Gadgetory

what's up guys welcome to my launch review video for these new long-awaited Rison 3000 series CPUs I have the 8 core 16 thread risin 7 330 700 X and the 12 core 24 thread risin 9 3900 X here today have a whole bunch of benchmarks to share with you guys speaking of benchmarks though my mind is pretty much mush from running so many for this past week so I really hope you guys find them useful and although we all have been waiting for this launch for what seems like forever now I do have one request for AMD please never do a major cpu launch and a major GPU launch on the same day ever again even if it's 7-7 and that that is so clever and perfect because they're both built on the 7-9 of your process I need sleep and yes I will have a Radeon rx 50 750 700 XT review up in a few hours as well so subscribe to my channel if you're not already cooler masters SF series fans feature addressable RGB LEDs and a square design to maximize fan mount coverage and generate high pressure air flow available in standard hundred twenty millimeter size as the SF 120 P as well as the dual fan 240 millimeter option in the SF 240p a RGB cooler master has integrated multiple layers of noise reduction technology and an optimized family design into this series so click the sponsor link in the description to learn more Rison 3000 series CPUs they are socket am for they're based on seven nanometers into architecture those are the important points for today I'm not going to rehash any of the gritty details because we've been discussing these for months to be honest instead I'm gonna be getting right to the benchmarks starting with the setup I configured to test beds 1 for AMD and one for Intel and I tried to keep minimal variance between the two setups both rigs are open test beds and run the same memory CPU cooler and graphics card the memory is a 16 gig 2 by 8 gig kit of g-scale tridents a royal RGB running at 3600 megahertz in casa latency 16 CPU cooler is the new Noctua Nhu 12 a tower cooler which is on the expensive side for an air cooler but it allowed me to test the temperatures between each CPU and the graphics card is the asus rog Strix r-tx 2080 ti running with the out of the box manufacturer overclock the AMD testbed was based on the gigabyte x5 70 horas master motherboard running UEFI version f-5e which includes AMD jeesus cpu microcode version 1.0.0 3 a be windows 10 version 1903 installed on a 512 gig Samsung 970 Pro and that to nvme SSD and forego juice we'd have a cooler master MWe 1200 watt Platinum power supply the Intel testbed is based on the asrock z3 90 Taichi ultimate motherboard with the same Noctua and a 212 eight-hour cooler that same 16 gig kit of G scale royal 3600 speed memory and the Asus RT X xx atti for storage there's another 512 gig sim son 970 pro m2 nvme SSD and the power supply is an EVGA supernova g3 750 watt unit for comparison I have five CPUs total Intel is represented by their two most recent flagship parts the 8 core 16 thread core I nine ninety nine hundred K and the six core 12 thread core i7 8700 K which cost four hundred ninety dollars and three hundred and sixty dollars respectively as of the time of filming these are both based on intel's most recent 14 nanometer cpu microarchitectures on the AMD side we of course have the new 8 core 16 thread rise in 730 700 X and the 12 core 24 thread rise in 9 3900 X and I'm also going to be including the rise in 2000 series flagship the 8 core 16 thread rise in 7 2700 X which is based on 12 nanometers n+ architecture as opposed to the 7 nanometers and 2 architecture that the resin 3000 series is based on and now some benchmarks I want to start off by talking about frequencies power draw and temperatures because I think that's a big part of the story here all the CPUs are running at stocks beads with XMP enabled but no MCE or multi-core enhancement or the relative equivalent to that on the AMD side all the CPUs can adjust their frequency on the fly depending on load and temperature so I wanted to show the peak frequency that a core or two might hit and the sustain frequency during a night of 64 stability test the 9900 K has a peak turbo of 5 gigahertz and the 8700 K goes up to 4.7 yoghurts under load though the 9900 K hits 4.7 gigahertz across all cores and the 8700 K does 4.3 gigahertz of course all these chips could be overclocked but I'm sticking with stock settings for this video meanwhile the 2700 X hits 4.3 5 gigahertz max and just under 4 gigahertz sustained across all cores well the 3700 X got just a bit higher to 4.37 5 gigahertz while also showing off the best sustained all core frequencies in my testing at four point three to five gigahertz finally the 3900 X hit over 4.5 gigahertz 4.5 five on a couple cores to be specific but that dropped off pretty quickly down to four point oh five gigahertz is sustained during the stress test I also measured temperatures during the burn in both average and maximum as you can see here these can be compared since I was using the same cooler and all tests with minimal variance in ambient temperature the excellent Noctua and hu 12a did a great job keeping these cool even the 9900 K which is still a Hot Chip even a stock with a 101 degrees Celsius max temperature and a more reasonable eighty point five degrees Celsius on average the 3900 X is only a degree cooler on average but did not peak nearly as hot which is impressive since it does have 50% more cores 12 versus 18 the 3700 X though with more cores and a higher sustained frequency than 8700 K absolutely wins this test with a 71 point to see average temperature and it never got above 80 power draws the other side of the efficiency discussion and I measured full system draw during a blender CPU render test I was actually blown away by this comparison just 161 watts on average for the 3700 X that is 50 watts less than the second gen 2700 X and that's more than 80 watts less than the 87 out of K and literally half the power draw of the 99 hundred K they're both a core 16 thread parts by the way Wow AMD like wow the 12 core 3900 X comes in with less draw than the 8700 K or the 9900 K as well again 6 & 8 core parts compared to a 12 core that's just very very nice as well let's move into our performance tests we're gonna start with some CPU benchmarks and then we'll do some gaming benchmarks starting with Cinebench our 20 and here we can see the 3900 X dominating everyone else over 7000 I'm going to be using it as a point of comparison from here on out the 3700 X and 9900 K both scored just shy of 4920 700 X coming in just over 4,000 and 3404 for the 8700 K the Cinebench single thread test is where AMD has suffered in the past and you can see that represented by the 2700 X's score of 438 but the 3900 X and 3700 X both scored over 500 in this test while the 9900 K and 8700 K scored 485 and 479 respectively that is a small win but a win nonetheless for the Rison 3000 series scoring about 3 or 5% respectively better than the 9900 K and 8700 K next to CPU mark a CPU focused test that's part of the past mark performance Suites here we have an overall score of 30,000 actually over 30,000 for the 3900 X compare that to the 90 900k score of just under 20,000 at more than 10,000 points higher although it does scale with the core and thread count of the two CPUs the 3900 X is about 36% faster than the 9900 K and about 47% faster than the 8700 K moving over to the single thread test and the 2,700 X again is representing where we're coming from here with a score of 20 to 85 meanwhile the 3900 X and 3700 X is going much closer to about 2900 here again the single thread tests seem to be on par or even a little bit better with the rise in 3000 series but based on the rest of my tests I think this is because these are shorter tests and the rise in CPUs are actually hitting higher frequencies as my earlier tests already showed under sustained load we're not going to be hitting as quite as high frequencies with the rise in CPUs and that we bore now doesn't move into the game testing but before that let's move on to blender first is a fishy cat render and this is just time in seconds so remember a lower score is better here the 3900 X wins once again with a 22-point one second time the slowest was the 8700 K with 30.9 seconds still the 9900 K was about 9.5 percent slower 8700 K was about 40% slower as compared to the 3900 X next up is a BMW 27 render which takes quite a bit longer the 3900 X here came in at 161 seconds which is very fast over 35% faster than the 9900 K almost a hundred percent faster than the 8700 K and 65 percent faster than the 2,700 X let's look at some production performance next we're using the Adobe Premiere Media encoder to encode about a three-minute 4k h.264 video 40 megabits per second and we're just showing comparative time and seconds here once again so lower is better 3900 X wins with 270 seconds 3700 X is about 4.5 percent slower 2700 X is about 9.2 percent slower 9900 K and 8700 K about 15 and 25% slower I then took that same 3-minute video brought it into handbrake and took it from 4k down to 1080 or 1080 30 frames per second using their fast free sets here we're listing the time in seconds and also the encoding speed in frames per second so the time slower is better for encoding speed the higher number is better we had 60 frames per second for the 3900 X that was definitely the fastest about 18 percent faster than the 3700 X and about 21 percent faster than the 9900 K next up is v-ray version 4.0 7 this is a ray tracing software suite that runs at tests and outputs a result in case samples we can see the 3900 X just shy of 20,000 with the score of 19,000 727 compare that to the 87 or K all the way down there at ten thousand four hundred twenty seven hundred X gets a bit better to twelve thousand 205 3900 X was over thirty percent faster than the 3700 X and about 25 percent faster than the 99 hundred K here and our final CPU benchmark is corona 1.3 this again is measuring time in seconds so lower is better 3900 X finished in 73 seconds compare that to the 9900 K is 97 seconds which is about 33% slower next up we have a few game tests to try to suss out some relative game performance first off the 3d mark firestrike ultra synthetic test this is a high resolution test gives an overall score as well as graphics and physics the graphics test might give us an indication of relative performance between these CPUs with the same graphics card but honestly there was less than 1% difference between all of these scores so not too much to say there the physics score gives us a bit more of a story of the actual overall performance of each CPU with the 3900 X coming in with the score over 28,000 compared to the 9900 Ches just shy of 24,000 the 9900 K is about 16% slower here and the 8700 K is about 35% slower next up is 3d mark x pi this is a DirectX 12 test again the overall scores are fairly similar here graphics score is once again also really similar only about a percentage point difference between them although the 9900 K and the 8700 K were just a little bit faster in the graphics department CPU tests though again is going to show us more of a raw score about CPU performance and here the 3900 X wins once again with the score of eleven thousand seven hundred ninety nine hundred K did break 10000 got close to eleven thousand but it was still about 7.2 percent slower and now a couple actual game tests running at 1920 by 1080 and if history is any indicator here the 9900 K should be just a bit faster at a lower resolution 1920 by 1080 then its Rison counterparts and that was the case and shadow of the Tomb Raider in direct x12 mode was the largest gap I saw when it comes to the 9900 K beating the 3900 X 17.8% faster with a frame rate of 140 9.7 as compared to the 3900 X's 127 point 1 and then our final test here is Grand Theft Auto 5 DirectX 11 still running at 1920 by 1080 and here we see a similar story once again when it comes to gaming which is that the 9900 K does still seem to have a little bit of an edge with a hundred and sixty-four average frames per second overall just barely beating out the 3900 X with 158 frames per second that is about 3.8 percent faster for the 9900 K 8700 K was not quite able to beat it though is actually about 4% slower but again we have to keep in mind that the 8700 K is running at about 400 megahertz slower than the 9900 K here I'm pretty confident that if you took the 87 under K we ramped up the clock speed to be equivalent with the 9900 K we'd see the same performance here as well so finally here we have some overall slides just mashing together all of the data I have accumulated to give you some semblance of I guess closure is what we're really looking for here but I'm using the 3900 X as the 100% baseline and then showing the relative performance of all the other CPUs and here we can see the 3700 X just barely beats out the 9900 K with about 17 to 18 percent less performance overall than the 3900 X 2700 X meanwhile comes in at 71.5% 8700 K takes up the rear was 65 0.7 as for gaming performance I did not run a ton of gaming tests so we're only really looking at four tests combined together here so bear that in mind but with the 3900 X as the 100% baseline the 8700 K and 9900 K actually did demonstrate a bit of increased gaming performance 99er K in particular about 5.8 percent better than the 3900 X although that's mainly because of the shadow of the Tomb Raider score meanwhile the 3700 X is just a couple percentage points behind and the 2700 X is 7 cents lower finally here's a slide comparing both of those performance metrics with the price of each card so 360 for the 8700 K and 490 for the 9900 K I'm going with current prices for the readily available CPUs that are already out and then of course the launch prices for the 3,700 X and 3900 X they've had to sum up this slide I would say that the gaming numbers all look very very similar - the 2700 X well the compute performance scores show a clear lead for AMD so conclusions now I am impressed AMD has absolutely hyped up products in the past that have fallen flat but I'm very happy to say that that is not the case with the rise in 3000 series at least not these two CPUs that I have here Intel's argument since first gen rise and launched has always been about their single core performance and there definitely is still a little bit of an edge for Team Blue there especially when it comes to gaming but it has shrunk down so much that it is instantly offset by everything else the raw compute performance the value you get when it comes to the core and thread count compared to Intel and the stunning increases in power efficiency that Intel just does not have an answer for right now combine that with a platform that has come into its own with a wide array of full-featured motherboards available and the previously unmentioned in this video upgrade to PCI Express Gen 4 this time around which I just kind of left this little bonus cherry on the cake and well I see this is an absolute win for AMD I don't know how else to put it I really hope you guys have enjoyed this video though I will put links to as much stuff as I can that I've shown off here today down in the vias description and one more reminder that there is another benchmark Laden video on the Radeon rx 50 750 700 XT coming to you in just a few hours so subscribe if you want to see that if the thumbs up button anyway if you enjoyed this video and thought it was good and we'll see you guys in the next one