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... 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.

It would be true in time before even web browsers got threaded tabs. Now, you can have CPU demanding stuff on multiple tabs and choke 2C without even trying. And yes, no iGP, no fun for basic workstations.

Ryzen 3 1300X vs FX 8120??? Ryzen 3 1300X vs FX 8120??? Which would be better for a mix of gaming and light video editing? (I currently have an FX 8120)

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.

I'm sorry but i don't understand why people state this. The most COMMON issue among people who know NOTHING about computers is: Their computer, brand new, is slow, takes forever to load items, and hangs, even when they have an SSD. My wifes laptop has a relatively new, i7, dual-core processor in it. It has an SSD in it as well, and 8GB of DDR3 ram. It boots up slow, applies patches to the OS slow, runs programs slow, hangs whenever a program decides it needs a whole core for a few seconds, etc. - It's not a horrible experience, but it's not a fluid uninterrupted experience, and my wife, who is by far not into technology (likes to use them, hates when they don't do what she expects them to do, and doesn't understand why it is that happens, etc.) hates it and wants a new laptop, because her computer, with a ryzen 1600 in it and a regular HDD (no SSD), does not have any of those issues. And her laptop has a clean OS on it (not the one provided by the manufacturer, no bloated BS) So does she NEED 6 cores? does she NEED more then 2 cores? Technically, none of us NEED any of it. The better question is would she get USE out of more then 2 cores, even though she's not a heavy PC user? The answer to that is yes, and it seems people use "need" for "would get use out of", and if that's what you're using "need" as, then i don't get it. There is just WAY too many processes in a modern computer, even just opening up your web browser with everything else your computer is doing, to say more then 2 cores is not beneficial to ANYONES experience.

Which would be better for a mix of gaming and light video editing?

Ryzen 1600. And if you meant those 2 here, then it falls to question of you willing to OC. As they'll OC to +-100MHz same target.

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.

My experience tells me otherwise. However, I can understand big corporations gleefully sticking to dual cores as every cent they save will mean a bigger bonus to the bosses.

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.

Says the guy with an i5... Also as others have pointed out, Ryzen tends to perform better (per thread) without SMT.

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... 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.

I completely agree - I suspect R3s won't sell that well due to the lack of an IGP. I also think 2 cores (with SMT/HT) is more than enough for the average user. But, a 2c/2t CPU I would consider just simply "adequate", for those who don't do much other than write a paper or email, browse with only 1 tab open, and don't multitask. I wonder if AMD will release a 2c/4t Ryzen. I figure not - at that point 75% of the silicon is disabled or deemed faulty.

I'm sorry but i don't understand why people state this. So does she NEED 6 cores? does she NEED more then 2 cores? Technically, none of us NEED any of it. The better question is would she get USE out of more then 2 cores, even though she's not a heavy PC user? The answer to that is yes, and it seems people use "need" for "would get use out of", and if that's what you're using "need" as, then i don't get it. There is just WAY too many processes in a modern computer, even just opening up your web browser with everything else your computer is doing, to say more then 2 cores is not beneficial to ANYONES experience.

I´m sorry but for me it seems the system, the OS or both are badly configured because i have a Samsung laptop with a i5, 8Gb DDR3 and with an HDD running W7 and i don´t have any of those problems. And i have already worked with plenty of dual core systems professionally and i never had any performance issues with them. Maybe i´m lucky but for me any modern dual core is enough for the common user. In my case if i didn´t care about gaming, i would still be using my E6400!!!

My experience tells me otherwise. However, I can understand big corporations gleefully sticking to dual cores as every cent they save will mean a bigger bonus to the bosses.

Looking around myself... Very Big corp. Ppl around: tech. Engineers, system architects, business analysts, project managers/coordinators, ... Almost everyone could use stronger than 2C/4T CPU. And our devices are expensive. Only ppl who have adequate HW are those who use mobile workstations with quadros.

I wonder if AMD will release a 2c/4t Ryzen. I figure not - at that point 75% of the silicon is disabled or deemed faulty.

What would that cost? $40 & $60? I think, that's planned space for entry level APUs. So that 2C/4T may happen.

What would that cost? $40 & $60? I think, that's plannefbspace for entry level APUs. So that 2C/4T may happen.

Yeah I figured the same price point. I have a strong feeling a 2c/4t APU will exist (and then, it might be closer to $70) but it wouldn't surprise me if we never see a 2c/4t Ryzen - I don't think there'd be enough of a market, and wouldn't return enough of a profit. Might be used for a mobile version, though.

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

Yeah, it would be killer with an integrated GPU, something cheap as hell, but capable of games that can run on really low settings, like Blizzard games or something. They run on very old engines.

I have a strong feeling a 2c/4t APU will exist (and then, it might be closer to $70) but it wouldn't surprise me if we never see a 2c/4t Ryzen - I don't think there'd be enough of a market, and wouldn't return enough of a profit. Might be used for a mobile version, though.

I think there´s a market for dual core CPUs but i think AMD wants to set a minimum of four cores for all their CPUs. This way they can always offer more cores than Intel, an interesting selling point. So i also don´t expect any more dual cores from them.

Yeah I figured the same price point. I have a strong feeling a 2c/4t APU will exist (and then, it might be closer to $70) but it wouldn't surprise me if we never see a 2c/4t Ryzen - I don't think there'd be enough of a market, and wouldn't return enough of a profit. Might be used for a mobile version, though.

Now I think I do remember AMD's talk, that 4C is new minimum or something like it. But I still think, that APUs may have that configuration. At least in mobile devices.

My experience tells me otherwise. However, I can understand big corporations gleefully sticking to dual cores as every cent they save will mean a bigger bonus to the bosses.

I have a work laptop with an i7 4610M (2C/4T), 3.0-3.7Ghz. 8GB RAM. It's terrible. Outlook takes forever to load. Websites load soooo slow. It can't handle more than 3 or 4 tabs open. I have 2 monitors hooked up to it so I can work spreadsheets and stuff like that, they load up slow too when the file size is like 50mb. 2 core CPUs don't cut it anymore. Developers have finally caught up and started making software use more cores. I'm using the newest version of Internet Explorer with 2 cores (don't blame me, work computer is locked lol). I don't think 2 cores works well with new software, I'm experiencing that problem at work. They have to use new software to keep the security updated.

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).

Imagine how bad i3 willl look like vs R3

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

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.

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.

You are all forgetting i3 has iGPU and R3 does not. As nice as R3 looks it has a glaring flaw that will make it a bomb in OEM's and that is the lack of iGPU. There should have been no R3. AMD needs to focus on getting out an APU.

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.

AMD needs marketing these "Bristol Ridge" APUS up to they get "Raven Ridge"

As nice as R3 looks it has a glaring flaw that will make it a bomb in OEM's and that is the lack of iGPU. There should have been no R3. AMD needs to focus on getting out an APU.

I think R3 is fine, it's just a very niche product. It would be perfect for home servers and budget gaming PCs, where an IGP is irrelevant. In case you weren't aware, many people have bought socket FM2(+) boards with APUs despite using something like a discrete Nvidia GPU instead of the IGP. This was much more common before the [overclockable] Athlon models were released. Sure, FM2+ never offered anything beyond quad cores (whereas AM4 does) but there is still a market for quad cores without IGPS, just a small one.

I have a work laptop with an i7 4610M (2C/4T), 3.0-3.7Ghz. 8GB RAM. It's terrible. Outlook takes forever to load. Websites load soooo slow. It can't handle more than 3 or 4 tabs open. I have 2 monitors hooked up to it so I can work spreadsheets and stuff like that, they load up slow too when the file size is like 50mb. 2 core CPUs don't cut it anymore. Developers have finally caught up and started making software use more cores. I'm using the newest version of Internet Explorer with 2 cores (don't blame me, work computer is locked lol). I don't think 2 cores works well with new software, I'm experiencing that problem at work. They have to use new software to keep the security updated.

I doubt it is really the processor's fault. It's more like the slow 5400RPM HD on most older 'Work' laptop along with the crappy encryption software loads usually associated with company laptop that slow everything down. At my company, we have just replaced a thousand HP Elitebook 840 G2 with the newer G3 that has the newer i5 6300U (2C/4T) and a 256GB SSD and the overall performance has improved quite a bit than the previous gen laptop that has the regular hard drive. I usually have 8-10 taps open with Chrome along with couple of apps and no slow down at all.

I doubt it is really the processor's fault. It's more like the slow 5400RPM HD on most older 'Work' laptop along with the crappy encryption software loads usually associated with company laptop that slow everything down. At my company, we have just replaced a thousand HP Elitebook 840 G2 with the newer G3 that has the newer i5 6300U (2C/4T) and a 256GB SSD and the overall performance has improved quite a bit than the previous gen laptop that has the regular hard drive. I usually have 8-10 taps open with Chrome along with couple of apps and no slow down at all.

I agree - my laptop has a Haswell i3 (2c/4t) with 6GB of RAM and a 64GB SSD and handles office tasks and heavy browsing just fine. Every once in a while there could be some website with a really CPU-hungry ad that slows down page scrolling, but after a few seconds its smooth again. I do run Linux on the laptop, which could be a major factor to my performance gain. I don't have updates run in the background, I don't use disk caching, TRIM operates on-the-fly (whereas Windows schedules it), no antivirus, no firewall, no gimmicky 3rd party system tray utilities, etc. This stuff adds up real fast, where I could see how a 4-threaded CPU could start to struggle.

Ryzen 1600. And if you meant those 2 here, then it falls to question of you willing to OC. As they'll OC to +-100MHz same target.

My post didn't show the Subject, so I've edited it to include. Ryzen 3 1300X vs FX 8120??? (I currently have an FX 8120, and just ordered an FX 8370) Rather than upgrade the entire rig to 1800X or threadripper, which is inevitably in the pipeline. You know, once the wife has all the material things in life...a range rover & a mansion, and I get my row boat (ha). Oh not to mention, when my son has college paid for. ha

My post didn't show the Subject, so I've edited it to include. Ryzen 3 1300X vs FX 8120??? (I currently have an FX 8120, and just ordered an FX 8370) Rather than upgrade the entire rig to 1800X or threadripper, which is inevitably in the pipeline. You know, once the wife has all the material things in life...a range rover & a mansion, and I get my row boat (ha). Oh not to mention, when my son has college paid for. ha

I predict an overclocked 8120 will outperform a stock 1300X for your workload. The FX series is better at handling multi-threaded tasks rather than multi-tasking, so despite the 1300X (even overclocked) having better IPC, I think the 8120 would be slightly better for video editing, albeit, a lot more power-hungry. In terms of gaming, I think the 8120 will likely be better for newer titles but the 1300X is better for "last-gen" titles. But again, power consumption, and it wouldn't be a big difference. Overall, I wouldn't consider the Ryzen 3 series an upgrade, but rather side-stepping. With an FX 8370, a Ryzen 3 might even be a downgrade. If you had a FX 6000 series CPU, then I'd say a Ryzen 3 would be an upgrade. Personally, I'd say cancel the order for the 8370, get yourself a better heatsink (maybe one that will be compatible with a socket like AM4 for future-proofing) and push your 8120 a little harder.