Monday, May 27th 2019

AMD Ryzen 5 3000 Series Lineup Detailed

by
btarunr
 Discuss (67 Comments)
AMD at its 2019 Computex keynote unveiled its Ryzen 3000 series desktop processors with the more glamorous Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 9 SKUs while glossing over its more high-volume Ryzen 5 3000 series. It turns out that AMD will launch even these chips on the 7th of July. The Ryzen 5 lineup includes the 3600X and 3600. Both these chips are 6-core/12-thread, and AMD is taking the fight to Intel's 9th generation Core i5 series by not touching the core-count and instead focusing on higher IPC and clock-speeds than Intel's offerings.

The Ryzen 5 3600X ticks at 3.80 GHz, with a boost frequency of 4.40 GHz, which is among the highest in the lineup. Its TDP is rated at 95W. The Ryzen 5 3600 is the 'cooler' offering of the two, with 3.60 GHz nominal and 4.20 GHz boost clocks, and 65W TDP. You get the same 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache, as the 8-core Ryzen 7 series offerings. AMD is expected to price the two along expected lines, with the 3600X going for roughly USD $239, and the 3600 at $199.

Related News

Add your own comment

67 Comments on AMD Ryzen 5 3000 Series Lineup Detailed

#26
cucker tarlson
Darmok N JaladThey are matching Intel 5.0 GHz with 4.4GHz.
Pics or didn't happen.
Posted on Reply
#27
londiste
cucker tarlsonPics or didn't happen.
Cinebench R20:


Single-thread boost clocks:
9700K 4.9 GHz
3700X 4.4 GHz +1%
9900K 5.0 GHz +2%
3800X 4.5 GHz +3%
Posted on Reply
#28
Darmok N Jalad
cucker tarlsonPics or didn't happen.
Edit: Ninja’d by londsite.
Posted on Reply
#29
SL2
The 9900K runs at 4,7 GHz turbo all core.
NdMk2o1oWell yes, it makes a big difference as to a statement being fact or not, which was my point that wasn't aimed at you in the first place anyway though you felt the need to make it yours
You replied to Shatun_Bear who in turn replied to TheLostSwede, so you're just as guilty for making it yours as I am.
Posted on Reply
#30
stimpy88
Interesting to see all the bile and spite thrown at AdoredTV (pretty much the only tech journalist left that's not living cosily in the pocket of a tech company) here. It's very interesting to note that he has ALWAYS said to take the 5GHz info with a bucket of salt, and doubted it highly, but that does not stop the Intel police from losing their minds over what AMD has just achieved. Infact I would say it's even better that a lower clocked AMD part can beat a higher clocked Intel part, adds a little more venom to the bite, does it not? lol

I'm currently running an i7 4770k, after being a loyal Intel customer for more than 12 years. Not any longer, especially as I've lost more than 20% (nearly a whole CPU core) of the IPC my CPU can give, due to Intel's security leaks. Intel offers nothing that is competitive for my wallet.

I, for one, are looking forward to jumping ship.
Posted on Reply
#31
cucker tarlson
Darmok N JaladEdit: Ninja’d by londsite.
Ah that's what you meant,I get it now.I thought it can match it core for core across the board,gaming included.That's brute forcing higher cinebench scores with more cores.
What is 3800x core config? 8c or 10c?
Posted on Reply
#32
londiste
MatsThe 9900K runs at 4,7 GHz turbo all core.
Depends on testing conditions. It should definitely not run Cinebench R20 (with AVX2) at this high frequency.
cucker tarlsonAh that's what you meant,I get it now.I thought it can match it core for core across the board,gaming included.That's brute forcing higher cinebench scores with more cores.
What is 3800x core config? 8c or 10c?
8c/16t.
The bunch of graphs on the left are single-core results (supposedly with maxed boost clocks).
Posted on Reply
#33
SL2
londisteDepends on testing conditions. It should definitely not run Cinebench R20 (with AVX2) at this high frequency.
You're right. I was trying to point out that the 9900K couldn't run at 5 GHz all core, but like you say, it's probably lower than that.
Posted on Reply
#34
cucker tarlson
londisteDepends on testing conditions. It should definitely not run Cinebench R20 (with AVX2) at this high frequency.
8c/16t.
The bunch of graphs on the left are single-core results (supposedly with maxed boost clocks).
Then it's really good.
Although I just checked 2700x vs 9900k and tpu shows 9900k only 5 percent faster,that'd make 3800x 8 percent faster than 2700x
Posted on Reply
#35
Zyll Goliat
Do you guys think that AMD potentially could pull out from the hat also a 10 core Ryzen 3000 cpu?
Posted on Reply
#36
stimpy88
Zyll GoliathDo you guys think that AMD potentially could pull out from the hat also a 10 core Ryzen 3000 cpu?
Struggling to see the point... But I would think it's technically possible...
Posted on Reply
#37
R0H1T
No, 10/20/30 cores aren't happening with the CCX based designs.
Posted on Reply
#38
HD64G
Zyll GoliathDo you guys think that AMD potentially could pull out from the hat also a 10 core Ryzen 3000 cpu?
Ofc not since they will use 6 or 8 cores per chiplet as already shown by their line up.
Posted on Reply
#39
Metroid
Darmok N Jalad...with 15% IPC lift and at 65W. They are matching Intel 5.0 GHz with 4.4GHz. And the 3900X boosts to 4.6GHz at 105W.

Also, EPYC is likely eating all the best chiplets right now anyway. Better margins there, I’m sure.
We still need to see reviews that confirm that, one thing to consider, you said that amd is matching intel 5ghz with 4.4ghz, that is 600mhz difference, that is 15% and yet amd released a chart stating 1 to 4% faster single thread performance. If all you said turns out to be true in july 7 then we can see a 16% better single thread performance if we compare 3700x x 9700k at this moment.
Posted on Reply
#40
TheLostSwede
News Editor
Zyll GoliathDo you guys think that AMD potentially could pull out from the hat also a 10 core Ryzen 3000 cpu?
Could yes, will, maybe not. A 16 core part will be available at some point, as that's been seeded to the board makers.
Posted on Reply
#41
B-Real
Shatun_BearSo like me and a few other sensible posters had been saying, only to be derided, the AdoredTV hype train chart from December that everyone was whipped up into a frenzy about was total BS.

The sanity check should have been applied when this 'leaker' (did Adored make it up himself?) revealed that the 12-core had a 4.2Ghz BASE clock and the 16-core had a 4.3Ghz base clock. It turns out the purported (fanfiction) base clock of the 12-core was only 400Mhz lower than it's real BOOST clock!

- His SKUs were all wrong, core counts weren't moved down a stack
- APU info was totally wrong, prices were off massively (there is no miracle $99 6-core, there is one that is just...double that price)
- Clocks are not just slightly lower but 400Mhz off in base and boost in some cases...
- And to round it all off, his info on Navi from the same hype December video was completely wrong.

Ban Adored as a credible news source from now on please TPU, or at least, please do not make news stories on his info. Thanks



This is a monster. Totally wipes the floor with the only Intel equivalent.
If you wait a performance based on a leaker based on rumours, it's your problem. :)

3700X with 9700K and 3800X with 9900K gaming performance for less power consumption and $100 cheaper, that is very very nice.
Posted on Reply
#43
illli
lol someone is salty by adoredtv. Calling it a 'news source' is laughable. It was rumor and speculation, it was said numerous times take it with a grain of salt. Anyone triggerd and bitter and calling 'hype train' and calling for a ban (lol) is maybe a little too emotionally invested.
Posted on Reply
#44
SL2
TheLostSwedeAnd here are some 16 core details... Yes, more rumours if you'd like...
I fail to see the reasoning behind the model numbers. 3700X and 3800X are both 8C, 3900X is 12C, which doesn't leave much room for the 16C.
The two 8C is farther apart than the 12C and the 16C, in numbers. It should have been 3700X & 3750X, 3800X, and 3900X.

Yeah, I don't really care that much, the performance is more important, but still, it's kind of weird.
Posted on Reply
#45
R0H1T
MetroidWe still need to see reviews that confirm that, one thing to consider, you said that amd is matching intel 5ghz with 4.4ghz, that is 600mhz difference, that is 15% and yet amd released a chart stating 1 to 4% faster single thread performance. If all you said turns out to be true in july 7 then we can see a 16% better single thread performance if we compare 3700x x 9700k at this moment.
15% isn't just for single threaded workloads, also IPC isn't a fixed number ~ it changes with application, processors (same uarch different cache size like 8700k/9900k) & finally HT, in some edge cases memory speeds as well.
Posted on Reply
#46
Metroid
R0H1T15% isn't just for single threaded workloads, also IPC isn't a fixed number ~ it changes with application, processors (same uarch different cache size like 8700k/9900k) & finally HT, in some edge cases memory speeds as well.
Just to be clear, they said ipc 15% on tests they conducted x zen+. As I said before we will have to wait for reviews to have a broad understanding about it. Single thread performance is what I most care about, if I wanted more cores aka multi-thread i would go for server cpus.
Posted on Reply
#47
R0H1T
MetroidJust to be clear, they said ipc 15% on tests they conducted.
Yes & most of them would be MT runs as long as the application supports it, you don't purposefully limit your application to a single core.
MetroidSingle thread performance is what I most care about, if I wanted more cores i would go for server cpus.
ST or single core? There's a slight difference, I also believe AMD have taken the lead in ST tasks.
Posted on Reply
#48
Metroid
R0H1TYes & most of them would be MT runs as long as the application supports it, you don't purposefully limit your application to a single core.
ST or single core? There's a slight difference, I also believe AMD have taken the lead in ST tasks.
There are many old apps and games that are limited to a single core, their exe was never updated to support multicores, most because the engine as a whole has a single thread limitation. So for those apps of games single thread performance is what is important, for example, simulators, I play simcity 4 a lot and that is limited to a single thread performance, billions of cores/threads wont help that.

Also just to clear things up, single core might have one or 2 threads due to hyperthreading or smt, application like the example i gave above, simcity 4 will take just one thread to work with so, hyperthreading wont help it and in many cases will make it worse cause the thread performance has resources shared between the threads, reason why i applaud 9700k, I have no idea how is done on amd, with popularity growing on amd, I hope if they dont have a way yet, a function to disable smt altogether, i really think I should have the choice to choose if I want smt or not.
Posted on Reply
#49
Shatun_Bear
NdMk2o1oMate you're embarrassing yourself, for a start tpu have never quoted adoredtv as fact or news so stop throwing around libellous accusations stating that they have, for another thing you don't know what amd are going to release on 7th July along with the rest of us so stop attacking other members who quite frankly seem to be in the know a lot more than you are, though you can't seem to see that. Put the phone down, turn off the pc and go for a walk outside and stop throwing rants at people on the Internet
Don't embarrass yourself, they have used him as a source, just look at the reply to your post.
stimpy88Interesting to see all the bile and spite thrown at AdoredTV (pretty much the only tech journalist left that's not living cosily in the pocket of a tech company) here. It's very interesting to note that he has ALWAYS said to take the 5GHz info with a bucket of salt, and doubted it highly, but that does not stop the Intel police from losing their minds over what AMD has just achieved. Infact I would say it's even better that a lower clocked AMD part can beat a higher clocked Intel part, adds a little more venom to the bite, does it not? lol
No, NO HE DIDN'T! I can't believe he has so many defenders. He was literally hinting that we should be so excited about Ryzen 3000 because of the 5Ghz+ clockspeeds, he believed it very much, so you're spouting nonsense to defend him.
Posted on Reply
#50
JB_Gamer
MetroidThere are many old apps and games that are limited to a single core, their exe was never updated to support multicores, most because the engine as a whole has a single thread limitation. So for those apps of games single thread performance is what is important, for example, simulators, I play simcity 4 a lot and that is limited to a single thread performance, billions of cores/threads wont help that.

Also just to clear things up, single core might have one or 2 threads due to hyperthreading or smt, application like the example i gave above, simcity 4 will take just one thread to work with so, hyperthreading wont help it and in many cases will make it worse cause the thread performance has resources shared between the threads, reason why i applaud 9700k, I have no idea how is done on amd, with popularity growing on amd, I hope if they dont have a way yet, a function to disable smt altogether, i really think I should have the choice to choose if I want smt or not.
More cores will certainly give You better performance in a single-thread game! If You have just one core, then your game will have to share the resources with other workloads, like OS services, Antivirus etc. You need not to be worried as to whether Amd Ryzen will make your SimCity 4 run smoothly:) And if You want to reduce the number of active working cores that can be done, as well as disable SMT.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 28th, 2024 02:55 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts