The Ryzen 3000XT is hurting AMD, we tell you why

The Ryzen 3000XT is hurting AMD,

 we'll tell you why

The Ryzen 3000XT is hurting AMD, we tell you why

When AMD released the Ryzen 3000XT, I couldn't help but look at the circumstance. You can't blame me, those of you who read us regularly already know very well that this line of processors offers a very weak value for money, so much so that, frankly, they don't make any sense.

I already explained the reason at the time, but in case someone does not remember, I will repeat it one more time. The Ryzen 3000XT is a simple refreshment of the Ryzen 3000X that maintains the specifications of those, and that is limited to improving the clock frequencies a bit. So far so good, but the problem is that, in some cases, AMD is charging 100 $ more for a paltry 100 MHz increase.

Let's see it with concrete examples. The Ryzen 9 3900XT has 12 cores and 24 threads and runs at 3.8 GHz-4.7 GHz, normal, and turbo mode. Its price is around, on average, 600 $. For its part, the Ryzen 9 3900X has 12 cores and 24 threads and runs at 3.8 GHz-4.6 GHz, normal, and turbo mode. Its average price is about 500 $. I think the problem is obvious, the first one costs 100 $ more and only offers an extra 100 MHz of frequency in turbo mode, and above with a single active core.

The Ryzen 3000XT is hurting AMD, we tell you why

I am clear that the Ryzen 3000 processors offer excellent value for money, and that thanks to them there has been a price war that has benefited us all, but there is no way to justify the huge price increase that the Ryzen 3000XT, a reality that has not gone unnoticed by anyone, and that Intel has taken advantage of.

Intel highlights the poor value of the Ryzen 3000XT

At a recent event called "the real world", Intel has played its cards very well, taking advantage of the high (and unjustified) price of Ryzen 3000XT processors to give a more positive image of the Core i7 10700K, a processor that has 8 cores and 16 threads, and it can work at 3.7 GHz-5.1 GHz, normal and turbo mode.

Intel's benchmarking focused on games, emphasizing that the Core i7 10700K performs better "in the real world" than the Ryzen 9 3900XT. She has also highlighted that it has a lower cost.

I know, there are many things that Intel has ignored to simplify the comparison, but it must be recognized that none of what it has said is a lie, the Core i7 10700K performs better in games, and in many applications in the real world because of the 12 cores and 24 threads from the Ryzen 9 3900XT. It is also cheaper since it is around 450 $.

The Ryzen 3000XT is hurting AMD, we tell you why

Intel leads when it comes to gaming, but the Ryzen 9 3900XT has four cores and eight more threads, which makes it a much more powerful chip in multi-threaded environments and also gives it a longer lifespan (it should age better). We must not forget, also, that the Ryzen 9 3900X is priced at 500 $ and offers practically the same performance as the XT version.

If AMD had not launched the Ryzen 3000XT, Intel would not have been able to make this comparison, since it would have had to use the Ryzen 9 3900X, and this offers a value for money much higher than the Core i7 10700K.

It's a shame that the Sunnyvale giant makes mistakes like this, as they are totally unnecessary. I still think that AMD should forget about the MHz race once and not re-launch another generation of the Ryzen 3000XT style. It is clear that when we are in a scenario like the current one, in which both generations of processors, the Core 10 and the Ryzen 3000, have such a tight CPI every MHz counts, but the price-performance value also, and that is where AMD must continue to focus its efforts.

If all goes according to plan, Zen 3 could mark a significant turning point, as it is expected to exceed the IPC of Intel's Core 10s and therefore offer higher single-wire performance even at lower frequencies.

No comments