AMD rumored to release 2 new Ryzen CPUs in response to Intel 10th gen 10900K and 10700K

Written by Chad Norton on Fri, May 22, 2020 5:37 PM

More rumors are stirring in the CPU market, as AMD is reportedly working on a rival to Intel’s latest 10th gen processors, the Core i9-10900K and Core i7-10700K. If true, these two new desktop CPUs, possibly called Ryzen 7 3850X and Ryzen 7 3750X, could replace the original Ryzen 7 3800X and Ryzen 7 3700X and even reduce prices on the existing Ryzen 3000 series line.

Reportedly under the Mattise Refresh family, these new processors would use the same Zen 2 7nm architecture but with a slight adjustment. Obviously these rumors haven’t been confirmed yet, so take this all with a pinch of salt, but they are supposedly going to be announced on June 16th with a launch on July 7th, so we won’t have to wait long to see what AMD says at least. 

Taking the fact that they will replace the previous Ryzen 7 processors and compete against the two 10th gen Intel CPUs, we can have a look at how they might compare. Obviously we don't know what the exact specs will be, but slotting them between the two we can at least have a better guess.

  i9-10900K i7-10700K Ryzen 7 3850X Ryzen 7 3750X Ryzen 7 3800X Ryzen 7 3700X
Cores 10 8 ? ? 8 8
Threads 20 16 ? ? 16 16
Base Clock 3.7GHz 3.8GHz ? ? 3.9GHz 3.6GHz
Boost Clock 5.3GHz 5.1GHz ? ? 4.5GHz 4.4GHz
Cache 20 16 ? ? 36 36
Price $488 $374 ? ? $335 $269
TDP 125W 125W ? ? 105W 65W

So as we can see, the previous Ryzen 7 CPUs that are apparently going to be replaced are significantly lacking in boost clock speed when compared to Intel's 10th gen CPUs on offer, and the Ryzen 7 3800X has a bit of room to improve on core count over the i9-10900K. Though AMD continues to smash it when it comes to CPU cache size. I would guess though that AMD is just planning on increasing the clock speeds for a slight performance increase, but what do you think?

So if these rumors are true, we're looking at a very low cost alternative (around $100 cheaper!) to the top-end Intel 10th gen processors. The Ryzen 3000 series has already done a terrific job in competing against Intel at the moment, but these 2 new processors would supposedly be pretty much neck and neck whilst still being significantly cheaper.

What do you think? Is AMD working on some direct competition to Intel here? Would you be interested in AMD's alternative? What specs do you think they will be and what will they cost? Let us know!

Our favourite comments:

Quite pointless if you ask me, but I want to see how far 7nm has come, maybe we'll get a a higher binned and thus higher clocked R7 3800x in the form of the R7 3850x, 4.7Ghz boost maybe? Maybe not, who knows.

psychoman

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
55
Offline
13:45 May-23-2020

This isn't necessary as AMD is currently wiping the floor with Intel already especially from a PR and goodwill perspective. Just give us Zen 3 and see the wiping continue on a grander scale.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:57 May-23-2020

What AMD needs the most right now is a higher production volume right now.

3
Rep
-19
Offline
18:16 May-23-2020

not up to amd. that would require companies to increase production for everything and I'm gonna guess production of products around the globe are going to be down at the current time.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
01:50 May-24-2020

It's not up to AMD, but they do need higher production volume, so yeah.

2
Rep
55
Offline
18:48 May-23-2020

True. The last thing we want is inflated prices on awesome value CPUs because of yield issues.

0
Rep
-19
Offline
13:09 May-23-2020

Saw 3600xt, 3800xt and 3900xt. All with 200-300 higher clocks.

1
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
23:17 May-22-2020

Pointless release. There's no need.

2
Rep
179
Offline
admin approved badge
22:17 May-22-2020

ehhh more choices and lower prices is always good, but mid generation refreshes in general are kinda dumb...... IMO they should just let Intel have the limelight for now and really wow us with Ryzen 4000

3
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
02:47 May-23-2020

Well they can't wow us with Ryzen 4000/Zen3, considering it will be just 20-25% faster if the rumors are true, I'm wishing for more though, I wish it to be 30-40% better overall than Zen2.
If AMD actually does improve it by a total of at least 34% overall, it will be great as it that's the minimum for a great Year Over Year improvement or Generation Over Generation if you will.(That's 80% improvement every 2 years or 2 generations).

0
Rep
179
Offline
admin approved badge
05:44 May-23-2020

If that's all IPC, I personally would be impressed, of course we wish for more, but realistically I don't think either AMD or Intel are capable of more in a generational leap..... there have been times when they were able to give us more, but that generally came with complete architectural overhauls....... Piledriver to Zen for instance.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:59 May-23-2020

IPC is said to be 17%, I assume 7nm EUV will have higher clocks due to the specs given. And both intel and AMD are capable of much bigger improvements in IPC, but they want many tiny cores as they are more profitable and are perfect for server workloads(many of the same tasks done in parallel) and since 95% of the money is in the server market, they are focusing on them.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:01 May-23-2020

Zen1 and Zen2(and for sure Zen3) have a decoder bottleneck, the decoder is 4-wide, while the Integer pipeline is 7-wide, if they increase the decoder width(count) so that it's 6-7-wide and then add in the registers, increase the cache width and re-write(not really-rewrite, more like refactor) the scheduler and out of order execution, we could easily get 50-66% higher Integer IPC at little to no expense to the clock speeds since for about 9 years now the process node has limited the clock speeds and not the architectures.


What they'll lose though is core count, since the cores will be bigger and consume more power per core. But we don't need more than 8-12 cores for 99.99% of tasks, since they are less than 95% parallel, most are less than 90% parallel. Only servers need many tiny cores.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:03 May-23-2020

Bulldozer/Piledriver to Zen was just a 7% integer and 10% floating point IPC improvement Year-Over-Year, compared to Intel's 4-7% improvement year over-year from Sandy to Skylake, it's not much better than what Intel have done, though Intel hasn't improved IPC since 2015(Skylake).

0
Rep
-19
Offline
19:12 May-23-2020

so 35-50% ipc isnt bad. thats a sweeping change since its a new architecture. zen 3 is supposed to be a new architecture and not an evolution like zen+ and zen 2 are. with literally no actual details outside of possible ipc gain...

0
Rep
-19
Offline
19:13 May-23-2020

..there is nothing we can say about the system yet.

0
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
12:26 May-23-2020

15 to 20% single core IPC. It's not ENOUGH FOR ANYONE!

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:02 May-23-2020

It's good for tasks that do NOT have user input for hours or days. Let's say some huge rendering of CGI or compiling something insane, but that's like 0.0001% of the clients that do it.

0
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
23:58 May-23-2020

Games usually use one CPU core. But in these days, more and more are going multi-core.


Still, an increase is an increase.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
01:54 May-24-2020

Games are no longer just a single program, they haven't been even before multi-core CPUs came out. There are 2-4x programs in a game. The 2x guaranteed ones are the API and Game Logic. Then you can also have a Physics engine and an Effect engine. I'm also guessing that in the near future(5 years or so) there will be dedicated AI engines in video games.

0
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
03:20 May-24-2020

I know, but what I mean is that with the amount of stuff running, it uses only 1 CPU core. Hence the usage of that core going up. That's what I meant. I'm probably very wrong.


Every program nowadays should be multi-core. Using 4 cores should be a bare minimum.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
09:43 May-24-2020

Again, games nowadays are 2-4x programs in total, so even if they are made to run on one core, they should scale almost linearly with up to 2-4x cores.

1
Rep
34
Offline
10:46 May-23-2020

@Psychoman "just 20-25% faster" probably it will be even less than that,it's still good tho,remember we got from ivy bridge to Kaby Lake 40% improvement in 5 YEARS,amd it's still ok in terms of really good in term of performance year over year especially now that they are competing with themselves.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:08 May-23-2020

Intel didn't improve much because they wanted to make their cores become smaller and smaller and now they are tiny, since they want to sell at high as possible profit margins and cater towards the server market where approximately 95% of the money is.
For example Bulldozer to Zen was a 7% Year Over Year Integer IPC improvement and 10% Year Over Year Floating Point IPC improvement, compared to intel's Sandy bridge to Skylake which was a 4-7% year over year IPC improvement. Kabylake is Skylake, everything since Skylake has been the same architecture, but on an improved "14nm" process node. Skylake came out in 2015, Sandy bridge came out in 2011, so it's 25-30%(not even 40%) improvement in 4 years.

0
Rep
34
Offline
10:49 May-23-2020

I mean they got 3.5/5 markets(productivity,servers,laptops(intel),gaming(only half),console),yet still they give significant improvements each iteration.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:22 May-23-2020

AMD simply doesn't have enough production to compete with intel right now. Even if AMD Sold Out everything they have, they still won't get 50% of any of the markets(except for consoles obviously), that's because they rely on TSMC for production and they only have a small part of their production dedicated to them and on top of that they make both GPUs and CPUs, they make on top of that GPUs and CPUs for consoles, GPUs for smartphones, CPUs for and GPUs for desktop and laptop and servers, just no way they can keep up with the demand if they were to sell out.

0
Rep
28
Offline
20:28 May-22-2020

They really dont need to intels 14nm is running scarce and amd cant compete with the 10 cores brute force clock speed. You really need to need those extra 10 frames out of the other 200 to justify the i9 10900k.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:07 May-23-2020

You also need a 3rd party AIO water cooler or big chunky air cooler for the i9 10900k

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:52 May-22-2020

Quite pointless if you ask me, but I want to see how far 7nm has come, maybe we'll get a a higher binned and thus higher clocked R7 3800x in the form of the R7 3850x, 4.7Ghz boost maybe? Maybe not, who knows.

8
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
19:47 May-22-2020

Seriously, isn't nVidia on graphic cards enough? Do we also really need so many in between CPUs? Plus current AMD stack is fine, like maybe give it bit price adjustments and focus on 4th gen Ryzen. Sure AMD marketing could learn many things from competitors, but do they really need to just pick up bad habits? Makes me even wonder what they will do with it...

1
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
19:49 May-22-2020

Like considering 12 core part price, I doubt 10 core part would make much sense. Only thing I could see to be competitive with gaming is to bring single CCX 8 core chiplet to current gen, but then again, would it even make sense doing it, considering how much would probably need to go into this to make it. Like 3300X was possible with current configuration, but that wouldn't be.

0
Rep
76
Offline
admin approved badge
19:51 May-22-2020

So it really is weird to hear they are doing it. But I guess we will see. This might be indication that they maybe aren't planning to release 4th gen soon, considering new chips are rumored to come. Ryzen 3 I understand, since they could start 4th gen with Ryzen 5 and up. But I guess we will see. Might be just something they are considering and we might get nothing.

0
Rep
2
Offline
19:15 May-22-2020

I'm waithing for the 4th gen so I can buy the 3700x when they drop it's price, I think it will be a nice combo with a second hand GTX 1080 Ti

3
Rep
-6
Offline
18:46 May-22-2020

I like competition but i don't think AMD should do this. Instead they can release the new ryzen 4th gen Zen 3 cpus at September.

1

Can They Run... |

| 60FPS, Medium,
Ryzen 5 3500U 4-Core 2.1 GHz Radeon RX Vega 8 8GB
| 30FPS, Low,
Ryzen 5 3500U 4-Core 2.1 GHz Radeon RX Vega 8 8GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-10400 6-Core 2.90GHz GeForce GTX 1650 16GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i7-7700K 4-Core 4.2GHz GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i7-7700K 4-Core 4.2GHz GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB 16GB
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i5-10300H 4-Core 2.50GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
| 30FPS, Low, 720p
Athlon II X2 245 GeForce GTS 250 4GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i9-10900X 10-Core 3.7GHz GeForce RTX 2070 Super Gigabyte Gaming OC 3X 8GB 32GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 5 3500U 4-Core 2.1 GHz Radeon RX 540X 2GB Mobile 8GB
100% Yes [2 votes]