WEBVTT

00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:07.839
so i'm at the local computer store and i don't know what to do do i choose the

00:00:04.480 --> 00:00:11.040
ryzen x or the ryzen xt

00:00:07.839 --> 00:00:13.679
which one's more extreme i gotta say my

00:00:11.040 --> 00:00:17.039
patience for AMD's crazy naming schemes is starting to wear a little thin you

00:00:15.440 --> 00:00:23.119
know first they so funny copied Intel's chipset naming

00:00:19.600 --> 00:00:25.600
scheme for am4 then there's the 3000

00:00:23.119 --> 00:00:31.679
series ryzen mobile cpus that aren't third gen and now they're bringing xt

00:00:28.720 --> 00:00:37.680
their higher performance suffix for graphics cards to three new entries in

00:00:34.640 --> 00:00:40.559
their CPU lineup i just can't wait to

00:00:37.680 --> 00:00:44.399
have my search results for 5th gen ryzen processors full of navi Radeon graphics

00:00:43.600 --> 00:00:50.719
cards but rant over these new chips are in

00:00:47.840 --> 00:00:54.960
fact higher performance so let's see what they're all about shall we

00:00:53.760 --> 00:00:58.480
just like we're gonna see what our sponsor is all about glasswire is the

00:00:56.960 --> 00:01:02.320
tool that shows you which apps are slowing down your connection in real

00:01:00.559 --> 00:01:05.680
time it's used by security pros to monitor for malware block bandwidth

00:01:03.840 --> 00:01:10.439
wasters and detect suspicious activity get 25 off at the link below

00:01:17.119 --> 00:01:24.799
okay that bit about being in the store and being confused that's real the new

00:01:21.200 --> 00:01:27.200
xt chips are not a replacement for the x

00:01:24.799 --> 00:01:32.159
series processors AMD made that very clear to us in our briefing and in fact

00:01:29.439 --> 00:01:38.640
the x series is going to continue to sit on store shelves right alongside the xts

00:01:35.759 --> 00:01:42.400
for the same price now you could be forgiven for thinking that this is

00:01:40.400 --> 00:01:47.040
offset somewhat by the cost of the cooler that they don't have to include

00:01:44.720 --> 00:01:52.479
in the box for the xt's except that the ryzen 5 3600 xt does in

00:01:50.799 --> 00:01:56.880
fact come with a cooler in the box meaning that unless you're getting a

00:01:54.320 --> 00:02:00.799
really good deal there's even less reason than ever before to bother with

00:01:59.040 --> 00:02:06.000
the 3600x in fact AMD's reasoning for not

00:02:03.119 --> 00:02:11.280
including a cooler in the 3800 xt and 3900 xt that most consumers who buy

00:02:09.200 --> 00:02:16.319
ryzen 7 and ryzen 9 will probably buy an aftermarket cooler anyway

00:02:13.040 --> 00:02:18.879
makes sense and more or less obsoletes

00:02:16.319 --> 00:02:23.200
their x series equivalents as well so what are they doing

00:02:20.879 --> 00:02:28.080
when pressed about this AMD responded that they are giving consumers more

00:02:25.520 --> 00:02:32.239
choice by doing it this way and that while the suggested retail price is the

00:02:30.319 --> 00:02:36.560
same they're gonna leave the exact pricing up to the vendors

00:02:34.640 --> 00:02:41.360
that's a strange way of handling it but they hammered home this choice angle by

00:02:38.959 --> 00:02:45.360
proclaiming that the ryzen xt series doesn't even require a BIOS update which

00:02:43.280 --> 00:02:49.040
means that even oem motherboards like the kind you might get in a pre-built

00:02:47.120 --> 00:02:54.319
gaming system and that probably won't get regular BIOS updates can make use of

00:02:51.519 --> 00:02:58.959
these new cpus as well i mean fair enough i guess but this is still

00:02:56.480 --> 00:03:04.400
going to cause a ton of confusion on forum threads all over the internet so

00:03:02.560 --> 00:03:09.120
what are these then AMD says that the xt chips are the

00:03:07.200 --> 00:03:13.519
result of the maturation of the seven nanometer manufacturing process and the

00:03:11.680 --> 00:03:18.640
experience that they gained in producing third gen threadripper which is allowing

00:03:15.680 --> 00:03:25.280
them to not only improve boost clocks by 100 to 200 megahertz but also to improve

00:03:22.319 --> 00:03:29.840
residency at those boost clocks in a nutshell that means you'll see them

00:03:26.879 --> 00:03:34.560
boost higher and for longer given that AMD's precision boost 2 algorithm relies

00:03:32.000 --> 00:03:38.720
almost exclusively on thermal and power budget for boost in the first place

00:03:36.080 --> 00:03:42.720
though what exactly that means is something we're going to have to

00:03:39.920 --> 00:03:46.480
discover for ourselves in the real world to do that we filled our water bottle

00:03:44.799 --> 00:03:51.360
from lttstore.com and gathered no fewer than eight cpus

00:03:49.040 --> 00:03:55.680
with the lion's share of them being AMD to see how they tick

00:03:53.120 --> 00:04:00.959
without a BIOS update it definitely does boot up so let's see how AMD's claims

00:03:58.080 --> 00:04:07.439
hold up performance wise well we have a look at this graphics

00:04:03.200 --> 00:04:07.439
there's a new BIOS it's optimized again

00:04:11.200 --> 00:04:18.880
this doesn't make any sense yeah i know the ryzen 9 3900 xt is going slower than

00:04:16.479 --> 00:04:22.240
the 3900x that shouldn't be possible no it doesn't

00:04:20.880 --> 00:04:26.639
make any sense so we might have to call it the review

00:04:24.320 --> 00:04:29.600
well no wait hold on a second no no i think we're okay i mean AMD said we

00:04:28.160 --> 00:04:34.320
don't need a BIOS update in the first place and our older BIOS performs better with

00:04:32.800 --> 00:04:38.240
the xt even if the optimized one is worse no i

00:04:36.880 --> 00:04:43.680
think we're good we're going to go ahead with AMD's guidance we're going to use our original BIOS

00:04:41.440 --> 00:04:48.080
yeah so maybe down the line you'll see some performance gains with tuned BIOS's

00:04:46.160 --> 00:04:53.520
for these xt chips but for now we're going to evaluate as is especially

00:04:50.880 --> 00:04:57.919
because things are looking pretty good AMD has managed a measurable performance

00:04:55.919 --> 00:05:02.639
improvement in gaming far more than you might expect from a mere two percent

00:04:59.919 --> 00:05:10.320
clock improvement on the 3900 xt and 3600 xt and in fact the ryzen 9 3900 xt

00:05:07.199 --> 00:05:12.960
is now just shy of Intel's core i5 while

00:05:10.320 --> 00:05:18.080
having more course than either of team blue's ships which is darn impressive

00:05:15.280 --> 00:05:21.039
given that CPU is sometimes faster than its core i9 cousin when it comes to

00:05:20.080 --> 00:05:26.400
gaming overall depending on the game these new

00:05:23.440 --> 00:05:30.639
cpus manage anywhere from negligible to 10-ish percent improvements over their

00:05:28.720 --> 00:05:34.639
x-series counterparts the new hardware accelerated GPU

00:05:32.320 --> 00:05:38.320
scheduling feature in Windows 10 might help things even further in the near

00:05:36.960 --> 00:05:43.199
future and we're going to be diving into that soon so make sure you get subscribed so you don't miss it

00:05:41.600 --> 00:05:47.360
unsurprisingly these performance improvements also spill over into

00:05:44.960 --> 00:05:52.639
productivity where scores are measurably higher and consequently AMD ends up

00:05:50.240 --> 00:05:57.360
pulling farther ahead of Intel than before we're looking at just shy of a

00:05:55.199 --> 00:06:02.400
minute shaved off of the firefox compile test for both ryzen 9 and ryzen 5 and

00:06:00.880 --> 00:06:07.680
where the performance makes a real impact is in creative cloud where we see

00:06:04.800 --> 00:06:13.600
significant gains by reaching for the xt versus an x our ryzen 9 3900 xt pulled

00:06:11.360 --> 00:06:19.520
off a staggering 18 percent higher score in photoshop with its mere 100 megahertz

00:06:17.039 --> 00:06:24.400
boost clock improvement but then while the ryzen 5 pulled off better times in

00:06:21.840 --> 00:06:27.600
blender the ryzen 9 seems to be no better off than before so what's up with

00:06:26.720 --> 00:06:31.280
that maybe our thermal performance charts can

00:06:29.840 --> 00:06:37.199
shed some light in blender we found that the 3900 xt

00:06:34.560 --> 00:06:40.880
displays some of that stay boosted higher and more often promise in the

00:06:39.440 --> 00:06:47.759
early stages but it hovers between 4.1 gigahertz and

00:06:44.400 --> 00:06:50.560
the 3900x is 4 gigahertz and eventually

00:06:47.759 --> 00:06:54.639
tapers off to mostly four gigahertz by the latter half of the run then when we

00:06:52.720 --> 00:07:00.319
look at the power draw it's pretty baffling it's drawing far more power for

00:06:57.440 --> 00:07:08.639
the same or a slightly higher clock speed about 145 watts that's well above

00:07:04.560 --> 00:07:11.360
both its rated 105 watt TDP and the x's

00:07:08.639 --> 00:07:15.759
maximum of around 140 watts when it drops to 4 gigahertz that translates

00:07:13.440 --> 00:07:22.720
into significantly more heat output and with an h115i our 3900xt landed about 10

00:07:19.840 --> 00:07:27.120
degrees celsius hotter than the 3900x on the hottest eye the same thing doesn't

00:07:25.120 --> 00:07:30.479
happen though with the lower end xt chips which maintain their higher

00:07:28.639 --> 00:07:34.240
performance level over their x counterparts throughout the run and i

00:07:32.400 --> 00:07:36.720
gotta level with you guys here i don't really know how to interpret

00:07:35.840 --> 00:07:42.000
that it could be that power delivery is wonky

00:07:39.440 --> 00:07:46.000
on this older firmware for the high core count chip and it could be that it's

00:07:44.000 --> 00:07:50.479
something that's fixable in the future or it could be that higher thermal

00:07:48.080 --> 00:07:54.960
output means that precision boost 2 is simply dropping the turbo down sooner

00:07:52.720 --> 00:07:58.160
than those lower core count chips if it's power related i don't expect that

00:07:56.800 --> 00:08:04.560
this will be a problem with future firmware revisions as the 3950x with 16

00:08:01.680 --> 00:08:08.240
cores runs fine in this particular board but your mileage may vary a little in

00:08:06.720 --> 00:08:13.440
terms of thermals and sustained performance on launch day on the subject

00:08:10.800 --> 00:08:18.400
of launch day after AMD retired their original store mi solution based on an

00:08:16.160 --> 00:08:22.479
modis fuse drive which allowed you to accelerate a hard drive with a solid

00:08:20.240 --> 00:08:27.919
state cache they teased that a new solution would become available this

00:08:24.000 --> 00:08:30.240
year and it's launching now storm i 2.0

00:08:27.919 --> 00:08:34.959
AMD's internally developed read-only caching solution is apparently a whole

00:08:32.800 --> 00:08:39.680
lot easier to configure with support for any size of SSD and hard drive

00:08:37.760 --> 00:08:42.640
it's purely done in software which should mean it's compatible with

00:08:41.519 --> 00:08:49.600
anything but right now it only supports third gen

00:08:45.920 --> 00:08:52.240
ryzen chips on the x570 chipset as for

00:08:49.600 --> 00:08:56.080
why AMD says they're going to gradually roll out support for other chipsets and

00:08:54.240 --> 00:09:00.080
cpus so either they're artificially limiting the

00:08:58.000 --> 00:09:04.959
software feature to try to add value to x570 in the wake of the b550 launch

00:09:03.200 --> 00:09:09.040
or they want their most enthusiastic customers to participate in a beta

00:09:06.800 --> 00:09:13.279
program the good news is that given that it's a read-only caching solution any

00:09:11.279 --> 00:09:16.800
data that you store on it shouldn't be at risk so

00:09:14.959 --> 00:09:21.200
i don't know give it a try and let us know how it goes over on

00:09:18.360 --> 00:09:27.120
linustechtips.com in the forum overall this launch feels like a strange sort of

00:09:24.640 --> 00:09:32.160
weird message from AMD they're not replacing the x-series processors or

00:09:29.920 --> 00:09:37.519
formally discounting them so the bad news is that it's kind of confusing but

00:09:34.959 --> 00:09:42.000
the good news is that the only difficult part of our original choice

00:09:39.839 --> 00:09:46.240
is whether we want to take advantage of the marketing kickback programs or

00:09:43.839 --> 00:09:50.560
bundle deals that AMD seems to be hinting at

00:09:47.440 --> 00:09:53.440
or pony up msrp for a little bit more

00:09:50.560 --> 00:09:57.120
performance with an xt you know the cynic in me actually

00:09:54.959 --> 00:10:00.480
totally going off script here might say that they're keeping the old skus just

00:09:58.720 --> 00:10:04.959
so that they can have like more shelf space taken up by AMD

00:10:02.399 --> 00:10:10.160
products i've seen moves like that there was a really dark time in the GPU space

00:10:07.600 --> 00:10:14.560
when graphics card boxes started to get like this literally this big i remember

00:10:13.279 --> 00:10:18.640
uh chaintech chaintech used to have these

00:10:16.560 --> 00:10:22.959
gigantic graphics card boxes remember this is before the cards were even dual

00:10:20.880 --> 00:10:27.360
slot even like there was no reason for it whatsoever other than to make it take

00:10:24.880 --> 00:10:30.720
up as much space as possible so yeah it could be that as well speaking of things

00:10:29.279 --> 00:10:35.519
it could be it could be time for our sponsor if you're in charge of your company's

00:10:33.440 --> 00:10:43.200
server storage check out our sponsor keoxia their cm6 enterprise NVMe ssds

00:10:39.360 --> 00:10:44.959
are pci express 4.0 and NVMe 1.4

00:10:43.200 --> 00:10:49.839
compliant they come in two and a half inch form factors with up to 12.8

00:10:47.279 --> 00:10:56.560
terabytes of capacity and can sustain 1.4 million iops and over 6.9 gigabytes

00:10:53.760 --> 00:11:02.720
per second they're made with 96 layer 3d tlc memory and can sustain and recover

00:10:59.600 --> 00:11:04.640
from a simultaneous to die failure

00:11:02.720 --> 00:11:08.640
that sounds pretty good so check them out at the link in the video description

00:11:07.040 --> 00:11:12.480
so thanks for watching guys if you enjoyed this video go check out our

00:11:10.079 --> 00:11:16.560
recent video on what it takes to cool Intel's core i9 10 900k

00:11:15.519 --> 00:11:21.040
you might have noticed we didn't criticize AMD too hard for the extra

00:11:19.040 --> 00:11:24.800
power draw or the extra 10 degrees because they were already in pretty good

00:11:22.240 --> 00:11:29.640
shape as for Intel that thing can draw over

00:11:25.560 --> 00:11:29.640
250 watts

00:11:30.240 --> 00:11:33.240
spicy