The 3900X was already the highest clocked Ryzen 3000 CPU and the 3900XT brings a 100 MHz leap in clock speed over it, pegging it at 4.7 GHz. The Threadripper 1920X averaged 100.2 FPS, with an especially bad reaction to game mode bringing it down to 86.1 FPS average.
That’s 28% beyond the 1920X, and it’s not even the 9400. A refresh is what this really is; AMD claims a 4% increase in single-core performance on average over the existing Zen 2 CPUs coming from the increased boost clock and other architectural tweaks. We also try to keep an eye out for other motherboard trickery, like MSI’s oft-boosted BCLK, and then reset to stock settings when applicable. These are determined by taking thousands of test results per benchmark and determining standard deviation for each individual test and product. Even at $200, an R5 3600 would be significantly better -- that one’s hitting 957 points, a lead of about 18% over the 1920X.Adobe Photoshop is next, using a test suite that sums-up various filtration, warp, translation, scale, and photo effects in time requirements, then converts the results into a higher-is-better scoring.The E5-2697 v2 is similarly limited, with the added downside that it’s a DDR3 platform with an old featureset, but compatible motherboards are cheap on Aliexpress and it’s a tempting purchase for tinkering around with. This one is a little more intense and uses a lot of ray tracing. They’d be more worth considering in our later gaming tests, but get killed in some production workloads when compared to the 1920X. Frequency and instruction compatibility also play a big role.7-ZIP is next for testing both decompression. AMD is innovating with bleeding edge technology and manufacturing process and this is why they can do high core counts at a reasonable price; they have a highly scalable architecture that responds very well to our current market.It’s very important that besides the price of the CPU, to always take into consideration the cost of the motherboard and CPU cooler.
We used something like 5 GPUs to render this faster, but single CPUs are tested here.For this one, the AMD Threadripper 1920X manages to finish in 16.8 minutes, which puts it about tied with an 8-core 9900K at 5.2GHz. We measure in millions of instructions per second for this test, so higher is better.For our GN Logo render, we get a real-world look at a Blender animation we made for our own video intros. 1% and .1% lows are abysmal for every CPU in this test, but the averages are still comparable. Finally we’ve come to a game where it outperforms the 6C/6T i5-8400, which averaged 103.5 FPS.
Error margins are also defined in our chart bars to help illustrate the limitations of statistical relevance when analyzing result differences. New Combination AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 3.8GHz... New Combination AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 3.8GHz 105W Twelve-Core 24-Thread CPU Processor Match with ASUS TUF GAMING X570-PLUMotherboard $914.39
IPC (instructions per clock) remains the same with this refresh generation but AMD claims 40% better efficiency when compared to the 10th Generation Intel parts which is rather significant and will matter for a lot of people.Overall though, these CPUs can all do gaming very well and you can’t go wrong with either if you closely watch the pricing on each platform. On this page, you'll find out which processor has better performance in benchmarks, games and other useful information. The i5-8400 has less of an advantage over the game-mode 1920X than it did in the Battle benchmark at 147.6FPS average, but that’s still an 18.5% uplift. The i5-8400 was also slightly faster than the stock 1920X at 37.5 seconds, while the old E5-2697 v2 is far and away the worst performer at 47.2 seconds average. We compare the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X with a wide selection of benchmark tools and data to help you choose the right processor, for your computing needs. Disabling SMT pushed it even higher, up to 166.4 FPS. Intel has a number of processors which outperform the 1920X, such as the i5-7600K which is a quarter of the price and offers around 25% better performance than the 1920X for single and quad core usage (most games only use a maximum of four cores).
That’s because, to our present knowledge, TR4 isn’t going to be used in the immediate future, and future non-TR4 Threadripper motherboards won’t support the 1920X. The XT refresh will feature the Infinity Fabric speed at an out of the box value of 2,000 MHz which is a 10% increase over the previous max 1,800 MHz. We are also detailing more explicitly the unit of measurement in text, although our charts typically do this as well. Where compatible, we used the following:MCE is always disabled on test platforms, ensuring that turbo boost durations should be running within specifications set by the CPU manufacturer. We mention the 2697 v2 because it’s available in abundance when buying used, and is still selling for about $200, or about the same price as a 1920X. This will definitely help in latency bound applications and we can hardly wait to test how this improvement will translate to gaming performance.We don’t believe Intel will lose the gaming performance crown at the high end because that is likely going to happen with the Ryzen 4000 series but this Ryzen 9 3900XT processor together with the Ryzen 7 3800XT with the updated max boost speeds and Infinity Fabric improvements might take the ball so close in Intel’s court that the difference will be too subtle to notice.
For Blender, the goal is to render the scene as fast as possible.
Starting first with our 1080p show floor report example, the 1920X manages to complete the render in about 4.1 minutes, with the $200 R5 3600 behind at 4.8 minutes, allowing the 1920X a time reduction of 15%.