Corsair iCUE 465X review
be quiet! Pure Base 500 review
Borderlands 3: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Swiftech H240 X3 AIO review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Corsair HS35 Stereo Gaming Headset Review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Gaming X review
Gears of War 5: PC graphics performance benchmark review
XFX Radeon RX 5700 XT THICC II Ultra review
ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula review
AMD Ryzen 3 1200 and 1300X review
Posted by: on: 07/27/2017 03:00 PM [
27 comment(s) ]
It really is an all-new first, entry level processors are going quad-core. AMD is at it again with their Ryzen 3 series processors, in this review we test their Ryzen 3 1200 and 1300X. That means you can gain tremendous performance in the lowest price bracket. Yep, mainstream performance for low-end prices!
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2
Ricepudding
Senior Member
Posts: 491
Senior Member
Posts: 491
Posted on: 07/27/2017 03:32 PM
No wonder the i5's are going to become 6cores after this... it just got crushed by a chip half the cost... cheap quad cores are now a thing, great for people wanting to get into gaming on the entry level stuff
No wonder the i5's are going to become 6cores after this... it just got crushed by a chip half the cost... cheap quad cores are now a thing, great for people wanting to get into gaming on the entry level stuff
Jagman
Senior Member
Posts: 2216
Senior Member
Posts: 2216
Posted on: 07/27/2017 03:37 PM
Huge chunks of Intels i3 and i5 range are now redundant or soon will be when the APUs land as well.
Huge chunks of Intels i3 and i5 range are now redundant or soon will be when the APUs land as well.
Embra
Senior Member
Posts: 882
Senior Member
Posts: 882
Posted on: 07/27/2017 03:51 PM
Thanks HH!
Quite impressive for the price.
Thanks HH!
Quite impressive for the price.
H83
Senior Member
Posts: 2691
Senior Member
Posts: 2691
Posted on: 07/27/2017 03:54 PM
Very nice entry level gaming CPUs. Now people can make a mean gaming PC without having to spend a lot.
You can say the same regarding Ryzen R5 and R7 seeing that the gaming performance difference is not as big as the number of cores suggest...
Intel is going to have to rearrange their pricing structure and lower their prices...
Very nice entry level gaming CPUs. Now people can make a mean gaming PC without having to spend a lot.
Huge chunks of Intels i3 and i5 range are now redundant or soon will be when the APUs land as well.
You can say the same regarding Ryzen R5 and R7 seeing that the gaming performance difference is not as big as the number of cores suggest...
Intel is going to have to rearrange their pricing structure and lower their prices...
FrostNixon
Senior Member
Posts: 181
Senior Member
Posts: 181
Posted on: 07/27/2017 04:00 PM
Great review, but it misses i3 in almost every benchmark and the idea is to compare R3 to i3.
People tend to forget that one of the main benefits of the i3 is the integrated GPU. Ryzen doesn't have that, so I doubt Ryzen 3 will sell better than i3 in the near future (not just because of the IGP but because of Intels branding).
Great review, but it misses i3 in almost every benchmark and the idea is to compare R3 to i3.
People tend to forget that one of the main benefits of the i3 is the integrated GPU. Ryzen doesn't have that, so I doubt Ryzen 3 will sell better than i3 in the near future (not just because of the IGP but because of Intels branding).
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35895
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35895
Posted on: 07/27/2017 04:15 PM
Yeah, Intel has always categorically refused to send out i3 procs for review. Can't help it. But I agree on the IGP, it's a bit of a miss in the segment.
Yeah, Intel has always categorically refused to send out i3 procs for review. Can't help it. But I agree on the IGP, it's a bit of a miss in the segment.
Embra
Senior Member
Posts: 882
Senior Member
Posts: 882
Posted on: 07/27/2017 04:15 PM
Great review, but it misses i3 in almost every benchmark and the idea is to compare R3 to i3.
People tend to forget that one of the main benefits of the i3 is the integrated GPU. Ryzen doesn't have that, so I doubt Ryzen 3 will sell better than i3 in the near future (not just because of the IGP but because of Intels branding).
APU's are coming to address that:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-apu-bristol-ridge-a-series-athlon,35096.html
Great review, but it misses i3 in almost every benchmark and the idea is to compare R3 to i3.
People tend to forget that one of the main benefits of the i3 is the integrated GPU. Ryzen doesn't have that, so I doubt Ryzen 3 will sell better than i3 in the near future (not just because of the IGP but because of Intels branding).
APU's are coming to address that:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-apu-bristol-ridge-a-series-athlon,35096.html
Keesberenburg
Senior Member
Posts: 840
Senior Member
Posts: 840
Posted on: 07/27/2017 04:18 PM
No IGP same speed and cost as a G4560, G4560 is the winner.
No IGP same speed and cost as a G4560, G4560 is the winner.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35895
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35895
Posted on: 07/27/2017 04:19 PM
APU's are coming to address that:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-apu-bristol-ridge-a-series-athlon,35096.html
That's Bristol Ridge, not Zen architecture.
APU's are coming to address that:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-apu-bristol-ridge-a-series-athlon,35096.html
That's Bristol Ridge, not Zen architecture.
StewieTech
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2538
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2538
Posted on: 07/27/2017 04:19 PM
AMD is shaking the CPU market really hard and thats good for us consumers. I have respect for AMD, rising from the ashes.
AMD is shaking the CPU market really hard and thats good for us consumers. I have respect for AMD, rising from the ashes.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9307
Senior Member
Posts: 9307
Posted on: 07/27/2017 04:49 PM
Wow some of the gaming improvements are impressive. R7 now officially back on my radar.
Wow some of the gaming improvements are impressive. R7 now officially back on my radar.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4339
Senior Member
Posts: 4339
Posted on: 07/27/2017 04:54 PM
These performed better than I was expecting, but aside from home servers or 4K HTPCs, I don't really see the point in these. Whatever desktop needs these could fulfill, an APU would be a better fit. I have a feeling SMT is artificially disabled in order to justify their performance tier and price level. Here's what I think should've been done instead:
Ryzen 5 would only have hex core and quad core CPUs with SMT, both CCXs, and all 16MB of L3.
Ryzen 3 would be quad cores and dual cores with SMT, but utilize only 1 CCX (and as a result, would have to have 8MB of L3).
These performed better than I was expecting, but aside from home servers or 4K HTPCs, I don't really see the point in these. Whatever desktop needs these could fulfill, an APU would be a better fit. I have a feeling SMT is artificially disabled in order to justify their performance tier and price level. Here's what I think should've been done instead:
Ryzen 5 would only have hex core and quad core CPUs with SMT, both CCXs, and all 16MB of L3.
Ryzen 3 would be quad cores and dual cores with SMT, but utilize only 1 CCX (and as a result, would have to have 8MB of L3).
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7576
Senior Member
Posts: 7576
Posted on: 07/27/2017 05:10 PM
These performed better than I was expecting, but aside from home servers or 4K HTPCs, I don't really see the point in these. Whatever desktop needs these could fulfill, an APU would be a better fit. I have a feeling SMT is artificially disabled in order to justify their performance tier and price level. Here's what I think should've been done instead:
Ryzen 5 would only have hex core and quad core CPUs with SMT, both CCXs, and all 16MB of L3.
Ryzen 3 would be quad cores and dual cores with SMT, but utilize only 1 CCX (and as a result, would have to have 8MB of L3).
I very much hope they do not make any dual-core Ryzens. No need to stunt the future any more then Intel already has.
These performed better than I was expecting, but aside from home servers or 4K HTPCs, I don't really see the point in these. Whatever desktop needs these could fulfill, an APU would be a better fit. I have a feeling SMT is artificially disabled in order to justify their performance tier and price level. Here's what I think should've been done instead:
Ryzen 5 would only have hex core and quad core CPUs with SMT, both CCXs, and all 16MB of L3.
Ryzen 3 would be quad cores and dual cores with SMT, but utilize only 1 CCX (and as a result, would have to have 8MB of L3).
I very much hope they do not make any dual-core Ryzens. No need to stunt the future any more then Intel already has.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4339
Senior Member
Posts: 4339
Posted on: 07/27/2017 05:15 PM
A dual core Ryzen would be kind of stupid, but if that's all they've got left working on the silicon then it becomes a situation of "might as well make it; it's just going to be trashed otherwise". This is why single-core Semprons and Celerons have existed - I don't think either company really expects anyone to buy them, but it's better to spend a little extra on packaging and maybe return some profit than to just throw it away. Products like these are useful for embedded devices anyway, like cash registers and POS machines. However, AMD never mentioned dual cores in their roadmap. I guess they figured that the probability of them being able to make a dual core without something else also being too damaged (such as the memory controller, infinity fabric, or L3 cache) would be too low and not worth the investment.
Anyway, a dual core with HT/SMT is still very usable by today's standards. Not good enough for power users, but they're just fine for grandma or a library PC.
It wouldn't surprise me if AMD releases a dual core desktop APU.
I very much hope they do not make any dual-core Ryzens. No need to stunt the future any more then Intel already has.
A dual core Ryzen would be kind of stupid, but if that's all they've got left working on the silicon then it becomes a situation of "might as well make it; it's just going to be trashed otherwise". This is why single-core Semprons and Celerons have existed - I don't think either company really expects anyone to buy them, but it's better to spend a little extra on packaging and maybe return some profit than to just throw it away. Products like these are useful for embedded devices anyway, like cash registers and POS machines. However, AMD never mentioned dual cores in their roadmap. I guess they figured that the probability of them being able to make a dual core without something else also being too damaged (such as the memory controller, infinity fabric, or L3 cache) would be too low and not worth the investment.
Anyway, a dual core with HT/SMT is still very usable by today's standards. Not good enough for power users, but they're just fine for grandma or a library PC.
It wouldn't surprise me if AMD releases a dual core desktop APU.
Arbie
Senior Member
Posts: 169
Senior Member
Posts: 169
Posted on: 07/27/2017 05:35 PM
Seems like a leftover statement from earlier Ryzen articles (in the Base Specs part of the review).
yes, these processors are all threaded
Seems like a leftover statement from earlier Ryzen articles (in the Base Specs part of the review).
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7576
Senior Member
Posts: 7576
Posted on: 07/27/2017 05:37 PM
Anyway, a dual core with HT/SMT is still very usable by today's standards. Not good enough for power users, but they're just fine for grandma or a library PC.
Personally, that's the problem right there.
Not only is a dual-core not fine for a grandma or library PC or any PC (due to the fact of how many things are going on in the background of a modern PC) but the mentality behind "just fine" is the problem, in my opinion.
The more and more people continue to say "Oh, well that person doesn't need much, so its understandable why they still produce (insert item here)" is exactly why companies go "Oh, so many people still use (insert item here), might as well not fully support anything else"
This is why i really hope AMD is done with dual-core processors. If they aren't made, and if intel follows along, then maybe, just maybe, developers won't say "Well, 90% of our users only use dual-core, so lets not worry about letting it use, efficiently, anything more then 2 cores"
Anyway, a dual core with HT/SMT is still very usable by today's standards. Not good enough for power users, but they're just fine for grandma or a library PC.
Personally, that's the problem right there.
Not only is a dual-core not fine for a grandma or library PC or any PC (due to the fact of how many things are going on in the background of a modern PC) but the mentality behind "just fine" is the problem, in my opinion.
The more and more people continue to say "Oh, well that person doesn't need much, so its understandable why they still produce (insert item here)" is exactly why companies go "Oh, so many people still use (insert item here), might as well not fully support anything else"
This is why i really hope AMD is done with dual-core processors. If they aren't made, and if intel follows along, then maybe, just maybe, developers won't say "Well, 90% of our users only use dual-core, so lets not worry about letting it use, efficiently, anything more then 2 cores"
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4339
Senior Member
Posts: 4339
Posted on: 07/27/2017 05:45 PM
Ok, I'll revise my statement: a dual core (with HT/SMT, mind you) is plenty sufficient for grandma or a library PC. A plain dual core without logical threads would be "just adequate", but you'd be pushing its limits and might get some hiccups once in a while. I assure you, it is easily feasible to have a snappy smooth experience on a 2c/4t CPU.
I get that, and that's a valid point. But you have to keep in mind that up until a couple years ago, the average person couldn't afford a decent quad core, with or without HT. For some people here, getting an i5 was a big investment. Remember too that most PC sales are laptops or limited-functionality office PCs. Even today, most laptops are still dual cores, for efficiency reasons. Only now are developers actually taking a hard look at adding more threads to their tasks, because only recently has the average person had access to an abundance of threads.
Not only is a dual-core not fine for a grandma or library PC or any PC (due to the fact of how many things are going on in the background of a modern PC) but the mentality behind "just fine" is the problem, in my opinion.
Ok, I'll revise my statement: a dual core (with HT/SMT, mind you) is plenty sufficient for grandma or a library PC. A plain dual core without logical threads would be "just adequate", but you'd be pushing its limits and might get some hiccups once in a while. I assure you, it is easily feasible to have a snappy smooth experience on a 2c/4t CPU.
The more and more people continue to say "Oh, well that person doesn't need much, so its understandable why they still produce (insert item here)" is exactly why companies go "Oh, so many people still use (insert item here), might as well not fully support anything else"
I get that, and that's a valid point. But you have to keep in mind that up until a couple years ago, the average person couldn't afford a decent quad core, with or without HT. For some people here, getting an i5 was a big investment. Remember too that most PC sales are laptops or limited-functionality office PCs. Even today, most laptops are still dual cores, for efficiency reasons. Only now are developers actually taking a hard look at adding more threads to their tasks, because only recently has the average person had access to an abundance of threads.
Grotlo
Member
Posts: 35
Member
Posts: 35
Posted on: 07/28/2017 01:34 AM
Hi all
Just a quick question. I've got i5 4690k overclocked to 4.6Ghz which I'm using mainly for gaming.
I'm getting score of 709 in cinebench. Would Ryzen 3 1300x be a downgrade to my current system? I would rather not buy high frequency memory + motherboard + CPU...
On the other hand, these processors seem awesome for those that are building from scratch.
Thanks all!
Hi all
Just a quick question. I've got i5 4690k overclocked to 4.6Ghz which I'm using mainly for gaming.
I'm getting score of 709 in cinebench. Would Ryzen 3 1300x be a downgrade to my current system? I would rather not buy high frequency memory + motherboard + CPU...
On the other hand, these processors seem awesome for those that are building from scratch.
Thanks all!
Venix
Senior Member
Posts: 902
Senior Member
Posts: 902
Posted on: 07/28/2017 02:09 AM
Hi all
Just a quick question. I've got i5 4690k overclocked to 4.6Ghz which I'm using mainly for gaming.
I'm getting score of 709 in cinebench. Would Ryzen 3 1300x be a downgrade to my current system? I would rather not buy high frequency memory + motherboard + CPU...
On the other hand, these processors seem awesome for those that are building from scratch.
Thanks all!
it might even be a slight downgrade ....at the very best it will be a side-grade
so no personally i do not advice to pay for a new cpu +new motherboard + new ram keep your 4690 at 4.6 or aim for the 1600 mind you that even if you get the 1600 you will need a card like 1070 at least to see any meaningful difference in gaming or monitor a bit the used market some used 4770k or 4790k on reasonable price might be a good deal
Hi all
Just a quick question. I've got i5 4690k overclocked to 4.6Ghz which I'm using mainly for gaming.
I'm getting score of 709 in cinebench. Would Ryzen 3 1300x be a downgrade to my current system? I would rather not buy high frequency memory + motherboard + CPU...
On the other hand, these processors seem awesome for those that are building from scratch.
Thanks all!
it might even be a slight downgrade ....at the very best it will be a side-grade
so no personally i do not advice to pay for a new cpu +new motherboard + new ram keep your 4690 at 4.6 or aim for the 1600 mind you that even if you get the 1600 you will need a card like 1070 at least to see any meaningful difference in gaming or monitor a bit the used market some used 4770k or 4790k on reasonable price might be a good deal
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4339
Senior Member
Posts: 4339
Posted on: 07/28/2017 02:41 AM
I agree with Venix.
You should stick with what you've got, a Ryzen 3 isn't a worthy upgrade. An overclocked Ryzen 1400 would overall be an upgrade. If you're on a budget, I'd say the most cost effective solution would be to buy a used i7 4770K.
I'm getting score of 709 in cinebench. Would Ryzen 3 1300x be a downgrade to my current system? I would rather not buy high frequency memory + motherboard + CPU...
I agree with Venix.
You should stick with what you've got, a Ryzen 3 isn't a worthy upgrade. An overclocked Ryzen 1400 would overall be an upgrade. If you're on a budget, I'd say the most cost effective solution would be to buy a used i7 4770K.
yasamoka
Senior Member
Posts: 4718
Senior Member
Posts: 4718
Posted on: 07/28/2017 03:30 AM
I very much hope they do not make any dual-core Ryzens. No need to stunt the future any more then Intel already has.
Personally, that's the problem right there.
Not only is a dual-core not fine for a grandma or library PC or any PC (due to the fact of how many things are going on in the background of a modern PC) but the mentality behind "just fine" is the problem, in my opinion.
The more and more people continue to say "Oh, well that person doesn't need much, so its understandable why they still produce (insert item here)" is exactly why companies go "Oh, so many people still use (insert item here), might as well not fully support anything else"
This is why i really hope AMD is done with dual-core processors. If they aren't made, and if intel follows along, then maybe, just maybe, developers won't say "Well, 90% of our users only use dual-core, so lets not worry about letting it use, efficiently, anything more then 2 cores"
First of all, there are loads of assumptions here.
We're at an age where we're browsing the Internet on our cell phones and editing documents on our tablets. A modern desktop dual-core is vastly more powerful than whatever a mobile phone has to offer, so it will do fine. You talk as if background tasks in a modern PC warrant a quad-core. They do not. They never will.
Second of all, not everyone who's buying a CPU runs Windows or is browsing the Internet, editing documents, or playing games. It would be lovely to have a dual-core with a sufficient GPU for a media PC - the lower cost, along with lower power consumption would still realize a PC strong enough to handle video content. Another use would be a storage server - if all you do is transfer files over a LAN, even with 10Gbit Ethernet, why would you need anything more than a low-power dual-core?
Why would we not have available dual-core processors half the price of this? I don't see the point. It's not like Intel's ~$45 Celeron dual-cores stifle technology, do they? I'm glad the option exists - my media PC is currently running a Pentium G3220 and that's doing way more than fine for what uses the PC sees.
Some software only runs on x86 which is why it is still useful to have a low-power x86 platform that runs such. x86 emulation on ARM has been claimed by Microsoft to be almost as good as the real thing - but we still have not seen the fruit of that labor.
Thus, I hope you mean dual-cores ala i3 - those have to die with the price points Intel have been peddling them at.
I very much hope they do not make any dual-core Ryzens. No need to stunt the future any more then Intel already has.
Personally, that's the problem right there.
Not only is a dual-core not fine for a grandma or library PC or any PC (due to the fact of how many things are going on in the background of a modern PC) but the mentality behind "just fine" is the problem, in my opinion.
The more and more people continue to say "Oh, well that person doesn't need much, so its understandable why they still produce (insert item here)" is exactly why companies go "Oh, so many people still use (insert item here), might as well not fully support anything else"
This is why i really hope AMD is done with dual-core processors. If they aren't made, and if intel follows along, then maybe, just maybe, developers won't say "Well, 90% of our users only use dual-core, so lets not worry about letting it use, efficiently, anything more then 2 cores"
First of all, there are loads of assumptions here.
We're at an age where we're browsing the Internet on our cell phones and editing documents on our tablets. A modern desktop dual-core is vastly more powerful than whatever a mobile phone has to offer, so it will do fine. You talk as if background tasks in a modern PC warrant a quad-core. They do not. They never will.
Second of all, not everyone who's buying a CPU runs Windows or is browsing the Internet, editing documents, or playing games. It would be lovely to have a dual-core with a sufficient GPU for a media PC - the lower cost, along with lower power consumption would still realize a PC strong enough to handle video content. Another use would be a storage server - if all you do is transfer files over a LAN, even with 10Gbit Ethernet, why would you need anything more than a low-power dual-core?
Why would we not have available dual-core processors half the price of this? I don't see the point. It's not like Intel's ~$45 Celeron dual-cores stifle technology, do they? I'm glad the option exists - my media PC is currently running a Pentium G3220 and that's doing way more than fine for what uses the PC sees.
Some software only runs on x86 which is why it is still useful to have a low-power x86 platform that runs such. x86 emulation on ARM has been claimed by Microsoft to be almost as good as the real thing - but we still have not seen the fruit of that labor.
Thus, I hope you mean dual-cores ala i3 - those have to die with the price points Intel have been peddling them at.
WaroDaBeast
Senior Member
Posts: 1963
Senior Member
Posts: 1963
Posted on: 07/28/2017 12:20 PM
You're a reputable hardware review website though. Don't see what they got to lose... unless they expect to be unfair towards the competition.
Anyhow, great and thorough review (as always).
Can't wait for the A-series to be released!
Yeah, Intel has always categorically refused to send out i3 procs for review. Can't help it. But I agree on the IGP, it's a bit of a miss in the segment.
You're a reputable hardware review website though. Don't see what they got to lose... unless they expect to be unfair towards the competition.
Anyhow, great and thorough review (as always).
Can't wait for the A-series to be released!
0blivious
Senior Member
Posts: 2513
Senior Member
Posts: 2513
Posted on: 07/28/2017 01:09 PM
I may buy/build a cheap Ryzen setup just to do it. My i7 isn't getting replaced yet though. Maybe Bristol...
I may buy/build a cheap Ryzen setup just to do it. My i7 isn't getting replaced yet though. Maybe Bristol...
pimpineasy
Senior Member
Posts: 219
Senior Member
Posts: 219
Posted on: 09/21/2017 12:53 PM
I agree remove x86 dual - core it is power usage is not significant for large compute workloads. 32 core with nice ram disk & tb ssds is the future. For everything else ARM is better. then even library should be folding a protien or some shit lol you could host a battlefield 1942 mod with a business line stream pandora and twitch shit for trendy mofos wtf. gg all while cryptomining and compiling a kernel.
fantasy land tho folks cuz they still give you single channel ram on your laptop.
This 1300x looks good for trying the new the memory controller compared to my machine thanks for benchmark!
I agree remove x86 dual - core it is power usage is not significant for large compute workloads. 32 core with nice ram disk & tb ssds is the future. For everything else ARM is better. then even library should be folding a protien or some shit lol you could host a battlefield 1942 mod with a business line stream pandora and twitch shit for trendy mofos wtf. gg all while cryptomining and compiling a kernel.
fantasy land tho folks cuz they still give you single channel ram on your laptop.
This 1300x looks good for trying the new the memory controller compared to my machine thanks for benchmark!
pages 1 2
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 406
Sandy Bridge is still a player