Review Small Gains, Big Price Tag

[cryoburner]

The performance gains seem alright for what amounts to a special edition variant of existing processors, but the pricing not so much. A 3600XT costs nearly as much as a 3700X with 33% more cores, and a 3800XT costs nearly as much as a 3900X with 50% more cores. I guess if one is not concerned about multithreaded performance, the improvements to lightly-threaded performance could potentially be a bit better for things like games, at least in the near-term, but even in that case the pricing is a bit too similar to Intel's 10-series.

When the 3600X and 3800X first launched, the benefits of paying more for one of those over the 3600 or 3700X already seemed a bit questionable given the small performance differences between them. Now those parts are down around the original prices of the lower-clocked variants, and these XT parts essentially take their place offering limited performance gains over them. Only the 3600 and 3700X cost even less now.

I would have rather seen the 3800XT and 3900XT launch for around $50 less, especially considering they cut out the cooler. And for the 3600XT, they could have either lopped $20+ off the price and lost the cooler, or kept the price the same and upgraded the cooler to a Prism. Anyone willing to pay that much of a premium for slightly better performance might be better off waiting for the 4000-series at this point.

AMD's new StoreMI version 2.0 uses a caching implementation, so combining the 1TB SSD and 1TB will only yield 1TB of addressable storage.

That's not exactly the best example. If you had a 1TB SSD and a 1TB HDD, there would be no point in using the SSD for caching, since you would achieve better performance and more storage by just using the SSD alone, and leaving the hard drive for things like backups or other bulk data storage. It would be nice if they offered the option of using only a small portion of the SSD as a cache, but from a quick look over the startup guide, it sounds like only a full SSD can be used at this time, limiting its usefulness.

 

[watzupken]

I feel this is a foolish move to introduce a refreshed XT CPU because,

1. it is so late in the cycle in the first place. Like they are telling people the Ryzen 4xxx will be released around Oct. So why now since its 3 months away?
2. No meaningful improvement over the existing Matisse lineup.
3. Prices just don't justify the meager improvements and the removal of the stock heatsink.

If AMD is just trying to show off to Intel that they can make their product even faster by introducing this "new" range of Matisse chips, I feel it is unwise and unnecessary. Whoever authorized this dumb refresh needs to seriously reflect on this meaningless move. It just makes AMD look silly in my opinion and clearly its drawing a lot of criticisms.

 

[InvalidError]

it is so late in the cycle in the first place. Like they are telling people the Ryzen 4xxx will be released around Oct. So why now since its 3 months away?

To reset pricing expectations. My guess is AMD will be raising prices by $25-50 across most of the board for the 4000-series CPUs and the XT are there to fill the pricing void between generations so people don't get sticker shock when that happens.

 

[Shadowclash10]

To reset pricing expectations. My guess is AMD will be raising prices by $25-50 across most of the board for the 4000-series CPUs and the XT are there to fill the pricing void between generations so people don't get sticker shock when that happens.

This.

 

[dalauder]

Well, most of the coverage I'm seeing says "don't buy it" which isn't exactly great either. My guess is AMD is setting the stage for price hikes all around for Zen 3 by resetting the MSRP bars to full on Zen 2 before launching Zen 3.

It's only saying "don't buy it" as an upgrade. There's nothing wrong with XT for new builds at the same price. Or X if it drops.

You've got a point about price hikes for Zen 3. For once, AMD has the high ground in EVERY metric. There's no reason not to put a little price bump on everything so that they finally get a little closer to Intel's profit margins. Not now that people actually respect them for high-end performance.

 

[watzupken]

To reset pricing expectations. My guess is AMD will be raising prices by $25-50 across most of the board for the 4000-series CPUs and the XT are there to fill the pricing void between generations so people don't get sticker shock when that happens.

I don't deny a higher price for the Ryzen 4xxx is highly possible given that Intel may not have the appropriate response this year to counter the Ryzen 4xxx.
As to avoiding sticker shock, its also possible. But I still feel its a silly move. Basically they are taking negative reviews/ feedbacks with the release of the XT chips, and when the Ryzen 4xxx gets released with a price bump, they are likely to get some critical comments/ feedbacks. In the first place, they should not have cut the prices of their X series as a response to Comet Lake. Instead just replace it with the XT.

 

[InvalidError]

In the first place, they should not have cut the prices of their X series as a response to Comet Lake. Instead just replace it with the XT.

The price cuts were likely necessary to sustain sales momentum so AMD does not end up with stacks of unsold wafers. For AMD to substitute XT to X, it would also need sufficient yields of XT-class dies to do so, which it may not have.

Between the ridiculous pricing, negligible performance gains in most cases and lack of stock HSF for the 3800 and 3900 variants, the XT clearly aren't intended to actually sell in meaningful volumes, hence the conclusion that their primary purpose is to raise the pricing bar for Zen 3.

 

[JamesSneed]

Well, most of the coverage I'm seeing says "don't buy it" which isn't exactly great either. My guess is AMD is setting the stage for price hikes all around for Zen 3 by resetting the MSRP bars to full on Zen 2 before launching Zen 3.

The MSRP has never changed. AMD still "suggest" selling the 3800x at $399 which it did at release. Its just the market won't allow them to sell at that cost not unless they beat Intel across the board which they don't. Until prices drop which is likely not until Zen3 lands I don't expect many XT chips to be sold as they are a poor value. I'm sure the comparable product from Zen3 will land in right at $399 as well. The whole idea people are having about resetting the MSRP is not right, the MSRP never changed hence the S stands for suggested not what the market will allow.

 

[Ncogneto]

The Ryzen 9 3900XT and Ryzen 7 3800XT Review

Small Gains, Big Price Tag : Read more

MSRP is the same for both the x series and their XT series chips. Retail pricing is largely irrelevant, at least in regards to AMD. If AMD is selling these chips at or near the same price per 1000 CPU tray, there is no reason not to expect retail pricing to fall to the same, or close to the same level as the x series.

That means that AMD replaced the X series with a slightly better CPU for the same price, a move which should be applauded. The price differential is just retailers trying to rid themselves of old stock x series by both slashing the x series pricing and at the same time keeping the XT series artificially high.

Within 2-3 months time these chips will be selling at a mere $10.00 more than their X series counterparts.

it's really quite embarrassing how nobody understands business 101.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I don't deny a higher price for the Ryzen 4xxx is highly possible given that Intel may not have the appropriate response this year to counter the Ryzen 4xxx.
As to avoiding sticker shock, its also possible. But I still feel its a silly move. Basically they are taking negative reviews/ feedbacks with the release of the XT chips, and when the Ryzen 4xxx gets released with a price bump, they are likely to get some critical comments/ feedbacks. In the first place, they should not have cut the prices of their X series as a response to Comet Lake. Instead just replace it with the XT.

It's almost like AMD is a business and will find the best way to earn money.

 

[InvalidError]

It's almost like AMD is a business and will find the best way to earn money.

There is earning money, and then there is being part of the CPU and GPU duopolies using tacit agreements to jack up prices.

 

[Soaptrail]

Man, these CPU's are a waste of time (and money).

Not necessarily. Some people might buy a 3800XT for the same reason they bought a 3800X over a 3700X last year.

You can flip the Prism on eBay for ~$35.

That would be crazy to sell it. I read the warranty and you only get the warranty if you use the bundled cooler. Obviously they have no idea if you use the bundled cooler or not.

 

[InvalidError]

That would be crazy to sell it. I read the warranty and you only get the warranty if you use the bundled cooler.

I doubt that part of the warranty would hold up in court since AMD sells retail CPUs without bundled HSF, though it may be a required component for RMA purposes on models that include one.

 

[evil_72]

I personally love that they are releasing these XT chips. It most likely will lower the cost of the existing X line of chips, and the 4k series is right around the corner. Also GamersNexus mentioned the 3600XT chip he received was one of the highest quality silicon CPU's ever shipped to them for overclocking and tweaking. He was able to get sub 1.3v underclock and keep it at it's default boost clock, and it was rock solid stable, meaning even at 100% full load, with the Wraith Stock Cooler, it never exceeded 70c which, to me was amazing. I am most likely going to wait for the 4k series to come out, if they are priced too high, I will buy one of the existing 3k series chips instead.

 

[Cableaddict]

This review states: "For overclocking, we tuned our memory to DDR4-3600 for both Intel and AMD platforms." Well, yeah, but I thought these XT chips were supposed to do 2,000+ FClk "out of the box." That was a rumor even mentioned here on TOMS, just a month ago. If true, that would give the XT's a huge advantage. I assume, though, that this was an unfounded rumor, correct?
- But even if untrue, it's possible that the XT's were special-binned for their ability to hit higher FClks, in which case this test would have completely missed the mark since SOME XT's would do much better than almost all of the "X" chips.
It would be very helpful to know.