Sunday, May 24th 2020
Possible 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen "Matisse Refresh" XT SKU Clock Speeds Surface
Last week, we brought you reports of AMD inching closer to launch its 3rd generation Ryzen "Matisse Refresh" processor lineup to ward off the 10th gen Intel Core "Comet Lake" threat, by giving the "Zen 2" chips possible clock speed-bumps to shore up performance. The lineup included the Ryzen 9 3900XT, the Ryzen 7 3800XT, and the Ryzen 5 3600XT. We now have a first-look at their alleged clock speeds courtesy of an anonymous tipster on ChipHell forums, seconded by HXL @9550pro.
The XT SKUs indeed revolve around 200-300 MHz increments in base- and boost clock speeds as many of our readers predicted in the "Matisse Refresh" article's comments section. The 3900XT comes with 4.10 GHz base clock, and 4.80 GHz max boost clocks, compared to 3.80 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost clocks of the 3900X. Likewise, the 3800XT notches up to 4.20 GHz base clock (highest in the lineup), and 4.70 GHz max boost, compared to 3.90-4.50 GHz of the 3800X. The 3600XT offers the same 4.70 GHz max boost, a step up from the 4.40 GHz of the 3600X, but has its base clock set at 4.00 GHz, compared to 3.80 GHz on the 3600X. It appears like AMD's design focus is to reduce, if not beat, Intel's gaming performance lead. The 10th generation Core "Comet Lake" tops gaming performance by a mid-high single-digit percentages over AMD's offerings, and AMD could bring them down to low single-digit percentages with the XT family.
Sources:
ChipHell forums, HXL aka 9550pro (Twitter)
The XT SKUs indeed revolve around 200-300 MHz increments in base- and boost clock speeds as many of our readers predicted in the "Matisse Refresh" article's comments section. The 3900XT comes with 4.10 GHz base clock, and 4.80 GHz max boost clocks, compared to 3.80 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost clocks of the 3900X. Likewise, the 3800XT notches up to 4.20 GHz base clock (highest in the lineup), and 4.70 GHz max boost, compared to 3.90-4.50 GHz of the 3800X. The 3600XT offers the same 4.70 GHz max boost, a step up from the 4.40 GHz of the 3600X, but has its base clock set at 4.00 GHz, compared to 3.80 GHz on the 3600X. It appears like AMD's design focus is to reduce, if not beat, Intel's gaming performance lead. The 10th generation Core "Comet Lake" tops gaming performance by a mid-high single-digit percentages over AMD's offerings, and AMD could bring them down to low single-digit percentages with the XT family.
113 Comments on Possible 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen "Matisse Refresh" XT SKU Clock Speeds Surface
So will the increase in max turbo clock speed from 4.5 to 4.7 GHz actuallt yield 4.5% increase in single core, gaming speeds? I doubt it - in gaming and single core various Ryzen 3000 processors are much closer together than advertised boost clocks would place them.
Nevertheless, these extra megahertz will sweeten the deal for some and buy AMD instead of Intel so yeah, it is a good idea.
Also, Zen 3 will not be here till October/November so they need something fresh.
AMD has known for months that Comet Lake is coming and those 200 MHz more are too little too late.
And this "XT" naming is so inappropriate.
But hey thanks for blasting right out of the gate with more unsubstantiated numbers and insinuating that I'm somehow lying because "it barely gets into windows". Love that attitude.
my 1800x not stable over 4.1, have it from beginning when people wait on pre-orders and paid 499 lol
btw its on water block, so temps are always low
Do you have a spy at AMD to know that AM5 (or even zen 3) won't bring any improvement in gaming ?
Always glad to see higher clockspeeds on Ryzen tho. I hope 4000 series will get IPC increase and maybe do 4.5 all-core clockspeed.
Even with these new 10th gen, Intel only really kills it at the usual limited Intel friendly single core apps and the marketing flag of Intel: 1080p gaming. So, true, AMD doesn't urgently need to put out new cpus now since Zen3 is coming soon. But since they have right now a ton more of the best chips to spare, they can easily put these binned ones out to counter the small bump Intel got with 10th gen. It's that easy for AMD, and it will keep the lineup refreshed and attractive to buyers that need the hardware right now and can't / won't wait until Q4.
Resuming, even without the "XT" parts, until Zen 3 arrives in Q4:
- AMD Zen 2 still has a better all round performance proposition than Intel 10th gen (in multi core specially)
- AMD Zen 2 still has better prices, so when considering the better all round performance, it results in unquestionable killer value
- AMD Zen 2 has plenty of 7nm yields so you won't have much problems finding and buying a Ryzen cpu out there
- Intel is expected to have some supply hiccups for these 10th gen parts
So, if on top of that, given the chance to easily launch these binned "XT" chips, there's not much against AMD doing it. Specially if it helps to close the gap a bit in 1080p gaming, where the big number difference pops up in reviews.
Nah, Zen 2 does not have better all-round performance. AMD hardware is mostly hit or miss and this continues to be the case. Go look at the performance in emulators, early launch titles or niche programs and you'll see that AMD is often left in the dust.
It's not all about Cinebench you know. Real world performance is a whole different ballpark, especially when looking at the overall picture instead of cherrypicking. You won't find a single game or program that runs bad on newer a Intel/Nvidia system. You will find plenty than run bad on a full AMD setup tho. Hell, this page has tons of proof. Go through the game performance reviews and you'll see.
Bannerlord for example, literally runs like poo on my friends system, compared to mine. 3700X at 4.3 GHz with 16 gigs of 3600/C16 memory with a 5700 XT. He has tons of fps dips and spikes. Especially during very large battles.
Software is always the bottleneck. Transisioning is slow.I'd personally not buy a 6 core CPU for gaming these days, considering next gen consoles gets 8C/16T, compared to 8C/8T now (which is why 4C/8T still holds up in many games). 6 cores simply won't age well. Only for a temporary solution (ie. buying R5 3600 and replaces it with a 4000 series 8+ core part)
8C/16T is the perfect sweet spot for PC gamers that want their rig to atleast last a few years. With clockspeeds as high as possible. More cores are not needed, less can pose a problem, unless you mainly play older and less demanding games.
When new consoles come out, PC gaming is affected. Last time, when current gen consoles came out, 4C/4T started to have issues.
If you're after actual multi-threaded performance, these new Ryzen XT variants will beat the i7 and i9 into pulp even harder than the old X variants already do. More cores, more cache, more PCIe, more performance, more efficient, more cheaper, more stable BIOSes. There is simply zero reason to buy intel outside of gaming at the moment and until the 10400 and cheaper motherboards come out, Intel still can't compete with a B450 and 3600.
When I said "all round" I meant overall, considering all aspects, as in: the overall package is better (if you account for multi core performance + gaming). In this case, you get a CPU that does really well in multi core situations and also performs more than good enough in gaming in general (more difference at 1080p, sure, but equally good at the usual 1440p GPU bound games to the point of having no difference or when there's a bigger difference it's a specific case, and already at more then enough high FPS to not really matter).
So, basically: you only get the most advantages when the Intel is used for:
- most 1080p games
- only some 1440p games than are not so GPU bound
- specific single core and/or GHz friendly and/or specific older appsWell, you gotta admit, that also sounds kinda... "cherrypicking".
Again, not saying the Intel cpus are bad, but you only get the most significant performance delta at certain scenarios, 1080p being the most mainstream/noticeable. And to get that, you have to pay more (as in like 40% more)(and that's only the cpu into account).
Also, most Emulators run noticable worse on AMD. Pretty much night and day difference. Most of these are 100% optimized for Intel + Nvidia.
Many software suites run much better on Intel too, Adobe for example. Also, Handbrake X265 / HEVC encoding. There's literally tons of examples where AMD is behind, maybe because of software, maybe not. Depends on featuresets used.
You don't really have to pay more, since lower end Intel chips beats higher end AMD chips in gaming. 3950X is way more expensive than i5-10600K, yet loses in gaming. Different usecases.
The average consumer does not need tons of cores and threads. They need less cores and threads with high clockspeed, because this is what programs and games prefer and it's not going to change anytime soon.
I would say emulators are quite inside that category of niche.
Even considering Adobe, the 10700K, for example, is around the same or worse than the 3700X. At Premiere, at Photoshop, and at After Effects. Those gaps have been closing lately.
I wouldn't be so sure. GHz are still key in some specific apps and games, but IPC is the most important factor nowadays and cores are becoming also more relevant. And, like you said, new consoles are also coming out with 8c, so we'll see how the gaming platform porting influence changes the mainstream scenario. GHz difference is still relevant, but not as much as IPC optimizations. Zen 2 improvements proved that.