Finding stock on current-gen tech feels like looking for a needle in a haystack right now. But if you don’t need the latest tech for your build, there are great savings to be had on last-gen parts. For example, one of the best Cyber Monday CPU deals right now is on the AMD Ryzen 9 3900 XT, which is selling for its cheapest price ever: $454.99.

In our Ryzen 9 3900XT review, we praised the chip’s boost in single-threaded performance over its predecessor. With PCIe 4.0 support and good mid-threaded performance too, the savings make this Ryzen chip an even sweeter deal.

Admittedly, this isn’t the best CPU on the market -- and wasn’t when it came out in July either. You’ll also have to invest in a cooler, as AMD isn’t including one for free. But with 12 CPU cores, 12 threads, a base clock speed of 3.8 GHz and a boost speed of 4.7 GHz, you’re getting solid specs on discount. 

For more savings, check our list of best Cyber Monday deals overall, best Cyber Monday monitor deals, best Cyber Monday SSD deals, best Cyber Monday CPU deals, best Cyber Monday graphics card deals, best Cyber Monday laptop deals, best Cyber Monday gaming PC deals and best Cyber Monday Raspberry Pi deals.

Last weekend overclocker Takukou set a HwBot x265 benchmark record for the AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT using liquid helium, but the fame didn't last long. A couple hours ago our contributor Splave bumped him from first place, beating the overclock by a hair. Most impressively, though, Splave wasn't using liquid helium, but stuck to liquid nitrogen instead.

The competition is simple: overclock the Ryzen 9 3900XT as high as it'll run stable, and then run the HWBot x265 benchmark and see what frame rate it pushes. The one with the highest frame rate wins. 

All in all, the two competitors had very little between them. Takukuo achieved a score of 34.26 FPS with the chip running all twelve cores at 5,624 MHz at 1.728V, and Splave pulled off a score of 34.78 FPS with his chip at 5,650 MHz at 1.50 V.

Why the scores differ, as well as the frequencies and voltages to run these is due to various reasons. The overclockers are both using different motherboards, different memory, different PSUs, and different environmental conditions. Most notably, no two CPUs are the same, and Splave was likely blessed with an ever-so-slightly higher-quality piece of silicon.

Meanwhile, the world-record for frequency alone on the 3900XT belongs to overclocker Tsaik, who has held first place for over a month now.

If we're talking pure performance, it's easy enough to point to the best graphics card for gaming and the best CPU for gaming. We've done extensive benchmarking and testing of every major GPU and CPU for decades. Today (which as I noted recently is a bad time to buy a new GPU), the fastest graphics card is the RTX 2080 Ti, and the fastest CPU for gaming is the Core i9-10900K. Our GPU test system still uses a Core i9-9900K (the newer stepping D, revision R0, which can improve performance 3-5% depending on the game), but we wanted to provide a complete look at how two of the top CPUs stack up, across a full suite of games and resolutions, with a much wider selection of graphics cards.

Update: We've added Intel with DDR4-3600 and AMD with DDR4-3200 results for the RTX 2080 Ti, to show how other factors can contribute to performance.

That sounds like a pretty simple idea, but what followed was quite a boatload of testing and retesting. The final results are in, and that's what we're going to show today. We started with our Core i9-9900K results, then retested with the latest Nvidia drivers. These tests all use the 451.48 drivers from late June, except for the 2080 Ti which was retested with 451.67 on both platforms just to get the most up-to-date numbers (it didn't change much). We did the same for AMD GPUs, running Adrenalin 2020 20.5.1 drivers on all of the cards, except the RX 5700 XT which was retested with the latest 20.7.1 drivers that arrived last week.

Our two test platforms are similarly equipped, though obviously the motherboards aren't the same. You can see the full set of test hardware for both systems to the right. The GPUs, OS, and drivers are the same versions (Windows 10 May 2020 update, build 2004). The motherboard and SSD are different, with the latter not really having any impact on performance.

Perhaps more importantly, we equipped the AMD system with DDR4-3600 memory, which has a slight impact on performance (but generally doesn't matter for the Intel test system). We used half of a 4x16GB kit of Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB memory, which for the record is a $620 kit on sale.

We've done additional testing of the RTX 2080 Ti on the AMD PC with the same set of DDR4-3200 CL16 memory used in the Intel system, and also run tests with the Intel PC using the DDR4-3600 CL16 kit, and have added both of those results to the bar charts. No surprise: the faster RAM helps AMD more than it helps Intel, though overall it's not a massive boost to either CPU. (Note that the Intel with DDR4-3600 and AMD with DDR4-3200 results are not in the line charts.)

Each test on each setting was run at least three times, and the first run at each setting was discarded (because the GPU is often 'warming up'). We then selected the higher of the two remaining results. After that we checked for any major discrepancies and potentially ran additional tests — for example, Borderlands 3 came out with an update during the past two weeks that delivered substantially higher performance at the ultra preset, necessitating a bunch of retesting of that particular game. 

Conventional wisdom is that Intel CPUs are faster for gaming, and it can make up to a 10-15% difference at 1080p ultra when using an RTX 2080 Ti. Run at higher resolutions like 1440p or 4K, or use a slower GPU — or both — and the CPU is going to have far less of an impact. Let’s see just how correct 'conventional wisdom' is, whether you’d even notice the difference in most games, and whether PCIe Gen4 helps AMD’s GPUs make up any ground.

We have 180 charts, which we’re grouping into galleries of 30 charts for each of the resolution and setting combinations. We have overall averages plus nine games, with two separate percentile scaling charts (for AMD and Nvidia GPUs on each platform). We’ll start at 1080p medium and move up to 4K ultra with limited discussion of each set of results.

This is the baseline for our gaming performance tests. Most games still look fine at medium quality — it’s about what you get on an Xbox One or PlayStation 4 (but not the newer Xbox One X or PS4 Pro). Outside of esports where players might benefit from 240 fps or more, most people wouldn’t pair high-end CPUs and GPUs with such an easy target resolution and settings. However, this will give us the maximum fps difference you’d experience between the two CPUs.

Overall, the i9-9900K ended up delivering just 9.4% higher performance than the Ryzen 9 3900X. That’s not particularly noticeable, and in several games the gap was even smaller. Far Cry 5, Final Fantasy XIV, Metro Exodus, and Red Dead Redemption 2 showed the biggest leads for Intel (14-17%), Shadow of the Tomb Raider was right near the average (10%), and the other four games showed a scant 3-6% lead.

Could you notice such a difference? 15%, sure; 5%, not so much. Is the overall result significant? Not really, and things only get closer as we move down the GPU list.

Intel only showed a 7.4% difference overall with the 2080 Super; 2070 Super had a 6.2% lead; and with the 2060 Super, RX 5700 XT, and RX 5700 the 9900K was around 4% faster. The remaining GPUs were all within 3%, with the RX 5500 XT 8GB being effectively tied. The 3900X actually comes in slightly ahead overall with the 5500 XT, and wins a few more results with the 5600 XT than elsewhere, which indicates that perhaps the PCIe Gen4 connectivity helps lower end GPUs slightly more — or it may simply be margin of error.

Again, that’s the largest difference we’re going to see in our testing. It looks like conventional wisdom was right, but it’s good now and then to do a sanity check. Let's get through the remaining GPUs to see how the difference between the two processors become essentially meaningless (for gaming purposes) with lesser GPUs as the resolution and quality are increased. 

Our CPU reviews typically use 1080p ultra with an RTX 2080 Ti as the comparison point, but here we're looking at a slightly different set of games than usual. There's now Ashes of the Singularity to put a bigger focus on cores and threads, for example. Intel's overall lead was 9.4% at 1080p medium, and it drops to 6.6% with ultra quality. As you'd expect, the difference between the CPUs with lesser GPUs becomes even less.

The 2080 Super and 2070 Super still showed about a 6% lead for Intel. The 2060 Super, RTX 2060, GTX 1660 Super, RX 5700 XT, and RX 5700 all ended up with a 3-4% Intel lead, but mostly it's just splitting hairs. And the AMD RX 5600 XT and RX 5500 XT 8GB are within 2%, with the 3900X again coming out slightly ahead with the 5500 XT.

There are a few games that still favor Intel a bit more, specifically Final Fantasy XIV and Far Cry 5, but with any current GPU that costs $400 or less, the difference isn't going to be meaningful. 

Increasing the resolution to 1440p and dropping back to medium quality, performance in general is quite similar to 1080p ultra. There's not much more to say here — you can flip through the 30 charts in the above gallery, but the only double digit percentage leads for Intel are in Far Cry 5, Final Fantasy, and Red Dead Redemption 2, and only with an RTX 2080 Ti or RTX 2080 Super. 

The difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs drops to less than 5% overall at 1440p ultra with the RTX 2080 Ti, and 3% or less with any of the lower priced graphics cards. And if you're wondering, a few spot checks with a Ryzen 5 3600 are within 3% of the 3900X as well, so you can certainly go lower on the CPU without giving up much in the way of 1440p ultra gaming performance. Of course there are faster GPUs coming, which will potentially shift the bottleneck back to the CPUs even at higher resolutions and settings, but we'll have to wait and see what actually happens when the new graphics cards arrive. 

Wrapping things up, at 4K, the biggest difference in gaming performance we measured was only 4%, again with the RTX 2080 Ti, and again in Far Cry 5 and Final Fantasy. Overall, the average difference is now 2.4% with the 2080 Ti, which is basically margin of error and not something you'd notice without running a bunch of benchmarks like we've been doing.

The other nine graphics cards are even closer in performance, ranging from a minuscule 0.6% lead for the 3900X with the RX 5500 XT, to an equally negligible 1.5% lead for the RTX Super cards. Everything is close enough that even repeated benchmarks don't really make the differences meaningful.

Closing Thoughts

Just as expected, differences in CPU mattered less when we tested games at higher resolutions or with slower GPUs — or both. There are some other factors that we do need to consider, however. First, the Core i9-9900K isn't technically the fastest CPU for gaming any longer, as the Core i9-10900K holds that title. In our testing, we found the 10900K outperformed the 9900K by up to 17% in a few games (at 1080p ultra). We can also include the Ryzen 9 3900XT and Ryzen 7 3800XT for AMD, which are a few percent faster than the Ryzen 9 3900X.

Far more important than the newer CPUs is the pending arrival of the next generation of graphics cards — Nvidia's Ampere and AMD's RDNA 2 architectures. The RTX 2080 Ti only gave Intel a 10% lead over AMD CPUs at 1080p, but what happens when new GPUs arrive that are 50% faster? That shifts the bottleneck more toward to the CPU, which means with the fastest GPUs our 1440p and 4K results could become more like the 1080p results shown here. We're certainly interested in seeing how much of a difference CPU choice makes once the new graphics cards arrive, which is part of what spurred all of this testing.

Game engines also change over time. Two years ago, when the RTX 2080 Ti first launched, the fastest gaming CPU at the time was the 6-core/12-thread Core i7-8700K. Most CPUs were still 4-core/8-thread (or 4-core/4-thread) affairs. We're still far from 8-core CPUs being the norm, but a few game engines seem to be making better use of additional CPU cores. Look at Strange Brigade for example, where the 12-core/24-thread 3900X nearly matches the higher clocked 8-core/16-thread 9900K in the tests shown here. It's no coincidence that Strange Brigade is an AMD-promoted game, but it does show there's plenty of room for optimizations that favor higher core and thread counts.

We're definitely interested in seeing what the complex environments of Night City in Cyberpunk 2077 mean for CPU requirements. It's not too hard to imagine the Cyberpunk 2077 system requirements recommending at least a 6-core or even 8-core CPU to run the game at maximum quality. Or if not Cyberpunk 2077, the next Microsoft Flight Simulator might be capable of pushing lesser CPUs to the breaking point.

For now, anyone with at least a 6-core CPU can comfortably run with up to an RTX 2080 Ti and not miss out on much in the way of framerates, particularly at 1440p ultra settings. But if you're spending that much money on an extreme performance graphics card, you'll want to pair it with the fastest CPU as well, which would be the Core i9-10900K. Once the next-gen GPUs arrive, don't be surprised if your CPU starts looking a bit weak by comparison.

MORE: Best GPU Benchmarks

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy

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. 

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.

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."

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. 

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. 

AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT Boost, Power and Thermals

We ran our standard frequency test for lightly-threaded workloads (methodology here). This lightly-threaded test regimen is designed to extract the highest boost clock rates possible as we step through five iterations of the LAME encoder, then single-threaded POV-Ray and Cinebench runs, PCMark 10, GeekBench, and finally the VRMark Orange Room test. To keep the charts 'clean,' we only plot the maximum frequency recorded on any one core during the test. 

The first slide tells the story pretty clearly - the Ryzen 9 3900XT holds its boost clock of 4.7 GHz consistently throughout the first series of tests. The chip even exceeds the maximum rated 4.7 GHz clock rate and pegs the needle at 4.775 GHz for short bursts. That shows just how well the Precision Boost 2 algorithms can extract more performance from better cooling solutions, but we also have to keep in mind that silicon quality plays a role, so your mileage may vary. 

In contrast, the Ryzen 7 3900X peaks at 4.65 GHz, and boost duration is both less frequent and of shorter duration. The voltage, power consumption, and temperature charts show that the 3900XT accomplished this feat with slightly lower voltages (silicon quality could weigh in here) and drew slightly more power during the test. Note that you can use these temperature measurements, and those in the following tests, as a measure of what to expect with Ryzen XT processors in both lightly- and heavily-threaded workloads. 

We tested multi-core workloads with a string of real-world stress tests that include multiple instances of the Corona ray-tracing benchmark, x265 HandBrake rendering tests, POV-Ray multi-threaded benchmarks, Cinebench R20 runs, and finally five iterations of the AVX-intensive threaded y-cruncher. 

Here we can see the 3900XT boost higher during some idle portions of the test, but both chips reach similar peak clocks during the heavily-threaded portions of the test. Here the Ryzen 9 3900XT is largely bumping against AMD's power limits, just like the 3900X, so it consumes a similar amount of power and generates a similar amount of heat. Performance is very similar in these heavily-threaded workloads, too. 

We see a bit of a different picture with the Ryzen 7 3800XT below. 

AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT Boost, Power and Thermals

The goal of the Ryzen 7 3800XT single-threaded tests is to kick the tires and see if the 200 MHz increase to the boost clock is real. It is – the chip exceeds its rated boost frequency and peaks at 5.75 GHz. Like the 3900XT, boost duration is longer, and the boosts happen more frequently, too.

Again, the 3800XT runs at a slightly lower voltage than its X-series counterpart, but the increased power draw, especially during the opening stages of the benchmark, is more pronounced than the deltas we recorded between the 3900XT and 3900X. Of course, we're looking at the 3800XT's ~200 MHz clock rate increase as opposed to the 3900XT's ~100 MHz, so that's expected.

The 3800XT's increased clock rates over the 3800X also equates to higher heat output than the 3800X. That's acceptable, though, given the higher performance.

The Ryzen 7 3800X has four fewer cores than the Ryzen 9 3900XT, but it has the same power governor (PPT, EDC, EDT) limitations as the 3900XT. Due to the lower power consumption of its eight-core design, it has more available power consumption headroom before it trips the power limits, which provides more opportunities to boost performance. 

As a result, the 3800XT hits higher clock rates and provides more performance than the 3800X during the tests, but it also has notably higher power draw and heat output. That's an acceptable tradeoff. 

These results show that we should expect more uplift for the 3800XT over the 3800X in heavily-threaded applications than we'll see with the 3900XT over the 3900X. That's because the 3900XT's hefty core count, by default, chews through more of the available power budget, causing it to hit the socket power limits before it can provide more performance.

AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT Power Consumption and Efficiency

AMD's reviewer guide states that the Ryzen XT processors offer more performance within the same power thresholds, meaning they'll provide more performance before they hit the power limits. However, AMD doesn't claim the chips are more power efficient (more performance-per-watt), and our testing generally reflected the trend of more performance in tandem with a commensurate increase in overall power consumption. 

At stock settings, we logged an average of 117W of power consumption for the Ryzen 9 3900XT during the AVX-intensive multi-threaded y-cruncher workload, which is 3W higher than the Ryzen 9 3900XT. That isn't surprising because this heavy workload causes the 3900XT to hit the power limits. We also logged similar deltas in the other applications we use to measure power consumption, all of which load the processors heavily. 

Meanwhile, the Ryzen 7 3800X consumed 85W during the y-cruncher test, but the 3800XT jumped to 101W. That shows again that, due to its lower core count, the 3800X still has plenty of room to consume the extra available power budget before triggering power restrictions. We see a similar result during the x264 Handbrake test - the 3800XT consumes 11W more than the 3800X. 

The Ryzen 5 3600XT is also free to consume more power within the power limits defined by its TDP rating, so it also pulls more juice at stock settings than the 3600X. 

In terms of power efficiency, the renders-per-hour charts show that the XT models all produce fewer renders per watt of power consumption. That shows that the Ryzen 3000 processors are more efficient when they operate further down the voltage/frequency curve, much like we see with the company's Eco Mode. These are AVX-heavy workloads, though, so you could see less of a delta with different workloads. 

Despite the increased power draw, the Ryzen processors still dominate the comparable Intel processors in power consumption and efficiency metrics. 

Here, we take a slightly different look at power consumption by calculating the cumulative amount of energy required to perform an x264 and x265 HandBrake workload, respectively. We plot this 'task energy' value in Kilojoules on the left side of the chart.

These workloads are comprised of a fixed amount of work, so we can plot the task energy against the time required to finish the job (bottom axis), thus generating a really useful power chart. Bear in mind that faster compute times, and lower task energy requirements, are ideal. That means processors that fall the closest to the bottom left corner of the chart are best.

These charts reveal the relatively slim performance gains, and the slightly higher power draw that comes as a result, of the Ryzen 7 3800X and the Ryzen 5 3600XT. However, due to the ever-present power restrictions, we don't see much of a change for the 3900XT in these heavily threaded tests. 

Still, the 7nm Ryzen 3000 processors continue to exhibit lower power draw and superior power efficiency compared to Intel's Core chips with the hyper-optimized 14nm process. 

Test Setup and Ryzen 9 3900XT Overclocking

AMD says you shouldn't expect any extra manual overclocking headroom with the Ryzen XT processors, but we did notice slightly better performance from the auto-overclocking PBO feature with the XT chips. That comes largely as a benefit of the higher boost capabilities. Given the slightly lower voltages we've seen with our sample, it's logical to expect you may be able to attain similar manual overclock ceilings to the X-series processors, but at a slightly lower voltage. 

We haven't had time to test manual overclocking with the XT series processors fully yet, and it would be impossible to make a definitive measure with a sample size of one processor. Especially given the vagaries of the silicon lottery. However, we don't expect explosive performance improvements from manual overclocking. 

Overclocking headroom is extremely limited on the Ryzen 3000 processors, and exceeding the boost clocks, or even meeting them, typically isn't possible for all-core overclocking with conventional cooling. We stuck with AMD's auto-overclocking PBO feature as it offers improved multi-threaded performance while maintaining most of the single-threaded performance that comes from the default boosting mechanism. We tuned the memory in tandem with the PBO feature by using the XMP profile to enable DDR4-3600 with 16-16-16-36 timings. 

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel and AMD Processor Hierarchy Comparisons

MORE: All CPUs Content

All test results marked with "PBO" reflect configurations tested with AMD's auto-overclocking Precision Boost Overdrive feature. For overclocking, we tuned our memory to DDR4-3600 for both Intel and AMD platforms.

We do have a limitation of 15 processors per chart (which we're addressing), so we only included the Ryzen 5 3600XT and the competing Core i5-10600K at stock settings. We'll post a separate Ryzen 5 3600XT review soon and further explore its performance with the stock cooler (we use the Corsair H115i for this testing).

The TLDR

Given the nature of the Ryzen XT refresh, we didn't expect to see large gains in gaming performance in most of the titles we tested below, and we didn't. The charts above provide the geometric mean of our gaming suite (minus the synthetic results in the first and second albums below) so we can easily identify broad trends. We can see that the Ryzen XT models are faster than their predecessors - but not by much. 

In terms of average frame rates across the breadth of our test suite, the stock Ryzen 5 3600XT is 2.5% faster than the 3600X, while the Ryzen 7 3800XT and 3900XT are roughly 1% faster than their X-series counterparts. These aggregate numbers aren't impressive, but it's noteworthy that you'll see more noticeable gains in specific titles that respond best to higher clock rates. Hence, a test suite weighted more towards single-threaded performance could yield larger deltas.

As a general statement, the XT models tend to perform like their overclocked X-series counterparts. We also noticed slight performance gains over the X-series chips when we overclocked the XT models, too, but overclocked Ryzen processors generally don't yield big performance increases in gaming. We included all of our standard game testing below, but given the small performance deltas between the XT- and X-series, we won't provide too much commentary in the individual game results below (aside from identifying a few broad trends). We see more substantial performance gains in the application testing on the following pages – particularly with workstation-class applications.

We include a broader gaming breakdown with other Ryzen models added on the final page of the review, but the Ryzen XT series doesn't change AMD's standing much in the gaming landscape.

VRMark and 3DMark on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

Synthetic gaming benchmarks often aren't generally indicative of real-world performance, but the 3DMark DX11 and DX12 tests are interesting because they measure the amount of raw computational horsepower exposed to the game engine. For now, most of today's game engines don't scale as linearly with additional compute resources, but these tests help us gauge how games could exploit processing resources as the engines become more sophisticated.

As expected, the DX11 and DX12 tests don't produce more performance from the 3900XT over the 3900X because the chip reaches its power limit under full load, which then keeps performance consistent with the X-series model. The Ryzen 7 3800XT has a bit more room to roam within the 144W power limit, so it gains 5% over the 3800X in the DX11 test. The Ryzen 5 3600XT also gains 4% in the test, but the uplift is smaller during the DX12 test.

VRMark's test values per-core performance (a mixture of frequency and IPC), and it obviously prefers physical cores and lots of L3 cache. The Ryzen 5 3600XT notches a 5% increase over its X-series counterpart, while the 3900XT gains a mere 1%. Meanwhile, we see a slight reduction for the 3800XT, but that could be due to a testing anomaly. 

Civilization VI AI and Stockfish on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

Stockfish, an open-source chess engine, is designed to extract the utmost performance from many-core chips by scaling well up to 512 cores. Here we can see the Ryzen 9 3900XT lose a bit of steam with the PBO feature engaged, but the same is true of the Ryzen 9 3900X. Regardless, the 3900XT's twelve cores and 24 threads take the lead. 

Civilization VI's AI engine values per-core performance, which benefits from Intel's higher clock rates. Except for the 3600XT, the XT models are faster than the X-series models in this benchmark. However, we do see slightly lower performance with overclocking for the 3800XT and 3900XT, but that isn't uncommon for the Ryzen 3000 series in these types of lightly-threaded tests.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation loves cores and threads, but clock rates also play a role. At stock settings, the Ryzen XT models experience minimal uplift over the Ryzen "X" chips. AMD says most of the performance advantages occur in lightly-threaded games that respond most to higher frequencies. This title is largely the polar opposite of that description.

In fact, the stock Ryzen 3900XT and X model tie, and the same essentially applies to the Ryzen 7 3800XT. The Ryzen 5 3600XT gains 1.2 fps over the 1600X, but that's a fairly minor increase in performance for what should be a significantly higher street price than the 3600X (we won't know actual pricing until the chips come to market).

We also see some XT-over-X gains when we engage the auto-overclocking PBO, but these are slight and could vary based upon silicon quality.

Dawn of War III on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

The Warhammer 40,000 benchmark responds well to threading, but it's clear that clock speed and IPC also matter. We see the same trend emerge in this benchmark, with small but measurable gains across the board for the Ryzen 9 and 7 XT chips. The 3800XT picks up 3.2 fps while the 3600XT jumps 4.1 fps over the 3600X. Meanwhile, the Ryzen 9 3900XT essentially ties itself at both stock and overclocked settings. We also don't see any overly-impressive increases in 99th percentile measurements, either. 

Far Cry 5 on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

Far Cry 5 tends to run well on Intel architectures, which is a tendency we see as the Intel processors all beat the Ryzen competition. This is still an Intel-friendly chart, but we do see more performance from the Ryzen XT models over their predecessors. The 3800XT, for instance, provides slightly more performance than the overclocked 3800X, opening up a 6.3 fps gap between it and the 3800X. That's a pretty significant increase given the relatively small deltas between the AMD chips in this benchmark. The 3900XT notches a 3.9 fps increase over the 3900X, while the 3600XT gains 2.6 fps. 

Final Fantasy XV on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

We run this test with the standard quality preset to sidestep the impact of a bug that causes the game engine to render off-screen objects with the higher-resolution setting. 

Grand Theft Auto V on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

Hitman 2 on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

Project Cars 2 on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

Although Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates obviously affect this title's frame rates. 

World of Tanks enCore on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel and AMD Processor Benchmark Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

The TLDR

The charts above provide the geometric mean of several of our application tests (listed in the chart title) that are representative of broader trends in lightly- and multi-threaded applications. Notably, these charts don't include the workstation-class application tests on the following page. You'll see more meaningful performance improvements there. 

We included all of our standard application testing below. Given the small performance deltas between the XT- and X-series, aside from identifying notable outliers, we won't provide too much commentary in the individual results - some of them even fall within the margin of error. 

Rendering on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

We don't see much of a gain for the Ryzen 9 3900XT in the threaded Cinebench workload, but that's expected because the all-core load triggers the socket power limits. However, removing those limits via the PBO feature also yields similar performance to the Ryzen 9 3900X. The Ryzen 7 3800XT gains a mere 1% over the X-series model, while the Ryzen 5 3600XT gains nearly 4%. 

The XT-series' also notches gains in the single-core test, with the 3900XT, 3800XT, and 3600XT improving by 2%, 3%, and 5%, respectively, though the first two aren't quite as impressive given the benchmark's margin of error. 

A similar tale plays out through the rest of the rendering tests, with the Ryzen 5 3600XT posting the most substantial gains. Meanwhile, the 3900XT and 3800XT eke out small but measurable and repeatable gains.

Encoding on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

The single-threaded LAME and FLAC encoding tests respond well to per-core performance, which benefits Intel's chips. AMD has shortened the gap between it and the Intel competition in these tests, but the overall performance hierarchy remains unchanged. 

The threaded HandBrake x264 and x265 tests show the same general trend - some slight gains for the Ryzen 9 3900XT and 3800XT, though it's noteworthy that the 3800XT passes the 10700K in the x264 render test. 

Web Browsing on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

Single-threaded performance reigns supreme in most web browsers. The Ryzen 7 3800XT and Ryzen 5 3600XT take impressive steps forward over the X-series models, but improvements are more muted with the Ryzen 9 3900XT, even falling within the margin of error in a few tests.  

Office and Productivity on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

Clock rates benefit the majority of the GIMP image processing and Microsoft Office tests, both of which benefit from the faster clock rates that come with the Ryzen XT series. 

Compression and AVX on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

The 7zip and Zlib compression/decompression benchmarks rely heavily upon threading and work directly from system memory, thus avoiding the traditional storage bottleneck in these types of tasks. As we've come to expect, the Ryzen processors dominate in 7zip compression tasks, but the performance hierarchy is largely unchanged.  

Overall we don't see any big changes in these benchmarks, either, though we had more luck the Adobe suite on the following page. 

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel and AMD Processor Hierarchy Comparisons

MORE: All CPUs Content

We recorded some of the largest performance gains for the Ryzen XT processors in the Adobe suite of benchmarks. We generally don't include processors with fewer than six cores in these benchmarks, but in light of the substantial performance gains we see in these tests, we'll add these tests for the Ryzen 5 3600XT and comparable chips in our forthcoming review. 

Some of these applications also make an appearance in our standard test suite, but those test configurations and benchmarks are focused on a typical desktop-class environment. In contrast, these tests are configured to stress the systems with workstation-class workloads, which is a particular strength for the Ryzen 9 3900XT given its hefty core counts. 

We loaded down our test platforms with 64GB of DDR4 memory spread across four modules to accommodate the expanded memory capacity required for several of these workstation-focused tasks. We also outfitted the test systems with PCIe 4.0 SSDs to factor in the platform-level advantage of AMD's support for the faster interface.

Puget Systems Benchmarks on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

Puget Systems is a boutique vendor that caters to professional users with custom-designed systems targeted at specific workloads. The company has developed a series of acclaimed benchmarks for Adobe software, which you can find here.

Adobe After Effects CC Render Node Benchmark

The After Effects render node benchmark leverages the in-built aerender application that splits the render engine across multiple threads to maximize CPU and GPU performance. This test is memory-intensive, so RAM capacity and throughput are important and can be a limiting factor.

Ryzen XT's enhanced "mid-threaded" performance pays off in the Adobe tests. The Ryzen 9 3900XT gains 13.6% percent over the 3900X in the render node test, which is an impressive feat that unseats the Core i7-10700K. The 3900XT also benefits more from the auto-overclocking PBO feature, allowing it to surpass the stock 10900K. However, the Core i9-10900K is still impressive after overclocking, so it takes the leadership position. 

We also see a similarly impressive jump for the 3800XT, which notches an 11.8% increase in performance. That doesn't change it's ranking relative to the 10700K, but it does reduce the performance disparity. 

Adobe Premier Pro CC Benchmark

This benchmark measures live playback and export performance with several codecs at 4K and 8K resolutions. It also incorporates 'Heavy GPU' and 'Heavy CPU' effects that stress the system beyond a typical workload. Storage throughput also heavily impacts the score. 

The PCIe 4.0 interface benefits the Ryzen processors, but sheer brute computational force is the name of the game here. That plays well to the Ryzen 9 3900XT's 12-core design as it provides 6% more performance than the 3900X. Meanwhile, the 3800XT improves its standing with a 9% increase in performance over the 3800X. 

Adobe Photoshop CC Benchmark

The Photoshop benchmark measures performance in a diverse range of tasks, measuring the amount of time taken to complete general tasks and apply filters. 

The Ryzen 9 3900XT picks up a 10% win over the 3900X, nearly matching the Core i9-10900K, while the 3800XT gains 15% over the 3800X.

GPU acceleration is here to stay in professional applications, and the overclocked 10900K's high clock rates help push it to the lead in the GPU score, contributing to its overall lead. 

SPECworkstation 3 Benchmarks on AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT

The SPECworkstation 3 benchmark suite is designed to measure workstation performance in professional applications. The full suite consists of more than 30 applications split among seven categories, but we've winnowed down the list to tests that largely focus specifically on CPU performance. We haven't submitted these benchmarks to the SPEC organization, so be aware these are not official benchmarks. We've upgraded to the new 3.0.4 revision that supports spanning the tests across processor groups and sockets.

Media and Entertainment

We run the new Blender Benchmark in our regular suite of tests on the preceding page, but different render jobs can stress processors in unique ways. Here we can see a breakout of several industry-standard benchmark renders that largely favor chips with hefty core counts. 

We see some jockeying back and forth between the 3900XT and the 3900X in some of the renders, which clearly shows which scenes are heavily threaded. The 3BMWs render, however, obviously doesn't load the cores fully, giving the 3900XT some room to scrape out a few wins over its X-series counterpart.  

The 7zip, Luxrender, and Handbrake workloads exercise all of the CPU cores, so we don't see any large performance gains with the XT models. Again, we see the 3900X and 3900XT swap positions in a few of those heavily-threaded tests. 

NAMD and Rodinia LifeSciences

NAMD is a parallel molecular dynamics code designed to scale well with additional compute resources, and here we can see performance scale well largely based on core and thread counts. The 3800XT picks up a few slight gains over the 3800X, but the 3900XT is obviously constrained by its power limits in this all-core workload. It still exhibits Intel-beating performance, though. 

SPECworkstation 3's Rodinia LifeSciences benchmark steps through four tests that include medical imaging, particle movements in a 3D space, a thermal simulation, and image-enhancing programs. These are heavily-threaded tests, so we're largely lost in a sea of power limits and run-to-run variance that doesn't show any meaningful performance differences between the 3900XT and 3900X. The 3800XT again takes a few steps forward from the 3800X, with the hotpsot and srad tests standing out as a significant improvement. 

Product Development and Energy, Financial Workloads

The earth’s subsurface structure can be determined via seismic processing. One of the four basic steps in this process is the Kirchhoff Migration, which is used to generate an image based on the available data using mathematical operations. The Ryzen 9 3900XT maintains AMD's spot at the top of the chart, but it's nearly identical to the 3900X in this test.

Calculix is based on the finite element method for three-dimensional structural computations. This benchmark performs well on the Intel processors and the strength of the 10900K's high clock rates comes into play here, lending it the pole position among the stock processors, and the overall lead after tuning. 

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel and AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

The Ryzen XT lineup arrives to do battle with Intel's Comet Lake, but while the new chips do provide measurable performance gains over their predecessors, you'll need to run very specific workloads to justify the increased costs associated with the cooler-less Ryzen 9 3900XT and Ryzen 7 3800XT. That's complicated by the fact that the existing X-series models already retail at great price points, giving AMD plenty of competition from within its own ranks.

The Ryzen 5 3600XT looks promising if it falls to a lower price point, especially in light of its bundled cooler, but we'll follow up with more targeted testing in a separate review.

There are places where the 3900XT and 3800XT might make sense despite their higher pricing, but for the majority of enthusiasts, gaming isn't one of them. In the chart below, we plot gaming performance using average frame rates and a geometric mean of the 99th percentile frame times (a good indicator of smoothness), which we then convert into a frames-per-second measurement. Bear in mind that we tested with an Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti at 1920x1080 to alleviate graphics-imposed bottlenecks. Differences between our test subjects shrink at higher resolutions.

The 3900XT and 3800XT do little to meaningfully improve gaming performance over the X-series. Admittedly, our test suite isn't weighted heavily towards games that respond best to higher frequencies. AMD also cites DirectX 9 titles as particularly apt to see performance gains, but that isn't a very frequently-used API in 2020, so we don't have any DX9 titles in our suite.

AMD predicts a 2% increase in gaming performance over the X-series models for the 3900XT and 4% for the 3800XT, but we measured roughly 1% for both chips across the breadth of our test suite. We recorded slightly larger gains of 2.5% for the Ryzen 5 3600XT over the 3600X, but that delta might be impacted by our testing with the H115i cooler for both chips, so we'll follow up with targeted testing with the stock coolers. 

If you're specifically looking for gaming performance, skip the $499 3900XT and $339 3800XT unless they drop to a much lower price point that's comparable to the X-series. AMD's recommended pricing rarely lasts at retail, particularly after a few months, so it's hard to determine where final pricing will land. Conversely, the X-series models carry the same MSRP but rarely command those prices at check out, and they could see further discounts, too. That muddies the waters in terms of firm recommendations. 

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 that currently retail for $270 and $249, respectively. Those chips come with bundled coolers that can save you money on an aftermarket cooler, and they offer the lion's share of XT's performance at far lower price points. Intel's ~$275 Core i5-10600K is also a solid gaming option that currently leads our list of Best CPUs. 

We run a broad spate of applications that span from the mundane to the professional. Still, we didn't record many outstanding performance gains that justify the 3900XT and 3800XT's pricing (or lack of bundled coolers) for most day-to-day desktop PC applications. The chips are measurably faster in some tests, but in many cases, the deltas are slight and fall close to the standard deviation of the benchmarks. 

Our frequency measurements exposed strong potential with the 3900XT and 3800XT's single-threaded boost clocks, but real-world testing didn't register as much of a benefit. Motherboard and firmware differences can have an impact, but the X570 platform is fairly mature, and any big advances on the optimization front will likely benefit the X-series models, too. 

We did see slightly improved performance with the auto-overclocking PBO feature, but gains remain small and AMD says we shouldn't expect higher frequencies from manual overclocking, either. 

Performance in the Puget Sound Adobe benchmark suite was by far the highlight of our testing, and it's clear that XT's performance optimizations benefit those types of mid-threaded workloads. If you're already planning on buying an aftermarket cooler, the Ryzen 3900XT and 3800XT make a good fit for those types of applications. Time is money for professionals and semi-pro creators alike, and those users will benefit most from the advantages the XT series bring to the table. 

Overall, the Ryzen XT series does provide another option for discerning shoppers that know their workload, particularly those that frequently use applications that benefit. Still, most will be better served with AMD X-series processors or Intel alternatives.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel and AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Arrow Electronics' German branch (via @momomo_us) has officially listed the unannounced AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, Ryzen 7 3800XT and Ryzen 5 3600XT CPUs on its online store. The different OPNs (ordering part numbers) show that only the Ryzen 5 3600XT will come with a stock cooler.

While OPNs have become more cryptic over time, they still hold a lot of clues. In the case of AMD's looming Zen 2 CPUs, the Ryzen 9 3900XT and Ryzen 7 3800XT surfaced with the 100-100000277WOF and 100-100000279WOF OPNs, respectively.  Generally, the "WOF" suffix in the OPN stands for ' without a fan,' meaning the corresponding processor doesn't come with an included stock cooler. The product description on Arrow Electronics also suggests this. 

The Ryzen 5 3600XT, however, looks like it will still come with the Wraith Spire cooler that was originally included with the AMD Ryzen 5 3600X.

AMD Ryzen 3000XT Specifications

*Specifications are unconfirmed.

Both the Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3800X come with the Wraith Prism RGB CPU cooler. While it's not the best CPU cooler on the market, the chiller possesses the necessary capability to keep the Zen 2 processors' temperatures under control in most situations. 

Based on rumors, early benchmarks and leaks so far, the Ryzen 3000XT-series appear to feature improved clock speeds over the non-XT models. It's unknown if the new chips will bring anymore surprises under the hood. Preliminary listings on Amazon Italy suggest that the XT variants will cost a small premium.

The big question here is why would AMD suddenly opt to not continue include the Wraith Prism RGB cooler with the Ryzen 9 3900XT and Ryzen 7 3800XT. Perhaps AMD can shed some light on the issue when the chipmaker reveals the Ryzen 3000XT-series tomorrow, according to Amazon Italy.

Amazon Italy (via Reddit) has just spilled the beans on AMD's looming Ryzen 3000-series XT processors. According to the listings, AMD will officially announce the Zen 2 refresh chips on June 16 with a tentative release date of July 7.

Rumors suggest that AMD will unleash three Ryzen 3000-series XT parts. Thus far, Amazon Italy has revealed the Ryzen 9 3900XT and Ryzen 5 3600XT. Only the rumored Ryzen 7 3800XT is missing.

According to the Amazon Italy posting, the Ryzen 3000-series XT parts will retain the same recipe as the current Ryzen 3000-series (codename Matisse) processors. The chips will arrive with identical cores, threads, and cache as their vanilla counterparts. The most notable improvement lies in the faster clock speeds. In other words, the XT models appear to just be higher-binned chips than the non-XT SKUs, though it's possible AMD has some other surprises in store. For instance, the company moved to the 12nm node with second-gen Zen processors, yielding impressive performance gains through a combination of enhancements to the chips, like improved cache latency borne of faster speedpaths. It isn't immediately apparent if those types of changes could come to the XT models, but it wouldn't be without precedent. 

Amazon Italy didn't specify the base clocks, but we do have the boost clocks for comparison. The Ryzen 9 3900XT appears to come with a 4.7 GHz boost clock, which is 100 MHz faster than the Ryzen 9 3900X. The same improvement is present with the Ryzen 5 3600XT, as the six-core chip flaunts a 100 MHz higher boost clock than its counterpart.

Despite the higher boost clocks, the Ryzen 9 3900XT and Ryzen 5 3600XT respect the same TDP (thermal design power) as the normal Ryzen offerings. That would be 105W for Ryzen 9 3900XT and 95W for the Ryzen 5 3600XT.

While AMD included the Wraith Prism CPU cooler with the Ryzen 9 3900X, the Amazon Italy listing shows the Ryzen 9 3900XT without any cooling. The Ryzen 5 3600XT, on the other hand, still comes with the Wraith Spire.

Although Amazon Italy posted the pricing, we should still approach it with some caution as it could be a placeholder or just an inflated pre-order price. If the pricing is to be trusted, the Ryzen 9 3900XT and Ryzen 5 3600XT apparently cost €569.69 ($640) and €284.84 ($320), respectively. For reference, the Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 5 3600X go for €449.10 ($505) and €212.9 ($239) on Amazon Italy. Basically, we're looking at a 26.7% price increase for the Ryzen 9 3900XT and a 33.9% rise for the Ryzen 5 3600XT.

If we apply the same percentages to the current prices in the U.S., the Ryzen 9 3900XT could sell for up to $528, and the Ryzen 5 3600XT may surface with a price tag around $306.

Today, we dropped our Intel Core i9-10900K review, providing a look at how Comet Lake-S performs. At the same time, the older, but still very competitive, AMD Ryzen 9 3900X has gotten a price drop and is now selling for just $410 on Amazon.

When the 12-core, 24-thread Ryzen 9 3900X launched in September, it sold for as much as $590 while supplies ran tight, well over its $499 MSRP. Slowly, that price has dropped over the last year, with pricing sitting at about $435 for the last few months.

In our AMD Ryzen 9 3900X review, we praised the chip for pushing the limit on what a mainstream desktop chip can do with 12 cores and 24 threads while keeping the price managable.

The Ryzen 9 3900X's 12 cores are built on the 7nm lithographic process and come with a base frequency of 3.8 GHz and a maximum boost clock of 4.6 GHz on the best performing cores. Wired to the cores is 64 MB of L4 cache, and unlike its Intel counterpart, the almost one-year-old 3900X does have PCIe 4.0 -- 24 lanes of them, in fact. 

Intel's new Comet Lake-S chips may be all the news right now, but if you want to save some cash, this is a great bargain for AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X.

Two weeks ago, video channel TecLab on Bilibili leaked performance figures for the upcoming Intel Core i5-10400, comparing its performance to its predecessor. Now, the channel has done it again, this time outing an early review of the powerful, range-topping Comet Lake-S chip: the Intel Core i9-10900K.

The leaker, who once again uses a disguise to maintain anonymity, posted a video review pitting Intel's latest chip against competing AMD models. In the tests, the leaker compares the Intel Core i9-10900K to AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X and 3950X chips.

Below a gallery with a selection of the results charts:

Intel announced the Core i9-10900K was two weeks ago. The chip packs ten cores with hyperthreading so it can handle 20 threads simultaneously, and it comes with a base frequency of 3.7 GHz and a boost clock of 5.3 GHz. The cores are wired to 20 MB of L3 cache, and the chip carries a TDP of 125W. However, according to past leaks and data from TecLab's testing, the chip appears to consume much more power.

The test results are probably not a huge surprise; the AMD chips excel in threaded applications, and the 10-core Intel Core i9-10900K can't match the 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X in those types of applications. 

However, despite packing two fewer cores, the Intel Core i9-10900K does have its sights on AMD's 12-core 3900X. Intel's Core i9-10900K has hyperthreading, so it doesn't lose out there. Instead, it makes up for its core-count disadvantage with very high boost frequencies of up to 5.3 GHz. 

The Intel chip also takes the edge on its competitors in lightly-threaded tasks. Thanks to its high performance per individual core, the Intel Core i9-10900K also excels in gaming. Of course, it's relevant to note that gaming tests are often done at lower resolutions than you'll play with in practice and with very powerful GPUs, as high framerates tax the CPU most.

The slow trickle of Comet Lake leaks are now turning into a full-on flood, so it's rational to expect that Intel-sanctioned reviews will come soon. 

AMD's third-generation Ryzen 3000 chips have been a smash hit. Now, the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X is seeing one of the best tech deals with its lowest ever price on Amazon. The CPU is currently selling for $80 off for a grand total of $418.89. 

This may the best chip for you in the Ryzen 3000 line-up. As noted in our Ryzen 9 3900X review, with 12 CPU cores and 24 threads there's plenty of parallelism on offer. Likewise, the 4.6 GHz boost clock, plus the sheer grunt of AMD's Zen 2 architecture, on which all Ryzen 3000 chips are based, makes for huge single-threaded performance.

There are more powerful Ryzen processors. The AMD Ryzen 9 3950X packs 16 cores and 32 threads but is also well over $700. That goes even more so for AMD's Threadripper chips; they're insanely powerful but also hugely expensive. And that's just for the chips themselves -- motherboards for Threadripper processors cost a pretty penny too.

To put the 3900X in a long-term gaming context, Microsoft recently revealed that the upcoming Xbox Series X console will pack eight AMD Zen 2 cores running at 3.8 GHz. So the 3900X is substantially more powerful than the highest spec version of Microsoft's next-gen console that isn't out until later this year.

Similarly, with support for PCIe 4.0, the 3900X is nicely future-proofed for graphics cards. This retail boxed version of the 3900X also comes with AMD's Wraith Prism RGB cooler to slightly sweeten the deal.

Strictly speaking, we have seen the 3900X cheaper elsewhere. But that was a walk-in only deal at Micro Center. Online, this is currently as good as it gets.

Just last week AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X dropped to $420, down from its $499 MSRP. Now, it looks like Microcenter has the best tech deal on the chip at just $399. However, this is with in-store pick-ups only, so the catch is that you'll have to live near a Micro Center, which has just 25 locations across the U.S.  

If you do though, the fun doesn't end there. Micro Center is also offering an additional $20 off if you purchase the 3900X with "a compatible eligible motherboard."

The AMD Ryzen 9 3900X comes with 12 Zen 2 cores and 24 threads, punching in at a base clock of 3.8 GHz. It'll boost notably higher at up to 4.6 GHz on its best cores. This is a great CPU for gaming with ample headroom, but also has the punch needed for highly threaded workloads, such as video editing, as we determined in our AMD Ryzen 9 3900X review.

It's only been a few months since the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X launched with an MSRP of $499, but despite the chip's popularity, the price has already come down by $80, one of the best tech deals on a CPU right now. It's selling for $420 at Amazon, Walmart and B&H. This is after the chip was almost unobtainable around launch.

In our AMD Ryzen 9 3900X review, we praised the performance offered in heavily threaded applications. With 12 CPU cores running at a base clock of 3.8 GHz and a max boost clock of up to 4.6 GHz, the 3900X packs a significant punch that'll come in handy during  video editing or other highly threaded workloads. In addition, an improved architecture over its predecessor proved beneficial for gaming. 

For more CPU recommendations, see our deal roundups for the Best CPUs for Work, Best Gaming CPUs and Best Cheap CPUs.

As spotted by Shaun Fosmark, Australian overclocker jordan.hyde99 has set a new world record in wPrime 1024M with AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X processor. What's fascinating is the fact that the AMD processor was running a much slower clock speed than the previous record holder, the Intel Core i9-7920X.

The Ryzen 9 3900X and Core i9-7920X are both equipped with 12 cores and 24 threads, so both chips are on even ground in terms of core counts. The first is based on AMD's Zen 2 microarchitecture and rocks a 3.8 GHz base clock and 4.6 GHz boost clock, while the latter utilizes Intel's Skylake microarchitecture and clocks in with a 2.9 GHz and 4.4 GHz base and boost clock, respectively.

Overclocker jordan.hyde99 overclocked his Ryzen 9 3900X to 5,625 MHz on liquid nitrogen and finished the wPrime 1024M benchmark run in 35 seconds and 517 milliseconds to take the crown away from the Core i9-7920X. 

In comparison, the Core i9-7920X previously held the record at 35 seconds 693 milliseconds while being overclocked to 5,955 MHz with the same type of exotic cooling.

Although the Ryzen 9 3900X only managed to beat the Core i9-7920X by a negligible margin (less than one percent), the big takeaway here is the clock speed. The Ryzen 9 3900X was able to match the Core i9-7920X's score while running with a 5.8% lower operating clock. This stands as testimony that Zen 2's instructions per cycle (IPC) is higher than Skylake, and subsequent microarchitectures based on the same design, in many workloads.

AMD's launch of the Ryzen 3000 series processors marks an occasion that was nearly unthinkable a few short years ago: AMD has taken the process lead over Intel by fielding new 7nm processors that contain smaller and more densely-packed transistors than Intel's competing 14nm chips. The advantages of increased density come in the form of higher performance, better power efficiency, more cores, and more cache packed into a smaller area than the first-gen Ryzen models, all of which, as you can see in our CPU Benchmark Hierarchy, makes third-gen Ryzen a potent adversary for Intel both on the desktop and in the data center.

AMD paved the way for the 'Matisse' Ryzen 3000 series several years ago when it unveiled the revolutionary chiplet-based Zen microarchitecture. At the time, AMD laid out a roadmap that included a steady cadence of tick-tock-like updates interspersed with new revisions of the scalable microarchitecture. After the company's sophomore effort with the second-gen Ryzen processors, which featured a faster process paired with the same first-gen Zen design, the company is plowing forward with its Zen 2 architecture that AMD says offers up to 15% more instructions per cycle (IPC). Paired with the advantages of the 7nm process and more cores, not to mention AMD's trailblazing of the PCIe 4.0 interface on desktop platforms, the Ryzen 3000 chips promise an explosive step forward in performance.

AMD's first chips to come packing TSMC's 7nm process span the entire range of the mainstream desktop stack, but push core counts up from eight cores to 12 cores and 24 threads with the Ryzen 9 3900X we have in the lab today, upsetting the status quo and bringing mainstream platforms into what used to be the realm of the pricey high end desktop. If you're looking for something even beefier, AMD also recently released the 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X, which has taken our best CPU list by storm. 

Aside from those halo parts, AMD also has plenty of models that address the bulk of casual users, gamers, and enthusiasts, like the eight-core 16-thread Ryzen 7 3700X we also have in the lab, and a lineup of six-core 12-thread Ryzen 5 models. The Ryzen 7 3700X is particularly impressive with its combination of price and performance putting it squarely among the best gaming CPUs.

AMD is staying true to its enthusiast-friendly roots: Although you can pair the Ryzen 3000 chips with the new X570 chipset, they are also backward compatible with most AM4 socket motherboards. All of the models also come with beefy stock coolers, solder thermal interface material between the heat spreader and die to improve thermal transfer, and unlocked multipliers for easy overclocking. AMD even added support for auto-overclocking for mainstream processors. Pair that with the lower per-core pricing and the debut of the PCIe 4.0 interface for the desktop, and the Ryzen 3000 series appears to be a potent force.

AMD's ability to deliver on its optimistic roadmap in the waning light of Moore's Law is truly impressive, especially as we have become accustomed to never-ending cadences of incremental updates. But at the end of the day it all boils down to real-world performance. Let's see what the Ryzen 3000 series has in store. 

Ryzen 9 3900X

Make no mistake - from a core count perspective, the $500 12-core 24-thread Ryzen 9 3900X really has no comparison on the mainstream desktop. We have to reach up to Intel's high end desktop (HEDT) platform to find a fair comparison based on core counts. Intel's Core i9-9920X slots in with 12 cores and 24-threads for $1,199, a $700 premium over AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X.

There's no doubt the 3900X also blurs the line between the AMD's own HEDT Threadripper platform and the mainstream desktop: The Threadripper 1920X is AMD's only core-comparable processor. That processors has its own advantages, like access to 64 lanes of PCIe 3.0, and like the -9920X, it supports quad-channel memory. But both company's HEDT chips are much more expensive than the 3900X and require pricey HEDT motherboards.

Back in the familiar realm of the mainstream desktop, Intel's $488 Core i9-9900K serves as the 3900X's primary competitor. The -9900K comes with four fewer cores and eight fewer threads than the 3900X, marking a distinct difference in the price you pay per thread, but the -9900K does hold the clock speed advantage. AMD hopes to offset that advantage with its increased IPC throughput and the 3900X also supports the PCIe 4.0 interface with twice the bandwidth of the -9900K's PCIe 3.0 interface. You'll also notice the Core i9-9900K, known for its high power consumption and intense heat generation, has a lower 95W TDP than the 3900X's 105W rating. We can chalk that up to different measurement techniques. We'll provide extensive power and efficiency testing on the following pages to get a more accurate picture of actual power consumption.

As pictured here, the 39000X comes packing AMD's Zen 2 microarchitecture spread across two small 7nm eight-core compute chiplets tied together with the Infinity Fabric interconnect via a larger 12nm I/O die (IOD). Each small 3900X compute chiplet, referred to as a CCD (Core Chiplet Die), comes with eight physical cores spread across two four-core Core Complexes (CCXes). Each CCX has 16MB of shared L3 cache, totaling 32MB of L3 cache per CCD, and 64MB of total cache for the entire chip. AMD disables two cores per CCD to create the 12-core 3900X.

Each 7nm CCD measures ~74mm² and has 3.9 billion transistors, while the 12nm IOD is ~125mm² and has 2.09 billion transistors. That means the 3900X comes with ~273mm² of silicon that sports ~9.89 billion transistors.

The 3900X's larger cache comes courtesy of the denser 7nm manufacturing process, but it does have a slightly higher latency (on the order of "five or six" clocks) than the 16MB of L3 cache found on previous-generation models. However, the increased capacity allows the processor to store more data closer to the execution cores, thus increasing cache hit rates that ultimately yield more performance. AMD also decreased the size of its L1 instruction cache from 64KB with the first-gen Zen processors to 32KB for Zen 2 chips. This allowed the company to expand its microop cache, and paired with changing the L1 instruction cache from 4-way to 8-way associativity, AMD feels this provides a more balanced approach to its cache subsystem. 

The -9900K's 16MB of L3 cache pales in comparison from a capacity standpoint, but cache bandwidth and latency are more important metrics. We'll put hard numbers behind the differences on the following pages.

As a sidenote, AMD now calls its combined L2+L3 cache "GameCache" to highlight to casual consumers the importance of cache to gaming performance, but we'll stick with the established terms.

Ryzen 7 3700X

The eight-core 16-thread Ryzen 7 3700X slots in at $329 and comes with a 65W TDP rating, which is significantly lower than the competing Core i7-9700K's 95W rating. You'll notice that AMD has maintained similar price points for the new models compared to the previous-gen Ryzen 7's, but we caution that pricing is a moving target for the last-gen chips.

Although third-gen Ryzen pricing is close to the current-gen processors on sale, this is far lower than the per-core pricing at the launch of the previous gen. Normalize the numbers to price-per-thread, and its clear AMD maintains a pricing advantage over Intel's lineup. But performance varies based on architecture, so the price-to-performance ratio is where the rubber meets the road.

The Ryzen 7 3700X features a single CCD with all eight active cores connected to the I/O die, highlighting that the company's Zen 2 architecture is inherently scalable. Threadripper processors also come with varying numbers of compute dies, but substitute in 'dummy' dies to ensure structural rigidity and prevent crushing the integrated heat spreader (IHS) when you tighten down your cooler. The smaller surface area of the 2700X's IHS doesn't require a dummy die, so this pad is simply left unoccupied.

AMD hasn't sampled the Ryzen 7 3800X yet, which features a higher 105W rating and 3.9 / 4.5 GHz base/boost clocks, which is higher than the Ryzen 7 3700X's 3.6 / 4.4 GHz base/boost frequency. It also looks like a compelling part, so look to these pages for a review soon. 

Both the Ryzen 9 3900X and the Ryzen 7 3700X come with the bundled Wraith Prism RGB cooler that features four direct-contact copper heat pipes, three independent RGB zones, switchable fan profiles, and a 39 dB(A) noise rating. The cooler is rated to dissipate 116W of waste heat in "L" mode (2800 RPM) and 124W in "H" mode (3600 RPM). Cooler Master manufactures the heat sink/fan, while AMD provides software for controlling the lighting and fan profiles. Company representatives claim the cooler represents a roughly $43 value, and that it also allows for some overclocking headroom. Intel's K-series models, in contrast, don't come with a bundled cooler.

Memory Subsystem and Overclocking, Infinity Fabric

Ryzen 3000 chips support dual-channel DDR4-3200, a step up from the previous-gen's support for DDR4-2966. That should boost performance significantly because the Zen 2 microarchitecture, like its predecessor, benefits heavily from increased memory performance (particularly in gaming).

AMD's new Zen 2 microarchitecture uses a centralized memory controller on the I/O die, which helps ensure consistent memory latency in the multi-die Ryzen 9 models. It also improves cache access latency. AMD has also overhauled the Infinity Fabric, doubling its throughput by increasing the previous-gen 256-bit interconnect to 512-bit, which facilitates access to memory and enables the PCIe 4.0 interface. AMD also instituted more fine-grained Infinity Fabric quality of service controls and claims to have reduced the amount of energy required to transfer a bit by 27%. 

AMD has improved memory overclocking substantially, partly due to decoupling the Infinity Fabric from the memory clock. AMD's first-gen Ryzen processors had plenty of difficulties with memory overclocking when they first launched, but AMD has addressed those concerns with the second-gen products and has even demoed an air-cooled Ryzen platform running at DDR4-5100. We also didn't encounter any issues during our testing.

As with previous-gen Ryzen, memory overclocking confers big performance speedups for gaming. To sidestep the Infinity Fabric's maximum frequency of 2,000 MHz, which effectively constrains memory overclocking, AMD allows users to separate the memory and Infinity Fabric clock dependencies. The domains remain tied together at a 1:1 ratio up to DDR4-3600, but run at a 2:1 ratio beyond that transfer rate. This setting, which is also user-adjustable in the BIOS, improves memory bandwidth but comes with a latency penalty (~9ns). Tuners can also adjust the Infinity Fabric clock (fclk) in 33Mhz increments to get an extra kicker during overclocking. AMD says that the price/performance sweetspot will be around DDR4-3600.

As before, AMD supports up to 128GB of RAM and enables ECC support, but AMD leaves qualification and enablement of the feature up to motherboard vendors.

As seen with the first-gen Zen chips, AMD's official supported memory data transfer rates vary based on the type of DIMM (single rank or dual rank) and the number of populated channels, as outlined above.

PCIe 4.0 Comes to the Desktop

Ryzen 3000 processors support the PCIe interface on X570 motherboards, and while the chips will drop into some previous-gen AM4 motherboards, the processor will downshift into PCIe 3.0 on those platforms. AMD has also infused the new technology into its "Navi" Radeon 5000 series GPUs and worked with storage vendors to assure a supply of speedy new PCIe 4.0 SSDs. We recently had the opportunity to take an early look at PCIe 4.0 SSD performance, which you can see here.

PCIe 4.0 provides yet another advantage for performance seekers, particularly in the content creation realm, over Intel's platform, but it doesn't materially impact gaming performance (at least not yet). The new interface also comes at the cost of higher pricing for X570-equipped motherboards due to tighter signalling requirements. Those prices could recede over time as the pricing of the PCIe 4.0 component ecosystem, like switches and redrivers, benefit from economies of scale, but AMD has wisely encouraged its partners to continue offering the current-gen X470 motherboards that will now serve as a lower tier of motherboards.

AMD's new Ryzen 3000 series lineup is fully compatible with existing X470 motherboards and will operate at their full performance on the previous-gen boards, albeit at the loss of PCIe 4.0 connectivity. That shouldn't be too much of a concern for users without PCIe 4.0 devices or SSD RAID storage arrays that hang off the chipset. Fast storage arrays will certainly benefit from the faster PCIe 4.0 connection between the chipset and processor, though. 

Ryzen-Specific Windows 10 Scheduler Updates

AMD worked with Microsoft to deliver on a much needed feature: A Ryzen-aware scheduler. The new scheduler arrived with the Windows 10 May update and benefits both current-gen and previous-gen Ryzen models (Threadripper and Ryzen 3000 processors).

The new scheduler pins threads within a single CCX (the four-core clusters inside each CCD) before scheduling threads to other CCXes. This approach reduces latency during thread synchronizations or frequent cache accesses, thus improving performance for all existing Ryzen processors. AMD says the feature doesn't benefit all applications, but can result in significant performance improvements in those that do.

AMD also introduced its Collaborative Power Performance Control 2 (CPPC2) feature, which is a software feature that manipulates Ryzen 3000's power states from within the operating system. This is similar to Intel's Speed Shift technology and reduces power state transition latency from 30ns to 1ns, which ultimately saves power and boosts efficiency. The feature comes enabled in the latest AMD chipset drivers and the Windows 10 May update (and newer).

As before, these mainstream models don't come with integrated graphics, meaning you'll need a discrete GPU.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

TSMC 7nm Process

AMD tapped TSMC's 7nm process for the Ryzen 3000 series processors. AMD's first-gen Ryzen processors debuted on GlobalFoundries' 14nm GPP node, but the 2000-series CPUs moved to GloFo's 12nm LP process technology. The ported-over design helped boost transistor performance, but did not affect die area or transistor density. As a result, Pinnacle Ridge's ~4.8 billion transistors and 213mm² area remained the same as first-gen Ryzen.

In contrast, TSMC's 7nm process represents a true shrink that provides twice the transistor density. AMD says the process allowed it to shrink the CCX by 29% relative to the 12nm process, which helped pave the way for Zen 2's enhancements, like the doubled L3 cache capacity and the ability to double core counts within the same package dimensions. It's also important to note that the company also removed I/O and memory controllers from the compute chiplet this time around, resulting in even smaller packages.

AMD also claims the process affords up to 350 more MHz of core frequency at the same voltage as the 12nm LP process. The new process also delivers on the energy efficiency front with up to 75% higher performance-per-watt compared to the 12nm LP process. AMD also says the 7nm node produces up to 58% higher performance-per-watt than Intel's aging, but highly refined, 14nm++ process, but be aware that the Ryzen 3000 chips still have a 12nm I/O die that contributes to the chip's overall power consumption.

AMD says that the 15% increase in IPC throughput from the Zen 2 microarchitecture serves up 60% of the performance improvements seen in the Ryzen 3000 series chips, with the remaining 40% coming from the 7nm process and frequency improvements. 

Zen 2 Microarchitecture

Zen's modular and scalable design provides AMD with plenty of advantages in terms of cost and time to market, and fine-grained tuning to the architecture has yielded phenomenal results.

AMD has improved IPC by roughly 15% (though that can vary by workload), doubled the L3 cache size to keep data as close to the execution units as possible, and doubled floating point performance by expanding floating point bandwidth to 256-bit to improve performance with AVX2 instructions.

Headline improvements include a doubled micro-op (4K) and L3 cache (32MB), which came at the expense of a slightly smaller L1 instruction cache that is now an 8-way associative 32K block as opposed to the 64K block with 4-way associativity on first-gen Ryzen. AMD also beefed up the Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB) to 2,000 entries.

AMD now has a double-stage branch predictor, with its Perceptron predictor handling the first stage while a new TAGE branch predictor, which features larger lookup tables to improve performance, serves as the second stage. That's paired with larger L1 and L2 branch target predictors (BTBs) that increase throughput by reducing stalls. AMD says the improved branch predictor expends extra energy on the front end, but the 30% lower misprediction rate ultimately saves more energy on the backend. A third address generation unit (AGU) also keeps the hungry execution cores fed with data from main memory.

Enter the X570 Chipset

AMD's Ryzen 3000 series processors have dynamic algorithms that adjust parameters based upon several factors, with power delivery and heat dissipation being the chief variables that can unlock extra performance. As such, motherboard selection is going to be a big factor in the amount of performance you receive if you choose to use AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO - next page) and Auto Overclock features. The X570 motherboard ecosystem has proven to be pricey compared to the previous-gen X470 models, but AMD says that the Ryzen 3000 series processors will operate at full performance at stock settings with X470 motherbaords. You just sacrifice access to the PCIe 4.0 interface.

The actual X570 chipset is a 14nm variant of the 12nm I/O die inside the Ryzen 3000-series processors, which is a clever reuse of the technology that ultimately lowers costs. This chipset is also fully produced by AMD, whereas the X470 chipset came from ASMedia, which says it will continue to produce some chipsets for Ryzen 3000 series processors. AMD uses the smaller 12nm process for the processor's in-package I/O die to leverage the increased frequency potential for the memory controllers. That improves memory data transfer rates, but AMD uses the more economical 14nm variant, which has its memory controllers disabled, for the chipset die.

Most X570 motherboards come with a fan on the chipset to provide active cooling for the chipset, which now consumes ~11-15W compared to the 6W consumed by the X470 chipset. That's due to the power-hungry nature of the PCIe 4.0 interface when it is under full load. Small fans like these tend to be noisy, but our motherboard team is hard at work on the first wave of X570 motherboard reviews and will provide more perspective. 

Ryzen 3000-series chips are compatible with most previous-gen motherboards with the AM4 socket, but some updates are left to vendor discretion. As such, you won't be able to drop a new Third-gen Ryzen chip into all X370 and B350 motherboards, and A320's upgrade path is blocked entirely. Due to the uneven application of BIOS updates across the various vendors, and even among different motherboards in the respective product stacks, you'll have to check the CPU support list for your X370 or B350 motherboard to ensure it supports Third-gen Ryzen.

There are plenty of X470 and B450 motherboards still on the market, but some of the boards that have been in the supply chain for a while will need a BIOS update before you install a Third-gen Ryzen processor. As we've seen in the past, that isn't always possible if you don't already have a Ryzen processor or if the motherboard doesn't have an out-of-band BIOS update feature, like BIOS Flashback. AMD also announced that all motherboards that support Ryzen 3000 processors out of the box will come with a new badge to help simplify things.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Zen 2 Instructions Per Cycle (IPC)

It's important to remember that IPC can vary by workload, so dissimilar tasks may yield different outcomes. We set a static 3 GHz clock rate and dialed memory to the respective processors' supported frequency for the following tests:

All of the processors in this test come with eight cores and sixteen threads, so we left the core allocations unaltered and the Ryzen 7 1800X serves as our baseline comparison. These apples-to-apples tests expose a significant boost moving from the first-gen to third-gen Ryzen's, with single-threaded IPC improvements ranging from 5% to 18% for most applications. AVX-heavy workloads receive the biggest benefit with the AVX y-cruncher benchmark exposing a 70% and 163% increase in single- and multi-threaded workloads, respectively. That comes as a side benefit of AMD's move to a 256-bit floating point unit instead of splitting AVX workloads into two instructions fed across two cycles. Performance improvements are more muted with cryptographics workloads, which only experience a ~5% uplift.

AMD used SPECviewperf 13 to measure its IPC improvements, and it's clear it's results are more than plausible, if not a conservative estimate. Removing our results from y-cruncher, which is clearly a standout, and the crytpographic workloads yields an average 13% IPC uplift, which isn't too far off from AMD's official claim of 15%. Throwing in the y-cruncher and cryptographic tests yields a whopping 18% in IPC uplift.

Power Consumption

Power consumption measurements are always a bit tricky. But as long as your 12V supply (EPS) readings, motherboard power supply sensor values, and voltage transformer losses plausibly coincide, everything is fine. Therefore, we're using pure package power to avoid possible influences from our motherboard. Results from the PWM controller are very reliable if you take them as averages over a few minutes.

We first measured power consumption during an AIDA stress test, but we disabled AVX instructions. The Ryzen 7 3700X beats the pack with 90W of package power consumption under full load, trailed slightly but the Core i7-9700K. The Ryzen 9 3900X pulls 142W at stock settings, and that increases to 168W when we engage the new "Auto OC" and Precision Boost Overdrive features. That is 29W more than the stock Core i9-9900K during this test, but the 3900X comes with four more cores, so performance efficiency will be the real judge of power consumption.

We're moving away from using AVX-based stress tests for our CPU power testing, though we will continue to use them for their intended purpose of validating overclocks. AVX-based stress testing utilities essentially act as a power virus that fully saturates the processor in a way that it will rarely, if ever, be used by a real application. Those utilities are useful for testing power delivery subsystems on motherboards, or to generate intense thermal loads for case testing, but they don't provide a performance measurement that can be used to quantify efficiency.

The y-cruncher benchmark computes pi using a heavy multi-threaded AVX workload and also generates a performance measurement that we can use for efficiency metrics. We're also adding in HandBrake in x264 and x265 flavors. The latter uses a heavier distribution of AVX instructions than the former, but both transcoders are great for stressing the processor with a real-world workload. As we can see, the Ryzen 7 3700X sucks the least power of the group during the tests, but we should also bear in mind that it also has the lowest TDP rating.

As a sidenote, we tested Intel's Core i9-7920X as part of our test pool, but removed the power results due to incorrect reporting from the motherboard's sensor loop.

Combining the performance metrics recorded from the three applications, we can see that the Ryzen 7 3700X is an incredibly efficient processor given its level of performance, and the beefy Ryzen 9 3900X also impresses, though you could argue the overclocked configuration consumes a lot more power in exchange for a relatively tiny gain in performance. In either case, the 7nm process obviously confers a solid power-to-performance ratio.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Precision Boost Overdrive, AutoOC, and Ryzen Master Software

AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) is a boon to enthusiasts with its adaptive overclocking approach, and it's making its way from the Threadripper platform to all of AMD's Ryzen 3000 processors. The software allows the processor to communicate with the platform to modulate performance based on the motherboard's power delivery subsystem and thermal dissipation capabilities.

The processor monitors Package Power Tracking (PPT) and Thermal Design Current (TDC) variables, measuring available margin to the motherboard's maximum power output and current, respectively. Electrical Design Current (EDC) also indicates the maximum current possible from the VRMs during peak/transient conditions. A control loop feeds real-time telemetry data back to the processor, which then dynamically adjusts performance based on thermal and power conditions. AMD also exposes some of these monitoring features with its Ryzen Master overclocking software.

Motherboard vendors define the power limits for their boards and are developing custom profiles that support a new Auto OC feature. This new feature grants you some control over the maximum attainable boost clocks by allowing you to add up to an extra 200MHz to the maximum boost clock, but it isn't guaranteed that the processor will reach those speeds at all times, or under all conditions. Instead, the processor will still respect the limits imposed by the motherboard maker. AMD says that Auto OC is designed to improve performance in single-threaded workloads, while PBO boosts heavily-threaded applications. In either case, you can toggle both settings simultaneously for the best of both worlds.

Our Overclocking Efforts

Due to time constraints, we tested the Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X with both automated overclocking features activated instead of with a manual all-core overclock. Several motherboard vendors have told us that overclocking headroom is extremely limited on the Ryzen 3000 processors, and that exceeding the boost clocks, or even meeting them, isn't possible for all-core overclocking. Our resident overclocking expert Allen 'Splave' Golibersuch has also spent time with early Ryzen 3000 samples and was unable to break the 4.1 GHz barrier without sub-ambient cooling.

In either case, the combination of PBO and AutoOC yielded improvements in some applications, but wasn't as impressive with the Ryzen 7 3700X as it was with the Ryzen 9 3900X. In some cases, the boost confers no benefit for the Ryzen 7 3700X in our application testing, and on a few occasions, we see performance regressions in lightly-threaded workloads compared to the stock configuration. We tested with multiple motherboards and met with the same result, which could boil down to the quality of our sample or motherboard firmwares. As with most processor launches, motherboard firmwares are still a work in progress, so there is hope that the situation will improve. We'll update our results when a fix becomes available, but we did encounter this issue the night before NDA lift, so hopefully a fix will come soon. 

We regularly observed our Ryzen 9 3900X maintaining an all-core 4.1 GHz during our testing, while the Ryzen 7 3700X often peaked at 4.125 GHz.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

The new AMD-optimized Windows scheduler is only present in Windows 10 1903 and promises to expose gains in several types of applications. As such, we updated our test image to the latest version of Windows 10 available at the time of publication (18362.207). All of our test results come from the aforementioned operating system and include all publicly available security mitigations and the latest motherboard firmware revisions. Intel is currently impacted by Spectre, Spectre v4, Meltdown, Foreshadow, Spectre v3a, Lazy FPU, Spoiler, and MDS, while AMD is only impacted by Spectre and Spectre v4. AMD has added hardware-based mitigations for both variants of Spectre, which should reduce the performance impact, but the requisite patches for both companies have performance penalties, which also furthers the need to move forward to the latest operating system available.

We also revamped our game suite, updated to all of the latest versions of application tests, adding a few more along the way, and expanded our power testing suite. We also moved from an EVGA Nvidia GeForce 1080 FE graphics card to the Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti for game testing. We use a Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2080 for synthetic tests to streamline our testing process.

Other improvements include moving from SATA SSDs to Intel's 2TB DCP4510 NVMe SSDs. It helps that the drive delivers 3,200/2,000 MB/s of sustained sequential read/write throughput, which speeds up the imaging process.

All applications, drivers, and BIOS revisions are up-to-date as of seven days prior to the publication date (excluding the Ryzen 3000 BIOS, which is two days old). Due to the significant overhaul of our testing methodology and systems, all test results in this review are not directly comparable to previous reviews, but will be comparable moving forward.

A Note on Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE)

Intel's motherboard partners have infused their boards with predefined all-core boost profiles that go by many names, such as Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE) with ASUS motherboards and Enhanced Turbo with our MSI motherboard. These features are largely referred to as MCE, but the functionality remains the same: These settings essentially apply an all-core overclock to the processor that is defined by the maximum Turbo Boost bin supported by the processor. This setting modifies the CPU's clock rate and voltage to deliver higher performance, which is basically factory-sanctioned overclocking.

MSI turns this on by default in its BIOS, similar to most of its competition. Performance, power consumption, and heat are all affected, naturally. We manually disable this feature for our stock CPU testing to best reflect Intel's specifications. 

MSI MEG X570 Godlike

We're using MSI's MEG X570 Godlike as our test platform for the second- and third-gen AMD processors. Due to the compatibility matrix for the AM4 socket, we stepped back to the MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC for the Ryzen 7 1800X.

The pricey Godlike board retails for around $800, but has the 14+4+1-phase power delivery subsystem to support aggressive overclocking.

The MEG X570 Godlike sits at the top of MSI's motherboard hierarchy. It also comes with a few nifty accessories likea 10Gb “Super LAN” Ethernet card and a PCIe Gen 4 Xpander-Z M.2 expansion card. That let's you add two more M.2 drives to complement the three M.2 PCIe Gen 4 M.2 ports on the board. You also get four PCIe 4.0 x16 slots, an RGB Mystic Light Infinity II mirror over the IO shroud, and a tiny OLED screen, alongside the two-digit LCD display for error codes.

Comparison Products

Test System and Configuration

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

We tested the Threadripper 2920X in Game Mode for our game suite, and Creator Mode for our application tests.

VRMark, 3DMark

We aren't big fans of using synthetic benchmarks to measure performance, but 3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the amount of horsepower available to game engines.

The DX11 and DX12 CPU test results expose the full threaded heft of the Ryzen 3000 series processors. The Ryzen 9 3900X even manages to dethrone the overclocked Core i9-9900K in both tests.

The VRMark test benefits heavily from per-core performance, and the Ryzen 3000 processors have made great strides compared to the first- and second-gen models. You'll notice that our combined Precision Boost Overdrive and AutoOC configuration leads to slightly lower performance for the Ryzen 7 3700 in this test, while the 3900X experiences a small benefit. That's a trend that we'll see repeat in some of our application tests. We've reached out to both MSI and AMD on the matter, and will update these results when a fix becomes available.

Intel's Core i7-7920X is the only twelve-core Intel processor we have on hand for testing, so we're including it in our test pool. Be aware that this is a previous-gen model, so the newer Core i9-9920X, which is based on the same architecture, offers more performance via incremental improvements to its all-core boost frequencies. 

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is a computationally intense title that scales well with thread count, but clock speeds and per-core performance play a big role, as evidenced by the overclocked Core i9-9900K's commanding performance. However, both the Ryzen 9 3900X and the Ryzen 7 3700X beat the -9900K in stock trim.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Civilization VI AI Test

This Civilization VI test mesures AI performance in a turn-based scenario and tends to prize per-core performance. The 3900X doesn't benefit from the auto-overclocking features, and the 3700X again suffers a slight decline in performance, indicating there are still a few kinks to work out. In either case, both processors at stock settings easily beat their previous-gen predecessors, even when they're overclocked. 

Civilization VI Graphics Test

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III

Tthe Warhammer 40,000 benchmark responds well to threading, but it's clear that Intel's per-core performance advantage has a big impact.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Far Cry 5

Final Fantasy XV

We run this test with the standard quality preset to sidestep the impact of a bug that causes the game engine to render off-screen objects with the higher-resolution setting.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Grand Theft Auto V

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates.

Hitman

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Project CARS 2

Although Project CARS 2 is purportedly optimized for threading, clock rates obviously affect this title's frame rates. Intel's per-core performance advantage pays big dividends in this title.

The Division 2

World of Tanks enCore

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Web Browser

The Krakken suite evaluates JavaScript performance using several workloads, including audio, imaging, and cryptography. Like most browser-based benchmarks, single-threaded performance reigns supreme. Browsers tend to be impacted more by the recent security mitigations than other types of applications, resulting in reduced performance from the Intel processors in these benchmarks. AMD's improved IPC comes into play as the 3900X takes the lead in Krakken. The stock Ryzen 7 3700X also grapples with the overclocked Core i7-9900K and i9-9900K, which is a surprising turn of events in a lightly-threaded application.

Surprisingly the Ryzen 3000 processors lag the 2700X in the WebXPRT 3 suite, but are far more competitive in the Speedometer benchmark.

Microsoft Office

Microsoft's office suite makes its debut in our test suite via PCMark 10's new application test. This benchmark tests with real Microsoft Office applications, and we can see that the Ryzen 3000 series processors are very competitive in Excel, the Edge browser, and Word.

Productivity

The application start-up metric measures load time snappiness in word processors, GIMP, and Web browsers under warm- and cold-start conditions. Other platform-level considerations affect this test as well, including the storage subsystem. The 3000-series processors occupy the middle of the ranks, but it will be interesting to revisit this benchmark with a PCIe 4.0 SSD in the future.

Our video conferencing suite measures performance in single- and multi-user applications that utilize the Windows Media Foundation for playback and encoding. It also performs facial detection to model real-world usage.

The photo editing benchmark measures performance with Futuremark's binaries using the ImageMagick library. Common photo processing workloads also tend to be parallelized, which plays well to Ryzen's multi-threaded heft.

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Rendering

It shouldn't surprise anyone to see the 12-core 24-thread 3900X bring a taste of HEDT performance to the multi-threaded rendering benchmarks. Ryzen 3700X also performs well given its price point.

Encoding and Compression

Our threaded compression and decompression metrics work directly from system memory, removing storage throughput from the equation. Ryzen 3000's improved memory performance, along with the generous helping of cores, plays a big role in its commanding lead.

Core i9-9900K traditionally leverages high frequencies to dominate the HandBrake x265 test, which relies heavily on AVX instructions, and the H.264 test. But Ryzen's improved AVX throughput shakes up the status quo, stealing the lead from the incumbent. We can also see the vast improvement in Ryzen's AVX performance in the y-cruncher tests.  

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Conclusion

AMD’s Ryzen 3000 series represent yet another big step forward as the company leads the way with the first 7nm processors for the desktop PC and brings the first PCIe 4.0-enabled platform to market. The benefits of the 7nm process paired with the Zen 2 microarchitecture, and its big boost to IPC, manifest as a more power efficient platform with higher core counts than competing chips, and at a lower price per thread, which places both products but especially the 3700X among the best gaming CPUs you can get.

The Ryzen processors are extremely competitive in performance across the full span of our gaming and application test suites, notching impressive wins in heavily-threaded applications and significantly narrowing the gap in the lightly-threaded applications that Intel has traditionally dominated. To put things in perspective, consider that the overclocked Ryzen 7 2700X rarely matched the stock performance of the Ryzen 7 3700X.

Intel still holds the absolute performance crown in gaming, but much of that performance advantage will be less noticeable when gaming at higher resolutions, or if you pair the processors with a lesser graphics card.

AMD is also taking the leadership position by delivering the first PCIe 4.0-enabled platform for the desktop PC, a role that we would typically expect the market leader to fill. Unfortunately the faster interface does result in higher-priced X570 motherboards, but AMD has wisely encouraged its partners to continue to offer X470 motherboards, which are cheap and plentiful. You'll lose access to the PCIe 4.0 interface in exchange for lower pricing, but you'll also have a compelling upgrade path in the future.

AMD continues to offer as much backward compatibility as it can given its expanding portfolio, earning kudos from the enthusiast community, and is also staying true to its standard value proposition of offering more for less. Both the Ryzen 9 3900X and the Ryzen 7 3700X come with a beefy bundled Wraith Prism cooler that can even provide a bit of overclocking headroom, too.

AMD also continues to offer fully unlocked processors for all models and allows overclocking on value-centric motherboards, which has long been a sore point for enthusiasts that have to pay a premium for access to Intel's overclocking features. AMD is even expanding on that with the introduction of Precision Boost Overdrive and AutoOC features that bring overclocking to mainstream users through a few clicks in its easy-to-use Ryzen Master utility. Intel has responded in kind with its Intel Performance Maximizer, but that software is only compatible with the company's pricey 9th-Generation processors. That said, Intel obviously still holds the overclocking crown, but that's becoming less of an advantage in the face of processors that come with up to twice the cores.

The Ryzen 9 3900X redefines our expectations for the mainstream desktop with a beastly 12-cores and 24-threads and represents a great value if you're seeking a well-rounded performer. The extra cores and threads will pay big dividends in productivity applications, and the solid performance in more common lightly-threaded applications is more than enough for most users.

The Ryzen 7 3700X slots in as the more accessible counterpart that will appease the vast majority of customers, and it also comes with the many of the same attractions of the previous-gen model, except it is faster and consumes less power. If you're looking for the best value on the market, the Ryzen 7 3700X is your chip.

Image Credits: Tom's Hardware

MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

If you are one of the few that have been waiting for the Ryzen 9 3900X to get back in stock, then we have good news for you. The Ryzen 9 3900X has popped up at Amazon and Best Buy for $499.99.

• Get the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X at Amazon for $499.99.
• Get the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X at Best Buy for $499.99.

Despite the recent price hikes, AMD has assured us that the Ryzen 9 3900X's MSRP remains unchanged. As retailers around the country start to replenish their Ryzen 9 3900X stock, the pricing should fall back down to $499.99 soon.

The Ryzen 9 3900X is AMD's current flagship Zen 2 chip, but will ultimately take the back seat once the Ryzen 9 3950X arrives next month. The Ryzen 9 3900X is no slouch, either. The 7nm processor is equipped with 12 cores, 24 threads, and up to 64MB of L3 cache, which will surely appease any hardcore enthusiast. The chip ticks at a 3.8 GHz base clock and 4.6 GHz boost clock.

The Ryzen 9 3900X has an unlocked multiplier, so manual overclocking is on the table as well. The 12-core processor also sports 24 high-speed PCIe 4.0 lanes to exploit the latest PCIe 4.0 SSDs and graphics cards. The Ryzen 9 3900X's other features include support for dual-channel DDR4-3200 memory and a 105W TDP (thermal design power). AMD bundles the Ryzen 9 3900X with the brand's Wraith Prism CPU cooler in case you don't want to spend extra on an aftermarket solution.

Should You Buy This CPU?

Be sure to check out our in-depth AMD Ryzen 9 3900X review before opening your wallet for this deal. 

You can also review our CPU buying guide for help with your decision. To see where this processor ranks among others currently available, including from rival Intel, check out our CPU hierarchy page. And for other CPUs we love, see the best cheap CPUs, our favorite gaming CPUs and favorite CPUs for productivity performance. 

Update 9/28/2019 6:00am PT: AMD responded and confirmed that it hasn't raised the official pricing for the Ryzen 9 3900X, meaning that these price hikes are solely at the discretion of retailers.

Original article 9/27/2019 11:14am PT:

AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X processor, which debuted in July with a $499 MSRP, is now selling for $569.99 at Amazon and Micro Center and as high as $579.99 at Newegg.

Computer hardware, like any other consumer product, conforms to the law of supply and demand. What's pretty intriguing is that the Ryzen 9 3900X has gone up in price in a little more than three month's time since the chip's release, and though we've already seen extreme price gouging on eBay and other third-party sellers, now retail outlets have also raised prices. It looks like AMD's supply of Ryzen 9 3900X is starting to run dry, which is evident since the 12-core part is practically out of stock at the majority of the major retailers. With TSMC's recent struggles to meet the high 7nm demands, it's probably going to take some time before the Ryzen 9 3900X's price starts to stabilize.

At this moment, the prices for the Ryzen 9 3900X are all over the place. Amazon and even Microcenter, who is known to sell processors at lower prices than the competition, list the Ryzen 9 3900X with a $569.99 price tag, which is $70.99 over its MSRP. This works out to a 14.22% increase in price. Newegg has the Ryzen 9 3900X at $579.99 while B&H Photo Video is rolling with $529.99. Best Buy is the only retailer to maintain AMD's recommended pricing for the 12-core, 24-thread processor, but it's possible the retailer hasn't updated the pricing yet.

There are two possible explanations for the price discrepancy between the different retailers. Either the retailers are increasing their prices to take advantage of the high demand and very low supply, or AMD has secretly raised the MSRP for the Ryzen 9 3900X. Historically, AMD hasn't always publicly announced pricing updates for its products. When it does, it's usually a price cut.

We've reached out to AMD for comment and will update the article when the chipmaker gets back to us.

AMD is cutting out the middlemen (kinda). The company used to limit direct-to-consumer sales to limited edition products, but that changed with the Radeon VII's introduction earlier this year, and now it's started to sell the Ryzen 9 3900X on its website as well. Or at least it's getting ready to--right now clicking the giant red "Add to Cart" button results in a message saying "the AMD product you are interested in purchasing is currently out of stock."

There is still the potential for direct sales there, however, especially since AMD offers the option of being notified when the product is restocked.  At that point, AMD will offer direct sales for products in both of its most important product categories. The company hasn't completely shifted to a direct sales model (and we doubt it would), but it seems to have finally grown comfortable with the idea of its products bypassing retailers on their way to end users.

For AMD, the most obvious benefit of switching to direct sales would be higher margins. Retailers expect to make some money on the products they sell, of course, so they only pay manufacturers a fraction of the product's final price. That means the products have to make a profit twice: once for the manufacturer and once for the retailer. Tech enthusiasts aren't really AMD's customers; sellers like Amazon and Newegg and their counterparts are.

Offering direct sales would change that. Enthusiasts would actually be AMD's customers at that point, which might make it easier to get support whenever something goes wrong, but that's just a potential secondary benefit. We suspect that AMD's primary motivation in selling directly to consumers would be the increased profits it could make from each sale now that it wouldn't have to split anything with another company. (To put it simply: cha-ching.)

It would be hard to guess at what direct sales would mean for AMD beyond that. The company probably has complex deals in place with its retail partners that would affect how many products it can offer directly to consumers, how it can price those products, etc. if it wants to remain on those storefronts. Retailers aren't stupid--they know it's easier than ever for other companies to offer direct sales. That's why contracts exist.

One thing we can remark on, though, is AMD making it hard to put a lot of stock in its direct sales efforts just yet. This is an important change to its business model, yet we've heard nothing from the company via official channels. It also put a giant banner at the top of the Ryzen 9 3900X's product page with a red "Add to Cart" button even though--as the "out of stock" message made clear--it isn't currently accepting orders placed via its website. It's unclear if anyone has been able to buy a processor yet.

Not that many potential customers would have seen that banner. We visited the Ryzen 9 3900X's product page in two different browsers (Chrome and Safari) and didn't see the "Add to Cart" button at the top of the page. Turns out that was because two different ad blockers, uBlock Origin, and 1Blocker, had automatically filtered out the banner. That doesn't happen to us on most retailers' websites; it shouldn't have happened on AMD's.

That's probably just a slight bump on the road to AMD expanding direct sales to more of its products. Nvidia already offers graphics cards for sale on its site, so it wasn't a surprise when AMD finally decided to do the same. Expanding its direct sales to CPUs might be an even bigger step, though, because it would make its website a one-stop shop for members of the red team. And surely they'd appreciate AMD doing what Intel doesn't, right?

With AMD’s recent release of the new Zen 2 architecture and Ryzen 3000 series processors, the CPU landscape has seen a paradigm shift. In the past, Intel took the performance crown with a higher price point, while AMD was typically the value proposition and behind in overall performance. But AMD has caught up and, in many respects, surpassed Intel on performance, while retaining the price advantage per core and thread. Given that, which high-end CPU to choose may seem like an easy choice, but in reality, things are a bit more complicated.

We’ll put AMD’s new 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X (the company’s current flagship, at least until the 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X arrives in September) up against Intel’s top mainstream part, the Core i9-9900K in a number of categories below, to help you decide which one is right for your high-end computing needs. If you're looking for a broader selection of chip comparisons, you can also head to our CPU Benchmark Hierarchy.

We’ll take a look at high-level features, available motherboards, overclocking, power consumption, gaming performance, productivity and value to determine which is the better CPU. But while these battles will certainly shed some light on the situation, in the end the right answer for you will depend on your desires and what, exactly, you’ll be doing with your new processor.

Features

AMD’s Ryzen 9 3900X is a 12-core 24-thread processor with a 3.6 GHz base clock and the ability to turbo (AMD calls it Precision Boost 2) up to 4.6 GHz, while slotting into a 105W TDP. The CPU is technically the second processor in the product stack, behind the previously-mentioned 3950X. Both CPUs blur the lines between mainstream and HEDT systems, as the Intel i9 did previously. The new CPU 7nm architecture (manufactured by TSMC), down from 12nm Zen+ and 14nm Zen on previous Ryzen chips, is part of what provides the notable improvements with AMD’s new CPUs.

In addition to the process node shrink, Zen 2 improves upon memory speed support, raising its base spec to DDR4-3200 from the previous version’s support of DDR4-2933 (Zen+/Ryzen 2000) and DDR4-2667 (Zen/ original Ryzen). Where Zen and Zen+ were a bit more limited in speed, we’ve seen support on X570 motherboards reaching into the DDR4-4000 range. Reaching these speeds is not a guarantee, however, and relies on a good integrated memory controller (IMC), motherboard, and a compatible memory kit. Under sub-ambient cooling we have seen memory paired with Ryzen 3000 CPUs reach DDR4 5000+, in fact. AMD recommends a more realistic speed of DDR4 3600, though.

One of the other changes with Zen 2 and the X570 chipset is the implementation of PCIe 4.0. The new Zen 2 CPUs and X570-based motherboards’ upgrade from PCIe 3.0 (the speed of both AMD’s previous-gen motherboard chipsets, as well as all current Intel boards) doubles the bandwidth from 32 GBps to 64 GBps. This change can help with storage and content creation, but at the moment it has no perceivable impact on gaming performance, as bandwidth isn’t currently saturated with today’s graphics cards.

The Intel Core i9-9900K processor jumps into the ring at a 50% core count disadvantage bringing its eight-core, 16-thread capabilities up against the similarly-priced 3900X. Clock speeds on the i9-9900K start off a bit lower with a base speed of 3.6 GHz (vs. 3.8 GHz), but Intel’s turbo functionality brings it to 5.0 GHz for two cores, which are well past AMD’s peak turbo spec. Single-threaded application performance will generally side with Intel when it’s allowed to boost fully, due to the higher clock speeds.

Base memory support on the Coffee Lake-based CPUs is DDR4-2666, which is much lower than Zen 2 base spec. That said, Intel-based systems (with compatible boards) are able to generally reach memory speeds approaching 4000 MHz (or more with good IMC/board/memory). With similar speeds reachable with the Ryzen 9 3900X and an X570 board, memory support specifically is closer to a tie than it seems.

AMD also offers its capable Ryzen Master software, which allows for fine-grained control of the processor. You also get free access to its Precision Boost Overdrive feature, which uses sophisticated real-time algorithms to dynamically overclock your processor based upon chip quality, your cooling solution, motherboard capabilities, and power supply’s ability to feed the motherboard. That wrings the utmost in performance out of the chip, and all with one click of the button.

Intel also recently unveiled its Performance Maximizer software, which automatically overclocks your processor (9th-Gen K-Series models only), but in comparison, it is far less sophisticated than AMD’s Precision Boost Overdrive. While AMD’s implementation is dynamic and can react to different types of workloads and environmental conditions on the fly, Intel’s software sets a static profile that dictates performance regardless of changes to your system. It also only applies to Intel’s priciest chips, while AMD’s suite comes with every SKU.

AMD also ships all of its processors with a bundled cooler, while Intel doesn’t provide a cooler with it’s pricey K-series chips. In the case of the Ryzen 9 3900X, you get a Wraith Prism RGB cooler (yes, it comes with RGB bling) that can more than sufficiently handle the chips heat output at stock, and even grants some limited overclocking headroom, too.

Winner: AMD

With IPC performance being similar, AMD rules the roost here with a higher core count, better power efficiency at stock, a faster base memory spec, as well as bringing PCIe 4.0. While the latter doesn’t matter much (if anything) performance-wise for gaming, new PCIe 4.0 M.2 drives will offer much-faster sequential speeds. AMD’s 12 cores and 24 threads for a similar price as Intel’s 8/16 offering is certainly compelling for buyers who can utilize that much parallel compute.

Motherboard Options

With Zen 2’s release, AMD brought forth a new chipset in X570, allowing users access to PCIe 4.0, as well as a generally more robust power delivery capable of driving the entire lineup, including the yet-to-be-released flagship 16-core, 32-thread Ryzen 9 3950X.

Pricing on the X570 boards ranges from around $150 to over $1000, which on the high end is a notable increase over X470 flagships. Overall, X570 motherboard pricing has gone up mainly due to the more robust VRMs as well as the PCIe re-drivers and other bits that enable PCIe 4.0 support. It is particularly impressive that AMD, once known as being the value alternative to Intel, is now leading the industry by blazing a path to the ultra-speedy PCIe 4.0 interface.

Features wise, the X570 boards also include native USB 3.1 Gen2 (10 Gbps) support and more capable power delivery designed to better support the new chips, particularly while overclocking.

X570 aside, one of the selling points of the new Ryzen CPUs is backward compatibility with previous-generation chipsets. Support goes all the way back to B350, in fact. This move allows users who don’t care about PCIe 4.0 support to save money by using the same motherboard and dropping in a Zen 2-based CPU, or buying a “new” board with an older chipset for much less money.

In total between the five major AIBs (ASRock, Asus, Biostar, Gigabyte and MSI), users currently have thirty X570 boards to choose from. Each board partner has a full range of boards and feature sets from ITX to E-ATX, and covers a wide gamut of pricing and features.

On the Intel side, while X570 is brand-new, the Z390 chipset has been out for nearly a year. With the Z390 chipset came with native support for Coffee Lake-based CPUs as well as USB 3.1 Gen2 (10 Gbps) support, Wireless-AC 2x2 160 MHz WiFi, and uses the PCIe 3.0 specification.

Most Z390 boards are capable of driving the i9-9900K--at least at stock settings.

Between the same five board partners, there are 58 boards to choose from just on Z390. This does not include Z370 or the lesser chipsets in B360 and H370 (which can’t be used for CPU overclocking).

Winner: Intel

Both CPU companies’ latest motherboards offer similar feature sets, including overclocking and native USB 3.1 Gen 2 support. Though X570 has PCIe 4.0, this doesn’t matter at this time for gaming, though it does allow for faster storage. Pricing, on average, is going to be higher for the X570 chipsets boards. As time goes on, prices will likely go down on that front, and we expect to see more X570 board models hit the market as well. The nod goes to Intel for now due to an overall cheaper price range and higher overclocking potential, along with partial integration of Wireless-AC, something that isn’t part of X570.

Overclocking Potential

Both the AMD and Intel CPUs support overclocking, though how each company handles that in the product stack are different. On one hand, all AMD Ryzen processors are unlocked from the factory, while Intel limits overclocking to the more expensive K-variants and “Z” chipsets. AMD on the other hand allows overclocking a bit further down the product stack to its B450 chipset.

Intel over the last couple of generations has been able to reach a higher peak overclock when using ambient cooling methods (sub-ambient as well). The i9-9900K peaks somewhere around the 4.8-5.0 GHz mark with adequate cooling using all cores and threads. This amounts to a 1.2 - 1.4 GHz overclock from the base frequency. Some samples can reach another 100-200 MHz above 5 GHz, but that’s not as common. Reaching that high may require delidding to keep the temperatures under control, even though the CPU uses solder thermal interface material (sTIM) between the die and IHS.

Since Ryzen hit the scene, the 7nm process itself seems to get in the way of high clock speeds, placing what feels like a hard ceiling on ambient overclocks. Though new, from what we have seen in our review as well as others on the web, the Ryzen 9 3900X tops out around 4.3 GHz (Give or take 100 MHz) when manually overclocking all cores. From base clock to fully overclocked, that is a mere 500 MHz increase. AMD seems to push these CPUs about as far as they can go out of the box with its built-in Precision Boost overclocking.

The Intel CPUs tend to yield a more significant performance increase in most tasks, where overclocking a Ryzen CPU doesn’t offer a whole lot in the way of noticeable performance gains due to the Precision Boost technology already pushing the CPU to its performance limits (assuming you have a capable motherboard and cooler) at stock.

Winner: Intel

The Intel CPUs reach a much higher peak overclock speed as well as gaining more performance in the process. The i9-9900K wins this round, hands down, with easily better overclocking potential.

Gaming Performance

For many, how a CPU performs in games has long been a measure for how a CPU performs, period. In the past, AMD CPUs were always lagging behind at 1080p at times (and in specific games) by a significant margin. With the release of Zen 2 and its increased cache size, which AMD markets as “gaming cache,” AMD tried to close that gap, and was quite successful in doing so.

The 3900X, when allowed to stretch its legs with Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO), significantly outperforms the previous-generation Ryzen 7 2700X, and in many cases is just a few to several frames per second (fps) behind the i9-9900K. This change yields an average of 4.3% performance difference between the two CPUs in our testing.

Intel has been the leader in gaming performance for decades. Team blue’s IPC (instructions per cycle) and higher speeds have typically yielded superior performance over the AMD CPUs. And for the most part, that hasn’t changed, though Intel’s lead has shrunk significantly.

When the i9-9900K is manually overclocked to 5 GHz, that lead increases to an average of 14.5% across all our tested titles. As it stands, many games simply cannot utilize the extra cores and threads the 3900X has to offer and rely more on clock speeds and IPC performance. In time that may change, but for now higher clocks still rule the 1080p gaming world. But as we’ve said many times before, once you step above that resolution, gaming performance tends to even out as the graphics card becomes the bottleneck.

Winner: Intel

AMD has most certainly narrowed the gap in 1080p gaming performance with Zen 2 when running the CPU at stock speeds, and the company is even able to perform better than the i9-9900k in a few CPU-heavy titles. But in the end, Intel’s i9 CPU allows high-end GPU’s to stretch their legs the most. While the difference at stock speeds isn’t noticeable for many, those who are running high-refresh monitors and looking to extract every frame possible out of their system will want to use the -9900K, especially when overclocked.

Productivity Performance

On the productivity side of things, AMD and the 3900X really show their strengths. From web to MS Office, the 3900x beats even the 5 GHz i9-9900K in much of our testing. Only in the video conferencing, photo editing, and spreadsheet work does the Intel CPU take the lead.

Outside of that and application startup (where clocks and IPC rule) anywhere the 3900X can make use of its extra cores and threads, it performs better. This includes Corona, Blender, Luxmark, and Cinebench (multi-thread).

The AMD processor also handles encoding duties quite well. We saw it easily beating out the Intel offerings in 7Zip, Handbrake, VeraCrypt AES, and Geekbench. Intel and the Core i9-9900K do make a solid showing and flex its per-core performance advantage, though, in single-thread Geekbench, Cinebench R15, and Y-Cruncher.

Winner: AMD

Without a doubt, anywhere the Ryzen 9 3900X can use its cores and threads fully, it’s the better productivity based CPU. If the applications used are not heavily threaded, the i9-9900K shows off its prowess. As time goes on we should see an increase in core use by software, so the AMD CPU should have a longer lifespan in particular with multi-threaded applications.

Power Consumption

The 3900X is a 105W part, while the i9-9900K is listed as a 95W part. But Intel and AMD have two different ways they measure TDP, and neither is an actual measurement of power consumption, and were never meant to be. TDP measurements aren’t meant to be an accurate gauge of power consumption.

At stock speed in the AIDA stress test, the AMD processor uses 142W while the Intel CPU hits 113W. Using all those cores and threads seems to use quite a bit more power on the AMD CPU. If we overclock the i9-9900K to 5GHz and enable PBO on the Ryzen 9 3900X, the Intel CPU now uses more power at 175W versus the AMD at 168W.

If we use Y-Cruncher as a test, a multi-threaded AVX based benchmark, things settle back to more expected results. At stock, the 3900X uses 115W while the i9-9900K uses 126W. Raise the Intel to 5GHz and use PBO on the 3900X, the Intel CPU consumes 196W while the AMD uses a mere 147W. When looking at the Handbrake results at stock speeds, both processors use about the same power (138W). When overclocked, the i9-9900K uses a fair amount more here as well. But while overall power measurements are important, they are more useful when we use them to gauge how much work is done per watt. In that case, AMD wins handily due to the power-efficient 7nm processing cores.

AMD’s Ryzen 9 3900X also has the new Collaborative Power Performance Control 2 (CPPC2) feature, whichmanipulates Ryzen 3000's power states from within the operating system. This is similar to Intel's Speed Shift technology and reduces power state transition latency. Ultimately, that results in a more efficient processor during all facets of operation.

Winner: AMD

We chose AMD here due to its overall efficiency. Although during the AIDA testing it used a bit more power, we cannot lose sight of the fact that it is doing so with a 50% core/thread count advantage. Once overclocked, the Intel really starts sucking down the power and uses nearly 33% more than the AMD with PBO enabled.

Value

Going by MSRP, the Ryzen 9 3900X will cost $499. At that price point, you receive a 12-core 24-thread processor with speeds up to 4.6 GHz when using PBO along with a proper motherboard and appropriate cooling. The i9-9900K’s MSRP is $488, and it can be found around that price and lower, especially after the launch of AMD’s new Ryzens. For that price, you receive an eight-core 16-thread processor that can run up to 5 GHz on two cores.

But it’s not all about the cost of the CPU and how many cores/threads they include. The X570 motherboards are, on average, a bit more expensive -- they certainly peak higher than any Z390 based motherboard, so that needs to be taken into account as well. It will not typically be a make or break situation, however, if you are going for a high-end X570 motherboard, be prepared to shell out a few hundred dollars or more. Luckily, AMD has left the option to use X470 motherboards with the Ryzen 3000 processors, so there is a value alternative.

Winner: AMD

Zen 2 is a game-changer for the market, shoehorning more cores and threads into a CPU on a mainstream platform than ever before. The difference in gaming at stock speeds isn’t much and we have seen when the Ryzen 9 3900X can utilize all of its horsepower in multi-threaded productivity applications. For the price, and in particular if you can use all the cores and threads while opting for a lower-priced motherboard (remember,  you can go with an affordable X470 board if you don’t need PCIe 4.0 support), AMD wins this round with ease.

The Bottom Line

Looking back at our results, they go back and forth with the Ryzen 9 3900X the better overall processor in features, productivity, power consumption, and value while the i9-9900K had a lot better overclocking potential, better gaming performance (in particular when overclocked and running 1080p), as well as more motherboard options at an overall cheaper price point (if we don’t take Ryzen 3000’s backward compatibility with X470 into account).

In our testing, the nod goes to the AMD processor, as overall performance in gaming (at stock/PBO) was within a few percent, and AMD’s CPU walks away from Intel’s on any productivity application that can use all the cores and threads Zen 2 has to offer.

AMD’s value proposition isn’t as strong if you plan on running one of the high-end X570 motherboards, but on the flip side, if you already have a capable X470 motherboard, that cost doesn’t come into play at all. Also, if you want a new chip but don’t need PCIe 4.0, buying a new X470 motherboard is easy on the pocket and there are plenty of options.

If you are primarily a gamer looking for the most FPS possible for high refresh rate gaming at 1080p, the Core i9-9900K is the way to go. Otherwise, AMD’s overall performance affords it a victory in this head-to-head.

Rounds:

Overall Winner: AMD

More Face-offs:

• AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2 vs. Intel Skylake-X: Battle of the High-End CPUs
• AMD Ryzen 2 vs. Intel Coffee Lake: What's the Best CPU Platform?
• CPU Hierarchy - A Comparison of AMD and Intel Processors