AMD third-generation Ryzen processors are just great

AMD did it. It has produced a series of ridiculously fast processors that use much less power than their competitors and predecessors, while being less expensive and adding additional features, such as PCIe 4.0 support, than only experienced users of PC need. The new Ryzen 9 3900X at $ 500 and $ 7,700X at $ 330 realize most of the promises made by AMD in terms of power and price in recent years.

(I should note from the outset that there is a problem in the form of a very annoying defect that could ruin the installation for novice builders.It is minor, if potentially devastating, so I will not detail the complaint before the end of this exam.)

The new Ryzens are the first widely published x86 processors based on a 7 nm process. What does this soup mean? "X86" is an architecture used by processors that power almost every notebook and desktop computer manufactured today. "7nm" refers to the process node. Historically, this number is used to match the distance between the transistor gates of the processor itself. A shorter distance means that the information on the processor itself has less distance to travel and requires less energy, which in theory translates into improvements in speed and energy efficiency.

Thus, AMD's new 7nm processors based on Zen 2 microarchitecture should be faster and more efficient than those of the previous generation Zen + 12nm and Intel's 9th generation based on the 14nm process.

In my tests, the theory seems to reflect reality. The competitors were:

• $ 500 Ryzen 9 3900X based on Zen microarchitecture 2. It has 12 cores and 24 wires and 105W TDP.
• $ 330 Ryzen 7 3700X based on Zen microarchitecture 2. It has 8 cores, 16 wires and a TDP of 65W.
• Ryzen Threadripper 2950X based on Zen + microarchitecture. It can be found for as little as $ 600, but usually sells for between $ 800 and $ 900. It has 16 cores, 32 wires and 180W TDP
• $ 500 Intel i9-9900K based on the Intel microarchitecture of 9 nm of 14nm. It has 8 cores, 16 wires and a 95W TDP.

We tested all four using similar 256 GB SSDs, 16 GB of RAM and the same GPU Nvidia GTX 1080. The benchmarks shown below paint an interesting picture.

Intel's i9-9900K processors did a lot better in single-core tasks. Thus, in the Geekbench 4 single-core benchmark and in WebXPRT 2015 (a synthesis test used to test the speed of running a browser), the Intel part beat all three AMD processors. AMD has been striving for years to match the performance of the Intel processor to that of the kernel, and it seems clear, according to these criteria, that it still has work to do. . A large number of applications, such as web browsers and some gaming features, are typically based on a single core in terms of performance. Therefore, the delay of AMD will be felt by the more general users, even if experienced users appreciate the large number of hearts.

The magic of AMD lies in its ability to put a lot more hearts in a processor and load much less than Intel. Its processors work best in energy-hungry applications. Think of video rendering or processing large numbers. This also confirms the results. In our Blender test, in which we indicate the time required for the 3D program to render an image, and in Handbrake, in which we indicate the time needed to convert a 4K video to 1080p, the new AMD processors worked very well. In fact, the Ryzen 9 beat the Threadripper in the handbrake reference and arrived just 8 seconds behind in Blender. This is despite four fewer cores.

Surprisingly, the Ryzen 7 has competed well with the most expensive i9. He beat at Handbrake, and barely lost on Blender's benchmark. Since the Ryzen 7 is not only cheaper, but also uses less power than the i9, it seems like the obvious choice for people on a budget. The Ryzen 7 behaves so well compared to the i9-9900K, it seems unfair to try to compare to other cheaper processors, because they will all be much slower.

Now let's move on to the plug I referred to at the top of this article: Please, do not use the heat sink and fan cooler that AMD has included with the last one. generation of Ryzen processors. A cooler is needed, but there are many better alternatives than the one provided by AMD for free. This is apparently a quality cooler. It has LEDs and can be synchronized with the Razer Chroma software, but it is also very noisy, and the unusually sticky thermo-stick compound is overused. It's so sticky that it will essentially stick the cooler to the processor. This is not the worst thing; a good seal between the two is ideal for optimal cooling.

Here's why it's a recipe for a disaster. The AMD processor connects to the motherboard via a series of extremely delicate pins. Bend any of them and you get a broken down processor that is not covered by the AMD warranty. The cooler, meanwhile, attaches to the motherboard via two hooks. You hook one side of the cooler to the card, tilt it on the processor, and then plug the other side with the help of a small metal arm. The metal arm is made of cheap metal and can get stuck. You may need to move it to make it work and connect it properly. But a bad maneuver and the cooler can knock down the processor and bend the pins.

If you are a novice builder, you will want to invest in a separate cooler, a cooler that inserts instead of relying on hooks (about $ 50). But you will still want to invest in AMD processors compared to Intel's competitors. This latest generation of Ryzen processors is fast and affordable, and for once, they will not absorb all the energy provided by the power supply.

READ ME

• The latest AMD processors can not compete with Intel processors.
• They are always faster and cheaper.