3500X anyone?
3500X anyone?
I’m not familiar with this Twitter account, but they’ve shared information about unfinished CPUs before. I haven’t tracked pricing accuracy. Let’s stay cautious. What does a 3500X look like? It seems to be around 6c6t without SMT, with a base of 3.6 and a boost of 4.1. Compared to the 3600 (base 3.6, boost 4.2), it’s similar but lacks SMT. Same power consumption rating. No price shown. To be reasonable under the 3600 range, it would need to be significantly cheaper—maybe about 70% of the 3600’s cost. If your applications don’t use SMT, this could be a budget-friendly option. The link in their tweet likely lists a price close to that.
It should match prices around the 2600 range, in my view. That keeps it within a reasonable price zone and makes comparisons with other options in the lineup easier. Since I still favor the 2600, having a direct alternative is ideal. Once mid-tier motherboards like B550 appear, it would be a clear upgrade for me, especially for a gaming PC.
In reality it seems like an unnecessary item... I’d prefer the 3600 without a box cooler and save another ten dollars. Even though some software might not gain much from SMT, always think about the overall system and multi-tasking—SMT remains valuable. I really appreciate AMD’s approach here, and I’m hoping it pushes Intel to stop overcharging for HT on their side. Still, without knowing the price, it’s tough to judge if this product will matter or not. We do have options like the R5 2600 at this price, though its single-thread performance isn’t top-notch.
3600 leads in gaming performance. Most folks would prefer a slight price bump for it. A 6c 6t build isn’t worth it. Reviews comparing 3600 and 9400f show similar thoughts: the 9400f offers marginally better performance, but its thread count causes stutters. That makes the 3600 a solid choice despite the cost. It would also stand up to the 2600 if you play regularly.
I believe the extra threads from HT/SMT are being exaggerated. At the same clock speed, a 6c6t part would outperform a 4c8t part in nearly every situation, which makes sense to consider. Future Zen 2 components might be 4c8t with only half the L3 cache thanks to one CCX, though pairing them as an APU could still be beneficial. In case it was overlooked, I updated the note referencing the linked web store, noting the price was roughly 70% of the 3600 model.
It means the price difference between a 6-core and a 4-core chip wouldn't be significant if AMD sets the same cost for both without using advanced manufacturing techniques.
Yes, virtual threads won’t fully replace physical cores, but I appreciate the discussion around 6c/6c versus 6c/12t. This isn’t really about cores versus threads; it’s more about whether we should sacrifice SMT/HT performance on certain models. Your point is important—we need accurate comparisons since we’ve seen the i5 8600K outperforms the i7 7700K in most cases. When comparing the i7 8700K to the i7 9700K, there’s almost no meaningful difference. The real question is where we start drawing the line. Honestly, this feature should be available consistently now, especially with modern silicon that can handle it without major limitations. Yields and purity issues don’t really block consumers; segmentation is the main driver here.