In a shock email late on Friday, AMD has released a statement to clarify the situation it is in with the manufacturing of its latest Ryzen processors. And, depending on what kind of a processor you're after, it's both a good and bad announcement.

The downside? AMD is delaying its release of the 16 core Ryzen 9 3950X. Their flagship consumer desktop CPU, which will feature a full 16 CPU cores, was originally slated for September; however it is now delayed until November. According to the company, the delay is needed due to the high demand for these parts and that time is needed to ensure that sufficient stock is available

AMD Ryzen 3000 7 & 9 Series CPUs
AnandTech Cores
Threads
Base
Freq
Boost
Freq
L2
Cache
L3
Cache
PCIe
4.0
TDP Launch Date Price
(SEP)
Ryzen 9 3950X 16C 32T 3.5 4.7 8 MB 64 MB 16+4+4 105W Nov. 2019 $749
Ryzen 9 3900X 12C 24T 3.8 4.6 6 MB 64 MB 16+4+4 105W July 2019 $499
Ryzen 7 3800X 8C 16T 3.9 4.5 4 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 105W July 2019 $399
Ryzen 7 3700X 8C 16T 3.6 4.4 4 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 65W July 2019 $329

The upside? The next generation of Threadripper processors are coming, and they will enter the market in November as well. These parts will start at 24 cores, so anyone needing single-socket CPUs with more than 12 cores will find themselves with an abundance of options to choose from.

The statement from AMD says:

We are focusing on meeting the strong demand for our 3rd generation AMD Ryzen processors in the market and now plan to launch both the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X and initial members of the 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen Threadripper processor family in volume this November. We are confident that when enthusiasts get their hands on the world’s first 16-core mainstream desktop processor and our next-generation of high-end desktop processors, the wait will be well worth it.

As far as we understand, this is nothing to do with recent reports of TSMC requiring 6 months for new 7nm orders: the silicon for these processors would have been ordered months ago, with the only real factor being binning and meeting demand. It will be interesting to see how the intersection of the 16 core with next gen Ryzen will play out. 

Related Articles:

POST A COMMENT

82 Comments

View All Comments

  • Korguz - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link

    beedoo, thats the sad part, if you notice, a lot of those that are praising intel, keep saying the same thing, intel can get 5ghz out of their chips, why cant AMD ?? or the intel chips clock faster so they give me an extra few frames in my games, that i probably dont really notice, so they are the better choice. its like the pentium 4 vs athlon/athlon XP days all over again. Reply
  • John_M - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link

    Intel can only get 5 GHz out of it's very mature 14nm process. Smaller nodes give lower power consumption and not higher frequencies, at least in the early days. In fact 10nm and 7nm may never be able to clock as high as Intel's venerable 14nm. But, as was said above, there's more to CPU power than frequency - it's just that some people are obsessed with it. I actually quite like the GigaHertz-core proposal. Intel used to get irritated by the "plus" rating AMD used to give to its Athlon 64s and multiplying core count by base frequency would be a good response to Intel's recent presentation. Reply
  • Korguz - Saturday, September 21, 2019 - link

    John_m yep.. but tell those that think the frequency is all that matters, that. and i think i was the A64 that was clocked lower then the P4 but still was faster, not the athlon/althon XP. i think an interesting comparison to do, would be to get to identical comps, less the mobo and cpu, one intel, one amd ( even if its just 1 cpu each, or multiple ) and clock them both the same, and set it up so the playing field is as level as possible, and see which one is faster at the same clocks... Reply
  • John_M - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link

    One of the gaming-orientated YouTube channels (maybe Hardware Unboxed or Gamers' Nexus?) did that, locking them both to 4 GHz, and clearly demonstrated that AMD has the higher IPC. Reply
  • John_M - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link

    I had an Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (I've still got it actually, though it's retired now). It clocked two cores at 3200 MHz, hence the 6400+ designation. Reply
  • Haawser - Sunday, September 22, 2019 - link

    Intel can get 5GHz because it's their own process. And they've spent most of the the last decade tuning it, along with their their transistor design, for maximum clocks. AMD can't really do that because they are using what is essentially an 'off the shelf' process, and a design that needs to be portable in case they need to swap foundries or make more somewhere else.

    It's a trade off that AMD have had to make because they don't own their own process. So rather than worry about clocks so much, they've concentrated on IPC and core counts instead. Which is simply another way of increasing overall performance.
    Reply
  • Targon - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link

    Much of that is process maturity, not ownership. After five years of TSMC 7nm, AMD would be able to hit 5.5GHz, but AMD isn't locked into the fab process for design improvements the way Intel did. There is a challenge in adding cores for the same power envelope, and Intel is still trying to figure out how to get beyond monolithic designs, because Intel has been complacent. Reply
  • Valantar - Sunday, September 22, 2019 - link

    Kind of too bad that they're not leaving an upgrade path to Zen2 for those who bought into TR4 for the first gen 12-16 core parts. While I get that these parts wouldn't sell a lot, it kind of leaves people stranded unless they need heaps of cores. Of course, if the 24-core is >$1000 and boosts as high as the AM4 parts for lower threaded loads I guess that's not really an issues. Reply
  • Haawser - Sunday, September 22, 2019 - link

    Where did anybody say that there wouldn't be an upgrade path ? Probably just need a bios update to make TR4 boards compatible with Rome. Reply
  • John_M - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link

    Why would you want to put an Epyc in a Threadripper motherboard? You'd throw away most of its advantages (8 channel memory and 128 PCIe lanes) and end up with a chip that costs a lot more and clocks slower. Put Epyc in a motherboard that's designed for it. In any case gen 3 Threadripper has been announced for launch in November. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now