One of the questions that was left over from AMD’s Computex reveal of the new Ryzen 3000 family was why a 16-core version of the dual-chiplet Matisse design was not announced. Today, AMD is announcing its first 16 core CPU into the Ryzen 9 family. AMD stated that they’re not interested in the back and forth with its competition about slowly moving the leading edge in consumer computing – they want to launch the best they have to offer as soon as possible, and the 16-core is part of that strategy.

The new Ryzen 9 3950X will top the stack of new Zen 2 based AMD consumer processors, and is built for the AM4 socket along with the range of X570 motherboards. It will have 16 cores with simultaneous multi-threading, enabling 32 threads, with a base frequency of 3.5 GHz and a turbo frequency of 4.7 GHz. All of this will be provided in a 105W TDP.

AMD 'Matisse' Ryzen 3000 Series CPUs
AnandTech Cores
DDR4 TDP Price
Ryzen 9 3950X 16C 32T 3.5 4.7 8 MB 64 MB 16+4+4 ? 105W $749
Ryzen 9 3900X 12C 24T 3.8 4.6 6 MB 64 MB 16+4+4 ? 105W $499
Ryzen 7 3800X 8C 16T 3.9 4.5 4 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 ? 105W $399
Ryzen 7 3700X 8C 16T 3.6 4.4 4 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 ? 65W $329
Ryzen 5 3600X 6C 12T 3.8 4.4 3 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 ? 95W $249
Ryzen 5 3600 6C 12T 3.6 4.2 3 MB 32 MB 16+4+4 ? 65W $199

AMD has said that the processor will be coming in September 2019, about two months after the initial Ryzen 3rd Gen processors, due to extra validation requirements. The chip uses two of the Zen 2 eight-core chiplets, paired with an IO die that provides 24 total PCIe 4.0 lanes. By using the AM4 socket, AMD recommends pairing the Ryzen 9 3950X with one of the new X570 motherboards launched at Computex.

With regards to performance, AMD is promoting it as a clear single-thread and multi-thread improvement over other 16-core products in the market, particularly those from Intel (namely the 7960X).

There are several questions surrounding this new product, such as reasons for the delay between the initial Ryzen 3000 launch to the 3950X launch, the power distribution of the chiplets based on the frequency and how the clocks will respond to the 105W TDP, how the core-to-core communications will work going across chiplets, and how gaming performance might be affected by the latency differences going to the IO die and then moving off to main memory. All these questions are expected to be answered in due course.

Pricing is set to be announced by AMD at its event at E3 today. We’ll be updating this news post when we know the intended pricing.

Update: $749

Related Reading

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Irata - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

    Simplified: Different as in Intel TDP being power consumption at base clock, whereas for AMD it is not. AMD's TDP may not represent the worst possible case but it is close.

    But it's really easy to see by checking CPU reviews - the max power consumption for AMD CPU is usually rather close to their official TDP, whereas for high turbo Intel CPU is is very far from their TDP.

    I do hope AMD does not follow Intel's track here.
  • AshlayW - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

    In my testing and experience: the 1700, 2700 and 1600, 2600 are all very close to 65W at stock, measured in software and at the wall. I used to run many PCs for WCG and was obviously very interested in power use. The "X" parts use a bit over the "TDP", for example the two 2700X's I've owned used 110-120W in heavy multi-thread workthat is over the 105W TDP but still very close. The 2600X was 95-100. This is fair as these parts are likely using the extra headroom to boost a bit more aggressively, but you can easily get a cooler rated for this output and use it no problem.

    Yes, Intel on the other hand - 95W for 9900K is complete malarkey, this CPU is 150W~ when it is boosting from what I have read.
  • schujj07 - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

    Under a torture loop the 9900K uses more than 200W, & at a 5GHz clock it uses just short of 250W.
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link

    5 GHz doesn't count for TDP at all unless it comes that way out of the box.
  • Santoval - Wednesday, June 12, 2019 - link

    It actually does. 9900K has single/dual 5 GHz boost clock officially, "out of the box". Now Intel will release a "special"* version of the 9900K capable of all-core 5 GHz boost clock. Just imagine the power draw of that thing and what cooler it would require to sustain that clock for more than a few seconds at a time... Even a decent AIO watercooling kit might be insufficient.
    * "special" as in "a poor attempt to respond to AMD by heavily overclocking and overvoltaging their existing CPUs because Ice Lake CPUs for desktop are nowhere close to being ready."
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, June 14, 2019 - link

    Santoval, read what I wrote again, focusing on the word unless.
  • Gastec - Wednesday, June 19, 2019 - link

    Is Intel loosing money or better said not making enough profit? Or are they holding out the release of the Ice Lakes to milk Coffee Lakes as much as possible, because "it just works" :)
  • Spoelie - Wednesday, June 12, 2019 - link

    The X versions actually going slightly over the TDP is an intended feature of XFR/Precision Boost 2 - you can keep it within TDP from the bios.
  • Opencg - Thursday, June 13, 2019 - link

    Yeah 150watts is about what you need to full on bench a 9700k and 9900k.
  • WaltC - Monday, June 17, 2019 - link

    Yes, my current R5 1600 6c/12t x470 system (MSI GPC) overclocks 500Mhz via multiplier setting (to 3.7GHz) @ "auto" stock voltage (~ 1.2v) ROOB and even has a TDP setting in the bios--I can't increase the TDP beyond 65W even if I wanted to...;) But...I can lower it--which is something I have no need to do. AMD shipped it with a 95W air cooling fan--more than adequate. Looking forward to x570 & a R3k in a couple of weeks--I hope! I imagine demand will be fierce--but I'm not paying over MSRP--well, a couple of dollars over, maybe...;)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now