New AMD Ryzen 3000XT Processors Available Today
by Dr. Ian Cutress on July 7, 2020 9:01 AM EST
Announced a couple of weeks ago, the new AMD Ryzen 3000XT models with increased clock frequencies should be available today in primary markets. These new processors offer slightly higher performance than their similarly named 3000X counterparts for the same price, with AMD claiming to be taking advantage of a minor update in process node technology in order to achieve slightly better clock frequencies.
The new 3000XT family of processors focuses mostly on boosting the turbo frequency by 100-200 MHz for the same power. AMD states that this is due to using an optimized 7nm manufacturing process. This is likely due to a minor BKM or PDK update that allows TSMC/AMD to tune the process for a better voltage/frequency curve and bin a single CPU slightly higher.
An update in this range could be indicative of a ~10 mV better voltage for a single core, although this would normally be in the binning noise - for it to be statistically relevant would need a lot of CPUs, so this could just be better binning. However, base frequencies haven’t moved much, so performance-per-watt benefits are going to be somewhat minimal. The biggest uptick would be in 1T scenarios.
Each of the new XT processors is the highest speed variant of its respective class.
| AMD 'Matisse' Ryzen 3000 Series CPUs | |||||||||
| AnandTech | Cores Threads |
Base Freq |
Boost Freq |
L3 Cache |
PCIe 4.0 |
TDP | Price (SEP) |
||
| Ryzen 9 | 3950X | 16C | 32T | 3.5 | 4.7 | 4x16 MB | 16+4+4 | 105W | $749 |
| Ryzen 9 | 3900XT | 12C | 24T | 3.8 | 4.7 | 4x16 MB | 16+4+4 | 105W | $499 |
| Ryzen 9 | 3900X | 12C | 24T | 3.8 | 4.6 | 4x16 MB | 16+4+4 | 105W | $499 |
| Ryzen 9 | 3900 | 12C | 24T | 3.1 | 4.3 | 4x16 MB | 16+4+4 | 65W | OEM |
| Ryzen 7 | 3800XT | 8C | 16T | 3.9 | 4.7 | 2x16 MB | 16+4+4 | 105W | $399 |
| Ryzen 7 | 3800X | 8C | 16T | 3.9 | 4.5 | 2x16 MB | 16+4+4 | 105W | $399 |
| Ryzen 7 | 3700X | 8C | 16T | 3.6 | 4.4 | 2x16 MB | 16+4+4 | 65W | $329 |
| Ryzen 5 | 3600XT | 6C | 12T | 3.8 | 4.5 | 2x16 MB | 16+4+4 | 95W | $249 |
| Ryzen 5 | 3600X | 6C | 12T | 3.8 | 4.4 | 2x16 MB | 16+4+4 | 95W | $249 |
| Ryzen 5 | 3600 | 6C | 12T | 3.6 | 4.2 | 2x16 MB | 16+4+4 | 65W | $199 |
| Ryzen 5 | 3500X | 6C | 6T | 3.6 | 4.1 | 2x16 MB | 16+4+4 | 65W | OEM |
| Ryzen 3 | 3300X | 4C | 8T | 3.8 | 4.3 | 1x16 MB | 16+4+4 | 65W | $120 |
| Ryzen 3 | 3100 | 4C | 8T | 3.6 | 3.9 | 2x8 MB | 16+4+4 | 65W | $99 |
Users should note that the prices listed are official SEP (Suggested Etailer Price). In March, AMD did announce a temporary AMD-focused price drop, but that has since passed. Retailer pricing will vary with local sales practices.
The top new processor is the Ryzen 9 3900XT which offers +100 MHz turbo over the 3900X, for the same official price as the 3900X. The 3800XT offers +200 MHz on single core turbo over the 3800X for the same price. The final new processor is the 3600XT, with +100 MHz on the turbo frequency, again for the same price over the 3600X.
In each three cases, the XT processors give slightly better frequency than the X units, so we should expect to see an official permanent price drop on the X processors in order to keep everything in line.
AMD’s announcement today also includes information about thermal solutions. The Ryzen 5 3600XT, with six cores, will come bundled with AMD’s Wraith Spire cooler. For the other two CPUs, AMD’s own press release states that the company ‘is recommending the use of an AIO solution with a minimum 280mm radiator or equivalent air cooling to experience these products at their best’. This does seem somewhat overkill for 105 W processors, especially if the package power tracking on these parts should be ~142 watts, notwithstanding any trickery that the motherboard manufacturers are doing.
These new processors will be supported in any motherboard that already supports Zen 2-based Ryzen 3000 hardware (the cost in BIOS space to add a CPU of the same family is negligible).
Performance
While we have had these three processors in for testing over the last week or so, we are in the process of transitioning to a new benchmark suite for 2020/2021, with updated CPU tests, newer games, and game testing with RTX 2080 Ti graphics cards. This bench suite is still a work in progress with regression testing older models, and so at this point we do not have a strong enough dataset to confidently do the processors a full review in the AnandTech way. A number of the tests use updated software packages, and so comparison to previous versions is not possible, however we do have some metrics which align that we can share with you.
Graphs will be updated as results come in.
As we can see, there isn’t much between the old X models and the new XT models – increasing the turbo frequency a little means that there is scope for increased performance in low thread-count workloads, but ultimately the voltage/frequency curve when we start pushing with more cores loaded counts in those high density benchmarks.
We’re planning on doing a full article with our updated benchmark suite and new tests after we’ve done more regression testing. There will also be a new section in Bench to cover our new benchmark suite. Stay tuned for that.
Related Reading
- AMD To Launch New Ryzen 3000 XT CPUs: Zen 2 with More MHz
- Electromigration: Why AMD Ryzen Current Boosting Won't Kill Your CPU
- AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review: Why Is This Amazon's Best Selling CPU?
- The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza
- AMD’s Mobile Revival: Redefining the Notebook Business with the Ryzen 9 4900HS (A Review)
- The Corsair Hydro X Custom Water Cooling Review, on a Ryzen 9 3950X
- The ASRock X570 Aqua: A $1000 Ryzen Halo Motherboard Reviewed
- The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X and 3970X Review: 24 and 32 Cores on 7nm
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
111 Comments
View All Comments
PeachNCream - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link
I would prefer we use our technological advancement to reduce TDP over time. We sort of need to do something about our civilization's energy and resource consumption before we finish trashing the only place we have to live. Cutting corners in every possible way, including in our technological devices, would help make a small difference. Then again reproducing less would be a heck of a lot better, but we should probably be addressing that issue with as many remedies as possible.Achaios - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link
Be the change you wanna see in the world.Buy a CPU and operate it always with its turbo disabled. A laptop with an U type CPU operated this way should consume abt 8 Watts per hour.
Next stage is to buy a bicycle to provide energy for the laptop in your trailer, like those hippy guys did in the X-files.
TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link
This is terrible advice, the energy used to make that laptop will never be recouped.He should be using a atom powered netbook bought secondhand. Remember, reduce, reuse, recycle!
PeachNCream - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link
As a matter of fact, I do use an Atom notebook that I bought second hand. I have not purchased new computer hardware for over a decade and I really like how little waste heat the lowest end of the laptop compute spectrum generates.ads295 - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link
Hahaha, my Atom N270 netbook produces so much waste heat it's crazy.PeachNCream - Wednesday, July 8, 2020 - link
For the amount of work it accomplishes, yes it does create quite a bit of heat and is rather inefficient. It was far better than contemporary processors in terms of heat production and power input though. It also helped get a fair number of inexpensive computers into the hands of people that used them to fit well in terms of consumption when compared against the tasks they performed. Back then you could mostly idle a desktop and easily consume 60W of power or more (assuming a fairly low end desktop configuration with iGPU only) or put an Atom n270 under moderate to high load for less than 10W of power. It seems like that was a good trade-off if your workload was not overly demanding.GreenReaper - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link
It would be faster and therefore probably more power-efficient to use turbo, at least to some extent, so it can do the work and then immediately idle the chips. Maybe not the very-highest turbo bins.Foeketijn - Wednesday, July 8, 2020 - link
8 Watts per hour. That hurts my brain.Use a 400 series chipset instead of the 570 is even more better.
TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link
Have you been asleep at the wheel? Modern computers use a fraction the energy they did even 5-6 years ago, let alone 10. But liek it or not, we are not going back to the DOS days, there will always be a demand for more computing power.I'd bet if someone went through your house, 95% of it would be junk from China. All shipped on shipping ships buring filthy bunker oil, products manufactured in filthy factories that have 0 enviromental controls, assembled by slave labor, using materials mined by slaves in Africa polluting even more due to lack of enviromental controls.
I'd also bet you're not using a 15 year old second hand computer to post here, and have a cell phone made with those same rare earth minerals. You likely drive a car, and clearly use the internet.
Practice what you preach.
Also, if you wanna go on about "muh reproduction" you are free to go to africa, the biggest population growth market on the planet, and tell them to stop reproducing. See how far that gets you.
PeachNCream - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link
Acer Aspire ES1-111M-C7DE bought from ebay for less than $100 USD running Linux Mint. My phone is LG Rebel 3 - a $10 refurb from my carrier (Tracfone) so it isn't new either. My car was given to me in 2005 by my mother who was sick of watching me drive a car that was built in 1990 and I still drive it today, though I don't travel much so it has less than 90k miles on it. My home is a 109 year old farmhouse that I rent, my furniture is mostly second hand from relatives or my ex's in-laws, in good shape, but not new to me. I consume bare necessities, subscribe to no recurring entertainment services besides a 10mbit internet line (no TV, no satellite, no streaming media, etc.). Mostly, I admit I do that sort of thing to pack away income for the future in the perhaps deluded hopes that I can live exclusively off interest it generates and continue folding excess back into the principal so there are no future concerns about retirement so mainly greed is my driver, but if it helps out the planet along the way then why not?Give it a try someday. It's good to keep the expenses low, have a healthy emergency fund of cash, and I don't really feel like I'm missing out on anything by not burning more in material goods at the expense of being in any sort of debt. Or, I dunno, sit there being upset about it and ranting anti-Asian and anti-African rhetoric - you're welcome to do that too.