News AMD Unveils 5 Third-Gen Ryzen CPUs, Including 12-Core Flagship

[paul prochnow]

Does Lisa The Great realize how they just screwed their company stock price in not providing 5.0GHz gamer CPU??? DIY pimp rig people will shun her offering as for the most part they got "it" already, the performance that is. No major performance kick is here now!

I mean, this is a crusher and now all the AMD FanBois will not "run" with the 5.0GHz Intel boys in online gaming, an arena in which the clockspeeds are so ever ever ever important, and the processing power BANDWIDTH & GIGAFLOPPAGE does not mean a thing.

I got a dull headache caused by AMD's offer of an upcoming INFERIOR CPU on the top end vs. Intel. I wanted top o' the hill stuff so I can pull
my Ryzen 2700[no X] out of my tower and put it in my HTPC running a 2200G + GTX580 8GB.

All Lisa Sue offers is the 7nm and in the middle is still the 8C 16T Processing power at virtually the same clockspeed
as the 27XX CPUs. For a guy like me there is not a great upgrade as the 3900X is not even a 5.0GHz CPU that matches Intel's clockspeed.
Well, this is a pathetic less than competitive offering. I wish it was a mistake, but the mistake part is reality. A pity.

 

[paul prochnow]

AMD rates their TDP at full boost clocks, while Intel rates their TDP for base clock speeds. A 105W AMD CPU is going to run cooler than a 95W Intel CPU that has Turbo Boost. Also, AMD has a 7nm die while Intel has 14nm, so they are able to keep the power consumption and heat lower in theory.

I am thinking as you may suspect that these little "thangs" we see are perhaps H Y P E, perhaps the product of AMD agents in place?

 

[King Dranzer]

To make it clear that test against RTX2080Ti was only to test the bandwidth of the PCIe lanes comparing gen3 to 4 and that speed and fps was completely dependent on the amount of data that is being pushed through and not based on compute performance.

Navi RX 5700 will perform a notch above RTX2070 don't compare it to RTX2080Ti as that is in a completely different league. We still don't know if RX 5700 is the highest tier card offered or if there is a RX 5800 waiting to be reveled. We also have no idea of the price point it is targeted to.

 

[Finstar]

Does Lisa The Great realize how they just screwed their company stock price in not providing 5.0GHz gamer CPU??? DIY pimp rig people will shun her offering as for the most part they got "it" already, the performance that is. No major performance kick is here now!

I mean, this is a crusher and now all the AMD FanBois will not "run" with the 5.0GHz Intel boys in online gaming, an arena in which the clockspeeds are so ever ever ever important, and the processing power BANDWIDTH & GIGAFLOPPAGE does not mean a thing.

I got a dull headache caused by AMD's offer of an upcoming INFERIOR CPU on the top end vs. Intel. I wanted top o' the hill stuff so I can pull
my Ryzen 2700[no X] out of my tower and put it in my HTPC running a 2200G + GTX580 8GB.

All Lisa Sue offers is the 7nm and in the middle is still the 8C 16T Processing power at virtually the same clockspeed
as the 27XX CPUs. For a guy like me there is not a great upgrade as the 3900X is not even a 5.0GHz CPU that matches Intel's clockspeed.
Well, this is a pathetic less than competitive offering. I wish it was a mistake, but the mistake part is reality. A pity.

If your logic was valid then the FX 9590 would still be one of the fastest cpus on the market.
Good thing it's not and ipc is a thing. AMD doesn't need 5GHz to beat Intel when their cpus can execute +12% more instructions per clock cycle compared to Intel.

 

[JQB45]

Does Lisa The Great realize how they just screwed their company stock price in not providing 5.0GHz gamer CPU??? DIY pimp rig people will shun her offering as for the most part they got "it" already, the performance that is. No major performance kick is here now!

I mean, this is a crusher and now all the AMD FanBois will not "run" with the 5.0GHz Intel boys in online gaming, an arena in which the clockspeeds are so ever ever ever important, and the processing power BANDWIDTH & GIGAFLOPPAGE does not mean a thing.

I got a dull headache caused by AMD's offer of an upcoming INFERIOR CPU on the top end vs. Intel. I wanted top o' the hill stuff so I can pull
my Ryzen 2700[no X] out of my tower and put it in my HTPC running a 2200G + GTX580 8GB.

All Lisa Sue offers is the 7nm and in the middle is still the 8C 16T Processing power at virtually the same clockspeed
as the 27XX CPUs. For a guy like me there is not a great upgrade as the 3900X is not even a 5.0GHz CPU that matches Intel's clockspeed.
Well, this is a pathetic less than competitive offering. I wish it was a mistake, but the mistake part is reality. A pity.

You forgot to mention the approximate 15% improvement in IPC over the AMD 2000 series. IPC is just as important as clock speed...

 

[King Dranzer]

Does Lisa The Great realize how they just screwed their company stock price in not providing 5.0GHz gamer CPU??? DIY pimp rig people will shun her offering as for the most part they got "it" already, the performance that is. No major performance kick is here now!

I mean, this is a crusher and now all the AMD FanBois will not "run" with the 5.0GHz Intel boys in online gaming, an arena in which the clockspeeds are so ever ever ever important, and the processing power BANDWIDTH & GIGAFLOPPAGE does not mean a thing.

I got a dull headache caused by AMD's offer of an upcoming INFERIOR CPU on the top end vs. Intel. I wanted top o' the hill stuff so I can pull
my Ryzen 2700[no X] out of my tower and put it in my HTPC running a 2200G + GTX580 8GB.

All Lisa Sue offers is the 7nm and in the middle is still the 8C 16T Processing power at virtually the same clockspeed
as the 27XX CPUs. For a guy like me there is not a great upgrade as the 3900X is not even a 5.0GHz CPU that matches Intel's clockspeed.
Well, this is a pathetic less than competitive offering. I wish it was a mistake, but the mistake part is reality. A pity.

If you really think that clock speed is everything and 5GHz processor is always better than 4.5GHz processor then you are wrong. As much as clock speed is important instruction per cycle(IPC) also plays a major role in dictating the performance value of a CPU. 15% IPC improvement over its previous gen is a huge jump in performance. Lets say if the performance difference between i7-9700K and R7-2700X was of 15% then the IPC improvement alone will get the performance of R7-2700X to level of i7-9700K even without turning up the clock speed at all.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Hey guys, have your heard the news bout x570? Its going to be expensive. The cheapest gigabyte board in the gn video was like $170. There was even a $600 board with a 14 phase vrm (not doubled).

 

[King Dranzer]

AMD X series boards initially have always been way expensive in comparison to Intel Z series boards. The price will come down eventually.

 

[hftvhftv]

I am thinking as you may suspect that these little "thangs" we see are perhaps H Y P E, perhaps the product of AMD agents in place?

7nm is

Does Lisa The Great realize how they just screwed their company stock price in not providing 5.0GHz gamer CPU??? DIY pimp rig people will shun her offering as for the most part they got "it" already, the performance that is. No major performance kick is here now!

I mean, this is a crusher and now all the AMD FanBois will not "run" with the 5.0GHz Intel boys in online gaming, an arena in which the clockspeeds are so ever ever ever important, and the processing power BANDWIDTH & GIGAFLOPPAGE does not mean a thing.

I got a dull headache caused by AMD's offer of an upcoming INFERIOR CPU on the top end vs. Intel. I wanted top o' the hill stuff so I can pull
my Ryzen 2700[no X] out of my tower and put it in my HTPC running a 2200G + GTX580 8GB.

All Lisa Sue offers is the 7nm and in the middle is still the 8C 16T Processing power at virtually the same clockspeed
as the 27XX CPUs. For a guy like me there is not a great upgrade as the 3900X is not even a 5.0GHz CPU that matches Intel's clockspeed.
Well, this is a pathetic less than competitive offering. I wish it was a mistake, but the mistake part is reality. A pity.

I don't think you have the mental capacity to understand that a higher frequency CPU does not always mean a faster CPU. My FX 8350 runs at 4.7Ghz on all cores and it isn't faster than any Ryzen CPU.

 

[TerryLaze]

You forgot to mention the approximate 15% improvement in IPC over the AMD 2000 series. IPC is just as important as clock speed...

This could just mean the performance upgrade at a certain TDP lock,it's not like AMD didn't do the same for their last GPU arch,nvidia and intel have done this as well in the past.
It could very well be that the only real improvement we see will be a few 100 Mhz clockspeeds for up to 8/16 at least because I doubt the 12 core one will be able to keep up those clocks,only full benchmark suits will show the truth.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

...

If they do announce a cpu that consumes 300w when overclocked, it sounds like another FX 9590 disaster where after a couple of years, most boards cant supply the required power. ...

The mobos allowing up to 300w to be pulled through the socket tells me someone is expecting OC potential in these chips. The chips themselves, even the older gen Ryzens sip power compared to their current Intel counterparts. I couldn't get may Gen 1 Ryzen to pull 300w through the socket by any strecth of the imagination - even with great cooling, because they just didn't OC that high to consume that much power. However, one of these maybe pushed to 5ghz will start to suck back some power - maybe getting closer to 300w, but even still, I'd reserve that for the 12 and the likely-coming-at-some-point 16 core units


Note this: The 9900k can pull more power through the socket than the FX 9590 did and even more than the 16 core Threadripper. Are Intel enthusiasts afraid about their mother boards crapping out after three years? Actually, that's something I've wondered ... And now they just announced another iteration of the 9900K that will have even higher all all core boosts so expect that power consumption to increase even further.

All that said, I think it may be possible that Ryzen 3xxx might have some decent OC capabilities - since ~5ghz is pretty much as high as x86 can go (practically), the architecture still has the clock speed headroom that Intel has entirely run out of. Not that AMD necessarily wants to go there -- Intel 9th gen only suck 50% more power than equivilent Ryzen 2xxxx because of that 5.0 ghz clock speed ...

 

[joeblowsmynose]

Does Lisa The Great realize how they just screwed their company stock price in not providing 5.0GHz gamer CPU??? DIY pimp rig people will shun her offering as for the most part they got "it" already, the performance that is. No major performance kick is here now!

I mean, this is a crusher and now all the AMD FanBois will not "run" with the 5.0GHz Intel boys in online gaming, an arena in which the clockspeeds are so ever ever ever important, and the processing power BANDWIDTH & GIGAFLOPPAGE does not mean a thing.

I got a dull headache caused by AMD's offer of an upcoming INFERIOR CPU on the top end vs. Intel. I wanted top o' the hill stuff so I can pull
my Ryzen 2700[no X] out of my tower and put it in my HTPC running a 2200G + GTX580 8GB.

All Lisa Sue offers is the 7nm and in the middle is still the 8C 16T Processing power at virtually the same clockspeed
as the 27XX CPUs. For a guy like me there is not a great upgrade as the 3900X is not even a 5.0GHz CPU that matches Intel's clockspeed.
Well, this is a pathetic less than competitive offering. I wish it was a mistake, but the mistake part is reality. A pity.

Are you completely drunk? Do you understand what "instructions per clock" is? Do you understand the implications of "15% IPC increase"?

If 5.0ghz is the only thing that matters to you I have this old 5.0ghz Bulldozer CPU I can sell you for half the price of any Intel CPU that hits 5ghz ... sound good? Give me a call I'll hook you up.

Back when AMD Bulldozer had 5.0ghz and intel was at ~4ghz, were you crying that Intel wasn't at 5ghz, or did you just take the superior performance that was offered at lower clocks? Or did you believe that just because the AMD part had 5.0ghz that it must be a vastly superior product than anything Intel had at the time? Or, maybe you weren't born yet?

To make you feel better, I bet Intel still will beat Ryzen 3xxxx at SuperPi.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

I saw the video from Computech ,my first reaction was what is Intel going to do now? ...

Didn't you hear? They just announced Yet another binned 9900K part ... the "KS" I think. Apparently sucking 250w through the socket under load wasn't enough so they've upped the all core boost to 5ghz. So basically instead of you OCing your 9900k to 5.0ghz, Intel will do it for you and charge you probably $60 for the privilege.

Yup that's really their new product - a CPU that they OCd for you and will charge you more for, that you will need to spend a small fortune on to try to keep cool ... its all getting a bit desperate at this point.

 

[JQB45]

This could just mean the performance upgrade at a certain TDP lock,it's not like AMD didn't do the same for their last GPU arch,nvidia and intel have done this as well in the past.
It could very well be that the only real improvement we see will be a few 100 Mhz clockspeeds for up to 8/16 at least because I doubt the 12 core one will be able to keep up those clocks,only full benchmark suits will show the truth.

I don't understand your point about TDP lock. What is a TDP lock? None of AMD's CPU's are locked to a given frequency or TDP. Saying there is a 100MHz difference is not completely true...

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X:  3.7GHz/4.3GHz:  105W TDP:   8c/16t
AMD Ryzen 7 2700:   3.2GHz/4.1GHz:  65W  TDP:   8c/16t
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X:  3.6GHz/4.2GHz:  95W  TDP:   6c/12t
AMD Ryzen 5 2600:   3.4GHz/3.9GHz:  65W  TDP:   6c/12t

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X:  3.8GHz/4.6GHz:  105W TDP:  12c/24t
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X:  3.9GHz/4.5GHz:  105W TDP:   8c/16t
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X:  3.6GHz/4.4GHz:  65W  TDP:   8c/16t
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X:  3.8GHz/4.4GHz:  95W  TDP:   6c/12t
AMD Ryzen 5 3600:   3.6GHz/4.2GHz:  65W  TDP:   6c/12t

The R7 2700X has a 100MHz lower  base clock then the 3800X and 200MHz lower boost clock.
The R7 2700X has a 100MHz higher base clock then the 3700X, 100MHz slower boost clock and has a 40W higher TDP.
The R7  2700 has a 400MHz lower  base clock then the 3700X and a 300MHz slower boost clock.  They have identical TDP.
The R5 2600X has a 200MHz lower  base clock then the 3600X and a 200MHz slower boost clock.  They have identical TDP.
The R5 2600X and R5 3600 have identical clock speeds but the R5 3600 has a 30W lower TDP.
The R5  2600 has a 200MHz lower  base clock then the 3600 and a 300MHz slower boost clock.  They have identical TDP.

So not only is each 3000 series 100MHz to 400MHz faster base clock and 100MHz to 300MHz faster boost clock they each have approximately a 15% IPC advantage and some of the 3000 series have a lower TDP. With the stock cooler I imagine we will be able to get another 200-300MHz out of these CPU's with an X570 motherboard. With the right CPU, Motherboard and CPU Cooler I think 5GHz is totally possible on the 3900X and especially the 3800X.

 

[Math Geek]

Didn't you hear? They just announced Yet another binned 9900K part ... the "KS" I think. Apparently sucking 250w through the socket under load wasn't enough so they've upped the all core boost to 5ghz. So basically instead of you OCing your 9900k to 5.0ghz, Intel will do it for you and charge you probably $60 for the privilege.

Yup that's really their new product - a CPU that they OCd for you and will charge you more for, that you will need to spend a small fortune on to try to keep cool ... its all getting a bit desperate at this point.

this is basically what AMD did when they had nothing new to offer. just kept upping the juice to squeeze a few more mhz out of the same old cpu. they have to keep putting something out even if it is the same old stuff with a new box. but for some odd reason, pulling even more power is ok for the fanboys than even the crazy hot fx 9*** series was. but i don't see anyone using "spaceheater" or "furnace" or other such words to describe these intel chips. seems crazy high power draw is ok if it's intel...........

 

[Finstar]

This could just mean the performance upgrade at a certain TDP lock,it's not like AMD didn't do the same for their last GPU arch,nvidia and intel have done this as well in the past.
It could very well be that the only real improvement we see will be a few 100 Mhz clockspeeds for up to 8/16 at least because I doubt the 12 core one will be able to keep up those clocks,only full benchmark suits will show the truth.

I don't think anyone has any clue about what you're trying to say.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

this is basically what AMD did when they had nothing new to offer. just kept upping the juice to squeeze a few more mhz out of the same old cpu. they have to keep putting something out even if it is the same old stuff with a new box. but for some odd reason, pulling even more power is ok for the fanboys than even the crazy hot fx 9*** series was. but i don't see anyone using "spaceheater" or "furnace" or other such words to describe these intel chips. seems crazy high power draw is ok if it's intel...........

Yeah ... I find it a bit hilarious how Intel now looks an awful lot like AMD did in the bulldozer era.

I think Intel putting fake TDPs on their chips tricked all the fanbois (Intel fanboi scratches head ... "why did my 9900k explode when I put a 100w cooler on it? its only a 95w TDP ...").

Most of us are educated enough to know that when Ryzen came out, Intel quickly changed the metric for their TDP from "typical usage" to "base clock speeds ONLY!!" -- It appears to have fooled the fools. Their 9th gen under load uses literally 2X the power than Ryzen does (under heavy loads). The 9900k review here on Tom's spells it out nicely.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

AMD's 16 core overclocked @4.25ghz beats the 18core 7980xe and 9980xe in cinebench R15, scoring a 4346. We also saw the voltage, rather high at 1.572v, however, it was only on water cooling (Not a chiller, cough cough Intel). They got it to be a more reasonable overclock at 4.1ghz.


https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2019/05/AMD-Ryzen-9-16-core-Cinebench-1000x563.jpg

https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2019/05/AMD-Ryzen-9-16-core-4.2-GHz-1000x563.jpg
Tech Yes city got this data "from a few water cooling guys behind the scenes."

 

[joeblowsmynose]

I am thinking as you may suspect that these little "thangs" we see are perhaps H Y P E, perhaps the product of AMD agents in place?

Are you talking about the power consumption? You don't believe the fake TDPs Intel puts on their chips do you? Intel's own announcement was that their TDPs consider BASE CLOCKS ONLY. Intel said that after Ryzen launched to fool the fools ... thanks for providing the evidence of how well Intel propaganda works on fanbois.

Get up to speed. Look here: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-9900k-9th-gen-cpu,5847-11.html

See that? Intel 8 core/16 thread consuming 100% more power than AMD 2700x (8c/16t) under the same load. Sheesh. Reality completely escapes some people ... who might also be drunk.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

I don't think anyone has any clue about what you're trying to say.

I think I might ... he's likely referring to max power consumption limits that the onboard sensors will regulate clocks and voltage to maintain.

GPUs tend to take full control, but with CPUs the user is still in control of clocks and volts - the only "lock" I am aware ogf with Ryzen is perhpas the IF being possibly a bottleneck to higher clock speed.

With GPUs, RadeonVII had an initial bios issue where, for no reason, the card could not be overclocked at all, but this has been rectified, and there's been some pretty good performance numbers out of VegaVII on water and OCd.

And of course with Vega, there's always the mighty unlimited power mod, that basically let's you use any amount of power she'll take without exploding.

I think that must be what he was on about. I don't really agree with him on that tho ...

 

[Bamda]

Here is something I found that is related to the X570 MBs from Corsair.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1133004754576171008

View: https://twitter.com/CORSAIR/status/1133004754576171008

 

[King Dranzer]

Here is something I found that is related to the X570 MBs from Corsair.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1133004754576171008

View: https://twitter.com/CORSAIR/status/1133004754576171008

Gigabyte has similar offering and by the time of release we can expect SAMSUNG to release compatible product as well.

 

[rigg42]

So far the high-end ryzen skews sound great and like AMD will take the crown there, but I'm still waiting for E3 to see ryzen 3 specs since the CPUs listed cost more than I want to spend.
I'm betting 4c/8t, 3.2 base, 4.1 GHz turbo, 45 watts for Ryzen 3 3200. I hope since AMD already dominates the budget Intel offerings, AMD doesn't neglect to update performance a bit on their low end skews.

I'm watching ryzen 5 1600 prices. You can get one brand new for $107.99 on ebay. That's 6c/12t 3.6 turbo with an included Wraith Spire for just $107.99. With a decent cooler, 4ghz isn't that hard.

I don't think they will release quad cores other than the zen+ 3200g/3400g that they've already announced. It's probably more cost effective/profitable to slap 2 low binned faulty chiplets into a package and make a 3700 non x.

The biggest value proposition of the 1600 centers around the stock cooler. You can easily get to 3.8 with great temps on that cooler. If going with an aftermarket cooler the 2600 is a better choice IMO.

 

[kinney]

Neither Intel nor AMD scales well past 4.5GHz. Just because Intel is doing it out of desperation doesn't mean it's good. If you look at the TDP and power draw on Intel's chips at 5GHz, it's of course outrageous compared to the ~4.5Ghz sweet spot. Considering Meltdown/Spectre/Zombieload/MDS all affected AMD far less than Intel, and this is Zen2 with increased IPC, we're looking at AMD taking the crown in most aspects.

The real question is which one to buy to replace my 2700X, I do use 16+ threads for good use (things other than gaming). May wait for the 16C/32T part.

 

[rigg42]

Neither Intel nor AMD scales well past 4.5GHz. Just because Intel is doing it out of desperation doesn't mean it's good. If you look at the TDP and power draw on Intel's chips at 5GHz, it's of course outrageous compared to the ~4.5Ghz sweet spot. Considering Meltdown/Spectre/Zombieload/MDS all affected AMD far less than Intel, and this is Zen2 with increased IPC, we're looking at AMD taking the crown in most aspects.

The real question is which one to buy to replace my 2700X, I do use 16+ threads for good use (things other than gaming). May wait for the 16C/32T part.

I'm hoping that this is why AMD kept the clock speeds down. Especially if this all the clock speed they need to keep pace with Intel in games now that they've improved IPC. It would be super cool if there is significant OC headroom in these chips with aftermarket cooling. That way the enthusiasts who don't care about power efficiency can overclock their CPU up to 5ghz and everybody else can get great power efficiency and good temps. Perhaps that's just wishful thinking though.

Clocking the CPUs higher at stock would probably have required more than the Prism cooler they are providing with the 3700x, 3800x, and 3900x. They would have had to have left them out completely or included a very expensive stock cooler. It's hard to expect a better stock cooler than the prism. I'm very annoyed they are shipping the 3600x with the spire and the 3600 with the stealth though. If its anything like the 2600x it going to be too much for it with stock boost. I wish they'd provide the prism on all x chips and the spire on everything else. That stealth cooler is better suited to a quad core.