Announced a couple of weeks ago, the new AMD Ryzen 3000XT models with increased clock frequencies should be available today in primary markets. These new processors offer slightly higher performance than their similarly named 3000X counterparts for the same price, with AMD claiming to be taking advantage of a minor update in process node technology in order to achieve slightly better clock frequencies.

The new 3000XT family of processors focuses mostly on boosting the turbo frequency by 100-200 MHz for the same power. AMD states that this is due to using an optimized 7nm manufacturing process. This is likely due to a minor BKM or PDK update that allows TSMC/AMD to tune the process for a better voltage/frequency curve and bin a single CPU slightly higher. 

An update in this range could be indicative of a ~10 mV better voltage for a single core, although this would normally be in the binning noise - for it to be statistically relevant would need a lot of CPUs, so this could just be better binning. However, base frequencies haven’t moved much, so performance-per-watt benefits are going to be somewhat minimal. The biggest uptick would be in 1T scenarios.

Each of the new XT processors is the highest speed variant of its respective class.

AMD 'Matisse' Ryzen 3000 Series CPUs
AnandTech Cores
Threads
Base
Freq
Boost
Freq
L3
Cache
PCIe
4.0
TDP Price
(SEP)
Ryzen 9 3950X 16C 32T 3.5 4.7 4x16 MB 16+4+4 105W $749
Ryzen 9 3900XT 12C 24T 3.8 4.7 4x16 MB 16+4+4 105W $499
Ryzen 9 3900X 12C 24T 3.8 4.6 4x16 MB 16+4+4 105W $499
Ryzen 9 3900 12C 24T 3.1 4.3 4x16 MB 16+4+4 65W OEM
Ryzen 7 3800XT 8C 16T 3.9 4.7 2x16 MB 16+4+4 105W $399
Ryzen 7 3800X 8C 16T 3.9 4.5 2x16 MB 16+4+4 105W $399
Ryzen 7 3700X 8C 16T 3.6 4.4 2x16 MB 16+4+4 65W $329
Ryzen 5 3600XT 6C 12T 3.8 4.5 2x16 MB 16+4+4 95W $249
Ryzen 5 3600X 6C 12T 3.8 4.4 2x16 MB 16+4+4 95W $249
Ryzen 5 3600 6C 12T 3.6 4.2 2x16 MB 16+4+4 65W $199
Ryzen 5 3500X 6C 6T 3.6 4.1 2x16 MB 16+4+4 65W OEM
Ryzen 3 3300X 4C 8T 3.8 4.3 1x16 MB 16+4+4 65W $120
Ryzen 3 3100 4C 8T 3.6 3.9 2x8 MB 16+4+4 65W $99

Users should note that the prices listed are official SEP (Suggested Etailer Price). In March, AMD did announce a temporary AMD-focused price drop, but that has since passed. Retailer pricing will vary with local sales practices.

The top new processor is the Ryzen 9 3900XT which offers +100 MHz turbo over the 3900X, for the same official price as the 3900X. The 3800XT offers +200 MHz on single core turbo over the 3800X for the same price. The final new processor is the 3600XT, with +100 MHz on the turbo frequency, again for the same price over the 3600X.

In each three cases, the XT processors give slightly better frequency than the X units, so we should expect to see an official permanent price drop on the X processors in order to keep everything in line.

AMD’s announcement today also includes information about thermal solutions. The Ryzen 5 3600XT, with six cores, will come bundled with AMD’s Wraith Spire cooler. For the other two CPUs, AMD’s own press release states that the company ‘is recommending the use of an AIO solution with a minimum 280mm radiator or equivalent air cooling to experience these products at their best’. This does seem somewhat overkill for 105 W processors, especially if the package power tracking on these parts should be ~142 watts, notwithstanding any trickery that the motherboard manufacturers are doing.

These new processors will be supported in any motherboard that already supports Zen 2-based Ryzen 3000 hardware (the cost in BIOS space to add a CPU of the same family is negligible).

Performance

While we have had these three processors in for testing over the last week or so, we are in the process of transitioning to a new benchmark suite for 2020/2021, with updated CPU tests, newer games, and game testing with RTX 2080 Ti graphics cards. This bench suite is still a work in progress with regression testing older models, and so at this point we do not have a strong enough dataset to confidently do the processors a full review in the AnandTech way. A number of the tests use updated software packages, and so comparison to previous versions is not possible, however we do have some metrics which align that we can share with you.

Agisoft Photoscan 1.3.3, Complex TestNAMD 2.31 Molecular Dynamics (ApoA1)Crysis CPU Render: (6) 1920x1080AES EncodingCinebench R20 Multi-ThreadedCinebench R20 Single Threaded3D Particle Movement v2.1 (with AVX)Geekbench 4 - ST OverallGeekbench 4 - MT Overall

Graphs will be updated as results come in.

As we can see, there isn’t much between the old X models and the new XT models – increasing the turbo frequency a little means that there is scope for increased performance in low thread-count workloads, but ultimately the voltage/frequency curve when we start pushing with more cores loaded counts in those high density benchmarks.

We’re planning on doing a full article with our updated benchmark suite and new tests after we’ve done more regression testing. There will also be a new section in Bench to cover our new benchmark suite. Stay tuned for that.

Related Reading

POST A COMMENT

111 Comments

View All Comments

  • Spunjji - Wednesday, July 8, 2020 - link

    Given a long enough time-frame I'd have expected that to happen - but with the 4000 series approaching, it seems like they might all end up going EoL around about the same time. Reply
  • ehfield7 - Wednesday, July 8, 2020 - link

    "So I expect the benchmarks of any XT to be close enough of a tie with the corresponding X as to make no difference. "

    That's the point of benchmarks. If we can just wave our hands and say that we don't need Anandtech. These guys are supposed to do the work that we can't afford to do--buy 2 CPUs and test them side by side.

    I appreciate the articles coming out here, but I feel like logical comparisons need to be made, and if XT are supposed to replace X, then we really need XT vs X heads up comparisons along with the obvious Intel competitors. Think of what consumers might wonder when they want to buy a CPU and put in all the logical comparisons.

    It's been a while since I bought a CPU but I paid attention during the Kaby Lake Skylake X launch to try to figure out which CPU to buy. The problem with AT was for the Skylake X benchmarks, they neglected to include ANY consumer level CPUs like Kaby Lake or even Skylake CPUs just to compare. Of course these may be two different market segments, but the lowest tier of the HEDT line might be competing against the high end of the mainstream consumer line especially from a price perspective. Someone might wonder "Should I splurge on a 7800X which is closer to $400 or settle for a 7700k closer to $300." This is a completely logical comparison that a shopper might consider.
    Reply
  • Meteor2 - Thursday, July 9, 2020 - link

    The XTs replace the X's in the market place, but they're not necessarily superior. No-one is going to buy an XT to replace the corresponding X model (I hope). Reply
  • leaachenswnz - Saturday, July 18, 2020 - link

    Thanks for this interesting review
    https://sextreff.net/ao-huren
    Reply
  • marc1000 - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link

    3700x is binned for power/temp, not clocks. so it can effectively have a better clock average due to lower temperatures, and in some cases this will be better performance (depends on test in case).

    I always felt the 3700x is the gem of this generation. too bad I could not purchase one while it was relatively cheap at the start of this year (after C19 crisis, all prices outside US sky-rocketed)
    Reply
  • bji - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link

    The prices in your charts appear to be pure fabrication.

    I could not find an i9-10900K for sale on Amazon for less than $1,399. The Ryzen 9 3900X is available with next day shipping for $422.

    The i9-10900K is available at Newegg and listed at $529 there. The Ryzen 9 3900X is $429.

    How can you in good conscience provide such obviously faulty information? When I was reading the charts I was actually thinking, wow, Intel is quite competitive with Ryzen at the high end, then I decided to actually do some research and discovered that the information you are providing is completely inaccurate.
    Reply
  • bji - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link

    Also before you reply that the information you are providing is just the MSRP, consider that this is not relevant in any way to an actual evaluation of the product. If you are going to include MSRP as your "price" benchmark, why not just use manufacturer supplied benchmarks as well instead of running your own benchmarks? Why is manufacturer supplied data acceptable for one half of the value equation, but manufacturer supplied benchmarks not acceptable for the other half of the value equation? Reply
  • hnlog - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link

    Stop trolling Reply
  • romrunning - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link

    Although maybe he's trying to make his point a little harshly, still, the main point remains. The products aren't truly comparable to the consumer unless they can see how much it will cost them now. When availability is limited by by the supply, then you will get pricing all over the board. But the fact remains, if you want to "buy" it now, this is the price you'll have to pay.

    I support both showing the MSRP as well as the current Amazon/Newegg pricing. It helps the consumer more fully realize the value equation when considering their purchase. Newegg might be more accurate because at least they show what the price it would normally be sold when they (Newegg) are the seller.
    Reply
  • Ratman6161 - Tuesday, July 7, 2020 - link

    The CPU's were only released today. Pretty much everyone who has them for sale is selling the XT's for Full MSRP. You can look up street prices of the X's yourself easily enough. But such comparisons on day one are rather pointless unless you are one of those that just has to have the latest and greatest on the first day. No one really knows where things will stabilize so there isn't much point in comparing old vs new other than that new will cost more than old for pretty much no gain in performance. That extra 100 Mhz boost isn't going to get you much. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now