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

#76
bug
EarthDog
They'll get it. Their bread and butter will be hex's and 3700/3800s.
Imho, market share comes from the ~$200 parts, plus whatever the OEMs decide to include in their cheaper builds.
Posted on Reply
#78
efikkan
Enterprise24

Gloating from the leakers' misfortune is not much better than what the "leakers" did by feeding us BS people wanted for months. Let's behave like adults and not be tempted to descend to their level.

And there is a lesson to be learned here. Whenever someone claims to know the final clocks and pricing several months ahead of release, you can know it's fake, because the bins are decided after the final stepping returns and then the final clocks and pricing are decided. And it doesn't matter if it's AMD, Intel or Nvidia. We heard the same kind of BS leading all the way up to the release of Turing too.
(P.S. there is nothing wrong in speculating as long as it's not claimed as fact)

I'm glad AMD at least published some specs to put an end to the extreme rumors. If expectations are too high, it will actually hurt them.

Pumper
3900X and 3800X both 105W TDP? How is that possible?
First of all, TDP is usually in steps, so two "105W" CPUs might have different consumption, even if it's the same brand.
Secondly, the top models will be based on higher binned chips.

Vlada011
Only more evidence that Intel need new architecture as AMD done with Zen, urgently, they have no time for waiting.
Ice Lake has been ready for almost two years. The lack of microarchitecture is not the problem, the lack of a suitable node is.

Octopuss
Telling us there is 15% IPC improvement, but meaning compared to Zen1, that's misleading as hell. What's the real IPC improvement over Zen+ then? 3%? Less?

I expected AMD to be better than Intel when it comes to "lying".
Zen(1) and Zen+ is so close that it shouldn't matter that much, the 3% gain of Zen+ was sort of a best case.
While I assume the "15%" claim is a bit of a best case, I hope it's not like when Intel says 15% and it really is more like 5%.
Posted on Reply
#79
B-Real
Enterprise24
AdoredTV.


If that's your only joy in this, have fun. :D Ah, I see, a blue-eyed fan here. Poor guy.


3700X = 9700K and 3800X = 9900K in gaming performance for $100 less and much less power consumption? Very nice.
Posted on Reply
#80
HD64G
I know that CB is the perfect program to judge even the gaming performance of a CPU for resolutions up to 1080P when doing the single-threaded test. And if Zen was weaker than Intel's offerings in both this and gaming, Zen2 is in front in CB's singlethread test, so... :slap: Anyway, in the now-known prices Zen2 CPUs will be selling more than any CPU family in the last 10 or more years. We should typically wait for reviews however. ;)
Posted on Reply
#81
Manu_PT
B-Real
If that's your only joy in this, have fun. :D Ah, I see, a blue-eyed fan here. Poor guy.


3700X = 9700K and 3800X = 9900K in gaming performance for $100 less and much less power consumption? Very nice.
Seen you posting this on several threads now, but... Does it? Do you have benchmark numbers? Because amd only compared their chips to their old ones, not to Intel ones in gaming...

HD64G
I know that CB is the perfect program to judge even the gaming performance of a CPU for resolutions up to 1080P when doing the single-threaded test. And if Zen was weaker than Intel's offerings in both this and gaming, Zen2 is in front in CB's singlethread test, so... :slap: Anyway, in the now-known prices Zen2 CPUs will be selling more than any CPU family in the last 10 or more years. We should typically wait for reviews however. ;)
That must be the reason why AMD only shown gaming comparasion graphs between Zen 2 and Zen+, no Intel chips. BEcause you have a faster or equal product, but you hide that info when promoting it right? /s
Posted on Reply
#82
Tomorrow
Manu_PT
That must be the reason why AMD only shown gaming comparasion graphs between Zen 2 and Zen+, no Intel chips. BEcause you have a faster or equal product, but you hide that info when promoting it right? /s
AMD did video demonstrations against 9700K in PUBG. Search the internet. While they did not produce graphs the info is out there.
Posted on Reply
#83
Manu_PT
Tomorrow
AMD did video demonstrations against 9700K in PUBG. Search the internet. While they did not produce graphs the info is out there.
Yeah, they picked the game that is poorly optimizied and won´t go past certain amount of fps no matter what you do (even at 480p low settings), but on the gaming graphs they compared their ZEn 2 to Zen+, no Intel CPUs there, wonder why.

I mean you guys still not learn after all these years I guess. After the ADoredTV fiasco confirmed in the last hours, you now believe that a company could have a beastly gaming CPU that was equa or better than their Rival, and they wouldn´t spam graphs about it while promoting their product. Come on.

They didn´t hesistate a single bit to put graphs about cinebench and other productivity taks vs Intel, do you really think if Zen 2 was better than Intel for gaming, they woudn´t spam graphs about it?
Posted on Reply
#84
Mistral
Pretty sweet. Though it looks to me that the sole purpose of the 3800X is to up-sell you to that 3900X beast...

Now I just wish for more mobos with heatpipes on them instead of fans.
Posted on Reply
#85
Valantar
RH92
Honestly im a bit disapointed by Zen 2 , not because of the leaks but because of product itself !

1) 15% IPC increase is good but peoples tend to forget that this is compared to Zen not Zen+ . On top of that we have still to wait for actual reviews to confirm those numbers .

2) 4,6Ghz is good and i know clockspeed is not everything but im not going to lie i was expecting more from a cutting edge process like 7nm ( considering 4,3Ghz is already possible on 12nm ) . Maybe there is some OC headroom but i doubt .

3) No improvement on core count for R3 R5 R7 , sure now you have a 12cores part but that's a new segment ( R9 ) .

4) The most important factor imo which contributes to the disapointement is that there is no real improvement on pricing either . Small chiplets should allow for much better yields thus better pricing compared to previous generations but that's not the case for R7 and R5 . On top of that 2000 series retail for dirty cheap nowadays making 3000 series pricing look even worst .



Don't get me wrong Ryzen 3000 series should be solid products considering Zen and Zen+ where already great but to my eyes AMD missed a gold opportunity to put the nails on Intels coffin by increasing core count and offering lower prices on all segments. Looks like AMD is going for the more conservative/safe approach along with bigger margins wich is far from ideal considering Intel will wake up sooner or later so AMD needs to create a gap before that happens instead of simply matching Intel !
1) True, but it's still a better single-gen increase than Intel has delivered since Sandy Bridge. Zen+ had 2-3% better IPC than Zen. 115/103=1,117, or still nearly 12% improved IPC over Zen+. It's not 15, but it's better than anything Intel has managed.
2) Why would 7nm deliver higher clock speeds? As with all process nodes like this, it's a mobile-first, low power process node. Getting it to 4,6GHz is quite impressive. I guess we'll see about OC headroom, but even 4.6 OOTB is excellent, as it will at least mean most chips can OC to all-core 4.6GHz (unless they already do so).
3) What does branding matter? Sub-$200 6c12t CPUs don't become any less impressive just because they're branded "5" instead of "3".
4) While I would love the previously rumored prices to be true, that was never realistic. However, your summary here is quite naive. Small chiplets are nice, but 7nm is a far more expensive process than 14nm - rumored to be about 2x$/area. In other words, the chiplets being smaller doesn't matter much - at least not for a while. Then there's the fact that these are now MCM products with a separate I/O die, meaning both a second (relatively large) 14nm die, plus the likely quite noticeable added cost of MCM packaging. As for EOL sales making the new chips look bad? That's ... kind of how clearance sales work. "Ignore the new stuff, this is good too, and look how cheap it is!" Besides, AMD's Ryzen prices have historically always dropped in the months following launch, so there's no reason to expect this not to happen this time around.
Manu_PT
It is clear that it still won´t beat Intel in gaming. They didn´t even bother to compare it to Intel on those scenarios, and considering Intel reaches 5ghz easily, I still think it will be the best option for gamers.

Also 95% of the motherboards have fans. From all the MSI models, only the 300€ one didn´t have a fan and that´s a huge price for a motherboard.

Tbh with it being 7nm, is rather unimpressive.
The chipset isn't 7nm, but 14. Also, it has PCIe 4.0. And 11W for the chipset is rather common, actually (a few years back we had chipsets far, far beyond this) - and can be passively cooled without issue. It seems AMD are being strict with OEMs in terms of maintaining chipset-connected PCIe transfer speeds, which is a good strategy.
Posted on Reply
#86
RH92
Valantar
1) True, but it's still a better single-gen increase than Intel has delivered since Sandy Bridge. Zen+ had 2-3% better IPC than Zen. 115/103=1,117, or still nearly 12% improved IPC over Zen+. It's not 15, but it's better than anything Intel has managed.
2) Why would 7nm deliver higher clock speeds? As with all process nodes like this, it's a mobile-first, low power process node. Getting it to 4,6GHz is quite impressive. I guess we'll see about OC headroom, but even 4.6 OOTB is excellent, as it will at least mean most chips can OC to all-core 4.6GHz (unless they already do so).
3) What does branding matter? Sub-$200 6c12t CPUs don't become any less impressive just because they're branded "5" instead of "3".
4) While I would love the previously rumored prices to be true, that was never realistic. However, your summary here is quite naive. Small chiplets are nice, but 7nm is a far more expensive process than 14nm - rumored to be about 2x$/area. In other words, the chiplets being smaller doesn't matter much - at least not for a while. Then there's the fact that these are now MCM products with a separate I/O die, meaning both a second (relatively large) 14nm die, plus the likely quite noticeable added cost of MCM packaging. As for EOL sales making the new chips look bad? That's ... kind of how clearance sales work. "Ignore the new stuff, this is good too, and look how cheap it is!" Besides, AMD's Ryzen prices have historically always dropped in the months following launch, so there's no reason to expect this not to happen this time around.
1) I wasn't really complaining about IPC , even 10% IPC gain would be good , stellar when compared to Intel , i was just saying we should wait for those numbers to be confirmed by 3rd party reviews .

2) Why would 7nm deliver higher clock speeds ? Maybe because it's manufacturer #TSMC has been advertising higher clock speeds ? As i said 4,6Ghz is decent but thats roughly + 300Mhz over what was possible with 12nm and 12nm brought around 300Mhz over 14nm , considering there is much bigger gap between TSMC 7nm and GF 12nm than between GF 12nm and 14nm one could reasonably expect a bit higher clocks especialy knowing that core count remained the same . Here again we have to wait and see if those clocks are achievable on all cores and how far they can be bushed if at all but yeah if Zen2 was able to boost at around 4,8Ghz that would had been sweet .

3) Well peoples didn't had to wait for Ryzen 3000 to have 6c12th at sub 200$ , thanks to Ryzen 1000 and 2000 series sub 200$ 6c/12th has been a reality since a long time now so i don't see whats so impressive about this . What i would had called impressive is to have 8c/16th at sub 200$ .

4) Of course 7nm costs more but saying chiplets smaller size doesn't matter much is a huge understatement because smaller size means much more working chips per wafer ( read final products per wafer ) wich compensates alot ( if not overcoming ) for the increased cost in manufacturing process , this is especialy true for higher core counts ( 16c , 32c , 64c etc ) i will give you that but still ! The logic here is that chiplets can truly help AMD to increase their margins on very high end and HTPC segments ( where they can afford to and where the real money is ) without any major impact on the final product price thus allowing them to reduce even further their margins on the mainstream segment where it will show more on the final product price . It would had been a win win situation for all segments but sadly on mainstream segment prices are not really going down . This being said don't get me wrong im not saying pricing is bad , and it will probably get better with time but imo they could had been a bit more aggressive .
Posted on Reply
#87
Enterprise24
B-Real
If that's your only joy in this, have fun. :D Ah, I see, a blue-eyed fan here. Poor guy.


3700X = 9700K and 3800X = 9900K in gaming performance for $100 less and much less power consumption? Very nice.
I am not talking anything bad about Ryzen and I agree that it is actually good. However I am amuse numerous time that poor AdoredTV try to predict something and he was wrong again and some people still believe him.
Try harder.
Posted on Reply
#88
ratirt
Enterprise24
I am not talking anything bad about Ryzen and I agree that it is actually good. However I am amuse numerous time that poor AdoredTV try to predict something and he was wrong again and some people still believe him.
Try harder.
He's not predicting :) Seriously where do you people get this stuff? maybe it will OC to 5Ghz. Maybe AMD wanted to release lower clocks and leave some fun for Oc'ing the CPU. We don't know that.
Since it is new processors which went through a lot of changes in comparison to precious two Zens.
Posted on Reply
#89
Octopuss
Zareek
You do understand that IPC is fluid from application to application, that presenting a 15% IPC increase across all scenarios is not an easy task to prove. What I got from the presentation was that in most scenarios they have been seeing at least a 15% single core IPC increase versus Zen+. Calling it lying insinuates that they presented concrete scientific information incorrectly in a dubious fashion. Presenting facts in terms is of the best case scenarios is called marketing. In my experience, the only tech company better at marketing than Intel is Apple.
Crackong
Zen+ vs Zen = 3% IPC increase
Zen2 vs Zen = 15% IPC increase

Zen2 vs Zen+ = 1.15 / 1.03 = 11.7% IPC increase.
R0H1T
It is 15% based on SPECint 2006, also what do you mean by lying?
Quoting DIRECTLY FROM TPU ARTICLE:
AMD claims an IPC increase of 15 percent over Zen 1

Any other questions?
Posted on Reply
#90
Prima.Vera
No 5Ghz turbo??? Ouch. They are going to loose big time on IPC starved apps and especially games....
Posted on Reply
#91
Crackong
Prima.Vera
No 5Ghz turbo??? Ouch. They are going to loose big time on IPC starved apps and especially games....
IPC = Instructions per Clock

15% IPC increase roughly means you can clock 15% lower while having the same performance.
So a 4.5 GHz Zen2 CPU roughly = 5.1 GHz even 5.3 GHz Zen CPU (Depends on using 4.5x1.15 or 4.5 / 0.85 for the equation.)

So imagine a 1800x clocked at 5GHz.
Posted on Reply
#92
kapone32
Zen 2 will be a game changer and everybody seems to think that it will have to hit 5.0 GHz to compete with Intel. The 1700 could compete with the 7700K in some games even though the 7700K enjoyed a 800Mhz clock speed advantage. The 2700 gets released and is 400MHZ faster than the 1700 at 4.3 GHZ and all 2nd gen parts could OC to 4 GHZ no problem. With the 3rd gen all of the other improvements will mitigate those chips to be much faster than 1st or 2nd gen. As it has been stated before a 15% increase in IPC is pretty serious improvement. Taking all of the data that is available tells me that the 3rd gen will be 25% better than the 1st gen. Intel comparison, the I7 7700K vs the 17 8086K actually there is no Intel skus to compare. This is unprecedented in terms of the computer power that AMD has made available to the consumer. My only fear is that the trend will continue where AMD parts are no longer value in Canada. The 2700x is still north of $400 CAD. The 3900x will likely be northof $700 at launch in Canada too.
Posted on Reply
#93
Prima.Vera
I wonder if the 3900X can go above 5Ghz without hassle. Naturally with standard cooling.
Posted on Reply
#94
Melvis
Octopuss
Quoting DIRECTLY FROM TPU ARTICLE:
AMD claims an IPC increase of 15 percent over Zen 1

Any other questions?
Im conflicted, I see both saying its over zen 1 and others saying its over Zen+ this 15% increased, like this part from the latest thread about gaming performance.

AMD's latest stab at Intel is the "Zen 2" microarchitecture at the heart of the new Ryzen 9 3900X 12-core/24-thread processor, leading a gaming-focused processor lineup that also includes the Ryzen 7 8-core/16-thread, and Ryzen 5 3600X 6-core/12-thread. These processors feature a 10% increase in clock-speeds, and a whopping 15 percent increase in IPC over the current "Zen+" The processors, when combined with motherboards based on the AMD X570 chipset, also put out a total of 40 PCI-Express gen 4.0 lanes. Unlike previous generations, much of AMD's engineering effort has been focused on shoring up gaming performance. The company is explicitly marketing these processors as "Gaming CPUs." The processors launch on the 7th of July.
Posted on Reply
#95
Octopuss
I have no idea. AMD says something, the article says something different, the forums say something inbetween, so I don't know what's true anymore.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment