AMD Ryzen 7 3800x Review

alt text

Recently we have looked two vastly different models in the AMD Ryzen 3000-series stack. The budget friendly Ryzen 5 3400G and the Ryzen 5 3600X. Of these two only the Ryzen 5 3600X is a Zen 2 based model, however as it is ‘only’ a six core / twelve thread CPU it does not have a fully activated ‘CCD’ chiplet. Instead 1 quarter of the processor cores in the central processing chiplet are laser cut (or one of the four CCX’s laser cut depending on how you look at things). Today we are going to put the Ryzen 7 3800X under the microscope as this processor boasts one fully enabled CCD.

As it does have four CCX’s / one CCD chiplet fully activated it not only offers 8C/16T worth of processing horsepower, but also has more low level L1 cache. Due to the way the AMD Ryzen 3000-series product stack works it also promises more out of the box / stock performance and more performance boosting headroom than the similar core/thread count Ryzen 7 3700X model.. thanks to a higher TDP of 105watts instead of 65Watts. This ability to push things harder and faster is because it goes through more factory testing and only the cream of the crop CCD’s become Ryzen 7 3800X, while the 7 3700X get second pick of the CCDs. Of course, as this is a higher end processor it should come as no surprise that it does come with a bit more of a price-premium. Namely it has an MSRP of $350 compared to the Ryzen 7 3700X’s $329 MSRP.

alt text

Full Review


Facebook

Great review as always!

One point is that in the conclusion you mention the 3800X having a TDP of 105watts, vs the 9700k's 95 watt as a negative. This is a bit misleading IMO, since the two companies measure, and mean different things with their TDP ratings. Most reviews show a mixed bag of results, with the 3800X using anywhere from similar to less power than the 9700k.

Fingers crossed you guys get your hands on a soon to be released 3950X!

last edited by Bond007

Thanks!
Yeah it is indeed a mixed bag when comp and contrasting 'team red' vs 'team blue'. Intel is under-rating theirs a smidgen and AMD are closer to real-world in their ratings... at stock vs stock. All bets are off when dealing with OC (especially 'auto' overclocking). AMD pushes more voltage than Intel and it does use more power. At stock, in testing it, was a smidge worse than the Intel (according to my power meter), and just got worse when both were pushed to their limits. I did not want to muddy the waters any further so I left it at rated TDP vs TDP and called it a day. That will usually give the 'correct' impression for most people. 🙂

last edited by GaK_45

Thanks for the info! Are you planning on adding power consumption to your cpu tests at some point, or leaving that one alone?

After a metric ton worth of hours testing, power consumption is off the table right now. Its just too damn variable. With the latest gens it REALLY depends on test being run as the built-in power related alogs are highly advanced. Still have not figured out a good 'average' test for it as for some peeps it will be x265 encoding, others gaming, other basic photo editing, etc etc and the results can be all over the place with Intel winning some and AMD wining others. IE Its just too damn variable to give a good 'snap shot' info-graphic. Still working on it, but unless I take 'worst case scenario' it would end up having to be 3 maybe 5 different numbers - which would just muddy the hell out of things and make everything as clear as mud.... and even then someone would claim we are biased against Intel or AMD (or both!) because worst case scenario favors team red instead of team blue (or vice versa). So if I can not get repeatable legit numbers that actually reflect reality... OR a worst case scenario that no one can find fault with... it stays off the table. Sorry.

last edited by GaK_45