Rumor: AMD Zen 2 Ryzen 3000 to hit 5.0 GHz! Updated from AMD Keynote regarding 3rd-gen Ryzen

  • 52 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for davillain-
#1 Edited by DaVillain- (36580 posts) -

Update from AMD Keynote:

  • R7 3700X: $329
  • R7 3800X: $399
  • R9 3900X: $499

all prices in USD. July 7th is the date of release. Here's a supercut vid need to know:

Original OP:

Taken from wccftech AMD claims Ryzen 3000 could hit to 5.0 GHz but of course, take this with a grind of salt as always but nevertheless, anyone hoping to upgrade any current Ryzen 2000 may wish to hold-off until the 3000 series have been announce and detail.

AMD Zen 2 Ryzen 3000 Series 12 Core – 5.0 GHz Turbo

Now, moving on to the purported speed demon of the Ryzen 3000 series. This is a 12 core part with a yet unknown base clock speed but one that allegedly boosts to 5.0 GHz right out of the box. This chip was allegedly being showed around over the past little while to motherboard makers. In fact, just two weeks ago we had reported that such a chip exists and that motherboard makers were taking a look at it, but we had no idea how high it boosted, we just knew that it had a “really high” clock speed.

If the 16 core chip’s overclocking results are anything to go by then we may be able to see these 12 core Ryzens overclock to 4.2 GHz+ on all cores. There’s very little doubt that these 12 cores will be extremely popular among enthusiasts, due to their exceedingly high clocks and core counts. We could be looking at the new jack of all trades chip, with decent gaming performance and incredible multi-core brute force.

AMD Ryzen CPU Cores/Threads Base Clock Boost Clock TDP Price Debut

  • Ryzen 3 3300 6/12 3.2GHz 4.0GHz 50W $99 CES
  • Ryzen 3 3300X 6/12 3.5GHz 4.3GHz 65W $129 CES
  • Ryzen 3 3300G 6/12 3.0GHz 3.8GHz 65W $129 Q3 2019
  • Ryzen 5 3600 8/16 3.6GHz 4.4GHz 65W $178 CES
  • Ryzen 5 3600X 8/16 4.0GHz 4.8GHz 95W $229 CES
  • Ryzen 5 3600G 8/16 3.2GHz 4.0GHz 95W $199 Q3 2019
  • Ryzen 7 3700 12/24 3.8GHz 4.6GHz 95W $299 CES
  • Ryzen 7 3700X 12/24 4.2GHz 5.0GHz 105W $329 CES
  • Ryzen 9 3800X 16/32 TBA TBA 125W $449 CES
  • Ryzen 9 3850X 16/32 TBA TBA 135W $499 TBA

If this is true, I might consider switching from 2700X to 3700X and while I'm not expecting to hit 5.0 GHz, if I can at least hit 4.5 GHz, I'll totally be happy with that. I'm keeping my expectations and hype tempered, hoping the 3700X will mostly live up to the rumors though but hey, take it with a grind of salt.

Avatar image for BassMan
#2 Edited by BassMan (10220 posts) -

@davillain-: 2700X is a good CPU, but it still lags behind the Intel offerings for IPC and gaming performance. So, if you are not having to switch mobo, it is worthwhile to buy the 3700X and sell your 2700X for the frequency boost. The extra cores don't hurt either. :)

Avatar image for mastershake575
#3 Edited by mastershake575 (8538 posts) -

Clockrates, number of cores, and price are incredible (rumored prices seem too good to be true to be honest).

Add on top of that at least a 5% increase in IPC and you have a must buy product.

Avatar image for howmakewood
#4 Posted by Howmakewood (5884 posts) -

Would be great if they could reach higher clocks than the first 2 gens, but wccftech is a worthless site that just posts shit for visibility all the time...

Anyway we should be getting info in a month or two?

Avatar image for PfizersaurusRex
#5 Posted by PfizersaurusRex (1233 posts) -

Ryzen 1000 and 2000 series aren't good clockers, and neither are their GPU's. But suddenly they got it all figured out? OK let's wait and see.

Avatar image for rmpumper
#6 Posted by rmpumper (618 posts) -

Looks like I might upgrade my whole system this year if the 3700X spec and price are true.

Avatar image for urbangamez
#7 Posted by urbangamez (3487 posts) -

can't wait. time for amd to win the battle of cpu.

Avatar image for Grey_Eyed_Elf
#8 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (6389 posts) -

Judging by how Ryzen 1800X can be clocked to 4.1-4.2GHz and a 2700X can hit 4.1-4.2GHz... I don't believe we will be seeing anything close to 5GHz especially on anything more than 8 cores even with the die shrink.

People are very gullible when it comes to AMD rumours, they have been saying for almost half a year now that Navi will be $200-250 and compete with GTX 1080... Turns out the latest leak from Sapphire is that their will only be two launch cards one for $399 2060-2070 performance(GTX 1080) and $499 with better than 2070 performance.

If people really believe Zen 2 will give them IPC better than Intel and 5GHz boosts with 12 cores for less than $400... Then I have no faith in you fools.

Avatar image for Yams1980
#9 Posted by Yams1980 (3481 posts) -

boost clock though, doesn't mean very much. That could mean just 1 or 2 cores hitting 5ghz for a few seconds. Its hard to really be that impressed with it. My old 2600k from 2011 i could clock all 4 cores / 8 threads to 5ghz with using just a Noctua air cooler.

My current 4770k cpu is a trash overclocker though, i can't hit over 4.4ghz without some huge voltage increases which put the heat output more than I can handle.

I been waiting for years to upgrade, I did buy a 1700x ryzen for a pc i use to monitor security cameras and it works good. But i need one for gaming, so i'm waiting and hoping AMD does actually deliver, if not, i'll have no choice but to get intel again to upgrade my current cpu.

Avatar image for horgen
#10 Posted by Horgen (120484 posts) -

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: I'm hoping for 4.5GHz. I don't know who started the rumour about hitting 5GHz. I will be very surprised if it does.

Avatar image for mastershake575
#11 Edited by mastershake575 (8538 posts) -

@horgen said:

I'm hoping for 4.5GHz. I don't know who started the rumour about hitting 5GHz. I will be very surprised if it does.

Alot of these rumors have been getting too antsy.

Reality is if these chips hit all core boost of 4.4-4.6ghz with a 5-7% increase in IPC and undercut Intel prices (which the previous two lines did) then it will be a best seller, especially since the rumor is each product line getting at least a 2 core increase from previous gen

Avatar image for horgen
#12 Posted by Horgen (120484 posts) -

@mastershake575 said:
@horgen said:

I'm hoping for 4.5GHz. I don't know who started the rumour about hitting 5GHz. I will be very surprised if it does.

Alot of these rumors have been getting too antsy.

Reality is if these chips hit all core boost of 4.4-4.6ghz with a 5-7% increase in IPC and undercut Intel prices (which the previous two lines did) then it will be a best seller, especially since the rumor is each product line getting at least a 2 core increase from previous gen

It will be single or dual core boost from AMD, through OC it will probably be on all cores.

Avatar image for Bikouchu35
#13 Posted by Bikouchu35 (8299 posts) -

It would be one of two things. It fails to hit big ol' 5Gs err GHz and it would be priced competitively to undercut intel. It does hit 5GHz, but it would be actually expensive.

W.e it maybe. Just wait until computex and even e3 for all the smoke to clear out. The easy bet is that Zen2/Ryzen 3000 will have a larger gap than Zen to Zen+ kind of like going from sandy bridge to ivy bridge then haswell. I actually have some faith that amd is about to release somewhat of a beast for a cpu. They seem to have placed their eggs on the cpu end with a better team and a better result while their gpu end has been suffering.

I'm also curious if the old boards can even handle all the additional cores though. It seems like amd is trying to drag intel into a core count war in where they have the upper hand thanks to insanely great yields as oppose to intel thats struggling to make enough.

Avatar image for Yams1980
#14 Posted by Yams1980 (3481 posts) -
@Bikouchu35 said:

I'm also curious if the old boards can even handle all the additional cores though.

I wonder the same thing. In one of my PCs i have a 1700x with a first gen board.

I'd be really impressed if it could actually handle a 16 core 32 thread cpu but in reality I really doubt it will be able to.

And if anything, i'd be lucky enough to be able to put in another 8 core/16 thread since I doubt the power usage is low enough to allow putting a 16 core cpu in a slot that was originally meant for just a 8 core.

AMD boards are really cheap though, i got my motherboard for just around 100 dollars, so even if we had to buy a brand new motherboard its not much of a hit.

Avatar image for BassMan
#15 Edited by BassMan (10220 posts) -

@Yams1980: 3700X is definitely a good upgrade over a 1700X. DO IT! :)

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#16 Posted by GoldenElementXL (3172 posts) -

The 2700X is trash for 144hz. I NEED a faster Ryzen!

It’s time to take my money AMD. Don’t let me down

Avatar image for npiet1
#17 Edited by npiet1 (2258 posts) -

It's OC'ed so we could see it. People have gotten 6ghz with supercooling with older cpu's.
I really just can't wait for graphene to enter the scene so we get real jumps, to bad it is so expensive.

Avatar image for horgen
#18 Posted by Horgen (120484 posts) -

@goldenelementxl said:

The 2700X is trash for 144hz. I NEED a faster Ryzen!

It’s time to take my money AMD. Don’t let me down

You need lower latency.

Avatar image for WESTBLADE
#19 Posted by WESTBLADE (432 posts) -
@goldenelementxl said:

The 2700X is trash for 144hz. I NEED a faster Ryzen!

It’s time to take my money AMD. Don’t let me down

Get a top-end Intel CPU, then you don't have to deal with performance issues/upgrades for half a decade...

Avatar image for davillain-
#20 Posted by DaVillain- (36580 posts) -
@goldenelementxl said:

The 2700X is trash for 144hz. I NEED a faster Ryzen!

It’s time to take my money AMD. Don’t let me down

Tell me about it! Even my overclocked 2070 couldn't believe it. This is all or nothing for Ryzen 3000 series.

@WESTBLADE said:

Get a top-end Intel CPU, then you don't have to deal with performance issues/upgrades for half a decade...

I really don't wanna switch back to Intel and I don't like their shady tactics either. My Ryzen 2700X has been really good to me, and hoping Ryzen 3700X to be alot faster at least. Plus, going back to Intel means I gotta buy another MB and it's a bitch upgrading the whole damn thing.

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#21 Posted by GoldenElementXL (3172 posts) -

Well it was all a lie...
AMD Computex practice run was posted on Youtube. Ryzen 9 is the 12 core 24 thread chip. 4.6Ghz boost, 3.8Ghz base. It launches 7/7 at $499.

Loading Video...
Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#22 Posted by GoldenElementXL (3172 posts) -

The video was just pulled...

Avatar image for rmpumper
#23 Posted by rmpumper (618 posts) -

Gotta love the rumors, lol. Real prices/specs:

3700X 8c/16t 3.60 GHz with 4.40 GHz boost 65W - $329

3800X 8c/16t 3.90 GHz with 4.50 GHz boost 105W - $399

3900X 12c/24t 3.80 GHz with 4.60 boost 105W (WTF?) - $499

Avatar image for howmakewood
#24 Posted by Howmakewood (5884 posts) -

Pretends to be socked that wccftech was boat load of crap.

Avatar image for BassMan
#25 Edited by BassMan (10220 posts) -

3900X looks good, but 3700X is a joke. Only 100mhz boost over 2700X with the focus on lower power consumption. Still... they are claiming decent performance gains over the last gen. So, I will wait to see some third party benchmarks and how good these things are at OC.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-third-gen-ryzen-7nm-launch-intel-cpu,39449.html

Avatar image for urbangamez
#26 Posted by urbangamez (3487 posts) -

dissappointed with the presentation, but this only proves that transparency is always the best solution in product launches, this would have been better received if amd had independent benchmarks to show. i know companies want to control the message, but the best message any company can have is, we have the best product unless the comapny is named apple in which case nothing matters.

Avatar image for davillain-
#27 Posted by DaVillain- (36580 posts) -

I updated the OP guys. Hope this helps and provided a quick video above need to know basic.

@BassMan said:

3900X looks good, but 3700X is a joke. Only 100mhz boost over 2700X with the focus on lower power consumption. Still... they are claiming decent performance gains over the last gen. So, I will wait to see some third party benchmarks and how good these things are at OC.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-third-gen-ryzen-7nm-launch-intel-cpu,39449.html

My thoughts on 3900X looks the way to go and the logical choice for me. 3700X looks perfect for a mini ITX build and that's about it. $499 for the 3900X not too shabby and if that CPU can be OC on all cores to 5.0 Ghz quite easily, then I'm happy with the results. Like you said, we'll need to look at 3rd party benchmarks before we get ahead of ourselves lol.

Avatar image for PfizersaurusRex
#28 Posted by PfizersaurusRex (1233 posts) -

Not that I actually need more cores, but I'm just wondering... If 8 cores fit in that small "square" like we saw on that preview chip months ago then obviously 16 can fit in 2 of them. Unless it's a 2x6 design but that wouldn't make sense would it. So, are they actually saving the 16C/32T CPU for the next generation?

Avatar image for Grey_Eyed_Elf
#29 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (6389 posts) -

What did I tell you gullible fools?!

You really thought you would get a 12 core chip for $329 at 5GHz!... LOL.

Can't wait for Navi to launch and be slower than Nvidia in 60-70% of the games at the same price points without dedicated Ray Tracing hardware.

Avatar image for BassMan
#30 Edited by BassMan (10220 posts) -

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: I don't think anybody fully believed the 'leaked' details. However, I am somewhat dissapointed that the 3700X and 3800X do not boost higher for 8C/16T CPUs.

Avatar image for horgen
#31 Posted by Horgen (120484 posts) -

I might pre order the 3800X.

Avatar image for BassMan
#32 Edited by BassMan (10220 posts) -

@horgen said:

I might pre order the 3800X.

I would spend a little more and get the 3900X. 50% more cores for $100 is nothing.

Avatar image for horgen
#33 Posted by Horgen (120484 posts) -

@BassMan: that would require some gaming mode I think, otherwise I have to deal with the increased latency from infinity fabric

Avatar image for BassMan
#34 Posted by BassMan (10220 posts) -

@horgen said:

@BassMan: that would require some gaming mode I think, otherwise I have to deal with the increased latency from infinity fabric

It is part of the Ryzen family and not Threadripper. So, there shouldn't be any issue for gaming.

Avatar image for horgen
#35 Posted by Horgen (120484 posts) -

@BassMan said:
@horgen said:

@BassMan: that would require some gaming mode I think, otherwise I have to deal with the increased latency from infinity fabric

It is part of the Ryzen family and not Threadripper. So, there shouldn't be any issue for gaming.

8 cores per chiplet. Hence why I think we will see a 16 core later on.

Avatar image for BassMan
#36 Posted by BassMan (10220 posts) -

@horgen said:
@BassMan said:
@horgen said:

@BassMan: that would require some gaming mode I think, otherwise I have to deal with the increased latency from infinity fabric

It is part of the Ryzen family and not Threadripper. So, there shouldn't be any issue for gaming.

8 cores per chiplet. Hence why I think we will see a 16 core later on.

Highly likely, but it will also be more expensive and you have to wait. 3900X seems like a solid CPU and it is the one that I would buy out of the current lineup.

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#37 Posted by Random_Matt (4147 posts) -

Would a 9700K/9900K be a better choice?

Avatar image for BassMan
#38 Edited by BassMan (10220 posts) -

@Random_Matt said:

Would a 9700K/9900K be a better choice?

Judging by their charts, no. I have a 9900K myself and I would probably buy a 3900X right now if I was looking to buy a CPU. Intel has been pissing me off with the security exploits that plague their chips. The mitigations in place lower performance.

Avatar image for howmakewood
#39 Posted by Howmakewood (5884 posts) -
@BassMan said:
@Random_Matt said:

Would a 9700K/9900K be a better choice?

Judging by their charts, no. I have a 9900K myself and I would probably buy a 3900X right now if I was looking to buy a CPU. Intel has been pissing me off with the security exploits that plague their chips. The mitigations in place lower performance.

Do you run UAC and most of the programs as admin? That's something most gamers tend to do in favor of higher performance and in that case the security updates dont really do anything except eat perf

Avatar image for horgen
#40 Posted by Horgen (120484 posts) -

@Random_Matt said:

Would a 9700K/9900K be a better choice?

If you're looking for best possible performance, they will be the better choice.

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#41 Posted by Random_Matt (4147 posts) -
@BassMan said:
@Random_Matt said:

Would a 9700K/9900K be a better choice?

Judging by their charts, no. I have a 9900K myself and I would probably buy a 3900X right now if I was looking to buy a CPU. Intel has been pissing me off with the security exploits that plague their chips. The mitigations in place lower performance.

Hmm, maybe. It's damn hard to throw away my history of Intel/Nvidia. I'll will see what UK prices are, likely cheaper anyway.

Avatar image for BassMan
#42 Posted by BassMan (10220 posts) -

@Random_Matt: It is still a good idea to wait for third party/independent benchmarks to see real world gaming performance between Intel and AMD.

Avatar image for BassMan
#43 Edited by BassMan (10220 posts) -

@howmakewood: I turned off UAC and I only run as admin if I am having issues with a program.

Avatar image for locus-solus
#44 Posted by locus-solus (1116 posts) -

9900ks intel's next gen 10nm ice lake still needs a software patch for vulnerabilities wonder how long it's going to take to fix at hardware level?

9900ks can boost all 8 cores to 5ghz out of box so it might overclock better than the non ks. quick google search says 10th gen ice lake has a 18% average ipc increase sounds too good to be true.

going to be interesting watching gaming benchmarks of ryzen 3000 vs ice lake.

probably won't be enough to get me to upgrade my 5820k 6c/12t 4.5 ghz

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#45 Posted by Random_Matt (4147 posts) -
@locus-solus said:

9900ks intel's next gen 10nm ice lake still needs a software patch for vulnerabilities wonder how long it's going to take to fix at hardware level?

9900ks can boost all 8 cores to 5ghz out of box so it might overclock better than the non ks. quick google search says 10th gen ice lake has a 18% average ipc increase sounds too good to be true.

going to be interesting watching gaming benchmarks of ryzen 3000 vs ice lake.

probably won't be enough to get me to upgrade my 5820k 6c/12t 4.5 ghz

So the 9900S/KF do not boost on all cores? That aside, the Aorus X570 ITX has taken my attention currently, not entirely sure if I should give a shit about PCI-4

Avatar image for locus-solus
#46 Edited by locus-solus (1116 posts) -

@Random_Matt: all cores boost to 5ghz temporarily with turbo boost 3.0 from my understanding without a oc.

pcie gen 4 will double bandwidth useful if you want to switch to 100% pcie ssd for system storage. pcie ssd are a lot faster than sata ssd. but wait a year and pcie gen 5 supposed to launch which quadruples the speed from gen 3. end to loading times as we know it, and should be reasonably priced with dropping nand prices.

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#47 Posted by Random_Matt (4147 posts) -
@locus-solus said:

@Random_Matt: all cores boost to 5ghz temporarily with turbo boost 3.0 from my understanding without a oc.

pcie gen 4 will double bandwidth useful if you want to switch to 100% pcie ssd for system storage. pcie ssd are a lot faster than sata ssd. but wait a year and pcie gen 5 supposed to launch which quadruples the speed from gen 3. end to loading times as we know it, and should be reasonably priced with dropping nand prices.

I'll wait till July at the very least to read reviews etc, probably just stick with Intel and wait till 2021, apparently their 10nm processors do not arrive until then.

Avatar image for mastershake575
#48 Posted by mastershake575 (8538 posts) -

Have to wait for reviews but I thought the all core out of the box speeds would be a little faster.

Not a super big deal since I didn't think the IPC increase would be that large + it will still undercut Intel prices significantly

Avatar image for Bikouchu35
#49 Posted by Bikouchu35 (8299 posts) -

I'm curious now how good is the ipc increase in real life benchmarks ran by reviewers and average joes like us. The leap was always going to be bigger going from zen to zen+, just how much now I have to see. I'm also curious if the chip turns out to be a good overclocker too since they are going from glofo to tsmc on top of going to 7nm. So it may only boost to 4.6GHz, but it doesn't mean thats the wall either or maybe not.

Now as for the 16c/32t, this draws back to my worrying suspicion if the x470/b450 and older boards can even handle the extra load. I can see multiple possible scenarios, they don't release it, release it but it'll be lower clocked and less headroom to fit within the tdp sort of like how threadripper are with their lineup, or pull a fast one making it only work with x570 boards. I think amd is smart for not saying anything while leaving it wild in the showroom, this keeps us on our toes without hurting the sales of the near release 3000 chips. They probably saving it to pit against intel too and this gives them time to iron the process out.

Avatar image for PCgameruk
#50 Posted by PCgameruk (2272 posts) -

Which Ryzen will be better for gaming? getting the most expensive CPU is not always the obvious choice. i have the 1700X with a 1080ti 1440p 144hz my aim. Also does any1 know if my Coolmaster water cooling would fit in the new boards?