Wednesday, August 8th 2018

Lenovo Confirms AMD Ryzen 3 2300X and Ryzen 5 2500X Specs

Lenovo put up an updated specs sheet of its ThinkCentre M725 small form-factor desktop, with more processor options. Notable additions to these include the upcoming AMD Ryzen 3 2300X and Ryzen 5 2500X quad-core socket AM4 processors. The two chips succeed the 1300X and 1500X, respectively, and are designed to capture sub-$150 price-points, competing with Intel's Core i3 "Coffee Lake" quad-core processor series. It's rumored that the 2300X could even be priced close to the $100-mark, making it competitive with the i3-8100, while the 2500X could be priced competitively with the i3-8300.

AMD is giving these quad-core chips all its innovations it can muster to make them competitive with Intel's chips - the two feature unlocked base-clock multipliers, Precision Boost (Intel's Core i3 chips lack Turbo Boost), and XFR 2.0, which automatically overclock beyond the max boost frequencies. You also get the latest Precision Boost 2.0 algorithm that ensures each of the four cores gets varying degrees of boost clocks. Based on the 12 nm "Pinnacle Ridge" die, the two chips feature a 2+2 CCX configuration. The 2300X has 4 MB of L3 cache enabled per CCX (8 MB total), while the 2500X gives you the full 8 MB per CCX L3 cache, for a total of 16 MB. TDP of both chips are rated at 65W, and AMD could bundle the Wraith Stealth cooler with the two.
Source: Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

14 Comments on Lenovo Confirms AMD Ryzen 3 2300X and Ryzen 5 2500X Specs

#1
dj-electric
I'm a little worried about pricing.
IMO 150$ is a bit too much for a 4C\8T chip (what a time to be alive), and is very close to the 6C\6T chip 8400.
130$ should be optimal.

Also, for not giving us any iGPU, I believe the 2300X should not cost over 90$. While having higher theoretical max clocks over the 2200G, giving up the Vega 8 inside should have its compensation.
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
"dj-electric said:
I'm a little worried about pricing.
IMO 150$ is a bit too much for a 4C\8T chip (what a time to be alive), and is very close to the 6C\6T chip 8400.
130$ should be optimal.

Also, for not giving us any iGPU, I believe the 2300X should not cost over 90$. While having higher theoretical max clocks over the 2200G, giving up the Vega 8 inside should have its compensation.
I only said "sub-$150," it could be anything. I wouldn't be surprised if 1300X is $109 and 1500X $139.

2300X can't cost $90, because there's already 2100 at $94. It lacks iGPU, but you get more L3 cache.
Posted on Reply
#3
dj-electric
That's too bad. A long wait for these to come out is one thing, but their unappealing price kills it.
Posted on Reply
#4
TheLostSwede
"dj-electric said:
That's too bad. A long wait for these to come out is one thing, but their unappealing price kills it.
Maybe you should start your own company and make processors and sell them for $5 a piece? Seems like an appealing price to me...
Posted on Reply
#5
dj-electric
"TheLostSwede said:
Maybe you should start your own company and make processors and sell them for $5 a piece? Seems like an appealing price to me...
There's cannibalization within their own products. Lets start with worrying about that.
Posted on Reply
#6
jabbadap
"btarunr said:
I only said "sub-$150," it could be anything. I wouldn't be surprised if 1300X is $109 and 1500X $139.

2300X can't cost $90, because there's already 2100 at $94. It lacks iGPU, but you get more L3 cache.
+ full speed pcie slot for dgpu.
Posted on Reply
#7
noname00
"dj-electric said:
Also, for not giving us any iGPU, I believe the 2300X should not cost over 90$. While having higher theoretical max clocks over the 2200G, giving up the Vega 8 inside should have its compensation.
From what I remember the 2200G and 2400K are actually first gen Ryzen processors with Vega integrated graphics.
Posted on Reply
#8
Vayra86
"dj-electric said:
There's cannibalization within their own products. Lets start with worrying about that.
You're right but I'm sure AMD knows this. They want to move units, as they always do. They need to move units, too. Profit comes later.
Posted on Reply
#9
Captain_Tom
Who in the world is still buying i3's? lol
Posted on Reply
#10
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
"Captain_Tom said:
Who in the world is still buying i3's? lol
I pretty regularly build basic computers with the i3-8100, it is a damn good value. The 2200G is slightly cheaper, but lags behind the i3-8100 in performance except when using the iGPU for gaming. But the computers I put the i3-8100 in aren't used for gaming, so that's not an issue.
Posted on Reply
#11
Captain_Tom
"newtekie1 said:
I pretty regularly build basic computers with the i3-8100, it is a damn good value. The 2200G is slightly cheaper, but lags behind the i3-8100 in performance except when using the iGPU for gaming. But the computers I put the i3-8100 in aren't used for gaming, so that's not an issue.
So what is the i3 better at? AM4 is a vastly superior platform.
Posted on Reply
#12
prtskg
"btarunr said:
2300X can't cost $90, because there's already 2100 at $94. It lacks iGPU, but you get more L3 cache.
What's Ryzen 2100?
Posted on Reply
#13
AlwaysHope
Excellent, more confirmation of incoming 2500X... I await availability in my part of the world. On paper at least, they are technically superior to the i3 refresh
Posted on Reply
#14
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
"Captain_Tom said:
So what is the i3 better at?
Compared to the 2200G, which is what the i3-8100 competes with price wise, the i3 is faster as almost everything.

Look at this chart, and realize the i3-8100 is just every so slightly slower than the i5-7500, but faster than the i5-7400.

"Captain_Tom said:
AM4 is a vastly superior platform.
How so? Because the way I see it, the AM4 platform is still lagging behind Intel's mainstream platform.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment