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

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

#226
lexluthermiester
notb, post: 4046122, member: 165619"
Well, maybe it's a broader definition of "security" than people here may be used to. Sorry.
There a difference between data integrity/redundancy/reliability and data security. You clearly do not work in business level IT or you would understand that distinction.
Posted on Reply
#227
ratirt
notb, post: 4046122, member: 165619"
OK, you may be sure. I'm pretty sure it won't. These are just opinions.

I was speaking from a PoV of an enterprise, so the party actually interested in ECC memory.
The system has to officially support ECC, i.e. someone has to take responsibility. And that's the whole point: responsibility.

Maybe Ryzen today can work in ECC mode, we don't know that. And honestly, do we really know whether Threadripper, EPYC or Xeon support ECC properly? No, we don't.
But one CPU has an "ECC validated" sticker and one doesn't. And that sticker changes everything.
I don't understand why you keep arguing about this. The threadripper is validated and supports ECC and you can see it on the AMD webpage. So whenever a company decides about they need ECC they can go with this. Xeon and TR support ECC correctly for sure. So as Ryzen and it has been stated and confirmed by the AMD company that they do and yet you keep saying we don't know or it doesn't.
Posted on Reply
#228
notb
ratirt, post: 4046641, member: 165024"
So as Ryzen and it has been stated and confirmed by the AMD company that they do and yet you keep saying we don't know or it doesn't.
So show me the document from AMD that says Ryzen supports ECC. I'm sure this is not a problem since you're so certain.
:-)
Posted on Reply
#229
ratirt
notb, post: 4046706, member: 165619"
So show me the document from AMD that says Ryzen supports ECC. I'm sure this is not a problem since you're so certain.
:)
I don't know if there is a document. I'm referring to Papermaster's and Lisa SU's information about Ryzen CPUs and ECC support. Ryzen TR has this information on the AMD's webpage that it supports ECC. I don't think two head members of AMD would lie about ECC support for Ryzen processors.
Posted on Reply
#230
notb
ratirt, post: 4046725, member: 165024"
I don't know if there is a document. I'm referring to Papermaster's and Lisa SU's information about Ryzen CPUs and ECC support. Ryzen TR has this information on the AMD's webpage that it supports ECC. I don't think two head members of AMD would lie about ECC support for Ryzen processors.
OK. So give a link to an interview or a slideshow. That will be enough.
Posted on Reply
#231
ratirt
notb, post: 4046729, member: 165619"
OK. So give a link to an interview or a slideshow. That will be enough.
I already did. Previously but I guess you didn't bother to read it.
For starters read about TR on the AMD's webpage. It clearly states that Ryzen TR supports ECC memory as a feature.
Posted on Reply
#232
Redwoodz
notb, post: 4046729, member: 165619"
OK. So give a link to an interview or a slideshow. That will be enough.
Do you really belive AMD does not support ECC or are you just trolling. Either way you are done.
Posted on Reply
#233
0x6A7232
Predicted response: that's AsRock's website, not AMD's, therefore not valid.
Posted on Reply
#234
londiste
That is Ryzen Pro, competing with (workstation) Xeons which also have ECC support.
It is a separate product segment.
Posted on Reply
#237
EarthDog
0x6A7232, post: 4049037, member: 187371"
Looks like the APU specs are in (supposedly) - the Ryzen 3000 APU is a Zen+ 12nm optical shrink of 14nm - the "Ryzen 3 3200G comes with 3.60 GHz nominal clock-speed and 4.00 GHz maximum Precision Boost frequency; while the Ryzen 5(?) 3400G ships with 3.70 GHz clock speeds along with 4.20 GHz max Precision Boost".

https://www.techpowerup.com/255600/amd-ryzen-picasso-apu-clock-speeds-revealed
What does that have to do with this? Its not even Zen2... :)
Posted on Reply
#238
notb
Yeah, I forgot about this lovely discussion. :/
ratirt, post: 4046730, member: 165024"
I already did. Previously but I guess you didn't bother to read it.
For starters read about TR on the AMD's webpage. It clearly states that Ryzen TR supports ECC memory as a feature.
OK. You gave a link to a Reddit discussion.
ECC support is not mentioned in specs. So is the whole "Ryzen supports ECC" internet gag based on this?


Call me Intel fanboy or whatever you want. This is not how a major listed CPU manufacturer should do business.
R0H1T, post: 4047091, member: 131092"
Pro APUs i.e. Raven Ridge, for the regular non IGP variants ASrock supports ECC according to that list.
Quite a few Pentium, Celeron and Atom processors support ECC (officially, i.e. are validated), so we shouldn't be shocked that APUs do as well. These CPUs are running many enterprise products.
londiste, post: 4047085, member: 169790"
That is Ryzen Pro, competing with (workstation) Xeons which also have ECC support.
It is a separate product segment.
This is all quite weird.
AMD doesn't call any Ryzen ECC-validated (Pro or not). Suddenly some mobo makers list Ryzen Pro as supporting ECC.

Would it be possible that AMD made a mistake on their website? They paid for validation and forgot to tell us?
Mess. :/
Posted on Reply
#239
ratirt
notb, post: 4049095, member: 165619"
Yeah, I forgot about this lovely discussion. :/

OK. You gave a link to a Reddit discussion.
ECC support is not mentioned in specs. So is the whole "Ryzen supports ECC" internet gag based on this?

It's not this one but whatever suit you bro :)
Anyway it is supported and it works. Deal with it :D
Posted on Reply
#240
0x6A7232
It would be helpful to know what exactly is the procedure for being officially ECC validated, and WHO does the validation. If it is, for example, done by a body that was founded or controlled by Intel, this would explain AMD not bothering. Sort of like how nVidia came up with their own requirements for "3D accelerator" and it just so conveniently matched them being the first (forget about all the others that came before). Does anyone know who validates ECC, and what the requirements are? Or is it just as meaningless as the company doing internal testing and slapping a label on, which can mean different things depending on which company it is?

Also, if you have a mobo claiming ECC support, validated or not, you have a case for a lawsuit if it doesn't actually. This leans in favor of ECC being supported for all intents and purposes, as long as the mobo OEM clearly states support.

If you guys haven't seen this, watch (among other goodies, 4,278 Cinebench on 16-core @4.2GHz, 12-core boosting to 5GHz, so 16-core 5GHz boost part likely)
Posted on Reply
#241
Berfs1
notb, post: 4045229, member: 165619"
And AMD does not state Ryzens support ECC, does it?

AMD doesn't disable ECC, but it doesn't mean it works as it should. It's just there.

Like the RNG in Excavator?

You don't understand enterprise computing - I've told you that many times.
ECC has to be validated to make sense. Just like helmets and ropes are certified/attested/rated to be used in a construction zone. It doesn't mean non-rated helmets don't protect your head.
What's the point of an untested security feature?

Without them it means you can't really expect ECC to work. And no one is liable when it stops.
That's the whole point of certification. It is important not in the 99% of time a feature works, but in the 1% time it doesn't.
Certified ECC systems sometimes don't work properly, just like a certified airbag doesn't always save your life in a crash. But until someone gives you a guarantee that an airbag should work in a particular way, it's just a small bomb with a baloon. WTF would you willingly put a bomb in your car?

First of all: they aren't graphs. A graph is a graphical representation of information, for that you need things like properly described axes. There's no horizontal axis in your case - maybe you assumed/checked it is time - the viewer doesn't know. In one of the photos you've missed the vertical axis as well.
Second: I was talking about the way you've shared this - as photos made with a smartphone. Why?
Also this:


And that's all pretty objective and obvious. I could now start making fun of your forecasting, but as you see - I don't. I'm in "nice mode" today. But it may change tomorrow, so weight your words carefully. ;-)

Intel has a very enterprise-oriented approach, with all features being pretty well documented. They ride on an image of being a solid enterprise partner. They can't afford to put ECC in CPUs that may not support it properly.
AMD has a different target client structure and they can afford not to properly describe what features a product has. We had a nice discussion about this lately in the NVENC thread (with AMD you don't know what features are supported by GPU, there's no documentation).

Honestly, I think you guys even like it. I think you like being forced to test and search and ask on forums instead of just checking in the datasheet.
But assuming AMD is hoping for a larger share of business clients, they'll have to really focus on more than just performance.
Wanna tell me my prediction was wrong now?
Posted on Reply
#242
gronetwork
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X has been benchmarked on Geekbench 4 with the Windows 64-bit operating system and it seems that it could easily beat the beast of Intel, i.e the Intel Core i7-9700K processor. For the moment, the chip would generate 17% more power. However there is only one result currently. We will have to be patient to see if the difference is confirmed during the next weeks.

https://gadgetversus.com/processor/amd-ryzen-7-3800x-vs-intel-core-i7-9700k/
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment