AMD is launching a couple of new Ryzen CPUs called the Ryzen 3000 XT series, so basically a new top-spec Ryzen 5 Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 9, and today I'm taking a look at this new 12 core Ryzen 9 3900 XT that's going to be just a quick one because it is pretty much a small refresh. It's not something new that will suddenly change the whole market. This Ryzen 9 will come in at the same price as the original X-series, so that is $499 or euros 530 euros but do remember that the original Ryzen 3900x is currently selling for around $100 or euros less than that, so let's see how it performs and how it compares to the Ryzen 3900x as well as to the ten core Intel core i9 10900k and ultimately let's see which CPU makes the most sense to buy at the moment.
Quick Review AMD Ryzen 3000
For those of you that aren't really intel processors, AMD Ryzen CPUs have been doing extremely well in recent years and the Ryzen 3000 series especially so now they've been beating Intel's desktop and Intel's mobile alternatives at most workloads and efficiency and pricing so if you were looking to buy a new PC in the last year or so an AMD system just made more sense in most cases now there was still only one thing that Intel objectively managed to do better, and that is pretty much offering better gaming performance.
What’s New about Ryzen 9 3900XT?
Now usually only slightly, but there were some cases where the margin that Intel had was just quite big, and this is where this new Ryzen 9 3900XT series comes in, promising to improve that single-core performance and without improved that gaming performance. So the main change here is really simple these new Ryzen 9 3900XT CPUs basically have a higher boost speed than their predecessors.
The Ryzen 9 3900XT was rated at 3.8 gigahertz base and 4.6 gigahertz boost, and the 3900XT here up to boost to 4.7GHz. There no other major changes to the processor itself. It is still a 12 core CPU with multi-threading, but its slightly higher single-core boost speeds.
Goodbye Stock Cooler
Now there's also one big change that you should know about that has nothing to do with the CPU itself, and that is that AMD now ships these XTC views without a cooler saying that, and enthusiasts looking for the best performance will buy a better cooler anyways now there is some truth in that anyone considering this Ryzen 9 3900XT won't really use a stock cooler. It's probably, let's call it, more responsible not to send out the larger packages and hardware that many people want to use at all.
It is also a cost-saving measure that you, as the buyer, don't necessarily benefit from. I'll give you an example if you're nice water cooler that you bought the just broke, having a stock cooler as a backup while you wait for RMA, which could take a couple of weeks, can be an actual benefit.
So for my comparison here, I put this new Ryzen CPU into the exact same test rig that I use for my Intel core i9 vs Ryzen 9. Gigabyte X570 Aorus Xtream motherboard and XT Kraken X 52 cooler 16 gigs of 3600 megahertz C16 corsair dominator platinum memory MP 510 NVME SSD also from corsair 850 watts is Seasonic prime platinum power supply and of course an Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 ti graphics card.
Benchmark AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT VS i9-10900K
Looking at a couple of standard benchmarks first that we can see that AMD's higher single-core boost seems to work as intended now. The difference here isn't that big, but those 2.5 percents are just enough to actually beat Intel in the cinebench 20 single-core benchmarks. In anything multi-threaded, the AMD was already considerably faster than the Intel Core i9, and that's pretty much remains unchanged.
Now do you know that in my multi-threaded applications, the older Ryzen 3900X scored just higher on average? Still, this fraction of percent differences are just too small to be seriously taken into consideration, so for any workload, today, is it a completely multi-threaded like a blunder?
For example, there was really no reason to spend more money on this AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT as all core boost speeds haven't changed at all, but how does it affect games since it does often require just one core to do a lot of work and unfortunately not as much as I actually hoped.
Now we definitely see some small couple of percent improvements in 1080p benchmark specifically; however, at higher resolutions does mostly disappear, which kind of makes sense as higher resolutions are mostly GPU bound even though AMD improved speeds a bit, as you can see in some games like assassin's creed, Odyssey where AMD now just takes the lead from Intel there's still a couple of results where the game simply runs better on Intel architecture, and 100 megahertz extra just doesn't do enough to beat that.
Now, this effect becomes especially relevant and competitive titles at 1080p. If we're looking at 240 FPS performance, the AMD has definitely improved here too, and still does really well in general. Even it doesn't really change the fact that if you just care about gaming and nothing else, especially for those people that have 240-hertz monitors and expensive peripherals to gain every little bit of advantage over your opponents, Intel still has a slight advantage.
Now while this small improvement is, let's call it, a bit boring, let's not forget that this CPU is extremely good. It is faster than Intel's even more expensive 10 core i9 in most applications at it still does extremely well in games, especially for the game it's a quad HD or 4k resolutions, and it's still much more power-efficient, not even if you don't care about your energy bill just remember this it means that you can combine the Ryzen 9 300X and the Ryzen 9 3900 XT with cheaper motherboards than the i9 and you don't necessarily need to buy an expensive cooling solution like you do with Intel.
Who is CPU For Ryzen 3
So this is an objectively great CPU, but it left me wondering who it is for. I know we know Intel is in trouble really holding on to their last two straws, which are gaining performance or reputation, and this Ryzen 9 3900XT launch doesn't really take the gaming crown for them, and I don't think it will change the mind of anyone who already preferred Intel for personal reasons, but I'm also not sure that the performance benefits will convince AMD fans to spend 100 euros or dollars more than they would on the Ryzen 3900X.
Now I really wish that AMD has also managed to increase all cores performance a bit to give this AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT just a bit more of an advantage over the older X version. Please don't get me wrong. Here there is definitely a good argument to be made here as this is now pretty much the best 12 core CPU AMD has to offer, and if you want to AMD system and you play a lot of games, the extra performance is really nice.
The 20 to 25 percent price difference is much bigger than the 2 to 3 percent performance differences some of the cations, and if you really insist on getting the best performance, you probably already looking forward to see what AMD's new Ryzen Zen 3 CPUs will bring later this year now I know that with every new product development can be expected in a year or two later, but AMD themselves have said that there will be a completely new Ryzen series within 6 months and if the Ryzen 3 improvements are half as good as the improvements that this Ryzen 2 brought you should pretty much expect that these new CPUs later this year will do better in every application.
So which CPU do you if need a new system today and you cannot wait for Ryzen 3? If you're on a budget, the Ryzen 5 3600 is so super cheap and should remain the choice for gamers looking for the best value CPU today, and I don't really think that the more expensive Ryzen 3600 XT will change that fact at all. Now, if you mostly care about competitive games, nothing else, and every single frame counts, you'll still want to look at intel, and if you need a great all-around CPU for gaming and for productivity, I would personally buy the original Ryzen 3900X over the Ryzen 9 3900XT paying 20 to 25 percent more for 2 to 3 percent performance difference that you will never really notice is just very hard for me to justify.