[updated] Ryzen 3000 CPU benchmark spotted on Sandra

[Master Disaster]

As is usually the way, SISsofts Sandra benchmark seems to always be the place where early benchmarks appear.

 

This time it's a Ryzen 3000 and MSIs X570 MEG.

Quote

AMD's next-gen Ryzen 3000-series processors are coming closer to launch "mid-year," so it isn't entirely surprising that the first benchmarks are beginning to surface. An eagle-eye Reddit user has spotted a mysterious quad-core Ryzen 3000-series processor in the SiSoftware Official Live Ranker database. The chip was tested with MSI's unreleased MEG X570 Creation motherboard.

According to people in the know this is an ES CPU so is still subject to change. It's a 4 core part with 3.4G base and 3.8G boost which very likely makes it a Ryzen 3.

Quote

The unidentified Matisse processor from the leak has the “2DS104BBM4GH2_38/34_N” product identifier. According to Marvin's handy AMD Condename Decoder, the leaked Ryzen 3000-series processor is an engineering sample, and therefore still subject to future changes. So take the initial specifications with a small pinch of salt.

 

As implied by its codename, this Ryzen 3000-series chip is a desktop processor that allegedly features four cores and eight threads. This configuration highly suggests that the processor in question is probably a entry-level Ryzen 3 part. Curiously, the quad-core, eight-thread setup also contradicts the AdoredTV Leak that purportedly claims that even the low-end Ryzen 3 3000-series models will come with six cores.

 

The quad-core Ryzen 3000-series processor reportedly runs with a 3.4GHz base clock and 3.8GHz boost clock. It also comes equipped with 4MB of L2 cache and 16MB of L3 cache. This model in particular carries a 65W TDP (thermal design power) badge, which concurs with AdoredTV's 65W allegation for Ryzen 3 3000-series chips.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-3000-series-matisse-msi-meg-x570-creation,38967.html

 

Update - Further benchmark results

https://ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/show_run.php?q=c2ffcdffd9b8d9e4dde5d5e6dfeec8ba87b791f491ac9cbac9f4cc&l=en
 

[Insert it's happening meme here]

[GoldenLag]

 

If we are going to bring in AdoredTV. Near the end he mentioned he had heard of chipset issues

 

This new X570 leak could be good sign that chipsets are improving. Hopefully they are

 

In the end, take everything with a spoonfull of salt. 

[JHurley7nrx]

40 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

As is usually the way, SISsofts Sandra benchmark seems to always be the place where early benchmarks appear.

 

This time it's a Ryzen 3000 and MSIs X570 MEG.

According to people in the know this is an ES CPU so is still subject to change. It's a 4 core part with 3.4G base and 3.8G boost which very likely makes it a Ryzen 3.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-3000-series-matisse-msi-meg-x570-creation,38967.html

 

[Insert it's happening meme here]

Late april fools hmm.....

[Bravo1cc]

Not taking this as an indication of what could come, who knows that the hell this is. Believe what you can see with real products not this rubbish, nothing against the OP, it's a good post.

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, GoldenLag said:

 

If we are going to bring in AdoredTV. Near the end he mentioned he had heard of chipset issues

 

This new X570 leak could be good sign that chipsets are improving. Hopefully they are

 

In the end, take everything with a spoonfull of salt. 

 

Also we've known for some time that AMD was considering weather to even bother with the 16 core part initially. He also did some speculation near the end of that vis a vis the number plate from the Forza CES demo and how that possibble info might result in changes from his leak.

 

Sounds to me lie AMD decided to make the initial top of the stack 12 core instead of 16 and bumped everything else up a notch, (there where always going to be Athalons based off the same designs so i imagine they just bumped the highest skew upwards).

[CarlBar]

Ok Looked up the original article and this might actually be some kind of Athlon part. The problem area is here:

 

2DS104BBM4GH2_38/34_N

 

Using the same decoder they link.

 

2 means it''s an ES (Early Sample) chip.

 

D indicates Desktop whilst S normally means server. So i have no idea what DS means. Thats a bit of a red flag but could be yet another tweak to the naming scheme.

 

104 should be in order: The revision, the chiplet count, and the core count. According to that this is a revision 1, 0 chiplet, 4 core processor.

 

This is either a fake, a new naming scheme, (which suggests it's probably not a normal 3000 processor), or a non-Ryzen Processor. Athlon makes the most obvious sense TBH. Whilst i kinda expected those to be a chiplet design too, they might be going with a monolithic for that. Though why they'd be sending out ES now on that i'm not sure... And why would you test that on a flagship X570 board, at least in this fashion, (obviously you want to check basic compatibility i should think).

[cj09beira]

3 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

Ok Looked up the original article and this might actually be some kind of Athlon part. The problem area is here:

 

2DS104BBM4GH2_38/34_N

 

Using the same decoder they link.

 

2 means it''s an ES (Early Sample) chip.

 

D indicates Desktop whilst S normally means server. So i have no idea what DS means. Thats a bit of a red flag but could be yet another tweak to the naming scheme.

 

104 should be in order: The revision, the chiplet count, and the core count. According to that this is a revision 1, 0 chiplet, 4 core processor.

 

This is either a fake, a new naming scheme, (which suggests it's probably not a normal 3000 processor), or a non-Ryzen Processor. Athlon makes the most obvious sense TBH. Whilst i kinda expected those to be a chiplet design too, they might be going with a monolithic for that. Though why they'd be sending out ES now on that i'm not sure... And why would you test that on a flagship X570 board, at least in this fashion, (obviously you want to check basic compatibility i should think).

might br because for testing purposes you dont need to use the highest end part, allowing amd to send the cpus to motherboard guys for testing and at the same time prevent performance leaks

[CarlBar]

Yeah whatever it's weird. I mean i wouldn't be socked if it is the R3 ethier, (or at least one skew), as we have known they've been umming and arring over the 16 core part. And if they decide nay there's not a lot of point from a marketing standpoint not making the 12 core the R9 part which is going to necessitate a reshuffle. Product Naming and Pricing can and is changed fairly last minute in most products.

 

But when i looked at the original article it caught my eye that we had somthing weird on our hands.

[xtroria]

I really don't want AMD to increase the core count again. If AMD increases their core count and then Intel also increase their core count, we who bought the 6 core processors are just gonna get screwed

[cj09beira]

2 minutes ago, xtroria said:

I really don't want AMD to increase the core count again. If AMD increases their core count and then Intel also increase their core count, we who bought the 6 core processors are just gonna get screwed

your cpu wont loose performance, it will only loose resale value 

[CarlBar]

If these numbers are acurratte, (and i'm starting to have doubts that this isn't some weird april fools), it's performing just behind, (in arithmetic, and just ahead in everything else), the i5-9500, and equivalent on arithmetic, (and again ahead on everything else), the I5-8400. If this thing has any OC'ing headroom, (and it really should as it's not even upto Zen+ frequency limits and we know TSMC's 7nm can push out more), it's probably going to demolish even the 9600k and 8700k.

 

3 minutes ago, xtroria said:

I really don't want AMD to increase the core count again. If AMD increases their core count and then Intel also increase their core count, we who bought the 6 core processors are just gonna get screwed

 

If this is real, they allready have without upping core counts. Have fun at that thought.

[NunoLava1998]

New Cryptography benchmark there.

 

Also, they ran benchmarks on the thing (what this leak is on IS a benchmark!). It's about the same CPU specs as a 1500X, but performs closer to a 2600 or 1700X.

[NunoLava1998]

2 minutes ago, NunoLava1998 said:

New Cryptography benchmark there.

 

Also, they ran benchmarks on the thing (what this leak is on IS a benchmark!). It's about the same CPU specs as a 1500X, but performs closer to a 2600 or 1700X.

Also, this is an engineering sample still a few months before production. Clocks on this thing are already 3.8GHz boost clock; it could quite well reach 4.5-5GHz boost clock.

[CarlBar]

2 minutes ago, NunoLava1998 said:

Also, this is an engineering sample still a few months before production. Clocks on this thing are already 3.8GHz boost clock; it could quite well reach 4.5-5GHz boost clock.

 

I think expecting them to ramp the clocks that high on such a low end part is unrealistic, but i'd fully expect them to be able to push into the low to mid 4GHz range if they wanted to.

 

Also having made better sense of the benchmarks sites system, (seriously they're filtering sucks,  i'm having to find actual desktop processors inside the huge mass of xenon skews cluttering the tables), it's not quite as bad as i thought, (the benchmarks for the 8700 i was looking at where with HT disabled), but it's still pretty rough looking for intel with much of their existing low end product stack getting hammered and some serious room for their mid rnage to take it in the neck as well. Which wouldn't be so bad if this wasn't just a 4 core part. We know AMD can double it to 8 cores and the uptick from that would really murder intel as they're getting such good low and mid result by using highly clocked 6 and 8 core parts. An actual 12 core would exterminate Intel hard at the current time.

[Sychic]

AMD should include AIOs with some of their higher end CPUs

[Stefan Payne]

28 minutes ago, xtroria said:

I really don't want AMD to increase the core count again. If AMD increases their core count and then Intel also increase their core count, we who bought the 6 core processors are just gonna get screwed

Yeah, that's the price of competition and progess, advancement in technology.

 

You youngster don't seem to know that there was a time where you chould throw away your old shit every year or two because the new stuff is +50-100% better.

 

Just look at when the 5V Pentium was released, succeded by the 100MHz set, the 200MHz Version came and AMD K6-2 or Pentium PRO or 2. That's a timeframe of around 2-3 Years...

 

 

But yeah, its better than having 4 Core CPUs for more than 10 years - 12 to be precise (2007 was the release of the Dual Core 2 Duo aka Core 2 Quad) and 4 cores with SMT2 also for almost 10 years as well.

 

No, its good that the Core Counts increase and that there is progress again after a 10 year old Hiatus in CPU Technology.

[Stefan Payne]

1 minute ago, Sychic said:

AMD should include AIOs with some of their higher end CPUs

They already did that some time ago.

 

but I doubt we will see that soon.

Because AOI just suck and are prone to failure. A lump of metal with a fan on it is not so they should keep it the way they do and not use some shit that will give people reason to whine because their AMD Boxed AIO failed....

If something fails it should be their *insertlabelhere* AIO....

[GoldenLag]

17 minutes ago, NunoLava1998 said:

Also, this is an engineering sample still a few months before production. Clocks on this thing are already 3.8GHz boost clock; it could quite well reach 4.5-5GHz boost clock.

No, iirc the Rome chiplets (the exact same as Ryzen) have been in production for a while. That is based of what they said at CES. Meaning AMD have the parts ready somewhere

[Sychic]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

No, iirc the Rome chiplets (the exact same as Ryzen) have been in production for a while. That is based of what they said at CES. Meaning AMD have the parts ready somewhere

Maybe they're still fine tuning it a bit. Trying to figure out definite clock speeds and such.

Alternatively, they might just be trying to drive up hype.

[GoldenLag]

Just now, Sychic said:

Maybe they're still fine tuning it a bit. Trying to figure out definite clock speeds and such.

Alternatively, they might just be trying to drive up hype.

Not really, at this point in time the only things holding them back are perhaps the chipsets and a launch window

[CarlBar]

9 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

No, iirc the Rome chiplets (the exact same as Ryzen) have been in production for a while. That is based of what they said at CES. Meaning AMD have the parts ready somewhere

 

The CPU chiplets are the same but the IO die isn't and EPYC is clocked far lower than this. Without knowing what makes this an early sample predictions on where the final clocks will be in relation to this is highly debatable. They doubtless know where the chiplets will go by now, but that doesn't mean that other factors aren't constraining their ability to clock up ES or decide where to clock production chips.

 

EDIT: Anyway sleep time for me, see you in 8-10 hours most likely. Assuming i don't have another broken sleep session.

[Sunako]

1 hour ago, xtroria said:

I really don't want AMD to increase the core count again. If AMD increases their core count and then Intel also increase their core count, we who bought the 6 core processors are just gonna get screwed

no one is getting screwed if they increase core counts. if a person bought a 6 core at the time it is what they could afford and met their needs. Just because there is a large leap forward and people that bought something in the past and something Better comes  out does not mean that people are geting screwed or ripped off.

[Doobeedoo]

Sandra that sneaky girl... 

I mean yey they're nearing to finishline with these. The ES clocks are expected, we won't see final clocks before retail units, but oof can't wait. 

[JoeCoke]

4 hours ago, xtroria said:

I really don't want AMD to increase the core count again. If AMD increases their core count and then Intel also increase their core count, we who bought the 6 core processors are just gonna get screwed

That's a reeeeeeeeeeally bad way of thinking.

[GDRRiley]

Why are most of you assuming it’s a ryzen 3. It could be an Athlon. 

Thats why to me it’s got lower clocks. 

If I can get 8 or 12 core at 4.2 or 4.5 OCed I’ll be supper happy. 

Goodbye my poor 6600k at 4.1