AMD Readies "Zen 2" Based Ryzen 3 Quad-core AM4 Processors

[btarunr]

AMD is readying a new line of Ryzen 3 socket AM4 desktop processors to bolster its competitiveness against the upcoming 10th generation Core i3 processor family, according to OPN details unearthed by @momomo_us. The new line of processors are expected to be based on the "Matisse" MCM, configured with one "Zen 2" chiplet that has a quad-core CPU configuration. Within the chiplet, AMD appears to be achieving 4 cores by disabling one of the two CCXs completely, instead of taking the 2+2 core CCX configuration route. A single CCX with its 16 MB L3 cache, and 2 MB of L2 cache (4x 512 KB) add up to the processor's 18 MB "total cache."

Among the two SKUs existing are the Ryzen 3 3100 (OPN: 100-000000284) and the Ryzen 3 3300X (OPN: 100-000000159). Both are 4-core/8-thread parts with 18 MB total cache, and 65 W TDP. The 3100 is clocked up to 3.90 GHz, and the 3300X up to 4.30 GHz. It remains to be seen if AMD enables features like PCI-Express gen 4.0, and whether the 3100 has an unlocked multiplier. AMD's move to introduce Ryzen 3 "Matisse" parts appears to be necessitated by Intel's 10th gen Core i3. Intel is configuring its next value-segment chips to be 4-core/8-thread at price-points under $160. AMD has older generation Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 series parts at these prices, but is lacking on any current-gen product. One area where the 10th gen Core i3 one-ups Ryzen 3 "Matisse" is integrated graphics. Then again, Intel is likely to have "F" SKUs of Core i3 parts with disabled iGPUs, meant for gaming PCs. That's what AMD appears to be going after, to establish the next low-cost gaming PC king.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[kapone32]

Finally some nice affordable CPUs that I can use in system builds where the customer wants a Discrete GPU.

 

[Keullo-e]

Well, the Comedy Lake i3s are still just like i7 6700/7700 so these Ryzens offer something new instead of that same old Skylake with 14nm+++++++++ process.

 

[notb]

Well, the Comedy Lake i3s are still just like i7 6700/7700 so these Ryzens offer something new instead of that same old Skylake with 14nm+++++++++ process.

These new i3 will offer something Intel clients value highly: continuity. And probably the expected +10% performance.

AMD will get to that level at some point as their OEM portfolio grows. For now they're focused on these flashy campaigns when new product arrives - with nice slides and everything.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Am I the only one not allowed to write this or is "Thank you Intel" forbidden for everyone?

Obvious situation. AMD kept selling more expensive Ryzen 5 3600 for as long as they could.
OEMs said it's too expensive - AMD gave them 3500. China said it's too expensive - AMD gave them 3500X.
But you, my dear consumer European AMD fan, had to pay at least $200.

That's absolutely fine. Intel was delaying an answer, so that money was AMD's to earn.

You don't agree? Too personal?

These new i3 will offer something Intel clients value highly: continuity. And probably the expected +10% performance.

AMD will get to that level at some point as their OEM portfolio grows. For now they're focused on these flashy campaigns when new product arrives - with nice slides and everything.

+10% performance? What are you smoking? This is Skylake ++++, there's no meaningful difference in architecture. If intel was able to provide +10% performance they wouldnt be getting reamed by AMD in the DIY space.

 

[notb]

+10% performance? What are you smoking? This is Skylake ++++, there's no meaningful difference in architecture. If intel was able to provide +10% performance they wouldnt be getting reamed by AMD in the DIY space.

+10% using higher clocks and maybe some minor optimizations.

 

[Keullo-e]

This Skylake 5.0 doesn't have an improved IPC. It's like you said, with 14nm++++++++++++++++ they can have higher clocks.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Expect these in June, not July as I had been told before.

 

[notb]

This Skylake 5.0 doesn't have an improved IPC. It's like you said, with 14nm++++++++++++++++ they can have higher clocks.

More performance is more performance. This is not a product for people who spend weekends reading CPU reviews and analyzing IPC.

 

[Caring1]

More performance is more performance. This is not a product for people who spend weekends reading CPU reviews and analyzing IPC.

Or worrying about how they are going to afford the next electric bill.

 

[holyprof]

I can't see much sense selling those ... the APUs with similar configuration are much better suited for the 3 most probable clients of those low-end chips:

• Entry level gaming on very low budget - almost non-existent market, ppl low on money buy a cheap laptop;
• Home productivity - office, internet browsing - again, iGPU is a much better choice;
• Office computer - same as above.

The 3200G / 3400G make those useless, at similar price, and cheaper if you add the GPU to match.
Who will want to pair a 4core CPU with anything like GTX1650 or Radeon 580? One must instead invest in the platform and think of GPU upgrade later because GPUs age much faster. My old PC (i5-4690K) passed thru 3 GPUs (Radeon 7700 -> GTX960 -> GTX1080). If i did get a lower, slightly cheaper platform (say, dual core i3), save $50, but need a new platform 4 years earlier. Now i'm a happy R7 3700X owner, and plan to replace my 1080 with RTX4700 or whatever AMD launch 3-4 years from now.
Anything below R5 3500 should be with iGPU, as years of successful sales with Intel's i3 and i5 have shown (in prebuilt home / enterprise PCs).

 

[qcmadness]

They should instead focus on a smaller APU (e.g. native quad-core Zen 2 APU).

The 150 sq.mm. die size at 7nm is prohibitive as a low-cost solution.

 

[bencrutz]

+10% using higher clocks and maybe some minor optimizations.

don't forget to add another +10% for vulnerabilities mitigation

 

[8BitZ80]

18MB is a huge amount of cache for an entry-level processor. Rewind back four years ago and you'd be lucky to get that much cache on high-end Intel LGA2011 processors.

 

[notb]

Or worrying about how they are going to afford the next electric bill.

Actually, correct. People usually don't care about PC power consumption. We spend a lot of time discussing light bulbs and a lot of money on frugal LEDs. We don't think about most home appliances.

I bet you don't know how much power each of your home devices use - even though measuring all of them would probably take less time that you've already spent praising Zen efficiency on this forum.

As for the particular CPU issue. Let's assume:
- Intel will take 20W more under load,
- PC used 3h a day, full load,
- 0.35 USD/kWh (around what you'd pay in Germany - AFAIK the most expensive electricity among developed countries)

20*3*31*0.00035 ~= 0.7 USD per month

I can't see much sense selling those ... the APUs with similar configuration are much better suited for the 3 most probable clients of those low-end chips:

• Entry level gaming on very low budget - almost non-existent market, ppl low on money buy a cheap laptop;

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from.
Cheap gaming desktops (i3, Pentium) are very popular.

The other niches you've mentioned - like office and home casual computing - absolutely no point in buying a dGPU. APUs all the way. Of course as soon as AMD launches anything with more than 4 cores.

Who will want to pair a 4core CPU with anything like GTX1650 or Radeon 580? One must instead invest in the platform and think of GPU upgrade later because GPUs age much faster.

Simple. Someone who can't afford a more expensive GPU. Most of the planet isn't thinking about "upgrading" later on. They buy a cheap desktop that lasts them for 3+ years. They replace it.

As you can see I did use the word "invest". I despise how it's being used in this context.

 

[Elysium]

Or worrying about how they are going to afford the next electric bill.

If one's financial situation is such that they have to worry about their electric bill while building a PC, they should absolutely not bother in the first place and should probably stick to a laptop or [if gaming only] a console.

I can't see much sense selling those ... the APUs with similar configuration are much better suited for the 3 most probable clients of those low-end chips:

• Entry level gaming on very low budget - almost non-existent market, ppl low on money buy a cheap laptop;
• Home productivity - office, internet browsing - again, iGPU is a much better choice;
• Office computer - same as above.

The 3200G / 3400G make those useless, at similar price, and cheaper if you add the GPU to match.
Who will want to pair a 4core CPU with anything like GTX1650 or Radeon 580? One must instead invest in the platform and think of GPU upgrade later because GPUs age much faster. My old PC (i5-4690K) passed thru 3 GPUs (Radeon 7700 -> GTX960 -> GTX1080). If i did get a lower, slightly cheaper platform (say, dual core i3), save $50, but need a new platform 4 years earlier. Now i'm a happy R7 3700X owner, and plan to replace my 1080 with RTX4700 or whatever AMD launch 3-4 years from now.
Anything below R5 3500 should be with iGPU, as years of successful sales with Intel's i3 and i5 have shown (in prebuilt home / enterprise PCs).

This is an excellent point. But of course, we've been here before, when AMD tried selling specific chips by market rather than establishing a broader portfolio. I should also point out the case of the i3-8350K, which thanks to a bit of TDP headroom could OC to 5GHz all-core and made for one of the best budget gaming CPUs, at least when it was available at SEP. So in fact, a 4-core CPU is fine for a low-tier GPU pairing. I'm not convinced many individuals will buy it but if the bulk pricing is right on the 3300X, it could well be the next R5-1600 chip for commercial customers in terms of value : perf.

 

[notb]

If one's financial situation is such that they have to worry about their electric bill while building a PC, they should absolutely not bother in the first place and should probably stick to a laptop or [if gaming only] a console.

Desktops are cheaper than laptops.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Finally some nice affordable CPUs that I can use in system builds where the customer wants a Discrete GPU.

Uh...yeah.... that's called the 1600AF.
Quads need to die.

 

[kapone32]

Uh...yeah.... that's called the 1600AF.
Quads need to die.

The problem with that chip is that in Canada it is overpriced and ordering from Amazon.com makes it more expensive than the 2600. I honestly believe that a 4 core 8 thread Ryzen is enough for people who just intend on doing very light gaming but want to realize the benefits of NVME, DDR4 or higher IPC. I just put a build together with a B450 board that was $69.99, CPU for $74.99 and SSHD for $74.99. I have tons of RAM so that was already there and the PSU cost me $49.99. The boot drive is an Adata Sx8200 512GB NVME drive and mass storage is a 2TB HDD and both were lying around. Adding more Skus at the low end cannot but help the bottom line anyway. It is apparent that Ryzen has been a success and anything with Ryzen attached to it's name will sell. I would love a $99 Canadian like the R3 1300 but with updated 7nm lithography. It might actually have latency in some cases than other chips but I think that has been mentioned already.

 

[Chrispy_]

These need to be as cheap as a 3200G really, which sells for £75 because the Ryzen 5 2600 is still selling for £110-120 in most places and AMD is still producing the Ryzen 5 1600AF which is at about £100.

If I had to choose between a reduced-cache, single CCX quad-core that may or may not be unlocked or a proper Zen+ hexa-core that will run at 4GHz+ on even a cheap AM4 board, I think I'd rather go with the older tech. Quad cores have had their day and really only deserve a spot in ultra-budget desktops, or for ultra low-power laptops.

 

[kapone32]

These need to be as cheap as a 3200G really, which sells for £75 because the Ryzen 5 2600 is still selling for £110-120 in most places and AMD is still producing the Ryzen 5 1600AF which is at about £100.

If I had to choose between a reduced-cache, single CCX quad-core that may or may not be unlocked or a proper Zen+ hexa-core that will run at 4GHz+ on even a cheap AM4 board, I think I'd rather go with the older tech. Quad cores have had their day and really only deserve a spot in ultra-budget desktops, or for ultra low-power laptops.

I am thinking I would easily pay $55-65 US for a 4 core 8 thread Ryzen 7nm CPU.

 

[Dyatlov A]

Originally, (last summer) i wanted to wait for these 4 Core versions. Good I went with 6 Core, because I would still wait.

 

[Chrispy_]

I am thinking I would easily pay $55-65 US for a 4 core 8 thread Ryzen 7nm CPU.

Hopefully I'm right and they are cheaper than a 3200G, which is what, 100 bucks in the US? I doubt they'll be under $65 though. They're direct competition for the i3-9100F which doesn't have hyperthreading, so AMD will either use the extra 4 threads as leverage to charge as much as the 9100F ($90 ish) or push the price even higher to market it as a better product segment to the 4C/4T i3 and 3200G