- Joined
- Nov 1, 1998
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
FRONTPAGE AMD Ryzen 3 1200 and 1300X CPU Review
- Thread starter Overclockers.com
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
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.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
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.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
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.
"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.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
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.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2015
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.
"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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
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.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
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.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
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!
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
New 7350ks are going for as low as 124.99 w/free shipping on ebay this morning, USA.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2015
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?
Similar threads
