Friday, May 3rd 2019

Possible Listings of AMD Ryzen 9 3800X, Ryzen 7 3700X, Ryzen 5 3600X Surface in Online Stores

Remember to bring your osmosis process to the table here, as a good deal of salt is detected present in this story's environment. Some online webstores from Vietnam and Turkey have started listing AMD's 3000 series CPUs based on the Zen 2 architecture. The present company stands at a Ryzen 9 3800X, Ryzen 7 3700X, and Ryzen 5 3600X, and the specs on these are... Incredible, to say the least.

The Ryzen 9 3800X is being listed with 32 threads, meaning a base 16-core processor. Clock speeds are being reported as 3.9 GHz base with up to 4.7 GHz Turbo on both a Turkish and Vietnamese etailer's webpages. The Turkish Store then stands alone in listing AMD's Ryzen 7 3700X CPU, which is reported as having 12 cores, 24 threads, and operating at an extremely impressive 4.2 GHz base and 5.0 GHz Boost clocks. Another listing by the same website, in the form of the Ryzen 5 3600X, details the processor as having 8 physical cores and running at 4.0 GHz base and 4.8 Boost clocks.
Sources: TPU Forums @Thread starter R0H1T, nguyencongpc.vn, ebrarbilgisayar.com
Add your own comment

240 Comments on Possible Listings of AMD Ryzen 9 3800X, Ryzen 7 3700X, Ryzen 5 3600X Surface in Online Stores

#1
Mussels
Moderprator
If those specs are real, ryzens going to destroy intel
Posted on Reply
#2
Valantar
*speaking from inside of a large pile of salt*

This looks amazing. Fingers crossed that real-world specs look anything like this, if so, my 1600X might be looking at early retirement.

I see the "3800X" listed with a 125W TDP (which is definitely high for MSDT, but would be perfectly fine for those specs). Any similar specs listed for the other two chips?

Multi-core turbo scaling would be very interesting for these chips given their high core counts. Still, the base clocks are high enough that I wouldn't worry too much (again, if any of this is true). If the 3700X can sustain something like 4.8GHz at 4 cores, it would likely be the only CPU 99% of people need for the next 5 years or so, at least if the rumored 15% IPC increase over Zen+ rings true.
Posted on Reply
#3
TheLostSwede
Well, it looks like the AdoredTV numbers, plus cache configuration. Could be real, could be made up...
Not long to go now by the looks of it though.
Posted on Reply
#4
RH92
Let's wait for the actual launch but if those clock speeds happen to be confirmed 3000 series will sell like crazy !
Posted on Reply
#5
Valantar
This just makes me all the more depressed that I'll have to wait until 2020 to see Zen 2 in an MCM APU with a kick-ass GPU. Maybe I'll just get a 5XX-series motherboard and a used 2200G or something for my planned HTPC upgrade, and replace the CPU a bit down the line.

Still, the wait until the 27th seems very long right now.
Posted on Reply
#6
londiste
The differences between X and non-X models are pretty stark, they are pushing the process to its limits.
3600 vs 3600X (8c/16t) - 3.6/4.0GHz vs 4.0/4.8GHz (400MHz) - 55W vs 95W (72%)
3300 vs 3300X (6c/12t) - 3.2/4.0GHz vs 3.5/4.3GHz (300MHz) - 50W vs 65W (30%)

On the other hand, compared to the ones above bigger models make little sense. Unless the variance in chip quality is very large and these are heavily binned:
3700 vs 3700X (12c/24t) - 3.8/4.6GHz vs 4.2/5.0GHz (400MHz) - 95W vs 105W (10%)
3800X vs 3850X (16c/32t) - 3.9/4.7GHz vs 4.3/5.1GHz (400MHz) - 125W vs 125W
Posted on Reply
#7
Tsukiyomi91
the R5 3600X looks like a damn fine upgrade. IF all the specs are true, then Intel are gonna either start lowering their processor prices (which is unlikely, I know) OR we'll see them rushing on more variations of the Core Series SKUs down the line while getting more flak from everyone else.
Posted on Reply
#8
Hugh Mungus
3700x pls because 4 extra cores will do me just fine and I get the best gaming performance! Pls be real specs...
Posted on Reply
#9
The Quim Reaper
One of those 3700X's will be mine....12c 24t, 4.2Ghz/5Ghz...Damn!

...Not a bad little upgrade from my i5 4690K :)
Posted on Reply
#10
Mussels
Moderprator
I plan to upgrade so that my 2700x can feed my VR rig, so i dont need a massive upgrade - anything that matches my core count (or beats it) and has a high boost for gaming is on the cards... and these all look worthy
Posted on Reply
#11
Vya Domus
londiste said:
The differences between X and non-X models are pretty stark, they are pushing the process to its limits.

...

Unless the variance in chip quality is very large and these are heavily binned:
It's all mostly due to the chiplet design, easier binning and higher chances of having chips that clock high.
Posted on Reply
#12
NdMk2o1o
3600 all core oc 4.6+ would be very nice...
Posted on Reply
#13
kings
That store probably knows nothing... or nothing more than we all know at this point based on rumors.

In the 3600X specs for example, they even put in the discription "possible cores: 8"... Yeah, I can also make guesses...

I would not give too much credit to this.
Posted on Reply
#14
medi01
Fake based on AdoredTV speculations/leaks.
Posted on Reply
#15
oxidized
I don't understand how lower thread count should have lower frequency both at stock and turbo compared to higher thread count according to these "possible listings"
Posted on Reply
#16
TheLostSwede
kings said:
That store probably knows nothing... or nothing more than we all know at this point based on rumors.

In the 3600X specs for example, they even put in the discription "possible cores: 8"... Yeah, I can also make guesses...

I would not give too much credit to this.
Those two stores you mean?

Then again, the motherboard makers haven't even been told if 12 or 16 cores will be the top core count at launch so...
Posted on Reply
#17
Crackong
If these specs are real then Intel is simply doomed in DIY market LUL
Posted on Reply
#18
Valantar
oxidized said:
I don't understand how lower thread count should have lower frequency both at stock and turbo compared to higher thread count according to these "possible listings"
Remember that SKUs are created based on market segmentation, not silicon. In other words, boosting clocks on lower core count SKUs would either require them to be priced too similarly to higher core count SKUs with lower clocks (meaning needless internal competition) or cannibalize sales of the higher-end SKU. This likely means that the lower core count SKUs have more OC headroom.
Posted on Reply
#19
HwGeek
Ryzen 9 Box is fake since you see Ryzen 3 box cooler :-).
Can't wait to see the reviews + this year I hope more reviews will come about Passive cooling PC's since we can get really love power 8C CPU's + maybe nice mid tier GPU.
Posted on Reply
#20
chaosmassive
if this turned out to be real, I take one ryzen 5 3600 please
thank you
Posted on Reply
#21
oxidized
Valantar said:
Remember that SKUs are created based on market segmentation, not silicon. In other words, boosting clocks on lower core count SKUs would either require them to be priced too similarly to higher core count SKUs with lower clocks (meaning needless internal competition) or cannibalize sales of the higher-end SKU. This likely means that the lower core count SKUs have more OC headroom.
Still that doesn't always happen in old CPUs, or at least the base clock is the same, and then boost is perhaps lower which makes sense.
Posted on Reply
#22
Kucuboy
My real concern is if the demand is so great, when will we be able to purchase the procs at is MSRP prices? Hate it if the price goes up for a long time because of limited availability.
Posted on Reply
#23
Shatun_Bear
TheLostSwede said:
Well, it looks like the AdoredTV numbers, plus cache configuration. Could be real, could be made up...
Not long to go now by the looks of it though.
They are not. They're just using the same made-up numbers from that AdoredTV video in December. I called him out on that video as a 4.2Ghz base clock on 16 cores is laughable and whoever made it up doesnt know much about CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#24
R0H1T
Well I was hoping this wouldn't end up on the FP :ohwell:
Shatun_Bear said:
They are not. They're just using the same made-up numbers from that AdoredTV video in December. I called him out on that video as a 4.2Ghz base clock on 16 cores is laughable and whoever made it up doesnt know much about CPUs.
As fantastical as the claims are, this isn't the reason to diss them.
Posted on Reply
#25
Shatun_Bear
The problem with AdoredTV is he's such an AMD fanboy he does AMD more harm than good. This is like the 3rd time his made-up numbers have been used by retailers or websites, and the effect will be disappointment when the real base/boost clocks are revealed closer to launch.

These numbers were made up in this 'leak' extravaganza video he made in December in an attempt to increase his Patreon subscribers. And it worked, it was one of his most popular videos ever. But he fabricated that whole chart. Come on lads; he claimed his 'source' gave him the prices of every single Ryzen 3000 CPU...in DECEMBER 2018. Laughable.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment