’t specifically said which flavor of the 7nm process it uses for the 3000-series, but given that N7P only debuted in 2019, it’s logical to expect the company uses N7.
AMD’s first Zen 3 processors will land later this year with the 7nm process, which AMD previously marked as 7nm+ on its roadmap. AMD later altered the Zen 3 listing on its roadmap to «7nm» to align with TSMC’s changing nomenclature. That means we could see either N7P or N7+ come with the Zen 3 processors, though the former seems more likely.
Regardless, the improvements with the XT series aren’t as impressive as we saw from the second-gen Ryzen processors, which moved from the 14nm GPP process with Ryzen 1000 to the 12nm LP process. That transition wasn’t an optical shrink, so it also didn’t impact die area or transistor density, but it also resulted in improved transistor performance.
The move to 12nm LP netted 300 MHz higher clock rates or a 50 mV core voltage reduction at any given frequency compared to 14nm, and AMD also used higher-performance libraries in critical pathways, which resulted in lower cache and memory latencies. The Ryzen 2000 series also brought improved Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 algorithms, which helped push performance further.
AMD isn’t as forthcoming to the changes with the Ryzen XT series, so we aren’t sure if the company has made significant changes to the libraries, or the nature of its other tweaks.
Caching Up With StorMi V2 and Ryzen Master
AMD updated its Ryzen Master software, which you can use to monitor and adjust critical parameters of Ryzen processors (including overclocking). The new version has a new basic view for novices. This reduces the complexity of the full-featured program by only displaying the parameters in the screenshot below.
Image 1 of 2
(Image credit: AMD)(Image credit: AMD)
StoreMI, which comes free with AMD processors, is a storage acceleration technology that combines an SSD and HDD into one volume, with the most frequently-accessed files being stored on the faster SSD.
This approach blends the speed of flash with the capacity and pricing of an HDD.
The original StoreMI operated in a tiering implementation that expanded the capacity of the hard drive, so the technique moved data from the HDD to the SSD for acceleration. As a result, the system only maintained one copy of the data. That exposes users to potential data loss in the event of a power failure or BSOD, but it gives you more usable capacity than caching. For instance, if you combine a 1TB SSD and a 1TB HDD, you get 2TB of addressable storage.
AMD’s new StoreMI version 2.0 uses a caching implementation, so combining the 1TB SSD and 1TB will only yield 1TB of addressable storage. With caching, the capacity of the SSD basically vanishes when you use it to accelerate an HDD. That’s because caching stores a copy of the data on both the SSD and the HDD.
The new approach also only caches read-only data on the SSD, while the previous version also absorbed incoming write traffic on the SSD to speed random write workloads.
That, too, left users potentially exposed to data loss, and often for slim gains in real-world workloads. In effect, read caching gives you the lion’s share of accelerated performance that you would get with a tiering implementation, but with far less risk.
Caching is a safer path to storage acceleration, but it comes at the cost of usable capacity. Now AMD lets you mix and match SSDs and HDDs of any capacity, though, while the previous version of StorMI had limits of a 256GB SSD and 2TB HDD.
AMD says the new approach speeds up boot times by 31% and decreases game load times by 13% compared to an HDD, but didn’t provide performance comparisons to the previous StoreMI version. StoreMI also has a simplified user interface, and although NVMe storage is cheap enough that most enthusiasts will opt for a new SSD-only boot volume, StorMI is essentially free for the more value-conscious among us.
StorMI V2 debuts on the X570 platform first. Updates for existing Ryzen platforms, like X470, B450, B550, TRX40, and X300, will release on a rolling schedule throughout Q3 2020.
- 1
Current page:
AMD’s Ryzen XT Refresh
Next Page AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT Boost, Thermals, Overclocking, Power Consumption
Paul Alcorn is the Deputy Managing Editor for Tom’s Hardware US. He writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage and enterprise hardware.
Ryzen 7 3800XT review | PC Gamer
Our Verdict
The Ryzen 7 3800XT does a great job of highlighting how good the 3700X is. Losing the cooler definitely hurts here too.
For
- Decent performance boost
- Strong Zen 2 architecture
- PCIe Gen 4 support
Against
- No bundled cooler
- Not a great value option
Why you can trust PC Gamer
Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
The AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT is the somewhat surprising star of the XT release line-up, simply because it’s privy to the highest boost improvement of any of the new chips.
While the Ryzen 9 3900XT and Ryzen 5 3600XT get a 100MHz uptick to the top Boost clock, the 3800XT gets 200MHz instead. Heady stuff.
AMD Ryzen 9 3800XT specs
Cores: 8
Threads: 16
Base clock: 3.9GHz
Max boost clock: 4.7GHz
L3 Cache: 32MB
Memory support: DDR4 3200MHz
Socket: AM4
TDP: 105 W
Cooler: None
Launch price: $399 (£399)
The base clock hasn’t changed, and when you’re using all 16 threads at the same time you won’t really get near this new 4.7GHz ceiling either, but on those occasions where a single core is pressured into strutting its stuff, you should see improvements. And indeed that is the case. In Cinebench R20 the 3800XT hit one of the highest single-core figures I’ve seen, with a score of 539—that’s even higher than the Intel Core i9 10900K.
Before we dive down the performance rabbit hole, it’s worth going over what the Ryzen 7 3800XT is, and where it sits in the market.
Like the 3800X, the new 3800XT is a higher-clocked variant of the 3700X, but is otherwise identical. That means you get 8 cores and 16 threads, 32MB of L3 cache, support for PCIe 4.0, and it’s unlocked as well (although Zen 2 chips don’t lend themselves to overclocking too much, so this last point is a little moot).
The issue here is pricing. The Ryzen 7 3800XT launches at $399, which is a perfectly reasonable price for what you’re getting. The thing is, the Ryzen 7 3800X has enjoyed some serious price drops in the year since it was first released at that same $399, and can now be picked up for as little as $320. That’s $80 less for a slightly slower boost clock. The Ryzen 7 3700X meanwhile can regularly be bought for $290, and has a base clock of 3.6GHz and a boost of 4.4GHz (that’s 300MHz slower on both clocks compared to the 3800XT, but otherwise identical).
There’s something we haven’t mentioned that affects the value proposition even more, and that’s on the cooling front. You don’t get a cooler with the 3800XT, but you do with the 3800X and the 3700X. AMD’s logic here is that a lot of users don’t use the cooler that comes with their CPUs anyway, instead preferring to use an aftermarket cooler. Why ship the CPU with a cooler that no one is using? It’s a reasonable point, or would be if AMD reduced this chip by the price of the cooler in the first place.
As it is it feels like you’re getting less for the same amount of cash. This wouldn’t hit so hard if it wasn’t for the fact that the Wraith that ships with the 3800X and 3700X is a thoroughly capable chiller in the first place. Yeah it’s not one for overclockers, but it’s fine for keeping the CPU happy at stock speeds (which is what the vast majority do anyway). The 3800XT has a bit of an uphill battle to justify itself, basically, but if it can deliver in the performance stakes, then it stands a chance.
CPU benchmarks
Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Future)(Image credit: Future)(Image credit: Future)
Things look pretty good from a pure system performance perspective, with strong numbers in Cinebench R20 indicating that this is a decent option for anyone that wants to dabble in 3D rendering. The X265 video encoding benchmarks show that it can handle your video needs well enough too, although it’s only just over a frame a second faster than the 3700X, which when you look at the price difference is a sobering thought.
The issue here is that if these activities are important to you, or you need to do them for work, then there are better options out there, such as the 3900X, or if your wallet will stretch to it, the 3950X. If you’re merely dabbling with such things, then the 3700X is just much better value for money right now. The 3800XT isn’t bad here, but like the 3800X that came before it, it’s not obviously the best value or performance option.
Gaming benchmarks
Image 1 of 7
(Image credit: Future)(Image credit: Future)(Image credit: Future)(Image credit: Future)(Image credit: Future)(Image credit: Future)(Image credit: Future)
Test Rig
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT
Cooler: Corsair h215 RGB Pro XT
Motherboard: Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master
Memory: 16GB Thermaltake DDR4 @3600MHz
GPU: Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti
Storage: 2TB Sabrent Rocket PCIe
PSU: Ikonik Vulcan 1200W
AMD has made great strides with Zen 2 to improve it’s gaming performance, and the slightly higher boost clock here can equate to higher frame rates.
It really does depend on the game in question though, and how it uses the cores at its disposal. As it stands it isn’t an outright win for AMD across all the games we use for testing, but the lead that Intel has typically enjoyed is getting smaller and smaller.
Metro Exodus is a case in point, which sees the Ryzen 7 3800XT just a single frame per second behind the 9700K. Admittedly the Core i9 10900K has a healthy lead here, but still, the point is the Ryzen 7 3800XT isn’t going to hold your gaming rig back.
This is especially true if you’re looking to game at 4K—the Far Cry New Dawn benchmarks prove that there’s very little in it. Even compared to the 10900K, you’re only looking at a 5fps difference between the two. That’s a pretty good place for AMD to be.
The Ryzen 7 3800XT comes in a big empty box for no obvious reason. (Image credit: AMD)
Overall then, the Ryzen 7 3800XT is a decent processor that can produce good results. The only sticking point is the cost.
And unfortunately for AMD it just doesn’t make much sense at its launch price. The lack of cooler makes it unexciting when compared to the 3800X and 3700X from the start, and given those chips have enjoyed a year’s worth of price drops, they ultimately come out as better options.
The Ryzen 7 3700X has been on our best CPU buying guide for pretty much the past year, and the 3800XT doesn’t do enough to unseat it. In fact, if anything, it just highlights how good a deal it really is. If you want an 8-core, 16-thread CPU, it’s that older processor you should be looking at, not this XT chip.
As we said in the review of the Ryzen 9 3900XT, if you’re looking to drop this sort of cash on a processor, we’d suggest holding off, if you can, until the end of the year, when Zen 3 is launched. If you can’t wait, then the older Zen 2 chips are simply a better option.
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT: Price Comparison
£269.
99
£199.99
View
Reduced Price
powered by
Read our review policy
AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT
The Ryzen 7 3800XT does a great job of highlighting how good the 3700X is. Losing the cooler definitely hurts here too.
Alan has been writing about PC tech since before 3D graphics cards existed, and still vividly recalls having to fight with MS-DOS just to get games to load. He fondly remembers the killer combo of a Matrox Millenium and 3dfx Voodoo, and seeing Lara Croft in 3D for the first time. He’s very glad hardware has advanced as much as it has though, and is particularly happy when putting the latest M.2 NVMe SSDs, AMD processors, and laptops through their paces. He has a long-lasting Magic: The Gathering obsession but limits this to MTG Arena these days.
Testing AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, Ryzen 7 3800XT and Ryzen 9 3900XT
Processors
Testing AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X processors: new Zen2 microarchitecture and already 12 cores on the familiar AM4
platform Exactly a year ago, we got acquainted with the first processors of the Ryzen 3000 line, which radically changed the entire market and, in general, the idea of mass desktop processors.
Awareness and acceptance of this fact did not happen immediately — but, in general, most buyers have already happened 🙂
Today, the company slightly updated the top models of the Ryzen 5 and 7 lines, as well as the younger model of the Ryzen 9 family. Some link the announcement with the advent of the Intel LGA1200 platform, but there is no direct connection — as we have already seen, AMD solutions still look better offering more performance for the same money. The only reason is to draw attention to AM4, but this would have to be done regardless of Intel updates. Moreover, the formal reason is still small: the place of the Ryzen 5 3600X is now occupied by 3600XT, the Ryzen 7 3800X bar has been climbed by 3800XT, and the price reduction for Ryzen 9The 3900X made room for the 3900XT. As you can see, even the model numbers have not changed — just a letter has been added. But this is logical: significant changes in the AMD assortment occur only with significant changes in products — the development of new technical processes or new microarchitectures.
At the same time, the company always puts all the cards on the table, which was the case last year. A new “big push” will now have to wait. As a maximum — until the debut of Zen3, until which there is less and less time left. At least until the release of desktop APUs, since they are very different from their predecessors, and from “clean” CPUs using the same Zen2 microarchitecture.
And today — a small update of the latter. Officially, it consists only in a slight increase in the clock frequency of the turbo mode. In reality, this is already a new stepping, where some initial flaws can be “corrected”, so that in some particular cases the performance increase may turn out to be greater than one should expect from the frequency alone. But all this will be shown by tests — to which we turn, since no complex technical details and historical digressions are simply needed in this case.
Test participants
| AMD Ryzen 5 3600X | AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT | AMD Ryzen 7 3800X | AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT | AMD Ryzen 9 3900X | AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core name | Matisse | Matisse | Matisse | Matisse | Matisse | Matisse |
| Production technology | 7/12 nm | 7/12 nm | 7/12 nm | 7/12 nm | 7/12 nm | 7/12 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3. 8/4.4 |
3.8/4.5 | 3.9/4.5 | 3.9/4.7 | 3.8/4.6 | 3.8/4.7 |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/12 | 6/12 | 8/16 | 8/16 | 12/24 | 12/24 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 192/192 | 192/192 | 256/256 | 256/256 | 384/384 | 384/384 |
| L2 cache, KB | 6×512 | 6×512 | 8×512 | 8×512 | 12×512 | 12×512 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 64 | 64 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-3200 | |||||
| TDP, W | 95 | 95 | 105 | 105 | 105 | 105 |
| Number of PCIe 4.0 lanes | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Integrated GPU | no | no | no | no | no | no |
The main characters in the amount of three pieces — and their predecessors in the same.
It is easy to see that there are almost no formal differences — some 200, or even 100 MHz in boost mode. But do not forget the above — the logic of frequency and power management has long since moved away from frontal templates and has become truly Jesuit (in the good sense of the word), so in some places the difference may exceed this couple of percent. But in some places it may be completely absent — you also need to be prepared for this from the very beginning.
We had to test all six processors instead of using old results. For a very simple reason — in order to preserve at least some intrigue, it was decided to conduct testing on a brand new MSI MAG B550 Tomahawk board. It is clear that the prices of B550 boards still leave much to be desired (as befits “hot” new products), but in our opinion this chipset is the best and is the most correct solution for most systems based on Ryzen 5 and 7. Yes, and in the case of Ryzen 9 — too. Since the capabilities of the X570 are actually redundant, you have to pay for them in full — right down to the fan on the chipset.
As for the chipsets of the «old» line, in their case, installing a pair of NVMe drives is often fraught with problems, and in general — PCIe 2.0 was outdated five years ago. The B550 cannot boast of wide support for PCIe 4.0, but it provides 20 such lines — and a certain amount of quite relevant 3.0. Which is good. Now and for the future, as these boards are guaranteed to support the new Ryzen based on the Zen3 microarchitecture. In addition, all manufacturers have unanimously (and therefore hardly unauthorized) at the moment do not give a damn about AMD’s official statements about non-support of by this chipset of old Ryzen — in practice, at the moment there are no problems not only with the 2000th, but also with the original 1000th line. In general, it’s definitely a universal solution — no worse than the X570; the rest — as luck would have it.
Testing Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 9 on boards based on AMD X470 and X570
chipsets As for the comparison of the operation of identical processors on different chipsets, which we recently started on the example of X470 and X570, we plan to supplement and expand it in the near future.
Accordingly, today’s results will also be useful to us — and at least one more «interesting» version of the platform implementation will be added. In the meantime, we note that in terms of performance the V550 turned out to be closer to the X470 than to the X570, but in terms of platform power consumption it is better than both of these solutions. Another argument is in favor of the B550. Well, or wait for the A520 — for very budget systems.
| Intel Core i5-9600K | Intel Core i5-10600K | Intel Core i7-9700K | Intel Core i7-10700K | Intel Core i9-9900KS | Intel Core i9-10900K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core name | Coffee Lake Refresh | Comet Lake | Coffee Lake Refresh | Comet Lake | Coffee Lake Refresh | Comet Lake |
| Production technology | 14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Core frequency, GHz | 3. 7/4.6 |
4.1/4.8 | 3.6/4.9 | 3.8/5.1 | 4.0/5.0 | 3.7/5.3 |
| Number of cores/threads | 6/6 | 6/12 | 8/8 | 8/16 | 8/16 | 10/20 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 192/192 | 192/192 | 256/256 | 256/256 | 256/256 | 320/320 |
| L2 cache, KB | 6×256 | 6×256 | 8×256 | 8×256 | 8×256 | 10×256 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 9 | 12 | 12 | 16 | 16 | 20 |
| RAM | 2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2933 | 2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2933 | 2×DDR4-2666 | 2×DDR4-2933 |
| TDP, W | 95 | 125 | 95 | 125 | 127 | 125 |
| Number of PCIe 3.0 lanes | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 630 |
Intel recently updated the platform, and radically.
But in the end, the buyer has the same problems — new items are more expensive than they should be. Not to mention the fact that low-cost chipsets for LGA1200 are still practically not represented on the market. As a result, if you look closely at retail, then, for example, MSI MAG Z390 The Tomahawk is even cheaper than the MAG B450 Tomahawk (not to mention the B550-based model we took) — but a similar board based on the Z490 is one and a half times more expensive. However, if we compare its price with the top motherboards of the first wave , then this is a significant progress: already half the price. However, only buyers of Core i9 or, in extreme cases, Core i7 can be happy about this — but in the case of Core i5, it may turn out that the “old” (formally more expensive) processor of a higher class paired with the “old” one (but really cheaper) board will cost less in total than a comparable new platform in terms of performance. Therefore, we will also take six processors from Intel — older models for LGA1151 and LGA1200 in the Core i5, i7 and i9 linesrespectively.
In the first case, the “outdated” Asus ROG Maximus X Hero on the Intel Z370 chipset was traditionally used, and the LGA1200 models, we recall, had to be “plugged” into the “expensive” (even against the background of analogues) Asus ROG Maximus XII Extreme on the Intel Z490 chipset. This does not affect the performance in normal mode, but those who like to speculate about the high cost of the Intel are a balm for the soul 🙂
Other environments are traditional: an AMD Radeon Vega 56 video card, SATA SSD and 16 GB of DDR4 memory. The clock frequency of the memory is in most cases the maximum according to the specification of the processors. Intel Multi-Core Enhance and AMD Precision Boost Overdrive technologies. They (along with the memory frequency) can slightly affect performance, and their use is made more specific by the requirements for the board and chipset, but in normal mode there are no problems. Yes, and in itself, the inclusion of MCE without overclocking increases the performance of the Core i9-10900K by only 3% with an increase in power consumption by 5%, as we have already seen when getting to know him.
Therefore, in our opinion, it still has no practical meaning: either manually overclock carefully (fortunately, Intel processors still allow achieving some interesting results in this case), or leave everything to work as usual.
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 (Intel Core i5-9600K with 16 GB of memory, an AMD Radeon Vega 56 video card and a SATA SSD — in today’s article it is directly involved) and grouped by computer application areas. 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 was easy for Intel to increase the performance of its processors — thanks to the low base effect and the fact that everything «new» is actually «old» cheaper. AMD, as mentioned above, “choosed” from the new microarchitecture and process technology is still at the start. Therefore, with such a uniform and full load, we get an acceleration within 2%. For a pair of Ryzen 9 — nothing at all. However, from the point of view of intercompany competition, it was possible not to change anything at all — Ryzen with comparable performance is still cheaper. Now the company has only slightly increased the gap where it was most needed — that is, just in the «fifth» and «seventh» lines.
The above is true — the benefit and the nature of the load are similar.
Unless the whole trio is already behaving as it should — but in any case, not so much could be obtained. To slightly increase the gap from similarly positioned (but costing more — do not forget) Intel processors — which is enough.
The «gain» is greater — but, practically, due to just one application, namely Sony Vegas. Previously, we attributed the low performance in it to poor optimization of the program itself — as a result, Ryzen 9they also showed the same result as Ryzen 7. It turned out that not only programmers were to blame — “tuned” Ryzen began to work noticeably faster. And this is also possible — as expected at the beginning. But fundamentally, again, nothing has changed — Core is still a little bit, but faster. But more expensive. In general, normal competition — and not the pogrom that was just a few months ago.
Good growth again. And an increase in the difference between models with a different number of cores — to the level demonstrated by Core.
That is, the main thing in the XT line is the improvement of “inter-nuclear” interaction and clock frequency control. Which, first of all, affects just the top models. And especially where they previously looked the least convincing.
And here the code is too simple and the computation threads are too independent for something to be noticeably improved. At the level of the already seen 1% -2% — which, however, improves the position of Ryzen a little. But, of course, it is in no way capable of returning unconditional dominance.
The performance in archivers could have been higher — and it’s really higher on X570 boards, but the B550 clearly has the same «problems» that were found in the chipsets of the «old» lines. However, it is also possible to fundamentally change something here only with a fundamental change in the internal circuits of the processors. With up to eight cores, the chiplet design is not the best choice. What we will surely see after the appearance of «monolithic» desktop APUs.
But it doesn’t interfere with living much, but Ryzen 9still remain undisputed leaders. New processors are traditionally slightly faster than older ones.
«Motley» code, so it is difficult to identify any general trends. Except for one thing — new processors are traditionally a little faster than the old ones, with the biggest gains for older models — and where they were not too ahead of the younger ones before.
The overall result is natural. He does not pull on a revolution, but one was not expected — it is enough just to compare the performance characteristics. The new processors are just slightly improved versions of the old ones. A new stepping of crystals, in fact, in which it turned out to correct some minor flaws discovered during production. For fundamental changes, you need to wait for a new microarchitecture — which is just around the corner. In the «younger» segment (if you can call processors with 6-8 cores that way), something new and interesting can be seen in APUs (using a different organization) — which is even closer.
And this is just a little tuning. Why and almost unchanged names are more than justified.
Power Consumption and Energy Efficiency
As far as power consumption is concerned, for once AMD has nothing to improve at all — at the moment the company uses a thinner process technology than Intel, so it can afford to produce both fast and economical processors at the same time. The old 14 nm are forced to choose — smart or beautiful, so there is no competition a priori. As a result, you can not even really care about the power consumption of the younger Ryzen — sending the best crystals to the older ones.
But, in general, you still get fluctuations in the range of 1.2-1.4 «points per watt», which is somewhere around 20% better than the LGA1200 — and 30% than the LGA1151 » Second edition. Which is enough. Moreover, again, «monolithic» 7nm APUs should become even better.
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 determining not only it, but also significantly affect the cost of the system, you need to «dance» exclusively from them.
And from the games themselves — too: in modern conditions, fixing a game set for a long time does not make sense, since literally everything can change with the next update. But we will carry out a brief test in (albeit) relatively synthetic conditions — using a couple of games in the «processor-dependent» mode.
Although we didn’t see anything interesting again — the «bottlenecks» of the processors of this line have been known for a long time. And nothing can be done with them, since they are a direct consequence of the design used. Again, perhaps something can be squeezed out of the new APUs. In this case, we formally have a performance level of Core i7-9700K or Core i5-10600K. That is good — but not a record. It is clear that in real conditions everything will rest on the video card, so the search for records will lose any meaning. Today, this is not what is important, but the fact that no changes were expected — and did not happen.
Total
As you can see, keeping the model numbers with the addition of one more suffix is quite justified: in principle, these are the same processors as a year ago, only a little better.
Not enough to change a Ryzen 7 3800X or even a 3700X for a 3800XT, but the appeal of the platform for owners of something older is uplifting. First of all, of course, this is relevant for those who have already managed to acquire a board with an AM4 connector, since the new processors (like the previous ones) are also compatible with boards of the 2017 model. And changing some Ryzen 7 1700X to a brand new 3800XT, without touching the memory and peripherals at all, is already much more interesting. Users of LGA115x earlier versions will have to change the board in any case, and most often along with the memory — but this should also be done when switching to LGA1200. AMD tactfully hints to those thinking about the upgrade that its products provide a higher level of performance for less money — the release of the XT line can be viewed in this vein. In general, just fixing the material and nothing more. We will see “more” within the 4000 family, and the first such products (using the same Zen2 architecture, but a different layout) will be very soon.
However, they will be limited to eight cores, so the positions of Ryzen 9, for example, will not be shaken.
A fundamentally new round will take place after the appearance of Rocket Lake and Zen3. Who will be better prepared for it (AMD or Intel) — time will tell. In any case, this is a matter of at least months — but rather, a couple of quarters. In general, until the end of the year the state of affairs in the market of desktop processors will not change. Moreover, AMD has strengthened its positions a little more.
New AMD Ryzen 3000XT Processors Available Today
Announced a few weeks ago, the new AMD Ryzen 3000XT models with increased clock speeds should be available in primary markets today. These new processors offer slightly better performance than their respective 3000X counterparts at the same price, with AMD claiming to use a minor process node technology upgrade to achieve slightly higher clock speeds.
The new 3000XT processor family focuses on increasing the turbo frequency by 100-200 MHz at the same power.
AMD says this is due to the use of an optimized 7nm process. This is likely due to a minor BKM or PDK update allowing TSMC/AMD to tweak the process for a better V/F curve and overclock a single CPU a little higher.
A refresh in this range can indicate a ~10mV voltage improvement for a single core, although this is usually due to binding noise — it would take a lot of processors for this to be statistically significant, so this may just be better binding. However, the base frequencies haven’t changed much, so the gain in performance per watt will be somewhat minimal. The largest increase will be in 1T scenarios.
Each of the new XT processors is the fastest option in its class.
| AMD «Matisse» Ryzen 3000 series processors | |||||||||
| AnandTech | cores threads |
Base Frequency |
Raise Frequency |
L3 Cache |
PCIe 4.  0 |
Rated power | Award (September) |
||
| Ryzen 9 | 3950X | 16С | 32 t | 3.5 | 4.7 | 4 × 16 MB | 16 + 4 + 4 | 105 W | 749 $ |
| Ryzen 9 | 3900XT | 12C | 24T | 3.8 | 4.7 | 4 × 16 MB | 16 + 4 + 4 | 105 W | 499 dollars |
| Ryzen 9 | 3900X | 12С | 24T | 3.8 | 4.6 | 4 × 16 MB | 16 + 4 + 4 | 105 W | $499 |
| Ryzen 9 | 3900 | 12С | 24T | 3.1 | 4.3 | 4 × 16 MB | 16 + 4 + 4 | 65 W | OEM |
| Ryzen 7 | 3800XT | 8C | 16T | 3. 9 |
4.7 | 2 × 16 MB | 16 + 4 + 4 | 105 W | $399 |
| Ryzen 7 | 3800X | 8С | 16T | 3.9 | 4.5 | 2 × 16 MB | 16 + 4 + 4 | 105W | $399 |
| Ryzen 7 | 3700X | 8С | 16T | 3.6 | 4.4 | 2 × 16 MB | 16 + 4 + 4 | 65 W | $329 |
| Ryzen 5 | 3600XT | 6C | 12T | 3.8 | 4.5 | 2 × 16 MB | 16 + 4 + 4 | 95 W | $249 |
| Ryzen 5 | 3600X | 6C | 12T | 3. 8 |
4.4 | 2 × 16 MB | 16 + 4 + 4 | 95W | $249 |
| Ryzen 5 | 3600 | 6C | 12T | 3.6 | 4.2 | 2 × 16 MB | 16 + 4 + 4 | 65W | $199 |
| Ryzen 5 | 3500X | 6C | 6T | 3.6 | 4.1 | 2 × 16 MB | 16 + 4 + 4 | 65 W | OEM |
| Ryzen 3 | 3300X | 4С | 8T | 3.8 | 4.3 | 1 × 16 MB | 16 + 4 + 4 | 65 W | 120 dollars |
| Ryzen 3 | 3100 | 4С | 8T | 3.6 | 3.9 | 2 × 8 MB | 16 + 4 + 4 | 65 W | $99 |
Users should note that the listed prices are the official SEP (recommended price). In March, AMD announced a temporary AMD-targeted price cut, but it has since passed.
Retail prices vary depending on local sales methods.
The best new processor is Ryzen 93900XT, which offers a +100MHz boost over the 3900X at the same official price as the 3900X. The 3800XT offers +200MHz single-core turbo over the 3800X at the same price. The latest new processor is the 3600XT with +100 MHz at turbo, again at the same price above the 3600X.
In each of the three cases, the XT processors provide a slightly better frequency than the X units, so we can expect an official permanent price cut for the X processors to keep things in order.
AMD’s announcement today also includes information on thermal solutions. The 6-core Ryzen 5 3600XT comes with an AMD Wraith Spire cooler. For the other two processors, AMD’s own press release states that the company «recommends using an AIO solution with at least a 280mm heatsink or equivalent air-cooler to better utilize these products.» This seems a little overkill for 105W processors, especially if the packet tracking on these parts should be ~142W, despite all the tricks that motherboard manufacturers do.
These new processors will be supported on all motherboards that already support Zen 2 based Ryzen 3000 hardware (the cost of BIOS space to add a processor to the same family is negligible).
Introduction
While these three processors were tested in the last week or so, we are going to move on to a new set of tests for 2020/2021 with updated CPU testing, new games, and testing games with RTX 2080 Ti graphics cards. This test set is still an ongoing work of regression testing of older models, and we currently do not have a data set that is strong enough to reliably perform a complete AnandTech processor redesign. A number of tests use updated software packages, so they cannot be compared to previous versions, but we have some custom values that we can share with you.
Graphs will be updated as results become available.
As we can see, there isn’t much between the old X models and the new XT models — the increase in turbo frequency doesn’t mean much that there’s room for more performance in low-load workloads, but the end result is a voltage/frequency curve when we start pushing more count-loaded cores in these high-density tests.
