AMD Unveils 5 Third-Gen Ryzen CPUs, Including 12-Core Flagship

Photo (Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

AMD fired off the first salvo of its third-gen Ryzen lineup today at Computex 2019 as it revealed five new CPU models that range from Ryzen 5 with six cores and 12-threads for $199 up to a Ryzen 9 3900X with 12 cores and 24 threads for $499. To go with the new processors, which arrive on July 7th (7/7 for 7nm) the company also unveiled its new X570 chipset.

Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • NightHawkRMX
    I just finished watching this. I like some of what i see. I figured 16 core wouldnt come till later.
    I wish that the pricing was cheaper, but performance seems on point. Clocks arent high, but thanks to tha ipc, performance seems good.
    Dayng like 70mb of cache on the 3900x...
    Reply
  • NightHawkRMX
    Where did the 6 core ryzen 5 data come from?
    Reply
  • Walter Smith
    The real focus here, performance-wise, falls to the Core i9-9900K versus the Ryzen 9 23900X.
    Should be Ryzen 9 3900X.

    Also, in the price per thread chart, the 9900K is divided by 8 not 16....math a lil but fuzzy on that.

    Great article tho!!!! Can't wait for some early benchmarks!!

    waltsmith
    Reply
  • NightHawkRMX
    Im curious if any ryzen 3000 skew can hit 5ghz overclocked on air or water cooling.
    Reply
  • nitrium
    With those boost clocks, Intel will presumably still easily beat these in single thread performance, which is a bit of shame. Also those prices are higher than I would have liked. Also is there really a difference (other than a factory OC and/or binning) between the 3700X and 3800X? And why does it take 40W more to get a <10% all core OC?
    Reply
  • hannibal
    remixislandmusic said:
    Im curious if any ryzen 3000 skew can hit 5ghz overclocked on air or water cooling.
    Most likely 4.5 4.6 is near the maximum that 3000 can achieve untill the temperature and power usage goes sky high. Still a good upgrade! The sweet point seems to be 4.4GHz. Or Little bit slower. I would Expect that 5GHZ may be possible 2 to 3 years if this production node matures save way as previous.
    Reply
  • jpe1701
    nitrium said:
    With those boost clocks, Intel will presumably still easily beat these in single thread performance, which is a bit of shame. Also those prices are higher than I would have liked. Also is there really a difference (other than a factory OC and/or binning) between the 3700X and 3800X? And why does it take 40W more to get a <10% all core OC?
    IDK if that's necessarily the case with the increase in the ipc. It will be interesting to see the reviews. The 3800x looked neck and neck with the 9900k in the demo but of course it was controlled demo.
    Reply
  • rhysiam
    That gaming head to head in Pubg was really impressive. That has always been a rough game for AMD. The 2700x loses to the 8700K by ~15% at 1080p. IF that is indicative of AMD's improvements in their worst games (given this was a hand picked, controlled demo), then Ryzen 3000 could be super competent gaming CPUs. No doubt there will still be games where it can't quite match the 9900K, but if the worst-case scenarios are 10-15% rather than the 20-30% we see at present, then the 9900K (or 9900KS) becomes even more of a niche product.

    I still have a few areas of interest though: not one mention of XFR I believe? So are we really looking at a hard ~4.6Ghz limit for Zen2 cores, or will we see XFR on top of this? Is AMD still holding a few cards close to their chest while they finalise XFR with the mobo makers? A good number of leaks had peak clock speeds approaching 5Ghz, so is that adding XFR, or were those leaks just overly optimistic?

    Also: What about the gaming performance on the dual chiplet Ryzen 9s? Lisa said they would be "no compromise" CPUs, but they never showed their gaming performance head to head with a mainstream Intel or a Ryzen 7. Splitting CPU cores across multiple dies will increase worst-case core to core latency. Have AMD really managed to negate any performance impact from this in gaming workloads to truly create a "no compromise" CPU? Or will we see certain workloads be the Achilles heel of Rzyen 9, just like we have for Threadripper?

    I'm still really excited about the announcement today. Can't wait to see independent testing.
    Reply
  • rhysiam
    nitrium said:
    With those boost clocks, Intel will presumably still easily beat these in single thread performance, which is a bit of shame. Also those prices are higher than I would have liked. Also is there really a difference (other than a factory OC and/or binning) between the 3700X and 3800X? And why does it take 40W more to get a <10% all core OC?
    It depends what you mean by "single thread performance". AMD's slides have the Ryzen 7 3800x beating the 9900K in single-thread Cinebench despite the boost frequency deficit: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/14407/COMPUTEX_KEYNOTE_DRAFT_FOR_PREBRIEF.26.05.19-page-024.jpg
    Cinebench is a consistent and repeatable benchmark. Anyone can download and run it for free. If AMD are somehow fudging those numbers they'll get exposed pretty quickly. I'd be surprised if they're doing that.

    Cinebench is also, of course, one of AMD's strongest benchmarks relative to the competition which is why they use it all the time. So we can expect that other lightly threaded workloads won't look nearly as rosy for AMD. Still, with IPC and clockspeed improvements I don't expect there will be much in it with the exception of workloads that are impacted by latency issues inherent to the multi-die design.

    RE 65W to 105W Ryzen for the Ryzen 7s, I noticed that too. The interesting thing here is that the 12 Core Ryzen 9 keeps the 105W TDP despite 4 extra cores and double the cache, all while dropping only 100mhz on the base clock compared to the 3800X. I wonder if AMD are trying to avoid too many different TDP brackets? I know they have 95W Ryzen 5s, but perhaps for the Ryzen 7 & 9 classes they want to stick to 65W, 105W and a future 125-135W rating for the 16 core premium parts. Just a thought. In any case, TDP doesn't necessarily relate to power draw, so I'd be very surprised if the R7 3800X and R9 3900X draw the same power under peak load.
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    AMD fired off the first salvo of its third-gen Ryzen lineup today at Computex 2019 as it revealed five new CPU models that range from Ryzen 5 with six cores and 12-threads for $399 up to a Ryzen 9 3900X with 12 cores and 24 threads for $499.
    You guys might want to fix that first line in the article there. The 6-core part is obviously not the same same price as their top 8-core part. >_>
    Reply