Test Bed and Setup

As per our processor testing policy, we take a premium category motherboard suitable for the socket, and equip the system with a suitable amount of memory running at the manufacturer's maximum supported frequency. This is also typically run at JEDEC subtimings where possible. It is noted that some users are not keen on this policy, stating that sometimes the maximum supported frequency is quite low, or faster memory is available at a similar price, or that the JEDEC speeds can be prohibitive for performance. While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS, and most users will fall back on JEDEC supported speeds - this includes home users as well as industry who might want to shave off a cent or two from the cost or stay within the margins set by the manufacturer. Where possible, we will extend out testing to include faster memory modules either at the same time as the review or a later date.

Test Setup
AMD Ryzen 3000 AMD Ryzen 9 3950X
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
Motherboard ASRock X570 Taichi 2.50 (AGESA 1004B)
CPU Cooler Kraken X62
DRAM Corsair Vengeance RGB 4x8 GB DDR4-3200
GPU Sapphire RX 460 2GB (CPU Tests)
MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G (Gaming Tests)
PSU Corsair AX860i
SSD Crucial MX500 2TB
OS Windows 10 1909

We must thank the following companies for kindly providing hardware for our multiple test beds. Some of this hardware is not in this test bed specifically, but is used in other testing.

Hardware Providers
Sapphire RX 460 Nitro MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X OC Crucial MX200 +
MX500 SSDs
Corsair AX860i +
AX1200i PSUs
G.Skill RipjawsV,
SniperX, FlareX
Crucial Ballistix
Going For Power: Is 105W TDP Accurate? CPU Performance: System Tests
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • bigboxes - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link

  • Alexvrb - Friday, November 15, 2019 - link

    As the review points out, it's also hard to measure burst frequency. The harder you try, the more you skew the result, too. The CPU could very well be hitting 4.7 briefly in variable workloads on the hot core... although maybe other samples hit it more often or for slightly longer periods of time.
  • III-V - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    For real. It's the performance that matters, not some number with zero real world meaning.
  • Marlin1975 - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    Wow thats a lot of CPU for not much when you compare it against the competition and how much others cost.

    I am surprised the dual channel memory does not hold it back more.
  • Foeketijn - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    That's exactly what I was thinking. An incredable feat to score about double compaired with a 3700x, with twice the cores, twice the power envelope but the same memory bandwidth. What are those embedded Epyc chips (3000 series) doing with quad channel DDR4?
  • brantron - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    Zen 1 and Broadwell have higher memory bandwidth than Skylake-X at low thread counts.

    Broadwell D is still updated almost annually High memory bandwidth at low power is apparently somebody's thing.

  • Silma - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    Based on you geomean chart, it looks like on 7nm, Intel chips would destroy AMD's, and there's a real possibility Intel's 10 nm chips will be competitive in price & superior in performance if Intel prices them to compete.
  • Silma - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    Anyway, congrats to AMD and thanks for heating the competition again.
  • naxeem - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    Intel can't really do much. They have nothing in the pipeline.
  • Teckk - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - link

    Destroy is probably too strong? AMD will be on TSMCs 5 nm plus their new designs so they'll mostly be on par or in the same situation as today.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now