Test: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X in the test

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X im Review

Conclusion from 07. 07. 2019

If you want a lot of performance at an excellent price, you don't have to wait any longer: The Ryzen 7 3700 X offers excellent results across all benchmarks and still remains efficient. The eight-core with 4.4 GHz exceeds Intel's i7 – 9700 K and is even the flagship i9- 9900 K dangerous.

High performance
Good price
Just 65 Watt TDP
Single-thread performance slightly behind competitive model

From 289, 00 €: Find Best Price for AMD Ryzen 7 3700 X

The values ​​in the article refer to the test time of the product ( 07. 07. 2019 ) .

The ratings below show how it compares to the other products in the leaderboard.

test ratings (compared to all tested products in this category)

AMD Ryzen 7 3700 X in the test: A price-performance hit

How expensive does a new, outstanding CPU have to be? Until recently we would have replied: So about the 400 to 500 Euro. AMD is now redefining the limits. During the Ryzen 9 3900 X Intel's current consumer flagship, the Core i9 – 9900 K , taken apart in the test at a slightly higher price , the Ryzen wins 7 3700 X another fight against Intel: For around 130 Euro less, the eight-core offers a comparable performance.

Before we try to explain how AMD did it, we would like to say a few words about the basic structure of the new Zen 2 microarchitecture and the benchmark results.

Shop-Em recommendation for AMD Ryzen 7 3700 x 3.6GHz




Offer from | Prices incl.VAT plus shipping

Compare other offers

The third generation of Ryzen also fits on motherboards with an AM4 socket. If there are updates, you can continue to use your old board. Picture: CHIP / Marcus Kämpf

AMD Ryzen 7 3700 X in the test: Matisse with 7 nanometers

With Zen 2 alias “Matisse”, AMD says goodbye to the old Zeppelin die structure on the chip and splits the tasks in several parts: on the silicon of the Ryzen – 3000 – series sitting up to three components. Two of these are so-called chiplets. This is where the Ryzen cores live – a maximum of eight per chiplet, divided into clusters of four. The CPU-near cache is also located in the chips. Both chips communicate with the IO-Die via the “Infinity Fabric” data bus (“IO” stands for “in / out”). This in turn takes care of the data transfer to the rest of the PC, memory management and also mediates information between the chips.

The chips are also the epitome of AMD's current pride in the number 7 – which is why the processors also on July 7th. appear. The cores are made with a structure width of 7 nanometers. The Ryzen – 2000 – Series was still with 12 Nanometers produced. The downsizing allows a CPU manufacturer to either shrink a die to make it more efficient, or to put more processing units on the same area.

Changes for the user the new structure initially nothing. In fact, Matisse hardly brings anything new from the purely functional scope – if you disregard the fact that the AMD CPUs are the first to introduce PCI-Express 4.0 in consumer platforms. The performance advantages of the wider data bus (512 instead of 256 bit) are currently manageable for normal users – for example it is not to expect that graphics cards will even begin to use the gigantic bandwidth in the near future. But there is basically nothing wrong with room for improvement. And PCIe 4.0 SSDs can be faster than their older counterparts.

Incidentally, the CPU still fits in the AM4 socket and can be overclocked with most motherboard chipsets. So if you are still satisfied with your first-generation Ryzen board and the manufacturer offers updates, you can continue to use your old board.

At the Ryzen – 3000 he series sit with up to two chips maximum 16 Cores over the IO circuit. Picture: AMD

Get everything out

With a price point of around 350 Euro you should think the direct competitor would be Intel Core i7 – 9700 K (test) . Finally, both CPUs have eight cores, the 3700 X simultaneous multithreading and thus 16 Threads are supported at the same time, but the Intel processor is not. The benchmarks show, however, that not only the current flagship – the Ryzen 9 3900 X – but also the little sister CPU against the Intel Core i9 – 9900 K with eight cores and 16 Threads boxes. The services are often at least on par, often the 130 Euro cheaper CPU even.

Highlights in comparison can be seen in the everyday simulation PCMark 10 (R7: 4. 150 points, i9: 3. 800 points), ray tracing (R7: 4. 350 points, i9: 4. 250 points) and synthetic gaming benchmarks with the support of an Nvidia GTX 1080. In the 3DMark Fire Strike AMD gets 20. 200 points, Intel only 19. 900 Points. In 3DMark Time Spy the difference is a little bigger: 8. 050 points against 7. 700 points.

In many tests, the two CPUs are almost on par. Intel takes the speed win with large spreadsheets and compresses data faster. The i9 is also clearly ahead in single thread mode in the Cinebench render benchmark.

But as already mentioned: At this price difference, it is a fantastic achievement that the AMD chip can keep up with Intel. All benchmark results of our tests can be found in the following table.

Ryzen 7 3700 X vs Core i9 – 9900 K (benchmark results)

AMD Ryzen 7 3700 X Intel Core i9 – 9900 K

PCMark 8

4. 194 Points

4. 152 Points

PCMark 10

4. 165 Points

3. 783 Points


0, 449 seconds

0, 41 Seconds

Cinebench R 15

2. 171 Points

2. 033 Points

Cinebench R 20

4. 948 Points

4. 912 Points

Cinebench R 20 (ST)

499 Points

511 Points


22. 935 KB / s

25. 476 KB / s


166, 7 FPS

157, 51 FPS

x 264

118 FPS

120, 3 FPS

x 265

10, 9 FPS

10, 2 FPS


4. 335 Points

4. 273 Points


697 MB / s

697 MB / s

Fire Strike

20. 238 Points

19. 899 Points

Time Spy

8th.067 Points

7. 681 Points

Ryzen 7 with good efficiency

The Ryzen 7 does not show any weakness when it comes to power consumption either. In the benchmark suite PCMark 10 our test system requires depending on the scenario 232 Watt or 331 Watts. The extended test is particularly interesting here because the overall performance is 17 Watts under the Core i9 and 19 Watts under the Ryzen 9.

But you have to take into account in the values ​​that we of course per manufacturer ch have to use different motherboards, which in turn affect power consumption. All in all, it can at least be said that AMD did not save on efficiency.

Shop recommendation for AMD Ryzen 7 3700 x 3.6GHz




Spec ot by | Prices incl.VAT plus shipping

Compare other offers

CPU best list: All processors in the CHIP test

The secret is in the IPC

There is a big difference between AMD and Intel: the clock frequency. While Intel cracked the 5 GHz, the Ryzen Boost just manages to 4.4 GHz. The strong performance can only come from a monstrously improved IPC (Instructions per Cycle). AMD names a few changes here that add up to the additional 15 Percentage IPC, which the manufacturer specifies in comparison to the previous generation.

The most obvious is the enlarged L3 cache. 32 MByte CPU-near memory are now available. The improved AVX2 support is also exciting – the CPU now processes the corresponding data twice as fast. The chip also improves the jump prediction of commands, gets a larger micro-op cache and a more associative L1 cache.

The last two improvements are a bit more vivid: firstly the so-called thread grouping. Processor threads, i.e. tasks of the executing programs, prefer to end up in Zen 2 in the same chiplet and there in the same computing cluster rather than at other ends of the processor. This should be a better solution, especially with the spatially separated chips.

The subject of RAM: AMD has given the infinity fabric, i.e. the CPU data bus, more freedom in terms of clock speed. That should remove an old bottle neck – nevertheless, according to AMD there is a “sweet spot” at DDR4 – 3733. If you want to save a bit of money without noticeable performance losses, you should go to DDR4 – 3600 (CL 16) to grab. So far, we have not been able to test how different data rates affect performance.

Ultimately, one thing should not be forgotten when it comes to CPU performance: AMD does without the higher-class ones Desktop processors on an integrated graphics unit. If Intel omitted these, there would be more space available for CPU tasks. An integrated graphics unit can also bring significant advantages in benchmarks.