All companies are greedy, there's little point in cheering for AMD vs Intel because they are after your wallet just the same. Choose based on specs and what is right for the demand, neither company gives a crap about you.
Depends on the volume of the 8 core enabled chiplets in comparison. I suspect that most of those are headed toward Epyc where one product uses up to eight. Volumes should be relatively good considering the relatively small size of each chiplet.
The bigger factor is how those fully functional 8 core chiplets bin in terms of clock speeds and power consumption. I would expect that the high clocks or low power models are the harder to yield in volume.
AMD gets almost zero chiplets that hit advertised turbo frequencies for 3950X, 3900X and 3800X.
Personally I’d much rather have 3900X with current price, 200MHz lower turbo clocks and doubled availability. Same for 3950X. That might actually allow them to ship some.
Too bad they won’t sell me this new processor that they can actually manufacture in any reasonable quantities.
Maybe TSMC’s process is maturing and they now get more than one usabel 3950X die for each ten wafers these days, but by setting too high specs they prevented themselves from actually releasing the product for sale early.
Also, the 3500 here undercuts the 9400F, which in India is considerably cheaper than even the 2600, let alone the 3600. The only Ryzen six-core that was cheaper than the 9400F was the old 1600.
Interestingly those list the 3500 at the same 4.1/3.6ghz as the article lists the 3500x; just with a cut down 16mb of l3 instead of 32mb. The smaller cache size makes the 3500 an obvious die harvest part. Depending on how many bad dies they have in that config it could end up India only - or limited regional availability - just because they don't have enough parts with that failure pattern available. How oir If AMD pushes down the stack with more modestly spced parts will help answer that over the next few months.
The way i see it. AMD has problems delivering 3900x due to design/production problems. To mitigate the current problems they tap out the 3900. 2020 is getting an interesting year for us.
The 3900 is a different product for a market which wants a more efficient CPU (or, at least, one which fits within a particular power envelope) with a lot of cores.
Not sure it'll even sell for *that* much less than the 3900X (which is a good deal for the cores) - although I wouldn't be surprised if the chiplets aren't quite as good as the ones in the 3900X.
Too bad the 3900 is OEM only, that 65W TDP (even if it pulls ~100W when turboing) would make it incredibly attractive for home server/NAS use. Quite the beastly media server, with some serious transcoding chops.
Yes, it would have been nice if it wasn't OEM only. However, you can also limit the power consumption of 3900X by setting PPT to 88W (the stock setting for 65W TDP CPUs). You have to pay the full price of the 3900X but you will also get slightly higher single core boost.
"Given reports about the lack of Ryzen 9 3900X on shelves at this point, or inflated pricing where available"
The 3900x is in stock in Germany for (non-elevated) 529 Euro for a few weeks now (availability changing from alternate.de to mindfactory.de, Germanys biggest DIY PC retailers; Mindfactory shipped more than 1500 3900x in the last three weeks).
As the elevated prices are coming down around the globe (just look at amazon.com $564.99, but available) one can assume that the avalability is not that big of a problem anymore.
"There is no 14-core in this stack, with AMD's official reasoning being that they assess the market with each generation and they don't believe there's a suitable price point for such a part when the 12C and 16C parts are so close. Most people will point the finger and say that no-14 core AMD part means no direct comparison with the Intel i9-10940X, which is something to think about.."
Sorry, couldn't resist a bit of snark after seeing two variations on the same theme in as many articles. Joking aside, there's little numeric gap left between 3900x and 3950x for a 14-core part to fit into.
It's because you have to remove cores in pairs, ie- you can't have one CCX with 4 cores and the other with 3. Something to do with balancing the IF load afaia. So a 14 core is not actually possible on Zen2. Maybe if Zen3 uses the rumored 'Single 8 core CCX' design that might change.
"Most people will point the finger and say that no-14 core AMD part means no direct comparison with the Intel i9-10940X, which is something to think about."
Well, the flip side of that is to note that Intel left a 16-core part of the 109x0X series, meaning no direct comparison with the 3950X.
"Well, the flip side of that is to note that Intel left a 16-core part of the 109x0X series, meaning no direct comparison with the 3950X."
I'm well aware, I was poking fun that both of Anandtech's Cascade Lake announcement posts called out the lack of a 14-core part (even the Xeon post, which is a different market segment).
Only AMD's lineup was first and there is a technical reason for their core count. As it stands now, there is the same number of cores per CCX on all current CPUs. Creating a 14core part would need a mix of 3-core and 4-core CCXes and would create a lot of heterogenity as a result...
"...there's little numeric gap left between 3900x and 3950x". There are 49 numbers available between 3900 and 3950, so 98 SKUs depending whether there's an X suffix or not! That aside, 14-core parts don't seem likely to happen due their necessary asymmetry.
As a commenter above said, get an X and power-cap it. It probably wouldn't be *that* much cheaper given that you're still getting a lot of capability for the price.
Well sure, but what do you expect? Heck, it might do better than the 3900, might not; but that's the product you wanted, a lower-power CPU.
A great way to look at processor pricing within a given generation is how much power you can dissipate with it (actual usage, not just TDP) per dollar spent. Obviously for e.g. Zen -> Zen 2 you have to redo the analysis - but the basic concept of a CPU as turning power into performance remains.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
39 Comments
Back to Article
milkywayer - Tuesday, October 8, 2019 - link
Glad to hear AMD continues punching Intel. Gotta punish em for that greed.Urufu - Sunday, October 13, 2019 - link
All companies are greedy, there's little point in cheering for AMD vs Intel because they are after your wallet just the same. Choose based on specs and what is right for the demand, neither company gives a crap about you.dreadpiratereynolds - Sunday, November 17, 2019 - link
Sounds like someone doesn't know how economics work. Competition ALWAYS benefits the consumer.Flunk - Tuesday, October 8, 2019 - link
Sounds like they have a lot of salvage cores to get rid of. 3900 & 3600 are both lower-bin 2 dead core parts.Kevin G - Tuesday, October 8, 2019 - link
Depends on the volume of the 8 core enabled chiplets in comparison. I suspect that most of those are headed toward Epyc where one product uses up to eight. Volumes should be relatively good considering the relatively small size of each chiplet.The bigger factor is how those fully functional 8 core chiplets bin in terms of clock speeds and power consumption. I would expect that the high clocks or low power models are the harder to yield in volume.
deil - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
Yup, and 65W binned part is fine for a lot of people, like me as I don't need absolute top performer, saving $ and silent build is fine combo.jakky567 - Tuesday, October 8, 2019 - link
I'm not sure. They do sell quite a few 3700x/3800x's.I'd love to see the real breakdown, but I don't think they actually have enough defective cores for the market.
zepi - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
AMD gets almost zero chiplets that hit advertised turbo frequencies for 3950X, 3900X and 3800X.Personally I’d much rather have 3900X with current price, 200MHz lower turbo clocks and doubled availability. Same for 3950X. That might actually allow them to ship some.
Too bad they won’t sell me this new processor that they can actually manufacture in any reasonable quantities.
Maybe TSMC’s process is maturing and they now get more than one usabel 3950X die for each ten wafers these days, but by setting too high specs they prevented themselves from actually releasing the product for sale early.
mjz_5 - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
I have no trouble finding the CPUs.Korguz - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
they are hitting the turbos just fine.. just not the way intel dies it.. thats all..i have no issues finding these cpus as well.
PranavS - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
Ian, on the Ryzen 5 3500, most PC component retailers here in India have already listed it for orders:https://www.primeabgb.com/online-price-reviews-ind...
https://www.vedantcomputers.com/amd-ryzen-5-3500-p...
https://mdcomputers.in/amd-hexa-core-ryzen-5-3500....
No mention whatsoever of the 3500X. Could be that the 3500 is India-specific like the 3500X is for China. Worth looking into.
PranavS - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
Also, the 3500 here undercuts the 9400F, which in India is considerably cheaper than even the 2600, let alone the 3600. The only Ryzen six-core that was cheaper than the 9400F was the old 1600.brakdoo - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
1. India is not a big enough market for PCs to do that.2. 3500 based systems are available or listed in europe.
PranavS - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
1. Very true.2. Right. But retail chips too?
I'm not sure why AMD is being so quiet about this. 3500/3500X seem eminently marketable.
DanNeely - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
Interestingly those list the 3500 at the same 4.1/3.6ghz as the article lists the 3500x; just with a cut down 16mb of l3 instead of 32mb. The smaller cache size makes the 3500 an obvious die harvest part. Depending on how many bad dies they have in that config it could end up India only - or limited regional availability - just because they don't have enough parts with that failure pattern available. How oir If AMD pushes down the stack with more modestly spced parts will help answer that over the next few months.Jan68 - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
The way i see it. AMD has problems delivering 3900x due to design/production problems. To mitigate the current problems they tap out the 3900. 2020 is getting an interesting year for us.Korguz - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
problem delivering 3900x ?? maybe where you are, where i would order from, no issues here, still available, and i dont recal them being out of stock.GreenReaper - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
The 3900 is a different product for a market which wants a more efficient CPU (or, at least, one which fits within a particular power envelope) with a lot of cores.Not sure it'll even sell for *that* much less than the 3900X (which is a good deal for the cores) - although I wouldn't be surprised if the chiplets aren't quite as good as the ones in the 3900X.
Valantar - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
Too bad the 3900 is OEM only, that 65W TDP (even if it pulls ~100W when turboing) would make it incredibly attractive for home server/NAS use. Quite the beastly media server, with some serious transcoding chops.juergbi - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
Yes, it would have been nice if it wasn't OEM only. However, you can also limit the power consumption of 3900X by setting PPT to 88W (the stock setting for 65W TDP CPUs). You have to pay the full price of the 3900X but you will also get slightly higher single core boost.brakdoo - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
"Given reports about the lack of Ryzen 9 3900X on shelves at this point, or inflated pricing where available"The 3900x is in stock in Germany for (non-elevated) 529 Euro for a few weeks now (availability changing from alternate.de to mindfactory.de, Germanys biggest DIY PC retailers; Mindfactory shipped more than 1500 3900x in the last three weeks).
As the elevated prices are coming down around the globe (just look at amazon.com $564.99, but available) one can assume that the avalability is not that big of a problem anymore.
brakdoo - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
"PC manufacturers have listed the Ryzen 5 3500 (non-X), so it will be interesting to see if AMD acknowledges its existence."The first retailers have 3500 non-X systems are in stock. It's getting hard not to acknowledge their existence.
brakdoo - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
The TP01-0000ng (in stock at alternate.de) even has a Promontory B550A chipset (unacknowledged?).edzieba - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
"There is no 14-core in this stack, with AMD's official reasoning being that they assess the market with each generation and they don't believe there's a suitable price point for such a part when the 12C and 16C parts are so close. Most people will point the finger and say that no-14 core AMD part means no direct comparison with the Intel i9-10940X, which is something to think about.."Sorry, couldn't resist a bit of snark after seeing two variations on the same theme in as many articles. Joking aside, there's little numeric gap left between 3900x and 3950x for a 14-core part to fit into.
nevcairiel - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
The numeric gap is AMDs making alone. If they wanted a 14-core, they could've made a gap.Haawser - Thursday, October 10, 2019 - link
It's because you have to remove cores in pairs, ie- you can't have one CCX with 4 cores and the other with 3. Something to do with balancing the IF load afaia. So a 14 core is not actually possible on Zen2. Maybe if Zen3 uses the rumored 'Single 8 core CCX' design that might change.1_rick - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
"Most people will point the finger and say that no-14 core AMD part means no direct comparison with the Intel i9-10940X, which is something to think about."Well, the flip side of that is to note that Intel left a 16-core part of the 109x0X series, meaning no direct comparison with the 3950X.
edzieba - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
"Well, the flip side of that is to note that Intel left a 16-core part of the 109x0X series, meaning no direct comparison with the 3950X."I'm well aware, I was poking fun that both of Anandtech's Cascade Lake announcement posts called out the lack of a 14-core part (even the Xeon post, which is a different market segment).
Dodozoid - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
Only AMD's lineup was first and there is a technical reason for their core count.As it stands now, there is the same number of cores per CCX on all current CPUs. Creating a 14core part would need a mix of 3-core and 4-core CCXes and would create a lot of heterogenity as a result...
John_M - Friday, October 11, 2019 - link
"...there's little numeric gap left between 3900x and 3950x". There are 49 numbers available between 3900 and 3950, so 98 SKUs depending whether there's an X suffix or not! That aside, 14-core parts don't seem likely to happen due their necessary asymmetry.AshlayW - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
3900 being OEM only makes me a Sad Panda.GreenReaper - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
As a commenter above said, get an X and power-cap it. It probably wouldn't be *that* much cheaper given that you're still getting a lot of capability for the price.Korguz - Thursday, October 10, 2019 - link
" get an X and power-cap it. " and watch its performance, go down the toilet :-)GreenReaper - Thursday, October 10, 2019 - link
Well sure, but what do you expect? Heck, it might do better than the 3900, might not; but that's the product you wanted, a lower-power CPU.A great way to look at processor pricing within a given generation is how much power you can dissipate with it (actual usage, not just TDP) per dollar spent. Obviously for e.g. Zen -> Zen 2 you have to redo the analysis - but the basic concept of a CPU as turning power into performance remains.
Korguz - Sunday, October 13, 2019 - link
heh.. a power capped X chip, i doubt would do better then a 3900, intels cpus NEED the extra power to get the performance they get.John_M - Friday, October 11, 2019 - link
They'll be available on Ebay before long. That's where I got a 2400GE from.AbRASiON - Thursday, October 10, 2019 - link
I've said this time and time again.AMD NEED to include a very simple 2d GPU ON CHIP like Intel.
This solves so many issues for system integrators.
It doesn't have to be amazing. Same as igpu is fine. But nothing? At all. Huge shortcoming for many types of builds
Korguz - Sunday, October 13, 2019 - link
AbRASiON they have their APU's for that... just not based on Zen 2, yet....Foeketijn - Sunday, October 13, 2019 - link
Now I just want Supermicro to build me an affordable AM4 serverboard. The Asrock rack boards are a bit to pricey.