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

[sparrow2]

There is nothing new here.
We have to remember that these chips are made of the same quality chiplets as the 3950X, that also come without a cooler in the box.
And for the 3600XT and 3900XT even worse chiplets (2 cores a tad to slow, or use more power) .

 

[Olle P]

On paper this is the most trivial CPU refresh of all time. ...

I'd say the Core i9-9900KS fits right in there...

Why release these now? Simple, B550 is out.

Rather the opposite: B550 has been held on to until now because these CPUs are about to be released.

Personally I'm way more curious about StoreMi 2.0, which I could make use of, and the A520 chipset (with associated motherboards)...

 

[Soaptrail]

I'd say the Core i9-9900KS fits right in there...

Agreed but there is nothing wrong with either company announcing an upcoming product. It helps consumers who may buy intel now wait 3 weeks if they would rather buy one of these top of the line binned chips.

Rather the opposite: B550 has been held on to until now because these CPUs are about to be released.

Personally I'm way more curious about StoreMi 2.0, which I could make use of, and the A520 chipset (with associated motherboards)...

B550 was more likely delayed due to supply chain issues related to COVID 19.

 

[spongiemaster]

I'd say the Core i9-9900KS fits right in there...

Base clock of the 9900KS is 400Mhz higher than the 9900k. Reviews also showed the 9900KS was significantly more efficient than the 9900K. 9900KS also had hardware mitigation for some exploits that the 9900k didn't, further improving performance. So while being a better bin, it also wasn't the exact same die as the 9900k which is likely to be the case with these AMD CPU's.

From THG review:

"At stock settings, we mostly matched the performance of a highly-overclocked Intel Core i9-9900K with far less power consumption, which is plenty impressive. "

I don't think anyone is expecting comparable results from these "new" AMD CPU's vs their older siblings.

 

[cryoburner]

You're missing the point. Why is there a 3+ week pre-announcement for such a minor higher bin?

Why not? It lets people know that a new product is coming, so if someone is planning to build a new PC soon, they can decide whether to hold off a bit if they are willing to spend more for a little more performance. It's in AMD's best interest to let people know ahead of time that a new product is coming.

And again, we don't actually know how much of a "minor improvement" it might be, at least until they have been benchmarked, since no information about multi-core boost clocks has been provided. And even for lightly-threaded workloads, it's possible that the chip might do a better job maintaining those maximum boost clocks more consistently.

If you really want an example of a company announcing a minor update way too early, Intel announced the 9900KS in May of 2019, but didn't actually release it until the end of October, over 5 months later. And it was similarly just a better binned 9900K with a bit higher clocks, launching a year after the original version of the processor, at a higher price point. Three weeks is far more reasonable than 5 months.

So while being a better bin, it also wasn't the exact same die as the 9900k which is likely to be the case with these AMD CPU's.

Not true. Intel had apparently already added those mitigations to newer versions of their existing processors, but Tom's Hardware mentioned they were testing the 9900KS against an earlier version of the 9900K. It sounds like Intel switched to that newer stepping for their 9th-gen processors about half a year prior, around the time they announced the 9900KS.

As for base clocks, those don't really matter much, especially since motherboard manufacturers tend to ignore them in their default configurations. The base clock will typically only matter in the event that the processor is throttling. So, ultimately the 9900KS is just a better binned 9900K with the same boost clocks for lightly-threaded workloads on 1-2 cores, 200MHz higher clocks for 3-4 cores, and 300MHz higher clocks for 5+ core workloads. Overclocked, there's maybe a few percent performance difference between them on average. It's fine that they released such a processor, but it's similar to what we are seeing with these XT parts, albeit with a much longer time between the product's announcement and it release.

 

[Olle P]

B550 was more likely delayed due to supply chain issues related to COVID 19.

I don't think so.
It was first delayed from a year ago because it wasn't good enough and required more refinement.
That left it so far behind the Matisse release that there was no reason to put it on the market as a lone product, but better to wait for the next CPU release.

 

[Soaptrail]

I don't think so.
It was first delayed from a year ago because it wasn't good enough and required more refinement.
That left it so far behind the Matisse release that there was no reason to put it on the market as a lone product, but better to wait for the next CPU release.

I remember there were rumors it was going to come out in 2019. I was referring more to a few months delay that happened this year, 2020 due to supply chain issues.

But if it would make AMD money i would expect they would release it ASAP regardless of not having a CPU to release with it. Technically they announced B550 before the XT minor refresh.

 

[ninfo]

Would the 3900xt oc better than the 3900x or is it just the same exact ceiling?

 

[cryoburner]

Would the 3900xt oc better than the 3900x or is it just the same exact ceiling?

My guess would be that it might OC a little better, but with the processor coming out in a couple days, it's probably a bit pointless to speculate now, as detailed reviews should be out soon.

The real question will likely be whether the XT parts offer enough of a performance increase over the existing parts at their now-lower prices. It's currently possible to get a 3900X for as little as $410 in the US, so if the 3900XT launches for around $500, that's a rather substantial $90 premium that puts its pricing more in-line with the i9-10900 and 10900K.