AMD: Ryzen 9 3950X, 3rd Gen Ryzen Threadripper Launching in November

[Tsing]

AMD has released a statement regarding the availability of its heavily anticipated Ryzen 9 3950X and third-gen Threadripper chips. Both of these products will be launching on an unspecified date in November.

The community blog post mentions "strong demand," which alludes to potential supply issues. The Ryzen 9 3950X has essentially been delayed, as it was originally slated to launch this month.

We are focusing on meeting the strong demand for our 3rd generation AMD Ryzen processors in the market and now plan to launch both the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X and initial members of the 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen Threadripper processor family in volume this November. We are confident that when enthusiasts get their hands on the world’s first 16-core mainstream desktop processor and our next-generation of high-end desktop processors, the wait will be well worth it.

 

[Grimlakin]

This is going to be some sweet sweet sauce. And I really think AMD needs to satisfy market demand some with the 3900x ryzen before releasing the 3950. While some demand will wane now with the knowledge of the 3950 release date, I think there is still plenty of demand for the 3900 series.

 

[Dogsofjune]

The 3900 is appealing, but I am more interested in the next TR.

 

[Dan_D]

I would expect a healthy price jump for the new "baby" Threadripper. AMD isn't going to want to cannibalize sales of the 3900 series or Threadripper itself by having them overlap too much. Rumor is, 24 cores for baby TR and 16 at the top of the Ryzen 3000 series stack. Since the latter is $750, I wouldn't expect to see TR for under $850 this go around.

I could always be wrong though. AMD doesn't always make sense.

 

[Zarathustra]

I would expect a healthy price jump for the new "baby" Threadripper. AMD isn't going to want to cannibalize sales of the 3900 series or Threadripper itself by having them overlap too much. Rumor is, 24 cores for baby TR and 16 at the top of the Ryzen 3000 series stack. Since the latter is $750, I wouldn't expect to see TR for under $850 this go around.

I could always be wrong though. AMD doesn't always make sense.

That kills it for me.

Why do they always assume that the demand for many cores and many PCIe lanes go hand in hand?

I was prepared to buy a 3950x, but only because I wanted the highest binned parts for the maximum clocks. I don't need 16 cores. Heck, I don't even need 8 cores. I'd be happy with a 6C/12T part Today, but I am making 8C/16T my minimum for future expandability purposes.

The PCIe lanes on current consumer parts just aren't sufficient.

I find it really goddamned annoying that I need to buy some ludicrous number of cores for no reason just to get more PCIe lanes.

What on Earth are people doing with all these cores? I've been on a hexacore for 8 years now and not once have I wished I had more cores. The six cores have been enough for every task I have thrown at it, even local VM's

The only thing I'd ever do that would come even close to loading those cores up would be my once or twice a year handbrake transcode, but that is infrequent enough that it makes absolutely no sense to buy a system based on it.

For the love of all that is holy, just give me a reasonable core count (6c-8c, 12t-16t) chip with top end clocks for the best possible per core performance and 40+ PCIe lanes.

That's all I want. Is it really too much to ask?

 

[Dan_D]

That kills it for me.

Why do they always assume that the demand for many cores and many PCIe lanes go hand in hand?

I was prepared to buy a 3950x, but only because I wanted the highest binned parts for the maximum clocks. I don't need 16 cores. Heck, I don't even need 8 cores. I'd be happy with a 6C/12T part Today, but I am making 8C/16T my minimum for future expandability purposes.

The PCIe lanes on current consumer parts just aren't sufficient.

I find it really goddamned annoying that I need to buy some ludicrous number of cores for no reason just to get more PCIe lanes.

What on Earth are people doing with all these cores? I've been on a hexacore for 8 years now and not once have I wished I had more cores. The six cores have been enough for every task I have thrown at it, even local VM's

The only thing I'd ever do that would come even close to loading those cores up would be my once or twice a year handbrake transcode, but that is infrequent enough that it makes absolutely no sense to buy a system based on it.

For the love of all that is holy, just give me a reasonable core count (6c-8c, 12t-16t) chip with top end clocks for the best possible per core performance and 40+ PCIe lanes.

That's all I want. Is it really too much to ask?

It's been done. Intel and AMD have both marketed offerings that get you onto the HEDT platform with fewer cores so that you could have the additional PCIe lanes and more memory bandwidth. This has been met with somewhat mixed results. Partly because Intel did it wrong in that it forced people to pay $1,000 at a minimum to fully leverage the platform and still cost another $50 to fully unlock vROC and that sort of thing. On the AMD side, we haven't really had too much overlap before. A Threadripper 1920X or 2920X was still more expensive than any standard Ryzen 1000 or 2000 series CPU as is the platform.

So the cost increases were always there, but far lower than comparable Intel based HEDT. Although, that's really only on the processor side. All the X399 motherboards were still pricey almost without exception.

 

[Zarathustra]

It's been done. Intel and AMD have both marketed offerings that get you onto the HEDT platform with fewer cores so that you could have the additional PCIe lanes and more memory bandwidth. This has been met with somewhat mixed results. Partly because Intel did it wrong in that it forced people to pay $1,000 at a minimum to fully leverage the platform and still cost another $50 to fully unlock vROC and that sort of thing. On the AMD side, we haven't really had too much overlap before. A Threadripper 1920X or 2920X was still more expensive than any standard Ryzen 1000 or 2000 series CPU as is the platform.

So the cost increases were always there, but far lower than comparable Intel based HEDT. Although, that's really only on the processor side. All the X399 motherboards were still pricey almost without exception.

I'm perfectly happy to pay the phone ice premium if the product just existed