AMD Ryzen 3000 Series Matisse CPUs Listed With Specs

rgcookjr

Distinguished
Sep 8, 2009
1
0
18,510
0
Competition has forced significant advance by AMD in the last couple years. Intel has been able to cruise merrily along with status quo tic/toc updates. Anyone who thinks Intel won't respond to this is delusional.
 

Aspiring techie

Reputable
Mar 24, 2015
824
8
5,365
118

The issue is that Intel's response has been with the 8th and 9th gen processors. 14nm is currently maxed out for them. 10nm will come out at the end of the year, but 1st gen 10nm is likely to perform worse than 14nm. It will likely take one or maybe even two 10nm updates to bring it to par with curent 14nm+++. Even worse, the first architecture to come out on 10nm will be Cannon Lake, which will probably be only a little better than Skylake.

In short, due to process and architecture constraints, Intel probably won't be able to seriously respond for at least 1 year, possibly 2.

Now, when Jim Keller finishes his new architecture and Intel starts producing those CPU's, AMD will probably be screwed.
 

Blackbird77

Commendable
Jul 29, 2016
8
0
1,510
0
Intel will respond for sure, but AMD gets my respect for pushing the market. Hope they do well more and more.
 

Anarkie13

Reputable
Jun 30, 2015
433
2
4,965
82
While I usually am looking at and interested in the more top tier hardware, those 3 series are serious game changers. I sincerely hope this is true. I'll drop $130 on a 6/12 chip with almost no thought at all.
 

tim.hotze

Prominent
Jan 29, 2018
25
0
540
3
I want to believe that this is true, but I'm skeptical: I don't see how you keep 16 cores fed with 2 channels of DDR4 memory, even if its overclocked (and DDR5 remains an "on-paper" product, and will likely start out in severs), and since you need dedicated pins for memory access (and they're sticking with AM4).

That puts the entire leak into question, IMO, though it might make sense if they released Ryzen 9 as a niche product (somewhat akin to Intel's 8086k or something).
 

pug_s

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2003
333
2
18,815
18
Kind of excited about this. I might buy the ryzen 3 or 5 series if it approaches $100 mark and by then the price of ram would be cheap. I hope amd would release 8 core 16 thread version of raven ridge this coming year and I might buy that if the price is affordable.



We will see. Right now AMD puts 4 cores per die. With the 7nm process, I think they can cram 8 cores per die.
 
Jul 7, 2018
4
0
10
0
If AMD can truly deliver anywhere near these numbers and prices, we are in for a killer 2019! Not sure how they could price the 3600X under the existing 2700X though. The frequencies and core count looks definitely doable. those prices?.... we'll see in couple weeks. But still... way to push the market AMD!
 

fry178

Reputable
Dec 14, 2015
776
12
5,365
152
Intel will respond. Lol.
With what? Roadmaps are done for month and yearsahead, you cant just come up with something from one month to the next...
Outside lowering prices, but most of the time amd still makes more sense,
as eco system needed to suport it is cheaper as well.
Not even talking about TR.
 

kidfusion3000

Reputable
Jun 16, 2014
7
0
4,510
0
I vote this is bunk. I'm an AMD fan, always have been, which is why I think we should be expecting less dramatic increases on these CPUs. AMD made huge waves in the last 2 years but it doesn't mean they can again increase core counts, and up to 16 cores on the AM4 platform? even with a 135w tdp, I'm just not sure that's possible with a concurrent increase of 1 ghz, that's a 20% increase in frequency compared to the last gen and 2x the core count, with a 12% increase in IPC per previous reports, this lineup just isn't plausible.
 

ammaross

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2011
268
0
18,790
1


You must have missed the entire EPYC announcement and their discussion on 7nm. They can provide that 1ghz increase AND increase core count at the same TDP quite easily with TSMC's 7nm. Very plausible.
 

tim.hotze

Prominent
Jan 29, 2018
25
0
540
3


The issue isn't cores per die - its how the die interfaces with the rest of the system. The AM4 socket only supports dual-channel memory, and you'd physically need to change the pin layout of the socket to support more (which AMD isn't likely to do since it'd break compatibility).

Threadripper is more than just extra cores - its also a different socket (TR4) with more pins and support for quad-channel memory. Search online for dual- vs. quad-channel benchmarks on TR4 - the extra channels make a significant difference in speed.

With just support for 2 channels of RAM, I don't think you can send data to/from memory quickly enough to keep 16 cores busy most of the time, so you'd likely see little/no performance improvement over say, 12 cores at the same clock speed. Its not to say AMD wouldn't sell a 16-core product, just that it'd have little performance advantage over the 12 core, even for highly threaded work.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

After years of higher performance from Intel coming with SKUs creeping up in prices, it is about time that something happened to give performance-per-buck a hard kick in the pants. AMD's got ~10 years worth of Intel monopoly to undo and it appears to mean business.
 

Considering that the performance of most of today's games tends to be much more limited by graphics hardware in most setups, and relatively few games make heavy use of much more than a handful of threads, I wouldn't expect these to increase current gaming performance all that much. They might help reduce performance dips in parts of games that are heavy on the CPU, but probably not really any more so than Intel's current i7s and unlocked i5s. These might potentially be faster, but probably not enough so to make the existing higher-end hardware seem obsolete. If they're bringing that kind of performance to lower price ranges though, and increasing core counts at the high end for other tasks, then that could be great. As far as noticeably boosting performance in today's games goes though, I would be more interested in what their upcoming 7nm graphics cards have to offer. Those will probably have a bigger impact on gaming performance within the price ranges most people spend for graphics hardware.


It's kind of difficult to say on this. Intel's 10nm has been delayed so long that by the time they launch they should have already been on the 2nd or 3rd-generation hardware. It's possible that part of the reason for the delays has been that 10nm wasn't performing as expected, and they didn't want to release something that performed worse than their existing hardware, so they may have been redesigning things to make the CPUs better for their debut. I would suspect that at the very least, Intel will make sure that their first 10nm desktop parts perform at least a little better than their most recent 14nm parts. I'm pretty sure they'll have a high-end chip that performs at least a bit faster than their 9900K. It's difficult for one to say how much better though, without having inside details about the current state of their 10nm production.


Running 16 cores on 2 channels of memory probably isn't much different than running 32 cores on 4 channels of memory, as their Threadripper 9900WX currently does on the TR4 platform. That processor does run into performance issues at certain tasks though, but is still a viable product for many heavily-threaded tasks. I would only be a bit skeptical due to the fact that it encroaches on the TR4 platform, but since Intel is now matching AMD's core counts on their consumer platform (albeit at a huge price premium), I could see AMD pushing AM4 to 12 or 16 cores just to have something available at the high-end that is notably more capable at heavily-threaded tasks than what Intel is offering.


While I don't know how accurate these rumors might be (at least the prices for a given core count seem a bit questionable) 16 cores on AM4 doesn't seem impossible. The upcoming 7/10nm node should bring big efficiency gains over the existing 12/14/16nm node, and their current 8 core Ryzen 2700 can already boost to 4.1 GHz on a 65 watt TDP. Keep in mind that the 4.7 and 5.1 GHz boost clocks listed in that graph would not be for heavily-threaded tasks, so at stock you would only see clocks that high with more lightly-threaded workloads. With all 16 cores and 32 threads active, you would likely be looking at clocks closer to the base-clocks of those chips.

The Threadripper 2950X already does 16 cores with 32 threads and a 4.4 GHz boost on a 180 watt TDP. A 135 watt TDP is just 25% lower than that, and I could see the significantly increased efficiency of 7nm leaving enough headroom for them to also boost clocks. The rumored 125 watt 3800X only has about 11% higher base clocks and 7% higher boost clocks than that processor with about a 30% lower TDP, making it sound rather feasible. The 3850X, which is rumored to be coming later in the year, pushes those limits more, but they would undoubtedly be using the best binned chips to manage something like that, so it might not be too far-fetched either. In any case, we might know in another week how much truth these rumors have to them, if these chips actually launch at CES.
 

shrapnel_indie

Distinguished
o_O

AMD ... what an improvement ... Kinda wish I held off a few more months... not that Zen+ is bad and all... but current core count and clock speeds of Ryzen 3 3300(X) matching that of Ryzen 5 2600(X)... and cheaper!


I think that Ryzen 9 will probably spur another chipset/motherboard to handle the extra power requirements though. I haven't heard anything there yet, (as I believe is the case with all of us,) so confirmation from that side isn't here. So, time will tell as we get closer.

Intel though is taking a beating from AMD right now... but they're resilient. Only time will tell how much of their timeline gets rewritten because of this though.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,243
11
19,315
21


AMD making it more cores/more thread does not mean it will beat Intel in Gaming 100% .AMD goal is just make the product look tempting (wow low price..) for customers to fall for it when they actually try it. They wont see the positive results

I would save more money just for buying Intel Proccesors, and no worry about upgrading..

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-3839185/years-amd-cpu-beat-intel-gaming.html
 

ammaross

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2011
268
0
18,790
1


Actually, the TR 32core has mem performance issues due to two of the four dies not having an on-board mem controller and consequentially having to jump through the Infinity Fabric to access RAM. Shows in memory scaling benchmarks.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS