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

#76
NdMk2o1o
Manu_PT said:
Unless they improved it by 100%, wich won´t happen, a 4,8ghz Zen 2 chip with 15% increase IPC won´t be enough to beat Intel on a lot of tasks, like gaming, for example.

Honestly, the bigger you dream, the harder it will be to face the truth. Let´s not get too excited because that only harms AMD itself.
They're less then 10% behind Intel in gaming now so yes it will beat or at least match Intel
Posted on Reply
#77
Manu_PT
NdMk2o1o said:
They're less then 10% behind Intel in gaming now so yes it will beat or at least match Intel
Less than 10%? How delusional..... 2700x at 4,2ghz on Battlefield V multiplayer can´t even sustain 144fps locked, while 9700k/9900k fly at 180-200... 10% yes right...
Posted on Reply
#78
notb
eidairaman1 said:
Each revision it improves, it's not staying stagnant.
Each revision as in Zen+ improved over Zen. So it happened once? :-)
Also, can you link a test that confirms that latency is actually lower in Zen+?

This issue is crucial for servers and has been very meticulously tested for EPYC, showing that because of latency they fall behind Xeon in particular (but popular) scenarios.
Problem is: AMD didn't launch a Zen+ EPYC.

2990WX was tested as the most powerful Zen+ CPU available and it turned out it's just as bad, maybe worse. Although the high core count surely contributed as well.

Problem with Zen2 is that it's a new architecture. AMD goes even further with cost cutting by using a separate I/O die. We'll see how this ends up.
HD64G said:
High binned models will have sustainable all-core turbo close to 4.5GHz and single-threaded one close to 5GHz. And imho 7nm can provide those clocks.
I'm always slightly anxious when I see statements like this one.
In your honest opinion 7nm can provide these clocks... because we've seen countless 5 GHz chips made with TSMC 7nm? Because you work for TSMC? Because you're a quantum physicist working on semiconductors? Because you had a vision on your AMD altar?

Jokes aside, I'm really curious where do people get this kind of knowledge.
Posted on Reply
#79
R0H1T
Manu_PT said:
Less than 10%? How delusional..... 2700x at 4,2ghz on Battlefield V multiplayer can´t even sustain 144fps locked, while 9700k/9900k fly at 180-200... 10% yes right...
Have you seen any tests with fixed clocks? If not then go check them out, Zen is indeed only about 5~10% behind Intel clock for clock. So your assumption that AMD can't match Intel @4.8 GHz is BS, I bet you didn't even count the impact of smeltdown ~ hint it's non zero :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#80
NdMk2o1o
Manu_PT said:
Less than 10%? How delusional..... 2700x at 4,2ghz on Battlefield V multiplayer can´t even sustain 144fps locked, while 9700k/9900k fly at 180-200... 10% yes right...
On average though if you want to cherry pick we can all do that :slap:
Posted on Reply
#81
notb
Berfs1 said:
Just now realized that? Lmao intel won’t win for the next three years... I have attached an single thread comparison on CB, and I also attached a future prediction for how they will fare, and it seems that AMD has room for improvement.
One could think that people on a "computer enthusiast forum" would know how to make a screenshot.
Posted on Reply
#82
Vayra86
Manu_PT said:
Less than 10%? How delusional..... 2700x at 4,2ghz on Battlefield V multiplayer can´t even sustain 144fps locked, while 9700k/9900k fly at 180-200... 10% yes right...
10% is the IPC gap, give or take.
The clock gap is higher, so if AMD can tackle both, they're basically on par stock vs stock.

The only space left for Intel is the overclocked K parts that can do all-core boost to the single core turbo frequency. But there isn't much more left otherwise, and 100-200mhz on 4.8 or higher is not even worth mentioning. Beyond that we've already seen that even first gen Ryzen loses most of its latency issues with a decent kit of RAM. Consider that 'Ryzen overclocking' compared to Intel's hot mess at high clocks and they're even again, both in additional cost and additional performance. We already know that XFR is pretty damn good at maximizing potential on its own - a perk Intel's chips do not have.

Besides, beyond 120~160 FPS, who cares, there are far bigger influences on that region than CPU is; most of them being network/engine/game related anyway. The only thing you might be left with as a bonus on Intel is that a specific set of engines/games excel on it while others excel on a Ryzen CPU. Its going to be a similar game to the GPU comparison, choose your poison, either will do fine. That is what AMD needs and that is what we consider 'equal' in hardware performance.
Posted on Reply
#83
0x6A7232
eidairaman1 said:
I did in 2014 with my system specs.



F-35 is fine.
...do you honestly believe it would have been approved if the ACTUAL costs (before overruns) were known?
Posted on Reply
#84
Manu_PT
R0H1T said:
Have you seen any tests with fixed clocks? If not then go check them out, Zen is indeed only about 5~10% behind Intel clock for clock. So your assumption that AMD can't match Intel @4.8 GHz is BS, I bet you didn't even count the impact of smeltdown ~ hint it's non zero :rolleyes:
Another delusional one. Even at same clocks (wich makes no sense as Intel clocks easily at 5,2ghz), Intel still beats the crap out of Ryzen due to CCX latencies. You can even have a Zen 2 5,5ghz, if CCX latencies and IMC still suck, it won´t beat Intel. If IPC was the only difference I would have got a Ryzen, 10% wouldn´t bother me. But there´s a lot more than that:

<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="JCGsEczbSCo"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JCGsEczbSCo/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCGsEczbSCo" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>
Posted on Reply
#85
R0H1T
I said fixed (same) clocks, if you don't have the numbers for that then don't bother making that claim! As for delusional ~ you seem to be high or something atm :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#86
Shatun_Bear
Manu_PT said:
Another delusional one. Even at same clocks (wich makes no sense as Intel clocks easily at 5,2ghz), Intel still beats the crap out of Ryzen due to CCX latencies. You can even have a Zen 2 5,5ghz, if CCX latencies and IMC still suck, it won´t beat Intel. If IPC was the only difference I would have got a Ryzen, 10% wouldn´t bother me. But there´s a lot more than that:

<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="JCGsEczbSCo"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JCGsEczbSCo/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCGsEczbSCo" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>
I haven't read as much nonsense coming from one person in a while. Well done.
Posted on Reply
#87
ironcerealbox
It would be nice if true. Could we, perhaps, have a repeat of 2005/2006?

Could this happen?
Posted on Reply
#88
Manu_PT
Shatun_Bear said:
I haven't read as much nonsense coming from one person in a while. Well done.
Care to elaborate, post videos, tests etc? Or will you just use the non valid argument "I havent read as much nonsense". Mr Amd bot. You guys are the ones that ruin AMD, I bet you are also subscribed to adoredtv. Then when the products are finally released the whole internet gets disapointed because you retards create false expectations. Let amd do their job and wait for the full reviews. Never forget the "poor volta" ad.
Posted on Reply
#89
Vayra86
Manu_PT said:
Another delusional one. Even at same clocks (wich makes no sense as Intel clocks easily at 5,2ghz), Intel still beats the crap out of Ryzen due to CCX latencies. You can even have a Zen 2 5,5ghz, if CCX latencies and IMC still suck, it won´t beat Intel. If IPC was the only difference I would have got a Ryzen, 10% wouldn´t bother me. But there´s a lot more than that:

<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="JCGsEczbSCo"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JCGsEczbSCo/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCGsEczbSCo" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>
You need to learn to interpret numbers then, because what I see here is a Ryzen CPU vs a much higher clocked Intel CPU missing out on a mere 7-15 FPS with both in comfortably playable ranges. In fact what we see is often the opposite, Ryzen with lower clocks seems to hit far closer to the Intel CPU than you'd expect. Second gen solved most of the negative outliers we saw in the first.

Do the math yourself, pick any moment in that video between the two games' FPS and calculate the % gap. Its not much over 10% most of the time, and quite a few times its even under 10%. That is despite a clock difference in favor of Intel.

Manu_PT said:
Care to elaborate, post videos, tests etc? Or will you just use the non valid argument "I havent read as much nonsense". Mr Amd bot. You guys are the ones that ruin AMD, I bet you are also subscribed to adoredtv. Then when the products are finally released the whole internet gets disapointed because you retards create false expectations
You already posted the perfect evidence yourself, you just don't see it.
Posted on Reply
#90
0x6A7232
With Ryzen, if your RAM is clocked under about 3000, your CPU performance suffers, don't forget.

Manu_PT said:
Care to elaborate, post videos, tests etc? Or will you just use the non valid argument "I havent read as much nonsense". Mr Amd bot. You guys are the ones that ruin AMD, I bet you are also subscribed to adoredtv. Then when the products are finally released the whole internet gets disapointed because you retards create false expectations. Let amd do their job and wait for the full reviews. Never forget the "poor volta" ad.
Dude he's not an AMD bot, read the freaking thread. Your tears will be the most delicious of all.
Posted on Reply
#91
Manu_PT
Vayra86 said:
You need to learn to interpret numbers then, because what I see here is a Ryzen CPU vs a much higher clocked Intel CPU missing out on a mere 7-15 FPS with both in comfortably playable ranges. In fact what we see is often the opposite, Ryzen with lower clocks seems to hit far closer to the Intel CPU than you'd expect.

Do the math yourself, pick any moment in that video between the two games' FPS and calculate the % gap. Its not much over 10% most of the time, and quite a few times its even under 10%. That is despite a clock difference in favor of Intel.



You already posted the perfect evidence yourself, you just don't see it.
Watch the video again then and pause it many times, and then tell me is only 10%. There are some 50fps differences in some situations. You think that would be solved with a mere clock increase? LeL

Full of AMD bots everywhere, don´t cry when the cpus are finally released.
Posted on Reply
#92
Vayra86
Manu_PT said:
Watch the video again then and pause it many times, and then tell me is only 10%. There are some 50fps differences in some situations. You think that would be solved with a mere clock increase? LeL

Full of AMD bots everywhere, don´t cry when the cpus are finally released.
50? Give me the times in that video and I'll believe you. I'm not going to sit there staring at it for 10 minutes to prove your point.

Also, a momentary gap, last I checked is not what determines the overall performance gap between two CPUs. You base that on average FPS. And for that, my 7-15 FPS number is pretty accurate.

Bottom line, stop grasping at straws and admit you made a BS comment. Its no biggie, then we can move on. AMD bot... lol. You're one click away from ignore if you take that route with me. You know better.
Posted on Reply
#93
Manu_PT
Vayra86 said:
50? Give me the times in that video and I'll believe you. I'm not going to sit there staring at it for 10 minutes to prove your point.

Also, a momentary gap, last I checked is not what determines the overall performance gap between two CPUs. You base that on average FPS. And for that, my 7-15 FPS number is pretty accurate.

Bottom line, stop grasping at straws and admit you made a BS comment. Its no biggie, then we can move on. AMD bot... lol. You're one click away from ignore if you take that route with me. You know better.
Even the 9400F clocked lower than the 2600x, wins in almost all games; on pubg was even a 30% difference (100fps vs 130fps) gtfo please, ignore me, you will do me a favour:

<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="hRIgnPWHgEY"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hRIgnPWHgEY/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRIgnPWHgEY" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>
Posted on Reply
#94
R0H1T
You know I haven't used the ignore function on any tech forum in over half a decade, till now that is :toast:
Posted on Reply
#95
Manu_PT
R0H1T said:
You know I haven't used the ignore function on any tech forum in over half a decade, till now that is :toast:
Glad you did it mr Amd Bot. AMD sucks for high refresh gaming right now due to CCX and IMC latencies. Deal with it. Zen 2 won´t beat Intel if that´s not fixed, doesn´t matter the higher IPC. Keep believing AdoredTv. Ignore me.
Posted on Reply
#96
r9
Manu_PT said:
Less than 10%? How delusional..... 2700x at 4,2ghz on Battlefield V multiplayer can´t even sustain 144fps locked, while 9700k/9900k fly at 180-200... 10% yes right...
The average it's actually %10.
Yes if you play at 720p and goes into hundreds of FPS than it's more than 10%.
But than again if you game at 720p you are too dumb to own a PC so it's should not be an issue.
And Ryzen has lower utilization so if you game and stream for example the Ryzen comes on top.
And it's cheaper.
So you can take the money you save put it towards the GPU and get more FPS.
Posted on Reply
#97
Manu_PT
r9 said:
The average it's actually %10.
Yes if you play at 720p and goes into hundreds of FPS than it's more than 10%.
But than again if you game at 720p you are too dumb to own a PC so it's should not be an issue.
And Ryzen has lower utilization so if you game and stream for example the Ryzen comes on top.
And it's cheaper.
So you can take the money you save put it towards the GPU and get more FPS.
I don´t play at 720p and Ryzen with my GTX 1080ti wasn´t even using the GPU on most games. Get the 720p excuse out of here. If you want a CPU for 60hz then save money and get a 1300x or an i3 8100.

As for streaming, nothing beats a dual PC setup, every CPU will get a big hit once you stream, be it 2700x or 8700k, GamerNexus did a review on that. Dual setup ftw if you take streaming seriously. If you don´t, you can get away with 720p 30fps streaming on an intel chip anyway.

Vayra86 said:
Don't worry, its just the reality in his little niche of the eternal quest for a CPU that'll feed his 240hz TN monitor properly.

Tiny little secret here: he'll never find it :)
I found it, is called 9700k wich overclocks to 5,2ghz with a cooler bundled with my MSI motherboard, paired with 4000mhz CL18 ram wich Ryzen can only dream to achieve. I´m rocking 200fps-240fps on every multiplayer game at 1080p and 144fps on every single player game. Good luck with Ryzen. Btw didn´t you ignore me yet? :O
Posted on Reply
#98
Nkd
Shatun_Bear said:
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.
He is anything but AMD fanboy. Go watch all his videos. lol
Posted on Reply
#99
M2B
What games?
My 8600K at 4.9GHz paired with a GTX 1080 that is pushed to its limits barely keeps the framerate above 60FPS in AC Odyssey, how do you get 200FPS on every game?
Posted on Reply
#100
Manu_PT
M2B said:
What games?
My 8600K at 4.9GHz paired with a GTX 1080 that is pushed to its limits barely keeps the framerate above 60FPS in AC Odyssey, how do you get 200FPS on every game?
Go read the post please. Also, your 8600k is not a 9700k, You have 6 threads with I bet are spanked on that game at 100%.

This people....

Simple fact you wasted money on a 8600k with 6 threads for almost 300€, makes no sense. I would stick to a 8400 or 9400f or just go i7 8700 non K route. 8600k has no place in the market. This is the kind of people I´m arguing with... geez.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment