AMD Ryzen 3 1200 and 1300X CPU Review

Add Your Comments

Bringing in the tail-end of the newest AMD CPUs we have the Ryzen 3 lineup. This is AMD‘s offering for the budget-minded PC user. Today we’ll be looking at the two quad-core offerings, the 1200 and 1300X. The 1300X has the XFR technology we’ve seen from the Ryzen 7 1800X1700X, and Ryzen 5 1500X/1600X allowing for boost speeds over their typical max. The 1200 is locked to its listed speeds, unless you’re overclocking. One major difference from the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 CPUs is the exclusion of Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) from the Ryzen 3 processors. While this does mean a performance hit for multithreaded applications, it also cuts the cost of the product making it accessible to more users. Let’s take a closer look at the lineup now.

Specifications and Features

From the specifications table below, the 1200 and 1300X are both quad core CPUs without SMT, giving a total of four cores and threads. This total core/thread count comes from the use of two CPU Complexes (CCX), more on this arrangement in a second. The base clock comes in at 3.1 GHz and will boost two cores (four threads) to 3.4 GHz for the 1200 and 3.5 GHz boosting to 3.7 GHz on the 1300X. The inclusion of XFR (Xtended Frequency Range) technology on the 1300X allows another 200 MHz over both the base and boost clocks, when temperature allows. TDP of these two CPUs comes in at 65 W for both the 1200 and the 1300X. The cooling medium between the die and IHS is solder, instead of thermal paste as Intel has used on their Mainstream CPUs.

Like Ryzen 5, the Ryzen 3 CPUs will be balanced between CCXs. Both Ryzen 3 1200 and 1300X have two CCXs with two cores enabled on each. AMD is keeping it balanced and using their selective core disabling functionality to drop the core count.

Memory on this CPU/platform supports a total of 128 GB with the base specification of DDR4-2400 in a dual channel configuration. It does not support ECC memory.

Regarding PCI Express (PCIe) support, Ryzen offers a total of 24 lanes out of the CPU allowing good flexibility for multiple cards, PCIe-based NVMe SSDs, and other PCIe-based devices. Sixteen of the lanes are dedicated to graphics, four are dedicated to the native M.2 PCIe NVMe slot, and the last four connect to the chipset. Different chipsets will provide their own additional PCIe lanes for even more device connectivity.

Windows 10 is the officially supported platform for Ryzen. That said, there will be drivers available for use with Windows 7 and 8.1, but know there is no official support for these older operating systems.

Specifications Ryzen 3 1200 Ryzen 3 1300X
# of Cores 4 4
# of Threads 4 4
Base Clock Speed 3.1 GHz 3.5 GHz
Boost Clock Speed 3.4 GHz 3.7 GHz
Instruction Set 64-bit 64-bit
Instruction Set Extensions SSE 4.1/4.2/4a, AVX2, SHA SSE 4.1/4.2/4a, AVX2, SHA
Lithography 14 nm FinFET 14 nm FinFET
Transistor Count 4.8 billion 4.8 billion
TDP 65 W 65 W
Thermal Solution Spec Soldered Soldered
Integrated Graphics N/A N/A
L1 Cache 128 KB I-Cache (64 KB per CCX)
128 KB D-Cache (64 KB per CCX)
128 KB I-Cache (64 KB per CCX)
128 KB D-Cache (64 KB per CCX)
L2 Cache 2 MB (512 KB per core) 2 MB (512 KB per core)
L3 Cache 8 MB (4 MB per CCX) 8 MB (4 MB per CCX)
Memory Specifications
Max Memory Size 128 GB 128 GB
Memory Types DDR4-2400 DDR4-2400
# of Memory Channels 2 2
ECC Memory Support No No
Expansion Options
PCI Express Revision 3.0 3.0
PCI Express Configurations 1×16+1×4+1×4, 2×8+1×4+1×4 1×16+1×4+1×4, 2×8+1×4+1×4
Max # of PCI Express Lanes 24 Lanes 24 Lanes

The table below is a list of the Ryzen lineup. Every CPU on this list is overclockable, assuming you buy a motherboard with a chipset capable of doing so. Only SKUs with an X on the end have the new XFR (eXtended Frequency Range) technology, note. According to AMD, the X SKU processors are binned and manufactured to be better overclockers.

AMD Ryzen CPU Model Cores/
Threads
Base Clock Boost Clock L3 Cache Cooler Included XFR TDP
Ryzen 7 1800X 8/16 3.6 GHz 4.0 GHz 16 MB No Yes 95 W-SR3+
Ryzen 7 1700X 8/16 3.4 GHz 3.8 GHz 16 MB No Yes 95 W-SR3+
Ryzen 7 1700 8/16 3.0 GHz 3.7 GHz 16 MB Wraith Spire No 65 W
Ryzen 5 1600X 6/12 3.6 GHz 4.0 GHz 16 MB No Yes 95 W
Ryzen 5 1600 6/12 3.2 GHz 3.6 GHz 16 MB Wraith Spire No 65 W
Ryzen 5 1500X 4/8 3.5 GHz 3.7 GHz 16 MB Wraith Spire Yes 65 W
Ryzen 5 1500 4/8 3.2 GHz 3.4 GHz 16 MB Wraith Stealth No 65 W
Ryzen 3 1300X 4/4 3.5 GHz 3.7 GHz 16 MB Wraith Stealth Yes 65 W
Ryzen 3 1200 4/4 3.1 GHz 3.4 GHz 16 MB Wraith Stealth No 65 W
CPU Clock Speed Breakdown

To make it absolutely clear what the clock speed is in all loading/temperature scenarios, please see the table below.

AMD Ryzen 3 1200 High Temp Speed
(No XFR)
Low Temp Speed
(XFR Active)
All Cores Loaded 3.1 GHz 3.1 GHz
Two Cores (Four Threads) Loaded 3.4 GHz 3.45 GHz
One Core (Two Threads) Loaded 3.4 GHz 3.45 GHz
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X High Temp Speed
(No XFR)
Low Temp Speed
(XFR Active)
All Cores Loaded 3.5 GHz 3.7 GHz
Two Cores (Four Threads) Loaded 3.7 GHz 3.9 GHz
One Core (Two Threads) Loaded 3.7 GHz 3.9 GHz

Product Tour

Below are some images from AMD of the product packaging for the new Ryzen 3 CPUs. Both the 1200 and 1300X come with Wraith Stealth (pictured later).

Retail Boxes

Taking a look at the Wraith Stealth, we see your basic included heatsink. A four-pin fan connector here allows for PWM control of the fan speed. Again, this is included with both the 1200 and 1300X.

Wraith Stealth – Front

Wraith Stealth – Rear

Next up are pictures of the two Ryzen 3 samples we have, front and back. I see no discernible differences between the CPUs other than the laser markings on the IHS.

Ryzen 3 CPU – Front

Ryzen 3 CPU – Rear

Benchmarks

The data we have gathered will give us a great idea of its performance both at stock (no turbo), and matching clockspeeds to see IPC performance differences between them all. I have included Kaby Lake results with the i7-7700K, a quad core with SMT in the Ryzen 5 1500X, and the big-boy Ryzen 7 1800X. Unfortunately I do not have any i3 or i5 processors on hand to compare to.

i7-7700K
Ryzen 5 1500X Ryzen 7 1800X
Motherboard GIGABYTE Z270X-Gaming 8 ASUS Crosshair VI Hero ASUS Crosshair VI Hero
Memory Corsair Vengeance LPX 2×8 GB DDR4-3000 15-17-17-35 G.SKILL Trident Z 2×8 GB DDR4-3866 18-19-19-39 G.SKILL Trident Z 2×8 GB DDR4-3866 18-19-19-39
HDD OCZ Trion 150 480 GB OCZ Trion 150 480 GB OCZ Trion 150 480 GB
Power Supply EVGA SuperNova G2 850 W EVGA SuperNova G2 850 W EVGA SuperNova G2 850 W
Video Card EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW GAMING EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW GAMING EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW GAMING
Cooling CoolerMaster Glacer 240L Custom Loop with Alphacool XP3 and 3.120 Radiator Custom Loop with Alphacool XP3 and 3.120 Radiator
OS Windows 10 x64 Windows 10 x64 Windows 10 x64

And the test system:

Test Setup
CPU AMD Ryzen 3 1200/1300X
CPU Cooler Custom Loop with Alphacool XP3 and 3.120 Radiator
Motherboard ASUS Crosshair VI Hero
RAM G.SKILL Trident Z 2×8 GB DDR4-3866 18-19-19-39
Graphics Card EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW GAMING
Hard Drive OCZ Trion 150 480 GB
Power Supply EVGA SuperNova G2 850 W
Operating System Windows 10 x64
Benchmarks See Below
Equipment
Digital Multimeter

Benchmarks Used

All benchmarks were run with the motherboard being set to optimized defaults (outside of some memory settings which had to be configured manually). When “stock” is mentioned along with the clockspeed, it does not reflect the boost clocks, only the base clocks. I tested this way as it seems motherboards are different in how they work out of the box. This takes out any differences in how AMD/Intel utilize their turbo features and how the motherboards handle turbo, so this is more of a “run what you brung” type of testing for stock speeds. Memory speeds were set at DDR4-3000 15-15-15-35 for all testing, regardless of the kit specifications. The only exception to this is the AMD system running at DDR4-2933 16-15-15-35, this is due to how the memory dividers and timings are handled.

After the testing, we then shifted to comparing the AMD and Intel systems all at the same clockspeeds (4 GHz, except Ryzen 3 at 3.9 GHz). This testing will flesh out the difference in Instructions Per Clock (IPC) between the samples. This also applies to the gaming tests.

CPU Tests
  • AIDA64 Engineer CPU, FPU, and Memory Tests
  • Cinebench R11.5 and R15
  • x265 1080p Benchmark (HWBOT)
  • POVRay
  • SuperPi 1M/32M
  • WPrime 32M/1024M
  • 7Zip

All CPU tests were run at their default settings unless otherwise noted.

Gaming Tests

All game tests were run at 1920×1080 and 2560×1440. Please see our testing procedures for details on in-game settings. Due to availability of some of the older CPU’s we will be using a 980Ti for testing the games.

  • 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme
  • Crysis 3
  • Dirt: Rally
  • Ashes of the Singularity
  • Rise of the Tomb Raider

AIDA64 Tests

Up first, the AIDA64 CPU tests. These tests are at the AMD/Intel base clock speeds listed. We can see the 1200 and 1300X making a great showing against the faster competition.

AIDA64 CPU – Stock

AIDA64 CPU – Raw Data
CPU Queen PhotoWorxx Zlib AES Hash
1200 @ 3.1 GHz 25896 18691 186.6 24296 6133
1300X @ 3.5 GHz 29380 19730 212.1 27489 6943
1500X @ 3.5 GHz 46108 18836 328.3 31122 10568
1800X @ 3.6 GHz 83640 20600 663.8 63986 21749
i7-7700K @ 4.2 GHz 51215 23117 378.5 19141 4817

Next we see the FPU tests. In VP8 the latest update was not playing nicely, so those numbers are not included. Again, core counts and/or SMT make the Ryzen 3 chips bring up the rear as expected.

AIDA64 FPU – Stock

AIDA64 FPU – Raw Data
CPU VP8 Julia Mandel SinJulia
1200 @ 3.1 GHz 15365 8077 36050
1300X @ 3.5 GHz 17284 9154 4131
1500X @ 3.5 GHz 6691 17749 9239 5995
1800X @ 3.6 GHz 7949 36515 19025 12337
i7-7700K @ 4.2 GHz 7980 35687 19197 5060

The memory tests pretty much speak for themselves. An expectedly flat set of numbers here. Memory latency is still high for Ryzen, but it doesn’t seem to impact performance in any of the other testing. Let’s be honest here, the vast majority of users will never notice the extra 20-30 ns over Intel since most usage cases are not memory constrained.

AIDA64 Mem – Stock

AIDA64 Mem – Raw Data
CPU Read Write Copy Latency
1200 @ 3.1 GHz 42830 43135 37362 85.4
1300X @ 3.5 GHz 43393 43633 37440 82
1500X @ 3.5 GHz 43487 43080 37839 83.9
1800X @ 3.6 GHz 43833 43109 37892 84.6
i7-7700K @ 4.2 GHz 42147 44416 37689 49.8

Real World Tests

In the next set of testing you can really look at the 1500X compared to the 1200 and 1300X to see how much SMT does. Since Ryzen 3 targets the Intel i3 lineup, I’d say they’re doing darned well considering it was over half the speed of the i7 in all these tests except x265.

Cinebench R11.5/R15, POVRay, x265 (HWBot), 7Zip – Stock

Cinebench R11.5/R15, POVRay, x265 (HWBot), 7Zip – Raw Data
CPU R11.5 R15 POVRay x265 7Zip
1200 @ 3.1 GHz 5.48 480 1171.4 15.25 13186
1300X @ 3.5 GHz 6.24 547 1334.53 17.08 14812
1500X @ 3.5 GHz 8.72 796 1654.53 20.92 21812
1800X @ 3.6 GHz 17.68 1600 3299.77 39.75 39713
i7-7700K @ 4.2 GHz 10.07 918 1960.54 33.25 25772

Pi-Based Tests

Prime tests are definitely not AMD’s strong suit, so the Ryzen 3 results here are about what I expected.

SuperPi 1M/32M, wPrime 32M/1024M – Stock

SuperPi and wPrime Benchmarks – Raw Data
CPU SuperPi 1M SuperPi 32M wPrime 32M wPrime 1024M
1200 @ 3.1 GHz 14.081 745.127 10.316 321.595
1300X @ 3.5 GHz 12.407 678.736 9.13 285.471
1500X @ 3.5 GHz 11.829 609.316 6.671 191.333
1800X @ 3.6 GHz 11.548 592.350 4.374 100.900
i7-7700K @ 4.2 GHz 8.796 463.495 5.201 153.589

Game Results

Just a reminder, all tests from this point forward have all CPU’s running at 4 GHz, 3.9 GHz for Ryzen 3, instead of their stock speeds. And as we expected, almost all game results were within a margin of error of each other. The only really notable difference here is in Ashes DX12, which has been optimized for Ryzen now and can also utilize a lot of cores. Ryzen 3 can game with the best of them, even at 1440p.

1080p Gaming Results – Head to Head

1440p Gaming Results – Head to Head

Most of the scoring differences here in 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme came from the scaling of cores in the Physics test. The dip for the 1300X makes me think it wasn’t 100% stable at 3.9 GHz. All in all, I’m impressed for these being budget processors.

3DMark Fire Strike Extreme – Head to Head

Head to Head Results

In our head to head results, we ran all of the systems at 4 GHz, except 3.9 GHz for Ryzen 3. This shows the differences in IPC and cores directly. Overall, we see good scaling when upping the CPU speed as we have with other Ryzen processors.

AIDA64 CPU – 4 GHz

AIDA64 FPU – 4 GHz

AIDA64 Mem – 4 GHz

Cinebench R11.5/R15, POVRay, x265 (HWBot), 7Zip – 4 GHz

SuperPi 1M/32M, wPrime 32M/1024M – 4 GHz

Overclocking

Ryzen 3 1200

While trying to stabilize for 4.0 GHz testing of the Ryzen 3 1200, I managed to degrade it a tad. It simply wouldn’t stabilize out at 4.0 for me, even with lots of voltage, but I did have it running at that speed for a while. The end of the road here, stable enough to run benchmarks, was 3.9 GHz.

Ryzen 3 1300X

The story was much the same for the Ryzen 3 1300X, it topped out at 3.9 GHz as well. This one was a fight to even get the system to want to cooperate at 3.9 GHz, but I eventually was able to get it benchmarking stable. Even so, no more in the tank for this piece of silicon either.

Information from AMD Regarding Overclocking

As a general guideline: a CPU voltage of up to 1.35 V is acceptable for driving everyday overclocks of the AMD Ryzen processor. Core voltages up to 1.45 V are also sustainable, but our models suggest that processor longevity may be affected. Regardless of your voltage, make sure you’re using capable cooling to keep temperatures as low as possible.

While there are never guarantees with overclocking, the majority of users should find that an eight core, sixteen thread, AMD Ryzen processor will achieve 4.2 GHz at a core voltage of 1.45 V. Advanced and accomplished overclockers trying to push record frequencies may find more headroom by disabling cores and/or disabling SMT on motherboards that offer these options in the BIOS.

Overclocking specifics

CPU clockspeed is configured with MULTI*Ref_Clk. AMD Ryzen™ CPUs have 0.25X multipliers.

  1. Ref_clk is 100 MHz.
  2. While the ref_clk value is adjustable, system stability may be compromised when deviating from this value.
  3. Users are encouraged to use the unlocked multipliers.

AMD Ryzen™ processors do not use pre-programmed VID tables.

  1. Therefore, there is no fixed Vcore when the CPU runs in its out-of-box condition.
  2. Default Vcore will vary depending on workload and will range from 1.2-1.3625 V.
  3. Overclocking an AMD Ryzen™ processor will snap the voltage to 1.3625 V, but this value can be changed.

Voltages to look for:

  1. CPU Vcore: Look for CPU VID value (type in value)
  2. CPU SoC voltage: Look for VDDCR_SOC value (type in value). Default is 0.99 V. Adjusting this to 1.1 V may help stabilize memory overclocks.
  3. Memory voltage: Look for MEM_VDDIO (type in value) and MEM_VTT (set MEM_VTT to ½ of MEM_VDDIO). VDDIO is voltage (“memory voltage”) supplied to the DRAM ICs, and MEM_VTT powers termination logic inside the DRAM ICs. These values are OFFSETS and will read as zero. Boost Memory VDDIO to stabilize memory overclocking. (e.g. MEM_VDDIO set to +0.025 will bring 1.5 V DRAM to 1.525 V.)

Power Consumption and Temperatures

Here we see a comparison of the power consumption of the overall system for the 1200, 1300X, 1500X, and 1800X all running both their base speed and locked at 4 GHz, except 3.9 GHz for Ryzen 3. This was all done with the same GPU settings, motherboard, BIOS, cooling, and number of fans so any differences here are purely due to core count and clock speeds. You can see the Ryzen 3 1200 got power hungry when overclocking, it was taking a lot of voltage to stabilize.

Power Graph

As above with the power graph, this spread of temperatures represents the 1200, 1300X, 1500X, and 1800X all running both their base speed and locked at 4 GHz, except 3.9 GHz for Ryzen 3. This was all done with the same GPU settings, motherboard, BIOS, cooling, and number of fans so any differences here are purely due to core count and clock speeds. You can see the Ryzen 3 1200 also got hot when overclocking due to the extra power drawn.

Temperature Graph

Conclusion

In the end, the Ryzen 3 processors are a great budget processor. Performance, particularly in gaming, was very good. Competition here is intended to be the Intel i3 series, of which those only have two physical cores. All of the Ryzen 3 series has four physical cores. With games fully utilizing quad core processors these days, that can mean quite a help in FPS for gamers.

The Ryzen 3 1200 will launch at an MSRP of $109, the 1300X at $129. If you paired one of these with a B350 based motherboard and a mid-range GPU, you could easily build a full gaming tower with a GTX 1060 for around $700-800 without cutting corners on quality parts.

Click here to find out what this means.

Click here to find out what this means.

-Austin (ATMINSIDE)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Discussion
  1. ATMINSIDE
    With a lot of users moving to 1440p, I disagree, it's good to show what you can expect. Even if it is the norm for things to scale away from CPU restriction at that resolution.


    The problem with this is that probably very few people are going to be pairing the Ryzen 3s with anything as powerful with a 980 Ti. Bitwit tested the Ryzen 3s with six GPUs from an RX 570 to a GTX 1080 and found that the GTX 1060 is the sweet spot, with a GTX 1070 giving little to no gains in CPU intensive games (although in games like Doom, which do not demand a lot from the CPU, the difference was still notable). Considering this, it's a bit odd that even the 1080p results are so even accross all the games and CPUs. For example in AotS, only the OC'd Ryzen 7 should be able to compete with the i7-7700K when both are paired with a high-end GPU like the GTX 1080 or a Titan. Considering that the 980 Ti isn't exactly slow either and that the AotS can take advantage of cores and threads, the Ryzen 3 performance should be last with a clear margin, the six-core ryzen should not surpass the Ryzen 7 and the i7-7700K be pretty even with the Ryzen 7. Qualitatively, the i7 should give roughly double the FPS the Ryzen 3 is giving, unless there's a GPU bottleneck. Maybe there's something in the testing methodology that's creating a near total GPU bottleneck even at 1080p?
    mackerel
    I don't know when it started, but one major UK retailer has slashed price on the i3-7350k, and it is actually lower than the i3-7100 now! As far as I'm aware others haven't followed. Everyone else is still at "normal" pricing, but you have to wonder if R3 has got them concerned enough to clear their stock? Again, this is at a single retailer level, it isn't Intel needing a change of underwear (yet?). I'm half tempted but I have no long term need for another i3 and I'm struggling to shift the ones I have now. R3 certainly wont help me in that!


    New 7350ks are going for as low as 124.99 w/free shipping on ebay this morning, USA.
    I don't know when it started, but one major UK retailer has slashed price on the i3-7350k, and it is actually lower than the i3-7100 now! As far as I'm aware others haven't followed. Everyone else is still at "normal" pricing, but you have to wonder if R3 has got them concerned enough to clear their stock? Again, this is at a single retailer level, it isn't Intel needing a change of underwear (yet?). I'm half tempted but I have no long term need for another i3 and I'm struggling to shift the ones I have now. R3 certainly wont help me in that!
    PetrolHead
    Thanks for the review! I'm not sure I see much point in testing Firestrike Extreme and games @ 1440p. In both tests the differences between CPUs will be diminished compared to normal Firestrike and 1080p and there should be no changes in the relative performance of the CPUs. Also, this part was a bit confusing:

    "Memory speeds were set at DDR4-3000 15-15-15-35 for all testing, regardless of the kit specifications. The only exception to this is the AMD system running at DDR4-2933 16-15-15-35, this is due to how the memory dividers and timings are handled."

    Doesn't this mean that memory speeds were set to the latter, with the only exception being the Intel system?

    Regarding the CPUs, I agree with DaveB about which comparisons would have been the most interesting, but I fully understand that you'd rather spend your money somewhere else. I don't know if getting funding for hardware aquisitions through kickstarter projects is viable, but could be worth a try, maybe? In any case, there are sites that have some comparable data for those CPUs as well as Ryzen 3. Here's the gist of one 1300X review:

    Production workloads: The Ryzen 3 1300X is slower than the i3-7350K when using a single thread, but faster when using all threads. The i5-7600K is faster than the 1300X regardless of amount of threads used. Overclocking to around 4 GHz doesn't really change this, although for some reason in Adobe Premiere the overclocked 1300X did do better than a stock i5-7600K (but there was no info on the stock performance).

    Gaming, 1080p: The Ryzen 3 1300X is the slowest of the bunch, even when overclocked to 4.1 GHz and compared to stock Intels. Even the 1% and 0.1% lows are generally worse than with the stock i3-7350K - and yes, even with that 4.1 GHz overclock. Interestingly the stock 1300X is between a Phenom II X6 @ 4 GHz and a stock i3-6300 in Watch Dogs 2 and can't match a stock FX-8370 even when overclocked but this might be due to optimization issues.


    With a lot of users moving to 1440p, I disagree, it's good to show what you can expect. Even if it is the norm for things to scale away from CPU restriction at that resolution.

    That memory statement is a blanket I use in all my processor reviews. It probably could use a revision now though, it was changed last for Ryzen 7, but the information is still true.

    I don't disagree that it would have been interesting to see i3 and i5 data, I just don't have the hardware on hand. Kickstarter is an idea, but I'm not going to ask for someone to hand money to me to continue reviews.
    DaveB
    As the review stated, a great alternative to the Intel i3, but no i3 banchmarks were included for comparison. Comparing the Ryzen 3s to the far more expensive Ryzen 7 1800X and i7-7700K is meaningless. In addition to the Ryzen 5 1500, benchmarks for a Kaby Lake i3-7350 and i5-7600K should have been included. The conclusion stated:

    "Competition here is intended to be the Intel i3 series, of which those only have two physical cores. All of the Ryzen 3 series has four physical cores. With games fully utilizing quad core processors these days, that can mean quite a help in FPS for gamers."



    Unfortunately nothing in the review supported that conclusion, it is just assumed to be obvious. Since Microcenter has been selling the i3-7350 at $129.99, the same as the Ryzen 3 1300X, such a comparison with both overclocked to their respective limits would have been interesting.


    Most of us have a pretty good idea what the i3 will do on those same tests. It has been around for a bit now.
    Thanks for the review! I'm not sure I see much point in testing Firestrike Extreme and games @ 1440p. In both tests the differences between CPUs will be diminished compared to normal Firestrike and 1080p and there should be no changes in the relative performance of the CPUs. Also, this part was a bit confusing:

    "Memory speeds were set at DDR4-3000 15-15-15-35 for all testing, regardless of the kit specifications. The only exception to this is the AMD system running at DDR4-2933 16-15-15-35, this is due to how the memory dividers and timings are handled."

    Doesn't this mean that memory speeds were set to the latter, with the only exception being the Intel system?

    Regarding the CPUs, I agree with DaveB about which comparisons would have been the most interesting, but I fully understand that you'd rather spend your money somewhere else. I don't know if getting funding for hardware aquisitions through kickstarter projects is viable, but could be worth a try, maybe? In any case, there are sites that have some comparable data for those CPUs as well as Ryzen 3. Here's the gist of one 1300X review:

    Production workloads: The Ryzen 3 1300X is slower than the i3-7350K when using a single thread, but faster when using all threads. The i5-7600K is faster than the 1300X regardless of amount of threads used. Overclocking to around 4 GHz doesn't really change this, although for some reason in Adobe Premiere the overclocked 1300X did do better than a stock i5-7600K (but there was no info on the stock performance).

    Gaming, 1080p: The Ryzen 3 1300X is the slowest of the bunch, even when overclocked to 4.1 GHz and compared to stock Intels. Even the 1% and 0.1% lows are generally worse than with the stock i3-7350K - and yes, even with that 4.1 GHz overclock. Interestingly the stock 1300X is between a Phenom II X6 @ 4 GHz and a stock i3-6300 in Watch Dogs 2 and can't match a stock FX-8370 even when overclocked but this might be due to optimization issues.
    DaveB
    In addition to the Ryzen 5 1500, benchmarks for a Kaby Lake i3-7350 and i5-7600K should have been included.


    Want to donate those parts for me to include? Otherwise it'd come out of my pocket and I have other things to spend almost $400 on.
    As the review stated, a great alternative to the Intel i3, but no i3 banchmarks were included for comparison. Comparing the Ryzen 3s to the far more expensive Ryzen 7 1800X and i7-7700K is meaningless. In addition to the Ryzen 5 1500, benchmarks for a Kaby Lake i3-7350 and i5-7600K should have been included. The conclusion stated:

    "Competition here is intended to be the Intel i3 series, of which those only have two physical cores. All of the Ryzen 3 series has four physical cores. With games fully utilizing quad core processors these days, that can mean quite a help in FPS for gamers."



    Unfortunately nothing in the review supported that conclusion, it is just assumed to be obvious. Since Microcenter has been selling the i3-7350 at $129.99, the same as the Ryzen 3 1300X, such a comparison with both overclocked to their respective limits would have been interesting.
    I think it is apparent by now that AMD has hit a home run with the Ryzen series/Zen architecture. Their existing APU line was already their only real success in the FX era and I expect the new generation of AMD APUs coming out to build on that. Zen is proving to be a very flexible architecture and from both the R&D and production costs standpoint that is a great development for AMD.
    ATMINSIDE
    Don't know about clock for clock... stock for stock it should be ~30% faster in anything multithreaded for ~60% the price.


    Good to know. My brother in law is on the fence about piecing together his first PC, but is clinging to the old stereotype of "a gaming PC has to be big/expensive". Hoping to part out a mITX/mATX build for him, maybe with one of these chips and a midrange GPU, just to get him going.
    Nice review, was just going over the Newegg pre-order email. I know it's quad core vs dual core but how would these compare against, say, an i3 clock for clock? Just curious on seeing AMD's bottom end chips vs Intel's.