Monday, May 27th 2019

AMD Announces 3rd Generation Ryzen Desktop Processors

AMD CEO Dr. Lisa Su at her 2019 Computex keynote address announced the 3rd generation Ryzen desktop processor family, which leverages the company's Zen 2 microarchitecture, and are built on the 7 nm silicon fabrication process at TSMC. Designed for the AM4 CPU socket, with backwards compatibility for older AMD 300-series and 400-series chipset motherboards, these processors are multi-chip modules of up to two 8-core "Zen 2" CPU chiplets, and a 14 nm I/O controller die that packs the dual-channel DDR4 memory controller and PCI-Express gen 4.0 root complex, along with some SoC connectivity. AMD claims an IPC increase of 15 percent over Zen 1, and higher clock speeds leveraging 7 nm, which add up to significantly higher performance over the current generation. AMD bolstered the core's FPU (floating-point unit), and doubled the cache sizes.

AMD unveiled three high-end SKUs for now, the $329 Ryzen 7 3700X, the $399 Ryzen 7 3800X, and the $499 Ryzen 9 3900X. The 3700X and 3800X are 8-core/16-thread parts with a single CPU chiplet. The 3700X is clocked at 3.60 GHz with 4.40 GHz maximum boost frequency, just 65 Watts TDP and will be beat Intel's Core i7-9700K both at gaming and productivity. The 3800X tops that with 3.90 GHz nominal, 4.50 GHz boost, 105W TDP, and beat the Core i9-9900K at gaming and productivity. AMD went a step further at launched the new Ryzen 9 brand with the 3900X, which is a 12-core/24-thread processor clocked at 3.80 GHz, which 4.60 boost, 72 MB of total cache, 105W TDP, and performance that not only beats the i9-9900K, but also the i9-9920X 12-core/24-thread HEDT processor despite two fewer memory channels. AMD focused on gaming performance with Zen 2, with wider FPU, improved branch prediction, and several micro-architectural improvements contributing to a per-core performance that's higher than Intel's. The processors go on sale on 7/7/2019.
When paired with an AMD X570 chipset motherboard, these processors make up the world's first PCI-Express gen 4.0 based desktop platform. PCIe gen 4.0 doubles per-lane data bandwidth to 16 Gbps. The Ryzen 3000 "Zen 2" processor puts out 24 PCIe gen 4.0 lanes externally, from which 16 lanes are meant for graphics cards, 4 lanes for an M.2 NVMe slot, and 4 as chipset-bus. The X570 chipset puts out 16 downstream PCIe gen 4.0 lanes, which means up to two additional M.2 slots, and more onboard connectivity. The total platform PCIe lane budget has shot up to 40 lanes, all of which are gen 4.0. AMD put out 3DMark PCIe bandwidth feature-test performance numbers comparing a Radeon RX 5700 "Navi" graphics cards on a Ryzen 7 3800X vs. an RTX 2080 Ti a PCIe gen 3.0 platform powered by Core i9-9900K. The performance was significantly higher.
Much of AMD's engineering effort with Zen 2 has been to increase the CPU core's overall math performance, which translated to higher IPC (by 15 percent), increased per-core performance, and conversely higher gaming performance. AMD put out some astonishing gaming performance numbers, in which it compared a 3800X to its own 2700X from the previous generation. You see a staggering 22 percent increase in PUBG frame-rates, and up to 34 percent increase in CS:GO. This may look like insignificant e-Sports titles as opposed to the big AAA ones, but give valuable insights to the chip's gaming prowess. We're convinced that Zen 2 will be faster than any Intel processor at gaming when it comes out.
Add your own comment

95 Comments on AMD Announces 3rd Generation Ryzen Desktop Processors

#26
Valantar
Tomorrow
And what's with the TDP increase? Going from 3,6/4,4 to 3,9/4,5 results in 40W extra? Makes no sense.
Likely headroom for multi-core turbo. As with Intel, AMD's specified turbo speeds are single-core, but unlike Intel multi-core scales fluidly based on thermal and power headroom. In other words, it's likely that a stock 3800X will have significantly faster all-core turbo than a stock 3700X (given that motherboards enforce TDP as a power limit, that is).

Tomorrow
So if +2 cores costs about ~50$ to 70$ extra and +4 cores costs +100$ extra then 16 core model would cost between 599$ and 649$
Tho i feel AMD backed themselves into a corner by slapping Ryzen 9 name to 12 core parts and going straight to 3900X. This does not leave much space to fit supposed 16 core variants on top and name them differently.
Why? Ryzen 9 just denotes high end SKUs, not a specific core count. The only argument against calling this Ryzen 9 3900X is to avoid consumer confusion, which, well, isn't really a thing in this kind of market. If you're looking at a >$500 CPU and can't tell specs of different SKUs apart, you're doing something wrong. I get that calling it 3900X leaves little room for both a 16-core and a TR lineup, but there's nothing wrong with overlapping names or otherwise differentiating TR - it's an entirely separate line, after all. 16-core could be 3920X, 3950X, even 3990X - and TR naming would adjust based on this. I agree that it's not ideal, but TR and HEDT are such niche markets it really shouldn't matter.

R0H1T
I wish someone would do more of these in depth reviews covering IPC, the claims by AMD (or Intel) aren't verifiable till you run samples at fixed clocks!
Anandtech has specifically stated that they will be covering this in their upcoming review. Likely downclocking all chips to a common frequency like they've done before.
Posted on Reply
#27
Tomorrow
Well if they went with 3900X already this could also indirectly confirm that they might be skipping Zen2 based Threadripper this year. We'll see i guess.
Posted on Reply
#29
R0H1T
Tomorrow
Well if they went with 3900X already this could also indirectly confirm that they might be skipping Zen2 based Threadripper this year. We'll see i guess.
Most rumors seem to suggest the same, there's also rumors that the next TR will be based on zen 3 ~ the one with (up to) 4 way SMT.
Posted on Reply
#30
Xuper
You see a staggering 22 percent increase in PUBG frame-rates, and up to 34 percent increase in CS:GO. This may look like insignificant e-Sports titles as opposed to the big AAA ones, but give valuable insights to the chip's gaming prowess. We're convinced that Zen 2 will be faster than any Intel processor at gaming when it comes out.
TPU's words !



In CR15 :
Ryzen 1800x = 161 so 3900x would be 212.52 which is above 9700K or below 9900K ( This link ) which hard to believe.
Also MT for 1800X = 1637 so 100% would be 3274.
sure those numbers are awesome, but one thing is that AMD's IPC is now above (at least Broadwell)
Posted on Reply
#31
Valantar
Xuper
TPU's words !



In CR15 :
Ryzen 1800x = 161 so 3900x would be 212.52 which is above 9700K or below 9900K ( This link ) which hard to believe.
Also MT for 1800X = 1637 so 100% would be 3274.
sure those numbers are awesome, but one thing is that AMD's IPC is now above (at least Broadwell)
Remember that IPC is workload dependent. Gains in Cinebench do not necessarily translate to gains in other applications/workloads. Still, these CPUs look friggin' amazing, and I can't wait for reviews to start arriving. There's definitely a 3700X or 3800X with my name on it somewhere out there.
Posted on Reply
#32
Keemzay
Pumper
3900X and 3800X both 105W TDP? How is that possible?
3700x is 65w, so yeah its very possible

SIGSEGV
where's 16 cores/32 threads CPU?
Go ask the leakers, but i think the am4 platform might be the limiting factor, i mean im pretty sure they can reach 16 cores on zen 2
Posted on Reply
#33
R0H1T
Speaking of IPC, was the 15% gain specified against zen/zen+ or anything Intel?
Posted on Reply
#34
Valantar
Keemzay
3700x is 65w, so yeah its very possible


Go ask the leakers, but i think the am4 platform might be the limiting factor, i mean im pretty sure they can reach 16 cores on zen 2
A few likely scenarios:
1: Waiting for chip availability. This SKU will require top bin chips (low power at high clocks). Those are being taken by EPYC ATM, and ensuring availability of more mainstream chips at launch is more important. After all, the 12c can use chiplets with disabled cores, so it only limits Ryzen 5 production. A 16c SKU would take a significant chunk out of the available silicon for Ryzen 7.
2: Holding off to see what Intel does. Launching a high-clocked 16c32t monster just as Intel prepares to launch their next generation of ... 10-core? 14nm++++++++ chips would be a smart move.
3: Holding off due to RAM being the main bottleneck and wanting to put their best foot forward. AM4 means dual-channel DDR4, so even with an improved IMC, feeding 16 fast cores would be difficult. A 16-core would still be a monster for fitting workloads, but it might not be the best PR move to launch a flagship that doesn't excel in gaming applications - and after all, the highest SKU you launch is going to be the most talked-about. As such, it makes (far) more sense to stick with lower core count chips to begin with, to show off gains in these use cases, and then launch the 16c SKU later for "semi-workstation" builds.

Personally, I think it's likely a mix of allt three. There are likely more factors coming into play too.

R0H1T
Speaking of IPC, was the 15% gain specified against zen/zen+ or anything Intel?
Zen(1).
AnandTech"
AMD is promoting a +15% direct IPC increase from Zen 1 to Zen 2
Source.
Posted on Reply
#35
NicklasAPJ
ratirt
I'm wondering if this 3700x is maxed out or did AMD leave some headroom to OC it slightly more. That would be great :)
BTW. I see that a lot of people like to throw crap and laugh from somebody giving information which is presumably true and yet these people still have problem grasping what presumably means and how you should perceive it. It is really weird and laughable for me :)
99% you wont see higher than 4.6ghz on all cores. Best hope is 4.5ghz. Hope Im worng, but In 99% sure they Cant :-) We know How ryzen act In oc from Zen and Zen +.

Amd trying to Do The higheste clock speed on 1/2 core out of The box always.
Posted on Reply
#36
ratirt
NicklasAPJ
99% you wont see higher than 4.6ghz on all cores. Best hope is 4.5ghz. Hope Im worng, but In 99% sure they Cant :) We know How ryzen act In oc from Zen and Zen +.

Amd trying to Do The higheste clock speed on 1/2 core out of The box always.
I don't think you should compare Zen and Zen+ to Zen2 so much in terms of performance. Zen was the first release and zen+ was a slight tweak. Zen2 is different even though it can work in the same AM4 slot. Maybe OC isn't there and you might be right but it can also be there. Although the odds are there is no OC potential since the Zen and Zen+ are stuck without OC. Who knows. We will have to wait and see.
Posted on Reply
#37
Valantar
NicklasAPJ
99% you wont see higher than 4.6ghz on all cores. Best hope is 4.5ghz. Hope Im worng, but In 99% sure they Cant :) We know How ryzen act In oc from Zen and Zen +.

Amd trying to Do The higheste clock speed on 1/2 core out of The box always.
ratirt
I don't think you should compare Zen and Zen+ to Zen2 so much in terms of performance. Zen was the first release and zen+ was a slight tweak. Zen2 is different even though it can work in the same AM4 slot. Maybe OC isn't there and you might be right but it can also be there. Although the odds are there is no OC potential since the Zen and Zen+ are stuck without OC. Who knows. We will have to wait and see.
I guess we'll see when reviews arrive. It'll be very interesting to see just how much of the lack of OC headroom for Zen/Zen+ was architectural and how much was due to the production process. Still, TSMC 7nm is still a mobile-first, low-power process, so even getting it to 4.6GHz is quite the achievement.
Posted on Reply
#38
ratirt
Valantar
I guess we'll see when reviews arrive. It'll be very interesting to see just how much of the lack of OC headroom for Zen/Zen+ was architectural and how much was due to the production process. Still, TSMC 7nm is still a mobile-first, low-power process, so even getting it to 4.6GHz is quite the achievement.
I agree. Even if the Zen2 doesn't go 5Ghz I think it will have still a nice performance boost over the 2000 series which either way, for me, is amazing as is. I'd like to see the benchmarks and how AMD has progressed with its Zen architecture over the few years.
Posted on Reply
#39
Crackong
NicklasAPJ
99% you wont see higher than 4.6ghz on all cores. Best hope is 4.5ghz. Hope Im worng, but In 99% sure they Cant :) We know How ryzen act In oc from Zen and Zen +.

Amd trying to Do The higheste clock speed on 1/2 core out of The box always.
If AMD did not lie on the r20 single threaded test, 4.5GHz 3800x is comparable to 5GHz 9900k single threaded.
So all core 4.5GHz = 9900k all core 5GHz
4.6GHz = 9900k 5.1GHz .

If 3800x going 5GHz, that will be = 9900k at 5.55 GHz
Posted on Reply
#40
the54thvoid
Tomorrow
Trolling again are we? No one even mentions adoredtv and you come in insulting people.
It was mentioned by a post earlier in the thread. If people keep swearing that some leaker is correct, then when they're not so spit on, its fair to comment.

That 12 core, 5Ghz claim seems like blind optimism now. Yet it was spouted by a few channels.

Still, these chips look good. Waiting for reviews. And seeing Intel push out a 'special' 9900 is quite funny. Reviews required for an AMD, Intel head to head on their best 8 core parts...
Posted on Reply
#41
Vlada011
Only more evidence that Intel need new architecture as AMD done with Zen, urgently, they have no time for waiting.
They should work with new core and in mean time to sell Skylake, Coffee Lake, etc to try to stay with AMD in track...
No, Intel offer much more expensive i9-9900K, you can buy two 2700X.
How Intel sell one i9-9900K for price of two 2700X that's questions for buyers.
What they could OC him 500MHz...

Increase frequency of processors only on few cores, less than processor have is not real overclocking.
Because you get better performance only in some situations.
Posted on Reply
#42
Xaled
Tomorrow
Ok so i feel somewhat dissapointed. Tho the SKU's AMD revealed are not entirely suprising considering their performance lead now. Meaning they can ask for more that they originally planned.
The 3800X SKU is especially pointless considering that problably every 3700X can do those clocks at 70$ less. And what's with the TDP increase? Going from 3,6/4,4 to 3,9/4,5 results in 40W extra? Makes no sense.

$199 Ryzen 5 3600 6-core/12-thread. 3.60 GHz/4.20 GHz. 65W
$249 Ryzen 5 3600X 6-core/12-thread. 3.80 GHz/4.40 GHz. 95W
$329 Ryzen 7 3700X. 8-core/16-thread. 3.60 GHz/4.40 GHz. 65W
$399 Ryzen 7 3800X 8-core/16-thread. 3.90 GHz/4.50 GHz. 105W
$499 Ryzen 9 3900X 12-core/24-thread. 3.80 GHz/4.60 Ghz. 105W

So if +2 cores costs about ~50$ to 70$ extra and +4 cores costs +100$ extra then 16 core model would cost between 599$ and 649$
Tho i feel AMD backed themselves into a corner by slapping Ryzen 9 name to 12 core parts and going straight to 3900X. This does not leave much space to fit supposed 16 core variants on top and name them differently.

This is what i think 16 core part would look like. Maybe im too optimistic about clocks. They might also go with 3990WX name to position it more like a Threadripper chip.
$649 Ryzen 9 3990X 16-core/32-thread. 4.00 GHz/4.70 Ghz. 125W
Do not expect the 16c version to be released soon unless Intel make so huge/unexpected answers, like releasing new CPUs or/and making huge price cuts
Posted on Reply
#43
bug
I'm glad they didn't go core-crazy and upped the IPC this gen. 20-25% would have been sweet, but 15% is still something users will feel.
Also, for those considering whether this is a worthy upgrade from Zen+, you're doing it wrong. This is shaping up to be a worthy upgrade from anything but Zen+ instead. Zen+ -> Zen2 may be worth it for some, but I expect that scenario to be very situational.
Posted on Reply
#44
kings
The R5 3600 will sell like hotcakes.

In relation to the rumors, only the deluded ones wanted to believe in them!
Posted on Reply
#45
Crackong
kings
The R5 3600 will sell like hotcakes.

In relation to the rumors, only the deluded ones wanted to believe in them!
Can't wait to see

3600 vs 8700k or even 9700k
3700x vs 9900k
3900x vs 9900k
3900x vs 9920x
3900x vs 2920x
Posted on Reply
#46
Valantar
Crackong
If AMD did not lie on the r20 single threaded test, 4.5GHz 3800x is comparable to 5GHz 9900k single threaded.
So all core 4.5GHz = 9900k all core 5GHz
4.6GHz = 9900k 5.1GHz .

If 3800x going 5GHz, that will be = 9900k at 5.55 GHz
There are a few caveats here:
-Cinebench is a very specific workstation load. While it's an okay general predictor of overall performance, it's a poor predictor of some things (like gaming performance).
-Ryzen traditionally does well in Cinebench compared to Intel.
-Clock scaling is not necessarily linear.
-We don't know all-core turbo speeds of these new Ryzen chips. Though I'm hoping they're as high as it looks even with "normal" cooling. Nor do we know the power limits/cooling/BIOS settings of the demoed Intel chips, which can affect performance quite a lot.

Still, even if we give Ryzen a 10% advantage over Intel in Cinebench performance when compared to other tests, matching the 9900K at lower clocks is very impressive. It's hard to see how this would fail to come very, very close to it across the board.
Posted on Reply
#47
Mats
[ATTACH alt="1558949857042.png"]123841[/ATTACH]

Heatsinks included? ^
Posted on Reply
#48
oxidized
Tomorrow
Trolling again are we? No one even mentions adoredtv and you come in insulting people.
I never troll, i'm sorry if you think so. I'm 100% serious when i post on this forum, besides it's full of people who believed that guy's "leaks" more like speculations, because they're nothing else more than that, but the way they're being pushed towards people is what's infuriating
Posted on Reply
#49
P4-630
I'm seriously considering an AMD build as my next upgrade. (probably with nvidia graphics though, since nvidia is still king in perf/watt) Edit: I just read Navi RDNA 50% better perf/watt vs previous GCN...

Things looking better and better for AMD and for us.
Posted on Reply
#50
Crackong
Valantar
There are a few caveats here:
-Cinebench is a very specific workstation load. While it's an okay general predictor of overall performance, it's a poor predictor of some things (like gaming performance).
-Ryzen traditionally does well in Cinebench compared to Intel.
-Clock scaling is not necessarily linear.
-We don't know all-core turbo speeds of these new Ryzen chips. Though I'm hoping they're as high as it looks even with "normal" cooling. Nor do we know the power limits/cooling/BIOS settings of the demoed Intel chips, which can affect performance quite a lot.

Still, even if we give Ryzen a 10% advantage over Intel in Cinebench performance when compared to other tests, matching the 9900K at lower clocks is very impressive. It's hard to see how this would fail to come very, very close to it across the board.
Sure.
Some software are specifically optimized / poorly optimized for certain CPU type.
We all know Ryzen processors do well in Cinebench in multi threaded workload.
However matching Intel CPU in Cinebench in Single threaded test is something past generation Ryzen processors never achieved.

Of course, assuming these numbers on today's ppt are real.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment