AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Review: Odd Man Out vs. 9700K, R5 3600, & 3900X
video description
Date: 2020-05-06
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Charles
While the Ryzen 7 3700X is sitting somewhere in the middle, we also must keep in mind, according to many of these tests, outlasses the i7-8700K & 7700K. Both of which were more expensive CPU's, plus the i7-7700K owners dealt with heat spikes, as much as an accidental bump of the mouse causing massive jumps in heat. There'll always be those who'll say the Ryzen 5 3600 chip is the most 'bang for the buck', saying the 3600K is wasted money that could improve graphics, RAM or better PSU. However, the X chips overclocks quite well for it's price, it should also be noted that the Ryzen 7 3700X was not promoted as a match against Intel's 1, 500-2000 CPU's (this is where the Ryzen 9 series comes in. As an alternative, the more expensive Ryzen 7 3800X is the best of that lineup, although many reviewers says to save the cash & go with the 3700X, that when pushed, it's far more than a 65W chip. Still on my Z97 build with 4790K, will for sure skip Ryzen 3, being months away from Ryzen 4 & X670 chipset MB's, yet also nearing the end of life for the AM4 chipset altogether. This was the original AMD roadmap & am sure PCIe 4. 0 will be a short lived release. Hopefully whatever replaces AM4 will be PCIe 5. 0, or the socket will be used for a couple more chipset releases until the debut of PCIe 5. 0, which will include DDR5 RAM, HDMI 2. 1 & Displayport 2. 0. There would be little need & great expense to create a new socket for one or two chipset releases, AMD can easily ride out AM4 while refining the future. Like with PCIe 4. 0, it'll be important for AMD to introduce us to 5. 0, looks like Intel will be skipping the current version & to remain competitive, cannot remain on PCIe 3. 0 & DDR4, two steps in the hole. Unlike AMD, are struggling to bring the 10nm across the board that was supposed to happen in 2015. Five years later & with a new leader, AMD is now running 7nm chips, in great shape other than graphics, which is improving, yet still a step behind NVIDIA, whom has a commanding lead at this point, just no PCIe 4. 0 card. Their next will have to be one & can't wait for PCIe 5. 0, it's time for them to show they can double their GPU bandwidth in order to be prepared for the future, As for the Ryzen 7 3700X, the reviews are a mixed bag, yet given it's price, looks to be a lot of bang for the buck. If the Ryzen 5 3600 & 3600X were equal, the chip wouldn't exist. It likely has a niche audience, maybe for light workstations or home office computers. Not owning one, it's hard for me to say, yet the Passmark numbers shows the Ryzen 3700X in a commanding lead over my i7-4790K, the first Intel 4. 0GHz chip & still fast to me, now rocking a 512GB Samsung 970 PRO M. 2 NVMe SSD (an upgrade from same sized 950 PRO. I didn't need nor want that drive, yet wanted to ensure I'd have a MLC one before all becomes TLC, as it's looking as though QLC is in the same place as TLC was in around 4-5 years ago. It's kind of hard to imagine having three types of SSD storage, unless Samsung keeps the Pro series MLC for business & prosumers. If I weren't saving for a ride, would be looking at a new build & would be the Ryzen 7 3700X or 3800X, my usage doesn't require a Ryzen 9 series & no longer care about bragging rights. Am sure the 3700X will be a successful chip for a certain market.
reply
While the Ryzen 7 3700X is sitting somewhere in the middle, we also must keep in mind, according to many of these tests, outlasses the i7-8700K & 7700K. Both of which were more expensive CPU's, plus the i7-7700K owners dealt with heat spikes, as much as an accidental bump of the mouse causing massive jumps in heat. There'll always be those who'll say the Ryzen 5 3600 chip is the most 'bang for the buck', saying the 3600K is wasted money that could improve graphics, RAM or better PSU. However, the X chips overclocks quite well for it's price, it should also be noted that the Ryzen 7 3700X was not promoted as a match against Intel's 1, 500-2000 CPU's (this is where the Ryzen 9 series comes in. As an alternative, the more expensive Ryzen 7 3800X is the best of that lineup, although many reviewers says to save the cash & go with the 3700X, that when pushed, it's far more than a 65W chip. Still on my Z97 build with 4790K, will for sure skip Ryzen 3, being months away from Ryzen 4 & X670 chipset MB's, yet also nearing the end of life for the AM4 chipset altogether. This was the original AMD roadmap & am sure PCIe 4. 0 will be a short lived release. Hopefully whatever replaces AM4 will be PCIe 5. 0, or the socket will be used for a couple more chipset releases until the debut of PCIe 5. 0, which will include DDR5 RAM, HDMI 2. 1 & Displayport 2. 0. There would be little need & great expense to create a new socket for one or two chipset releases, AMD can easily ride out AM4 while refining the future. Like with PCIe 4. 0, it'll be important for AMD to introduce us to 5. 0, looks like Intel will be skipping the current version & to remain competitive, cannot remain on PCIe 3. 0 & DDR4, two steps in the hole. Unlike AMD, are struggling to bring the 10nm across the board that was supposed to happen in 2015. Five years later & with a new leader, AMD is now running 7nm chips, in great shape other than graphics, which is improving, yet still a step behind NVIDIA, whom has a commanding lead at this point, just no PCIe 4. 0 card. Their next will have to be one & can't wait for PCIe 5. 0, it's time for them to show they can double their GPU bandwidth in order to be prepared for the future, As for the Ryzen 7 3700X, the reviews are a mixed bag, yet given it's price, looks to be a lot of bang for the buck. If the Ryzen 5 3600 & 3600X were equal, the chip wouldn't exist. It likely has a niche audience, maybe for light workstations or home office computers. Not owning one, it's hard for me to say, yet the Passmark numbers shows the Ryzen 3700X in a commanding lead over my i7-4790K, the first Intel 4. 0GHz chip & still fast to me, now rocking a 512GB Samsung 970 PRO M. 2 NVMe SSD (an upgrade from same sized 950 PRO. I didn't need nor want that drive, yet wanted to ensure I'd have a MLC one before all becomes TLC, as it's looking as though QLC is in the same place as TLC was in around 4-5 years ago. It's kind of hard to imagine having three types of SSD storage, unless Samsung keeps the Pro series MLC for business & prosumers. If I weren't saving for a ride, would be looking at a new build & would be the Ryzen 7 3700X or 3800X, my usage doesn't require a Ryzen 9 series & no longer care about bragging rights. Am sure the 3700X will be a successful chip for a certain market.
reply
MULÅSNA
9700K for gaming is so smooth I must say, getting rid of the hyperthreading is a noticable difference and just have 1 thread to each core. Even in some benchmarks with lows etc you can see that and u will notice it if you tried just gaming and is a perfectionist like myself tbh. I just have a clock on 4. 8 Ghz on all cores atm but still smoother then adding hyperthreading if we talk GAMING ONLY (with streaming even. But in blender etc or where you really can take advantage of the cores and threads then AMD is the choise all the way in terms of bang for the buck. I've tested a lot of different rigs and built a lot of rigs myself and I whould say the 9700K is the most stable processor in games in terms of smoothness all over the place in any game I've tested at least. Don't really recommend it tho cuz of the price but if you are an entusiast and really want the best gaming experience and are willing to pay, go for it. Otherwise I whould personally just right now go for maybe a 3600 or something simular with a descent cooler or a good bang for the buck cooler and OC the shit out of it with a BIOS update on a gen2 board (AM4 gen2 ofc) to get that 4. 0 pcie and still don't pay that really high price for a X570 motherboard for example made for the new generation cuz it's no difference in performance that I know of at least: )
reply
9700K for gaming is so smooth I must say, getting rid of the hyperthreading is a noticable difference and just have 1 thread to each core. Even in some benchmarks with lows etc you can see that and u will notice it if you tried just gaming and is a perfectionist like myself tbh. I just have a clock on 4. 8 Ghz on all cores atm but still smoother then adding hyperthreading if we talk GAMING ONLY (with streaming even. But in blender etc or where you really can take advantage of the cores and threads then AMD is the choise all the way in terms of bang for the buck. I've tested a lot of different rigs and built a lot of rigs myself and I whould say the 9700K is the most stable processor in games in terms of smoothness all over the place in any game I've tested at least. Don't really recommend it tho cuz of the price but if you are an entusiast and really want the best gaming experience and are willing to pay, go for it. Otherwise I whould personally just right now go for maybe a 3600 or something simular with a descent cooler or a good bang for the buck cooler and OC the shit out of it with a BIOS update on a gen2 board (AM4 gen2 ofc) to get that 4. 0 pcie and still don't pay that really high price for a X570 motherboard for example made for the new generation cuz it's no difference in performance that I know of at least: )
reply
Demorthus
Not to be nit-picky, but something people often continue to overlook is actually the correlation between file compressions & photoshop. I can tell you from experience that there comes a point where you MUST zip up old projects to save TONS of storage space. In theory the argument of higher clock speeds solely based within PS is fair; however- when entering a more professional/hobbyist level you have projects that are several gigs in size with so many layers, groups, hi-res textures, etc. that you inevitably will finish but will desire to keep it in order to 'archive' it so that in the future say- you want to make a large print but have to change several things and add or remove previous assets in the scene, well you're shit out of luck if you simply deleted it lol. Optimization goes a long way, deleting unused groups of layers+smart objects/images however you'll still encounter too high file sizes when you're working at this level. All of this is worth taking with a grain of salt because I'm simply sharing my actual process. This is without mentioning the other workloads/apps I use that demand more cores/threads across the board the more the merrier for it all, in MY circumstance.
reply
Not to be nit-picky, but something people often continue to overlook is actually the correlation between file compressions & photoshop. I can tell you from experience that there comes a point where you MUST zip up old projects to save TONS of storage space. In theory the argument of higher clock speeds solely based within PS is fair; however- when entering a more professional/hobbyist level you have projects that are several gigs in size with so many layers, groups, hi-res textures, etc. that you inevitably will finish but will desire to keep it in order to 'archive' it so that in the future say- you want to make a large print but have to change several things and add or remove previous assets in the scene, well you're shit out of luck if you simply deleted it lol. Optimization goes a long way, deleting unused groups of layers+smart objects/images however you'll still encounter too high file sizes when you're working at this level. All of this is worth taking with a grain of salt because I'm simply sharing my actual process. This is without mentioning the other workloads/apps I use that demand more cores/threads across the board the more the merrier for it all, in MY circumstance.
reply
fleur'de'
I bought my R7 3700X instead of a R5 3600 just because of issues with binning even though it is a 100% gaming machine. In any semiconductor product classification, there is a process call binning. Every company does that. In Zen 2, 1 CCD with 100% working die has 8 cores. In wafer manufacturing process for every piece of them, there will be defects that will pop out here and there. That is expected. However, manufacturers will disable part of the defective die and sell it cheaper to consumers instead of throwing them into the thrash can. That significantly minimize losses as partially defective silicon can still be reused and sold to consumers. The R5 3600 is such a product, there are defects in the CCX, AMD disabled parts of it and sell it cheaper. Perfectly working ones are sold as R7 3700x or redo the binning process to obtain higher clock speed to get R7 3800x and sell more expensive or even put 2 of them on the same substrate and sell as R9 3950x. It doesn't sit right with me when I'm buying partially defective silicon from AMD when I can afford a perfectly working ones. No offense to anyone though. This is just my opinion.
reply
I bought my R7 3700X instead of a R5 3600 just because of issues with binning even though it is a 100% gaming machine. In any semiconductor product classification, there is a process call binning. Every company does that. In Zen 2, 1 CCD with 100% working die has 8 cores. In wafer manufacturing process for every piece of them, there will be defects that will pop out here and there. That is expected. However, manufacturers will disable part of the defective die and sell it cheaper to consumers instead of throwing them into the thrash can. That significantly minimize losses as partially defective silicon can still be reused and sold to consumers. The R5 3600 is such a product, there are defects in the CCX, AMD disabled parts of it and sell it cheaper. Perfectly working ones are sold as R7 3700x or redo the binning process to obtain higher clock speed to get R7 3800x and sell more expensive or even put 2 of them on the same substrate and sell as R9 3950x. It doesn't sit right with me when I'm buying partially defective silicon from AMD when I can afford a perfectly working ones. No offense to anyone though. This is just my opinion.
reply
Lotfi
This review completely ignores the fact that gaming is moving to more and more cores. Civ V is a good example of this, as it ran well on very few cores, and high frequency. The second devs start using more cores in their games, especially in strategy games where there are turn times to consider as a major factor, these old 4 cores are going to get destroyed by a 3700x/3800x. Devs will go to these higher core counts as amd is making them cheap and mainstream. This leads me to my next point, why the hell would you buy a cpu for now? you need to buy a future proof cpu so you can keep gaming on it for 3 to 5 years if possible. And a 4 cores will be trash in a few years when it comes to cpu heavy games like strategy titles especially. So, plan for the future so you dont regret it later. Get a 3700x when its on sale, or be like me and wait for 5nm to get a high core count, low price cpu.
reply
This review completely ignores the fact that gaming is moving to more and more cores. Civ V is a good example of this, as it ran well on very few cores, and high frequency. The second devs start using more cores in their games, especially in strategy games where there are turn times to consider as a major factor, these old 4 cores are going to get destroyed by a 3700x/3800x. Devs will go to these higher core counts as amd is making them cheap and mainstream. This leads me to my next point, why the hell would you buy a cpu for now? you need to buy a future proof cpu so you can keep gaming on it for 3 to 5 years if possible. And a 4 cores will be trash in a few years when it comes to cpu heavy games like strategy titles especially. So, plan for the future so you dont regret it later. Get a 3700x when its on sale, or be like me and wait for 5nm to get a high core count, low price cpu.
reply
Douglas
i dont understand the point regarding frame variation for the 9600k vs amd's 3600 or 3700 for gaming. the charts show the 9600k OC marginally better for some and way better for other games and whilst it may have greater variation coming from a higher starting point the 1% low is no worse and often better than that of the 3600/3700. So for gaming it seems a better choice. Also it doesn't look like the difference can be made up by getting faster ram and overclocking the infinity fabric. lastly the low latency high frequency ram on the qvls for b450 boards is very expensive (in Europe. the motherboards seem a little more expensive for intel but then one can save some money on the ram purhaps. so purely for gaming the data seems to point to an overclocked 9600k being the best choice for the money. or am i missing something?
reply
i dont understand the point regarding frame variation for the 9600k vs amd's 3600 or 3700 for gaming. the charts show the 9600k OC marginally better for some and way better for other games and whilst it may have greater variation coming from a higher starting point the 1% low is no worse and often better than that of the 3600/3700. So for gaming it seems a better choice. Also it doesn't look like the difference can be made up by getting faster ram and overclocking the infinity fabric. lastly the low latency high frequency ram on the qvls for b450 boards is very expensive (in Europe. the motherboards seem a little more expensive for intel but then one can save some money on the ram purhaps. so purely for gaming the data seems to point to an overclocked 9600k being the best choice for the money. or am i missing something?
reply
Dan
Gamers Nexus You're forgetting that those who go with an AMD platform will also be able to upgrade to one of the 4th Gen Ryzen chips next year when those come out. Intel is a dead platform and Total waste of money. With AMD you could jump in now with a 200 x570 Mobo like the ASUS TUF Gaming X570-Plus (Wi-Fi) ATX Motherboard and a cheap CPU like the 3600 or even the 2600x for 200 or 150 respectively then next year upgrade to one of the top of the line 4th Gen Ryzen chips and turn around and sell the old chip to get part of your money on it back. The same cant be said for any of the Intel chips you are recommending because when intel launches its next CPU you will need to buy a new motherboard if you are hoping to upgrade. Let's see how intel's lineup handles 4th gen Ryzen at this rate.
reply
Gamers Nexus You're forgetting that those who go with an AMD platform will also be able to upgrade to one of the 4th Gen Ryzen chips next year when those come out. Intel is a dead platform and Total waste of money. With AMD you could jump in now with a 200 x570 Mobo like the ASUS TUF Gaming X570-Plus (Wi-Fi) ATX Motherboard and a cheap CPU like the 3600 or even the 2600x for 200 or 150 respectively then next year upgrade to one of the top of the line 4th Gen Ryzen chips and turn around and sell the old chip to get part of your money on it back. The same cant be said for any of the Intel chips you are recommending because when intel launches its next CPU you will need to buy a new motherboard if you are hoping to upgrade. Let's see how intel's lineup handles 4th gen Ryzen at this rate.
reply
Bruni
Looking back at this review in December, 1) 3800X ended up the same price as the 3700X launch price 2) Although 3600X is a better buy for gamer than 3700X, the extra two core actually makes a big difference in multi-tasking (Since nobody really turn on their computer and the only apps they open are games) 3) Raw performance 1080p medium results are misleading with 2080Ti even though there is nothing wrong with you doing a pure apple to apple comparison 4) I'm pretty sure anyone buying high-end GPU are looking for gaming visual fidelity that is pretty much limited to 100fps, or high-end CPU for 1080p240 E-sport experience (which you aren't expecting AAA titles to hit that anyways)
reply
Looking back at this review in December, 1) 3800X ended up the same price as the 3700X launch price 2) Although 3600X is a better buy for gamer than 3700X, the extra two core actually makes a big difference in multi-tasking (Since nobody really turn on their computer and the only apps they open are games) 3) Raw performance 1080p medium results are misleading with 2080Ti even though there is nothing wrong with you doing a pure apple to apple comparison 4) I'm pretty sure anyone buying high-end GPU are looking for gaming visual fidelity that is pretty much limited to 100fps, or high-end CPU for 1080p240 E-sport experience (which you aren't expecting AAA titles to hit that anyways)
reply
TheAlexroller
Hi, you seem to know what you are talking about (and me it's the first time I buy and read about CPUs. I want the best CPU my budget can afford, for gaming exclusively, and I can't sleep trying to decide between i7-9700K and Ryzen 3700X, these two are my target but I can't stop thinking: In the future next gen games, will the ryzen extra 8 threads make the difference or will the i7 extra 0. 5GHz make the difference? Again, I'm talking about gaming exclusively, to be safe on it for maximum years and don't feel like wanting to change CPU in next gen games. I've read that PS5 and new Xbox will be built on Ryzens.
reply
Hi, you seem to know what you are talking about (and me it's the first time I buy and read about CPUs. I want the best CPU my budget can afford, for gaming exclusively, and I can't sleep trying to decide between i7-9700K and Ryzen 3700X, these two are my target but I can't stop thinking: In the future next gen games, will the ryzen extra 8 threads make the difference or will the i7 extra 0. 5GHz make the difference? Again, I'm talking about gaming exclusively, to be safe on it for maximum years and don't feel like wanting to change CPU in next gen games. I've read that PS5 and new Xbox will be built on Ryzens.
reply
James
This is an old video, but I thought it would be interesting to see what actually happened with sales data for 2019. In many sources, the 3700X ended up being the best in sales behind the 3600, for Zen 2. The 3900X tended to be near the bottom. So, many people were willing to spend the additional money for the 3700X over the 3600, and I assume that's because they multitask or they wanted 8 cores because they feel that's the better bet for a CPU lasting a few years. The 3800X also sold better than the 3900X, and if AMD only had one 8 core part in Zen 2 Ryzen, its sales would have been a little behind the 3600.
reply
This is an old video, but I thought it would be interesting to see what actually happened with sales data for 2019. In many sources, the 3700X ended up being the best in sales behind the 3600, for Zen 2. The 3900X tended to be near the bottom. So, many people were willing to spend the additional money for the 3700X over the 3600, and I assume that's because they multitask or they wanted 8 cores because they feel that's the better bet for a CPU lasting a few years. The 3800X also sold better than the 3900X, and if AMD only had one 8 core part in Zen 2 Ryzen, its sales would have been a little behind the 3600.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
