Intel Core i3-9100F vs. Ryzen 5 1600 AF – Blog – 10 minute

Having recently reviewed the Ryzen 5 1600 AF, you should know all there is to know about this nimble CPU. How it performs, where you can buy it, what you need to support it, and so on. In short, it’s an incredible value and if you’re lucky enough to have it available in your region and want something for under $100, there’s simply no better option, or at least that’s our opinion.
However we’ve seen some replies claiming the Core i3-9100F is a better choice. It’s also cheaper and more widely available, so there is that. It happens to be one of Intel’s most popular CPUs right now as it costs just $80, so before we get into the benchmarks, let’s discuss Intel’s budget processor.

The Core i3-9100F is a 4-core/4-thread Coffee Lake CPU, which means it’s nearly identical to an 8th, 7th and 6th-gen quad-core. It’s also not overly different to a 4th-gen Haswell quad-core except for the upgrade to DDR4 memory.
Been there, done that…. as a 6th-gen part it’s basically what we knew as the Core i5-6600, which retailed for $215. As a 7th-gen part it’s close to the Core i5-7600, which also retailed for $215. Then for the 8th-gen series, quad-cores were rebranded for the first time as Core i3, though they didn’t support Turbo Boost. The 9th-gen i3-9100F is about the same as an i3-8100 but with Turbo enabled, supporting up to 4.2 GHz for single core workloads.

Taking this into consideration, the 9100F is more like a Core i5-7600K as it also boosted to 4.2 GHz, though it featured a higher base clock at 3.8 GHz, whereas the Core i3-9100F can drop as low as 3.6 GHz. Going through the specs as we just did, it seems clear there’s going to be very little delta when comparing the 7600K and 9100F at least out of the box. The older Core i5 does get overclocking as a ‘K’ part, whereas the 9100F is locked regardless of the chipset used. Only with a Z-series motherboard the Core i3 processor does support memory overclocking.
This begs the question, why were Intel fans claiming the 9100F would dust the 1600 AF, when in that very review we included Core i5-7600K results? Whatever the case, today we’re putting them head to head in an effort to determine which budget CPU you should invest in.

Let’s jump into the blue bar graphs and do our thing. For testing the i3-9100F we used a Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra equipped with DDR4-3200 CL14 memory. The same memory was used for all other processors, as well as an RTX 2080 Ti graphics card to reduce potential GPU bottlenecks. This allows us to look at the CPU performance, rather than the GPU performance as this isn’t a mid-range GPU review…
Benchmark Time
Right off the bat we have Cinebench R20 multi results, and the margins you see here will translate to any application that can utilize 6 cores or more: basically any video editing tool, 3D rendering application, code compiler, and so on.
These are also things budding creators will 100% want to do with a budget processor such as the Ryzen 5 1600 AF. These aren’t just general purpose processors for word processing, web browsing and emails, though given the results here the Core i3-9100F may be better suited for such a use case.

The 1600 AF was 76% faster in Cinebench R20, thanks to the fact that it packs 2 extra cores with SMT support for three times as many threads. Also as expected, the 9100F is very similar to the Core i5-7600K with nearly identical results in this test.

The 9100F does enjoy single-core clock speed advantage, whereas the 1600 AF will only clock as high as 3.6 GHz, the 9100F boosts 17% higher to 4.2 GHz. Despite that significant clock speed advantage, due to 2nd-gen Ryzen’s strong IPC performance, the 9100F is just 4% faster than the 1600 AF when using a single core, in a workload that’s not particularly memory sensitive.
The 1600 AF is also an unlocked part and with a cheap $20 tower cooler it can be typically overclocked to around 4.2 GHz, so about a 15% increase in clock speed over the out of the box spec.

Taking a look at performance in 7-zip we see that the 1600 AF is almost twice as fast as the 9100F for compression work, here it was a whopping 93% faster. In fact, the Ryzen processor was just 11% slower than the Core i7-8700K and in a completely different league to the Core i3 model.

When it comes to decompression work that figure is blown out to a massive 127% margin, making the Ryzen CPU worlds faster than the 9100F and just 3% slower than the 8700K.

It’s total annihilation in Blender as well. Here the 1600 AF was 85% faster than the 9100F. Again it makes more sense, at least in terms of performance, to compare the Ryzen 5 part with the Core i7-8700K, as it was just 13% slower in this test.

The 9100F has the advantage of using less power, but when comparing total system usage, it’s actually worse in terms of performance per watt. Here the 1600 AF consumed 50% more power, but it was 85% faster, so significantly more efficient and that’s largely due to it’s SMT support.
Gaming Benchmarks
For playing games on a budget CPU, first up we have Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey. This game punishes quad-cores and as you’d expect, the 9100F fairs no better than the 7600K. Granted we’re still looking at playable performance with the quad-cores, but frame stuttering will be much more apparent with these CPUs.
The 1600 AF on the other hand is silky smooth with 1% lows of around 60 fps and an average frame rate of 77 fps, making the Ryzen processors 24% faster than the Core i3.

Battlefield V is even more demanding that Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey and here frame stuttering is a massive problem with the quad-core chip. There is a 137% performance disparity between the 1% low and average frame rate with the 9100F, while we only see a 38% disparity with the 1600 AF.
The Ryzen 5 part was 9% faster when comparing the average frame rate, but a massive 86% faster when looking at the 1% low results.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider is another modern CPU demanding title and here the 1600 AF was up to 28% faster.

The Division 2 is an ever CPU demanding title and here the 1600 AF was 43% faster than the 9100F when comparing the average frame rate and 33% faster for the 1% low result.

Far Cry New Dawn isn’t a CPU demanding game, at least not in the sense that it utilizes core heavy CPUs very well. However, we include this title deliberately as it’s a good example of how some older titles behave with modern processors.
It’s also important to note that while the 9100F is 14% faster than the 1600 AF, the Ryzen 5 processor still allowed for over 60 fps at all times and didn’t suffer from poor frame time performance, the game played very smoothly.

Hitman 2 typically isn’t a great title for Ryzen CPUs, the 3rd gen Ryzen 7 3700X falls short of even the Core i7-7700K for example. However, this title also requires more than 4 threads. In the case of the 7700K it skates by thanks to Hyper-Threading support. The 7600K though struggles and it’s the exact same story with the 9100F, the game is still playable and relatively smooth, but the 1600 AF does have a clear advantage here.

Finally we have the Total War: Three Kingdoms results and again, the 1600 AF edged out the 9100F, this time allowing for 10% more frames on average and a 23% improvement in 1% low performance.
Wrap Up
We don’t think this comparison calls for any further analysis. It’s evidently clear that if you want to build a budget gaming PC, investing in a quad core to save even $50 is not worth it. You will have to deal with frame stuttering in a number of more demanding titles, old and new.
The quad-core Core i3-9100F was hopeless in Battlefield V, pretty bad in Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey, fairly useless in The Division 2, and weak in Shadow of the Tomb Raider. When playing older or less demanding titles such as Far Cry New Dawn, the Core i3 did well, but so will the 1600 AF or any other hexa-core or better Ryzen processor.

We’re not far from reaching a point where quad cores will be unusable for serious gaming, so investing in one today to save a small amount of money is plain silly. For US-based shoppers, the Ryzen 1600 AF effectively eliminates the Core i3-9100F as both come in at about $85. Your mileage will vary in other regions where the 1600 AF may not be as inexpensive or may be entirely unavailable.
Where you can’t get the 1600 AF, the next best thing is the Ryzen 5 2600 at $200. That’s a hefty 53% increase in price though. Alternatively, you will get a similar experience to that of the 9100F with the Ryzen 3 3200G for $94. That’s a mere $11 increase for a CPU with a decent iGPU and it’s on a platform that currently supports up to a 16-core/32-thread processor, giving you an amazing path for upgrades years later.
Shopping Shortcuts:

Tempemail , Tempmail Temp email addressess (10 minutes emails)– When you want to create account on some forum or social media, like Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, TikTok you have to enter information about your e-mail box to get an activation link. Unfortunately, after registration, this social media sends you dozens of messages with useless information, which you are not interested in. To avoid that, visit this Temp mail generator: tempemail.co and you will have a Temp mail disposable address and end up on a bunch of spam lists. This email will expire after 10 minute so you can call this Temp mail 10 minute email. Our service is free! Let’s enjoy!

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 AF Review – Blog – 10 minute

AMD’s first-gen Ryzen chips continue to sell as budget alternatives to the newer generations and the Ryzen 5 1600/2600 products in particular are very attractive for budget builds. Today we’re checking out the 12nm version of the Ryzen 5 1600 that despite the name, is a new CPU that’s only been on the market for a few months.
To quickly recap, the Ryzen 5 1600 was released in April 2017 for $220, based on the original 14nm Zen architecture. It’s a 6-core, 12-thread part clocked at 3.2 GHz for the base with an all-core boost clock of 3.4 GHz and cooled using the Wraith Spire.

About a year later, AMD replaced it with the Ryzen 5 2600 at $200. It was also a 6-core processor, but featuring updated 12nm Zen+ cores. It ran at a base clock of 3.4 GHz with an all-core of 3.7 GHz. Because the more refined process was more efficient, AMD downgraded the cooler to the Wraith Stealth.
After one more year, we got the current generation Zen 2 processors. Here the replacement was the Ryzen 5 3600, another (incredibly good) $200 part.
But what is this Ryzen 5 1600 AF?
Late last year a mysterious Ryzen 5 1600 refresh made it to market. Bizarrely, AMD released a really cheap version of the Ryzen 5 2600, but just called it the Ryzen 5 1600. Known as the “Ryzen 5 1600 AF” because of the box identification, it’s very different to the original Ryzen 5 1600 AE model.
Forget about the name, this is a 2nd-gen Ryzen part. Essentially it’s an R5 2600 with a slight decrease in clock speed. Apparently AMD didn’t have enough 14nm wafers available to keep producing the R5 1600, so they simply shifted it to the 12nm process and now they’re making a version of the R5 2600 that they call the R5 1600.

At this point you may be asking yourself, why do I care that AMD is making new products and selling them under old names? Seems counterproductive, but the reason you should care is price. These underclocked Ryzen 5 2600 CPUs cost a mere $85. That’s a Zen+ 6-core, 12-thread part for just $85 brand new.

The original 14nm Ryzen 5 1600 was a great deal at a little over $100 and the Ryzen 5 2600 was killer at $120, but the Ryzen 5 1600 AF blows them both out of the water at just $85. That is, as long as you can get it. The CPU seems to be readily available in the United States, but it’s not sold everywhere.
Before we get into the blue bar graphs, here’s a look at how the 1600 AF clocks compared to the original 1600 AE model, as well as the 2600: running a heavy Blender workload, the original 1600 operates at 3.4 GHz, the new AF model maintained 3.7 GHz and the 2600 runs at 3.8 GHz.

From this test alone, it would appear like the 1600 AF could be up to 3% slower than the 2600 out of the box, but it’s way cheaper. Armed with that information, let’s jump into our tests which we’ll power through as the results aren’t surprising and don’t require much explanation.
For testing we’re using the Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master with 16GB of G.Skill’s FlareX DDR4-3200 memory and a RTX 2080 Ti GPU.
Benchmarks
First up we have the Cinebench R20 multi-core performance and here the 1600 AF basically matched the 2600, less than a 1% margin in it. This means out of the box the AF was 12% faster than the original 1600.

For single core performance the 2600 was 1.5% faster than the 1600 AF and that makes the new 12nm 1600 is 10% faster than the original.

Running 7-zip we see identical compression performance. Again, the AF is about 10% faster than the original 1600. For the decompression test the 2600 was 1.5% faster than the 1600 AF which was 9% faster than the original 1600.

The last application we bothered to run was Blender, here the 1600 AF was about a 1% slower than the 2600. No surprises here.
Gaming Benchmarks
Time for some gaming benchmarks and first up we have Assassin’s Creed Odyssey AND… the 1600 AF delivers basically the same performance as the R5 2600, making it a little faster than the original 1600. As expected the margins are very similar at 1440p.

Performance in Battlefield V is very similar between the original 1600, the 1600 AF and the 2600. Of course, it’s the same story at 1440p, so with a lesser graphics card you can expect to see no difference at all.

The 1600 AF matched the 2600 with identical performance in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, making it a few frames faster than the original model and we see basically identical margins at 1440p.

We see identical gaming performance from the 1600 AF when compared to the 2600 once again, this time when testing with The Division 2.
The results at 1440p are no different and here we see more evidence that the 1600 and 1600 AF will deliver the same gaming experience with a lower tier GPU.

Next up we have Far Cry New Dawn and yes…. this is a familiar sight.
The 1600A basically matching the 2600 making it a little faster than the original, the true 1600. 1440p doesn’t offer up any surprises, more of the same here.

We see a nice 13% boost to the 1% low performance for the 1600 AF over the 1600 in Hitman 2 at 1080p and the refreshed 1600 was able to basically match the 2600. The 1% low margin extends to 16% at 1440p, but overall the margins are much the same.

The 1600 AF also shows good 1% low improvements in Total War Three Kingdoms, beating the 1600 by a 16% margin at 1080p to coming in 1-2 fps behind the 2600. The margins are reduced slightly at 1440p, but overall a similar story.
Wrap Up: Incredible Budget CPU
That was our quick look at how the Ryzen 5 1600 AF performs and the results were as positive as we expected. It’s a Ryzen 5 2600 with very minor reduction in clock speed. Speaking of which, you can of course overclock the 1600 AF as it’s fully unlocked. Our chip — which we bought from retail — hit 4.2 GHz using 1.4v and that’s the same overclock achieved by the R5 2600 retail part we have on hand.

Some chips might only do 4 GHz depending on silicon quality, some or rather few might exceed 4.2 GHz, but based on reports we’ve seen 4.2 GHz seems like the upper end of the overclocking results. Our original R5 1600 chip also does 4 GHz and that seems to be about as good as you can realistically hope for with the older processor.
In other words, the Ryzen 5 1600 AF is not only cheaper than the original 1600 and faster out of the box, but it should also overclock better. Power consumption is inline with the 2600, with a slight advantage out of the box due to the minor decrease in clock speed, though this can vary depending on silicon quality.

For budget builders with access to the 1600 AF at $85, there is simply no better choice. As we said earlier, the Ryzen 5 2600 was already amazing value at $120. Thus, the 1600 AF which is basically the same CPU for a further discount is just an insane deal.
AMD is putting the hurt on Intel with parts like this. Right now the Core i5-9600K costs $240 and the locked i5-9400F comes in at $165 (check out this performance comparison). We expect both of these 6-core/6-thread processors to be slower than the 1600 AF for gaming within a few years. If the 1600 AF is not selling in your country, you can still buy the R5 2600 for less than any modern Core i5 processor, which is why we had picked it as the best budget CPU you can buy, well, until now.
Shopping Shortcuts:

Tempemail , Tempmail Temp email addressess (10 minutes emails)– When you want to create account on some forum or social media, like Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, TikTok you have to enter information about your e-mail box to get an activation link. Unfortunately, after registration, this social media sends you dozens of messages with useless information, which you are not interested in. To avoid that, visit this Temp mail generator: tempemail.co and you will have a Temp mail disposable address and end up on a bunch of spam lists. This email will expire after 10 minute so you can call this Temp mail 10 minute email. Our service is free! Let’s enjoy!

Ryzen 5 3600 vs. R5 2600: GPU Scaling Benchmark Test – Blog – 10 minute

Last August after much demand I locked myself away for a few days to benchmark… Just to be clear, no one requested I had to be locked away, but that’s just what it took in order to get all 900 benchmark runs done. With the release of 3rd-gen Ryzen many gamers wanted a detailed GPU scaling benchmark. That’s what we set out to deliver, testing four GPUs with three different CPUs at two resolutions, three quality presets, and four games.
The goal was to see how the most affordable new Ryzen (R5 3600) and then most expensive 3rd-gen processor (R9 3900X) compared to the Core i9-9900K, the world’s best gaming CPU. In short, the Ryzen 5 3600 proved to be the best value option for gamers, more often than not matching the Ryzen 9 3900X. Using an RTX 2080 Ti with medium quality settings at 1080p, the affordable Ryzen was just 14% slower on average when compared to the 9900K.

However with a more reasonable GPU such as the $350 Radeon RX 5700 at 1440p with ultra quality settings, the Ryzen 5 processor was just 4% slower than the 9900K, while averaging over 120 fps.
Since then we’ve seen our fair share of new CPUs and other hardware that had to get reviewed and tested, but we’ve been sitting for weeks on similar scaling results and data comparing the excellent Ryzen 5 3600 against its predecessor, the Ryzen 5 2600 which is to this day a great value CPU option.
Gamers asking if they should spend ~$70 more on the R5 3600, or just get the 2600, this is the article for you. It was time to get these results out.

For testing, both AMD CPUs were paired with G.Skill DDR4-3200 CL14 memory and the Corsair H115i Pro cooler. Auto overclocking features such as MCE or PBO were disabled and the memory was not tuned, just XMP loaded. In other words, we’re looking at out of the box performance with a quality all-in-one cooler and low latency memory. Let’s get into the results.
Benchmarks
Starting with Assassin’s Creed Odyssey at 1080p using medium quality settings, at the top of the graph we have the RTX 2080 Ti and here we see the 3600 is up to 28% faster than the 2600.
That’s a big performance jump and those with high refresh rate monitors will certainly notice this improvement. However, if you’re using a $500 graphics card with these $200 (or less) CPUs, then the margins are far less extreme. Here the 3600 was just 13% faster when comparing the average frame rate while the 1% low performance was almost identical.

With more mainstream GPUs, like the $350 Radeon RX 5700, the 3600 is just 8% faster. Finally for those using an RX 580 or a GPU of roughly equivalent performance, there’s virtually no difference between the 2600 and 3600 under these test conditions.
This will also of course be true of anyone using a GPU that’s slower than the RX 580.

Now if we change the quality preset from medium to ultra high, things change quite a bit and this is a more appropriate quality setting for those using an RTX 2080 Ti, especially at just 1080p. Here we see virtually no difference in performance between the 2600 and 3600 using the 2080 Ti, in fact the 2600 was just a few frames slower than the 9900K in this test scenario.
It’s a similar story with the RTX 2070 Super and RX 5700. At most the Ryzen R5 2600 was 3 fps slower than the 3600, delivering identical performance. Naturally we’ll see the same result with the RX 580 and with slower GPUs as well.

Jumping to 1440p using medium quality settings changes the picture from what we saw at 1080p. Previously, the 3600 was up to 28% faster than the 2600, here it’s just 7% faster with the 2080 Ti.
Similar margins are seen when testing with the RTX 2070 Super and RX 5700, while we see virtually no performance difference with the RX 580.

The final ACO test takes place at 1440p with the ultra high quality preset. Just as we found at 1080p using this preset, there’s virtually no difference in performance between the 2600 and 3600. Even with the 2080 Ti we’re heavily GPU limited under these test conditions.
Far Cry New Dawn
We’ve included this title deliberately as it represents the kind of performance you’re likely to see in older games. This is also a title that caused performance issues for Ryzen processors, at least performance limiting issues.
Overall performance was still quite good and certainly smooth and very playable as we see here with the Ryzen 5 2600.

When using the normal or medium quality preset we see that the R5 3600 is 15% faster at 1080p with the RTX 2080 Ti, 2070 Super and even the RX 5700.
Even with the RX 580 we see some performance improvement over the 2600 here.

Increasing the quality settings places additional load on the CPU, as well as the GPU, and as a result the margin between the 2600 and 3600 increases, now the 3rd-gen hexa-core processor is up to 29% faster with the 2080 Ti, and similar margins are also seen with the 2070 Super and RX 5700.
Again, it’s not until we drop down to the RX 580 that the margins are neutralized.

The margins at 1440p with the medium preset are slightly increased. Here the 3600 was 18% faster than the 2600 with the RTX 2080 Ti, previously we were seeing a 15% margin.
The 2070 Super and RX 5700 results are similar until we drop to the sub-$200 RX 580 that we become GPU bound and all CPUs are limited to the same level of performance.

Increasing the resolution widens the margins. At 1440p with the ultra quality preset enabled the 3600 was up to 27% faster than the 2600. This is seen with the 2080 Ti, 2070 Super and RX 5700.
Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege
When testing Rainbow Six it should be noted that the “medium” quality setting is somewhat closer to ‘high’ as there’s also ‘very high’ and ‘ultra high’ above it. So using the high quality preset at 1080p with a manually adjusted render scale of 100%, the Ryzen 3600 was up to 26% faster than the 2600 with the RTX 2080 Ti.

That margin is reduced to just 12% with the 2070 Super, though more crucially, the 1% low is almost identical across the 2600, 3600 and even the 3900X.
By the time we get down to the RX 5700 the 3600 is only ~8% faster and even the 9900K is delivering a similar level of performance.
Unsurprisingly the RX 580 sees all four CPUs deliver the same level of performance.

Testing again at 1080p, but this time with the ultra quality settings, the R5 3600 is still a good bit faster when paired with the RTX 2080 Ti, delivering 24% more frames on average.
However as we saw with the medium quality preset, using the RTX 2070 S greatly reduces the margin to the point where they are almost on par. The margin with the RX 5700 is basically non-existent and is eliminated completely with the RX 580, which mind you is almost pushing 100fps on average.

Previously at 1080p with the medium quality preset the 3600 was up to 26% faster than the 2600 when paired with the RTX 2080 Ti. This time using the same quality preset but at 1440p, we find that the 3600 is just 6% faster when looking at average frame rates, while the 1% low performance is virtually identical.
We see the same performance with the RTX 2070 Super, though interestingly the 2600 does drop off the pace a little when paired with the RX 5700.

The last Rainbow Six Siege test takes place at 1440p with the ultra quality settings and here the Ryzen 5 2600 still allowed for over 160 fps on average with the RTX 2080 Ti. In short, the 3600 and 2600 delivered identical performance with all four tested graphics cards.
World War Z
Moving on to World War Z, first we have the medium quality results at 1080p. Using the RTX 2080 Ti the 3600 was 24% faster than the 2600 when comparing 1% low performance. That said, the 2nd-gen part was still pushing over 100 fps at all times.

Dropping down to the RTX 2070 Super reduced the margin to 19%, but the 2600 was still pushing well over 100 fps. Surprisingly with the RX 5700 installed, the R5 3600 was up to 22% faster, so a decent performance uplift.
Even with the RX 580 we see that the 3600 is up to 9% faster, something we’ve not seen in the other games tested, though none of the other titles saw frame rates exceed 150 fps.

Increasing the quality preset to ultra reduced the 3600’s lead over the 2600 with the RTX 2080 Ti down from 24% to 18%, not a massive change, but we are slightly more GPU limited here. Similar margins were also seen when testing with the RTX 2070 Super and RX 5700.
The trend is clear, it’s not until we drop to the budget RX 580 that the margins close up, but even here the 2600 lags a little behind the 3600.

Once again we see that increasing the resolution actually increases CPU load and as a result the 3600 is up to 29% faster than the 2600 with the 2080 Ti at 1440p. The margin is reduced to 19% with the RX 5700 and then just 3% with the RX 580.

Finally at 1440p/Ultra we see that the 3600 is up to 23% faster than the 2600 when using the RTX 2080 Ti. That margin is reduced to 17% with the 2070 Super and then back up to 20% with the RX 5700. With the RX 580 we’re looking at GPU limited frame rates and thus identical performance across all four tested CPUs.
Performance Summary
As we mentioned in the feature preceeding this, we realize four games is not a lot, but it took almost 300 benchmarks runs just to add the Ryzen 5 2600 into this comparison. The games used should also cover most performance scenarios. That being the case, what does the average performance look like?

For those gaming at 1080p, using medium quality settings, with an RTX 2080 Ti… you’re insane. But seriously, in this worst-case scenario for the Ryzen 5 2600 we see that the newer Ryzen 3600 was on average 21% faster.
For those using a $500 GPU under these conditions, you’re still a little nutty, but in any case the 3600 was 16% faster on average with the 2070 Super.
We feel a more realistic pairing would be the Radeon RX 5700 and here the 3600 was just 12% faster on average, or 15% if we look at the 1% lows. Finally, if you’re using an RX 580 or slower, the 3600 is really no faster than the 2600.

Now if we increase the resolution to 1440p which I feel is a more realistic choice with medium quality settings, even for RX 580 owners, we see that the 3600 is just 13% faster on average with the mighty RTX 2080 Ti, so not exactly a big gain over the 2600.
Similar margins are seen when testing with the 2070 Super and RX 5700, so you’re looking at less than 20% performance improvement with the Ryzen 5 3600 over the 2600.

Using ultra quality settings, the 3600 was 19% faster on average with the 2080 Ti. That margin is reduced to just 13% with the 2070 Super and 16% with the RX 5700. Then for RX 580 owners you’re looking at a 7% increase on average for the 1% low performance.

On a more demanding setting, gaming at 1440p, the Ryzen 3600 was on average 14% faster with the RTX 2080 Ti, 12% faster with the 2070 Super and 15% faster with the RX 5700. We see virtually no performance difference with the RX 580.
What We Learned
In our original Ryzen 5 3600 review which in addition to workstation and productivity tests included a 9-game benchmark covering 1080p and 1440p performance, we found when looking at just the 1080p numbers that on average the 3600 was 14% faster than the 2600. At the time the 2600 was retailing for $150 and the R5 3600 debuted at $200, meaning the older 2nd-gen part came in at a 15% discount per frame.
Looking at the best case average performance for the Ryzen 3600 in today’s test, it was 21% faster with medium quality settings at 1080p. Worst case the 3600 was 12% faster at 1440p with ultra quality settings.

What has changed more dramatically perhaps is pricing. Today the Ryzen 5 2600 can be purchased new for just $120, while the 3600 costs $195, making the newer part 63% more expensive. In other regions this margin will vary, but in Australia for example, the pricing remains very similar.
If you’re after maximum value and the best possible cost per frame, get the Ryzen 5 2600 or perhaps the new 12nm Ryzen 5 1600, which we plan to test soon. If you’re after maximum fps for $200 or less, then get the Ryzen 5 3600, there are instances where it’s almost 30% faster.
Do note that looking at this strictly from a cost per frame perspective doesn’t factor in the cost of a motherboard, memory, or the rest of the system. An additional $75 expense on the CPU is a massive 63% increase, but if we’re talking about a $1,000 system, it’s less than 10%.

Granted, if you applied the same mentality to all the components in your system you’d end up well over budget… $70 more for the CPU, a tad more for the graphics card, more memory, better motherboard, more storage, and before you know it that $1,000 build is looking more like $1,500. In any case, the point of this kind of test is to learn the actual differences in performance, so you only spend on a more expensive component that will net you a noticeable increase in performance. Otherwise, save the $75 and put it towards an upgrade in a few years’ time, at which point you should be able to buy a noticeable performance improvement.
Bottom line, the Ryzen 5 3600 is clearly the faster processor and we love it for the solid performance it offers for gaming and productivity tasks. But if you’re looking to get the most bang for your buck, the discounted 2nd-gen parts are the way to go.
Shopping Shortcuts:

Tempemail , Tempmail Temp email addressess (10 minutes emails)– When you want to create account on some forum or social media, like Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, TikTok you have to enter information about your e-mail box to get an activation link. Unfortunately, after registration, this social media sends you dozens of messages with useless information, which you are not interested in. To avoid that, visit this Temp mail generator: tempemail.co and you will have a Temp mail disposable address and end up on a bunch of spam lists. This email will expire after 10 minute so you can call this Temp mail 10 minute email. Our service is free! Let’s enjoy!

AMD launches Ryzen 4000 series APUs: Up to 8 cores / 16 threads at 15W – Blog – 10 minute

Highly anticipated: AMD has revealed their next generation of mobile processors, and it looks like they’re making doubling core counts a habit. Within the same TDP, they’ve gone up to eight cores, increased CPU frequencies up to 4.2 GHz, and increased GPU frequencies up to 1750 MHz.
AMD is launching seven new 4000-series processors, which despite the moniker, use the same Zen 2 technology that 3000-series desktop processors use. But don’t be too upset: AMD says the combination of their Zen 2 architecture and TSMC’s 7nm processor has doubled the performance per watt.
The processors are divided into two categories, the H-series for heavy loads like gaming or content creation, and the U-series for ultraportable laptops. The H-series can be paired with a powerful discrete GPU, while the U-series are meant to be used solo. AMD’s H-series can be directly compared with Intel’s H-series, but AMD’s U-series competes with both Intel’s G-series and U-series.

Model
Cores/Threads
Base Clock
Boost Clock
GPU CUs
GPU Cores
GPU Clock
TDP

Ryzen 7 4800H
8/16
3.0 GHz
4.2 GHz
7
448
1600 MHz
45W

Ryzen 5 4600H
6/12
3.0 GHz
4.0 GHz
6
384
1500 MHz
45W

*We’re assuming each GPU Compute Unit contains sixty-four cores.
The Ryzen 7 4800H is the powerhouse of the lineup. When both are paired with an equivalent discrete GPU, AMD claims it can beat the hexa-core Intel Core i7-9750H by 39% in games, and by 46% in content creation workloads.

Model
Cores/Threads
Base Clock
Boost Clock
GPU CUs
GPU Cores
GPU Clock
TDP

Ryzen 7 4800U
8/16
1.8 GHz
4.2 GHz
8
512
1750 MHz
15W

Ryzen 7 4700U
8/8
2.0 GHz
4.1 GHz
7
448
1600 MHz
15W

Ryzen 5 4600U
6/12
2.1 GHz
4.0 GHz
6
384
1500 MHz
15W

Ryzen 5 4500U
6/6
2.3 GHz
4.0 GHz
6
384
1500 MHz
15W

Ryzen 3 4300U
4/4
2.7 GHz
3.7 GHz
5
320
1400 MHz
15W

AMD is directly going after the Intel Core i7-1065G7 with the high-end U-series. Intel’s APU has a four-core, eight-thread CPU with a base clock of 2.6 GHz and a boost clock of 4.5 GHz and a 512 core GPU at 1.1 GHz. On paper, the 4800U basically dismantles the 1065G7, and AMD’s benchmark numbers (below) support that. But we’ll have to wait for benchmarks to see how the other processors compare.
“We’ve actually done a tremendous amount of optimization around these graphics cores… they have 59% more performance than the previous generation.”
– AMD CEO Dr. Lisa SU

The 4000-series also makes for a rather peculiar platform. Supported memory speeds have increased from 2400 MHz to DDR4-3200 and LPDDR4-4266, which will seriously boost GPU performance in particular. On the other hand, AMD is not bringing PCIe 4.0 support to mobile, which is a shame.
The Ryzen APU 4000-series will become available in laptops this quarter, with over one hundred models from different manufacturers expected this year.

Related Reads

10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes.Tempemail.co – is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something anonymously on Internet.

Tempemail , Tempmail Temp email addressess (10 minutes emails)– When you want to create account on some forum or social media, like Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, TikTok you have to enter information about your e-mail box to get an activation link. Unfortunately, after registration, this social media sends you dozens of messages with useless information, which you are not interested in. To avoid that, visit this Temp mail generator: tempemail.co and you will have a Temp mail disposable address and end up on a bunch of spam lists. This email will expire after 10 minute so you can call this Temp mail 10 minute email. Our service is free! Let’s enjoy!

Upcoming AMD UEFI Update Will Improve Ryzen Boost Clocks


This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

One ongoing question reviewers have been digging into for the past few weeks is the expected behavior of AMD 7nm Ryzen CPUs at high boost clock versus the actual, measured behavior. AMD promised to update the user community today, September 10, as to the expected behavior of its CPUs and what changes would be incorporated in upcoming UEFI revisions.

To briefly recap: Reports in late July showed that some AMD CPUsSEEAMAZON_ET_135 See Amazon ET commerce were only reaching top boost clock frequency on a single CPU core. Last week, overclocker Der8aurer reported the results of a user survey showing that only some AMD 7nm Ryzen CPUs were hitting their full boost clocks (the exact percentage varies by CPU model). Late last week, Paul Alcorn of Tom’s Hardware published an extensive test of how different AMD AGESA versions and UEFI releases from motherboard impacted motherboard clocking. AGESA is the AMD Generic Encapsulated Software Architecture — the procedure library used to initialize the CPU and various components. Motherboard vendors use the AGESA as a template for creating UEFI versions.

What THG found was that different UEFI versions and AGESA releases have shown subtly different clocking results. Later releases have hit slightly lower boost clocks compared with the earlier versions that were used for reviews. At the same time, however, these later versions have also frequently held their boost clocks for longer before down-throttling the CPU.

There’s also evidence that the throttle temperatures have been subtly adjusted, from 80C initially down to 75 before creeping back upwards to 77. These changes would not necessarily impact performance — the CPU is boosting a bit lower, but also boosting longer — but it wasn’t clear what, exactly, AMD was trying to accomplish. During its IFA presentation last week, Intel argued that these subtle variations were evidence that AMD was trying to deal with a potentially significant reliability issue with its processors. THG was unwilling to sign on to that explanation without additional information.

Ryzen-Master-AMD

AMD’s Ryzen Master tweaking and monitoring utility

While all of this was unfolding, AMD notified us that it would make an announcement on September 10 concerning a new AGESA update.

AMD’s Update

The text that follows is directly from AMD and concerns the improvements that will be baked into updated UEFIs from various motherboard manufacturers. I normally don’t quote from a blog post this extensively, but I think it’s important to present the exact text of what AMD is saying.

[O]ur analysis indicates that the processor boost algorithm was affected by an issue that could cause target frequencies to be lower than expected. This has been resolved. We’ve also been exploring other opportunities to optimize performance, which can further enhance the frequency. These changes are now being implemented in flashable BIOSes from our motherboard partners. Across the stack of 3rd Gen Ryzen Processors, our internal testing shows that these changes can add approximately 25-50MHz to the current boost frequencies under various workloads.

Our estimation of the benefit is broadly based on workloads like PCMark 10 and Kraken JavaScript Benchmark. The actual improvement may be lower or higher depending on the workload, system configuration, and thermal/cooling solution implemented in the PC. We used the following test system in our analysis:

AMD Reference Motherboard (AGESA 1003ABBA beta BIOS)
2x8GB DDR4-3600C16
AMD Wraith Prism and Noctua NH-D15S coolers
Windows 10 May 2019 Update
22°C ambient test lab
Streacom BC1 Open Benchtable
AMD Chipset Driver 1.8.19.xxx
AMD Ryzen Balanced power plan
BIOS defaults (except memory OC)
These improvements will be available in flashable BIOSes starting in about two to three weeks’ time, depending on the testing and implementation schedule of your motherboard manufacturer.

Going forward, it’s important to understand how our boost technology operates. Our processors perform intelligent real-time analysis of the CPU temperature, motherboard voltage regulator current (amps), socket power (watts), loaded cores, and workload intensity to maximize performance from millisecond to millisecond. Ensuring your system has adequate thermal paste; reliable system cooling; the latest motherboard BIOS; reliable BIOS settings/configuration; the latest AMD chipset driver; and the latest operating system can enhance your experience.

Following the installation of the latest BIOS update, a consumer running a bursty, single threaded application on a PC with the latest software updates and adequate voltage and thermal headroom should see the maximum boost frequency of their processor. PCMark 10 is a good proxy for a user to test the maximum boost frequency of the processor in their system. It is expected that if users run a workload like Cinebench, which runs for an extended period of time, the operating frequencies may be less than the maximum throughout the run.

In addition, we do want to address recent questions about reliability. We perform extensive engineering analysis to develop reliability models and to model the lifetime of our processors before entering mass production. While AGESA 1003AB contained changes to improve system stability and performance for users, changes were not made for product longevity reasons. We do not expect that the improvements that have been made in boost frequency for AGESA 1003ABBA will have any impact on the lifetime of your Ryzen processor. (Emphasis added).

Separately from this, AMD also gave information on firmware changes implemented in AGESA 1003ABBA that are intended to reduce the CPU’s operating voltage by filtering out voltage/frequency boost requests from lightweight applications. The 1003ABBA AGESA now contains an activity filter designed to disregard “intermittent OS and application background noise.” This should lower the CPU’s voltage down to 1.2v as opposed to the higher peaks that have been reported.

New Monitoring SDK

Finally, AMD will release a new monitoring SDK that will allow anyone to build a monitoring tool for measuring various facets of Ryzen CPU performance. There will be more than 30 API calls exposed in the new application, including:

Current operating temperature: Reports the average temperature of the CPU cores over a short sample period. By design, this metric filters transient spikes that can skew temperature reporting.
Peak Core(s) Voltage (PCV): Reports the Voltage Identification (VID) requested by the CPU package of the motherboard voltage regulators. This voltage is set to service the needs of the cores under active load but isn’t necessarily the final voltage experienced by all of the CPU cores.
Average Core Voltage (ACV): Reports the average voltages experienced by all processor cores over a short sample period, factoring in active power management, sleep states, VDROOP, and idle time.
EDC (A), TDC (A), PPT (W): The current and power limits for your motherboard VRMs and processor socket.
Peak Speed: The maximum frequency of the fastest core during the sample period.
Effective Frequency: The frequency of the processor cores after factoring in time spent in sleep states (e.g. cc6 core sleep or pc6 package sleep). Example: One processor core is running at 4GHz while awake, but in cc6 core sleep for 50% of the sample period. The effective frequency of this core would be 2GHz. This value can give you a feel for how often the cores are using aggressive power management capabilities that aren’t immediately obvious (e.g. clock or voltage changes).
Various voltages and clocks, including: SoC voltage, DRAM voltage, fabric clock, memory clock, etc.

Ryzen Master has already been updated to give average core voltage values. AMD expects motherboard manufacturers to begin releasing new UEFIs with the 1003ABBA AGESA version incorporated within two weeks. As we wrote last week and despite rumors from Asus employee Shamino, AMD is not portraying these adjustments to clocking behavior as being related to reliability in any way.

As for AMD’s statements about the improved clocks, I want to wait and see how these changes impact behavior on our own test CPUs before drawing any conclusions. I will say that I don’t expect to see overall performance change much — 25-50MHz is only a 0.5 to 1 percent improvement on a 4.2GHz CPU,SEEAMAZON_ET_135 See Amazon ET commerce and we may not even be able to detect a performance shift in a standard benchmark from such a clock change. But we can monitor clock speeds directly and will report back on the impact of these changes.

Now Read:




10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

Best CPU Deals: Intel Core i7 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper Processors – September 2019


This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

A computer’s CPU is arguably the most important component inside of any computer. It has the biggest impact on a system’s overall performance, and it’s typically one of the most expensive parts as well. Thanks to the stiff ongoing competition between AMD and Intel, however, you can take advantage of sales and price cuts to save on these critically important parts.

Featured Deals

  • AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 2nd Gen Ryzen 3.5GHz 12-Core Processor for $377.95 at Amazon (list price $649.00).
    • This processor has exceptional multitasking capabilities thanks to its 12 SMT enabled CPU cores that permit the processor to operate a staggering 24 threads simultaneously.
  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600X 2nd Gen Ryzen 3.6GHz Hexa-Core Processor w/ Wraith Spire Cooler for $146.40 at Amazon (list price $259.55).
    • With six SMT enabled cores clocked at 3.6GHz, this processors well suited for high-performance gaming and heavy multitasking.
  • AMD Ryzen 5 2400G 2nd Gen Ryzen 3.6GHz Quad-Core Processor w/ Radeon RX Vega 11 Graphics and Wraith Stealth Cooler for $124.99 at Walmart (list price $162.99).
    • AMD’s Ryzen 5 2400G is best suited for gamers on a tight budget. The processor has a built-in graphics processor based on AMD’s Vega technology with 704 cores that enable it to run games with medium to low graphics settings.
  • Intel Core i7-9700K 9th Gen Coffee Lake 3.6GHz Octa-Core Processor w/ UHD Graphics 630 for $339.99 at Amazon (list price $409.99).
    • The i7-9700K is one of the fastest processors sold by Intel. It features eight CPU cores with a turbo frequency of 4.9GHz that enable to it to run multiple applications with exceptional speed.
  • Intel Core i5-9600K 9th Gen Coffee Lake 3.7GHz Hexa-Core Processor w/ UHD Graphics 630 for $247.00 at Walmart (list price $299.99).
    • With six CPU cores able to boost up to 4.6GHz, this processor offers excellent performance for gaming. It’s also unlocked and can be overclocked to further increase its performance.

AMD CPU Deals

AMD-Ryzen-New-Feature

  • AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X 2nd Gen Ryzen 3.5GHz 12-Core Processor for $377.95 at Amazon (list price $649.00).
  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600X 2nd Gen Ryzen 3.6GHz Hexa-Core Processor w/ Wraith Spire Cooler for $146.40 at Amazon (list price $259.55).
  • AMD Ryzen 5 2400G 2nd Gen Ryzen 3.6GHz Quad-Core Processor w/ Radeon RX Vega 11 Graphics and Wraith Stealth Cooler for $124.99 at Walmart (list price $162.99).
  • AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 2nd Gen Ryzen 3.5GHz 16-Core Processor for $549.00 at Amazon (list price $899.00).
  • AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 2nd Gen Ryzen 3.7GHz Octa-Core Processor w/ Wraith Prism Cooler for $199.99 at Walmart (list price $329.00).
  • AMD Ryzen 5 2600 2nd Gen Ryzen 3.4GHz Hexa-Core Processor w/ Wraith Stealth Cooler for $129.30 at Amazon (list price $199.00).
  • AMD Ryzen 3 2200G 2nd Gen Ryzen 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor w/ Radeon RX Vega 8 Graphics and Wraith Stealth Cooler for $79.99 at Amazon (list price $100.00).
  • AMD Ryzen 3 1200 1st Gen Ryzen 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor w/ Wraith Stealth Cooler for $59.99 at Amazon (list price $109.00).

Intel CPU Deals

  • Intel Core i7-9700K 9th Gen Coffee Lake 3.6GHz Octa-Core Processor w/ UHD Graphics 630 for $339.99 at Amazon (list price $409.99).
  • Intel Core i5-9600K 9th Gen Coffee Lake 3.7GHz Hexa-Core Processor w/ UHD Graphics 630 for $247.00 at Walmart (list price $299.99).
  • Intel Core i5-9400F 9th Gen Coffee Lake 2.9GHz Hexa-Core Processor for $149.99 at Walmart (list price $203.99).
  • Intel Core i3-8350K 8th Gen Coffee Lake 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor w/ UHD Graphics 630 for $169.00 at Walmart (list price $199.99).

Important Considerations When Buying A CPU

Before purchasing a processor, it’s imperative that you first research the parts performance and compatibility. In general the more cores and a higher clock speed a processor has the better it will perform, but this is far from the only important factors. For more information on how specific CPUs perform, I suggest you check out the PCMag’s processor reviews.

As for compatibility, is designed to fit inside of a specific socket and to work with specific motherboard chipsets. All modern Intel processors use the LGA1151 socket. If you are buying an 8000 or 9000 series processor, you will specifically want to purchase an LGA1151 socket motherboard with a 300-series chipset. LGA1151 socket motherboards that use the old 100 and 200 series chipsets were designed to work with Intel’s 6000 and 7000 series processors respectively and will not work with newer CPUs.

AMD customers will want to purchase a motherboard with an AM4 CPU socket. If you purchase an AMD Ryzen 1000-series processor, you will be able to use it with any 300 or 400 series chipset motherboards, but 1000-series processors are incompatible with AMD’s new X570 chipset. Similarly, you cannot use the new Ryzen 3000-series processors on any of the old 300-series chipsets. Instead, you will need to purchase either a 400 or 500 series chipset. Last but not least AMD’s Ryzen 2000-series processors are a bit easier to work with as they are compatible with all AM4 motherboards currently on the market regardless of which chipset is used.

Note: Terms and conditions apply. See the relevant retail sites for more information. For more great deals, go to our partners at TechBargains.com.




10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

ET Deals: AMD Ryzen 7 2700X $199, Samsung Evo 128GB MicroSDXC $19, Dell XPS Intel Core i9-9900 Desktop $854


This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

If you’re planning to build a new PC then you will want to have a look at our top deal today, which is one of AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X processors marked down to just $199.

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X w/ Wraith Prism LED Cooler ($199.00)

AMD’s Ryzen 7 2700X comes with eight SMT enabled CPU cores with a max clock speed of 4.3GHz, which gives you exceptional performance for multitasking and running power-hungry applications. Currently, you can get it from Amazon marked down from $329.00 to $199.00.

Samsung Evo Select 128GB U3 100MB/s MicroSDXC Card ($19.00)

This microSDXC card gives you an extra 128GB of storage space for your phone and other devices. It’s also able to transmit data at speeds of up to 100MB/s, which makes it relatively fast for a microSDXC card. Currently, these cards are on sale from Amazon marked down from $24.99 to $19.00.

Dell XPS 8930 Intel Core i9-9900 Desktop w/ 8GB DDR4 RAM and 1TB HDD ($854.89)

If you aren’t a gamer but still want a fast computer for work and everyday tasks, then this model of Dell’s XPS 8930 desktop is perfect for you. It features an exceptionally fast Intel Core i9-9900 processor that has eight CPU cores that can hit a max speed of 5GHz. This makes well suited for running any number of high-performance tasks. You can get this system marked down from $1,079.99 to a more affordable $854.89 from Dell with promo code SAVE17.

TCL 55R617 4K HDR Roku Smart 55-Inch TV ($529.00)

TCL’s R617-series of TVs feature localized dimming technology that reduces light bleeding and gives you an improved image with deeper blacks. This model also sports a 4K display panel and support for HDR for improved color, and right now you can get it from Amazon marked down from $799.99 to $529.00.

Apple iPad 6th Gen 2018 w/32GB Storage and WiFi ($249.99)

Apple’s 2018 iPad utilizes the company’s A10 Fusion SoC that first made its debut inside of the iPhone 7. It also has an HD display and a battery that is rated to last for up to 10 hours. Right now Walmart is offering this tablet marked down from its regular retail price of $329.99 to just $249.99.

Roomba iRobot Model 960 Vacuum w/ Wi-Fi Connectivity ($499.00)

This smart robot vacuum is here to make your home life a little easier. It has sufficient power to clean difficult messes such as pet hair, and it supports an intelligent navigation program that allows it to carefully work its way through your home. It also supports Alexa voice commands and can be controlled via your smartphone. Right now you can get it marked down from $699.99 to $499.00 from Walmart.

Note: Terms and conditions apply. See the relevant retail sites for more information. For more great deals, go to our partners at TechBargains.com.




10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

AMD Sales Are Booming, but High-End Ryzen 3000 CPUs Still in Short Supply


This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

After the Ryzen 3000 family debuted on 7nm, German retailer Mindfactory.de released data from its own CPU sales showing that demand for the smaller CPU manufacturer’s products had skyrocketed. That demand continued straight through August, but product shortages may be hampering overall sales.

Once again, Ingebor on Reddit has shared data on CPUSEEAMAZON_ET_135 See Amazon ET commerce sales, CPU revenue share, and average selling prices. The results are once again a major win for AMD, though overall shipments declined this month compared with July.

Mindfactory-Sept

While the absolute number of CPUs fell, AMD held virtually the same market share. Sales of second-generation products continue to be strong, even with third-gen Ryzen in-market. On the AMD side, shipments of the Ryzen 9 3900X fell, as did sales of the Ryzen 7 3700X, and 3800X. The Ryzen 5 3600 substantially expanded its overall market share. Intel shipments appear to have been virtually identical, in terms of which CPU SKUs were selling the best.

Mindfactory-Sept-Revenue

Now we look at the market in terms of revenue. Intel’s share is higher here, thanks to higher selling prices. The Ryzen 9 3900X made a significantly smaller revenue contribution in August, as did the Ryzen 7 3700X. Sometimes the revenue graphs show us a different side of performance compared with sales charts, but this month the two graphs generally line up as expected.

One place where the Ryzen 5 3600’s share gains definitely hit AMD is in terms of its average selling price. In June, AMD’s ASP in Euros was €238.89. In August, it slipped downwards, to €216.04, a decline of 10.5 percent. Intel’s ASPs actually improved slightly, from €296.87 to €308.36, a gain of ~4 percent. This could be read as suggesting that a few buyers saw what AMD had to offer and opted to buy a high-end Core CPUSEEAMAZON_ET_135 See Amazon ET commerce instead. And on Reddit, Ingebor notes that low availability on the Ryzen 9 3900X definitely hit AMD’s revenue share, writing:

Except for the 3900X, all Matisse CPUs where available for most of the time and sold pretty well (not so much the 3800X, which dropped in price sharply towards the end of the month). These shortages can be seen in the revenue drop and a lower average sales price compared to last month.

For most of the month, the 3900X was unavailable with a date of availability constantly pushed out by mindfactory. Seems like the amount of CPUs they got do not suffice to satisfy their backlog of orders. The next date is the 6th of September. Hopefully the next month will finally see some decent availability. Also it remains to be seen when the 3950X will start to sell and whether it will be in better supply.

Ingebor also noted that there’s been no hint of official Intel price cuts, despite rumors that the company might respond to 7nm Ryzen CPUs by enacting them.

The Limits of Retail Analysis

It’s incredibly useful that Mindfactory releases this information, but keep in mind that it represents sales at one company, in one country. We don’t doubt that AMD is seeing sales growth across its 7nm product lines, but the retail channel is a subset of the desktop market, and the desktop market is dwarfed by the laptop market.

Statista-PC-Market-Share

Data from Statista makes the point. Even if we ignore tablets, only about 36.7 percent of the computing market is desktops. Trying to estimate the size of the PC retail channel is difficult; figures I’ve seen in the past suggest it’s 10-20 percent of the space. If true, that would suggest Mindfactory, Newegg, Amazon, and similar companies collectively account for 3.6 to 7.3 percent of the overall PC market. AMD and Intel split this space, with the size of the split depending on the relative competitive standing of each company, hardware availability in the local market, and any country-specific preferences for one vendor versus the other.

This is why you’ll see websites write stories about how AMD is dominating sales at a specific retailer, followed by stories that show a relatively small gain in total market share. It’s not that either story is necessarily wrong; they capture different markets.

Overall, AMD is in a strong competitive position at the moment. Just keep in mind that data sets like this, while valuable and interesting, only capture a small section of the overall space.

Now Read:




10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

Survey: Many AMD Ryzen 3000 CPUs Don’t Hit Full Boost Clock


Overclocker Der8auer has published the results of a survey of more than 3,000 Ryzen 7nm owners who have purchased AMD’s new CPUs since they went on sale in July. Last month, reports surfaced that the Ryzen 3000 family weren’t hitting their boost clocks as well as some enthusiasts expected. Now, we have some data on exactly what those figures look like.

There are, however, two confounding variables. First, Der8auer had no way to sort out which AMD users had installed Windows 1903 and were using the most recent version of the company’s chipset drivers. AMD recommends both to ensure maximum performance and desired boost behavior. Der8auer acknowledges this but believes the onus is on AMD to communicate with end-users regarding the need to use certain Windows versions to achieve maximum performance.

Second, there’s the fact that surveys like this tend to be self-selecting. It’s possible that only the subset of end-users who aren’t seeing the performance they desire will respond in such a survey. Der8auer acknowledges this as well, calling it a very valid point, but believes that his overall viewing community is generally pro-AMD and favorably inclined towards the smaller CPU manufacturer. The full video can be seen below; we’ve excerpted some of the graphs for discussion.

Der8auer went over the data from the survey thoroughly in order to throw out results that didn’t make sense or were obviously submitted in bad faith. He compiled data on the 3600, 3600X, 3700X, 3800X, and 3900X.SEEAMAZON_ET_135 See Amazon ET commerce Clock distributions were measured at up to two deviations from the mean. Maximum boost clock was tested using Cinebench R15’s single-threaded test, as per AMD’s recommendation.

Der8auer-3600

Data and chart by Der8auer. Click to enlarge

In the case of the Ryzen 7 3600, 49.8 percent of CPUs hit their boost clock of 4.2GHz, as shown above. As clocks rise, however, the number of CPUs that can hit their boost clock drops. Just 9.8 percent of 3600X CPUs hit their 4.4GHz. The 3700X’s chart is shown below for comparison:

Data and chart by Der8auer. Click to enlarge

The majority of 3700X CPUs are capable of hitting 4.375GHz, but the 4.4GHz boost clock is a tougher leap. The 3800X does improve on these figures, with 26.7 percent of CPUs hitting boost clock. This seems to mirror what we’ve heard from other sources, which have implied that the 3800X is a better overclocker than the 3700X. The 3900X struggles more, however, with just 5.6 percent of CPUs hitting their full boost clock.

We can assume that at least some of the people who participated in this study did not have Windows 10 1903 or updated AMD drivers installed, but AMD users had the most reason to install those updates in the first place, which should help limit the impact of the confounding variable.

The Ambiguous Meaning of ‘Up To’

Following his analysis of the results, Der8auer makes it clear that he still recommends AMD’s 7nm Ryzen CPUs with comments like “I absolutely recommend buying these CPUs.” There’s no ambiguity in his statements and none in our performance review. AMD’s 7nm Ryzen CPUs are excellent. But an excellent product can still have issues that need to be discussed. So let’s talk about CPU clocks.

The entire reason that Intel (who debuted the capability) launched Turbo Boost as a product feature was to give itself leeway when it came to CPU clocks. At first, CPUs with “Turbo Boost” simply appeared to treat the higher, optional frequency as their effective target frequency even when under 100 percent load. This is no longer true, for multiple reasons. CPUs from AMD and Intel will sometimes run at lower clocks depending on the mix of AVX instructions. Top-end CPUs like the Core i9-9900K may throttle back substantially when under full load for a sustained period of time (20-30 seconds) if the motherboard is configured to use Intel default power settings.

In other realms, like smartphones, it is not necessarily unusual for a device to never run at maximum clock. Smartphone vendors don’t advertise base clocks at all and don’t provide any information about sustained SoC clock under load. Oftentimes it is left to reviewers to typify device behavior based on post-launch analysis. But CPUs from both Intel and AMD have typically been viewed as at least theoretically being willing capable of hitting boost clock in some circumstances.

The reason I say that view is “theoretical” is that we see a lot of variation in CPU behavior, even over the course of a single review cycle. It’s common for UEFI updates to arrive after our testing has already begun. Oftentimes, those updated UEFIs specifically fix issues with clocking. We correspond with various motherboard manufacturers to tell them what we’ve observed and we update platforms throughout the review to make certain power behavior is appropriate and that boards are working as intended. When checking overall performance, however, we tend to compare benchmark results against manufacturer expectations as opposed to strictly focusing on clock speed (performance, after all, is what we are attempting to measure). If performance is oddly low or high, CPU and RAM clocks are the first place to check.

It’s not unusual, however, to be plus-or-minus 2-3 percent relative to either the manufacturer or our fellow reviewers, and occasional excursions of 5-7 percent may not be extraordinary if the benchmark is known for producing a wider spread of scores. Some tests are also more sensitive than others to RAM timing, SSD speed, or a host of other factors.

Now, consider Der8auer’s data on the Ryzen 9 3900X:

Der8auer-3900X

Image and data by Der8auer. Click to enlarge

Just 5 percent of the CPUs in the batch are capable of hitting 4.6GHz. But a CPU clocked at 4.6GHz is just 2 percent faster than a CPU clocking in at 4.5GHz. A 2 percent gap between two products is close enough that we call it an effective tie. If you were to evaluate CPUs strictly on the basis of performance, with a reasonable margin of say, 3 percent, you’d wind up with an “acceptable” clock range of 4,462MHz – 4,738MHz (assuming a 1:1 relationship between CPU clock and performance). And if you allow for that variance in the graphs above, a significantly larger percentage — though no, not all — of AMD CPUs “qualify” as effectively reaching their top clock.

On the other hand, 4.5GHz or below is factually not 4.6GHz. There are at least two meaningfully different ways to interpret the meaning of “up to” in this context. Does “up to X.XGHz” mean that the CPU will hit its boost clock some of the time, under certain circumstances? Or does it mean that certain CPUs will be able to hit these boost frequencies, but that you won’t know if you have one or not? And how much does that distinction matter, if the overall performance of the part matches the expected performance that the end-user will receive?

Keep in mind that one thing these results don’t tell us is what overall performance looks like across the entire spread of Ryzen 7 CPUs. Simply knowing the highest boost clock that the CPU hits doesn’t show us how long it sustained that clock. A CPU that holds a steady clock of 4.5GHz from start to finish will outperform a CPU that bursts to 4.6GHz for one second and drops to 4.4GHz to finish the workload. Both of these behaviors are possible under an “up to” model.

Manufacturers and Consumers May See This Issue Differently

While I don’t want to rain on his parade or upcoming article, we’ve spent the last few weeks at ET troubleshooting a laptop that my colleague David Cardinal recently bought. Specifically, we’ve been trying to understand its behavior under load when both the CPU and GPU are simultaneously in-use. Without giving anything away about that upcoming story, let me say this: The process has been a journey into just how complicated thermal management is now between various components.

Manufacturers, I think, increasingly look at power consumption and clock speed as a balancing act in which performance and power are allocated to the components where they’re needed and throttled back everywhere else. Increased variability is the order of the day. What I suspect AMD has done, in this case, is set a performance standard that it expects its CPUs to deliver rather than a specific clock frequency target. If I had to guess at why the company has done this, I would guess that it’s because of the intrinsic difficulties of maintaining high clock speeds at lower process nodes. AMD likely chose to push the envelope on its clock targets because it made the CPUs compare better against their Intel equivalents as far as maximum clock speeds were concerned. Any negative response from critics would be muted by the fact that these new CPUs deliver marked benefits over both previous-generation Ryzen CPUs and their Intel equivalents at equal price points.

Was that the right call? I’m not sure. This is a situation where I genuinely see both sides of the issue. The Ryzen 3000 family delivers excellent performance. But even after allowing for variation caused by Windows version, driver updates, or UEFI issues on the part of the manufacturer, we don’t see as many AMD CPUs hitting their maximum boost clocks as we would expect, and the higher-end CPUs with higher boost clocks have more issues than lower-end chips with lower clocks. AMD’s claims of getting more frequency out of TSMC 7nm as compared with GF 12/14nm seem a bit suspect at this point. The company absolutely delivered the performance gains we wanted, and the power improvements on the X470 chipset are also very good, but the clocking situation was not detailed the way it should have been at launch.

There are rumors that AMD supposedly changed boost behavior with recent AGESA versions. Asus employee Shamino wrote:

i have not tested a newer version of AGESA that changes the current state of 1003 boost, not even 1004. if i do know of changes, i will specifically state this. They were being too aggressive with the boost previously, the current boost behavior is more in line with their confidence in long term reliability and i have not heard of any changes to this stance, tho i have heard of a ‘more customizable’ version in the future.

I have no specific knowledge of this situation, but this would surprise me. First, reliability models are typically hammered out long before production. Companies don’t make major changes post-launch save in exceptional circumstances, because there is no way to ensure that the updated firmware will reach the products that it needs to reach. When this happens, it’s major news. Remember when AMD had a TLB bug in Phenom? Second, AMD’s use of Adaptive Frequency and Voltage Scaling is specifically designed to adjust the CPU voltage internally to ensure clock targets are hit, limiting the impact of variability and keeping the CPU inside the sweet spot for clock.

I’m not saying that AMD would never make an adjustment to AGESA that impacted clocking. But the idea that the company discovered a critical reliability issue that required it to make a subtle change that reduced clock by a mere handful of MHz in order to protect long-term reliability doesn’t immediately square with my understanding of how CPUs are designed, binned and tested. We have reached out to AMD for additional information.

I’m still confident and comfortable recommending the Ryzen 3000 family because I’ve spent a significant amount of time with these chips and seen how fast they are. But AMD’s “up to” boost clocks are also more tenuous than we initially knew. It doesn’t change our expectation of the part’s overall performance, but the company appears to have decided to interpret “up to” differently this cycle than in previous product launches. That shift should have been communicated. Going forward, we will examine both Intel and AMD clock behavior more closely as a component of our review coverage.

Now Read:




10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something

ET Back To School Laptop Deals: Acer Intel Core i5 $399, Lenovo AMD Ryzen 5 2-in-1 $529, Apple MacBook Air $949


With school starting back retailers are offering excellent deals on notebook computers. Buying your child a new laptop to school is a great way to give them a strong start to the new school year, as it will be an essential tool for completing homework and school projects in the coming year. Below we have listed some of the best laptop deals currently available.

Featured Deals

  • Acer Aspire 5 Intel Core i5-8250U Quad-core 15.6″ 1080p Laptop with 256GB SSD for $399.00 at Walmart (list price $529.00).
    • With a fast quad-core Hyper-Threaded CPU and 8GB of RAM, this system is well equipped for running several applications simultaneously.
  • Lenovo Flex 14 AMD Ryzen 5 3500U 14″ 1080p 2-in-1 Touch Laptop with 256GB SSD, Active Pen for $529.99 at Amazon (list price $650.00).
    • This 2-in-1 features a touchscreen display and a stylus, which makes it useful for drawing images on screen for creative projects. It’s also relatively fast with a quad-core Ryzen 5 processor.
  • Apple Macbook Air 8th Gen Intel Core i5 13.3″ 2560×1600 Retina Display Laptop with 128GB SSD for $949.99 at Amazon (list price $1,199.00).
    • Apple’s 8th Gen MacBook Air features an aluminum alloy exterior that makes it exceedingly durable and exceptionally lightweight at just 2.75lbs. This system is also rather efficient and can last up to 12 hours on a single charge.
  • Asus Chromebook C423NA Intel Celeron N3350 14″ HD Laptop with 4GB RAM, 64GB eMMC for $199.00 at Walmart (list price $269.99).
    • Asus’s dual-core Chromebook offers solid performance at an exceptionally low price point. This system also features an aluminum lid and measures 16.1mm thin while weighing just 2.7lbs, which makes it easy to carry around.
  • Acer Predator Helios 300 Intel Core i7-8750H 6-Core 15.6″ 144Hz 1080p Gaming Laptop with GTX 1060, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD for $899.99 at Amazon (list price $1,299.00).
    • Acer’s Predator Helios 300 offers desktop level performance in a compact travel friendly package. It’s also great for playing games after your child has finished with their school work for the day. You must be an Amazon Prime Member to get it for the $899.99 price though.

Apple Computers

  • Apple Macbook Air 8th Gen Intel Core i5 13.3″ 2560×1600 Retina Display Laptop with 128GB SSD for $949.99 at Amazon (list price $1,199.00).
  • Apple MacBook Pro 9th Gen Intel Core i9 8-core 15.4″ 2880×1800 Retina Laptop with Radeon Pro 560X, 512GB SSD for $2,499.00 at Amazon (list price $2,799.00).

13.3-Inch Windows Laptops

  • Dell New Vostro 13 5000 Intel Core i5-8265U Quad-core 13.3″ 1080p Win10 Pro Laptop with 256GB SSD for $659.00 at Dell (list price $1,212.86).

14-Inch Windows Laptops

  • Lenovo Flex 14 AMD Ryzen 5 3500U 14″ 1080p 2-in-1 Touch Laptop with 256GB SSD, Active Pen for $529.99 at Amazon (list price $650.00).
  • Asus Chromebook C423NA Intel Celeron N3350 14″ HD Laptop with 4GB RAM, 64GB eMMC for $199.00 at Walmart (list price $269.99).
  • HP 14 AMD Ryzen 3 3200U 14″ Laptop with Radeon Vega 3 Graphics for $269.00 at Walmart (list price $379.99).
  • HP Pavilion 14 Intel Core i5-8265U Quad-core 14″ 1080p Laptop with 256GB SSD for $499.00 at Walmart (list price $699.00).
  • Acer Aspire 3 AMD A9-9420e 14″ Laptop with 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD for $209.00 at Walmart (list price $299.00).

15.6-Inch Windows Laptops

  • Acer Aspire 5 Intel Core i5-8250U Quad-core 15.6″ 1080p Laptop with 256GB SSD for $399.00 at Walmart (list price $529.00).
  • Acer Predator Helios 300 Intel Core i7-8750H 6-Core 15.6″ 144Hz 1080p Gaming Laptop with GTX 1060, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD for $899.99 at Amazon (list price $1,299.00).
  • Lenovo Ideapad S340 Intel Core i3-8145U 15.6″ Laptop with 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD for $279.00 at Walmart (list price $379.00).
  • Dell New Vostro 15 7000 Intel Core i7-9750H 6-core 15.6″ 1080p Laptop with GTX 1650, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD for $1,299.07 at Dell (use code: SAVE35 — list price $1,998.57).
  • ASUS VivoBook F510QA AMD A12-9720P Quad-Core 15.6″ 1080p Laptop for $249.00 at Walmart (list price $399.00).

Note: Terms and conditions apply. See the relevant retail sites for more information. For more great deals, go to our partners at TechBargains.com.


10 minutes mail – Also known by names like : 10minemail, 10minutemail, 10mins email, mail 10 minutes, 10 minute e-mail, 10min mail, 10minute email or 10 minute temporary email. 10 minute email address is a disposable temporary email that self-destructed after a 10 minutes. https://tempemail.co/– is most advanced throwaway email service that helps you avoid spam and stay safe. Try tempemail and you can view content, post comments or download something