Speculation: Ryzen 3000 series

[SPBHM]

Here's the thing; Had this been an Intel launch, based on their recent history, zero 300/400 chipsets would work with Zen 2. Since it is AMD we have options. Stop looking for a negative where there isn't one.

you make it sound as if I wouldn't point out the problem if it was with an intel product...

I almost always buy the lowest end chipsets that's were my interest in particular for this comes from,

and one of the reasons I celebrated AM4 was because it was supposed to be supported by new CPUs until 2020 (and this was announced alongside Zen years ago), they never clearly excluded A320 before, I'm trying to understand the reason behind this exclusion but I'm not finding a clear answer so far, that's all.

power delivery seems to be equivalent in many a320 and b350 boards and there are 65W Zen2 CPUs, also it looks like a320 uses the same "bios" type as some b450 boards at least in the ones I checked from Asus

 

[amd6502]

It's not so much that A320 boards can't deliver the wattage, but that the voltage may not be clean enough (due to lower number of phases on VRM).

Still, the 3600 seems like a low binned product, so is factory overvolted for margin; I'guess that most of the 3600's about to be sold would have enough tolerance to somewhat dirty voltage.

I wouldn't rule out support being added later, with the 3600 a prime candidate. Not sure if it's very likely though.

But really, it's not the biggest deal. If you have an A320 and want to upgrade, just sell the it as a used board and get a B450. It's a very minor loss really, to freshen you hardware and give someone a good deal on a low end board. (I wouldn't even call it a loss; it's more like leasing something; the difference you paid for it and sell it for is basically the cost of renting the board for a year or few).

 

[Head1985]

So maybe for budget: B550 or X470 for Ryzen 3000
If B550 exist or maybe B550 doesn't exist because people can choose X470 instead.
The B450 was also a later release...

Ryzen 3000 have same TDP as 2000.So you can use B450 with good VRM like MSI tomahawk/carbon and overclock even 8core ryzen 3000 just like you can do it with 2700x on b450.X570 is for people who need PCIE4 or 12-16core.Rest can just use B450/x470.

 

[Flayed]

Last database cleanup was in january.

View attachment 7191
This is only complete pre-build PCs, i dont keep track of parts sold individually, thats not my department.



I respect what the people buy, im going to ask you to stop insulting our clients just because you feel the need to defend a company. This is low, very very low coming from you.



I would guess to the same place that a word given by a company went. What you want me to do? If we stop offering these options people are going to buy it from someone else. I would not care if not one would buy it, simple as that. Im not going to judge how other people expend their money just to defend a company. We have all the options avalible and we make no false adverseting, what is already A LOT comparing to what others do, if you only went to see the listings... there is one of another company that has a "gaming pc" consisting of 4GB of ram, a generic GTX1060 3GB, 9400F, H310, they sold over 180 of these, you know what the rating is? 4.9! Here it is, enjoy.
https://articulo.mercadolibre.com.a...ddr4-hd-1tb-gtx-1060-3gb-gamer-_JM?quantity=1
Do /46 to get the value in dollars.


This went too far. Enoght is enoght.

-Edited the last part to avoid more conflict-

What country is this/are you from? I guess it is better for your business that your customers can't upgrade, they will have to buy a whole new system

 

[jpiniero]

and one of the reasons I celebrated AM4 was because it was supposed to be supported by new CPUs until 2020 (and this was announced alongside Zen years ago), they never clearly excluded A320 before, I'm trying to understand the reason behind this exclusion but I'm not finding a clear answer so far, that's all.

I think it's the board makers doing moreso than AMD. They don't want to support it, even the chart AMD provided made it sound like not every B350/X370 board will support Zen 2 even though it seems like most will.

 

[RTX2080]

I think A320 is initially designed for low-end&low-power usage, by default, VRM is pity.
Some A320 mobo that has VRM comparable to B350/B450 is mostly designed customly, since microcode between A320/B450 is similar & support same cpus. If those manufacturers design A320 with beefy VRM, they might have seek ways to make them support Zen2.
So I think Zen2 A320 compatibility is not set in stone yet. Just for example the overclockable 200ge.

 

[Hans Gruber]

I think it's the board makers doing moreso than AMD. They don't want to support it, even the chart AMD provided made it sound like not every B350/X370 board will support Zen 2 even though it seems like most will.

I think the rule of thumb is this. If your motherboard looks like it cost $10. Most likely it will not be supported when Ryzen 3000 is released. As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for.

 

[BigDaveX]

I think it's the board makers doing moreso than AMD. They don't want to support it, even the chart AMD provided made it sound like not every B350/X370 board will support Zen 2 even though it seems like most will.

This isn't a new thing, unfortunately - as great of a boon as the cross-compatibility between Socket AM2 and AM3 was back in the day, it ended up being rendered kinda moot when the mobo manufacturers (even the bigger ones) did an absolutely terrible job of updating their BIOSes to support newer chips.

 

[Thunder 57]

you make it sound as if I wouldn't point out the problem if it was with an intel product...

I almost always buy the lowest end chipsets that's were my interest in particular for this comes from,

and one of the reasons I celebrated AM4 was because it was supposed to be supported by new CPUs until 2020 (and this was announced alongside Zen years ago), they never clearly excluded A320 before, I'm trying to understand the reason behind this exclusion but I'm not finding a clear answer so far, that's all.

power delivery seems to be equivalent in many a320 and b350 boards and there are 65W Zen2 CPUs, also it looks like a320 uses the same "bios" type as some b450 boards at least in the ones I checked from Asus

I'm sure you would point it out if it were Intel. I'm just saying at least the majority of boards should be compatible and that's a good thing.

I think there's a chance we see support (or unofficial support) for A320 at some point. I guess it depends on why it was left out to begin with.

 

[DrMrLordX]

in some poorer countries I'm sure A320 sold decently

There's the rub. The usual market tactic when dealing with lower-income purchasers is to try to capture as much value as you can with multiple, inexpensive purchases instead of selling occasional big-ticket items (see: @VirtuaLarry . . . heh, just kidding! Mostly). There certainly isn't much incentive for OEMs/system integrators to sell A320 (cheap mobo) and then let people keep it ad nauseam. You sell them another cheap board with their next cheap CPU, done deal. I suspect that we'll see an update to the A320 eventually instead of support for newer CPUs on the same chipset. OEMs are going to want to sell new, complete systems instead of tempting existing users to upgrade CPU.

So you can use B450 with good VRM like MSI tomahawk/carbon and overclock even 8core ryzen 3000 just like you can do it with 2700x on b450.

As much as that makes me cringe, I think 8c Matisse will be safer for B450 thanks to the overall lower voltages involved. You won't hit top clocks, but 4-4.3 GHz should be much easier to achieve on 4+2 configs than it was with Pinnacle Ridge.

 

[Abwx]

Some MBs news :

MSI CEO: Even Low-End AMD X570 Motherboards Will Be Expensive

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/msi-amd-x570-motherboard-pricing,39593.html

 

[Markfw]

Some MBs news :

MSI CEO: Even Low-End AMD X570 Motherboards Will Be Expensive

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/msi-amd-x570-motherboard-pricing,39593.html

He also said that even the lowest end would cost more than most X470 boards, and most of this cost was PCIE 4.0

 

[Abwx]

That s more a pretense than anything else, actually most X570 boards seems overdesigned and are obviously targeting the high end, he summarized the thing when stating that AMD wouldnt be a low cost solution for everything, including the high perf offerings.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

How many different X570 boards are there going to be?
I just don't see how they can all be targeting the very top end if their prices are so high.

 

[Ajay]

A lot of people are saying 12 phases in the primary with at least 40a per phase should be enough for a 3900x. At least now I understand why the high-end Gigabyte board is such a big deal though: not only is it 14+2 config with 70a per phase, but it also has a 16-phase PWM (everyone else is using 8-phase PWM or lower) and has an 8-layer PCB. Completely over the top.

Well, makes sense for an extreme overclocking board. The are people just itching to put these 12 core (and eventually 16) on LN2.

 

[Hans Gruber]

I don't think in a flat industry that consumers want to pay a premium price for computer gear. Considering how intel has stuck it to computer builders for more than a decade.

 

[Ajay]

He also said that even the lowest end would cost more than most X470 boards, and most of this cost was PCIE 4.0

Well, PCIe 4.0 requires a 6 layer board vs the usual 4 layer. It looks like many board manufacturers are using retimers to ensure quality signaling across multiple slots (though, I don’t know if low end boards with have more than a single 16 lane PCIe slot).

 

[maddie]

There's the rub. The usual market tactic when dealing with lower-income purchasers is to try to capture as much value as you can with multiple, inexpensive purchases instead of selling occasional big-ticket items (see: @VirtuaLarry . . . heh, just kidding! Mostly). There certainly isn't much incentive for OEMs/system integrators to sell A320 (cheap mobo) and then let people keep it ad nauseam. You sell them another cheap board with their next cheap CPU, done deal. I suspect that we'll see an update to the A320 eventually instead of support for newer CPUs on the same chipset. OEMs are going to want to sell new, complete systems instead of tempting existing users to upgrade CPU.



As much as that makes me cringe, I think 8c Matisse will be safer for B450 thanks to the overall lower voltages involved. You won't hit top clocks, but 4-4.3 GHz should be much easier to achieve on 4+2 configs than it was with Pinnacle Ridge.

Shouldn't lower voltages lead to increased current assuming identical power? I would think you would want higher amperage rated components as you lower V. This goes for the MB traces also as losses proportional to Current squared. A 10% reduction in V will give ~ 21% increase in heat losses. 65W should not be a problem, but a 95W Matisse CPU might equal a 114W Pinnacle in the VRM and MB trace losses (heat generation to be rejected).

 

[DrMrLordX]

How many different X570 boards are there going to be?
I just don't see how they can all be targeting the very top end if their prices are so high.

There's going to be a L-O-T of them. Between Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, ASRock, and Biostar, there's going to be over 30 boards. Some of the board categories that used to go to B450 or B350 are now X570.

Well, PCIe 4.0 requires a 6 layer board vs the usual 4 layer.

There are some 4-layer boards announced for X570. Not sure if they'll have problems with PCIe 4.0 though. Not gonna buy one to find out, either . . .

Shouldn't lower voltages lead to increased current assuming identical power?

All I can tell you is this:

When I did some (now aborted) testing with my 1800x @ 3.7 GHz static in y-cruncher, lowering voltage reduced the current readings under HWiNFO64. Increasing voltage raised current draw. I wanted to show a bunch of current draw readings at different clockspeeds and at different voltages at the same clockspeed and my system reminded me of why I would like to replace it. It'll run just fine @ 4.0 GHz but make it run at 3.6 GHz at any voltage, and it goes into open rebellion.

Maybe I'll go back to it this afternoon with a 3.7 GHz floor so that it won't act stupid on me.

Anyway, when targeting a specific power usage envelope, yes, lowering voltage necessitates more current to fulfill the basic power equation of P=IV. But if you have, let's say, an R9 3900x sitting at its base clock of 3.8 GHz on all cores, the current/voltage levels required to maintain that speed under heavy load should result in a total power draw below 105W, allowing it to boost some. So when it boosts, voltage and clockspeed will go up, dragging current upwards in two different ways. If you aren't boosting but are instead overclocking to a static speed, the same applies. When I OC my 1800x to 4.0 GHz @ 1.375v vcore (LLC level 3), the current usage balloons to 152a. Compare that to 3.8GHz @ 1.2v (which was not entirely stable, sadly) that only pulled something like 117a . . . before it crashed.

 

[Snarf Snarf]

How many different X570 boards are there going to be?
I just don't see how they can all be targeting the very top end if their prices are so high.

The demand is definitely there, I personally know around a dozen people that will pre-order Zen 2 and x570 at launch. The reason I haven't owned AMD hardware since Phenom II was because of their value position in the market. They have always had a good product that checked most of my boxes but never fully met everything I wanted, it's been my criticism of their products for over a decade.

I don't think in a flat industry that consumers want to pay a premium price for computer gear. Considering how intel has stuck it to computer builders for more than a decade.

The industry isn't flat though. Gaming PC and laptop sales are the only segment of PC sales that are on a constant rise YOY. If a 12-core platform that can potentially overclock to 5 GHz priced at around $950 is considered sticking it to consumers I don't think you've been following HEDT pricing very closely. This is a platform equivalent to systems that cost $2,000 or more a year ago, that's more than a 50% reduction in TCO, and even more if you already owned a high end x470 board. This is bleeding edge technology with PCIe 4.0 and 2.5 GBE/Dual NIC's and 802.11ax WiFi on a lot of these boards. The prices are reasonable and in fact cheaper than a lot of HEDT boards are, so the value is definitely there if you're in the market for this kind of performance.

 

[maddie]

All I can tell you is this:

When I did some (now aborted) testing with my 1800x @ 3.7 GHz static in y-cruncher, lowering voltage reduced the current readings under HWiNFO64. Increasing voltage raised current draw. I wanted to show a bunch of current draw readings at different clockspeeds and at different voltages at the same clockspeed and my system reminded me of why I would like to replace it. It'll run just fine @ 4.0 GHz but make it run at 3.6 GHz at any voltage, and it goes into open rebellion.

Maybe I'll go back to it this afternoon with a 3.7 GHz floor so that it won't act stupid on me.

Anyway, when targeting a specific power usage envelope, yes, lowering voltage necessitates more current to fulfill the basic power equation of P=IV. But if you have, let's say, an R9 3900x sitting at its base clock of 3.8 GHz on all cores, the current/voltage levels required to maintain that speed under heavy load should result in a total power draw below 105W, allowing it to boost some. So when it boosts, voltage and clockspeed will go up, dragging current upwards in two different ways. If you aren't boosting but are instead overclocking to a static speed, the same applies. When I OC my 1800x to 4.0 GHz @ 1.375v vcore (LLC level 3), the current usage balloons to 152a. Compare that to 3.8GHz @ 1.2v (which was not entirely stable, sadly) that only pulled something like 117a . . . before it crashed.

Weren't we talking about previous generation boards running Matisse. This is what I replied to. An identical power draw on a lower voltage CPU will generate more heat from the VRMs and have hotter traces in the motherboard. Will it matter? Don't know, but buyers should at least be aware of the potential issue of hotter VRMs, etc.

 

[DrMrLordX]

An identical power draw on a lower voltage CPU will generate more heat from the VRMs and have hotter traces in the motherboard.

Yes. But the current requirements might not go up as much as I had expected, especially not to maintain clocks analogous to those of previous CPU generations. I was trying to use my Summit Ridge to estimate current draw from a 12c 3900x @ 3.8 GHz, and I found that I was not able to multiply the current draw of my 1800x by 1.5 and call it a day. My 1800x can barely sustain 3.8 GHz @ 1.2v, while a 3900x will probably do it at 1.1v or lower without a hitch. You are going to have more current draw from wider cores and more cores, but lower current draw at the same clocks due to lower voltage.

The catch, and the thing that's ultimately going to stress those VRMs when running a 3900x, is that it'll clock higher, so that voltage will creep back upwards. A 3900x at whatever clockspeed it can maintain @ 1.2v will easily pull more current than my 1800x running 1.2v (which tops out at around 3.8 GHz).

Will it matter? Don't know, but buyers should at least be aware of the potential issue of hotter VRMs, etc.

I'm still waiting for someone to try a 3900x on a Mortar or Tomahawk board. That should be interesting.

 

[Head1985]

As much as that makes me cringe, I think 8c Matisse will be safer for B450 thanks to the overall lower voltages involved. You won't hit top clocks, but 4-4.3 GHz should be much easier to achieve on 4+2 configs than it was with Pinnacle Ridge.

haha MSI b450 boards have better VRM/VRM temps than many x470 boards.It will oc better than cheap x470 for sure.

 

[Topweasel]

AMD's decision outright kill A320 compatibility for 3000 series parts sure is weird. They could've at the very least forced manufacturers to drop support for Bristol Ridge in their new BIOSes then use that freed space for some 3000 series parts microcode. I mean, at least let people get a ~3600 that will sip power, not be a threat to any weaksauce VRM and still be quite the upgrade vs even a 2700x on most tasks.

Problem is that Bristol Ridge might actually be the primary part used in A320 boards. It think that's the trick on a lot of 350 boards is they are dropping Bristol ridge support. Can you imagine the support nightmare of dropping the support for the most used CPU for a given board. Even if you could do branching bios lines for and without Bristol ridge you have created and increased and continual support workload for what is already your lowest margin parts.

 

[Shivansps]

Yes, too far. Now you are insulting me, and trying to defend your position to everyone on this forum. NEVER did AMD say all AM4 socket motherboard were upgradable to Ryzen 3000 series, and all CPU's, they only said the SOCKET was upgradable. How many times do we have to drill this into your brain, that you are WRONG, and stop trolling this forum and insulting its members. including me.

Maybe i was out of line when i told you you were defending a company, but you said that all people of my country are poor and judging what they cant and cant buy? Thats discrimination plain and simple. What do you expect?

The only thing AMD said was they were going to support AM4 until 2020, there is even a slide there that says "AM4 upgrade whiout changing motherboard", with a small print with says "subject to change" otherwise they would get sued over that, this includes all AM4, as far as i know all 300 boards are AM4. And they knew that was impossible because the manufacturers would not want it, you cant prove that they did meant that "not all boards were going to get supported", they never say that, there is not a single proof of that. Im saying you are wrong and telling you why, and you accuse me of trolling because of that.

What country is this/are you from? I guess it is better for your business that your customers can't upgrade, they will have to buy a whole new system

From Argentina, If you ask the boss it will tell you that you are right, but i dont like that, this is why i push to have all options avalible, it would be a lot easier for me to do what others do. In fact since i knew A320 will get dropping i labeled all A320 as "not Ryzen 3000 support" and the 400s as "Ryzen 3000 ready", they didt not like that one bit, but i managed to convice them saying that im hoping to see a increase in B450 sales.

I think it's the board makers doing moreso than AMD. They don't want to support it, even the chart AMD provided made it sound like not every B350/X370 board will support Zen 2 even though it seems like most will.

THIS. motherboard manufacturers does not want that, maybe if it was only AMD decision all 300 motherboards will get the upgrade, i cant know that. But AMD knew this, its not a new company, and still they dont said a thing. The worse thing here is that A320 has more right to support the 3000 series because motherboards are still in production, B350 and X370 production stopped when they switched over to the 400 series.