One of the questions that was left over from AMD’s Computex reveal of the new Ryzen 3000 family was why a 16-core version of the dual-chiplet Matisse design was not announced. Today, AMD is announcing its first 16 core CPU into the Ryzen 9 family. AMD stated that they’re not interested in the back and forth with its competition about slowly moving the leading edge in consumer computing – they want to launch the best they have to offer as soon as possible, and the 16-core is part of that strategy.

The new Ryzen 9 3950X will top the stack of new Zen 2 based AMD consumer processors, and is built for the AM4 socket along with the range of X570 motherboards. It will have 16 cores with simultaneous multi-threading, enabling 32 threads, with a base frequency of 3.5 GHz and a turbo frequency of 4.7 GHz. All of this will be provided in a 105W TDP.

AMD 'Matisse' Ryzen 3000 Series CPUs
AnandTech Cores
DDR4 TDP Price
Ryzen 9 3950X 16C 32T 3.5 4.7 8 MB 64 MB 16+4+4 ? 105W $749
Ryzen 9 3900X 12C 24T 3.8 4.6 6 MB 64 MB 16+4+4 ? 105W $499
Ryzen 7 3800X 8C 16T 3.9 4.5 4 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 ? 105W $399
Ryzen 7 3700X 8C 16T 3.6 4.4 4 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 ? 65W $329
Ryzen 5 3600X 6C 12T 3.8 4.4 3 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 ? 95W $249
Ryzen 5 3600 6C 12T 3.6 4.2 3 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 ? 65W $199

AMD has said that the processor will be coming in September 2019, about two months after the initial Ryzen 3rd Gen processors, due to extra validation requirements. The chip uses two of the Zen 2 eight-core chiplets, paired with an IO die that provides 24 total PCIe 4.0 lanes. By using the AM4 socket, AMD recommends pairing the Ryzen 9 3950X with one of the new X570 motherboards launched at Computex.

With regards to performance, AMD is promoting it as a clear single-thread and multi-thread improvement over other 16-core products in the market, particularly those from Intel (namely the 7960X).

There are several questions surrounding this new product, such as reasons for the delay between the initial Ryzen 3000 launch to the 3950X launch, the power distribution of the chiplets based on the frequency and how the clocks will respond to the 105W TDP, how the core-to-core communications will work going across chiplets, and how gaming performance might be affected by the latency differences going to the IO die and then moving off to main memory. All these questions are expected to be answered in due course.

Pricing is set to be announced by AMD at its event at E3 today. We’ll be updating this news post when we know the intended pricing.

Update: $749

Related Reading



View All Comments

  • GreenReaper - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

    Well sure; instead of decreasing wattage; they're increasing base core clocks for sustained perf. Looks like there's a sweet spot somewhere around 3.5/3.6Ghz, which is why they put the 3700X and 3950X base there. 3600X, 3800X and 3900X have more headroom for a higher base clock. It won't use that all the time, but they only have three cooler models, so no sense in e.g. 80W TDP.

    Personally I think 3900X is the best value here. Twelve cores should be enough for a while, and you basically pay double to get two 3600Xs in one socket, with no compromise in base clock and +4.5% boost, perhaps thanks to the separation (though I want to see full clock/core progression). Having that extra cache will help keep up as newer software inevitably processes more data. 3950X is compromised by less L3 per core, and lower clocks, butting up against the 105W limit.

    Obviously the 3600 is a great value in cores per dollar, and the clock speed is only 200Mhz lower. All things being equal, you should be able to overclock it to at least 3700X levels as well. But they're not; better-quality chiplets are likely to go to the higher-level CPUs, at least at first. You'll probably have to toss the 65W cooler it comes with to get much more out of it, too.

    The 3800X doesn't make sense to me, unless you *really* want to avoid the potential impact of NUMA. You're paying the price for having a chiplet with all cores working and able to run at a reasonably high frequency, but losing out on 3900X's additional cores, cache, and higher boost.

    Of course ultimately we need to wait for benchmarks. But it's no surprise that CPUs employing less-than-perfect 6-core chiplets offer a significant discount. The value there is unlikely to change.
  • jtd871 - Wednesday, June 12, 2019 - link

    According to the info, all the main memory access goes thru the IO die, so the only NUMA issue should be related to local cache. IIRC, one of the design goals for Zen2-based Ryzen/TR was to make latency more uniform. The increased L3 and new Windows thread allocation strategy should also go a long way to smoothing out latency. I expect AT and some others to investigate this shortly after the embargo lifts. Reply
  • AshlayW - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

    On Zen2, all communication between chiplets goes through the I/o Die: there are no direct links between each chiplet.. At least this is what I am aware of. Reply
  • FMinus - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

    3800x was marked as a 95W part this show, so which is right? Reply
  • SmCaudata - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

    The 3800x is clearly made from the low binned 8 core chiplets with the 3950x using two chiplets from the good bin. I'm guessing that the difference in power between 3700x and 3800x, they are basically the same quality, just clocked differently. Looking at the list, I think the 3800x is a bit overpriced.

    All that said, you get effectively double the silicon for less than double the price going from 3800x to 3950x. It's nice to see companies not gouging on the enthusiast level chips.
  • GreenReaper - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

    3950x gives you double chiplets over 3800x, but 179% the all-core performance for 189% the price. And that's assuming there's no PCIe bandwidth limitations or impact from NUMA considerations.

    If you're considering those CPUs, it seems like a no-brainer to go for the 3900X ($41.98/core) instead of 3800X ($49.88/core) or 3950X ($46.81/core, all-core running slower than either). As noted above, you get a significant discount for going with CPUs which can use defective chiplets.
  • Metroid - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

    I made a table yesterday about it.

    Ryzen 9 3950X (16c, $749) 105w 749/16 = $46.8 usd per core
    Ryzen 9 3900X (12c, $499) 105w 499/12 = $41.5 usd per core
    Ryzen 7 3800X (08c, $399) 095w 399/08 = $49.8 usd per core
    Ryzen 7 3700X (08c, $329) 065w 329/08 = $41.1 usd per core
    Ryzen 5 3600X (06c, $249) 095w 249/06 = $41.5 usd per core
    Ryzen 5 3600 (06c, $199) 065w 199/06 = $33.1 usd per core

    Intel i9 9900k (08c, $499) 095w 499/08 = $62.3 usd per core
    Intel i7 9700k (08c, $379) 095w 379/08 = $47.3 usd per core
    Intel i5 9600k (06c, $262) 095w 262/06 = $32.7 usd per core

    The winner here hands down is the 3900x, second stays with 3700x and third with 3950x.
  • shabby - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

    Add a price per thread too, those 9600k/9700k won't look so hot anymore. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

    Not to mention the security performance regressions. Let's hope AMD doesn't also have to have SMT disabled, for example. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

    How can the 9600K be cheaper per-core than the 3600 if they both have six cores and the 3600 is $63 lower in price? Shouldn't it be $43.7 per core? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now