Speculation: Ryzen 3000 series

Page 49 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

What will Ryzen 3000 for AM4 look like?


  • Total voters
    206

Spartak

Senior member
Jul 4, 2015
287
131
86
I think the moderator is confusing this speculation thread (see the title) with that other thread where the technical aspects are being discussed. This is the place where people like to believe in fairytales.

Best one cannot be discussed anymore, bummer!


You have an issue with moderation?
Make an MD thread. Not in this thread

esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CHADBOGA

Golden Member
Mar 31, 2009
1,795
63
136
Expectation:

Ryzen 3 3200G - 4C/4T - $99

Ryzen 3 3400G - 4C/8T - $149

Ryzen 5 3600 - 6C/12T - $199

Ryzen 5 3600X - 6C/12T - $229

Ryzen 7 3700 - 8C/16T - $299

Ryzen 7 3700X - 8C/16T - $329

Ryzen 9 3800 - 12C/24T - $499

Ryzen 9 3800X - 12C/24T - $529

Ryzen 9 3900 - 16C/32T - $699

Ryzen 9 3900X - 16C/32T - $729
I could quibble with some of the prices you have listed, but on the whole, I think that is a good estimation.

Both AMD and Intel will be capacity constrained for the next 12 - 18 months, so AMD will sell everything they can get TSMC to make.

It would be insane for them at this time to be offering up their CPU's at bargain basement prices, especially when they will be replacing a number of CPU's with ones that are probably 20+% faster per core, due to IPC & clockspeed improvements.
 
Mar 30, 2013
67
10
91
Expectation:
Ryzen 9 3800 - 12C/24T - $499
Ryzen 9 3800X - 12C/24T - $529
Ryzen 9 3900 - 16C/32T - $699
Ryzen 9 3900X - 16C/32T - $729
The 8 core and under prices seem market reasonable but your price speculation above that makes no sense. Adding one additional 8 core chiplet wouldnt cost more as the whole 8 cpu. 299 vs 699. I would expect to see the base 12 core at 400-450 and the base 16 at 600 or less. Also I'm not convinced we see a 16 core on AM4 this year. 8 core die scarcity and TR platform competition make it questionable.
 

Mockingbird

Senior member
Feb 12, 2017
733
449
106
The 8 core and under prices seem market reasonable but your price speculation above that makes no sense. Adding one additional 8 core chiplet wouldnt cost more as the whole 8 cpu. 299 vs 699. I would expect to see the base 12 core at 400-450 and the base 16 at 600 or less. Also I'm not convinced we see a 16 core on AM4 this year. 8 core die scarcity and TR platform competition make it questionable.
AMD always price its processors relative to Intel's pricing.

So, at the same price, the Ryzen 9 3800 offers 50% more cores/threads compare to the Core i9-9900K

Since this is the enthusiasts' segment, AMD can charge more (higher profit margins).

Threadripper is for professionals who probably need more PCIe lanes, quad-channel memory.
 
Last edited:

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,259
94
106
I can see a few reasons for a few things.

AMD is most likely putting most chip/lets to their servers. They won a few big builds Corona/Baidu/HLRS/Atos and no doubt the best will end up there.

To make inroads, their workstations will attempt to undercut Intel at every level. This shifts the cost per core downward. Current Threadripper pricing has shifted down to the point where many top segments can be seen at almost half the price.

The same can be said for the mainstream Ryzen processors. What once was $500 has fallen respectively as fast. Sure they are clearing first generation product but seeing 8 core 1700 well below 200 weighs down the value of everything.

I highly doubt AMD is going to push prices up from the bottom just to maintain a 4c8t segment, especially when Intels 8100 is nearing $100.

Near $100 6 core processors make sense especially when you think that there will be many more flawed 8->6 dies and native 4c8t segments will be held up by the APU arena.
 
Jun 2, 2016
247
47
86
I can always be wrong, but if I had a penny for every time someone said AMD was pricing Ryzen too low, I could afford a 2080 Ti. I'm expecting them to go for volume and marketshare if Intel doesn't have a 10nm answer ready this year.
 

Mockingbird

Senior member
Feb 12, 2017
733
449
106
I can see a few reasons for a few things.

AMD is most likely putting most chip/lets to their servers. They won a few big builds Corona/Baidu/HLRS/Atos and no doubt the best will end up there.

To make inroads, their workstations will attempt to undercut Intel at every level. This shifts the cost per core downward. Current Threadripper pricing has shifted down to the point where many top segments can be seen at almost half the price.

The same can be said for the mainstream Ryzen processors. What once was $500 has fallen respectively as fast. Sure they are clearing first generation product but seeing 8 core 1700 well below 200 weighs down the value of everything.

I highly doubt AMD is going to push prices up from the bottom just to maintain a 4c8t segment, especially when Intels 8100 is nearing $100.

Near $100 6 core processors make sense especially when you think that there will be many more flawed 8->6 dies and native 4c8t segments will be held up by the APU arena.
AMD already dominate the ~$200 and under (processor) market.

AMD don't need to lower the prices to compete with itself.

It's the $300+ market that Intel dominates with processors such as the Core i7-8700K, Core i7-9700K, and Core i9-9900K.

That the most obvious market for AMD to go after.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,104
173
126
I can always be wrong, but if I had a penny for every time someone said AMD was pricing Ryzen too low, I could afford a 2080 Ti. I'm expecting them to go for volume and marketshare if Intel doesn't have a 10nm answer ready this year.
If they keep the 8 and 6-core at same price but each gets around 15% more performance (clocks, IPC) that would already be a huge advancemnt given the previous 10 years of intel +5% stagnation with quads. They will still sell a lot of these chips. But if they start offerign them cheaper and also add 12 and 16 cores now already, those people don't need to upgrade for a decade. They will get market share now but at the cost of lower sells later on.

No, the 8-core even if it doesn't 100% beat a 9900k will remain around the $320 price point. You still get roughly same as a 9900k for much less money. That is more than cheap enough to build market share. I don't see a point in offering it for less than that.
 

amd6502

Senior member
Apr 21, 2017
549
98
86
We already know the threatripper 2nd gen prices (12nm).

12nm transistors are a good bit cheaper; the transistors per core have gone up considerably so just add a 7nm premium of 10 to 25 percent to get from threatripper to ryzen 9 3000 series pricing.

$650 12c/24t threatripper

$880 16c/32t threatripper

I think full 8c chiplets will be in much higher demand due to prioritizing production for servers.

So I think roughly:

$725 Ryzen 24 threads.

$1150 Ryzen 32 threads.

Anything in that ballpark range is a pretty good deal considering the freq and ipc gains for 7nm Zen2. Both these will allow some good AM4 home and enterprise server builds. You get supercomputing in a compact matx form factor (including small form factor builds as small as itx).

The bandwidth and power limitations of AM4 will actually have the 32 thread model run at very good perf/watt. I expect 65W parts for both (So Ryzen 9 very much contrasts typical TR4 wattages).

For the 12c's I'd expect two or more sku's 65w and 95w (or possibly 105w) and most likely arrival around November.

And I guess while we're at it, the rest of the line, fantasy mainstream product line:

8c 3800x (7nm high bin, single chiplet, 65W ) $500
8c 3790x (7nm low bin, double chiplet, 95W) $350
8c 3700x (12nm rebinned) $325
8c 3700 (12nm rebinned) $300

6c 3690x (7nm high bin Ryzen 7, single chiplet 65W) $360
6c 3600x (12nm high bin Ryzen 5, 95W) $250
6c 3600e (7nm low bin, Ryzen 5 single chiplet 35W) $260

4c 3550x (7nm high bin, high freq, 65W) $230
4c 3500x (12nm) $150
4c 3400e (7nm low bin, 25W) $150
 
Last edited:
Dec 10, 2018
63
109
51
If they keep the 8 and 6-core at same price but each gets around 15% more performance (clocks, IPC) that would already be a huge advancemnt given the previous 10 years of intel +5% stagnation with quads. They will still sell a lot of these chips. But if they start offerign them cheaper and also add 12 and 16 cores now already, those people don't need to upgrade for a decade. They will get market share now but at the cost of lower sells later on.

No, the 8-core even if it doesn't 100% beat a 9900k will remain around the $320 price point. You still get roughly same as a 9900k for much less money. That is more than cheap enough to build market share. I don't see a point in offering it for less than that.
However that won't be something that the average consumer really looks into.
Looking at retail listings of computers, usually the only information provided is the brand, maybe core counts, and clock speed.
E.g
Intel Core i3/i5/i7 or AMD Ryzen 3/5/7 Dual/Quad/Hexacore @ 3.5GHz

If an average consumer compared computers with an Intel Core i3 Quad core @ 3.7GHz or AMD Ryzen 3 Quad core @ 3.5GHz, they'd probably go with Intel because they recognize the brand more, or because of the higher clock speed.

If AMD puts 6 cores in their R3 then the comparison now becomes:
Intel i3 Quad core @ 3.7GHz or Intel i5 Hex core @ X
AMD R3 Hex core @ X GHz or AMD R5 Octa core @ X

Even if the AMD system is the same price as the Intel one, the extra two cores adds to the persuasiveness of choosing AMD over Intel.

AMD isn't trying to win market share in the high-performance consumer market with zen2. It's simply too small, and they've already won there with core count/price with Zen 1. Their next target should be the mass market with less informed consumers who will only look at numbers on the surface.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
17,773
1,374
136
We already know the threatripper 2nd gen prices (12nm).

12nm transistors are a good bit cheaper; the transistors per core have gone up considerably so just add a 7nm premium of 10 to 25 percent to get from threatripper to ryzen 9 3000 series pricing.

$650 12c/24t threatripper

$880 16c/32t threatripper

I think full 8c chiplets will be in much higher demand due to prioritizing production for servers.

So I think roughly:

$725 Ryzen 24 threads.

$1150 Ryzen 32 threads.

Anything in that ballpark range is a pretty good deal considering the freq and ipc gains for 7nm Zen2. Both these will allow some good AM4 home and enterprise server builds. You get supercomputing in a compact matx form factor (including small form factor builds as small as itx).

The bandwidth and power limitations of AM4 will actually have the 32 thread model run at very good perf/watt. I expect 65W parts for both (So Ryzen 9 very much contrasts typical TR4 wattages).

For the 12c's I'd expect two or more sku's 65w and 95w (or possibly 105w) and most likely arrival around November.
That seems spendy. I just got 48 threads for $1230
 

Mockingbird

Senior member
Feb 12, 2017
733
449
106
However that won't be something that the average consumer really looks into.
Looking at retail listings of computers, usually the only information provided is the brand, maybe core counts, and clock speed.
E.g
Intel Core i3/i5/i7 or AMD Ryzen 3/5/7 Dual/Quad/Hexacore @ 3.5GHz

If an average consumer compared computers with an Intel Core i3 Quad core @ 3.7GHz or AMD Ryzen 3 Quad core @ 3.5GHz, they'd probably go with Intel because they recognize the brand more, or because of the higher clock speed.

If AMD puts 6 cores in their R3 then the comparison now becomes:
Intel i3 Quad core @ 3.7GHz or Intel i5 Hex core @ X
AMD R3 Hex core @ X GHz or AMD R5 Octa core @ X

Even if the AMD system is the same price as the Intel one, the extra two cores adds to the persuasiveness of choosing AMD over Intel.

AMD isn't trying to win market share in the high-performance consumer market with zen2. It's simply too small, and they've already won there with core count/price with Zen 1. Their next target should be the mass market with less informed consumers who will only look at numbers on the surface.
AMD is not going to win the marketing war against Intel, EVER.

It's a pointless war that AMD cannot possibly win.

The best thing AMD can do is make sure its OEM partners (i.e. Lenovo, HP, Dell) compliment its processors with good hardware (i.e. fast SSDs, quality high resolution displays, etc).
 
Last edited:
Dec 10, 2018
63
109
51
AMD is not going to win the marketing war against Intel, EVER.

It's a pointless war that AMD cannot possibly win.

The best thing AMD can do is make sure its OEM partners (i.e. Lenovo, HP, Dell) compliment its processors with good hardware (i.e. fast SSDs, quality high resolution displays, etc).
Sure with Intel as large as it is now and its legacy, it'd be pointless for AMD to directly fight Intel in marketing. But business and perceptions change so I think it'd be naive to say that AMD would never manage to beat Intel.

Plus my point isn't that AMD is trying to beat Intel in marketing; I think AMD is trying to appeal to consumers directly with competitive specs instead of a propaganda campaign against Intel. You know, like the good old days when people weren't so obsessed with brand names.
 

Mockingbird

Senior member
Feb 12, 2017
733
449
106
Sure with Intel as large as it is now and its legacy, it'd be pointless for AMD to directly fight Intel in marketing. But business and perceptions change so I think it'd be naive to say that AMD would never manage to beat Intel.

Plus my point isn't that AMD is trying to beat Intel in marketing; I think AMD is trying to appeal to consumers directly with competitive specs instead of a propaganda campaign against Intel. You know, like the good old days when people weren't so obsessed with brand names.
A customer buys an AMD computer with gazillion cores and a slow hard drive.

Said customer is frustrated and never buy an AMD computer again.

Great job!
 
Last edited:

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,104
173
126
Their next target should be the mass market with less informed consumers who will only look at numbers on the surface.
8-core / 6-core CPUs probably without an iGPU are by defintion not mass market. That would be more the territory of the APU, quad-core with iGPU. AMDs problem also are margins and that is why their actual target is the server market.

Also the less informed people, the mass market, you talk about doesn't even know what intel or AMD is. They eihter get something cheap, ask a salesperson or get help from relatvies or friends.
 

Atari2600

Senior member
Nov 22, 2016
769
248
106
AMD isn't trying to win market share in the high-performance consumer market with zen2. It's simply too small, and they've already won there with core count/price with Zen 1. Their next target should be the mass market with less informed consumers who will only look at numbers on the surface.
Erm. No.

There next target should be (and is) the server/HPC market where the profit margin per CPU dwarfs that of the consumer side.

[In fact - its probably debatable whether that was ever not the target anyway!]
 
Dec 10, 2018
63
109
51
Erm. No.

There next target should be (and is) the server/HPC market where the profit margin per CPU dwarfs that of the consumer side.

[In fact - its probably debatable whether that was ever not the target anyway!]
I agree with you that that's what they're doing on the enterprise side. I'm speculating on what their goal is for the consumer side.

Also the less informed people, the mass market, you talk about doesn't even know what intel or AMD is. They eihter get something cheap, ask a salesperson or get help from relatvies or friends.
Those salespeople or friends are just as likely not hard-core enthusiasts like us :)

8-core / 6-core CPUs probably without an iGPU are by defintion not mass market. That would be more the territory of the APU, quad-core with iGPU. AMDs problem also are margins and that is why their actual target is the server market.
That's a fair point; but I wouldn't call APUs mass market either because to me, the iGPU is too powerful.
 
Last edited:

Spartak

Senior member
Jul 4, 2015
287
131
86
Expectation:

Ryzen 3 3200G - 4C/4T - $99

Ryzen 3 3400G - 4C/8T - $149

Ryzen 5 3600 - 6C/12T - $199

Ryzen 5 3600X - 6C/12T - $229

Ryzen 7 3700 - 8C/16T - $299

Ryzen 7 3700X - 8C/16T - $329

Ryzen 9 3800 - 12C/24T - $499

Ryzen 9 3800X - 12C/24T - $529

Ryzen 9 3900 - 16C/32T - $699

Ryzen 9 3900X - 16C/32T - $729

I think prices on this list are on the high side, and both 12 and 16 core in the same series seems unlikely to me. I do think they will try to hit Intel hard where it hurts (their sweet spot is the 6C/6T 8600/9600(K)

My guess would be this:

Ryzen 3 3300 - 6C/12T - $149
Ryzen 3 3400 - 6C/12T - $199
Ryzen 3 3400X - 6C/12T - $229

Ryzen 5 3500 - 8C/16T - $249
Ryzen 5 3600 - 8C/16T - $299
Ryzen 5 3600X - 8C/16T - $329

Ryzen 7 3700 - 12C/24T - $349
Ryzen 7 3800 - 12C/24T - $399
Ryzen 7 3800X - 12C/24T - $429

Ryzen 9 3900 - 16C/32T - $449
Ryzen 9 3900X - 16C/32T - $499
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,961
228
126
What you got wrong is that you think that you can just take something, and die shrink it to make it cheaper.

That used to be universally true back in the day, but the cost of smaller processes are becoming so expensive that is no longer necessary true.

If the above graph is true, 80mm2 at 7nm = ~150mm2 at 14nm (14/16nm is above 2.00 and 7nm is bellow 4.00)

Ryzen 14nm APU die is 210mm2 sold at MSRP of $99 (Ryzen 3 2200G), thus cost should be close to 110mm2 at 7nm

Now the IO chip of the new Ryzen 3 is close to 110mm2 manufactured at 14nm GloFo which will make it extremely chip.

6C 12T Ryzen 3 can easily have MSRP of $99-$120

8C 16T Ryzen 3 at MSRP of $199 is also easily achievable using the same single chiplet SKU.
 
Feb 23, 2017
546
477
106
I suspect that they might have a price overlap between the worst binned SKUs in a series and the highest binned X in a lower series.
My progression would be: R3 $149-179-219, R5 $219-249-289, R7 $289-329-379, R9 $379-429-499
 

exquisitechar

Senior member
Apr 18, 2017
250
157
86
I think prices on this list are on the high side, and both 12 and 16 core in the same series seems unlikely to me. I do think they will try to hit Intel hard where it hurts (their sweet spot is the 6C/6T 8600/9600(K)

My guess would be this:

Ryzen 3 3300 - 6C/12T - $149
Ryzen 3 3400 - 6C/12T - $199
Ryzen 3 3400X - 6C/12T - $229

Ryzen 5 3500 - 8C/16T - $249
Ryzen 5 3600 - 8C/16T - $299
Ryzen 5 3600X - 8C/16T - $329

Ryzen 7 3700 - 12C/24T - $349
Ryzen 7 3800 - 12C/24T - $399
Ryzen 7 3800X - 12C/24T - $429

Ryzen 9 3900 - 16C/32T - $449
Ryzen 9 3900X - 16C/32T - $499
16c CPU is a bit too cheap, IMO, unless if AMD decides to go nuclear on Intel and sacrifices their own potential short-term profit, which is admittedly not that unlikely, I suppose. Not even 2x of the cheapest 8c CPU's price...
 
Feb 23, 2017
546
477
106
If the above graph is true, 80mm2 at 7nm = ~150mm2 at 14nm (14/16nm is above 2.00 and 7nm is bellow 4.00)

Ryzen 14nm APU die is 210mm2 sold at MSRP of $99 (Ryzen 3 2200G), thus cost should be close to 110mm2 at 7nm

Now the IO chip of the new Ryzen 3 is close to 110mm2 manufactured at 14nm GloFo which will make it extremely chip.

6C 12T Ryzen 3 can easily have MSRP of $99-$120

8C 16T Ryzen 3 at MSRP of $199 is also easily achievable using the same single chiplet SKU.
The problem with that graph is that it is based on a 250mm die. AMD aren't targeting anywhere near that figure for their 7nm chiplets, so the yield would be much higher, resulting in a cost per yielded mm of a fair bit lower than the 4.00 figure referenced by the graph itself.
All the 's does is reinforce your own view that those MSRP figures are indeed achievable.
It's guaranteed that the cost per yielded mm on a 80mm die would be significantly lower than 4.00; it's the size of the die that is reducing yields.
 
Last edited:

Spartak

Senior member
Jul 4, 2015
287
131
86
16c CPU is a bit too cheap, IMO, unless if AMD decides to go nuclear on Intel and sacrifices their own potential short-term profit, which is admittedly not that unlikely, I suppose. Not even 2x of the cheapest 8c CPU's price...
First, their cost won't be double that since it uses the same packaging and IO-die.
Second, they need to entice enthusiast to go for the $429 or $499 part.
Third, I expect the 16C part to be thermally limited (lower all-core speeds) so the MT performance increase wont be that much more compared to 12C. Say 20% instead of 33%.

I expect only on 7nm EUV (does TSMC call that 5nm?) with 12nm IO die will the full potential of 16C be unlocked.
 
Feb 23, 2017
546
477
106
As an example, assuming that a 14nm wafer costs half as much as a 7nm wafer, but you get 3x as many dies per wafer at 7nm (after taking defects into account):
An R3 would need a 14nm IO plus a 7nm chiplet. Quick math on that puts the manufacturing cost below that for 210mm at 14nm, so it is easy to see why the low end can easily go for $99 if so desired.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS