Ryzen 3 1300X to cost $129 and the 1200 just $109 (Exc VAT)

#5452443

sverek

2017-07-14 08:58

I would love to see benchmark of these.

#5452451

sunnyp_343

2017-07-14 09:33

Great for office PC

#5452452

Ziggymac

2017-07-14 09:36

Yep, good little chips for budget OEM machines but anyone buying one for a gaming rig would be wasting their time really, as without the benefit of SMT, Ryzens are a very mediocre performing CPU.

#5452453

sverek

2017-07-14 09:47

Yep, good little chips for budget OEM machines but anyone buying one for a gaming rig would be wasting their time really, as without the benefit of SMT, Ryzens are a very mediocre performing CPU.

4 + 0 > 2 + 2 Fight me.

#5452455

Ricepudding

2017-07-14 10:05

Yep, good little chips for budget OEM machines but anyone buying one for a gaming rig would be wasting their time really, as without the benefit of SMT, Ryzens are a very mediocre performing CPU.

Didn't some people find that with SMT off sometimes ryzen actually ran better in some games... unless that got fixed/changed

#5452460

FrostNixon

2017-07-14 10:23

Unfortunately the budget crown still belongs to Intel: G4560 2 core 4 thread 3.5GHz, Lower TDP, Integrated GPU (really important for every office or budget PC) and 40-50$ cheaper.

#5452462

Unilythe

2017-07-14 10:42

Yep, good little chips for budget OEM machines but anyone buying one for a gaming rig would be wasting their time really, as without the benefit of SMT, Ryzens are a very mediocre performing CPU.

What? This is perfect for a budget and even midrange gaming PC. This is a lot better choice than any of Intel's i5 chips for a midrange PC considering it costs about half of those chips. Only for highend PC's would the i5-7600k be worth considering if you don't want to pay ~$100 extra for the i7-7700k. And, as was said before: 4C/4T is a lot better than 2C/4T, so I'd take this over an i3 any time. It's priced similarly and will have much better performance overall, while having similar performance in games (for those who use it for that).

#5452463

kapu

2017-07-14 10:46

Imagine how bad i3 willl look like vs R3

#5452464

Venix

2017-07-14 10:48

yes i would take 4c 4t always over a 2c 4t cpu

#5452465

sverek

2017-07-14 10:50

Imagine how bad i3 willl look like vs R3

I think there were news of Intel reducing production of Pentium CPUs to raise demand for i3. Not gonna happen with R3. Intel actually have to boost Pentium production not to lose customers to R3.

#5452468

Kaarme

2017-07-14 11:04

2C desktop CPU is an obsolete idea already. It's a miracle Intel has been able to drag that horse skeleton along for so long.

#5452469

sverek

2017-07-14 11:08

2C desktop CPU is an obsolete idea already. It's a miracle Intel has been able to drag that horse skeleton along for so long.

And here I am sitting in my office with Pentium G620. I'd say 2 cores is enough to write some code, send emails and use some office tools. Even with 2 cores, my PC hangs up cause of slow HDD reads/write and I rarely see CPU being 100% utilized. Maybe once ALL PCs ditch HDD and switch to SSD, we will see more bottlenecks on 2 cores CPU. edit: And it's not Intel who dragging it, it's always consumers. Consumers with low need, it is.

#5452483

Silva

2017-07-14 12:09

And here I am sitting in my office with Pentium G620. I'd say 2 cores is enough to write some code, send emails and use some office tools. Even with 2 cores, my PC hangs up cause of slow HDD reads/write and I rarely see CPU being 100% utilized. Maybe once ALL PCs ditch HDD and switch to SSD, we will see more bottlenecks on 2 cores CPU. edit: And it's not Intel who dragging it, it's always consumers. Consumers with low budget, it is.

Fixed that for you.

#5452496

airbud7

2017-07-14 12:58

I wonder if the 1300X @ $129 is faster than my 2600?

#5452499

sverek

2017-07-14 13:08

Fixed that for you.

wrong, with more demand for power the budget will raise. Dont narrow your brain to gamers and content producers.

#5452501

buhehe

2017-07-14 13:10

Title > "Ryzen 3 1300X to cost $129 and the 1200 just $109 (Exc VAT)" Article > "Over ar reddit a user has obtained the pricing info and for Ryzen 3" > "The reddit post however is unconfirmed" Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to modern journalism

#5452502

sverek

2017-07-14 13:11

I wonder if the 1300X @ $129 is faster than my 2600?

2600k is a bit faster than ryzen 1400

#5452507

Aura89

2017-07-14 13:29

Unfortunately the budget crown still belongs to Intel: G4560 2 core 4 thread 3.5GHz, Lower TDP, Integrated GPU (really important for every office or budget PC) and 40-50$ cheaper.

....2 cores, and the IPC of that processor is much lower then the IPC of the i5/i7 variants. And you're comparing an APU, to a CPU. If you're going to compare an APU, then you'll need to wait for AMDs Ryzen APUs.

#5452508

Fox2232

2017-07-14 13:42

And here I am sitting in my office with Pentium G620. I'd say 2 cores is enough to write some code, send emails and use some office tools. Even with 2 cores, my PC hangs up cause of slow HDD reads/write and I rarely see CPU being 100% utilized. Maybe once ALL PCs ditch HDD and switch to SSD, we will see more bottlenecks on 2 cores CPU. edit: And it's not Intel who dragging it, it's always consumers. Consumers with low need, it is.

I use modern vPro 2C/4T with SSD. Doing analysis is nightmare. Starting 2 qemu-kvm virtuals is suicide. Time when intel offered 4C/8T was much better. I mean, work notebook costs $2000 and I consider it trash.

#5452512

H83

2017-07-14 13:52

Great for office PC

They would be great if they had a iGPU, without they are almost useless because OEMs have to add a dGPU that adds to the total cost. So until AMD releases their Ryzen APUs, offices will continue to rely solely on Intel CPUs...

2C desktop CPU is an obsolete idea already. It's a miracle Intel has been able to drag that horse skeleton along for so long.

CPUs with 2 cores are more than enough for the average user. Unless people are into some serious gaming or some powerfull professional software there´s no need for more than 2 cores.