AMD Athlon 3000G: Aligning Names and Numbers at $49

The odd-one out from today’s announcement is a processor at the other end of the portfolio. To put it into context, if a user wants to jump on board the 7nm and Zen 2 bandwagon, the entry price point is $199 for the Ryzen 5 3600. Below that we have older hardware based on Zen 1, and AMD’s APU line of processors featuring integrated graphics. The new Athlon 3000G sits firmly in this category, and aims to be a very interesting processor indeed.

The Athlon 3000G is a 35W dual core Zen+ processor with 3 compute units of Vega graphics, built on 12nm and falls in the Picasso family of hardware. It doesn’t have any turbo, but does have a nominal frequency of 3.5 GHz on the CPU and 1100 MHz on the GPU. Supported memory speeds are DDR4-2933 and it can support up to 64 GB. It will come bundled with AMD’s 65W near-silent stock cooler, which is absolutely overkill for this product.

If a dual core Zen+ Picasso APU sounds familiar, it’s because AMD already has a processor that fits the bill: the AMD Athlon 300GE. Following previous convention, I would have expected AMD to call this new processor the 320GE, as it has +100 MHz more on the CPU. However, AMD are changing the naming for two reasons.

First, to align it more with the Ryzen family. With the Ryzen 3000 series starting with the Ryzen 3 3200G for the 65W Zen+ APUs, moving into the Ryzen 5 3600 for the 65 W desktop Zen 2 CPUs, each of these are four digits plus a letter. By moving to 3000G, it allows AMD to equate the two families together (even if there’s still an APU/desktop CPU microarchitecture mismatch).

AnandTech Cores
TDP Price
12nm Zen+ - Picasso
Ryzen 5 3400G 4 / 8 3700 4200 11 65 W $149
Ryzen 3 3200G 4 / 4 3600 4000 8 65 W $99
Athlon 3000G 2 / 4 3500 - 3 35 W $49
Athlon Pro 300GE 2 / 4 3400 - 3 35 W -
14nm Zen - Raven Ridge
Ryzen 5 2400G 4 / 8 3600 3900 11 65 W $169
Ryzen 5 2400GE 4 / 8 3200 3800 11 35 W -
Ryzen 3 2200G 4 / 4 3500 3700 8 65 W $99
Ryzen 3 2200GE 4 / 4 3200 3600 8 35 W -
Athlon 240GE 2 / 4 3500 - 3 35 W $75
Athlon 220GE 2 / 4 3400 - 3 35 W $65
Athlon 200GE 2 / 4 3200 - 3 35 W $55

The other aspect is that the Athlon 3000G is also unlocked. AMD touts the 3000G as the first AM4 Athlon that is fully unlocked for overclocking, allowing users to adjust the CPU multiplier as high as their dreams desire (or to the limits of the silicon). As AMD is pairing the CPU with its 65W cooler, that means a lot of users, as long as the motherboard supports overclocking, should be able to push their CPU a bit higher. AMD stated that the +400 MHz in the slide deck for our briefing would represent a ‘typical’ overclock for an end-user, but then clarified they did use a high-end cooler to achieve that value. Nonetheless, an unlocked $49 chip with a cooler than can handle double the TDP could be exciting for users wanting to test their overclocking skills.

The other feather in AMD’s cap for this new chip is that it competes against Intel’s Celeron and Pentium desktop processors. Given the high demand for Intel's high-end 14nm products, the Pentium and Celeron parts have been available in relatively low in volumes as they don’t make as much money, especially when high-end demand is high. In that instance, AMD has the advantage as the company stated that there will be plenty of Athlon silicon to go around.

TRX40: High-End Motherboards for TR3 AMD's Slide Deck
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Korguz - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link

    airdrifting looks like you still need to be told, intels TDP is at BASE clock, WITH OUT turbo, and WILL use more power even with " runs turbo out of the box by default "
  • airdrifting - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    What's the point of TDP at a "base clock" that the processor never runs at? Please allow me to put this in a language even you can understand: You brag you can last 30 minutes when in fact you only last 20 seconds, when girls call out you bs you claim "oh my 30 minute record was done when I was given superman power." Now here comes the question: Do you last 20 seconds or 30 minutes in reality?
  • Korguz - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    " What's the point of TDP at a "base clock" that the processor never runs at " cause thats where intel gets its TDP spec from, which IS from the BASE clock, Anandtech even did an article on this here : i would suggest you read this. then maybe you would actually understand.

    2nd GROW UP. the fact you now resort to insults, further shows you know you are wrong, and you have to resort to a VERY childish analogy.
  • Korguz - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    and i quote from the above link to the Anandtech article :
    " For any given processor, Intel will guarantee both a rated frequency to run at (known as the base frequency) for a given power, which is the rated TDP. This means that a processor like the 65W Core i7-8700, which has a base frequency of 3.2 GHz and a turbo of 4.7 GHz, is only guaranteed to be at or below 65W when the processor is running at 3.2 GHz. Intel does not guarantee any level of performance above this 3.2 GHz / 65W value. "
  • airdrifting - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    Yeah, I see you are not capable of reading. Done.
  • Korguz - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    more like you are not capable of reading... and proves you are wrong.. your pride to high to admit it ?? the quote from the article, alone, proves you are wrong.. nuff said..
  • Irata - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    The point is simply to be able to have "95W" shown next to the CPU in a benchmark slide while the performance result is based on "far beyond 95W" clock speeds.

    This was not the case with Intel's pre Ryzen CPU like the 7700k btw. Go figure why this has changed.
  • eddman - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    And? They never claimed the processors could do turbo within the TDP. It's based on the base clock and obviously any turbo will use more power. That's how they've always rated TDP. It's been known for years. Turbo have always been a "bonus". If the board can supply enough power and the temps are low enough, then it'd clock higher. Simple as that.
  • eddman - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    @Ian Will the website ever upgrade to a better commenting system?

    I was replying to airdrifting.
  • Father Time - Sunday, November 24, 2019 - link

    So based on this, AMD could claim their processors are all 1 Watt - based on course on a 200mhz super-low C-State - but still true that they consume 1 Watt at this speed.

    The fact it will never run at this power or speed is irrelevant, they could use the Intel system to the extreme to claim the performance crown with a 1 Watt processor - everything above 200mhz is just a bonus!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now