ch3w2oy

3700X + 5700XT.. 
 
I had a 9700K and 2080 and I like my 3800X and Radeon VII build more.. I also like AMD Radeon settings A LOT more than Nvidias.. 
 
I see absolutely no point in buying Intel right now unless you need iGPU or have a specific software that benefits from Intel CPUs..

Been using an R9 390 & GTX 970 for the last 3 years. Recently got an RTX 2060 - I'll take AMD's drivers & software any day. Nvidia's control panel hasn't updated since Windows NT & GFE is horribly limited compared to ReLive. Not to mention I'm forced to download the DCH drivers which don't even come with a control panel and I have to get it from the Microsoft store of all places. 
Neither is perfect; but right now my wallet is voting AMD. 

I would go Vega 56/64 or RTX 2060, personally.. The RX 580 is the absolute minimum I would get for 144hz..

Edits registry to increase power/frequency limits imposed by AMD.. For instance I think the most power you can add to stock is +20, after PPT (power play tables) you can +99 power limit. I also don't think you can go to 1300MHz on the memory without it..
 
I used this one (scroll down until you see quoted text below).. Hellm I think created these ones and they work very well..  
 
 

My R7 could run 2100MHz+ core and 1300MHz memory playing Apex and CSGO.. I didn't really test many games but I never saw a problem unless I dropped voltage too low.. I used a Bykski waterblock and power play tables on mine..

3700X + 5700XT.. 
 
I had a 9700K and 2080 and I like my 3800X and Radeon VII build more.. I also like AMD Radeon settings A LOT more than Nvidias.. 
 
I see absolutely no point in buying Intel right now unless you need iGPU or have a specific software that benefits from Intel CPUs..

Yea, this matter is quite game title specific. Right now I'm mostly playing modded Skyrim SE and Fallout 4, waiting for Borderlands 3 and Cyberpunk 2077. There's some Forza, Far Cry and Battlefield in the mix. I wish I could know what FPS I'll get in the games yet to release, but then again - don't we all? Same matter with "legacy" titles since there are no benchmarks for old games. Guess I'll save 100 bucks then and get the RX 5700 XT and 3700X.
 
The question is pretty much solved, but if anyone want's to jump in with their opinion, you're welcome to do so!

3700X + 5700XT.. 
 
I had a 9700K and 2080 and I like my 3800X and Radeon VII build more.. I also like AMD Radeon settings A LOT more than Nvidias.. 
 
I see absolutely no point in buying Intel right now unless you need iGPU or have a specific software that benefits from Intel CPUs..

It depends very much on the workload. 3600 has much faster AVX units, so if the software uses that, it could be a LOT faster on the 3600 than 2700X. Personally I'd take the 3600 over the 2700X as there so many improvements in it.

I have the same motherboard and it is indeed providing a bit more voltage than we'd like. New BIOS version hopefully arrives this month with a fix for that.
Currently the BIOS in this motherboard is limiting memory clocking too. I was able to clock my RAM to 3200MHz and above that the FCLK stopped following, I wasn't able to clock FCLK up even manually without getting a no-post situation. So that's a limit atm. Waiting for the new BIOS for that too.
However, that is kinda what to expect right now. What are you using to monitor temps? I guess you already know that some programs can stop the CPU from going idle.
Chipset driver update helped me to get more regular idling at 0.7-0.9V with Ryzen Balanced power plan.
 
The clocks and voltages on Zen2 change extremely fast and no monitoring software at this time will show you a graph that fast. When you move a mouse or open a program, or just run anything single-threaded, you will observe high voltages. But that voltage of 1.4-1.5V is only applied to a single core and that single core will be showing power usages up to 40W (on 3700X at least), and because that kind of power is going to a single tiny core in the corner of the CPU, we see these hefty spikes in temperatures. Changing a cooler won't help dissipate this kinds of bursts of heat output.
 
When running multi-threaded, the cores will not be getting all that available power, instead the power budget is spread accross all the cores and we'll see a bit less volts and lower clocks. But temps will be higher just because there are more cores in that tiny corner using the power available, which in total is more than a single core can use.
 
That being said, 95C is a lot more than what's expected. I get around 84C max in synthetic stuff, a lot less in games. Is your cooler making proper contact and does it fit over the corner where the CPU cores are?

I had both of those and like the MEG ACE more..

No need for fanboyism.
 
I've noticed that you love writing short paragraphs to answer people's questions, but 90% of your replies mean absolutely nothing. You have no idea what you're talking about. You quoted someone who was actually trying to answer the OP's question (and was doing a good job at it) and you said some random crap that makes no sense. Rather than commenting on every single thread you see, why not comment on the ones that you actually know something about (basically none of them). Stop stating your opinion as if it's a fact (what's the i10 series?!). I know that this thread requires people to give their opinion(s), but at least back it up with something. Thanks.

But all is well so AMD is great.  Gigabyte BIOS flashing is shady tho.  How we had to move up one by one,, SHeeeez just take the latest one and flash it over. sighs

Overclocking the 3900X to 4.2, IMO, is pointless and may only see improved results during benchmarks but the opposite in real life tasks. 

My 3800X boosts to 4.4GHz while playing Apex.. For gaming, I would not use a manual OC.. I mean I can OC manually for 4.4 but that's as high as I can currently go and then I lose my boosting to 4.5GHz for lighter tasks.. Trade off isn't worth it I don't think..
 
I haven't really looked at benchmarks lately but I'm pretty sure you should  be able to boost higher than 4.2 while gaming.. 

XMP is very well known at this point so it's easy to forget to recommend, XMP is an overclock memory profile, basically any RAM speed above 2133mhz is considered an overclock, and when you buy a 3200mhz RAM stick, you're guaranteed an overclock profile that is set to 3200mhz which is called XMP, that's all

I don't think there's anything else you have to change, and it's not necessary to enable XMP, but you won't get the RAM performance you paid for, so it's literally plug and play
 
Don't know what video you're talking about but 3200mhz is the same price as 3000mhz, so there's no reason not to go for it, and Ryzen does benefit from memory speed a lot more than Intel CPU's, though Intel CPU's still benefit from it
 
 
For Intel it's completely gone, you could consider that DMI replaced it, but it doesn't have the same functions as FSB so it's not technically "replaced" since it's not related to RAM speed at all anymore, also your 3570K doesn't even have FSB, it's using DMI

But as for AMD, they now have the Infinity Fabric, it's nothing to worry about, but to clarify the Infinity Fabric will run at 1:1 ratio up to 3600mhz (RAM speed), anything above that will cause performance issues


 

As I explained before, Ryzen 3000 made current Intel CPU's irrelevant, you'll be paying a shit ton for an inferior system

Yes that's 3000 Series
 
It's nothing you have to enable and it's set automatically, when you buy a 3200mhz stick, the Infinity Fabric will be set automatically to 1600mhz (which is the real clock of a 3200mhz stick btw), and that means they're both running at 1:1 ratio, up to 3600mhz, so don't go beyond that

Ryzen 1st Gen used to be very picky with RAM, and Ryzen 2nd Gen improved that a lot, but 3rd Gen has no problems at all from what i've heard, it won't be worse than 2nd Gen that's for sure

I9-9900K still does a touch better in most gaming titles. Ryzen 9 3900X blows the i9-9900K out of the water in highly threaded workflows. So it comes down to how the system is being used.

This is pretty typical behavior, come to forum, ask questions, already have mind set, blast people when they give opinions.
 
 

People complain about the Gigabyte BIOS but I didn't mind it one bit for Z390 Aorus Ultra or my X470 Gaming 7.. 
 
The X570 VIII Hero has double things in there as well so not sure why only  Gigabyte gets shit for having things listed more than once in their BIOS..
 
My MEG ACE has a super simple BIOS and I like it better than both Asus and Gigabytes.. BIOS shouldn't really be a deciding factor anyway as long as they do what you need.. Only one I haven't had the pleasure of experiencing is Asrocks but that's only because they don't how to place a USB C header or use two addressable headers for RGB (stupid).. 
 
After getting the X570 Hero (non-wifi) I regret I didn't just get the Strix-E.. Like Jurrunio said above, the Strix will be perfectly fine and just as good as the rest when it comes to performance.. The RGB on the Hero sucks anyway. 

Revert back until you need a 3000 series BIOS. Maybe by then we'll have everything smoothed out.. 

Since my original reply was deleted let me show you how Google works.. Type 3700X vs 9900K in the search bar and then please evaluate your argument. Just because knowledgeable people don't use it as their primary source for benchmarks, doesn't make it irrelevant for newcomers and those less informed..
 
I guess there's a chance I'm the only person in the world that uses it but the thousands of new benches on there everyday tell another story.. 
 
It's Interesting that you think that.. 

What does that have to do with no one using it? Building an entire PC around that would be quite stupid, I don't disagree with that.. Doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose..
 
So their bias created internal conflicts? They can't fix that without giving AMD more credit..

Only benchmarks that I care about are from Tech Jesus