Rumor - New Ryzen 3900, 3700, and 3500

12 cores at 65 watts? I don't know if I believe that. The clockspeeds would have to be really low.
Maybe, I will have to wait to see if 1) AMD will release it and 2) for reviews. If the performance loss is like 3700X and 3800X, then I will find it acceptable trade off.
 
Depending on pricing and performance the 3700 might hit the sweet spot for me. I've been thinking of getting a 3600 because it performs pretty much the same as the 3700X in games at 1440p and 4K right now but if the 3700 manages to bridge the gap in pricing between the two I'll grab that instead.
 
12 cores at 65 watts? I don't know if I believe that. The clockspeeds would have to be really low.
Not really... It's a non x, do don't expect it to hit as high of boost, which is when it needs the peak power. Hard to say how close to the power budget they can stay, but wouldn't be surprised if it was 95w instead.
 
These all seem so redundant though... 3800x is a hard sell due to how close in performance... Where will the 3900 even make sense? Same with the rest, going to make it really hard to pick a CPU when just a few $ more you can get the next one...
 
I don't really get AMD's strategy. Saturating price points with CPUs that don't really differentiate themselves by performance.
 
I don't really get AMD's strategy. Saturating price points with CPUs that don't really differentiate themselves by performance.
If you can sell your product at every price point (even if features or performance aren't that different), you can eliminate your competitor's entire product stack. Of course, you need to be competitive for this to work, in performance and power consumption.
 
OEMs want CPUs like this. That way they can charge $150 more for a system with the X version.
 
Not really... It's a non x, do don't expect it to hit as high of boost, which is when it needs the peak power. Hard to say how close to the power budget they can stay, but wouldn't be surprised if it was 95w instead.

95 watt is more believable. Some hit to clockspeed, crappier bin, cheaper price. Would make some sense.
 
OEMs want CPUs like this. That way they can charge $150 more for a system with the X version.

And sell machines for $150 less to people that don't know the difference. Oh it has a AMD 8/12 core in it.... ohhh nice.
Nothing new there Intel has been doing it for years.... the low end high end parts are OEM bait for the mass market Dells and HPs of the world. We all have relatives that have bought low end I7s in a big box machine.

Having said that.... a 3700 non x might be a steal of a deal. If it has the same 4.2ghz boost as the 3600 for only a bit more then 3600x it might be the logical go to. Right now the 3600 seems to be a fantastic deal and the no brainer purchase for most people not going 3900. A 3700 nonx with the same boosts and a MSRP only 20-30 bucks over the 3600x ? I would be in for that.

There are a couple models that just don't make to much sense to me 3600x and 3800x have little reason to exist. If AMD does make 3700 and 3900 non x parts IMO they basically replace those 2 useless X parts with compelling skus right around the same MSRP. And ya oems will sell 8 and 12 core systems to the masses for even less.
 
It seems AMD is going to have a CPU for every price point throughout the range. Don't want to leave any gaps for Intel, lol. The benefits of their design is their speedy releases.
 
And sell machines for $150 less to people that don't know the difference. Oh it has a AMD 8/12 core in it.... ohhh nice.
Nothing new there Intel has been doing it for years.... the low end high end parts are OEM bait for the mass market Dells and HPs of the world. We all have relatives that have bought low end I7s in a big box machine.

Having said that.... a 3700 non x might be a steal of a deal. If it has the same 4.2ghz boost as the 3600 for only a bit more then 3600x it might be the logical go to. Right now the 3600 seems to be a fantastic deal and the no brainer purchase for most people not going 3900. A 3700 nonx with the same boosts and a MSRP only 20-30 bucks over the 3600x ? I would be in for that.

There are a couple models that just don't make to much sense to me 3600x and 3800x have little reason to exist. If AMD does make 3700 and 3900 non x parts IMO they basically replace those 2 useless X parts with compelling skus right around the same MSRP. And ya oems will sell 8 and 12 core systems to the masses for even less.

The 3600X and 3800X are for people who don't do their research. They go "it has an X and faster clocks for only a little bit more, let's buy that". I fully expect to see them in prebuild machines too. It seems like 3700X and 3900X might turn out to be the "early adopter cashgrabs" if the 3700/3900 manages to be as trivial difference as 3600 vs 3600X.

Over here the 3700X is about 130 euros more expensive than 3600 so I would expect a 3700 to be somewhere around 100 euros more expensive which puts it firmly in the "up for consideration" bracket for me. 3600 is the best gaming price/performance value right now and the money saved could be put towards Ryzen 4000 in the next few years if 8 cores becomes more relevant for gaming purposes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
The 3600X and 3800X are for people who don't do their research. They go "it has an X and faster clocks for only a little bit more, let's buy that". I fully expect to see them in prebuild machines too. It seems like 3700X and 3900X might turn out to be the "early adopter cashgrabs" if the 3700/3900 manages to be as trivial difference as 3600 vs 3600X.

Over here the 3700X is about 130 euros more expensive than 3600 so I would expect a 3700 to be somewhere around 100 euros more expensive which puts it firmly in the "up for consideration" bracket for me. 3600 is the best gaming price/performance value right now and the money saved could be put towards Ryzen 4000 in the next few years if 8 cores becomes more relevant for gaming purposes.


There are 65w versions of 6core, 8core & now 12core Zen 2 chips, then there are the ones that OC naturally with a higher wattage rating, designated with an "X". AMD Ryzen product sku is not hard to figure out.

All you do is need to match your workload to the cores you need. If you game and don't like to fuss in OC and bios, then the Ryzen 3000 "x"... is better suited for Gamers. If you want to save money and like to OC, then spending a few bucks less and getting a 65w chip and manually OC will yield better price/performance ratio.

The Ryzen "x" variants are essentially pre-binned chips.
 
More rumors on the 3500:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-5-3500-matisse-zen-2,40227.html

This just seems like a bad idea given AMD's SMT performance. Whereas an 8/8 Intel is close to a 6/12 Intel and the 6/6 Intel beats a 4/8 Intel, the 6/6 AMD would only match a 4/8 AMD. This is pretty clear when a 3700x matches a 3900x w/o SMT.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-smt-off-vs-intel-9900k/3.html

It just seems like a 4/8 Zen 2 would be cheaper and more efficient than a 6/6 Zen 2 unless of course they do not plan on making any 4 core Zens which seems unlikely.
 
The 3600X and 3800X are for people who don't do their research. They go "it has an X and faster clocks for only a little bit more, let's buy that". I fully expect to see them in prebuild machines too. It seems like 3700X and 3900X might turn out to be the "early adopter cashgrabs" if the 3700/3900 manages to be as trivial difference as 3600 vs 3600X.

Over here the 3700X is about 130 euros more expensive than 3600 so I would expect a 3700 to be somewhere around 100 euros more expensive which puts it firmly in the "up for consideration" bracket for me. 3600 is the best gaming price/performance value right now and the money saved could be put towards Ryzen 4000 in the next few years if 8 cores becomes more relevant for gaming purposes.

I don't know where they go from the 3700X though. It's already 65W and 8C/16T. The only place to go is lower boost clocks at the same power. I don't see it as a cash grab. In the case of the 3600 vs. 3600x it's a 65W vs. 95W part.
 
More rumors on the 3500:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-5-3500-matisse-zen-2,40227.html

This just seems like a bad idea given AMD's SMT performance. Whereas an 8/8 Intel is close to a 6/12 Intel and the 6/6 Intel beats a 4/8 Intel, the 6/6 AMD would only match a 4/8 AMD. This is pretty clear when a 3700x matches a 3900x w/o SMT.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-smt-off-vs-intel-9900k/3.html

It just seems like a 4/8 Zen 2 would be cheaper and more efficient than a 6/6 Zen 2 unless of course they do not plan on making any 4 core Zens which seems unlikely.

They don't wanna butcher the sales of 3600x. Either way 6 cores are better than 4 cores + SMT. SMT might not matter in every scenario. Especially for gaming 6 cores will be much better. Thats where they are going to be marketing it.
 
More rumors on the 3500:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-5-3500-matisse-zen-2,40227.html

This just seems like a bad idea given AMD's SMT performance. Whereas an 8/8 Intel is close to a 6/12 Intel and the 6/6 Intel beats a 4/8 Intel, the 6/6 AMD would only match a 4/8 AMD. This is pretty clear when a 3700x matches a 3900x w/o SMT.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-smt-off-vs-intel-9900k/3.html

It just seems like a 4/8 Zen 2 would be cheaper and more efficient than a 6/6 Zen 2 unless of course they do not plan on making any 4 core Zens which seems unlikely.

They don't wanna butcher the sales of 3600x. Either way 6 cores are better than 4 cores + SMT. SMT might not matter in every scenario. Especially for gaming 6 cores will be much better. Thats where they are going to be marketing it.

It's obviously OEM only.
 
Gotta say for gaming all you really care about is what chip will boost the best for the cheapest price. Stuck at 4.0-4.1 GHz currently for boost clocks
 
It's obviously OEM only.

Yeah, AMD already has a $150 champ - the 2600x. IPC increases will not make up for the lack of SMT in most scenarios.

If you make the strictly budget gaming argument, then I would say steer anyone towards the 9400F anyhow.
 
Yeah, AMD already has a $150 champ - the 2600x. IPC increases will not make up for the lack of SMT in most scenarios. If you make the strictly budget gaming argument, then I would say steer anyone towards the 9400F anyhow.
AMD is obviously targeting the 9400F segment. The 3500 has a much higher base clock. It is designed to be the low cost game champ and will best a 2600X in most every case. The large L3 cache will help it overcome lack of SMT and especially against the 9400F on highly threaded tasks (32MB vs, 9MB).
 
AMD is obviously targeting the 9400F segment. The 3500 has a much higher base clock. It is designed to be the low cost game champ and will best a 2600X in most every case. The large L3 cache will help it overcome lack of SMT and especially against the 9400F on highly threaded tasks (32MB vs, 9MB).

Yes, it will be faster than the 2600x in most games. However, I just don't see it doing well against a 9400F in any scenario. The 9400F will boost to around 4.0 ghz with 2-4 cores, so don't let the base frequencies fool you.

The 4/8 1500x AMD was able to beat the 4/4 1300x by a rather wide margin in many cases 2 years ago. We would most likely see something similiar going from 6/12 to 6/6 today.
 
AMD is obviously targeting the 9400F segment. The 3500 has a much higher base clock. It is designed to be the low cost game champ and will best a 2600X in most every case. The large L3 cache will help it overcome lack of SMT and especially against the 9400F on highly threaded tasks (32MB vs, 9MB).

Ryzen 5 3500 would perform like the Ryzen 5 3600 in games since games don't use SMT.

AMD would be wise to keep Ryzen 5 3500 OEM only because most gamers would probably opt for the Ryzen 5 3500 instead of the Ryzen 5 3600.
 
Ryzen 5 3500 would perform like the Ryzen 5 3600 in games since games don't use SMT.

AMD would be wise to keep Ryzen 5 3500 OEM only because most gamers would probably opt for the Ryzen 5 3500 instead of the Ryzen 5 3600.
Depending on clocks yep.
 
Yes, it will be faster than the 2600x in most games. However, I just don't see it doing well against a 9400F in any scenario. The 9400F will boost to around 4.0 ghz with 2-4 cores, so don't let the base frequencies fool you.

The 4/8 1500x AMD was able to beat the 4/4 1300x by a rather wide margin in many cases 2 years ago. We would most likely see something similiar going from 6/12 to 6/6 today.

Well I will admit when I am wrong:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-5-3500x-review-expreview,40605.html

The 3500 stacks up very well against the 9400f. Shame it is OEM only.
 
Back
Top