AMD confirms OEM-only Ryzen 5 3500

[mongeese]

In a nutshell: AMD has finally admitted to the existence of the thoroughly leaked Ryzen 5 3500. Sliding into the line-up just a notch under the 3600, the 3500 has 6 cores/6 threads, clocks of 3.6/4.1 GHz, a 16 MB L3 cache and a 65W TDP. It won’t be for sale except for OEMs, but if you want a comparable processor, a 2600 should do just fine.

The processor first appeared on the radar in August when Apisak tweeted out all its specs with perfect accuracy. Then MSI accidentally confirmed it, HP accidentally confirmed it, Dell just recently confirmed it, of course Amazon had several listings… you get the point. AMD finally gave up the ghost, launched a product page and is handing out their generic product statement:

“We are offering the AMD Ryzen 5 3500 processor to OEM partners and channels in certain regions. This processor will enable our partners to take full advantage of AMD’s most advanced CPU platform, offering powerful gaming and high-speed productivity performance, with a support of industry leading PCIe 4.0, AMD’s Precision Boost Overdrive and Ryzen Master Utility.”

Model	Cores/ Threads	TDP (Watts)	Boost/Base (GHz)	L3 Cache (MB)	PCIe Lanes	Price
Ryzen 5 3600X	6/12	95W	4.4/3.8	32	40 PCIe 4.0	$250
Ryzen 5 3600	6/12	65W	4.2/3.6	32	40 PCIe 4.0	$200
Ryzen 5 3500	6/6	65W	4.1/3.6	16	40 PCIe 4.0	~$175
Ryzen 5 2600X	6/12	95W	4.2/3.6	16	20 PCIe 3.0	$150
Ryzen 5 2600	6/12	65W	3.9/3.4	16	20 PCIe 3.0	$120

Various companies have been taking the 3500 for a spin on Geekbench, and taking the average of the eight runs gives a multi-core score of 4886 and a single-core score of 1149. That’s of course below the 3600’s 6921 and 1212 scores, but pretty comparable to the 2600’s 5408 and 980. The 3500 could be expected to beat the 2600 in lightly threaded applications like games, but will be defeated in multi-threaded tasks.

Presently the 3500 can only be purchased inside the (rather pretty) Dell Alienware Aurora desktop, either at $1,200 with 8GB of RAM, a 5700 and a 1TB HDD, or at $1,350 with an upgrade to 16GB of RAM and an additional M.2 drive. But with both configurations, Dell will let you upgrade to the 3600 for only $25 extra – a miles better deal. We’ll have to see if the 3500 can be better value in future configurations.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/82802-amd-confirms-oem-only-ryzen-5-3500.html

 

[Uncle Al]

Are they doing this just for the sake of announcing another "new" product or is there any kind of advantage to it? Seems a bit redundant to me ......

 

[Shadowboxer]

OEM only? So the cheapest Ryzen 2 part (the R5 3600) is only just a little bit cheaper than the most expensive consumer grade i7 available in 2014 (4790K - £235).

Kudos to AMD, they’ve gone full premium now, their current range is more expensive than any consumer grade lineup I’ve ever seen from either AMD or Intel. £200 - £800 (listing MSRP is a joke as these chips are rarely available at their MSRPs).

This doesn’t surprise me, everyone wants this 7nm Ryzen silicon now as it beats Intel out at everything except gaming and does so whilst making considerably less noise and heat. Higher demand almost always means higher prices.

 

[Jaryn211]

OEM only? So the cheapest Ryzen 2 part (the R5 3600) is only just a little bit cheaper than the most expensive consumer grade i7 available in 2014 (4790K - £235).

Kudos to AMD, they’ve gone full premium now, their current range is more expensive than any consumer grade lineup I’ve ever seen from either AMD or Intel. £200 - £800 (listing MSRP is a joke as these chips are rarely available at their MSRPs).

This doesn’t surprise me, everyone wants this 7nm Ryzen silicon now as it beats Intel out at everything except gaming and does so whilst making considerably less noise and heat. Higher demand almost always means higher prices.

https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-...r-qcBIVE_Yf44XSKVvpqCYSDWxWcWF6EaAmzpEALw_wcB
Its at msrp. WTF are you on about?

 

[Shadowboxer]

https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-...r-qcBIVE_Yf44XSKVvpqCYSDWxWcWF6EaAmzpEALw_wcB
Its at msrp. WTF are you on about?

That link took me to the U.K. version of Newegg which has the CPU on sale for £198. This is exactly MSRP. Its also out of stock. To be fair the 3600 does seem to be the only part that I ever see selling at MSRP, all the others are well above most of the time.

Of course it’s common knowledge that these chips are often on sale for well above MSRP. Would you like me to provide you with some links to news articles that have reported this? Or are you going to continue to be wilfully ignorant?

A quick search of U.K. prices show all these parts selling well above MSRP. In fact in the U.K. you can buy a 9900K for £409 (below MSRP).However the cheapest 3900X is £494, with most sellers pricing at around £530.

Actual pricing is not the same as what the manufacturer recommends (MSRP). Of course AMD will increase prices off the back of this, they would be stupid not to, if users are willing to pay these prices then why should they let the retailers take the money?

This is great news for gamers though, Intel’s chips still edge out Ryzen in gaming and we are seeing prices for these chips falling.

 

[Jaryn211]

That link took me to the U.K. version of Newegg which has the CPU on sale for £198. This is exactly MSRP. Its also out of stock. To be fair the 3600 does seem to be the only part that I ever see selling at MSRP, all the others are well above most of the time.

Of course it’s common knowledge that these chips are often on sale for well above MSRP. Would you like me to provide you with some links to news articles that have reported this? Or are you going to continue to be wilfully ignorant?

A quick search of U.K. prices show all these parts selling well above MSRP. In fact in the U.K. you can buy a 9900K for £409 (below MSRP).However the cheapest 3900X is £494, with most sellers pricing at around £530.

Actual pricing is not the same as what the manufacturer recommends (MSRP). Of course AMD will increase prices off the back of this, they would be stupid not to, if users are willing to pay these prices then why should they let the retailers take the money?

This is great news for gamers though, Intel’s chips still edge out Ryzen in gaming and we are seeing prices for these chips falling.

Welp, im in the states. Just noticed you posted in pounds. In the states we have no real problems with msrp. So I would say its unfair for me to make comparisons with what im seeing compared to what you're seeing

 

[Adi6293]

OEM only? So the cheapest Ryzen 2 part (the R5 3600) is only just a little bit cheaper than the most expensive consumer grade i7 available in 2014 (4790K - £235).

Kudos to AMD, they’ve gone full premium now, their current range is more expensive than any consumer grade lineup I’ve ever seen from either AMD or Intel. £200 - £800 (listing MSRP is a joke as these chips are rarely available at their MSRPs).

This doesn’t surprise me, everyone wants this 7nm Ryzen silicon now as it beats Intel out at everything except gaming and does so whilst making considerably less noise and heat. Higher demand almost always means higher prices.

What the heck are you talking about? Ryzen 5 3600 is £180 and i7 were always around £300

AMD Ryzen 5 3000 Series Socket AM4 Processors - AMD Ryzen 5 3000 Series AM4 Desktop CPU Processor | SCAN UK

Welcome to our AMD Ryzen 5 3000 Series Socket AM4 Processors - AMD Ryzen 5 3000 Series AM4 Desktop CPU Processor page. Here you will find leading brands such as AMD.

www.scan.co.uk

AMD Ryzen 7 3000 Series Socket AM4 Processors - AMD Ryzen 7 3000 Series AM4 Desktop CPU Processor | SCAN UK

Welcome to our AMD Ryzen 7 3000 Series Socket AM4 Processors - AMD Ryzen 7 3000 Series AM4 Desktop CPU Processor page. Here you will find leading brands such as AMD.

www.scan.co.uk

AMD Ryzen 9 3000 Series Socket AM4 Processors - AMD Ryzen 9 3000 Series AM4 Desktop CPU Processor | SCAN UK

Welcome to our AMD Ryzen 9 3000 Series Socket AM4 Processors - AMD Ryzen 9 3000 Series AM4 Desktop CPU Processor page. Here you will find leading brands such as AMD, ASUS, Gigabyte.

www.scan.co.uk

Only Ryzen 9 its selling above MSRP the rest its fine

 

[Evernessince]

OEM only? So the cheapest Ryzen 2 part (the R5 3600) is only just a little bit cheaper than the most expensive consumer grade i7 available in 2014 (4790K - £235).

Kudos to AMD, they’ve gone full premium now, their current range is more expensive than any consumer grade lineup I’ve ever seen from either AMD or Intel. £200 - £800 (listing MSRP is a joke as these chips are rarely available at their MSRPs).

This doesn’t surprise me, everyone wants this 7nm Ryzen silicon now as it beats Intel out at everything except gaming and does so whilst making considerably less noise and heat. Higher demand almost always means higher prices.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-4790k-processor-8m-cache-up-to-4-40-ghz.html

" Recommended Customer Price$339.00 - $350.00 "

The 3500 is $175, almost half the cost. If you include the value of the free cooler, it's less then half. "only just a little bit cheaper"? I'm thinking use less hyperbole next time.

Neither AMD nor Intel have an MSRP problem at the moment. Of the two parties, only Intel had issues keeping it's chips at MSRP at launch across it's entire lineup. Otherwise AMD only had issues with the 3900X, every other processor was fine.

 

[yRaz]

Why no multithreading?

 

[Rq3EWAq]

Why no multithreading?

Because the same processor with multitheading on already exist, genius.

 

[yRaz]

Because the same processor with multitheading on already exist, genius.

But what is the point of turning it off? Is there some die defect? It's my understanding that it's basically free to turn on multithreading

 

[Adi6293]

But what is the point of turning it off? Is there some die defect? It's my understanding that it's basically free to turn on multithreading

Its called product segmentation, Intel does it as well look at all i5's vs i7's and now even i7's vs i9's

 

[Rq3EWAq]

But what is the point of turning it off? Is there some die defect? It's my understanding that it's basically free to turn on multithreading

Read about product binning on Wikipedia. They sort their chips based on performance and characteristics. Some processors don't cut to be full 16 thread units, so they become 12 thread, 8 thread, or not multithreaded at all, because of tiny microscopic defects.

 

[quadibloc]

I'm surprised that turning multithreading off also reduces the size of the cache. I'm wondering if it's really a 12nm part, similar to the APUs, instead of just a modified 3600.

 

[Rq3EWAq]

I'm surprised that turning multithreading off also reduces the size of the cache. I'm wondering if it's really a 12nm part, similar to the APUs, instead of just a modified 3600.

You didn't read what I said about product binning. These processors could be waste product, still too valued to be thrown out, with damaged cache blocks and no multithreading ability. But they will still make good no-multithreaded processors with reduced cache.

 

[Irata]

OEM only? So the cheapest Ryzen 2 part (the R5 3600) is only just a little bit cheaper than the most expensive consumer grade i7 available in 2014 (4790K - £235).

Slightly cheaper ? Taking the november 14th 2014 exchange rate (1.5654), GBP 235 would be USD 368. That' more than double, not considering inflation.

Checking price spy, it shows the 4970k @ GBP 255 in December 2014, so that would be $ 399

 

[bluetooth fairy]

The price level of $175 is probably incorrectly presented. There's 3500X model with 32 MB L3 cache, priced exactly at $175. While 3500 non-X is already selling at $150 on emerging markets.

Both are extremely close to i5-9400/i5-9400f in this regard.

 

[Lew Zealand]

While Geekbench is not the best for comparing CPUs, it's what we have here. The quoted numbers for R5 2600 are low as the R5 2600 my kid uses gets 5918 multi and 1034 single, notably higher than 5408 and 980. Running stock, no manual tweaks other than to run the RAM at mfrs numbers as I don't trust auto-XMP.

I'd rather have the 2600 for 2/3 the price unless you run primarily single core workloads.

 

[neeyik]

Read about product binning on Wikipedia. They sort their chips based on performance and characteristics. Some processors don't cut to be full 16 thread units, so they become 12 thread, 8 thread, or not multithreaded at all, because of tiny microscopic defects.

That's not how multithreading works on CPUs - each core contains multiple execute pipelines (aka a ports) and each one of those has multiple stages, and thus logic units, in them.

Multithreading permits more than one thread to be in flight on the same core, because certain instructions will stall a stage on a port for dozens, if not hundreds, of cycles. So while one thread instruction is being processed part way down a port, then it frees up the other stages/ports for another thread. If a binned CPU was unable to support multithreading due to die defects, then it would mean a whole core would be unusable.

This isn't to say that the process of binning isn't considered when CPUs are designed for market sectors - a Core i7 9700K will be from a different bin to a Core i9 9900K, as the latter has to cope with a slightly higher boost clock than the former, for the same target voltage/thermal limits.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Meh. Boring chip with disappointing boost clocks imo.
It confirms that Ryzen's primary benefit is high core counts. It also confirms AMD has nothing to challenge Intel in the sub 12T markets. Things will get worse if future i3's and/or i5's are hyper threaded.

Zen is still for the minority of consumers like I've said since day one. AMD doesn't drive the market, so software devs won't be in a hurry to code for higher core counts until Intel is the mainstream leader in core counts.

Zen is about high core counts, right? Okay, so why couldn't AMD take advantage of higher clocks on chips with fewer cores? Or, are they not doing that because performance between a high clocked 6C/6T would perform the same as a lower clocked 6C/12T part 9 times out of ten? If so, then AMD effed up - again, and I think they have. I would only buy the 3600 if I ONLY had $250 for CPU, and the 3700X ONLY if I were playing above 1080p with beefier graphics than what I have now to play 1080p AND I had a use for 16T outside of gaming. Spoiler: Majority don't need that many threads in a computer that's used for Facebook, sharing photos, spreadsheets, word processing and YouTube.

AMD is great at HEDT stuff, but I highly doubt the benchmarks and tests used by tech sites are really all that representative of what Zen can do in the real world. For games we test games, but productivity is tested with mostly synthetics?!

 

[Toju Mikie]

Meh. Boring chip with disappointing boost clocks imo.
It confirms that Ryzen's primary benefit is high core counts. It also confirms AMD has nothing to challenge Intel in the sub 12T markets. Things will get worse if future i3's and/or i5's are hyper threaded.

Zen is still for the minority of consumers like I've said since day one. AMD doesn't drive the market, so software devs won't be in a hurry to code for higher core counts until Intel is the mainstream leader in core counts.

Zen is about high core counts, right? Okay, so why couldn't AMD take advantage of higher clocks on chips with fewer cores? Or, are they not doing that because performance between a high clocked 6C/6T would perform the same as a lower clocked 6C/12T part 9 times out of ten? If so, then AMD effed up - again, and I think they have. I would only buy the 3600 if I ONLY had $250 for CPU, and the 3700X ONLY if I were playing above 1080p with beefier graphics than what I have now to play 1080p AND I had a use for 16T outside of gaming. Spoiler: Majority don't need that many threads in a computer that's used for Facebook, sharing photos, spreadsheets, word processing and YouTube.

AMD is great at HEDT stuff, but I highly doubt the benchmarks and tests used by tech sites are really all that representative of what Zen can do in the real world. For games we test games, but productivity is tested with mostly synthetics?!

It seems that AMD has gone the efficiency route on these processors, that they try to make more efficient processors, rather than chasing high clock speed. There is not really a major use for high clock speed these days except for games since IPC has gone up. The majority of customers that will be buying this chip will be people that want a chip with more cores and threads. For others that don’t need the number of cores, there is the Ryzen 3. These Ryzen 5 3500 chips are going in OEM machines with lower quality and lower wattage power supplies, so they don’t want something that will use too much energy, which could also be the reason for not including multithreading as well.

 

[Lew Zealand]

It's perfectly OK for Intel fans to echo the P4 days where a single number becomes their holy grail, regardless of what it actually delivers. Buy what you want.

The problem with Intel chips is that there aren't many use cases where they are noticeably faster than AMD chips. Low resolution high refresh gaming is one. Maybe the only one.

Zen 2 chips are the same speed as Intel in many jobs and very much faster in highly threaded jobs so it's rare a use case where a similarly priced or specced AMD chip isn't as good or a better option than Intel.

 

[Irata]

It seems that AMD has gone the efficiency route on these processors, that they try to make more efficient processors, rather than chasing high clock speed. There is not really a major use for high clock speed these days except for games since IPC has gone up. The majority of customers that will be buying this chip will be people that want a chip with more cores and threads. For others that don’t need the number of cores, there is the Ryzen 3. These Ryzen 5 3500 chips are going in OEM machines with lower quality and lower wattage power supplies, so they don’t want something that will use too much energy, which could also be the reason for not including multithreading as well.

That - a few Dollars saved on the CPU, a few on the PSU, a few on cooling adds up for OEM who build thousands of these machines.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

" but if you want a comparable processor, a 2600 should do just fine"

You know, except for the clock speed difference (and if this is your price range, OCing CPU is probably out of the question), the worse IPC, the smaller cache, and the overall performance between the two.

So outside of everything that actually MATTERS, yes, the 2600 is a "comparable" processor.

 

[Lew Zealand]

The 2600 is comparable to what? I'll assume something which was deleted/edited as there's no context.