AMD Ryzen 7 3800X review
Click here to post a comment for AMD Ryzen 7 3800X review on our message forum
Unstizzy
Hell ya, let's fucking get it AMD. Great review as always my dude.
DLD
Whatever happened to the promise made by AMD that Ryzen family will keep supporting 64bit window$ 7 (unlike their "competition", the not-so-intelligent one)? Lately I hear many people complaining of not being able to install w7 on ryzen-based machines.
Unstizzy
Even with all my complaints about W10, W7 is no where superior and W10 copies are practically being given away at today's prices.
Undying
I like the 3800x, It probably worth some extra compared to 3700x so you can get highest clocks possible. 8 cores is enough.
Btw, HH in the first page (intruduction) there is a statement 3800x is 8c/12t. 🙂
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
It's a visual indicator telling me it's almost weekend and I need a rest 😉
Unstizzy
You heard it here first, FREE 3800X coming to us all due to the typo!
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
Oh, I'd be bankrupt to the level of a homeless dude if I need to compensate all my typos! 🙂
IceVip
"muh 5ghz zen2 oc, intel ded" boy where r these nosebleeds now.
DLD
"Superiority" is not an issue here - we're talking about being able to install w7 for different reasons:
1. having programs that do not run well under w10 or cannot even be installed there (due to the w10's infamous feature to "reject" the "obsolete" apps and programs)
2. having some older hardware
3. wanting to have more control over the system(s) (either on a single-boot or a multi-boot machine)
But you might be too young or too inexperienced to fully understand this, so I don't blame you for your simple-mindedness ("not everything that flies is meant to be eaten" - a Serbian proverb in a loose translation).
------------------------------
@airbud7@
Why should be microbe-soft even asked to do anything about it? Aren't AMD and not-very-intelligent-any-more in charge of writing their "inf" file packages to support THEIR hardware under an already well known op system?
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
DLD, drop the insults okay?
DLD
OK. Silence is golden (but my eyes still see)...
schmidtbag
What promise? I thought AMD made it clear they had no intention on supporting Windows 7 since the first Ryzen release?
Anyway - it's dual-effort. AMD may have to provide the correct drivers but it is up to MS to implement them. Considering MS still hasn't done anything about their scheduler issues with Ryzen for W10, I don't see why they'd care to do anything for W7.
vbetts
Moderator
1. Windows 10 has compatibility mode and sandbox mode, on top of that VM is a thing. Screenfilter will stop apps from running, but literally that's an extra click.
2. Windows 10 requirements are fairly low, 1 ghz cpu, 1gb ram, dx9 enabled gpu, that's pretty low.
3. You still have access to registry, MSconfig, system32 folder, and so on. If you have the pro version you still have group policy and RDT access.
asturur
I do not know... my old i7 990x with ddr3 on a x58 with a sata 2 SSD on windows 7 feels snappier than my windows 10 at default on an athlon 2700x with ddr4 and samsung 970 evo.
I have no idea why.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
No that is a way too simplified assumption as graphics quality evolves year by year demanding more powerful GPUs. The framerate targets stay at 60~144 FPS, so for the bigger part that range is all that matters for a processor.
Game developers choose a target FPS say 60 or 144 FPS, and adapt image quality settings based on the mainstream hardware available. With faster graphics cards comes better graphics. Compare the first and last Tomb Raider and notice what happens.
Do you still game at a graphics quality level of 2006? CPU limitation, therefore, is less of a factor compared to GPU limitation, it's also the same reason that so many people still have an older CPU and play their games just fine. You're focussing on the 720p results a little too much, whereas 1440p paints a more realistic picture as ion the en, 99% of the time any PC is GPU limited in games.
Ricardo
Yes, any processor other than a OC'ed 9900k sucks for gaming. You're absolutely right. No question there. Anyone that buys anything else is just wrong. Period. Did I said you're right? Because you are.
Richard Nutman
I wonder if any or many games studios use Intel's compiler to build? It has been shown to disable optimal code paths at runtime if it detects it's not an Intel cpu.
It's just strange how the Zen 2 often beats Intel considerably in single threaded and multi-threaded tests, but when it comes to games, Intel still just has a slight edge. An edge that I don't think is worth caring about, but still.
schmidtbag
The compiler might have something to do with it, but even if you removed all architecture-specific advantages, I'm sure Intel would still get a slight edge, mostly because of lower latency. For most heavy-compute tasks, latency doesn't matter because they're usually churning a lot of data upstream in their own little bubble, not really needing to synchronize data downstream all that often. The more a thread can do by itself without synchronizing, the less a delay will have any real impact. This is why Cinebench, for example, works so well on AMD - the only time the cores really need to synchronize is to show their progress. But they're not really working together, they're just handling their own chunk of data by themselves, and submit the work to the complete scene when they're done.
For an analogy, take for example a phone conversation with someone on the other side of the planet: sometimes there can be as much as a 1 second delay, but the conversation can still operate smoothly as though you were face-to-face as long as each person is talking long enough for the other to come up with a response at the appropriate time. But, have ever encountered a situation where you accidentally talk over someone on the phone, and both people stop speaking? There's usually an awkward long pause, at which point both people decide to speak up again, only to speak over each for a 2nd time with yet another long awkward pause. This is because both sides are trying to synchronize, but, synchronization is inefficient when there's such a long delay. When people accidentally talk over each other face-to-face, the problem is typically solved in less time than it took to wait for that first awkward pause over the phone because the delay is eliminated.
Games have code that is heavily dependent upon synchronization, particularly with the GPU. So even though AMD doesn't have that big of a latency deficit, it becomes more noticeable when data is being synchronized millions of times per second. The more synchronization you have to do, the worse it gets, which is why AMD performs worse as frame rate goes up (that, and the GPU is being bottlenecked).
MonstroMart
Considering the next gen consoles coming out in 2020 are rumored to have 8 core and 16 threads cpu i'm not sure i would recommend anything lower than that if someone intend to keep his cpu for 6-7 years. The 7600k looked good when it was released but latest revisits of the cpu show that it is struggling to maintain an "acceptable" low 1% fps in some newer titles because it is limited to 4 threads. There's a couple of threads on BF V forum with 7600k owners complaining about performance.
6/12 and 8/8 will likely be enough moving forward but devs often lazily optimize for consoles only and not sure i would be confident with anything less than 8/16 since this is what next gen consoles will likely have and considering how weak they are devs will have to use those threads to push them to their limit toward the end of the generation. Current consoles have 8/8 cpu and some newer titles seem to be optimized for 8 threads.
MonstroMart
Yeah but any difference in fps over 144 is not worth talking about imo. Personally i think it's dangerous to assume a difference in fps at high fps will translate to the same % of difference in a gpu bound scenario with a lower fps.
