metagamer:

Yes, I am on 4c/8t and it's ok but this rig is 3 years old. Buying 4c/8t these days is backwards.

Going from an i7 7700K to a 3300X doesn't make a lot of sense. A 3600 or 3600X would make more sense. However, for someone coming from say, an i5 6600K or any pre-Skylake LGA115x CPU (or even the FX-series)....the 3300X is still a viable upgrade. For someone that's only going to play games, browse the web and do the occasional term paper, the 3100 and 3300X are perfectly fine. Pair it with a 2060 or 2070 (regular or super) and enjoy. If you're doing heavily threaded tasks, these make little sense. Even a 2c/4t processor is viable for someone.....lol It's all a matter of building the right system for the tasks it's intended to accomplish. I could easily swap my 2600 for a 3300X and be just fine....at least until I decide to start running Linux in VMware again....lol Just buy whatever you decide suits your usage scenario best. Whether that be a 3000G, 3100, 3300X, 3600, 3600X, 3990X or i7 10900K.... You're the one that has to be happy with your system, not anyone else.

I know that there is valid argument about not CPU by limited by GPU, but use cheap cpu with expensive gpu, make not sense either. So we need test with some cheaper GPUs too.

kapu:

What do You think guys , real performace gains in modern games i5 7600k 4.8ghz vs 3300x ???? (later upgrade zen3 8core).

3300x at 4.3 should outperform due to better overall IPC + 4core 8 threads vs 4 core 4 threads. Additionally paired with fast ram (a sweet spot for Ryzen is 3200-3600 range) should give you better results across the board.

flashmozzg:

Desktop versions of 4000 APUs would likely be much a better choice for <= 8 core.

True like a 4700G. I have a feeling AMD hasn't gone all in on APU's is because densities and power are not quite there yet. If we can get an APU built all on 5nm I think that is about where the transistor densities gets us to having a decently high end GPU and 8-core CPU without much compromise. Until then its going to be a pretty big compromise.

It's kind of sad that quad cores still sell above $100. That's the beauty of duopolies.

PrMinisterGR:

It's kind of sad that quad cores still sell above $100. That's the beauty of duopolies.

yeah, its almost like materials don't cost anything.

Astyanax:

yeah, its almost like materials don't cost anything.

n the slides below, AMD compares the cost of its current 7 nm + 12 nm MCM approach to a hypothetical monolithic die it would have had to build on 7 nm (including the I/O components). The slides suggest that the cost of a single-chiplet "Matisse" MCM (eg: Ryzen 7 3700X) is about 40% less than that of the double-chiplet "Matisse" (eg: Ryzen 9 3950X). Had AMD opted to build a monolithic 7 nm die that had 8 cores and all the I/O components of the I/O die, such a die would cost roughly 50% more than the current 1x CCD + IOD solution. On the other hand, a monolithic 7 nm die with 16 cores and I/O components would cost 125% more. AMD hence enjoys a massive headroom for cost-cutting. Prices of the flagship 3950X can be close to halved (from its current $749 MSRP), and AMD can turn up the heat on Intel's upcoming Core i9-10900K by significantly lowering price of its 12-core 3900X from its current $499 MSRP. The company will also enjoy more price-cutting headroom for its 6-core Ryzen 5 SKUs than it did with previous-generation Ryzen 5 parts based on monolithic dies.

You can extrapolate from here.