Ryzen 3000 Leaks

[Techstorm970]

44 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

Most of this information is provided by AdoredTV, I highly suggest watching this video for more information.

Edit 1: These leaks were released after the ones that were posted on Reddit (which I cannot find at the moment, if someone can find them, that'd be great!) 

 

 

With that being said, say hello to these little beasties!

 

Lower End:

 

Ryzen 3 3300: 6C/12T //  Base: 3.2 GHz //  Boost: 4.0 GHz // 50 W TDP // Price: 99$

Ryzen 3 3300X: 6C/12T //  Base: 3.5 GHz //  Boost: 4.3 GHz // 65 W TDP // Price: 129$

Ryzen 3 3300G: 6C/12T/ 15CU (Navi) //  Base: 3.0 GHz //  Boost: 3.8 GHz // 65 W TDP // Price: 129$

 

Upper Mid Range:

 

Ryzen 7 3700: 12C/24T //  Base: 3.8 GHz //  Boost: 4.6 GHz // 95 W TDP // Price: 299$

Ryzen 7 3700X: 12C/24T //  Base: 4.2 GHz //  Boost: 5.0 GHz // 95 W TDP // Price: 329$

6 cores at $100, 12 cores at $300?!?!?!

[Guest]

Have to say, little reason to buy Intel now if these come with superior IPC improvements too. 6C/12T minimum is really exceptional.

[Deus Voltage]

2 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Are these the leaks you're looking for?

-snip-

I am not 100% sure to be honest, I haven't been keeping a good eye on the leaks. But I will add it to the OP nonetheless just in case! 

[CarlBar]

48 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

Most of this information is provided by AdoredTV, I highly suggest watching this video for more information.

Edit 1: These leaks were released after the ones that were posted on Reddit (which I cannot find at the moment, if someone can find them, that'd be great!) 

 

 

With that being said, say hello to these little beasties!

 

Lower End:

 

Ryzen 3 3300: 6C/12T //  Base: 3.2 GHz //  Boost: 4.0 GHz // 50 W TDP // Price: 99$

Ryzen 3 3300X: 6C/12T //  Base: 3.5 GHz //  Boost: 4.3 GHz // 65 W TDP // Price: 129$

Ryzen 3 3300G: 6C/12T/ 15CU (Navi) //  Base: 3.0 GHz //  Boost: 3.8 GHz // 65 W TDP // Price: 129$

 

Mid Range:

 

Ryzen 5 3600: 8C/16T //  Base: 3.6 GHz //  Boost: 4.4 GHz // 65 W TDP // Price: 179$

Ryzen 5 3600X: 8C/16T //  Base: 4.0 GHz //  Boost: 4.8 GHz // 95 W TDP // Price: 229$

Ryzen 5 3600G: 8C/16T/ 20CU (Navi) //  Base: 3.2 GHz //  Boost: 4.0 GHz // 95 W TDP // Price: 199$

 

Upper Mid Range:

 

Ryzen 7 3700: 12C/24T //  Base: 3.8 GHz //  Boost: 4.6 GHz // 95 W TDP // Price: 299$

Ryzen 7 3700X: 12C/24T //  Base: 4.2 GHz //  Boost: 5.0 GHz // 95 W TDP // Price: 329$

 

High End:

 

Ryzen 9 3800X: 16C/32T //  Base: 3.9 GHz //  Boost: 4.7GHz // 125 W TDP // Price: 449$

Ryzen 9 3850X: 16C/32T //  Base: 4.3 GHz //  Boost: 5.1GHz // 135 W TDP // Price: 499$

 

 

 

Opinion:

I am really looking forward to seeing the benchmarks for these. The CPU scene is getting HOT! AMD is really shaking up the market in a big way! 

 

 

Nice i was about to post about this too.

 

Honestly i only see one real eyebrow raiser, and thats the TDP's, they're almost all a bit too low. That said intel pulled the same with the 9900k, and these aren't as far out of line with TDP as what the 9900k is.

 

SO overall, yeah i think these are plausible. I even called the 3850x some time ago.

[Cereal5]

5 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

Could someone care to elaborate about the FX-9590X2. I know nothing about it.

‘Twas a joke. A 9590 times 2 (aka hot)

[JoeCoke]

Holy shit. If this turns out to be true this is more insane than even my wildest dreams. 5.1ghz on 16 cores? WITH good IPC improvement, even lower prices and with TDP kept in check? Athlon 64 days are here again baby. If this is true, then what reason is there to buy Intel? This should even close the gaming gap, if not give AMD an edge.

[Fnige]

5 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

Could someone care to elaborate about the FX-9590X2. I know nothing about it.

FX_9590 was a very hot CPU

It had 8 cores and ran at 4.7ghz and is only $200aud though its TDP (i think that is what it is) was 220w

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

Have to say, little reason to buy Intel now if these come with superior IPC improvements too. 6C/12T minimum is really exceptional.

 

I'm not holding my breath, the thing with all this is that we never have had a significantly better CPU suddenly just drop into the market,  Ryzen was good but it was easy for Intel to match. Even when AMD was no competition there was still the same incremental steps in improvement.   It seems people might bee letting the hope get away form them if they think this is going to be vastly superior to Intel.  It'd be great if it is vastly better, but in reality if we expect that then we are not paying too much attention to history.

[Billy Pilgrim]

20 minutes ago, porina said:

If 16 core parts come with dual channel ram... bottleneck much? Unless it comes with a large side serving of L4...

However, I think it will be less of a problem than with the memory bottlenecking on the 2990wx. Now each ccx can directly access each stick of ram instead of having to do so over the infinity fabric

[Techstorm970]

1 minute ago, SlimyPython said:

FX_9590 was a very hot CPU

It had 8 cores and ran at 4.7ghz and is only $200aud though its TDP (i think that is what it is) was 220w

Not to mention that you could OC a cheaper FX-8350 and get the same clocks & performance with less heat and power draw.

[CarlBar]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

I'm not holding my breath, the thing with all this is that we never have had a significantly better CPU suddenly just drop into the market,  Ryzen was good but it was easy for Intel to match. Even when AMD was no competition there was still the same incremental steps in improvement.   It seems people might bee letting the hope get away form them if they think this is going to be vastly superior to Intel.  It'd be great if it is vastly better, but in reality if we expect that then we are not paying too much attention to history.

 

Except AMD has no reason not to do most of this. Everything thats been revealed so far about Zen 2 architecture says that all of this is perfectly possibble for AMD. Thats the thing. The 2700x was the absolute best AMD could do at the time. But Zen 2 is such a huge leap forward thanks to the node shrink and chiplets binning advantages that it basically make these easy to do.

[Techstorm970]

Just now, CarlBar said:

 

Except AMD has no reason not to do most of this. Everything thats been revealed so far about Zen 2 architecture says that all of this is perfectly possibble for AMD. Thats the thing. The 2700x was the absolute best AMD could do at the time. But Zen 2 is such a huge leap forward thanks to the node shrink and chiplets binning advantages that it basically make these easy to do.

Haven't been keeping up with this, but it seems like 7nm might be the stuff of legend, at least for CPU architectures.

[RyomaSJibenG]

this is delicious

[AlTech]

Damnit! I really didn't need my 1700X to be more inadequate than it already was .

[Drak3]

Remember class, if it sounds too good to be true, it is.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Except AMD has no reason not to do most of this. Everything thats been revealed so far about Zen 2 architecture says that all of this is perfectly possibble for AMD. Thats the thing. The 2700x was the absolute best AMD could do at the time. But Zen 2 is such a huge leap forward thanks to the node shrink and chiplets binning advantages that it basically make these easy to do.

Perhaps you quoted the wrong person, I never said AMD couldn't or wouldn't release said CPU's.   Expecting it to be "vastly" superior is happy days, but history says otherwise.

[Fnige]

11 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

This should even close the gaming gap, if not give AMD an edge.

 

[CarlBar]

Not really, it's no bigger than any past node shrink. The thing is chiplets offer all kinds of binning advantages for AMD. They basically get more usable silicon thanks to it and that gives them more high end silicon to work with too.

 

On top of that Intel has allways been highly conservative, but they've also been the one's with a node advantage until now. Intel had the capability to build and release an 8 core 16 thread CPU way back on their original 6000 series LGA 1151 silicon. They'd probably at best have gotten about 75% the performance of a 9900k, buts thats still impressive when you remember how far back the 6000 series silicon is.

 

AMD isn't conservative and they've got a node shrink advantage over intel, and with chiplets putting large numbers of CPU's on a single socket is very affordable.

[Mira Yurizaki]

7 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

However, I think it will be less of a problem than with the memory bottlenecking on the 2990wx. Now each ccx can directly access each stick of ram instead of having to do so over the infinity fabric

You're also having to feed more cores per CCX. In compute heavy tasks having 8 cores fight for the same stick of RAM is going to hurt more than 4 cores fighting for it.

[Opencircuit74]

The new R3s are supposed to be better than current R5s? "if it's too good to be true, it probably is", but I am still very excited to upgrade from the crappiest R5.

[Bouzoo]

2 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Damnit! I really didn't need my 1700X to be more inadequate than it already was .

There is no scenario where your 1700X is inadequate only because something better might come out. It is still an A grade CPU. 

[akb8812]

Cautiously excited......

[CarlBar]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Perhaps you quoted the wrong person, I never said AMD couldn't or wouldn't release said CPU's.   Expecting it to be "vastly" superior is happy days, but history says otherwise.

 

No i quoted the right person. The point is AMD would have to severely undercut what the silicon is capable of delivering to not get vastly better superior performance. hast just how big a deal the new node + chiplets are in terms of being able to produce practical desktop chips with this kind of bump.#

 

 

Why would AMD do that when they can go for the top end.

[Cereal5]

8 minutes ago, Techstorm970 said:

Haven't been keeping up with this, but it seems like 7nm might be the stuff of legend, at least for CPU architectures.

Except it depends on the standard. Intels 10nm is looking to be essentially the same as 7nm, and AMD’s 10nm was meh. 

[illegalwater]

8C/16T for $300~ was too good to be true once upon a time. Then Ryzen came out.

I'm confident that AMD is going to pull off another miracle now that they have a chiplet design and 7nm.