AMD Ryzen 5 5600 review
PowerColor RX 6650 XT Hellhound White review
FSP Hydro PTM Pro (1200W PSU) review
ASUS ROG Radeon RX 6750 XT STRIX review
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 - preview
Sapphire Radeon RX 6650 XT Nitro+ review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6950 XT Sapphire Nitro+ Pure review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6750 XT Nitro+ review
MSI Radeon RX 6950 XT Gaming X TRIO review
MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X TRIO review
Listed in etail: AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, Ryzen 7 3800XT, and Ryzen 5 3600XT
I don't think it can be tagged as rumor, or gossip anymore, as hey the XT models we talked about last week, are listed as AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, Ryzen 7 3800XT, and Ryzen 5 3600XT in etail.
While the processors are listed, the etailer is a bit unreal with its pricing, but still, they are listed as the 3900XT is tagged at 499€, the 3800XT at 459€, and the 3600XT at 319€, incl of VAT. Materiel.net 1, 2, 3.
The rumors indicated that Ryzen 9 3900XT would get a boost clock of 4.8 GHz, and that is 200 MHz more than the 3900X model. Importantly though the base clock would be also be modified to 4.1 GHz and that is a 300 MHz faster than the existing model, these would be significant changes:
RYZEN 9 3900XT - 4.1GHz base, 4.8GHz boost.
RYZEN 7 3800XT - 4.2GHz base, 4.7GHz boost.
RYZEN 5 3600XT - 4.0GHz base, 4.7GHz boost.
that's:
RYZEN 9 3900XT - +300MHz base, +200MHz boost.
RYZEN 7 3800XT - +300MHz base, +200MHz boost.
RYZEN 5 3600XT - +200MHz base, +300MHz boost.
We can't wait to tell and see how much the extra performance will benefit AMD, especially with comet lake released we could see that 3900XT and 3800XT competitively against the i9-10900K and i7-10700K. It's rumored that these procs will get announced (not released) in mid-June, with availability in July 2020.
AMD ZEN2 Rome Listed in Sandra, shows doubled up L3 caches - 11/26/2018 10:21 AM
We've been going back and forth on AMD's 7nm ZEN. We've seen the announcements and the hype is real for 2019 when the first products will be released. The first series, of course, will be for Epyc,...
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX with 32 cores gets listed in Canada webshop (1850 USD) - 07/30/2018 10:20 AM
A Canadian web store is listing a Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX processor and does so for a price of just 3135 CAD, that is 1835 USD converted. Quite a bit of money for sure, but for 32-cores, I mean t...
ASUS PG27UQ Ultra HD 144Hz GSYNC HDR Monitor is listed in the EU above 2500 EUR - 05/21/2018 12:11 PM
A few days ago here at Guru3D we reported that the Ultra HD 144Hz HDR compatible G-Sync monitor from ACER started listing at NewEgg. This morning I did some checks on the ASUS PG27UQ with similar s...
MSI Motherboard with Z390 Chipset Listed in AIDA64 - 03/10/2018 12:02 PM
We all know that B360, H310 but more importantly H370 chipset based motherboards for Coffee Lake processors will launch in April. However, things have been silent regarding the Z390 chipset. It now h...
Intel Core i7-3930K and Core i7-3960X Listed in EU - 10/20/2011 03:06 PM
With a little less than a month to go until Intel will make official its first processors based on the high-performance Sandy Bridge-E architecture, European retailers have started listing some of the...
Neo Cyrus
Senior Member
Posts: 10061
Joined: 2006-02-14
Senior Member
Posts: 10061
Joined: 2006-02-14
#5794697 Posted on: 06/01/2020 05:21 PM
Exaggerating much? People were reporting, at the absolute worst, 100mhz lower than advertised clocks, not 5~10% lower, and most were getting 25~50mhz short of it. All of this before some BIOS updates that definitively improved clocks further and brought them even closer.
So yeah, they lied, but not nearly as bad as you say.
It's not 100MHz less. A 3900X will hold 4.5GHz at best for single core turbo, for a second, then plummet back down. And those are not really the clocks, want to see what they actually are? Run Ryzen Master, or you know, scroll down in HWInfo at look at effective clocks. Hitting 4.5GHz or 4.6GHz as the reported clock for a literal millisecond and being recorded is meaningless when it's never actually running anywhere near that.
Exaggerating much? People were reporting, at the absolute worst, 100mhz lower than advertised clocks, not 5~10% lower, and most were getting 25~50mhz short of it. All of this before some BIOS updates that definitively improved clocks further and brought them even closer.
So yeah, they lied, but not nearly as bad as you say.
It's not 100MHz less. A 3900X will hold 4.5GHz at best for single core turbo, for a second, then plummet back down. And those are not really the clocks, want to see what they actually are? Run Ryzen Master, or you know, scroll down in HWInfo at look at effective clocks. Hitting 4.5GHz or 4.6GHz as the reported clock for a literal millisecond and being recorded is meaningless when it's never actually running anywhere near that.
metagamer
Senior Member
Posts: 2353
Joined: 2018-04-10
Senior Member
Posts: 2353
Joined: 2018-04-10
#5794698 Posted on: 06/01/2020 05:23 PM
3900xt looks kinda good if it boosts to 4.8ghz. The other two make little sense at those prices.
Base 3600 is around 190 EUR, I wouldn't pay 150 EUR more for 500 more mhz.
3900xt looks kinda good if it boosts to 4.8ghz. The other two make little sense at those prices.
Base 3600 is around 190 EUR, I wouldn't pay 150 EUR more for 500 more mhz.
wavetrex
Senior Member
Posts: 1453
Joined: 2008-07-16
Senior Member
Posts: 1453
Joined: 2008-07-16
#5794700 Posted on: 06/01/2020 05:30 PM
3600XT price is dumb, nobody in their right mind will pay that.
3800XT price is even dumber, considering you can get a 3900X today for less than that and get 50% more cores which are pretty much equally fast (within margin of error)
--
3900XT price however is somewhat appealing, more speed and potentially lower power consumption for just €50 extra, I'll take it !
BUT,
I think these are simply placeholders, and these will NOT be the prices of the actual products.
It might even be a joke from someone at that store...
3600XT price is dumb, nobody in their right mind will pay that.
3800XT price is even dumber, considering you can get a 3900X today for less than that and get 50% more cores which are pretty much equally fast (within margin of error)
--
3900XT price however is somewhat appealing, more speed and potentially lower power consumption for just €50 extra, I'll take it !
BUT,
I think these are simply placeholders, and these will NOT be the prices of the actual products.
It might even be a joke from someone at that store...
umeng2002
Senior Member
Posts: 1137
Joined: 2006-09-02
Senior Member
Posts: 1137
Joined: 2006-09-02
#5794705 Posted on: 06/01/2020 05:44 PM
Those base clock bumps are what is going to make all the difference.
Those base clock bumps are what is going to make all the difference.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 11809
Joined: 2012-07-20
I have not had in hand one AMD's CPU that would intentionally cheat. Hell, A10-7870k refused to ignore 95W TDP. If I could get it use like 125~135W, it would be nice gaming micro PC back in the day.
Ryzen 2400G boosted within limits of TDP. And I built micro-media PC with stock cooler and limited it to 45W to give easy time for VRMs on MB.
There is always chance that measurements are not exact, but many of them are done by components on MB not by CPU itself. And those confirm AMD's values within margin of error.
You have Ryzen CPU, have fun in BIOS. Limit its PPT to 25W
It will do its best to boost within given limit.
When I tested this with 2700X, I took PPT even down to 15W And that's where Chip did not start to cheat. It simply wrote that it is eating 110% of limit (10% above limit).
Because its lowest auto clock was 600MHz and lowest voltage 0,8V.(Tested under load in CB R15.)
And I made this note for 15W PPT: "(idle ~80-85% PPT 2.2-4.3GHz)"
So 2700X reported its idle power draw as some 12W. Which is pretty close given that EDC was 12A at 0,8V.
I have to admit that I did not do same experiment with 3900X, which seems to be able to clock lower and have lower voltage too.