• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD to Release Ryzen 7 3750X Processor?

Raevenlord

Raevenlord

News Editor
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
3,755 (1.18/day)
Location
Portugal
System Specs
System Name The Ryzening
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
Motherboard MSI X570 MAG TOMAHAWK
Cooling Lian Li Galahad 360mm AIO
Memory 32 GB G.Skill Trident Z F4-3733 (4x 8 GB)
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 3070 Ti
Storage Boot: Transcend MTE220S 2TB, Kintson A2000 1TB, Seagate Firewolf Pro 14 TB
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG270UP (1440p 144 Hz IPS)
Case Lian Li O11DX Dynamic White
Audio Device(s) iFi Audio Zen DAC
Power Supply Seasonic Focus+ 750 W
Mouse Cooler Master Masterkeys Lite L
Keyboard Cooler Master Masterkeys Lite L
Software Windows 10 x64
AMD's latest Product Master guide (since taken down but immortalized in the interweb) has a surprise in store for AMD's Ryzen 7 desktop CPU lineup. Sandwiched in-between the Ryzen 7 3700X and the Ryzen 7 3800X, a new entry has reared its head, in the form of the Ryzen 7 3750X. The new CPU is specified to keep the same 105 W TDP of its elder sibling Ryzen 7 3800X, instead of keeping the Ryzen 7 3700X's 65 W TDP. Technically, this is possible to achieve in both pricing and performance: the Ryzen 7 3750X, if it ever is launched (it could be a specific release for system integrators or other interested parties outside the usual mainstream desktop suspects) could sport increased base clocks compared to the Ryzen 7 3700X's 3.6 GHz base / 4.4 GHz boost clocks... But not easily, considering the Ryzen 7 3800X starts at 3.9 GHz base / 4.5 GHz boost. It's possible to release the 3750X with a 200 MHz boost on base clocks and the same 4.4 GHz boost, but does it make any sense to do so?

It could - even if with some forced optimism - should AMD price it closer to the Ryzen 7 3700X than to the Ryzen 7 3800X. The $329 and $399 prices for those CPUs, respectively, leave a gap that could be filled by the Ryzen 7 3750X at around the $349 mark, for example. It's likely most users would be making the jump from the 65 W CPU than dropping less cash compared to the 3800X, so AMD's margins per sale would definitely improve. At the same time, this could be a way for AMD to cope with TSMC's 7 nm increase in lead-times and lower availability of CPUs by moving stock from the 65 W CPU to the pricier 3750X in parts that can actually run at those frequencies. Driving their lineup's ASP up ensures AMD can keep a steady stream of income should availability decline - less parts sold at a greater price can shore up some of the lost cash influx.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
There's already almost no performance difference between 3700X and 3800X. Would this be yet another processor that performs the same? Would it replace the 3800X? Seriously, all of the reviews show that there isn't even much of a power difference between the two at present. I think all this product is going to do is confuse people. If they really want, they should release another 8 core 16 thread with the 3900X top frequencies and drop the price of the 3800X to where they want this product to live.
 
It sounds like a cpu that doesnt fit the requirements of a 3800 but is better than a 3700.
 
Makes more sense as a low-clocked 12-core chip. It's a way for AMD to sell underperforming (can't do 3.8 GHz to be sold as a 3600X) 6-functional-core chiplets at a premium.
 
As said in the article, this is a move to increase margins as supply decreases not a move to fill a performance tier.
 
3700X Super Ti Ultra
 
It'll be really weird if this turns out to be an 8-core between existing CPUs.
10 cores would make way more sense.

I mean: what would be the point of another 8 core? Earnings? If they want higher margins, they can just raise 3700X's MSRP. AMD fans will forgive them.
 
Why....there are too many skews already...
 
My wallet is ready. Nvm, I thought the 3800X was the 3900X, so in my head I was thinking the 3750X would have been a twelve core part with 3700X clocks. As the article reads a 3750X that is essentially a 3800X with lower clocks doesn't make any sense at all as the 3800x is found frequently on sale for $349-$369 more often than at retail price. To me it seems like they're having trouble moving 3800Xs.

ShurikN said:
3700X Super Ti Ultra
Click to expand...

You forgot the '+'
 
Last edited:
its good that amd has quite a few product lines for consumers, but i think the performance upgrade for each cpu is quite minimal
i mean from 3700x to 3800x is not exactly enough for the substantial price increase. 3% speed increase for a 20-25% price increase
 
Hyderz said:
its good that amd has quite a few product lines for consumers, but i think the performance upgrade for each cpu is quite minimal
i mean from 3700x to 3800x is not exactly enough for the substantial price increase. 3% speed increase for a 20-25% price increase
Click to expand...
This could simply be an OEM only part, who knows?
 
Darksword said:
That's some top-notch detective work right there.
Click to expand...
you could even say "inb4u slow poke" :p

It a prime example of left over binning, the mix and match of flawed chips.
 
pay more money for bigger number without meaningful performance difference, wow how innovative
 
3700x/3800x is an 8c with a single 8c ccx, the rumored 3750x could have two 4c ccx instead of the single 8ccx. Since the ccx has 2 cores that can oc the best and 2 core that can oc better than others but a bit less than the best 2, AMD could do that with the 3750x, 4c with best cores in one ccx and the same in the other ccx.
 
mosin40 said:
3700x/3800x is an 8c with a single 8c ccx, the rumored 3750x could have two 4c ccx instead of the single 8ccx. Since the ccx has 2 cores that can oc the best and 2 core that can oc better than others but a bit less than the best 2, AMD could do that with the 3750x, 4c with best cores in one ccx and the same in the other ccx.
Click to expand...
Man... have you read this before posting?

Going for 2 CCX dies would mean extra latency compared to 3700X - resulting in a CPU that's slower at the same clocks.
As for possibility of better OC: it's plausible because of the larger area (lower concentration => easier heat dissipation).
But that seems like a weird choice anyway.

If AMD has a lot of dies with just 4 cores functioning, and considering the abysmal supply of 3900X, why not make a 3899X (8+4)? 3900X Asymmetrical Edition?
 
Nordic said:
As said in the article, this is a move to increase margins as supply decreases not a move to fill a performance tier.
Click to expand...
That's a smart move actually.
 
Super XP said:
That's a smart move actually.
Click to expand...
I was trying to point out that people were responding to the title without reading the post but I guess it wasn't blunt enough. The move does make sense
 
I have a 3800X; but, I am starting to believe it is a 3750X. when running RealBench or CB, my processor cores max out at 41.3 and thats it; but, the top freq's for 5 cores (with a mixed load) is 45.3. The point I'm making is that I am reading users of this device are reaching 42.3 or 42.8 and higher on all core workloads.
3800X users, does this sound correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top