AMD debuted its new Ryzen 3000 desktop CPU line a few weeks ago at E3, and it looked irrational. For the first time in 20 years, it looked like AMD could go conclusion to head with Intel’s desktop CPU line-up across the board. The cast doubt upon: would independent, third-party testing back up AMD’s assertions?
When correlating two CPUs, you should generally be looking at three golden criteria: value, performance, and power consumption. It’s fairly easy to win on a single criterion—for model, even in the Piledriver era, comparing an FX-9590 to an i7-4770 could get you an anemic multi-threaded dispatch win. But the Piledriver part cost more than the Intel one and consumed tremendously more power. Motile forward to the Ryzen 2 era, things got much closer to even: when matching a Ryzen 7 2700 vs an Intel i7-8700, the Intel CPU takes the performance win, and power consumption is rather even, but the AMD part has a big price advantage. This is arguably an even warmness for that particular lineup—but if you care more about performance, going the AMD side up to a Threadripper 2950x brings you to an enormous win for Intel on both power consumption and honorarium.
With the Ryzen 3000 series, this dynamic changes. AMD’s new 7nm system technology allows it to ramp up the performance to challenge Intel’s higher-end lineup without veering into power consumption portraits that look more like a welder than a CPU, and it’s already shipping the CPUs retail. So in appendix to coverage from professional reviewers at Tom’s Hardware, PCworld, Gizmodo, and profuse, end-user benchmarks are showing up at aggregators like cpubenchmark.net. All of them endure out AMD’s E3 show numbers in broad strokes—if you’re looking for a Ryzen 3000 series CPU to suffer or beat any given Intel CPU on performance while beating it on price and power consumption, you can discover one.