Looking forward to benchmarks.

Reviews will commence in early May.

That's huge. 4C/4T was highly limited in gaming already with sttuters all over the place. Seeing R3 series jumping into 4c/8t at 100$ seems like a huge deal for any entry level system. I've still got a R5 3600 and hardly I would have gone to something lower than that, but not all the people have money. Next year, probably we will see 4c/8t with Integrated RDNA GPUs, it will be entirelly overkill for any PC at home just doing regular stuff like web browsing and office work (I'm starting to believe, that people with this use cases should just remain in a "kind" of thin station work), ofc people with more demanding work makes sense to use regular desktop sizes.

so it is better to buy a 99 usd cpu for a simple machine without GPU? or to buy just a 3200g with just a little less performance on the cpu side but with an integrated gpu? if we are talking about cheap computers i still prefer to get an integrated gpu.

Saweeeeet.

Those look great, but why are the names like this 3100 and 3300X, makes it sound like they are a totally different tier, yet it's just 200/400mhz (base/boost, yes you should mention base before boost, wtf). Thought amd was beyond those marketing schemes...

That looks good. 4 cores is enough for me for the meantime. I want to upgrade my 1200. One of these cpus and my 2400G might get me through to AM5. I wonder how good the binning will be on these? Will the 3300X really have faster and more efficient cores? I wonder what the design will be. Will all the cores be on one CCX? It looks like AMD is going to cover every price range possible.

meh, without an integrated gpu the 1600af and even 2600 are much better investments

EspHack:

meh, without an integrated gpu the 1600af and even 2600 are much better investments

If the application is going by IPC and maxes out at 8 threads total, you would see better performance from the Ryzen 3. Hell I think most games still only really scale to 4 cores today with the exception of DX12 titles?

vbetts:

If the application is going by IPC and maxes out at 8 threads total, you would see better performance from the Ryzen 3. Hell I think most games still only really scale to 4 cores today with the exception of DX12 titles?

thats true and thats what I thought not too long ago, but it turns out a lot of modern tittles and even not-so-modern and/or optimized tittles run more consistently with 12 threads rather than 8 threads, because there is never such a perfect scenario, your perfectly-fit-for-purpose app will run as good as it gets with the ryzen 3, until the microsoft store decides to update the calculator app, then your app chokes for a second end result is that you get 120fps avg but 60fps lows on the faster quad while the ryzen 5 does 90fps avg but 80fps lows, i would much much rather have the later, and thats what've been looking at in most benchmarks for quite a while now add in the fact that those results come from highly controlled environments, you can expect an even bigger difference in real world where practically nobody is using a pc to play a certain game or two and not even open a chat app like discord, not to mention w10 by default tends to give the impression that there's a bunch of malware processes always sneaking around on the background(and you stop noticing that the more cores you add) the problem here comes from the older gen products still being around and completely compatible, otherwise this pricing would be perfectly fine

IMO AMD is making a big mistake not including iGPUs on their CPUs. Yes, they call them "APUS" but the CPUs that are competitive with Intel performance (Ryzen 3000 desktop) are NOT APUs. Vast majority of people do not need a gaming GPU. Intel iGPU might be terrible for gaming, but it is good enough for watching Youtube, UHD, and basic desktop use. Video cards are expensive these days. There are no cheap, low-end video cards. There is the GT 1030, but that is still $90, is old, and doesn't have nvenc (while Intel will give you QSV), and honestly video encoding acceleration is a must these days - even your phones have it. Because you still need a video card with this, it makes Intel much more compelling in many cases. I've seen exactly one "general use" system with AMD ryzen 3000 being sold in it. Some HP with a 3700X and a RX 550 or some low end card in it, for a price lower than similar i7 9700 systems. I read reviews/comments and everyone was complaining that the system was "mismatched by having good CPU but crappy video card in it". Because of the low end video card, it got really bad reviews, despite the high performance for everything except gaming. How appealing is that for HP and other OEMs to produce AMD general use high performance systems and get terrible reviews because people criticize it for poor gaming performance? HP makes an i7 9700 system, no reviews are gonna criticize it for having an iGPU and will praise it for its good general performance. HP makes a 3700X + RX 550 system, reviews WILL criticize it for having a 'poor GPU'. If I were HP, I'd just sell Intel performance systems and not even bother with AMD. These new chips have the same exact issue.. More performance than a similar i3, priced lower, but you still need a GPU. Who wants these chips? If I were building say a cheap home server..I'd go with the i3 just so I don't have to deal with finding a video card for it.

People like me want these chips.... I have video cards laying around. I need systems to put them in. These chips will work perfectly for my needs. In fact, an R3 1200AF would be absolutely perfect for my needs.....if I could get my hands on one...