News AMD Launches Ryzen "XT" 3000-Series Processors: 3900XT for $499, 3800XT for $399, and 3600XT for $249

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Last I have read it is q4 2020 for Zen 3 not q4 2021.

"it's rational to expect that we won't see Zen 3 desktop processors until mid to late 2021, which lines up with AMD's public roadmaps. "

Where is this statement coming from?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TCA_ChinChin
"so Intel's Comet Lake-S processors might continue to hold the crown as the fastest gaming processors "

This was always going to be the case it was wishful thinking to assume these refresh parts were going to close or remove the gap in gaming. We will have to wait for Zen 3 for that.
 
The lack of bundled coolers with two of the XT chips also serves as a price hike over the existing models, but you'll need the additional thermal overhead to hit the higher boost clocks. We can expect the 'standard' Ryzen 3000 series models to get a substantial price cut as a result of XT's arrival, which will help AMD's competitive footing against Intel's capable Comet Lake-S processors.
Click to expand...
I think they could end up having the same price, so you can choose between a bundled cooler or faster clocks. Remember, the cooler is an extra cost that the other one doesn't have. I wouldn't even be surprised if the XT ended up being cheaper down the line.
 
The 2021 references are mistaken. Zen 3 is 2020.

On paper this is the most trivial CPU refresh of all time. There's no way it could keep consumers placated for another year.
 
st379 said:
Last I have read it is q4 2020 for Zen 3 not q4 2021.

"it's rational to expect that we won't see Zen 3 desktop processors until mid to late 2021, which lines up with AMD's public roadmaps. "

Where is this statement coming from?
Click to expand...

Opps, that's my mistake. Corrected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: st379
tummybunny said:
The 2021 references are mistaken. Zen 3 is 2020.

On paper this is the most trivial CPU refresh of all time. There's no way it could keep consumers placated for another year.
Click to expand...

There are lots of rumors (published in the last day) that Zen 3 is being delayed till 2021. Nobody really knows if that's a mistake or not.

Atleast Intel was at the top of every chart when they started resting on their laurels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gurg
AMD finally admitting that the included "excellent (LOL)"wraith air coolers weren't enough to cool its higher end CPUs and indicating that neither is a h100i-240. At least a H115i -280 is needed to get top performance from its high end CPUs and even then XTs can't match Intel in overall gaming suite performance.
 
Last edited:
No increase in base clock with a 100-200Mhz boost clock and they weren't able to bin enough of these in 6 months to release them today? AMD couldn't even scrape together enough of these to ship to reviewers today? If there ever was a refresh didn't need a paper launch, it should have been this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gurg
spongiemaster said:
No increase in base clock with a 100-200Mhz boost clock and they weren't able to bin enough of these in 6 months to release them today? AMD couldn't even scrape together enough of these to ship to reviewers today? If there ever was a refresh didn't need a paper launch, it should have been this one.
Click to expand...
Reviews before indicated that the included wraith coolers were insufficient and throttled top AMD CPUs from attaining their maximum boost. Is this up to 100-200 Mhz boost with the XT just what has always been available with a H115i-280? Is this just an excuse so that AMD could stop including the wraith coolers which CPU buyers were dumping on E-Bay?
 
@PaulAlcorn
Price in table for 3800XT says $339, but $399 in text above the table.

Without a cooler, the 3800XT/3900XT are going to be a tough sell. If they bumped it up $25 to $50 for BOX as an option, I think it will sell... no need to undercut, since they could just phase out the X versions. Unless there is some extra binning here going on, then they are just doing the same thing as Silicon Lottery does, which justifies pricing and no-cooler. Whatever works.
 
I think that that is a good choise! If you want to get cooler, buy cheaper non XT variant. If you want the best of the best, you in anyway Are gonna use aftermarket cooler! I personally did buy x3700 and still did buy super highend Nochtua cooler... if I did that for 65w basic cpus, those who buy much expensive and Little bit faster XT version will buy something like that or water cooler!
 
salgado18 said:
I think they could end up having the same price, so you can choose between a bundled cooler or faster clocks. Remember, the cooler is an extra cost that the other one doesn't have. I wouldn't even be surprised if the XT ended up being cheaper down the line.
Click to expand...
If I had to guess, these will be getting sold for more than the existing models, probably close to MSRP at launch. At least at online stores in the US, the 3600X can currently be had for under $205 (and under $170 for the 3600), the 3800X for under $330 (and under $275 for the 3700X) and the 3900X for under $420. But it took many months for those processors to see significant price drops, so for a while, these new versions may also be priced closer to their MSRPs.

But considering the existing models perform rather close to one another at a given core count, and the higher-end variants never felt like a particularly good value to begin with, the price over the base models will probably be most relevant to consider. And with the 3600XT priced $80+ over the 3600, the 3800XT priced $125+ over the 3700X, and the 3900XT priced $80+ over the 3900X, these might be kind of a tough sell. They are arguably what the higher-end variants should have been to begin with for their asking prices, but now that prices of the lower end parts have dropped, I'm not sure that will be enough to make these premium versions a particularly good buy. Perhaps there will be more significant improvements to multi-core boosts or something that might make them more attractive though.

spongiemaster said:
No increase in base clock with a 100-200Mhz boost clock and they weren't able to bin enough of these in 6 months to release them today? AMD couldn't even scrape together enough of these to ship to reviewers today? If there ever was a refresh didn't need a paper launch, it should have been this one.
Click to expand...
Why would reviews be getting posted for these today if they will not be released until July 7th? Even if reviewers got them already, then they will probably still be under NDA for another couple weeks. And base clocks don't really matter much, seeing as any of these processors should boost to higher all-core clocks under load. And we don't know what those clocks will be yet. Maybe they'll be similar to what they were, maybe they'll be 100 MHz higher, or maybe they'll be more than that.

CerianK said:
Unless there is some extra binning here going on, then they are just doing the same thing as Silicon Lottery does, which justifies pricing and no-cooler.
Click to expand...
The difference would be that AMD bins their chiplets prior to making finished processors out of them. That's why all the existing chips are already binned, with the best chiplets making their way into processors like the 3950X, meaning they have not previously appeared in the lower core-count models. These XT versions appear to be putting those higher-binned chiplets in lower core-count models.
 
Makaveli said:
"so Intel's Comet Lake-S processors might continue to hold the crown as the fastest gaming processors "

This was always going to be the case it was wishful thinking to assume these refresh parts were going to close or remove the gap in gaming. We will have to wait for Zen 3 for that.
Click to expand...
Why is the AMD claim of "industry leading SINGLE-THREAD performance" is false? I think Intel NO longer 'world's fastest gaming processor'

What am I missing in the following?

SINGLE thread AMD Ryzen 3000XT (scored 546) vs Core i9-10900K (scored 534). What is even more interesting is AMD achieved this with "BOOST/BASE FREQUENCY (GHZ) Up to 4.7/3.8"
and Intel achieved this with "Base clock - 3.7GHz Peak Turbo (single core) - 5.3GHz"
Point: "Zen 2"(AMD Ryzen 3000XT) architecture (IPC) is far better than "Comet Lake"(Core i9-10900K)

Core i9-10900K scored 534 according to PCgamer.com on 07/03/20
www.pcgamer.com

Intel Core i9 10900K review

The i9 10900K is the flagship CPU of the Comet Lake lineup and the fastest gaming CPU... but is that enough?
www.pcgamer.com www.pcgamer.com

The 3900XT scored 546
https://ir.amd.com/news-releases/ne...thusiasts-more-choice-ever-new-ryzentm-3000xt
 
Gurg said:
AMD finally admitting that the included "excellent (LOL)"wraith air coolers weren't enough to cool its higher end CPUs and indicating that neither is a h100i-240. At least a H115i -280 is needed to get top performance from its high end CPUs and even then XTs can't match Intel in overall gaming suite performance.
Click to expand...


AMD Ryzen 3000XT "industry leading SINGLE-THREAD performance"

Intel NO longer 'world's fastest gaming processor'

SINGLE thread AMD Ryzen 3000XT (scored 546) vs Core i9-10900K (scored 534).

Core i9-10900K scored 534 according to PCgamer.com on 07/03/20
www.pcgamer.com

Intel Core i9 10900K review

The i9 10900K is the flagship CPU of the Comet Lake lineup and the fastest gaming CPU... but is that enough?
www.pcgamer.com www.pcgamer.com

The 3900XT scored 546
https://ir.amd.com/news-releases/ne...thusiasts-more-choice-ever-new-ryzentm-3000xt
 
cryoburner said:
Why would reviews be getting posted for these today if they will not be released until July 7th? Even if reviewers got them already, then they will probably still be under NDA for another couple weeks. And base clocks don't really matter much, seeing as any of these processors should boost to higher all-core clocks under load. And we don't know what those clocks will be yet. Maybe they'll be similar to what they were, maybe they'll be 100 MHz higher, or maybe they'll be more than that.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. Why is there a 3+ week pre-announcement for such a minor higher bin?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gurg
hotaru251 said:
yeah...no thanks.

i'll buy cheaper one, OC it to match new ones and save $.
Click to expand...
That won't work. The max turbo applies to a single core. When you overclock, the lower core boosting is disabled which is why review sites sometimes found overclocking 3000 CPU's resulted in lower scores than just leaving it at stock. 4 to 6 cores boosting to 4.5Ghz will be faster for most work loads than an all core overclock that tops out 4.2-4.3Ghz. That's why it makes little sense to buy 12-16 core CPU's for home use when you don't use software that benefits from that many cores.
 
venkat.sellappan said:
AMD Ryzen 3000XT "industry leading SINGLE-THREAD performance"

Intel NO longer 'world's fastest gaming processor'

SINGLE thread AMD Ryzen 3000XT (scored 546) vs Core i9-10900K (scored 534).

Core i9-10900K scored 534 according to PCgamer.com on 07/03/20
www.pcgamer.com

Intel Core i9 10900K review

The i9 10900K is the flagship CPU of the Comet Lake lineup and the fastest gaming CPU... but is that enough?
www.pcgamer.com www.pcgamer.com

The 3900XT scored 546
https://ir.amd.com/news-releases/ne...thusiasts-more-choice-ever-new-ryzentm-3000xt
Click to expand...
Its 6/17/20 today. 7/3/20 is a couple of weeks away.

Read the precisely worded AMD press release very carefully as legally it is dancing on a pinhead. It claims to "deliver elite-level performance that dominates gaming AND content creation." It does not claim to dominate gaming. Neither does it claim to dominate both gaming AND content creation. Evidently AMD found some combination of gaming and multi-threaded content creation benchmarks where probably on a percentage basis an AMD XT CPUs outperformed Intel's latest offerings. Nor does it state whether the CPUs were overclocked or just run at base or boost.

The numbers you posted look like they may be single threaded Cinebench R20 results. That is not a game nor is it representative of overall gaming performance.
 
Last edited:
venkat.sellappan said:
Why is the AMD claim of "industry leading SINGLE-THREAD performance" is false? I think Intel NO longer 'world's fastest gaming processor'
Click to expand...
¯\(ツ)/¯
Intel keeps it's lead in most games, but there are conditions to that:
1)Overclocking: a K cpu, Z motherboard, and high end cooling - to keep those thermals under control - is a must.
2)At least 3200mhz ram. Intel's Skylake architecture doesn't scale in the same manner as Ryzen; it continues to scale up even past Ryzen 3000's hard limit of 3800mhz(or was it 3733?) CCX at 1:1 mode... the wallet's the limit on how far to go though...
3)At 1080p and lower, it's a win for Intel again, as the games are more cpu bound. 1440p and up, it doesn't matter which the user goes with. The majority of people who play games play on 1080p screens - some even scale down from there to gain an fps boost.
4)A top dollar gpu. It's got to be at the level most people won't touch; the creme-dela-creme...
Basically, throw anything value-related out of the window...

If the user doesn't splurge, or go all out, they are screwing themselves over, compared to the other guy who invested in a decent Ryzen build for a good deal less, who will be right on their heels...

But hey, who are we to tell people how to spend their money? Make 1 or 2 suggestions, and just roll with it from there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gurg
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom