Skip to main content

New Third-Gen Ryzen CPUs Listed by EEC: Ryzen 9 3900, Ryzen 7 3700, Ryzen 5 3500

A recent EEC (Eurasian Economic Commission) listing has revealed a multitude of unannounced third-generation Ryzen desktop processors, which includes the Ryzen 9 3900, Ryzen 7 3700, Ryzen 5 3500 and three other Ryzen 3000-series Pro chips. As with all preliminary listings, these could merely be placeholders that reflect certain models that AMD may or may not bring to market.

(Image credit: AMD)

The Ryzen 3000-series family currently consists of six members starting from the Ryzen 5 3600 hexa-core part up to the flagship Ryzen 9 3950X 16-core chip. New evidence has emerged that suggests AMD could capitalize on the Ryzen 3000-series' traction and release a couple more SKUs to fill the price gap. The mainstream line allegedly gets the Ryzen 9 3900, Ryzen 7 3700 and Ryzen 5 3500.

SEP (USD)Cores / ThreadsTDP (Watts)Base Frequency (GHz)Boost Frequency (GHz)Total Cache (MB)PCIe 4.0 Lanes (Processor / Chipset)
Ryzen 9 3950X$74916 / 32105W3.54.77224 / 16
Ryzen 9 3900X$49912 / 24105W3.84.67024 / 16
Ryzen 9 3900*?12 / 2465W??7024 / 16 
Ryzen 7 3800X$3998 / 16105W3.94.53624 / 16
Ryzen 7 3700X$3298 / 1665W3.64.43624 / 16
Ryzen 7 3700*?8 / 1665W??3624 / 16
Ryzen 5 3600X$2496 / 1295W3.84.43524 / 16
Ryzen 5 3600$1996 / 1265W3.64.23524 / 16
Ryzen 5 3500*?6/1265W??1624 / 16

*Specifications in the table are unconfirmed

(Image credit: EEC)

The Ryzen 9 3900 features the same 12-core, 24-thread configuration as the Ryzen 3 3900X. The non-X variant has a 65W TDP (thermal design power) rating, and as a result, the chip will likely come with lower operating clocks. The same could probably be said for the Ryzen 7 3700 eight-core, 16-thread part.

The Ryzen 5 3500, on the other hand, could be the successor to the Ryzen 5 2500X. If so, the processor would only be available to OEMs. The Ryzen 5 3500's specifications remain a mystery as the EEC listing only exposed the chip's 65W TDP. Since even the lowest Ryzen 3000-series part has six cores and 12 threads, the Ryzen 5 3500 could arrive with the same core and thread count.

SEP (USD)Cores / ThreadsTDP (Watts)Base Frequency (GHz)Boost Frequency (GHz)Total Cache (MB)PCIe 4.0 Lanes (Processor / Chipset)
Ryzen 9 3900X$49912 / 24105W3.84.67024 / 16
Ryzen 9 3900*?12 / 2465W??7024 / 16 
Ryzen 9 Pro 3900?12 / 2465W??7024 / 16
Ryzen 7 3700X$3298 / 1665W3.64.43624 / 16
Ryzen 7 3700*?8 / 1665W??3624 / 16
Ryzen 7 Pro 3700*?8 / 1665W??3624 / 16
Ryzen 5 3600X$2496 / 1295W3.84.43524 / 16
Ryzen 5 3600$1996 / 1265W3.64.23524 / 16
Ryzen 5 Pro 3600*?6 / 1265W??3524 / 16

*Specifications in the table are unconfirmed

When it comes to the Pro line, AMD has reserved names for the Ryzen 9 Pro 3900, Ryzen 7 Pro 3700 and Ryzen 5 Pro 3600. The chipmaker might add more later on, but for now, it appears that business users have three options. Considering that Ryzen 3000-series Pro and non-Pro models have identical TDP, it's reasonable to expect them to perform the same.

  • cryoburner
    The Ryzen 5 3500, on the other hand, could be the successor to the Ryzen 5 2500X. If so, the processor would only be available to OEMs. The Ryzen 5 3500's specifications remain a mystery as the EEC listing only exposed the chip's 65W TDP. Since even the lowest Ryzen 3000-series part has six cores and 12 threads, the Ryzen 5 3500 could arrive with the same core and thread count.
    The Ryzen 1500X and 2500X were both 4-core, 8-thread parts, so logically I would expect the 3500 to be as well. I suspect it would be Zen 2 based, and lack integrated graphics, using a cut-down version of the same chiplet used for the 6 and 8-core parts. While the 2500X might have been a bit redundant for consumers due to the 2400G offering relatively similar performance along with integrated graphics, and the 2600 not costing much more, a 2500X could stand out over the current Zen+ based APUs due to the larger performance improvements brought by Zen 2. So, I could see them potentially making it available to consumers as well, perhaps somewhere around a $150 price point.

    The 3700 would be a welcome addition as well, since there's currently a relatively large price rift between the Ryzen 3600 and 3700X.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    cryoburner said:
    The Ryzen 1500X and 2500X were both 4-core, 8-thread parts, so logically I would expect the 3500 to be as well.
    Nah, there is one other way that AMD could differentiate a 3500 from the 3600: L3 cache. AMD has no SKU with reduced cache to funnel all chiplets with one or more defective L3 slices to. A 6C12T chiplet with 16MB of L3 instead of 32MB would make plenty of sense.
    Reply
  • hannibal
    Interesting... then there will be 3 different 8 core prosessors... how close 3700 will be 3700x... the 3600 is almost the same as 3600x so it can be the real budget 8 core King! But it can make 3800x to look even worse, so have to see how low in binning can those really will be.
    The 3500 is the odd bird in here. Four core or otherwice cut down version?
    All in all if it is four core it we be super usefull in budget builds! Not for modern Gaming, but older games would run very well indeed when overclocked and below 3600 price point with same ips advancements. It can be really good indeed...
    if it has that suggested cache cut, harder to say. I still Expect less cores but who knows.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    hannibal said:
    But it can make 3800x to look even worse, so have to see how low in binning can those really will be.
    Much like how the original 1800X also made very little practical sense. Seems like AMD wants to make the *800X the model it wishes to sell but the market has no reason to want unless there is a shortage of *700(X) parts.
    Reply
  • jeremyj_83
    I find that the 3700 at 65W wouldn't make much sense. With the 1700 & 2700 those were 65W versions compared to the 1700X & 2700X which are 95/105W versions. In this case the 3700X is already 65W so making a 3700 a 65W chip doesn't make any sense. If AMD were to make the 3700 a 35W or 45W CPU then they could have a chip that would make sense.
    Reply
  • Mandark
    how difficult is it to OC these new cpu's? I have heard that you basically can't. Is that true? I keep seeing people say OC the 3600 for it to match the 3600X or is that just off the top of your head?

    i am curious, not that I would OC anything, the last time I tried a few decades ago i fried the mobo... lol, never tried since, I just buy faster hardware and don't worry about it.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    Mandark said:
    how difficult is it to OC these new cpu's? I have heard that you basically can't. Is that true? I keep seeing people say OC the 3600 for it to match the 3600X or is that just off the top of your head?
    AMD's Power Boost is already clocking 3rd-gen chips pretty close to the maximum possible without sub-ambient cooling, leaving next to nothing to gain from manually overclocking to the point that siliconlottery (a site that specializes in aftermarket binning of chips for overclocking potential) has admitted that their relevance is nearly over.

    Most reviewers who have compared the 3600 with the 3600X have found that both already perform about the same (within 3% in most cases) so paying $50 (25%) extra for the 3600X makes very little sense. AMD should drop the 3600X's price to $20 above the 3600 mainly for the upgraded HSF and call it a day.
    Reply
  • Mandark
    thanks
    Reply
  • Rdslw
    InvalidError said:
    Nah, there is one other way that AMD could differentiate a 3500 from the 3600: L3 cache. AMD has no SKU with reduced cache to funnel all chiplets with one or more defective L3 slices to. A 6C12T chiplet with 16MB of L3 instead of 32MB would make plenty of sense.
    a bin for failed chips that are almost as good previous gen R7 and cost half ? A lof of people will buy this with a smile. AMD will bump the yeld per wafer utilizing what would go to trash otherwise, people will get cheap cpu that is still better than intel i5....
    Reply
  • Rdslw
    InvalidError said:
    AMD's Power Boost is already clocking 3rd-gen chips pretty close to the maximum possible without sub-ambient cooling, leaving next to nothing to gain from manually overclocking to the point that siliconlottery (a site that specializes in aftermarket binning of chips for overclocking potential) has admitted that their relevance is nearly over.

    Most reviewers who have compared the 3600 with the 3600X have found that both already perform about the same (within 3% in most cases) so paying $50 (25%) extra for the 3600X makes very little sense. AMD should drop the 3600X's price to $20 above the 3600 mainly for the upgraded HSF and call it a day.

    It behaves better than OC-ed as it clocks down when idling, saving the thermal headroom for time you need it. Unless you have overkill cooling, this is more desirable than OC.
    About 3600 vs 3600X its just cooler (I agree a pricey one for $50), If you plan on using aftermarket one, those 2 chips are almost identical.
    Reply