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

#26
Mark Little
oxidized, post: 4040907, member: 170038"
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"
It’s just the TDP. Higher core counts require higher TDP (125W or more). When not using all the cores, the higher TDP allows higher clocks.

Edit: in respect to your other comment, older CPUs had less cores and most of them were in use at all times.
Posted on Reply
#27
Shatun_Bear
R0H1T, post: 4040935, member: 131092"
Well I was hoping this wouldn't end up on the FP :ohwell:
As fantastical as the claims are, this isn't the reason to diss them.
Um, yes it is. He's claiming the base clock on a Ryzen 3000 CPU will be almost as high as the BOOST clock on the previous generation. To make it even more fantastical, this 4.2Ghz base clock is apparently for the 16-core SKU!

So I can guarantee right now you won't see a 4.2Ghz base clock on any 3000-series CPU. We won't even see a 4.1Ghz or 4Ghz base clock. That's not how modern CPUs operate. If you think we will, let's make a bet.
Posted on Reply
#28
R0H1T
Shatun_Bear, post: 4040942, member: 166032"
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.
I get that & you remember the claims about Zen before launch - it could never get close to Intel's IPC, if it does the clocks will be low. It exceeded both expectations, so it is possible that AMD is now trying to get them to clock high. At this point AMD is limited by the TSMC 7nm node, more than anything else. You could say that it's a matter of when, not if because I doubt even Intel matches their 14nm++ desktop clocks on smaller nodes.
Shatun_Bear, post: 4040947, member: 166032"
So I can guarantee right now you won't see a 4.2Ghz base clock on any 3000-series CPU. We won't even see a 4.1Ghz or 4Ghz base clock. That's not how modern CPUs operate. If you think we will, let's make a bet.
Alright, let's do.
Posted on Reply
#29
MDDB
Shatun_Bear, post: 4040942, member: 166032"
The problem with AdoredTV is he's such an AMD fanboy he does AMD more harm than good.
I guess Lisa Su is stupid, then, as she personally thanked Jim on twitter for his videos that are doing AMD more harm than good.
Posted on Reply
#30
Shatun_Bear
MDDB, post: 4040952, member: 169859"
I guess Lisa Su is stupid, then, as she personally thanked Jim on twitter for his videos that are doing AMD more harm than good.
You on first name terms with him?! lol. And I did see that, but that wasn't in response to that fake Ryzen specs and prices reveal video. It was a more recent one where he was speculating about the I/O.
Posted on Reply
#31
Vya Domus
Shatun_Bear, post: 4040942, member: 166032"
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.
You people just can't contain yourself, why does someone always has to show up and stir the shit with this fanboy crap. Stop with this garbage, we don't need it here.

Nice profile picture by the way.
Posted on Reply
#32
Shatun_Bear
R0H1T, post: 4040951, member: 131092"
Alright, let's do.
There will be no Ryzen 3000 desktop CPU with a 4.2Ghz base clock or within 200Mhz of that frequency, that's the bet. £10 worth of Bitcoins do you?
Posted on Reply
#34
NdMk2o1o
Shatun_Bear, post: 4040955, member: 166032"
There will be no Ryzen 3000 desktop CPU with a 4.2Ghz base clock or within 200Mhz of that frequency, that's the bet. £10 worth of Bitcoins do you?
I guarantee there will be, what would be the point otherwise if they had the same base and boost as the 2*** series
Posted on Reply
#35
notb
The rumored CPU specs mentioned here have been around since January. I don't know why people are so excited now.

Mussels, post: 4040876, member: 1746"
If those specs are real, ryzens going to destroy intel
I still think we should expect more from moderators. But maybe I'm old.
Posted on Reply
#36
gasolina
the 3200g and 3400g still 4c/4t and 4c/8t i highly doubt that the 3700 3800 will be 16 cores , the maximum i guess is around 10 to 12 cores with higher clock speed.
Posted on Reply
#37
Shatun_Bear
NdMk2o1o, post: 4040958, member: 83825"
I guarantee there will be, what would be the point otherwise if they had the same base and boost as the 2*** series
The boost yes, we can expect 4.5-4.7Ghz but you don't just jack up the base clock when it's totally unnecessary.
Posted on Reply
#38
R0H1T
Shatun_Bear, post: 4040955, member: 166032"
There will be no Ryzen 3000 desktop CPU with a 4.2Ghz base clock or within 200Mhz of that frequency, that's the bet. £10 worth of Bitcoins do you?
No bitcoins, Paypal? Just to confirm ~ no 3xxx SKU will have a base clock of 4GHz or above :toast:
Posted on Reply
#39
kastriot
Lol so many ryzen/ryzen+ gonna be sold on ebay soon.
Posted on Reply
#40
Shatun_Bear
R0H1T, post: 4040963, member: 131092"
No bitcoins, Paypal? Just to confirm ~ no 3xxx SKU will have a base clock of 4GHz or above :toast:
Cool I'll send you a PM. Easy money
Posted on Reply
#41
M2B
A minimum of 15%~ per-core improvment (Better IPC + Higher clocks) across all different workloads seems fine to me and is what I'm expecting, 5GHz or not.
Posted on Reply
#42
Caring1
The numbers don't add up to me, 3700X has a 50% increase in core count OVER THE 2700x for less than 20% increase in TDP.
If anything, AMD should retain current core count and increase clocks using increased efficiency to retain the TDP as it is now.
Posted on Reply
#43
oxidized
Mark Little, post: 4040945, member: 168714"
It’s just the TDP. Higher core counts require higher TDP (125W or more). When not using all the cores, the higher TDP allows higher clocks.

Edit: in respect to your other comment, older CPUs had less cores and most of them were in use at all times.
That's not my point tho.
Posted on Reply
#44
Vya Domus
Caring1, post: 4040979, member: 153156"
The numbers don't add up to me, 3700X has a 50% increase in core count OVER THE 2700x for less than 20% increase in TDP.
The 8 core sample showed by AMD seems to be a 65W part or thereabouts and it matched the 9900K meaning the clock speeds couldn't have been anemic. The TDP headroom is there and let's not forget how liberal AMD/Intel/Nivida have been with their TDP ratings in the past either.
Posted on Reply
#45
chaosmassive
no need to diss AdoredTV, if you dont trust/like him no need to turn this thread into attacking other people,
that said with this picture is real or not we do not know, its only few months away, one can speculate/analyze anything they want
one can simply look back at history, the leaker/alleged product before current product launch see if the it was indeed accurate or not
Posted on Reply
#46
Wilson
Literally the same info from December "leak", nothing new still
Posted on Reply
#47
Vayra86
This is what we've been waiting for.

IF AMD can push out boost with these clocks, Intel is done for a good while in the consumer desktop segment. From top to bottom. They won't have anything in the entire stack that is better. And they can't surpass it either because they've already capped out on clocks too.

AMD now gets a potential CPU with much better boost tech at a much lower power ceiling and peak power draw, while being an efficient baseclock CPU at the same time. Sprinkle extra cores/threads on top plus all the other minor perks they have... yep. Time to switch, at last.

notb, post: 4040960, member: 165619"
Tthe rumored CPU specs mentioned here have been around since January. I don't know why people are so excited now.
Because rumors could be true.
Posted on Reply
#48
0x6A7232
Shatun_Bear, post: 4040931, member: 166032"
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.
You, my friend, are looking to have some DELECTABLE tears to harvest at launch. Because ending your statement with "doesn't know much about CPUs" is a very sharp two edged sword, as it means if you are wrong, you know very little about CPUs.
So, if these numbers are right, will you eat your hat? Pretending they are proved accurate, what would be your response?
Posted on Reply
#49
Caring1
0x6A7232, post: 4040990, member: 187371"
….is a very sharp two edged sword, as it means if you are wrong, you know very little about CPUs.
Or his knowledge is based on current standards, which can and will change in the future. That does not mean he is wrong.
Posted on Reply
#50
krykry
I'm curious about one thing. The prices and availability of high-performance high-core count CPUs will definitely improve...in which case, how will game developers react to it? How will they utilize the additional power they will be given?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment