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

  • tamalero - Saturday, November 9, 2019 - link

    Its Pentium 4 vs Athlon X2 all over again.
  • urmom - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link

    IDK, I runn all core on my 3900x @4.4Ghz.
  • Irata - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    Their performance / W comparison is based on results vs. power use, so perfectly valid. Does not really matter at what clock speed each CPU ran if it was at their best (stock).

    As for there only being CB shown - yes, that is indeed only one case. Wish they had included more.
  • HollyDOL - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    I remember seeing some reviews mentioning power hog chipset on AMD side pretty much nullifying any advantage they gain on pure CPU. Ie. while cpu was more efficient platform itself in the end was less... Is that still an issue?
  • Targon - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    Because you can run the third generation Ryzen processors on first or second generation motherboards, the issue of high motherboard power draw can be avoided, and you only lose PCIe 4.0 speeds. I am running my Ryzen 3900X on an Asus ROG Crosshair VI Hero motherboard, no problems at all, and no need for an active cooler for the chipset.
  • evernessince - Sunday, November 10, 2019 - link


    The difference between these CPUs is over a 100w, not 15. Simple math tells me the chipset is not going to make up the difference even if it was running at it's max of 15w.

    In addition, no one said you had to use the X570 chipset with this processor. If you don't need PCIe 4.0, go with a cheaper motherboard. If you do AMD is the only choice right now .
  • yannigr2 - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    People started understanding that frequency is not everything when Pentium 4 was still selling. More than 15 years have passed since then.
  • Oliseo - Sunday, November 10, 2019 - link

    AMD has better IPC than Intel. Intel needs those high clock speeds to keep up.

    Performanc per watt, Intel are getting obliterated.

    (i9 9900k owner, I have no dog in any fight, but i like to stick to facts)
  • alufan - Monday, November 11, 2019 - link

    omg still folks dont get it the AMD chip does as well as or in many cases better at a lower clock and lower voltage that means it uses its power more efficiently to do virtually or in some cases more of the same work whats so difficult about that to understand?
  • unixguru88 - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link

    Given that a core count race seems to be the new Mhz race, what type of casual everyday programs can we expect to take advantage of 16/32 or more cores? Are there any game engines that can meaningfully use 32 cores? I can seet browsers taking advantage of high core counts trivially by being able to remain performant with many tabs of JavaScript heavy pages open. What else could potentially use 32 or more cores?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now