• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Speculation: Ryzen 3000 series

Page 206 - 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?

  • 16-core monolithic CPU (four 4-core CCXs on SoC die)

    Votes: 13 5.7%

  • 12-core monolithic CPU (three 4-core CCXs on SoC die)

    Votes: 19 8.3%

  • 8-core monolithic CPU (two 4-core CCXs on SoC die)

    Votes: 24 10.4%

  • 8-core monolithic APU (two 4-core CCXs and an iGPU on SoC die)

    Votes: 8 3.5%

  • 4-core monolithic APU (one 4-core CCX and an iGPU on SoC die)

    Votes: 12 5.2%

  • 16-core modular CPU (two 8-core CPU chiplets + IO chiplet)

    Votes: 146 63.5%

  • 8-core modular CPU (one 8-core CPU chiplet + IO chiplet)

    Votes: 47 20.4%

  • 8-core modular APU (one 8-core CPU chiplet + IO chiplet + GPU chiplet)

    Votes: 23 10.0%

  • 8-core modular APU (one 8-core CPU chiplet + IO chiplet with iGPU)

    Votes: 15 6.5%

  • Something else (specify below)

    Votes: 11 4.8%
  • Total voters
    230
https://imgur.com/Q1xi9Pi

12LP+ (12LPv2) is on a GlobalFoundries image now. Just throwing it out there. Potentially for a Picasso+/v2 within 3000s.

///Update: September Speculation

12LP+ Raven2 Refresh 15W => 3.1 GHz/4.1 GHz up from 2.6 GHz/3.5 GHz
12LP+ Raven2 Chromebook sub-10W => 1.9 GHz/2.6 GHz for Athlon and 2.1 GHz/3.1 GHz for Ryzen. Base clock rate stable is guaranteed to be 4.5W SoC and highest clock rate stable to be 9W SoC.
 
Last edited:
moinmoin said:
I like Jim/AdoredTV as his speculations help me thinking more outside the box regarding the possibilities, like AMD is doing with these designs. But I prefer discussing about the designs and possible ways onward from there, not about what Jim/AdoredTV got right or wrong and whether the latter constitute lies.
Click to expand...
I agree with this
 
beginner99 said:
I was puzzeled why it's barley possible to reach 4.3 ghz all core even with manual oc. I mean intel proccessors usually do all-core on the advertised turbo if you have the right cooling. With ryzen3000k it's a brick wall. It also makes no sense marketing wise. just set boost to 100mhz lower on all skus and it would probably have been fine.
Click to expand...
Easy the process is better and more refined. When Intel started their Turbo romps they didn't have a way to figure out what cores and where. They had an infinite manfucaturing capacity and dozens of sku's to toss imperfect dies into so they could do high turbo's but upper limit set to allow for larger stock of 700k chips. Everything that didn't meet that got to become something you couldn't overclock so we don't know what the average limit is. That said noone has ever said that all Intel K CPU's can hit Max single core turbo as all core.

As the process became better they still could easy golden chip their 700k series for higher turbos and all cores could reach just as high. Because the limits at this point became power. So they have the gold cores (SL-X and higher chips actually use it) But the process is good enough that still at the high end max all core could still generally match Max single core turbo again as an OC).

AMD doesn't have half the luxuries Intel has in that setting. They found they could reliably get at least 1 core to clock higher then most. So they made sure we could use it. AMD is never going to be a good overclocker. Best we have hope for is setting a high, all core, without hitting the crazy numbers Intel does. Because in all other scenario's AMD is getting as a high a clock as generally possible for the power window.
 
Why not, there is still some room for slower and cheaper 8 core, in mutli-thread applications it would still perform better than 3600X.

If you have A*, you should have A too, otherwise the * looses any sense.
 
@Kocicak

AMD doesn't have anything like that on their roadmap. I was surprised they didn't have a direct price-for-price replacement for the 2700 (for example), yet they seem to be doing quite well with their current offerings. Plus with the 3600X I don't know that they have much room for a 3700 anyway.
 
The 3700x is a replacement for the 2700 and the 3800x a replacement for the 2700x. They just figured that their turbo settings allowed for pretty high everything but all core turbo's so they kept the X at the end. Even in Non-turbo power usuage it fits the same niche.
 
Topweasel said:
The 3700x is a replacement for the 2700 and the 3800x a replacement for the 2700x. They just figured that their turbo settings allowed for pretty high everything but all core turbo's so they kept the X at the end. Even in Non-turbo power usuage it fits the same niche.
Click to expand...
The sku names are just a marketing thing and have even less consistency, I think intel's new 9900 naming is what caused the difference between what launched and what was leaked before. The prices of the current parts mimick the ryzen1000 launch pretty well. Ryzen2000 prices were probably a result of needing to offer more value at the time.

From looking at results of the 3600/3600x and 3700x/3800x it seems like there's a fairly tough power and performance wall that the CCDs run into. All four of those cpus run similar power levels and without core discrepancy the performance is similar as well. For single dies I don't think there's a need for many skus between 65-100w there. It might open up for some really low wattage parts even down to ~30w but those are normally oem parts.
It's on the dual die parts that I think more skus make sense, more than ever these days with intelligent boost algorithms allowing singular cores to boost to above 4ghz within power and then have 12-16 cores running low-mid 3ghz whilst sipping power. I like the option of low power high core parts as they make great low maintenance and quiet parts when assembling machines for other people or cheap render boxes.
 
tomatosummit said:
The sku names are just a marketing thing and have even less consistency, I think intel's new 9900 naming is what caused the difference between what launched and what was leaked before. The prices of the current parts mimick the ryzen1000 launch pretty well. Ryzen2000 prices were probably a result of needing to offer more value at the time.

From looking at results of the 3600/3600x and 3700x/3800x it seems like there's a fairly tough power and performance wall that the CCDs run into. All four of those cpus run similar power levels and without core discrepancy the performance is similar as well. For single dies I don't think there's a need for many skus between 65-100w there. It might open up for some really low wattage parts even down to ~30w but those are normally oem parts.
It's on the dual die parts that I think more skus make sense, more than ever these days with intelligent boost algorithms allowing singular cores to boost to above 4ghz within power and then have 12-16 cores running low-mid 3ghz whilst sipping power. I like the option of low power high core parts as they make great low maintenance and quiet parts when assembling machines for other people or cheap render boxes.
Click to expand...

The key is when used in the situation that the CPU was designed for. 3600 vs. 3600x or 3700x vs 3800 will make a much bigger difference when not used in an enthusiast (retail CPU and Mobo) setting. Firstly because there isn't a real power limit specially with PBO enabled the whole 65w is out the window. Then the 3800x becomes the better chip because its chosen for its higher clocks capability. But you start to put a power cap on it the 3700x shines because its picked for its relatively low power usage for its clocks.

This is the downside of a AMD having all chips unlocked, with enthusiast board partners defaulting to enthusiast settings, in a world were their competitor has basically all but publicly had their partners set the clock settings to 11 to make sure its always at its best (even if its using 80% more power then its TDP). In an unlocked unlimited setting there probably isn't enough variance to really pick one over enough cept on price.
 
CPU support list of some ASUS motherboard/s contains not only Ryzen 9 3900X, but also Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 9 PRO 3900.

It also contains Ryzen 5 3500.
 
Last edited:
Kocicak said:
CPU support list of some ASUS motherboard/s contains not only Ryzen 9 3900X, but also Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 9 PRO 3900...
Click to expand...

Oh... Ryzen 9 PRO 3900. I was willing to wait for the Ryzen 9 Gifted Amateur 3900, but the PRO may promote better epeen growth.
 
Kocicak said:
Ryzen 9 GA 3900, what specs does it have? 🙂

Seriously - are the Pro versions any different than normal cpus?
Click to expand...

Lower boost frequencies to accomodate higher voltages margins, for professionals stability is more important than pure perf...
 
Fanatical Meat said:
The 3800x doesn’t seem to bring much to the party vs the 3700x.
Am I missing something about the 3800x?
Click to expand...
If you don't overclock, its got as higher base clock, and a higher boost clock. I have not followed close enough to know those who OC, how much better do they do. I just know that most OCing on the 3000 series is very limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top