Monday, January 13th 2020

AMD Rolls Out Athlon 3000 Gold and Silver "Zen" 15W Mobile SoCs

The "Zen 2" based Ryzen 4000-series mobile processors and Threadripper 3990X HEDT chip dominated headlines throughout AMD's CES 2020 event, but an important product announcement slipped past us: the mobile Athlon 3000 Gold and 3000 Silver families of entry-level mobile SoCs. These are 15-Watt SoCs targeting low-cost ultraportables, convertibles, and straight up Windows x64 tablets, competing against Intel's Pentium Gold 5000U "Whiskey Lake" and Pentium Silver "Gemini Lake Refresh" series. The family currently only consists of two SKUs, the Athlon Gold 3150U and Athlon Silver 3050U.

The two chips are based on the "Dali" silicon, and feature "Zen" CPU cores. The Athlon Gold 3150U features a 2-core/4-thread "Zen" CPU clocked at 2.40 GHz with 3.30 GHz boost. The Athlon Silver 3050U, on the other hand, is configured with a 2-core/2-thread CPU clocked at 2.30 GHz with 3.20 GHz boost. The CPUs on both models is configured with 4 MB of L3 cache, which takes their "total cache" (L2 + L3) figure up to 5 MB. The iGPU on the 3150U is a Radeon Vega 3 with 192 stream processors, clocked at 1.00 GHz. The one on the 3050U, is AMD's smallest, with just 2 compute units, working up to 128 stream processors, but the engine clock is set at 1.10 GHz.
Add your own comment

49 Comments on AMD Rolls Out Athlon 3000 Gold and Silver "Zen" 15W Mobile SoCs

#1
TheLostSwede
Why is it AMD has to copy Intel's model naming language?
C'mon, this is just lame AMD.
Also, this seems way under powered these days, but I guess AMD wants to compete on the low-end of the market too.
Posted on Reply
#2
Unregistered
TheLostSwede
Why is it AMD has to copy Intel's model naming language?
C'mon, this is just lame AMD.
Also, this seems way under powered these days, but I guess AMD wants to compete on the low-end of the market too.
Under powered for what exactly? These aren't for anything high end but will be fine for entry level notebooks and the likes, will still run full windows home 10, office, Web browsing and video with relative ease, also I have no issue with the naming scheme as the u denotes ultra low power, so yes same as Intel but at least consumers know what they're comparing to imo
#3
Lionheart
Agreed on the dual cores... quad cores with SMT/HT should be the minimum by todays standards.
Posted on Reply
#4
notb
Lionheart
Agreed on the dual cores... quad cores with SMT/HT should be the minimum by todays standards.
Says who? Gamers?

These are aimed at cheap notebooks and mini PCs.
Posted on Reply
#5
R0H1T
notb
Says who? Gamers?

These are aimed at cheap notebooks and mini PCs.
Says everyone who knows how this works, unless the HT or SMT isn't working on these chips there's really no way they should be on the market. They help no one especially the low(er) end consumer who has a bad (user) experience with these machines! Also many of these products are paired with el cheapo 5400 rpm HDD :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#6
Mats
Lionheart
Agreed on the dual cores... quad cores with SMT/HT should be the minimum by todays standards.
As if you know better than AMD.. :D
Just as hilarious as every time a new GPU is launched. "This successor to the GTX 1060 should cost $150, because I say so."
Or you know nothing about the budget options of the mobile CPU's throughout the years.

15 W 4C CPU's was unheard of until 2017, and still not in any Core i3 laptops. We all know AMD is aiming higher with the new Ryzen 3 starting at 4C4T, but they still need something lower priced than that.
Posted on Reply
#7
m4dn355
Naming schemes should not include competitor's language or prefix.
Let's say Athlon Diamond or
R10 3900x
R10 3950x Clearly superior products so create class of your own.
AMD is not the underdog anymore so one would expect better naming approach. Just my 5 cents. . .
Posted on Reply
#8
Mats
R0H1T
Says everyone who knows how this works, unless the HT or SMT isn't working on these chips there's really no way they should be on the market. They help no one especially the low(er) end consumer who has a bad (user) experience with these machines! Also many of these products are paired with el cheapo 5400 rpm HDD :shadedshu:
This is not an argument for AMD, or Intel. It's called low end parts.
Posted on Reply
#9
R0H1T
Yes there is, I'd say if you're making the user experience (arguably) bad with these parts then you shouldn't be selling them anywhere else except say educational institutes or programs which rely on (govt) subsidized hardware.

Generally speaking consumers who buy this don't know what they're getting into, especially the part about HDD ~ they ought to be banned from this segment altogether!
Posted on Reply
#10
Mats
m4dn355
Naming schemes should not include competitor's language or prefix.
Let's say Athlon Diamond or
R10 3900x
R10 3950x Clearly superior products so create class of your own.
AMD is not the underdog anymore so one would expect better naming approach. Just my 5 cents. . .
Intel found out that people thought the "2" in Core 2 Duo was about core count.
I think that's why they implemented i3, i5, i7, i9, because odd numbers were less likely to be confused with core count, and obviously AMD followed suit.
R0H1T
Yes there is,
You know you're wrong, and the proof is in the OP. AMD obviously did the opposite of what you think they're doing, or should do.

If Intels Core i3 has 2 cores, why on earth should the competitor to the lower end Pentium, the Athlon, have 4 cores? It would only cannibalize the Ryzen 3 sales (4C4T).
Posted on Reply
#11
Vya Domus
Death to all dual-cores, they are absolutely revolting in this day and age.
Posted on Reply
#12
R0H1T
I'm talking about the overall user experience. Lower end parts such as these obviously have a market & forever will, but restricting them to a market segment where the users aren't affected much by the rest of the system would be ideal IMO. I'd definitely don't want my parents or grandparents (if they were alive) to buy these.
Posted on Reply
#13
Unregistered
My son has one the the 15w athlon 2c4t 13" small laptop bought by his grandparents for Christmas and it came with an small 240gb ssd (no 5.4k hdd here) and 8gb it's more than perfectly capable for his needs and he even does some light gaming on it with my steam account access using the vega 3 igp, for under $200 it's fine and you can't complain of the performance at that price.
#14
ET3D
TheLostSwede
Why is it AMD has to copy Intel's model naming language?
I'd say that AMD is copying Intel naming because OEMs are used to it. It tells OEMs which AMD products to put against the Intel ones.
Posted on Reply
#15
medi01
There is something weird with both manufacturers calling low end chips "Gold".
TheLostSwede
Why is it AMD has to copy Intel's model naming language?
C'mon, this is just lame AMD.
Isn't it easier for end users, at the end of the day?
Posted on Reply
#16
TheLostSwede
r9370
Under powered for what exactly? These aren't for anything high end but will be fine for entry level notebooks and the likes, will still run full windows home 10, office, Web browsing and video with relative ease, also I have no issue with the naming scheme as the u denotes ultra low power, so yes same as Intel but at least consumers know what they're comparing to imo
Considering how AMD has pushed the core count up significantly in the desktop space, this does feel very under powered, even for an entry-level notebook. I have a five year old dual core Core i5 notebook and yes, it's fine for word processing and web browsing, but any time I want to do something a bit more demanding, like throwing up some 3D models on it or doing some photo editing, it nearly grinds to a halt. I wouldn't even consider buying a new dual core notebook, regardless of who's CPU is in it. I even got my old man a quad core notebook and he noticed the difference in performance over his previous dual core notebook. He knows next to nothing about computers and he's in his 80's.
Posted on Reply
#17
Crackong
Lionheart
Agreed on the dual cores... quad cores with SMT/HT should be the minimum by todays standards.
sub $400 laptops need these dual cores.
Posted on Reply
#18
holyprof
I have a 2C/4T second-gen i5 laptop. After upgrading the HDD with a fast SSD and the RAM from 4 to 8GB, it's perfectly capable of anytinhg I throw at it (image and video editing, light gaming). Of course for heavy loads (long HD videos and demanding games) I use my Ryzen 3700X + GTX 1080 desktop.

So, for ENTRY-level mini-laptops, a modern ryzen-based 2C/4T should be more than enough and help lower the prices for poor people and education entities. Noone is going to "play Crysys" or do scientific calculations on them.

I agree on the "lame naming scheme" though. It all started when Intel called their harvested junk CPUs "Celeron" which means "speedy" - a lame name for the slowest CPU in their lineup.
Posted on Reply
#19
Logoffon
In regards to the "AMD copies Intel's naming convention" controversy here...

Is AMD going to release EPYC Platinum 7H73?
Posted on Reply
#20
Unregistered
TheLostSwede
Considering how AMD has pushed the core count up significantly in the desktop space, this does feel very under powered, even for an entry-level notebook. I have a five year old dual core Core i5 notebook and yes, it's fine for word processing and web browsing, but any time I want to do something a bit more demanding, like throwing up some 3D models on it or doing some photo editing, it nearly grinds to a halt. I wouldn't even consider buying a new dual core notebook, regardless of who's CPU is in it. I even got my old man a quad core notebook and he noticed the difference in performance over his previous dual core notebook. He knows next to nothing about computers and he's in his 80's.
They have up to 8c/16t in the mobile cpu lineup these are just the bottom of the barrel, entry level.

That's what ryzen 4000 is, high end mobile up to 8c/16t
#21
Mats
R0H1T
I'm talking about the overall user experience. Lower end parts such as these obviously have a market & forever will, but restricting them to a market segment where the users aren't affected much by the rest of the system would be ideal IMO. I'd definitely don't want my parents or grandparents (if they were alive) to buy these.
I'm not saying you're wrong there, but that's not the topic here. There will always be low end parts whether you like it or not.

I'm baffled that people here give it that much bashing. The real annoyance on the market is all the CPU's that are based something simpler than Core/Ryzen dies.

I'm talking about anything Pentium Silver/Celeron/Atom Jxxxx/Nxxxx/Zxxxx, and old AMD E series, now that's some proper crap! :D

For instance, I helped my brother buy a budget laptop for €400 a few years ago, with Core i3, SSD, and 1080 IPS screen, nice bang for buck.
However, the same store was selling laptops that looked identical, but they had some crappy Celeon Nxxxx for €370, that's less than a 10 % difference in price.. :banghead:
Posted on Reply
#22
TheLostSwede
r9370
They have up to 8c/16t in the mobile cpu lineup these are just the bottom of the barrel, entry level.

That's what ryzen 4000 is, high end mobile up to 8c/16t
Really? :rolleyes:
I think you missed my point. Why would anyone sane buy a two core notebook these days when quad core notebooks cost almost the same?
Posted on Reply
#23
Mats
TheLostSwede
Really? :rolleyes:
I think you missed my point. Why would anyone sane buy a two core notebook these days when quad core notebooks cost almost the same?
You can be sane and still be clueless when it comes to computers, or pretty much anything else. Otherwise, 80 % of all my friends are insane.. ;)
Posted on Reply
#24
TheLostSwede
Mats
I'm not saying you're wrong there, but that's not the topic here. There will always be low end parts whether you like it or not.

I'm baffled that people here give it that much bashing. The real annoyance on the market is all the CPU's that are based something simpler than Core/Ryzen dies.

I'm talking about anything Pentium Silver/Celeron/Atom Jxxxx/Nxxxx/Zxxxx, and old AMD E series, now that's some proper crap! :D

For instance, I helped my brother buy a budget laptop for €400 a few years ago, with Core i3, SSD, and 1080 IPS screen, nice bang for buck.
However, the same store was selling laptops that looked identical, but they had some crappy Celeon Nxxxx for €370, that's less than a 10 % difference in price.. :banghead:
Seen that when I was shopping around for my old mans laptop. Tons of real bottom of the barrel CPUs in laptops that costs almost as much as the Core i5-8250 that's in the one I got him. Makes no sense at all.
Weirdly enough, very few of those for sale in Taiwan, where people earn a lot less than in Europe.
Posted on Reply
#25
Mats
TheLostSwede
Why would anyone sane buy a two core notebook these days when quad core notebooks cost almost the same?
I have to rephrase: That's not what I see in here in sweden.
Cheapest Core i3: 3000 sek
Cheapest 4C Core i5: 5500 sek

The difference with Ryzen laptops is much smaller tho, 4200/4700 sek.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment