AMD announces Ryzen 3000XT desktop processors, launching next month starting at $249

[Shawn Knight]

What just happened? AMD on Tuesday welcomed three new members to its third-generation Ryzen desktop processor family across mainstream, performance and enthusiast segments. They’re the first Ryzen chips to carry the XT branding and are optimized with higher boost frequencies to deliver "elite-level performance that dominates gaming and content creation."

The new CPUs include the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT, the AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT and the AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT.

The Ryzen 5 3600XT features a base frequency of 3.8GHz and can boost up to 4.5GHz, slightly higher than the 4.4GHz boost clock of the standard Ryzen 5 3600X. Similarly, the Ryzen 7 3800XT can hit 4.7GHz when boosting, a bit more than the 4.5GHz that the Ryzen 7 3800X is rated for. The Ryzen 9 3900XT, meanwhile, can also reach 4.7GHz when boosting, more than the 4.6GHz of its Ryzen 9 3900X counterpart.

According to AMD, the Ryzen 9 3900XT offers up to a four percent increase in single-threaded performance over previous AMD Ryzen 3000 desktop processors and is up to 40 percent more power efficient than the competition.

AMD said it recommends using an AIO solution with a minimum 280mm radiator or equivalent air cooler to get the most out of its new chips. The company maintains a list of recommended coolers that can be found on its website.

Today's introduction could be used as further evidence that AMD may be in no hurry to introduce Ryzen 4000 series CPUs. Indeed, with the 3000 series continuing to sell well and this new round of optimized CPUs launching soon, that does appear to be the case.

Suggested pricing is set at $249, $399 and $499 for the 3600XT, 3800XT and 3900XT, respectively. All three are slated to launch on July 7.

In related news, AMD motherboards featuring the B550 chipset are now available worldwide from a variety of manufacturers across a range of form factors. Motherboard based on the AMD A520 chipset, meanwhile, will launch in August 2020 from partners including Asus, Asrock, MSI and Gigabyte.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/85649-amd-announces-ryzen-3000xt-desktop-processors-launching-next.html

 

[mbrowne5061]

That 4% increase to single threaded performance sounds like AMD is trying to knock the gaming crown off Intel's head.

 

[Lounds]

Somehow I can't see these being supported on motherboards below B550 due to bios sizes already being maxed out. Pretty interesting they've managed to push these parts higher, I wonder how long they hold those clocks and for how many cores, I assume just one?

 

[redgarl]

I finally been able to get my hand on the MSI MAG x570 Tomahawk. Your review really helped me.

 

[redgarl]

That 4% increase to single threaded performance sounds like AMD is trying to knock the gaming crown off Intel's head.

More like spoiling Intel launch party. It doesn't need to be much to shuffle the cards.

 

[abysal]

I think these are / will be a gimmick. Right now my 3900X boosts to 4.6 for a split second, and pretty rarely. I suspect the new 3900XT will hit 4.7, but even less frequently and with a smaller duration. This is speculation on my end, at this point.

 

[Boshum]

That 4% increase to single threaded performance sounds like AMD is trying to knock the gaming crown off Intel's head.

That 4% won't transfer much to gaming unless they do more than bump clocks. If it's just clocks, these parts aren't very interesting. I want to know if they do something more, like tinkering around with the infinity fabric to reduce latency.

 

[Crinkles]

100mhz. Yawn. These are really going to fly off the shelves. Intel had a 600mhz cpu once, that upgrade was also less than stellar. I hope this works, it seems like desperation.

 

[Crinkles]

More like spoiling Intel launch party. It doesn't need to be much to shuffle the cards.

No doubt. Sonething is always better than nothing but this is like a request for mockery. Twitter will handle it.. ?

 

[redhat]

I think if they had introduced 3900(non x), it would have been better.

 

[Vulcanproject]

I think it's an interesting development. Much of this depends on how well they hit and sustain these clocks.

If they only do it for a split second just to hit the claimed speed, then the refinement may be next to nothing.

However if they do hit these speeds snd comfortably sustain them with appropriate cooling, any gain is welcome even just 4 percent.

Many later steppings of famous old processors improved their ability to hit and sustain higher speeds. The G0 stepping Core 2 Quad processors for one example.

If this is that then it bodes well for Zen 3 later this year. Better IPC, better clocks, it eats away at Intel's single threading lead a nibble at a time until there is no lead left.

 

[nnguy2]

Many later steppings of famous old processors improved their ability to hit and sustain higher speeds. The G0 stepping Core 2 Quad processors for one example.

That was a legendary cpu.

My Q6600 oc'd at 3.4ghz lasted me from end 2007 to till early early 2012 when I replaced it with i5 2500k oc to 4.5ghz.

Those cpus will always be near and dear to my heart.

Rocking a 3700x right now and I'm debating about picking up 3900xt and resell 3700x or wait for Ryzen 3.

 

[ruddevil]

Somehow I can't see these being supported on motherboards below B550 due to bios sizes already being maxed out. Pretty interesting they've managed to push these parts higher, I wonder how long they hold those clocks and for how many cores, I assume just one?

If they're Matisse core, which they are, then I'm confident they will be supported. Just like the recently released 3300X and 3100.

 

[m3tavision]

If they're Matisse core, which they are, then I'm confident they will be supported. Just like the recently released 3300X and 3100.

Correct, lounds is confused. Don't even see what "compatibility" would even come to mind. The 3600xt is a perfect chips for those on older AM4 mobos (ie: x370) & Ryzen 1600x...

Ryzen 1600x to a 3600xt will be a nice jump in performance, for almost a 4 year old mobo...

 

[Rjmachine]

That 4% increase to single threaded performance sounds like AMD is trying to knock the gaming crown off Intel's head.

Haha, good one. Same all-core clock means you won't see an improvement in gaming. This looks like a gimmick release, specs look good on paper, with identical performance pretty much.

The boost clocks on all newer CPU, AMD or Intel, are not sustained for more than a split-second. They quickly drops from the "high boost clocks" to their all-core speed, when loaded slightly.

It will take 4000 series to even be on par with Intel on gaming perf.

 

[mattferg]

Somehow I can't see these being supported on motherboards below B550 due to bios sizes already being maxed out. Pretty interesting they've managed to push these parts higher, I wonder how long they hold those clocks and for how many cores, I assume just one?

Doesn't add much size as it's the same existing architecture as 3900X etc.

 

[mattferg]

Haha, good one. Same all-core clock means you won't see an improvement in gaming. This looks like a gimmick release, specs look good on paper, with identical performance pretty much.

The boost clocks on all newer CPU, AMD or Intel, are not sustained for more than a split-second. They quickly drops from the "high boost clocks" to their all-core speed, when loaded slightly.

It will take 4000 series to even be on par with Intel on gaming perf.

Bro, Intel is done this gen. It's over. My current system is an Intel and I can see AMD is clearly the better way to go. So what if Intel has marginally better IPC? Cores and PCIe4.0 more than make up for that. Put down the cool-aid.

 

[gdavid65]

Ha, this has really brought out the Intel fanbois.. Let's see how these new X chips really stack up for gaming before jumping to conclusions. I'm sure AMD believes they will offer a measurable advantage in benchmarks or they wouldn't have bothered. They aren't Intel - they don't just rely on tiny iterations and their name to sell more CPU's

 

[darkzelda]

I don't know what to do, I've been waiting as long as I can to upgrade my Core i7 4790k. If Zen 3 doesn't release this year, one of these XT processors could be a good option.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Bro, Intel is done this gen. It's over. My current system is an Intel and I can see AMD is clearly the better way to go. So what if Intel has marginally better IPC? Cores and PCIe4.0 more than make up for that. Put down the cool-aid.

Intel doesn't even have better IPC, AMD does. AMD does more work per clock but Intel has a significant lead in clock speed, especially when overclocked. That clock speed helps deliver the gaming advantage to Intel because the difference there is so small, but it doesn't do enough to deliver an advantage in multi-core productivity.

The problem with Intel's gaming advantage is that it evaporates on a non-Z390 or Z490 board, because there's no overclock and you're stuck with 2666 MHz memory. This is why the real gaming advantage is only in those unlocked K-SKUs on high-end MoBos. All other Intel CPUs are barely-competitive, and become non-competitive when price is factored in.

 

[Bamda]

I don't know what to do, I've been waiting as long as I can to upgrade my Core i7 4790k. If Zen 3 doesn't release this year, one of these XT processors could be a good option.

I am in the same boat, I am rocking an i7-2600K since 2011. I am dying to get into a new CPU/MB.

 

[quadibloc]

Ah, so all of the XT chips are like the 3950X, they require an AIO rather than the stock cooler. That makes me happier with my plain old 3900X.

 

[nnguy2]

Ah, so all of the XT chips are like the 3950X, they require an AIO rather than the stock cooler. That makes me happier with my plain old 3900X.

A high end air cooler would be fine, like Noctua's D15 (which is actually listed)

 

[Just4gamerstube1]

Sounds to me like their is very very little reason to purchase these XT cpu's lol they sound like a joke to me more like XFAIL. 4 percent 4 flipping percent a big ol whoopy doo

 

[Lounds]

Bro, Intel is done this gen. It's over. My current system is an Intel and I can see AMD is clearly the better way to go. So what if Intel has marginally better IPC? Cores and PCIe4.0 more than make up for that. Put down the cool-aid.

Intel hasn't got an IPC advantage over Zen 2, what it does have is a very good binning process for its 14nm to increase core clocks above energy efficiency of the silicon. AMD can compete with 5.2Ghz i9 or i7 but what it can say is it's using nearly half the amount of power at its maximum clocks.