AMD Ryzen 5 2500X and Ryzen 3 2300X Conclusion

With AMD only offering the Ryzen 5 2500X and Ryzen 3 2300X to large OEMs, it allows AMD to move some of the risk of supporting multiple CPUs and stock levels in the channel to its partners. It also pleases the partners to have special parts and build products around them, especially when those parts are competitive. Unfortunately for the end user, it means that if these parts are competitive, they have to buy a prebuilt system to get one, rather than build their own. To add to the quandary, these processors fall right into the price segment of its own very competitive APUs, and the company had to decide whether to have a CPU/APU crossover at retail, or a specific separation between the two. AMD went for the latter.

The reasons behind the way AMD organises it's retail product stack aside, the 2500X and 2300X actually fall into two small gaps in the lineup. 

The quad core 2500X with simultaneous multithreading sits between the 2400G at $145 with similar specs, slightly lower frequency, and much lower power consumpton, and the 2600 at $160 with two more cores. There's arguably no room in there for the 2500X -  and we see in our benchmarks it fits between both pretty easily.

On the other hand, the quad core 2300X without hyperthreading is more akin to a faster 2200G, albeit without the integrated graphics, and butts up against the 2400G above it. This gap to fit the 2300X is bigger, between $95 of the 2200G and $145 of the 2400G, so there could easily be an argument for a faster 2200G for discrete graphics users. On performance, the 2300X handsomely beats the 2200G due to consuming more power per core, and even takes the 2400G on lightly threaded tests, but it is less power efficient. For small form factor systems the APUs still win, but in raw CPU and gaming performance, the 2300X easily fits between the two APUs, especially if we marked it at $110 or so, rather than $130.

So where does this AMD? In my professional opinion, the 2300X could be a really nice low-end processor for users that don't want to spend money on integrated graphics they won't use. Add in a 95W stock cooler and at $100-$110, it would be a really nice chip. The 2500X is a harder sell. For the small price gap it fits into, I would tell users to bite the bullet and go for the 2600, or if they need integrated graphics to get the 2400G. The only way the 2500X makes sense is if the 2400G or 2600 isn't available in a particular local market.

It will be interesting to see if AMD ever sells these at retail. There are four other chips they are not selling at retail either (at least, not retail worldwide): the 2700E, 2600E, 2400GE, and 2200GE. If anyone finds any of these for sale, let me know over email or Twitter @IanCutress

Recommended Reading on AMD Ryzen
2700X and 2600X
CPU Review
2400G and 2200G
APU Review
Threadripper 2
2990WX Review
Best CPUs
2700 and 2600
CPU Review
APU Memory Scaling Threadripper 2
2970WX Review
Delidding a
Ryzen APU
Power Consumption and TDP
POST A COMMENT

65 Comments

View All Comments

  • Korguz - Tuesday, February 12, 2019 - link

    keep in mind Pajuk, the prices Anandtech quotes.. are US dollars i think.. Reply
  • Karthick7 - Monday, February 11, 2019 - link

    This has eventually encouraged a lot of others <a href="https://hosting-india.in/best-java-hosting-india/&... WordPress Hosting India</a> to look forward to starting their own WordPress websites. Reply
  • Ej24 - Tuesday, February 12, 2019 - link

    Really would have liked to have seen more Intel 4c/4t and 4c/8t cpu's for comparison, like 4690k, 6700k or 7700k. I'm curious how my 4790k stacks up to amds zen+ 4c/8t cpu but from the others tested its hard to say. Reply
  • Rudde - Tuesday, February 12, 2019 - link

    Visit bench? Reply
  • BlackSwan - Tuesday, February 12, 2019 - link

    This OEM version is already available for retail purchase here in Russia

    https://www.regard.ru/catalog/tovar304279.htm?ymcl...
    Reply
  • BlackSwan - Tuesday, February 12, 2019 - link

    https://www.regard.ru/catalog/tovar304288.htm

    2700е
    Reply
  • The_Assimilator - Tuesday, February 12, 2019 - link

    AMD's CPU naming scheme is a bit of a mess now. Used to be that Ryzen 7 = 8c/16t, 5 = 6c/12t, 3 = 4c/4t but now we have 4c/8t parts mucking up the 5s. IMO they should reorder their lineup by core and thread counts by moving current Ryzen 3 to 1, and 4c/8t CPUs from Ryzen 5 to 3.

    End result: Ryzen 7 = 2700/X, Ryzen 5 = 2600/X, Ryzen 3 = 2500X/2400G, Ryzen 1 = 2300X/2200G.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Tuesday, February 12, 2019 - link

    Not really, given that the Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 5 1500X are 4C/8T parts from just after the initial Ryzen launch, so in essence it was messed up to begin with. Also, if we're splitting hairs, Intel used to have HT in its i3 and i7 CPUs... Reply
  • Smell This - Tuesday, February 12, 2019 - link

    Yeah.
    Chipzilla's naming scheme and product stack is The Greatest . . . (rolling eyes)
    Reply
  • The_Assimilator - Tuesday, February 12, 2019 - link

    We don't talk about Intel's lineup and naming scheme... or lack thereof. Down that path lies madness. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now