AMD's Upcoming Ryzen 3000XT Brings 7nm Improvements, Higher Boost (arstechnica.com) 46
AMD has announced three new additions to its desktop Ryzen CPU line: Ryzen 9 3900XT, Ryzen 7 3800XT, and Ryzen 5 3600XT. Ars Technica reports on the technical details: The new CPU designs take advantage of newly optimized 7nm process technology to offer higher performance at the same TDPs as Ryzen 3000 designs. The new 3000XT CPUs are drop-in replacements on AM4 motherboards that supported Ryzen 3000 CPUs and offer small (up to 4 percent) single-threaded performance improvements over their Ryzen 3000 counterparts. Although the single-threaded performance improvements are small, the margins between CPUs in that stat tend to be razor-thin, and AMD says they're enough to take the coveted single-thread performance crown away from Intel. A 4 percent improvement to the Ryzen 9 3900X score shown on the CGDirector leaderboard would come out to 531 -- a few points higher than CGDirector's posted score for the i9-10900K, although a few points lower than our own Cinebench R20 result for that processor, using an NZXT fluid-cooler and Primochill Praxis open-air bench.
AMD has determined that most consumers are discarding the free Wraith Spire coolers in favor of higher-performance third-party cooling systems -- so in the 3000XT line, only the Ryzen 5 3600XT retains the included OEM cooler. Ryzen 9 3900XT and Ryzen 7 3800XT will require the consumer to supply their own cooling solution, and AMD recommends "a minimum 280mm radiator or equivalent air cooling." The company offers the existing 3950X compatibility list for those who aren't sure what to buy. AMD also announced a new motherboard chipset for Ryzen 3000 desktop processors: the A520. A new version of AMD's StoreMI software will also be coming soon.
AMD's press release can be read here.
AMD has determined that most consumers are discarding the free Wraith Spire coolers in favor of higher-performance third-party cooling systems -- so in the 3000XT line, only the Ryzen 5 3600XT retains the included OEM cooler. Ryzen 9 3900XT and Ryzen 7 3800XT will require the consumer to supply their own cooling solution, and AMD recommends "a minimum 280mm radiator or equivalent air cooling." The company offers the existing 3950X compatibility list for those who aren't sure what to buy. AMD also announced a new motherboard chipset for Ryzen 3000 desktop processors: the A520. A new version of AMD's StoreMI software will also be coming soon.
AMD's press release can be read here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is typically reflected as new stepping version...
Re: (Score:3)
yep, no real improvements, they are not new CPU designs just the same chips but better binning.
Except the real improvement is 4% and this has nothing to do with binning.
now I can see they aren't worth it I can just go with the existing chips and sell the cooler for $20 and be $100+ ahead.
And no, you can't sell the existing cooler. They are literally worthless aftermarket since everyone has one. If you were waiting for a minor IPC improvement which was the only thing known about these in the rumour mill then that's your fault. For most people this isn't a relevant upgrade, for others its a critical upgrade.
Single core performance still matters for many workloads which is why people some people still pay the Intel premi
Re: (Score:1)
At times it's difficult to explain to how people still put so much trust into sources that have been wrong so often with the rumours they push forward. Maybe they're new to it? Maybe they're just morons?
For example my 3900X should run 5GHz on all cores easily if you believed the pre release wccftech rumours. In reality, it manages to sta
Re: (Score:1)
I recommend Moore's Law is Dead.
Re: (Score:2)
These also deal in rumours and leaks to some degree. But I get the impression that they try to keep the expectations realistic instead of stoking the hype that affects both fanboys and haters alike.
The single threaded thing from AMD for example reminded me of how Gamers Nexus gave Intel shit for claiming that 60% of [gamersnexus.net]
Re:just better binning (Score:4, Informative)
No, it is a different manufacturing process. It says so in the first line of the summary. TSMC has a "N7+" that utilizes "extreme ultraviolet" lithography (from their webpage). This is a different process then their previous 7nm process that requires a different design and apparently offers better performance. Although the big improvement with EUV is that they can push the process down even further - to 5nm right now.
So it is not binning but a different design - probably generated directly from the previous design so there will be no real differences between the two. Sort of like changing the optimization settings on your compiler - a different result with slightly different performance but basically the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The TSMC investment is in the factory that can develop 5nm parts. It might be used for 7nm parts right now, but it can be quickly switched over to the smaller node. Before starting mass production of 5nm parts, several 7nm factories will have to be converted to use EUV.
AMD will be making their parts in one of these factories converted to EUV. It is good for them because the parts are slightly faster. But the real reason for the switch is because TSMC is updating their factories getting ready for the
Re: just better binning (Score:1)
Then that was a pretty shitty investment...
Intel's shills - if you're any indication are a pretty shitty investment. Is it desperation or acquiescence?
Re: (Score:2)
Then that was a pretty shitty investment if all they got out of it was a slightly higher boost on a single core.
No that's a pretty standard investment that all companies make. A change in product process rarely secures more than a few percent performance difference in parts. What it does secure is capability to manufacture previously unmanufacturable parts allowing them to reap the benefits of their investment for many years to come.
Maybe an extra surprise next week.. (Score:1)
So if Apple is going with ARM chips in some new computers... why not AMD in others?
That would be a pretty interesting twist.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if that was true, I wouldn't announce it at the same event. Apple would want all the buzz to be about their new ARM products and portray x86 as becoming a legacy system. Then later spin it as falling out of favor with Intel, but don't worry with AMD we still have our existing customers with x86 needs covered. Because I have the feeling when their ARM line comes it'll have "courage".
Re:Maybe an extra surprise next week.. (Score:5, Informative)
Rumor is, Apple wants full control over their hardware chain. With ARM, they can design their own chips.
Re: (Score:2)
mac pro should of been amd more cores, more pci-e, (Score:2)
mac pro should of been amd more cores, more pci-e, more ram
Re: (Score:2)
Ye gods, man! Aren't we worth the little amount of consideration it would have taken you to write a complete and correct sentence?
Also as far as I remember, there is a caveat with the amount of RAM AMD CPUs can handle, I just can't remember what it was off the top of my head.
Re: (Score:2)
In practice memory limits are based on how many sticks can be handled by a single channel, which has been limited to two for quite some time, the exception being with registered boards.
Both Intel and AMD's workstation platforms can be easily adapted to use registered memory.
Re: (Score:2)
ARM is likely to be great for high-end. AWS has already made a partial switch. The only reason x86 is around is because of legacy code and it's easy to develop for. Apple really cares about neither.
If something can run very cool at low clocks with no fans, it can also run very fast with modest cooling. They're the same optimization target. Just need better I/O connections.
Actual News for Nerds!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Woo hoo.. We actually had a nerdy story! I hate how every site on the entire internet has turned into a general mainstream politics site. It's totally freaking annoying.
Did AMD fix the Spectre vulnerability? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Intel did not, but what about AMD?
Literally no one buying these chips cares. Come ask that question again when a story discusses a low cost CPU used by cloud service providers.
280mm AIO for a ~100W part? (Score:2)
I mean I get the recommendation from AMD. Ryzen's core boosting combined with PBO gets real world performance improvements if you can keep the temperature low, but the announcement is a bit two faced. "We provide better performance for the same thermals". "Oh we don't ship a cooler anymore and our recommendation is you buy a far better cooler than we have ever shipped with our CPUs."
I mean it's a good recommendation, but I hope reviewers don't start salivating over this when comparing a 3900X with a Wraith
Re: (Score:2)
Their own Coolers are for 40-65W retail stuff and they have always been a POS - both in terms of cooling and noise.
If you want more (or quieter) - grab an Arctic of choice. There are sub 12£ cooling solutions which are perfectly fit for purpose for the 95W chips and there are bigger monsters for the bigger chips.
Re: (Score:2)
Their own Coolers are for 40-65W retail stuff and they have always been a POS - both in terms of cooling and noise.
The Wraith coolers launched with Ryzen are way better than in the past. Intel coolers are a joke now.
Re: (Score:2)
Their own Coolers are for 40-65W retail stuff and they have always been a POS - both in terms of cooling and noise.
The Wraith coolers launched with Ryzen are way better than in the past. Intel coolers are a joke now.
I have a wraith on my machine. It is pissing me off and will be replaced by an Arctic at the first major maintenance (I already did that with the one which came with the CPU for the daughter's new box). This little baby fits on nearly any desktop AMD CPU made in the last decade. It is well worth the money: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/pr... [amazon.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there are vendors that sell these CPUs without the coolers, but that is not what AMD officially does.
AMD's Ryzen stock coolers aren't great compared to 3rd party cooling solution, but they aren't awful either.
For people on a tight budget these have been a good option to safe some money on the init
Re: (Score:2)
They stopped providing coolers for their higher end CPUs ages ago.
They have precisely a single desktop CPU that is shipping without a cooler, the 3950x and that processor has been on the market for less than half a year.
Their own Coolers are for 40-65W retail stuff and they have always been a POS - both in terms of cooling and noise.
Their own coolers are perfectly fine for sustained boosts as advertised and they provided coolers for 250W parts too. In fact you will get a very different cooler if you buy a 40w part compared to a 65w part compared to 105W part, so either you're claiming that the low end can't cool the high end (no shit), or have no clue what you're talking about.
If you want more (or quieter) - grab an Arctic of choice.
Can I g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In what currency are you seeing a Hyper 212 for $16? In USD, it hasn't cracked below $30 in a very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I know *why* they don't ship them anymore. I'm just saying it's quite hilarious they say in the same sentence "we got better performance for the same thermal load, by the way we recommend a far better cooler than we ever gave you in the past."
As for the Hyper 212, apparently it gives no performance gain over the Wraith Prism in the reviews, so instead I'm going to light a $2 cheap cigar with a $10 note so at least I can look cool, because god knows buying an arse cooler to replace a crap cooler doesn't g
so since no OEM cooler (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's priced similarly to a significantly slower but higher core count 3950X then you are already comparing chips that never came with coolers.
Re: (Score:2)
MSRP for the new 3900XT is $499, while the 3900X is $415 at the moment.
That's a price increase of 20% for a performance increase of up to 5% and that only in single threaded applications, which gradually vanished since the 2000's to being almost non existent these days except for legacy software of course.
So I'm not sure to whom these CPUs are of interest except people who must have an AMD CPU and want the