Skip to main content

AMD Ryzen 3 Meets Zen 2: New Quad-Core CPUs Would Rival Intel Core i3 Comet Lake

AMD Ryzen 3000-series Processor

AMD Ryzen 3000-series Processor (Image credit: AMD)

AMD may be secretly developing quad-core CPUs based on its Zen 2 architecture to compete with Intel's looming 10th Generation Comet Lake-S Core i3 offerings, which feature Hyper-Threading. That's if information from hardware leaker @momomo_us is accurate,

AMD deployed its army of Ryzen 3000-series (codename Matisse) desktop CPUs in May. The lineup started with the Ryzen 5 3600, which spans six CPU cores and 12 threads. That means AMD never produced a successor to the previous generation (2000-series) Ryzen 3 chips.

However, the chipmaker might have plans to rectify this, with @momomo_us pointing to alleged Ryzen 3 3300X and Ryzen 3 3100 models. 

As a refresher, third-generation Ryzen chips can come with one or two 7nm (client compute dies (CCDs). Each CCD houses two AMD CCX (CPU complexes or core complexes). Therefore, each CCX contains four processing cores. 

There are two ways that AMD could spit out a quad-core Ryzen 3 chip. It could salvage imperfect Ryzen 5 3600 chips and disable the defective CCX or utilize an entirely new design, where there's only a single CCX inside the CCD. The latter would help AMD become more cost-competitive against Intel's line of Core i3 CPUs.

AMD Ryzen 3 3000-Series vs. Intel Comet Lake-S Core i3*

ProcessorCores / ThreadsBase / Boost Clock (GHz)L3 Cache (MB)TDP (W)
Ryzen 3 3300X4 / 8? / 4.31665
Ryzen 3 31004 / 8? / 3.91665
Core i3-103204 / 83.8 / ?865
Core i3-103004 / 83.7 / ?865
Core i3-101004 / 83.6 / ?865

*Specifications are  not confirmed.

Both the Ryzen 3 3300X (100-000000159) and Ryzen 3 3100 (100-000000284) allegedly feature four cores and eight threads. A single CCX has 16MB of L3 cache and 2MB of L2 cache. They add up to 18MB of total cache on the alleged Ryzen 3 parts. 

The hardware leaker claimed that the Ryzen 3 3300X and Ryzen 3 3100 will come with clock speeds of 4.3 GHz and 3.9 GHz, respectively. However, the leaker didn't specify if the reported speeds were for the base or boost clock. We suspect it's the latter.

The most interesting part about the two unannounced Ryzen 3 chips is that they reportedly adhere to a 65W TDP (thermal design power), which is the same for 2000-series Ryzen 3 chips and 3000-series Ryzen 5 parts. With the Zen 2 optimizations and the die-shrink to the 7nm process node, one would expect the quad-core Zen 2 parts to come with a lower TDP.

Being Zen 2 offerings, the Ryzen 3 3300X and Ryzen 3 3100 should come with PCIe 4.0 support, but it's not a given. In the case of the Ryzen 3 3100, it should feature an unlocked multiplier like its predecessors.

The Ryzen 3 3300X and Ryzen 3 3100 would face the upcoming Core i3-10100, i3-10300 and i3-10320. But to be fair, the aforementioned Comet Lake desktop chips also come with integrated graphics, so the AMD processors are more likely to rival the F-series counterparts.

  • pug_s
    I doubt that these cpus would sell because it doesn't have an integrated gpu. If they want 4 cores 8 threads they can get the 3400g
    Reply
  • King_V
    Maybe - but do the majority of i3 CPUs (not business-use) wind up using the integrated graphics? Do they sell F variants of the i3?
    Reply
  • TCA_ChinChin
    I don't understand why AMD is expected to lower TDp for lower core count parts when the same is not expected from Intel. Their core i3 has the same TDP rating as their i7 and i9 processors so why is it not expected for those i3 processors to have reduced TDP?
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    pug_s said:
    I doubt that these cpus would sell because it doesn't have an integrated gpu. If they want 4 cores 8 threads they can get the 3400g
    The difference there is that the current 3000 series APUs are Zen+, while these new Ryzen 3s would be Zen 2.

    King_V said:
    Maybe - but do the majority of i3 CPUs (not business-use) wind up using the integrated graphics? Do they sell F variants of the i3?
    They sure do! The 9100F seems to be significantly cheaper than other i3s, and is apparently the best selling i3 on Amazon.
    Reply
  • watzupken
    pug_s said:
    I doubt that these cpus would sell because it doesn't have an integrated gpu. If they want 4 cores 8 threads they can get the 3400g
    I agree at the low end, it makes sense to integrate a GPU on the chip. So instead of creating a separate line of Ryzen 3, AMD should just utilize their APUs to fill in this gap.
    Reply
  • watzupken
    "The most interesting part about the two unannounced Ryzen 3 chips is that they reportedly adhere to a 65W TDP (thermal design power), which is the same for 2000-series Ryzen 3 chips and 3000-series Ryzen 5 parts. With the Zen 2 optimizations and the die-shrink to the 7nm process node, one would expect the quad-core Zen 2 parts to come with a lower TDP. "

    I see no point in picking on the TDP here. I think its clear for sometime that the TDP is not an accurate way to measure the actual power requirements. How sure are we that Intel is running within the 65W in the first place, and given whatever boost rate they allow on these low end chips, it is just going to blow past the rated TDP easily.
    Reply
  • alextheblue
    watzupken said:
    I agree at the low end, it makes sense to integrate a GPU on the chip. So instead of creating a separate line of Ryzen 3, AMD should just utilize their APUs to fill in this gap.
    They could very well do both, and may even use the same die, as they often do.
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    There are two ways that AMD could spit out a quad-core Ryzen 3 chip. It could salvage imperfect Ryzen 5 3600 chips and disable the defective CCX or utilize an entirely new design, where there's only a single CCX inside the CCD. The latter would help AMD become more cost-competitive against Intel's line of Core i3 CPUs.
    The first option could also be cost-competitive, perhaps even more so considering the investment that would likely be required to design an all-new single-CCX chip for the budget market. I imagine AMD has likely built up a collection of Zen 2 chiplets over the past year that have an entire CCX not meeting the standards for their other chips (which don't disable more than 2 cores per 8-core chiplet), so they might as well make use of them. I kind of doubt that AMD would make a brand new chip design for this market when everything from a $175 Ryzen 3600 up through their multi-thousand dollar Threadripper and Epyc CPUs are built using the same chiplets. If they did, it would be in the form of an APU with integrated graphics, and would probably be branded as a 4000-series chip.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    TCA_ChinChin said:
    I don't understand why AMD is expected to lower TDp for lower core count parts when the same is not expected from Intel. Their core i3 has the same TDP rating as their i7 and i9 processors so why is it not expected for those i3 processors to have reduced TDP?
    14nm + iGPU against 7nm without iGPU you would expect one of those two to have a considerably lower TDP just due to that.
    TCA_ChinChin said:
    Their core i3 has the same TDP rating as their i7 and i9 processors so why is it not expected for those i3 processors to have reduced TDP?
    The i3s do have a lower TDP.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    watzupken said:
    "The most interesting part about the two unannounced Ryzen 3 chips is that they reportedly adhere to a 65W TDP (thermal design power), which is the same for 2000-series Ryzen 3 chips and 3000-series Ryzen 5 parts. With the Zen 2 optimizations and the die-shrink to the 7nm process node, one would expect the quad-core Zen 2 parts to come with a lower TDP. "

    I see no point in picking on the TDP here. I think its clear for sometime that the TDP is not an accurate way to measure the actual power requirements. How sure are we that Intel is running within the 65W in the first place, and given whatever boost rate they allow on these low end chips, it is just going to blow past the rated TDP easily.
    TDP is how much heat a CPU produces,and not even that it's how much of that heat you need to get away from the CPU to keep it below the cut off temp (105° for intel) ,it's not how much power the CPUs draw.
    Reply