Friday, September 20th 2019

AMD Ryzen 5 3500X CPU Listed

AMD will soon launch its budget CPU offerings from Ryzen 3000 series of CPUs to continue the tradition of covering all market segments. Today, Ryzen 5 3500X CPU has appeared in listing at Chinese retailer called JD which showed off CPU's pricing information and specifications. Coming in with a price tag of 1099 yuan (around $155), newly listed Ryzen 5 3500X is supposed to be a higher clocked variant of unannounced Ryzen 5 3500 CPU.

Featuring six cores and six threads, this CPU seems to have similar specs as Ryzen 5 3600 with the only difference being the disabled SMT support and slightly lower boost speeds. It has a 3.6 GHz base and 4.1 GHz boost frequency, all while having TDP of 65 Watts. Amount of L3 cache stays the same as its bigger, SMT enabled, variant which features 32 MB of GameCache. Additionally, JD also included some graphs where Ryzen 5 3500X was compared to Intel's i5-9400F CPU at various games, using NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1660 graphics card. Bellow are the benchmarks comparing the two CPU offerings:
Source: JD
Add your own comment

57 Comments on AMD Ryzen 5 3500X CPU Listed

#1
RH92
Imo at this segment AMD looses any competitive advantage , i would rather go with a dirty cheap 2600 instead of this !
Posted on Reply
#2
spnidel
RH92
Imo at this segment AMD looses any competitive advantage , i would rather go with a dirty cheap 2600 instead of this !
yeah, looks like they're starting to get too comfortable with their competitiveness
Posted on Reply
#3
TheinsanegamerN
RH92
Imo at this segment AMD looses any competitive advantage , i would rather go with a dirty cheap 2600 instead of this !
Why? This chip will likely have identical performance to the 3600 in most applications (Meaning consistenly faster then a 2600), as SMT only helps in certian situations, and otherwise the chips have the same clock speed and cache.

Especially in games, the 3500x torpedoes the 3600 and 3600x's value, and puts enormous pressure on intel's more expensive parts.
Posted on Reply
#4
kapone32
I don't think it's matter of comfort but filling out the product stack with failed SMT chips.
Posted on Reply
#5
dj-electric
This kind of chip will lose to The i5s, and to the 2600s. This better be sub 179$. Hell, this better be sub 169$.
Posted on Reply
#6
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
kapone32
I don't think it's matter of comfort but filling out the product stack with failed SMT chips.
Make money not waste tbf
Posted on Reply
#7
TheinsanegamerN
dj-electric
This kind of chip will lose to The i5s, and to the 2600s. This better be sub 179$. Hell, this better be sub 169$.
Why would it lose when it has the same clock rate, core count, and cache of the 3600, and is only missing SMT, which many programs do not benefit from?

The 3500, sure, it will probably be noticeably slower, but the 3500x looks like a great performance chip for gaming.
Posted on Reply
#8
dj-electric
TheinsanegamerN
Why would it lose when it has the same clock rate, core count, and cache of the 3600, and is only missing SMT, which many programs do not benefit from?
SMT was that convincing advantage AMD always had with those hexa core chips compered to the relatively fast-at-gaming-but-not-much-else Core i5 CPUs. The 2600X with its better cooler, SMT and 149$ price tag will look alluring to those who don't like the fact the 3500 doesn't have it. This chip should cost no more than the 3400G IMO.
Posted on Reply
#9
R0H1T
dj-electric
This kind of chip will lose to The i5s, and to the 2600s. This better be sub 179$. Hell, this better be sub 169$.
It'll only lose to the unlocked i5 ~ which will also be more expensive.
Yes, better make it free instead :laugh:
dj-electric
SMT was that convincing advantage AMD always had with those hexa core chips compered to the relatively fast-at-gaming-but-not-much-else Core i5 CPUs. The 2600X with its better cooler, SMT and 149$ price tag will look alluring to those who don't like the fact the 3500 doesn't have it. This chip should cost no more than the 3400G IMO.
I'd say, as some others have pointed out ~ that chips with non functional SMT do have a place in the product stack, it's not like every SMT enabled chip coming out of TSMC will be faultless.
That's a separate market, as well as an entirely different chip.
Posted on Reply
#10
TheinsanegamerN
dj-electric
SMT was that convincing advantage AMD always had with those hexa core chips compered to the relatively fast-at-gaming-but-not-much-else Core i5 CPUs. The 2600X with its better cooler, SMT and 149$ price tag will look alluring to those who don't like the fact the 3500 doesn't have it. This chip should cost no more than the 3400G IMO.
Who was being convinced by SMT? That's like saying Hyperthreading was selling people on intel.

SMT is very situational, most software doesnt benefit from it. The 2600x is a previous gen part, and the 3600 is consistently faster thanks to Zen2, and the 3500x will likely retain the same performance advantage outside of Ubisoft games and the handful of benchmarks that enjoy SMT. The selling point of the 1600 was that it was a HEX CORE, i5s at the time were quad cores. Now that i5s are hex core, the advantage for AMD is performance in productivity software, not SMT. Without SMT AMD still trumps Intel in said benchmarks.
Posted on Reply
#11
Darksword
The 2600 can be had for $129.99. The 2600X can be had for $159.99.

Why would anyone buy a 3500X?
Posted on Reply
#12
silentbogo
RH92
Imo at this segment AMD looses any competitive advantage , i would rather go with a dirty cheap 2600 instead of this !
Depends on what you are buying it for. In multithreaded - maybe, but don't be so fast to jump to conclusions. R5 3500/3500X gives higher IPC and, according to these rumors, at least 200MHz higher base and boost clocks. No one knows exactly which clocks... supposedly 3.6 base 4.1 boost for both (but probably not, cause it's gonna be very weird).
Top it off with nearly double L3 for 3500x, and you have a recipe for a perfect gaming CPU. I think for a gaming PC either one of those will do much better than 2600 ATM.
Also note, that on these slides it's marketed for mainstream and esports. Most of these titles are scaling well with CPU clock speed, but don't really care about all of those extra threads or even physical cores. Even the latest and heaviest Apex Legends don't scale past 6c/6t at all.
Posted on Reply
#13
TheinsanegamerN
Darksword
The 2600 can be had for $129.99. The 2600X can be had for $159.99.

Why would anyone buy a 3500X?
Because a 3500x is a 3600 without SMT, and thus, in most software and games, will still be faster then any 2000 series chip. Not to mention the stock of 2000 series chips is finite, AMD isnt making them anymore, once they are gone, they're gone.

Better question, why would you spend $10 less on a previous generation that is consistenly slower then the low end for the current generation? If you really dont need that CPU power, why wouldn't you spend even less on a 1600 chip or a FX series chip for half the price instead of a $159 2000 series?
Posted on Reply
#14
kings
The 9400F sells for 140€ in most european stores, this 3500 has to be around these values.

The problem is, price by price and cores by cores, most of the people end up choosing Intel. One of the advantages of Ryzen is precisely that they have more cores/threads for the same or lower cost!
Posted on Reply
#15
yeeeeman
I think these will sell well. 3500x for 150$ and 3500 for 130$ is what I expect. For those who say 2600x is a better buy I will only say that the ipc is worth the difference. There is also a matter of efficiency, this will stay cool and quiet in small cases. These will also trump what Intel has at this price point since they are also locked, so they lose the frequency advantage. So yeah, I think they will sell well.
Posted on Reply
#16
B-Real
RH92
Imo at this segment AMD looses any competitive advantage , i would rather go with a dirty cheap 2600 instead of this !
The 3500X will be 10-15% faster in games and be around the 2600 in applications.
spnidel
yeah, looks like they're starting to get too comfortable with their competitiveness
Why do you think that? lol
Darksword
The 2600 can be had for $129.99. The 2600X can be had for $159.99.

Why would anyone buy a 3500X?
Why would anyone buy a 9900K instead of a 3900X or a 3700X?
Posted on Reply
#17
GoldenX
Funny how the i5 was always considered the best option for gaming, but this 3500X is "DOA".
Give me a cheap hexa-core all day.
Posted on Reply
#18
Joss
I think a $150 six cores/six threads makes sense for a cheap all-purpose build.
And it would be a very capable machine for years to come.
Posted on Reply
#19
killster1
i havnt had any issues with AMD but i sure see alot of other people with them, if this chip was 100-120$ maybe id consider otherwise why bother? i bought a 3600 for 180 came with a crappy cooler so i guess that was a plus that it came with anything at all, to bad to lazy to use a big tower coole
B-Real
The 3500X will be 10-15% faster in games and be around the 2600 in applications.

Why do you think that? lol

Why would anyone buy a 9900K instead of a 3900X or a 3700X?
because intel works and doenst have all these issues like amd, you must have your eyes shut to all the people with loads of constant issues, the 9900k is not expensive at all being 420ish and the boot times for intel are also better.
If the 3500x was 150 with a decent cooler maybe id risk getting it, i havnt had issues with 3600/x470 asrock tachi ultimate but who knows as i dont use it very much, my workstation is a 9900k and never has issues except being a power hog.
Posted on Reply
#20
IceShroom
Poor AMD. Should have released those Ryzen 5 3500/X with 4C/8T than 6C/6T, like they predecessor Ryzen 5 2500X/1500X/1400.
Posted on Reply
#21
Xuper
hmm , Game Cache ! , 32mb vs 9 mb
I wonder what app gets benefit from game cache.
Posted on Reply
#22
Steevo
dj-electric
This kind of chip will lose to The i5s, and to the 2600s. This better be sub 179$. Hell, this better be sub 169$.
It said 155.... So
Posted on Reply
#23
JAB Creations
This thread has two types thus far: the logical who comprehend that a business needs to sell products and petty tyrants who think they're gods.

I think it's a good move, I'm sure that not all the silicone has gone without errors in the SMT areas of the chips. I'd rather see people rely on these than Celerons any day!
Posted on Reply
#24
RH92
TheinsanegamerN
Why? This chip will likely have identical performance to the 3600 in most applications (Meaning consistenly faster then a 2600), as SMT only helps in certian situations, and otherwise the chips have the same clock speed and cache.

Especially in games, the 3500x torpedoes the 3600 and 3600x's value, and puts enormous pressure on intel's more expensive parts.
Why ? Well because if you are going for pure gaming the i5 is probably a better option , and for those who do more than simply gaming SMT is a huge advantage therefore 2600 represents a much better value especially considering the crazy low price zen+ chips are selling for !

In other words you have better options for pure gaming and better options for multitasking than the 3500/X .

B-Real
The 3500X will be 10-15% faster in games and be around the 2600 in applications.
What do you mean applications ? If by applications you mean productivity workloads then you are dreaming if you think 3500x is going to be close to the 2600X !

TheinsanegamerN
Now that i5s are hex core, the advantage for AMD is performance in productivity software, not SMT.
You are contradicting yourself big time there !

If the advantage for AMD is perf in productivity then how can SMT not be the key factor considering it's precisely SMT that gives this advantage to AMD chips compared to non MT Intel chips ?
Posted on Reply
#25
Bones
I woudn't be suprised at all if one of these turns out to be similar to what the i5's have been for gaming vs the i7's.
Related to a bang for the buck investment, I don't see these as being a bad - Would probrably be an excellent value in the end.

However it's still too early to really know, I'll reserve final judgement for when they are released and in the hands of folks like us.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment