vacancies advertise contact news tip The Vault
facebook rss twitter

First details of AMD Ryzen 5 3500 6C/6T processor leak

by Mark Tyson on 23 August 2019, 11:11

Tags: AMD (NYSE:AMD)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qaec42

Add to My Vault: x

An unannounced Ryzen 3000 series desktop processor has been spotted by prolific Twitter-based chip detective Tum Apisak. From a post a few hours ago, and an update just one hour ago, we get to see an outline of an interesting new processor from AMD - which is the first Ryzen 3000 series desktop processor without SMT.

According to Tum, the AMD Ryzen 5 3500 processor has six cores but no SMT - thus it can be described as a 6C/6T CPU. The Twitter leakster's data shows that the AMD Ryzen 5 3500 runs at base / boost of 3.6 /4.1GHz. This is similar to its nearest known Zen 2 neighbour, the Ryzen 5 3600 with 6C/12T and a base/boost of 3.6/4.2GHz (65W). For reference, HEXUS recently reviewed the AMD Ryzen 5 3600X.

Just an hour or so ago Tum shared a finding that the AMD Ryzen 5 3500 achieves a 'Physics Score' of 12,8XX. It isn't clear which benchmark this is from, so hopefully more updates and perhaps screenshots will follow. As a possible comparison I have seen Tum list 'CPU physics scores' previously, and they appear to be from 3DMark Fire Strike. If this is the same test then the Ryzen 5 3600 scores between 19,000 and 19,900 - quite a lot better than the purported Ryzen 5 3500.

Finally, it is important to avoid confusion between this unannounced processor and the Zen+ CPU core based AMD Ryzen 5 3500U APU.

Last week Tum Apisak revealed what he claimed to be another unannounced AMD Ryzen 3000 series desktop CPU. He said he had spotted the AMD Ryzen 9 3900, a close relation to the 12C/24T Ryzen 9 3900X, but characterized by a low TDP of 65W. The base/boost clocks of the Ryzen 9 3900 were said to be 3.1/4.2GHz but might boost as high as 4.3GHz. For comparison the Ryzen 9 3900X offers a base/boost of 3.8/4.6GHz and a TDP of 105W.

Please remember that while the above leaks might be interesting, and the source has a great track record, the data needs to be taken with a pinch of salt for now.

 



HEXUS Forums :: 20 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Hmm, I was getting quite happy with AMD not creating a product stack by turning off features on fully functional chips ala Intel. I hope this isn't a sign. There are few things I hate more than buying something that has had extra effort put in to cripple it just to create a product range. Disabling dodgy cores / iGPUs to make use of otherwise scrap parts is different and I don't mind that as long as customers know what they're getting into.
IIRC SMT requires extra hardware so technically they could be using dies that didn't make the cut, although the extra circuitry is pretty minimal so i imagine defects would be pretty low.
Corky34
IIRC SMT requires extra hardware so technically they could be using dies that didn't make the cut, although the extra circuitry is pretty minimal so i imagine defects would be pretty low.

It does require extra hardware for the thread management and storage to shift between the two as far as i understand.
This cpu seems a bit weird in all honesty.

I thought the design AMD were using were a ‘chiplet’ design eaning they didn't have as much waste or damaged parts.

It doesn't seem like there's much point to the 3500 when the rest isn't exactly overly expensive to buy (in relative terms)
philehidiot
Hmm, I was getting quite happy with AMD not creating a product stack by turning off features on fully functional chips ala Intel. I hope this isn't a sign. There are few things I hate more than buying something that has had extra effort put in to cripple it just to create a product range. Disabling dodgy cores / iGPUs to make use of otherwise scrap parts is different and I don't mind that as long as customers know what they're getting into.

I don't know that much about AMD's current fab, not having visited one, but that was what immediately went through my mind too. It's certainly plausible that they have some way, designed in, to modify chips that fail at full-spec to be used as lower spec, or even those thar pass at high spec if the demand for lower spec exists.

A cousin, if you like, to the old cutting of bridges to determine chip speed. I certainly suspect it'd be too expensive to design a whole second design, just for this, so I strongly suspect it's something of the above type.

And, phileidiot, while I kinda agree about chip-crippling, the other way to look at it is that by doing so, they can offer a range of chips, at a range of prices, to suit a range of user budgets and needs. There's inevitably going to be an element of design for the high end, then …. not sure cripple is the word I'd use, but rather “limit” …. for those with lesser needs and tighter budgets

I think it makes perfect sense. After all, you have to do the designing for high end to meet that market, and this way you can meet lower markets with virtually no marginal cost implications either at design or fab stages.