Monday, August 26th 2019

AMD Ryzen 5 3500 to Lack SMT, Takes on Core i5-9400

As AMD's Ryzen 5 3500 processor is inching closer to launch, we learn more possible specifications of the chip AMD is designing to take on Intel's popular Core i5-9400/9400F processor. Late July, we learned that the chip will be a 6-core model, breaking away from convention set by past generations, of the x500 Ryzen SKU being 4-core/8-thread. Thai PC enthusiast TUM_APISAK, who has a fairly high hit-rate on unreleased products, predicts that the 3500 will be six-core, but lack SMT (it will be 6-core/6-thread).

The Ryzen 5 3500 will be clocked at 3.60 GHz nominal, with a boost frequency of 4.10 GHz. There's no word on other specs, such as L3 cache amount. A single "Zen 2" chiplet normally has 32 MB of it (16 MB per CCX). The main competitor from the Intel stable is the Core i5-9400 / i5-9400F, which ticks at 2.90 GHz with 4.10 GHz boost. The i5-9400F in particular has had a big impact in the sub-$200 segment, as it's been aggressively priced under promotions by various DIY retailers. The chip lacks an iGPU, but has the specs to pull a fairly powerful gaming PC. With the Ryzen 5 3600 at $199, AMD could price the new chip around $169-179.
Source: TUM_APISAK
Add your own comment

85 Comments on AMD Ryzen 5 3500 to Lack SMT, Takes on Core i5-9400

#26
dicktracy
A reminder that AMD can also milk if the opportunity presents itself.
Posted on Reply
#27
_Flare
The i5-9400F goes for 146,- Euro incl Tax and Shipping, here in Germany.
And its not easy to come around that chip with a Ryzen 3600 and i think a pricetag higher than 150,- for a 6C/6T Ryzen is too high.
Posted on Reply
#28
silentbogo
If the leak is correct, it's mean to replace cheap R5 1500/1500x which makes sense. 1st gen supply is running dry, 2000-series did not address that segment, and R5 3500 will provide just that.
Basically you lose about 40% relative performance by losing HT, but you gain 50% performance from 2 extra cores and another 10-15% on top of that from IPC. Also don't forget about tasty bonuses like higher base/boost and double L3. Perfect gaming CPU.
If AMD decides to price it lower than 9400F (e.g. in a ballpark of $120-140), then it's a no-brainer.
Posted on Reply
#29
Kohl Baas
Ummm... And what about stuff where Intel's platform is lacking compared to AMD's?

Like the number of PCIe lanes, or backward compatibility, or the fact of less security issues?

Aren't those worth a few $₤€?
Posted on Reply
#30
Reaperxvii
Turmania, post: 4104722, member: 182201"
Snip
I'm not sure I follow your logic, no one in their right mind would buy a high end x570 for a low end CPU. Buy a cheap f450 asus board, update their bios (super easy on asus) and voila you have a 130 mobo and 150 cpu. Or just dont buy it at all, save for the 3600 and buy it. Which makes way more sense to me.

Or go the used market and buy 2700x.

As for the "real devil" intel is doing "another" socket just to get 10 cores while amd is about to stick 16 cores on the same socket they've been using. So intel hands down my friend.
Posted on Reply
#31
Kohl Baas
Reaperxvii, post: 4104745, member: 189569"
I'm not sure I follow your logic, no one in their right mind would buy a high end x570 for a low end CPU. Buy a cheap f450 asus board, update their bios (super easy on asus) and voila you have a 130 mobo and 150 cpu. Or just dont buy it at all, save for the 3600 and buy it. Which makes way more sense to me.

Or go the used market and buy 2700x.

As for the "real devil" intel is doing "another" socket just to get 10 cores while amd is about to stick 16 cores on the same socket they've been using. So intel hands down my friend.
People are so used to Intel's newplatform new everything strategy, they forget about AMD's "3 year compatibility" promise. Not to mention, the cooler compatibility. AM4 changed a bore-offset thatwas in use since socekt 939. That was about 15 years with the same cooler if you wanted.
Posted on Reply
#32
lynx29
but the i5-9400f already beats ryzen 3600 at many games across the board... so... maybe AMD should invest in better gpu software engineers instead of doing stupid stuff like this. lot of rx 5700 owners are quite upset at the instability not being fixed...
Posted on Reply
#33
Mysteoa
lynx29, post: 4104755, member: 153071"
but the i5-9400f already beats ryzen 3600 at many games across the board... so... maybe AMD should invest in better gpu software engineers instead of doing stupid stuff like this. lot of rx 5700 owners are quite upset at the instability not being fixed...
What review did you read? I saw the opposite or at least I can say they are the same in performance.
Posted on Reply
#34
biffzinker
phanbuey, post: 4104702, member: 45008"
their whole selling point is you get more cores and more power than intel at the same/lower price.
I'd change that to "you get more cores and more performance than Intel at the same/lower price."
Posted on Reply
#35
Zubasa
lynx29, post: 4104755, member: 153071"
but the i5-9400f already beats ryzen 3600 at many games across the board... so... maybe AMD should invest in better gpu software engineers instead of doing stupid stuff like this. lot of rx 5700 owners are quite upset at the instability not being fixed...
Since when does CPU engineers knows how to do graphics and software engineering?
What does a CPU has to do with the programmers at RTG / former ATi?
Those are completely different things and RTG is in a separate office in Canada instead of the US.
Posted on Reply
#36
lynx29
Zubasa, post: 4104770, member: 30988"
Since when does CPU engineers knows how to do graphics and software engineering?
Those are completely different things and RTG is in a separate office in Canada instead of the US.
AMD is spending it's funds on certain areas more than others... they should instead be making Destiny 2 work better on Ryzen 3000 CPU's, it only works "ok" now... so maybe those engineers should be trying to figure that out instead of breaking their promised of no locked CPU's on threading... lol, that was the only thing they could hold over Intel's head for so long (we don't lock are threading like you do for price gouging...)

Mysteoa, post: 4104764, member: 136867"
What review did you read? I saw the opposite or at least I can say they are the same in performance.
youtube homie.
Posted on Reply
#37
brian111
lynx29, post: 4104772, member: 153071"
AMD is spending it's funds on certain areas more than others... they should instead be making Destiny 2 work better on Ryzen 3000 CPU's, it only works "ok" now... so maybe those engineers should be trying to figure that out instead of breaking their promised of no locked CPU's on threading... lol, that was the only thing they could hold over Intel's head for so long (we don't lock are threading like you do for price gouging...)
If they ever made that promise regarding SMT, they broke it right from the beginning with the 1300X and 1200 (not to mention the 2200G).
Posted on Reply
#38
Chloe Price
This is the first non-SMT 6c Ryzen?

If the price is fine, Intel is going to have an another emergency.
Posted on Reply
#39
john_
With the Ryzen 5 3600 at $199, AMD could price the new chip around $169-179.
Probably $149-$159. The lack of SMT is not something that could be priced only $20-$30. Also AMD keeps undercutting Intel, so it will offer something at probably a lower price compared to 9400F, especially if the 9400F sees too much push thought various promotions, as the article say.
Posted on Reply
#40
lynx29
brian111, post: 4104780, member: 101827"
If they ever made that promise regarding SMT, they broke it right from the beginning with the 1300X and 1200 (not to mention the 2200G).
I don't really count those as desktop gamer chips though, not many gamers play on a APU, that is a very niche market and separate from the desktop proper.
Posted on Reply
#41
TheinsanegamerN
this chip is very interesting to me. I dont use SMT, and mainly just play games. 6 cores is more then enough, and I was eyeing up the 3600 to replace my 1700. But if this is $50 cheaper, just without SMT, then that will seal the deal for me.

Now, if its missing l3 cache, or something similar, then perhaps not. But I hope it keeps 32MB of cache. Would be a day 1 purchase for me.

Raendor, post: 4104608, member: 164683"
9400F filled in that niche for a long while already. And it actually began with pretty identical 8400 even earlier. Without smt this 3500 is doa.
Why? You have 2 6 cores with SMT. Some of us just turn off SMT by default, so why pay for something you dont use?
Posted on Reply
#42
phanbuey
biffzinker, post: 4104768, member: 163731"
I'd change that to "you get more cores and more performance than Intel at the same/lower price."
yes but performance how? threads!

thread per thread, the 9xxx coffees are generally faster than zen 2 due to higher clocks and lower latency. So if your whole competitive advantage is threads... then why would you want to offer a thread limited product? in a space where $10-$15 in either direction and you have competitors that are either faster per thread (9400kf) or just much better at multitasking (r 7 2700)

On the surface i don't really get it - they know what they're doing obv, but i dont understand it.
Posted on Reply
#43
lynx29
TheinsanegamerN, post: 4104807, member: 127292"
this chip is very interesting to me. I dont use SMT, and mainly just play games. 6 cores is more then enough, and I was eyeing up the 3600 to replace my 1700. But if this is $50 cheaper, just without SMT, then that will seal the deal for me.

Now, if its missing l3 cache, or something similar, then perhaps not. But I hope it keeps 32MB of cache. Would be a day 1 purchase for me.

Why? You have 2 6 cores with SMT. Some of us just turn off SMT by default, so why pay for something you dont use?
SMT helps a lot in games like AC Odyssey, Far Cry New Dawn, etc. so...
Posted on Reply
#44
londiste
Chloe Price, post: 4104800, member: 123719"
If the price is fine, Intel is going to have an another emergency.
No, they won't. Intel can lower price of 9400F if need be and AMD has much lower margin in this niche.
9400f is the 6-core die - 149mm^2 at 14nm.
3500 is same Matisse - 75mm^2 CCD die plus 124mm^2 14/16nm IO die.
Posted on Reply
#45
phanbuey
londiste, post: 4104812, member: 169790"
No, they won't. Intel can lower price of 9400F if need be and AMD has much lower margin in this niche.
9400f is the 6-core die - 149mm^2 at 14nm.
3500 is same Matisse - 75mm^2 CCD die plus 124mm^2 14/16nm IO die.
https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-9th-gen-core-i5-9400f/p/N82E16819117981

^ 9400f is already selling @ $149 so ...

they're gonna have to sell at or most likely below that.

Zen also needs good ram to perform well, in the budget cpu/oem space ram is usually cheap and not so great; which is no big deal for a 9400f system.
Posted on Reply
#46
londiste
It depends on what AMD aims this at. I would not expect them to try and undercut Intel's 9400F with price. They need some OEM deals and a Ryzen 3000 at $€£150 price point and 3500 will give them exactly that. But of course, if they desperately want the market share at cost of margin, they can sell it for less.
Posted on Reply
#47
Chloe Price
londiste, post: 4104812, member: 169790"
No, they won't. Intel can lower price of 9400F if need be and AMD has much lower margin in this niche.
9400f is the 6-core die - 149mm^2 at 14nm.
3500 is same Matisse - 75mm^2 CCD die plus 124mm^2 14/16nm IO die.
Intel going to lower prices?

Yeah right, and I'm going to be the next president of USA..
Posted on Reply
#48
londiste
Chloe Price, post: 4104816, member: 123719"
Intel going to lower prices?
Yeah right, and I'm going to be the next president of USA..
It is popular to bash Intel but did you notice the slight price shift after Ryzen 3000 release? 9600K is now between 3600 and 3600X in price, similarly 9700K is between 3700X and 3800X and even 9900K is priced between 3800X and 3900X. This does not make these a good bang-per-buck but they are not priced out of the market any more either.
Posted on Reply
#49
Chloe Price
londiste, post: 4104820, member: 169790"
It is popular to bash Intel but did you notice the slight price shift after Ryzen 3000 release? 9600K is now between 3600 and 3600X in price, similarly 9700K is between 3700X and 3800X and even 9900K is prices between 3800X and 3900X. This does not make these a good bang-per-buck but they are not priced out of the market any more either.
Intel had to lower their prices. You're right, I hate Intel but before I had this R5 2600, I also had an Intel Core series CPUs many years.

But for us consumers, it's good to have competition, that makes them drop prices..
Posted on Reply
#50
Turmania
I have been a very hard critic of AMD lately but I think the CPU of the year came from them with Ryzen5 3600.ability to hit all cores constantly to 4.2 as advertised is a golden strike. On the other hand it should be lower price sits somewhere between i5 9500f and i5 9400f in performance. So should be around 175 USD.and you have to consider the rising costs of x570 system even a standard board costs around 250 USD and memory requirements for Ryzen are more pricier to perform well.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment