AMD has announced four new 2000-series processors based on Zen+ which fills out its launch of parts: two X-series processors at 65W focused on overclocking with Precision Boost overdrive, and two E series parts at 45W.

AMD's Mainstream Stack
AnandTech Zen Cores
Ryzen 7 2700X Zen+ 8 / 16 3700 4300 16 - 105W $329
Ryzen 7 2700 Zen+ 8 / 16 3200 4100 16 - 65W $299
Ryzen 7 2700E Zen+ 8 / 16 2800 4000 16 - 45W -
Ryzen 5 2600X Zen+ 6 / 12 3600 4200 16 - 95W $229
Ryzen 5 2600 Zen+ 6 / 12 3400 3900 16 - 65W $199
Ryzen 5 2600E Zen+ 6 / 12 3100 4000 16 - 45W -
Ryzen 5 2500X Zen+ 4 / 8 3600 4000 8 - 65W -
Ryzen 5 2400G Zen 4 / 8 3600 3900 6 11 65W $169
Ryzen 5 2400GE* Zen 4 / 8 3200 3800 6 11 35W *
Ryzen 3 2300X Zen+ 4 / 4 3500 4000 8 - 65W -
Ryzen 3 2200G Zen 4 / 4 3500 3700 6 8 65W $99
Ryzen 3 2200GE* Zen 4 / 4 3200 3600 6 8 35W *
Athlon 240GE Details to be disclosed in Q4
Athlon 220GE Details to be disclosed in Q4
Athlon 200GE Zen 2 / 4 3200 - 4 3 35W $55
* Released but not at retail

Strangely enough, AMD's announcement today only had the two X processors, but the E processors were included in their official tables. The launch of the X processors seems to be coinciding with the new Acer Nitro system

Both the 2500X and 2300X, at quad core/eight threads and quad core/four threads will feature a single enabled CCX, rather than a 2+2 configuration. This also means that the L3 cache of the new X parts is only 8MB, rather than 16MB, but AMD is quoting an 8-10% gain in performance over the previous generation for these parts. AMD also confirmed these new parts support DDR4-2933. Neither X series processor will be bundled with a cooler.

AMD’s Ryzen 5 2600E and the Ryzen 7 2700E are the company’s first eight and six-core CPUs featuring a 45 W default TDP. The new processors enable PC makers to build small form-factor desktops that do not need high-performance cooling. The chips are clocked at 300-400 MHz below their 65 W counterparts. At the same time, the Ryzen 5 2600E and the Ryzen 7 2700E still have the cache as the higher rated parts, but will not support Precision Boost Overdrive.

Prices have yet to be disclosed, however AMD has said that these processors are 'immediately available', at least through the Acer system.


AMD has confirmed that the two X series processors will be OEM only parts for the time being, and subsequently will not have specific pricing listed.

Related Reading

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • kpb321 - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link

    Interesting about the 2500x & 2300x being a single CCX. I'd assume that would result in the 2500X having half the cache of the 1500x as the cache for the second CCX would get disabled with the CPUs in the CCX. That presumably could lead to some rather odd performance comparisons between the two generations.
  • rocky12345 - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link

    being that the 2 new quad core X CPU's are only using 1 CCX unit and if they get a 8%-10% gain because of this I think these could be the new go to CPU for budget new system buyers. You get i5 & i7 quad core 4 & 8 thread type performance for a better price. bare in mind they probably won't get past 4.3GHz so the R5 2500X most likely will match i7 4770K to 4790K range and come close to a i7 6700K but no where to the 6700K when it is over clocked. In any case it will be interesting to see the gaming performance from the AMD Ryzens when only 1 CCX unit is used and up to 8 threads.
  • MrSpadge - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link

    That 8-10% includes everything: Zen+, clock speed, cache and memory latencies und the single CCX. Otherwise they would have gone directly for 8-core CCX.
  • msroadkill612 - Wednesday, October 10, 2018 - link

    Yep. U guys have spotted the key news here. A true, low latency single ccx 4 core, that competes on a level playing field (2500x).

    There is perf & there is perf. We saw from Zen+ that a little in the right places can matter a lot.

    AMD architecture's core advantage comes at the price of latency for inter CCX core links, and latency is what gamers care about ~most. Single CCX banishes this.
    It fills the one main gap in amdS consumer lineup imo. Tragic its OEM only.
  • EliteRetard - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link

    The 2500X / 2400G and the 2300X / 2200G should carry the same MSRPs, so the decision is just IGP vs speed...neither of the chips are superior to the other.

    Personally I also think the 2500X / 2400G should have an MSRP closer to $150. Giving them a greater price advantage vs Intel's i5, and making these chips more competitive within their own lineup.
  • Dragonstongue - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link

    as long as these prices points are more adhered to compared to the 2200/2400g as when they "quote" say $100 and $150 respectively and on the shelf price for 2200g is ~$120CAD but the 2400g often is ~$210-$230 CAD those price points are not only unattractive but price gouging for the additional ~$10-$20 or so taking into account currency conversion etc.

    I hate when sellers do this, just because it is "top of the range" for the given product line, they should not be slapping on an additional cost on top of the already higher additional cost.

    I know currency conversion ratios often result in CAD buyers already taking a hit AND tax etc, but, the "canada price" really sucks to deal with constantly.

    2200g is closer to the price point that it should be, 2400g not so much (I have seen them listed for $255 more then once which is way beyond what they should be (as well as some even worse pricing from places I would never shop from in the first place because of the "greed")

    still waiting for the various radeons to price drop more toward price they should be now that "supposedly" the VRAM etc issues which elevated pricing has more or less been sorted out all the way back in march/april...seems the Geforce ones dropped quite quick in comparison.

    either way, will be interesting to see how much performance the new 2500/2300 give as well as potential performance loss because of reduced TDP rating the new E chips have in comparison to the full TDP of non E chips have (of course the on the shelf pricing) "hopefully" just because it is E rating does not automatically mean higher cost in comparison (sellers probably will do this, pay more because more "efficient"
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, September 12, 2018 - link

    Something is only ever worth what someone is willing to pay. No such thing as price gouging, if you don't like the price then don't buy it. Plenty of other options, including 2nd-hand. Or do people these days have no agency? :D And why is the focus always on the seller? What about the buyer who's willing to spend much more than RRP? It's all just supply & demand, a free market the way it's supposed to be (sans actual fiddling by various corps in the past to bully retailers). Anything else is just communism-light, which never works.

    Amusing how everyone was shouting from the rooftops when GPU prices spiked during the mining craze, but where are all the moaners now that prices are dropping? Especially for 980s and 980 TIs? Oh right, because prices are going down, not up, but the forces responsible are exactly the same. The real greed is on the part of those who expect everything to be cheap or even free just because they want it to be that way. Real world doesn't work like that. Sometimes the nature of supply & demand works in one's favour, sometimes it doesn't, but nobody is being forced to buy anything.
  • hanselltc - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link

    I am not sure, by the looks of it the new CPUs are just the APUs without the iGPU.
  • Alexvrb - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link

    No. Look at the table. They're Zen+, and they have 8MB of cache, not 6MB. They're full Ryzen 2 with one CCX disabled (unlike the 1000 series which used two cores from each CCX).

    Anyway this means I have something new to recommend for budget and mid-range, especially if they don't need a hexacore.
  • msroadkill612 - Tuesday, September 11, 2018 - link

    I agree w/ hanselltc, but we are all guessing a bit.

    each ccx has 8MB of L3 cache in an R7, so I would expect 8MB in a single ccx module.

    the zen+ argument isnt as good as it sounds - tho 14nm. the apu is 14nm+ (more than it sounds), and more importantly, was released almost as recently to desktop as zen+ - so the apu is to all intents, zen+ - all the zen+ magic stuff like better memory, xfr2 & pb2 works just as well as zen+.

    the apu and zen+ are much more alike than different.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now