Ryzen2 3000 Series Specs Revealed

Jiniix

Well-Known Member
Has anyone seen any technical difference between the 3700X and 3800X?
A difference of 40W TDP can't surely be down to binning and a few hundres MHz. Granted TDP is rather useless as a measurement, but the 12core is also 105W with a higher boost and almost same base.
 

OmniDyne

Active Member
Has anyone seen any technical difference between the 3700X and 3800X?
A difference of 40W TDP can't surely be down to binning and a few hundres MHz. Granted TDP is rather useless as a measurement, but the 12core is also 105W with a higher boost and almost same base.
You'll notice that the 6 core 3600X has a higher TDP rating (95W) than the 8 core 3700X (65W). As Ian mentioned in his Anandtech article:
This CPU has a TDP of 105W, which for AMD processors is usually a good measure of all-core power consumption

I think the variations in TDP are absolutely related to binning.
 
Last edited:

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
You'll notice that the 6 core 3600X has a higher TDP rating (95W) than the 8 core 3700X (65W). As Ian mentioned in his Anandtech article:



I think the variations in TDP are absolutely related to binning.
Same as the 1700 being 65w supposedly but when I clocked it at 4.0GHz it's pulling as much as a stock 1800x.
 

Jiniix

Well-Known Member
TDP has been rather useless since 2006, but exactly as you also point out, a six-core at 3.8/4.4GHz is supposedly pretty much the same TDP as a 12-core with 3.8/4.6Ghz
I hate TDP with a passion, and wish we could make something like their ACP an industry standard and required. Power consumption based on a specific set of benchmarks.
 
I'm happy with the processors themselves but the costs I am hearing for motherboards has me a little worried. It might be a costly upgrade once I factor in new ram.

In reference to AMD stock. I bought in at $1.80 and sold around $6.00. Wish I held that a little longer.
 

Shlouski

VIP Member
These new cpu's are looking good thank goodness, but before everyone starts singing about how great AMD is, just remember they are the reason why intel has had the best part of a decade long advantage to exploit, and a companies main priority is to make money, you don't have to like it.
Many seem to want intel to suffer and for the AMD underdog to rise up and leave intel in the dust, but this is the last thing the consumer should want, we don't need a repeat of the last decade with a AMD superiority instead, we need a competitive market to push technology and to keep prices competitive.

May AMD, Intel and nvidia prosper, so we the consumer may reap the rewards.
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
TDP has been rather useless since 2006, but exactly as you also point out, a six-core at 3.8/4.4GHz is supposedly pretty much the same TDP as a 12-core with 3.8/4.6Ghz
I hate TDP with a passion, and wish we could make something like their ACP an industry standard and required. Power consumption based on a specific set of benchmarks.
TDP is Thermal Design Power which I understood to mean how much heat it will put off under full load measured in watts, and not an actual power consumption figure. I've used HWInfo to measure actual power draw on the CPU socket (although unsure how accurate it is) and I'll see my actual consumption usually under 65 watts when at stock clocks but at 4.0GHz I see it north of 65 regularly and over 110ish at full load. I remember my 8320 would sometimes pull over 200 watts when I had that bad boy cranked all the way up. :D

Again not sure how accurate those measures are but just shows that TDP is more like a general guideline than an actual rule/measurement.

I'm hoping we see more laptops this year too.
 

OmniDyne

Active Member
TDP has been rather useless since 2006, but exactly as you also point out, a six-core at 3.8/4.4GHz is supposedly pretty much the same TDP as a 12-core with 3.8/4.6Ghz
I hate TDP with a passion, and wish we could make something like their ACP an industry standard and required. Power consumption based on a specific set of benchmarks.
TDP is Thermal Design Power which I understood to mean how much heat it will put off under full load measured in watts, and not an actual power consumption figure. I've used HWInfo to measure actual power draw on the CPU socket (although unsure how accurate it is) and I'll see my actual consumption usually under 65 watts when at stock clocks but at 4.0GHz I see it north of 65 regularly and over 110ish at full load. I remember my 8320 would sometimes pull over 200 watts when I had that bad boy cranked all the way up. :D

Again not sure how accurate those measures are but just shows that TDP is more like a general guideline than an actual rule/measurement.

I'm hoping we see more laptops this year too.

I wouldn't call TDP useless, but the way Intel uses TDP is definitely, well, dishonest. It's why the i7-8700 thermal throttles under the stock cooler.

Ian Cutress - Anandtech said:
But TDP, in its strictest sense, relates to the ability of the cooler to dissipate heat. TDP is the minimum capacity of the CPU cooler required to get that guaranteed level of performance. Some energy dissipation also occurs through the socket and motherboard, which means that technically the cooler rating can be lower than the TDP, but in most circles TDP and power consumption are used to mean the same thing: how much power a CPU draws under load.
The value of TDP, or thermal design power, is not a measure of power consumption. It is technically a measure of cooler performance, and a cooler needs to be rated at the TDP level in order to perform regular functions. Actual power consumption should technically be higher – thermal losses from the processor into the socket and from the socket into the motherboard also contribute to cooling, but are not involved in the TDP number. However, for most use cases, TDP and power consumption are used interchangeably, as their differences are minor.
Over the last decade, while the use of the term TDP has not changed much, the way that its processors use a power budget has. The recent advent of six-core and eight-core consumer processors going north of 4.0 GHz means that we are seeing processors, with a heavy workload, go beyond that TDP value. In the past, we would see quad-core processors have a rating of 95W but only use 50W, even at full load with turbo applied. As we add on the cores, without changing the TDP on the box, something has to give.
For the last however many years, this is the definition of TDP that Intel has used. For any given processor, Intel will guarantee both a rated frequency to run at (known as the base frequency) for a given power, which is the rated TDP. This means that a processor like the 65W Core i7-8700, which has a base frequency of 3.2 GHz and a turbo of 4.7 GHz, is only guaranteed to be at or below 65W when the processor is running at 3.2 GHz. Intel does not guarantee any level of performance above this 3.2 GHz / 65W value.

AMD uses a different formula and it scales much better and accurately with power consumption. That doesn't necessarily apply to overclocking, obviously.
 
Last edited:

Shlouski

VIP Member
TDP is Thermal Design Power which I understood to mean how much heat it will put off under full load measured in watts, and not an actual power consumption figure.
As far as I understand it, power consumption wattage and heat output wattage cannot be different values as they go hand in hand, anything that uses 200 watts of power will be generating 200 watts of heat irrespective of what it is, so you can't for example have a cpu using 65 watts of power generating 100 watts of heat. A 100w led will produce the same amount of heat (100 watts) as a 100w incandescent light bulb, the difference is that the led is more efficient producing light, so you could use a lower wattage led to produce the same amount of light as the 100w incandescent light bulb.

TDP is the maximum wattage a cooling solution should be able to dissipate, so a cooling solution should be built to handle the maximum wattage expected in normal operation, the problem lies in how TDP values are determine by manufactures, chip manufactures will likely underestimate heat output and cooling solution manufactures will likely overestimate a products cooling performance.
 

OmniDyne

Active Member
You guys should probably read up on how TDP is established...
You mean the articles I've already directly quoted from?

before making statements.
Wow ha. The pot calling the kettle black on that one. Correcting misinformation is one thing, but just copying and pasting links and then behaving hypocritically by stating "before making statements" does nothing but cause bitter dissension.

so you can't for example have a cpu using 65 watts of power generating 100 watts of heat.
Yes, but:

Ian - Anandtech said:
In the past, we would see quad-core processors have a rating of 95W but only use 50W, even at full load with turbo applied.
 
Last edited:

Intel_man

VIP Member
You mean the articles I've already directly quoted from?

Wow ha. The pot calling the kettle black on that one. Correcting misinformation is one thing, but just copying and pasting links and then behaving hypocritically by stating "before making statements" does nothing but cause bitter dissension.
Stop getting your panties in a twist. My post wasn't directed at you.
 

Shlouski

VIP Member
I mean irrespective of a cpu's power rating, if a cpu was measured to be using 65 watts then it wouldn't be producing 100 watts of heat, if a cpu with a 95w tdp was only using 50 watts then it would only be generating 50 watts of heat.

You guys should probably read up on how TDP is established... before making statements
Dunno it this is directed at me, but I only stated what the goal of a tdp rating is, supplying enough cooling to dissipate the expected wattage of a chip, not on how manufacturers calculate their tdp's. In my opinion a chip manufacturer can use whatever calculations they want as long as they get it right, it's fine if they want to overestimate a tdp and build a cooling solution for that rating , which would be good practise as no two cpu's are the same so this would allow a margin of error, but it becomes a problem if a tdp is underestimate and then not enough cooling is provided. If my 50w rated cpu is using 70w and my cooling solution is barely able to effectively cool 50w, then the printed 50w tdp on the box ain't going to magically dissipate the extra 20w of heat.
 

OmniDyne

Active Member
Stop getting your panties in a twist. My post wasn't directed at you.
I stopped wearing panties years ago. I'm a thong guy now.

it's fine if they want to overestimate a tdp and build a cooling solution for that rating , which would be good practise as no two cpu's are the same so this would allow a margin of error, but it becomes a problem if a tdp is underestimate and then not enough cooling is provided.
And that is why Ryzen TDP scales well with power consumption. AMD applies TDP values based on stock cooler performance, which is more than adequate under stock usage. However, If you apply a stronger cooling solution to a Ryzen chip, you actually lower the TDP rating, according to AMDs formula.
 

Jiniix

Well-Known Member
Intels definition of TDP: Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload.

That gives us these numbers:
  • i7-7800X, 6C/12T - 140W TDP (197W according to Techspot)
  • i9-7920X, 12C/24T - 140W TDP (7900X: 259W same Techspot)
  • i5-9600K, 6C/12T - 95W TDP (119W according to TomsHW)
  • i9-9900K, 8C/16T - 95W TDP (130W according to Arstech)
I tried finding reviews that said how they came to their findings, like Cinebench/Prime95 for a long time etc. Case in point, Intel can suck a bag of dicks.

AMDs definitions of TDP:
Thermal Design Power. The thermal design power is the maximum power a processor can draw for a thermally significant period while running commercially useful software

AMDs proposed standard called ACP:
According to AMD documentation, ACP (Average CPU Power) is the average (Geometric Mean) power a processor was measured to dissipate while running a collection of 5 different benchmarks (Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC Benchmark*-C), SPEC cpu*2006, SPECjbb*2005, and STREAM.)

AMDs TDP is still very vague, but to their credit they're the only ones I've seen release a 200W+ TDP CPU.

TLDR: TDP is a waste of bits on my screen when I look for a new CPU. But we could easily have a defined standard of max load that would be the same for both vendors - in a perfect world.
 

OmniDyne

Active Member
Yeah I think you're right and I think it's time to buy some shares ha. The price has jumped substantially since last year.
 
Last edited:

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
Yeah I think you're right and I think it's time to buy some shares ha. The price has jumped substantially since last year.
Been saying it for years. Still haven't, at this point I almost just don't want to out of principle knowing how much I could have made a couple years ago pre Zen.
 
Top