AMD’s Ryzen 3 1300X and Ryzen 3 1200 CPUs reviewed

AMD’s CPU division is on a roll. Excuse me while I pinch myself, but the company’s Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 CPUs (as well as its Epyc server chips) have breathed fresh competition into what was until quite recently a stagnant x86 CPU market. AMD has further promised that its Threadripper high-end desktop platform will launch early next month, apparently far ahead of Intel’s higher-core-count Core i9 chips.

This morning, however, AMD’s attention is on the entry-level end of the CPU market. The Ryzen 3 1300X and Ryzen 3 1200 chips launching today demonstrate the scalability of the basic eight-core, two-core-complex (CCX) die that underpins Ryzen and Epyc CPUs. To make Ryzen 3s, AMD disables two of the four cores on each CCX, turns off simultaneous multi-threading, and halves the amount of L3 on board to get four-core, four-thread chips. With those resources at their disposal, the Ryzen 3 1200 and Ryzen 3 1300X seem like ideal competitors for Intel’s various Kaby Lake Core i3s and their pairs of Hyper-Threaded cores.

Model Cores Threads Base clock Boost clock Two-core

boost clock

Max XFR

headroom

L3 cache TDP Price
Ryzen 5 1600X 6 12 3.6 GHz 4.0 GHz ??? 100 MHz 16MB 95W $249
Ryzen 5 1600 3.2 GHz 3.6 GHz 50 MHz 65W $219
Ryzen 5 1500X 4 8 3.5 GHz 3.7 GHz 200 MHz $189
Ryzen 5 1400 3.2 GHz 3.4 GHz 50 MHz 8MB $169
Ryzen 3 1300X 4 4 3.4 GHz 3.6 GHz 3.7 GHz 200 MHz $129
Ryzen 3 1200 3.1 GHz 3.1 GHz 3.4 GHz 50 MHz $109

The end result of all that trimming looks a lot like the difference between the four-core, eight-thread Ryzen 5 1500X and its Ryzen 5 1400 stablemate. The $130 Ryzen 3 1300X starts out at a 3.4 GHz base clock, and it promises a 3.6 GHz all-core boost clock and a 3.7 GHz two-core boost clock. It tops out with 200 MHz of XFR headroom when load and thermals allow, possibly yielding speeds of up to 3.9 GHz in bursty workloads. Those appealing clocks are similar to those of other X chips in the Ryzen family.

The Ryzen 3 1200 offers somewhat less appealing specs. This $110 chip has a 3.1 GHz base clock, a 3.1 GHz all-core boost speed, a 3.4 GHz two-core boost speed, and 50 MHz of XFR on top. Like other non-X Ryzens before it, the Ryzen 3 1200 seems most appealing to overclockers who aren’t going to want or need AMD’s SenseMI voltage-and-frequency-scaling magic. Builders can tweak both the Ryzen 3 1300X and Ryzen 3 1200X to their hearts’ content thanks to the chips’ unlocked multipliers. Both chips come with AMD’s compact Wraith Stealth cooler in the box.

There’s one major challenge for Ryzen 3 beyond mere performance parity, however. No matter what, Ryzen 3 builders (or system integrators) will need a discrete graphics card to make a complete PC. Even if they don’t fancy gaming, end users will need to shell out anywhere from about $40 to $70 on a low-end discrete graphics chip, and they’ll need to spend at the top end of that range to get a part with any sort of modern provenance.

Intel-fancying folks need not endure any such headache. As we’ve come to expect from the blue team’s parts since Sandy Bridge, builders can drop any Kaby Lake Pentium or Core i3 into any Intel motherboard with video outputs to enjoy a machine that’s ready to rumble at no extra cost. AMD says buyers who don’t want the hassle of using a discrete graphics card should consider its now-available-at-retail Bristol Ridge APUs, but those chips hardly seem like appealing Core i3 alternatives at this point.

Regardless of how much they’ve been tweaked and optimized, Bristol Ridge APUs still trace their CPU cores’ heritage through the maligned Piledriver and Bulldozer “modules,” and we already know that Zen handily outpaces a representative of that architecture from our Ryzen 7 testing. Bristol Ridge parts will surely lessen that gap, but we’re betting they won’t come anywhere close to closing it.

On top of our own experience with AMD’s construction cores in 2017, we know that Ryzen APUs are slated for release in the second half of this year. Even within the thermally-constrained mobile market, AMD is promising 50% better CPU performance and 40% higher integrated graphics performance from its Ryzen Mobile APUs with Zen cores and Vega graphics compared to its Bristol Ridge mobile parts. It’s not a stretch to imagine similar APUs will eventually find their way into the AM4 socket, and they would seem to be vastly superior to Bristol Ridge. If you want an AMD APU to power a basic desktop or HTPC, it seems wise to wait.

Now that we know all that there is to know about the Ryzen 3 lineup so far, let’s dive into performance testing.

 

Our testing methods

As always, we did our best to deliver clean benchmarking numbers. We used the following hardware to perform our tests:

Processor Ryzen 3 1200 Ryzen 3 1300X Ryzen 5 1400 Ryzen 5 1500X
Motherboard Gigabyte Aorus AX370-Gaming 5
Chipset AMD X370
Memory size 16 GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type G.Skill Trident Z DDR4-3866 (rated) SDRAM
Memory speed 3200 MT/s (actual)
Memory timings 16-18-18-38 1T 15-15-15-35 1T
System drive Intel 750 Series 400GB NVMe SSD

 

Processor Intel Core i5-7500 Intel Core i3-6100 Intel Core i3-7350K
Motherboard Gigabyte Aorus GA-Z270X-Gaming 5
Chipset Intel Z270
Memory size 16GB
Memory type G.Skill Trident Z DDR4-3600 (rated) SDRAM
Memory speed 3200 MT/s (actual)
Memory timings 15-15-15-35 2T
System drive Samsung 960 EVO 500GB NVMe SSD

They all shared the following common elements:

Storage 2x Corsair Neutron XT 480GB SSD

1x HyperX 480GB SSD

Discrete graphics Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1080 Xtreme Gaming
Graphics driver version GeForce 384.94
OS Windows 10 Pro with Creators Update
Power supply Corsair RM850x

Some additional notes on our testing methods:

  • Our AMD test bed was updated with the latest BIOS based on AMD’s AGESA 1.0.0.6 base firmware.
  • For our Intel test system, we used the Balanced power plan, as we have for many years. Our AMD test bed was configured to use the Ryzen Balanced power plan that ships with AMD’s chipset drivers.
  • Our test systems’ monitor was set to a resolution of 3840×2160 and a refresh rate of 60 Hz. Vsync was disabled in the graphics driver control panel.

Our testing methods are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions, leave a comment on this article or join us in the forums to talk about them.

 

Memory subsystem performance

To get a basic idea of how much data these CPUs can move around, we use the benchmarks built into the handy AIDA64 utility.

 

 

 

With DDR4-3200 in play across the board, Ryzen 3 chips generally enjoy similar or slightly higher theoretical bandwidth than the Intel competition, at the expense of much higher latency. Ryzen 3 doesn’t do anything to change this well-worn story.

Some quick synthetic math tests

AIDA64 offers a useful set of built-in directed benchmarks for assessing the performance of the various subsystems of a CPU. The PhotoWorxx benchmark uses AVX2 on compatible CPUs, while the FPU Julia and Mandel tests use AVX2 with FMA.

Since Intel’s Skylake and Kaby Lake cores have about twice the theoretical AVX throughput as their Ryzen competitors, it’s no shock that dual-core Core i3s and quad-core Ryzens are close competitors in this test. The i5-7500 and its four discrete cores let it double the floating-point performance of the rest of the field as a result of this throughput difference, as well. Otherwise, the Core i3s and Ryzen 3s seem closely matched. Let’s see how that scenario plays out in games.

 

Doom (Vulkan)
Doom likes to run fast, and especially so with a GTX 1080 pushing pixels. The game’s Vulkan mode is an especially hard test for keeping that beast of a graphics card fed. We cranked up all of Doom‘s eye candy at 1920×1080 and went to work with our usual test run in the beginning of the Foundry level.


Doom’s Vulkan renderer generally runs well with most any reasonably capable CPU, but our results do turn out a bit oddly regardless. The Core i3-6100 comes out on top, while the Ryzen 3s land midpack. The Kaby Lake Core i5-7500 and i3-7350K have a much harder time with Doom than we would have expected.


These “time spent beyond X” graphs are meant to show “badness,” those instances where animation may be less than fluid—or at least less than perfect. The formulas behind these graphs add up the amount of time the GTX 1080 spends beyond certain frame-time thresholds, each with an important implication for gaming smoothness.

The 50-ms threshold is the most notable one, since it corresponds to a 20-FPS average. We figure if you’re not rendering any faster than 20 FPS, even for a moment, then the user is likely to perceive a slowdown. 33 ms correlates to 30 FPS or a 30-Hz refresh rate. Go beyond that with vsync on, and you’re into the bad voodoo of quantization slowdowns. 16.7 ms correlates to 60 FPS, that golden mark that we’d like to achieve (or surpass) for each and every frame. And 8.3 ms corresponds to 120 FPS, an even more demanding standard that Doom can easily meet or surpass on hardware that’s up to the task. For that reason, we’ve also added a button for the 6.94-ms mark, or 144 Hz.

None of the chips here give the GTX 1080 any significant trouble at the 16.7 ms or 8.3 ms thresholds, so mash that 6.94 ms button and have a look. Even at this demanding threshold, the Ryzen 3 1300X only perturbs the graphics card for about two seconds of our one-minute test run, and the Ryzen 3 1200 makes it spend about three seconds working on frames past the 8.3 ms mark. Both Ryzen 5s cut that figure down even further, while the i3-6100 seems to have had a lucky day in our test rig, or something. This data doesn’t tell us why our Kaby Lake chips had so much trouble running Doom, relatively speaking. Still, all of these CPUs provide a pleasurable gaming experience in Doom under the Vulkan API.

 

Hitman (DirectX 12)
Hitman‘s DirectX 12 renderer can stress every part of a system, so we cranked the game’s graphics settings at 1920×1080 and got to testing.


Hitman‘s DX12 mode seems to favor a combo of high clocks, high IPC, and lots of threads. Unfortunately, that means both Ryzen 3 chips end up toward the back of the pack in both our average FPS measurement of performance potential and in our 99th-percentile frame time metric of delivered smoothness. Despite its lower clock speed versus the Ryzen 3 1300X, the Ryzen 5 1400’s eight threads appear to let it deliver a much smoother experience overall. That said, the Ryzen 5 1500X comes out on top, and it delivers a significantly smoother experience than any other chip on the bench. Perhaps Ryzens with 8MB of L3 are at a disadvantage in this title compared to the 16MB on board the 1500X.


Checking in at the 16.7-ms threshold, the Ryzen 3 chips both make the GTX 1080 wait more than any other chip here on tough frames that would drop the delivered frame rate below 60 FPS. The Core i3s in our test suite make the GTX 1080 spend considerably less time waiting, and the Core i5-7500 is better yet. The crown still goes to AMD in Hitman, however. The Ryzen 5 CPUs both incur only minuscule delays, and the Ryzen 5 1500X is just one millisecond away from a perfect result at the 16.7-ms threshold.

 

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

With its rich and geometrically complex environments, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided can prove a challenge for any CPU at high enough refresh rates. We recently tweaked our preferred recipe of in-game settings to put the squeeze on the CPU, and it’s proven quite the torture test.


Like Hitman’s DX12 mode, Mankind Divided wants all the CPU power one can throw at it. Once again, the Ryzen 3 contingent ends up trailing the Core i3-6100, and only the most powerful CPUs of this bunch can deliver 99th-percentile frame times below the ever-so-desirable 16.7 ms.


At that crucial 16.7-ms threshold, the Ryzen 3 1200 holds up the graphics card for nearly twice as long as the Ryzen 3 1300X does. The Ryzen 5 1400 marks the point where we’d start considering those disturbances nothing to worry about. Flipping over to the 8.3 ms graph demonstrates that none of these chips are really up to the task of letting the GTX 1080 sustain 120 FPS undisturbed. Still, the Core i5-7500 and Ryzen 5 1500X keep the card waiting for about half the time the Ryzen 3 chips do. The Ryzen 5 1400 exhibits a large delta in the delays it incurs versus the Ryzen 5 1500X. Might be that cache halving at work again, among other things. Whatever it is, the Ryzen 3s still can’t quite catch the i3-6100.

 

Crysis 3

Although Crysis 3 is nearly four years old now, its lavishly detailed environments and demanding physics engine can still stress every part of a system. To put each of our CPUs to the test, we took a one-minute run through the grassy area at the beginning of the “Welcome to the Jungle” level with settings cranked at 1920×1080.


We know that Crysis 3 isn’t really happy with just four threads at its disposal from our past experiences, and our test data here continues to bear that impression out. The serious fuzz in the frame-time graphs for the Ryzen 3s and Core i3s reflects the less-than-smooth gameplay I experienced with the less-powerful chips in our suite. The Ryzen 3 1300X chases the i3-7350K in our average-FPS results, but the unlocked Core i3 still delivers substantially lower 99th-percentile frame times.


Our time-spent-beyond-16.7-ms threshold shows just how far the Ryzen 3 1300X is behind the Core i3-7350K here, and the answer is about a second longer spent working on tough frames. The 1300X can be proud of a handy victory over the Core i3-6100 here, as well. The Skylake dual-core spends about three seconds longer on tough frames that would drop the instantaneous frame rate below 60 FPS, about on par with the Ryzen 3 1200.

 

Grand Theft Auto V
Grand Theft Auto V can still put the hurt on CPUs as well as graphics cards, so we ran through our usual test run with the game’s settings turned all the way up at 1920×1080. Unlike most of the games we’ve tested so far, GTA V favors a single thread or two heavily, and there’s no way around it with Vulkan or DirectX 12.


Surprisingly, Grand Theft Auto V is the first title we’ve tested that really lets the Ryzen 3 1300X demonstrate a clear lead over the i3-6100. It’s not a large lead, granted, but it’s a lead. The Ryzen 3 1200 doesn’t do too badly for itself, either. Note also that every chip here delivers a 99th-percentile frame time comfortably below our preferred 16.7 ms.


As our 99th-percentile frame time numbers predicted, none of our chips spend notable amounts of time past 16.7 ms with GTA V. Flipping over to the demanding 8.3 ms threshold reveals some major differences, though. The Ryzen 3 1300X shaves about two seconds off the time the Core i3-6100 spends working on tough frames past this threshold, its best showing over the Core i3-6100 so far. The Ryzen 3 1200 can’t break free of the back of the pack, though.

 

Watch Dogs 2
Watch Dogs 2 can occupy every thread one can throw at it, so it’s a perfect CPU test. We turned up the eye candy and walked through the forested paths around the game’s Coit Tower landmark to get our chips sweating.

 


Watch Dogs 2 doesn’t improve the fortunes of Ryzen 3 chips. At least the Ryzen 3 1300X can deliver performance on par with that of the Core i3-6100 here. The game especially seems to like the Core i3-7350K’s high clock speed, although the Ryzen 5 1500X and Core i5-7500 still dominate the pack.


The 16.7-ms mark is the most relevant threshold for seeing where tough frames crop up for these chips in Watch Dogs 2, and our time-spent-beyond data shows that the Ryzen 3 1200 struggles especially hard to deliver a smooth gaming experience. Despite their similar 99th-percentile frame times, the Ryzen 3 1300X spends about two more seconds on tough work than the i3-6100 does here. The Core i3-7350K performs substantially better than the i3-6100, nearly halving the amount of time spent working on tough frames versus its 500-MHz-slower cousin. Even so, you’d still need to step up to the Ryzen 5 1500X or Core i5-7500 to really smooth things out.

 

Javascript

Although directed Javascript benchmarks may not be much good for cross-comparing browser performance these days, they still let us get an idea of the responsiveness and speed a CPU can deliver in lightly-threaded tasks like web browsing.

As we’d expect, Ryzen chips generally trail the Skylake and Kaby Lake competition in this test, but not by much. Hot-clocked Core i3-7350K aside, most users shouldn’t notice a huge difference in lightly-threaded tasks while using all but the slowest Ryzen 3 CPUs.

Compiling code in GCC

Our resident code monkey, Bruno Ferreira, helped us put together this code-compiling test. Qtbench records the time needed to compile the Qt SDK using the GCC compilers. The number of jobs dispatched by the Qtbench script is configurable, and we set the number of threads to match the hardware thread count for each CPU.

Our compilation test tells a story that will reverberate through the remainder of our results: if your time is money, it pays to step up to a Ryzen CPU with eight threads or more. The Core i3s and Ryzen 3s aren’t really up to doing this kind of demanding work quickly.

7-Zip file compression

Zipping and unzipping compressed folders is a common desktop task, and the Ryzen 3 1300X leads the four-threaded pack here. Once again, though, higher-performance Intel quad-cores and Ryzen 5 chips with SMT are hard to beat.

VeraCrypt disk encryption

If you rely on full-disk encryption for security purposes, the Ryzen 3 family and Core i3 chips are about equivalent. Peep those Ryzen 5 numbers if you really want swift encrytion throughput, though.

 

Cinebench

 

The Cinebench benchmark is powered by Maxon’s Cinema 4D rendering engine. It’s multithreaded and comes with a 64-bit executable. The test runs with a single thread and then with as many threads as possible.

Intel CPUs take the checkered flag in Cinebench’s single-threaded benchmark, but Ryzen 3 chips pull ahead in the fully multithreaded half of the test. Once again, the Ryzen 5 1500X’s multi-threaded prowess is hard to ignore.

Blender

Blender is a widely-used, open-source 3D modeling and rendering application. The app can take advantage of AVX2 instructions on compatible CPUs. We chose the “bmw27” test file from Blender’s selection of benchmark scenes to put our CPUs through their paces.

You could render complex 3D models on your Core i3 or Ryzen 3 PC at about the same speed, but if time is really money for you in this regard, it would really seem to pay off to grab a Ryzen 5 1500X instead.

Handbrake video transcoding
Handbrake is a popular video-transcoding app that recently hit version 1.0. To see how it performs on these chips, we converted a roughly two-minute 4K source file from an iPhone 6S into a 1920×1080, 30 FPS H.265 .MKV using the x265 encoder’s otherwise-default settings.

Here’s one test where the Ryzen 3 1300X really separates itself from the pack. The hotter-clocked Ryzen 3 sandwiches itself nicely between the pricier Ryzen 5 1400 and Core i3-7350K. Not bad.

LuxMark OpenCL performance

Because LuxMark uses OpenCL, we can use it to test both GPU and CPU performance, and to see how these different types of processors work together. We used the Intel OpenCL runtime for all of the CPUs at hand, since it delivers the best performance under LuxMark for x86 CPUs of all types in our experience.

Luxmark tends to deliver somewhat chaotic results, and this run is no different. In general, we’d bet that Ryzen 3 chips and Core i3 chips pair about as well with graphics cards as one another if OpenCL performance is important to you.

 

Image analysis with picCOLOR

It’s been a while since we tested CPUs with picCOLOR, but we now have the latest version of this image-analysis tool in our hands courtesy of Dr. Reinert H.G. Mueller of the FIBUS research institute. This isn’t Photoshop; picCOLOR’s image analysis capabilities can be used for scientific applications like particle flow analysis. In its current form, picCOLOR supports AVX2 instructions, multi-core CPUs, and simultaneous multithreading, so it’s an ideal match for the CPUs on our bench today. Check out FIBUS’ page for more information about the institute’s work and picCOLOR.

Ryzen 3 1200 aside, the Ryzen 3 1300X and Core CPUs we have on hand are all about as good as each other for running this scientific benchmark. Once again, though, the Ryzen 5 1500X takes the lead.

CFD performance with Euler3D

Euler3D tackles the difficult problem of simulating fluid dynamics. It tends to be very memory-bandwidth intensive. You can read more about it right here. We configured Euler3D to use every thread available from each of our CPUs.

I have a hunch that Euler3D may be reaching the end of its useful life in its currently-available form, since its maintainers admit the benchmark is compiled in a way that’s hostile to AMD CPUs. Might have to see if we can get ’em to recompile it with a more modern and neutral compiler soon.

Digital audio workstation performance

Although digital audio workstation applications tend to strain CPUs enough to deserve the “workstation” label in our experience, we still ran the freshly-available DAWBench DSP 2017 and DAWBench VI 2017 benchmarks on our test rigs to see just how much (or how little) we could do with inexpensive CPUs.

We used the latest version of the Reaper DAW for Windows as the platform for our tests. To simulate a demanding workload, we tested each CPU with a 24-bit and 96 KHz sampling rate, and at two ASIO buffer depths: a punishing 64 and a slightly-less-punishing 128. We then added VSTs or notes of polyphony to each session until we started hearing popping or other audio artifacts. We used Focusrite’s Scarlett 2i2 audio interface and the latest version of the company’s own ASIO driver for monitoring purposes.

A very special thanks is in order here for Native Instruments, who kindly provided us with the Kontakt licenses necessary to run the DAWBench VI project file. We greatly appreciate NI’s support—this benchmark would not have been possible without the help of the fine folks there.

The DAWBench DSP 2017 benchmark relies on a VST that seems to run into other bottlenecks pretty quickly once we lessen the strain of the 64-deep buffer. The Ryzen 3 1300X nips at the heels of the Core i5-7500 at a buffer depth of 64, and it only gets slightly outpaced by the more-expensive Ryzen 5 1400 with a buffer depth of 128. For once, both Core i3s struggle mightily in this test. The Ryzen 5 1500X seems to be the most logical entry point if you need to do serious audio work with your PC, though.

 

The DAWBench VI test really punishes our test lineup at a buffer depth of 64. While the i5-7500 and Ryzen 5 1500X can run the benchmark at those settings, it’s questionable whether that would translate into actual usefulness for DAW applications given how few voices of polyphony either chip can support. The picture is brighter for the Ryzen 3s and Core i3s at a buffer depth of 128, though. The Ryzen 3 1300X matches the Core i3-6100, but the Ryzen 3 1200 just barely gets off the ground.

 

A quick look at power consumption and efficiency

Between our gaming and productivity results, we know that Ryzen 3 chips can hang with Intel’s Core i3s in absolute performance. The flip side of that coin is whether they do it efficiently. We can get a rough idea of the Ryzen 3 1200 and Ryzen 3 1300X’s efficiency by monitoring our test system’s power consumption at the wall with our trusty Watts Up power meter under a test load. We can then estimate the total amount of energy they to complete a task. Our observations have shown us that Blender consumes about the same amount of power at every stage of the bmw27 benchmark we test with, so it’s an ideal guinea pig for this kind of calculation. First, though, let’s check idle and peak load power consumption numbers.

Perhaps because they have two fewer cores active, the Core i3s let our test system consume quite a bit less juice at idle. Under load, however, the field is a little more closely matched. Interestingly, the dual-core Intel parts consume about as much power as the quad-core i5-7500. The Ryzen 3 1300X and Ryzen 5 1500X would seem to suck down the most system power of this lot, but that’s not the whole story about power consumption.

For reference, here’s the amount of time it took each processor to complete our Blender “bmw27” benchmark scene in seconds. To estimate the total power consumed over this period, we can take our observed instantaneous load power consumption numbers and simply multiply watts times seconds to achieve an estimated number of kilojoules.

This visualization of our data suggests the Ryzen 3 CPUs are less efficient than the Core i3 competition, simply because they’re consuming more energy over the period of time it takes them to render our test scene. The Core i5-7500 consumes the least energy over the course of our testing, but the Ryzen 5 1500X only needs a bit more energy to complete the task much faster, so it’s the best chip here if you need both speed and efficiency.

 

Conclusions

Before we issue a verdict on the Ryzen 3 duo, it’s time once again to sum up our gaming and productivity data using our famous value scatter plots. To make our higher-is-better visualization work, we’ve converted the geometric mean of each chip’s 99th-percentile frame times into FPS values. For our productivity chart, we take the geometric mean of all of our real-world testing results to arrive at a final performance index. The best values on these charts tend toward the upper left, where performance is highest and prices are lowest. Where possible, we gathered retail pricing from Newegg for these chips.

Our gaming value charts might mark an interesting turn for what makes a good gaming CPU in 2017. TR has long extolled the value of single-threaded performance to a good gaming experience, but it no longer seems like single-core throughput alone is enough to prevail in situations where games are CPU-bound. Our testing suite of CPU-limited games now seems to want the whole enchilada: fast cores and lots of threads in tandem.

At the entry level of the market, though, one can’t have everything, and so the Ryzen 3 1300X delivers performance potential (as measured by average FPS per dollar) and 99th-percentile FPS per dollar that are right in line with Intel’s Pentiums and Core i3s. Our i3-6100 representative might be slightly outpaced by the newer-and-200-MHz-faster i3-7100, but we wouldn’t expect major variations from these results if you bought the newer chip. The Ryzen 3 1200 trails its sibling in both of our value measures at stock speeds, underscoring the point that it likely needs to be overclocked to shine.

In light of our past experiences with hot-clocked dual-core chips, I was hoping for great things from the Core i3-7350K. Its no-questions-asked 4.2 GHz clock speed matches the Turbo clock of the silky-smooth i5-7600K. However, its 99th-percentile frame times just couldn’t beat even the relatively pokey Ryzen 5 1400, and its performance potential is seemingly no greater than the 1400’s on balance, either. Overclocking might change that result, but paying for a suitable cooler to do so would likely take buyers into Ryzen 5 1500X territory. We just don’t see how it would be worth it.

AMD’s Ryzen 7 family brought the cost of many-core performance out of the stratosphere, and its Ryzen 5 family delivered new levels of multi-threaded performance to the under-$250 bracket. Ryzen 3 CPUs achieve a more modest goal: competitive performance against Intel’s Core i3 family in productivity and gaming. Our tests show that whether one gets four threads from discrete cores or Hyper-Threading, the resulting performance in both work and play is about a wash. That’s good news for AMD, but Ryzen 3 parts will still sell for as much as Core i3s—a fact that I find a bit hard to stomach.

As I noted at the beginning of this review, those prices seem ambitious for one major reason: onboard graphics and Ryzen’s lack thereof. Intel’s similarly-priced Core i3 chips offer a plug-and-play PC build for those who don’t game. That missing graphics processor won’t matter for gamers shopping Ryzen 3, of course, but it matters for the much larger market of basic PCs and home-theater machines out there. The unavoidable need for and cost of a discrete graphics card limits the appeal and design envelope for Ryzen 3 chips. All this will change with the eventual arrival of Ryzen APUs and their Radeon Vega onboard graphics, but for now, Intel would seem to maintain its lock on the basic DIY PC.

Considering Ryzen’s missing integrated graphics, AMD might have considered even more aggressive pricing. A Ryzen 3 1300X for $99 or $109 and a Ryzen 3 1200 for $79 or $89 would have really given us something to talk about for performance-per-dollar, and it would also leave plenty of wiggle room for buyers to squeeze that discrete graphics card into their budgets. Those price points wouldn’t be unprecedented, either: the company’s unlocked and graphics-free Athlons of years past occupied similar brackets. Ryzen 3 chips seem like a perfect successor to those products.

In that light, Intel’s Kaby Lake Pentiums and Core i3s (except the pricey i3-7350K) still have plenty of appeal in the face of the Ryzen onslaught. Kaby Lake chips still have a single-threaded performance advantage that will make basic desktop tasks feel snappier, and more well-heeled Core i3 buyers can add an Optane Memory cache to big hard drives for SSD-like performance from their large Steam libraries and other applications. That might be an appealing prospect given the industry-wide NAND supply crunch that’s occurring right now.

No, you can’t overclock any Core i3 (again, except the pricey i3-7350K), but I feel like that restriction isn’t that choking given Kaby Lake chips’ already-solid performance, high efficiency, and built-in graphics processors for those who need them. Intel also doesn’t seem to lock down memory multipliers on its locked CPUs, so it’s easy enough to run fast RAM with one of those chips for extra performance. Solid-looking Z270 boards are available for about the same price as AMD B350 boards, and USB 3.1 Gen 2 support is about the only thing missing from those inexpensive Intel mobos.

All that said, if you’d rather build an all-AMD budget gaming box with Ryzen 3, I wouldn’t blame you. Socket AM4 motherboards should offer a fine upgrade path to Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 7 CPUs if more computing power is needed down the line, and USB 3.1 Gen 2 support baked in is a nice bonus versus affordable Intel mobos. AMD’s Wraith Stealth cooler is both quiet and pleasant-sounding, too, a nice change of pace from Intel’s bottom-dollar stock coolers of late.

Of the two Ryzen 3 CPUs launching today, I’d grab a Ryzen 3 1300X for its high stock clocks and wide XFR range, but that’s because my patience for overclocking has waned in my old age. Folks willing to spend some time in firmware with the Ryzen 3 1200 may find enough performance left in the tank to make it worth the money saved, and since every dollar matters for gaming machines at this price point, AMD’s unlocked multipliers on the Ryzen 3 1200 could help to move quite a few of those chips in budget gaming builds. Either way, you can’t go wrong, and that should be music to AMD’s ears as the Ryzen buzz continues to build.

Comments closed
    • farmpuma
    • 2 years ago

    Thank you for yet another in your long line of well written and presented reviews!

    I have but one tiny negative comment that’s been bothering for a while. In the code compiling test section I always cringe when I read “code monkey” and I imagine Bruno and the many other software developer on TR having a similar reaction. As a retired electron wrangler may I suggest changing it to code wrangler? “Round ’em up and head ’em out!”

      • mikato
      • 2 years ago

      I agree. The darn review monkeys are at it again. Run this test, benchmark this game, create these charts, edit this text template. 🙂

    • MHLoppy
    • 2 years ago

    I just noticed that the last graph on the final page has the coloring swapped for Intel / AMD on half the CPUs.

    • LoneWolf15
    • 2 years ago

    Good review.

    The conclusions that I draw personally (from a business, not enthusiast perspective), are that Ryzen 5 and 7 make a lot of sense. These are systems where someone is likely to go with an additional discrete GPU, for performance reasons.

    At the low-end, I have a hard time seeing the Ryzen 3 working outside of an enthusiast arena. The cost of a GPU on the mainboard or on a card is an additional step compared to a G4560 or a (bulk–OEM-purchase) i3-7100. The OEMs are going to keep what actually keeps the cost down.

    I really hope Ryzen-based APUs come out soon. I think that the product is a huge win for AMD, but I want them to get the wedge driven in for Dell again, opened for Lenovo, and kept open for HP, places where they’ll gain marketshare that benefits all of the enthusiast-PC people in the process. And whether it’s the most profitable or not, market gains start at the low to mid end.

    • BobbinThreadbare
    • 2 years ago

    I think the i3-7100—if present—would have been the real winner. 200mhz clock speed boost over the 6100 and the same price. Can’t see why’d you pick a Ryzen 3 with less performance and no iGPU over that.

    In the interests of just always asking for more things, I would like to see a Pentium in this lineup too. The G4560 for $80 seems interesting.

    • Concupiscence
    • 2 years ago

    They don’t look like bad chips, exactly. In a pinch I’d replace an aging Core 2 or early Core i* box with one of them and not think twice about it. But just a little more cash buys [b<]so[/b<] much more value, and Agner's notes on Ryzen aren't kidding about how much the architecture benefits from SMT. I know they need a stopgap until the Raven Ridge parts hit (and hopefully start getting AMD a piece of the vastly larger laptop and mobile markets), and paired with a low power card from AMD or Nvidia, either would fare well as a home theater PC. But anyone planning on video encoding at the price point would do well to pony up $20-$30 and snag the 1400, where SMT nets around 40% more performance per clock.

      • ronch
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]Agner's notes on Ryzen aren't kidding about how much the architecture benefits from SMT[/quote<] No kidding. Compare the 1300X to the 1500X. It's crazy how twice the L3 and SMT really wake up those cores.

      • LoneWolf15
      • 2 years ago

      The problem is that for an HTPC, a Kaby i3 has the HD 630 iGPU, which already has hardware HEVC and VP9 decode. Meaning that you don’t need a video card capable of this.

      That’s one of the reasons I picked up an i5-7700T when a deal on one popped up. HD 630, four cores, and a 35w TDP plus the fact that I don’t need a discrete GPU (meaning more power savings) make that, or alternately, an i3-7100 a better choice, or even a G4560 (if you don’t need AVX2). The only exception is is you want to do 1080p or 4k gaming on your TV.

        • Concupiscence
        • 2 years ago

        For a box purely devoted to transcoding media to push over home wi-fi or playing video on a TV, it’s hard to argue with a chip with integrated video. Raven Ridge is sorely needed for that sector, and I’m keen to see what tricks integrated Vega can pull out of its hat. I ran into issues with my Philips HDTV and my i3 4170’s IGP: whenever an application that plays audio exits, it pushes a piercing shriek over the audio channel about 1/3 of the time, every time. That’s not a common edge case, but I didn’t need much encouragement to throw in a better graphics card. The trip from IGP > Radeon 7750 > Geforce GTX 750 Ti > 1050 Ti was a pretty fun one.

          • LoneWolf15
          • 2 years ago

          Odd. I had an i3-4150 for awhile and did not experience that. I wonder if it’s the Philips. I played around with an Iris 5000 iGPU and a Radeon RX-460, but I was having 24p judder issues (believed to be the TV, though it had been fine with earlier CPUs), and an i3-6100 very briefly, but went to a newer TV , early 2012 Panasonic TC-P50GT30 plasma and the i5-7700T and it’s been perfect, no judder at 1080/24p, playback like silk with very low CPU usage. I know earlier Intel iGPUs had trouble syncing at exactly 1080/24p but I think it got fixed going from IB to Haswell.

          If I had to get a card now it’d be a 1050 or 1050Ti. But it hasn’t been necesary so far.

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 2 years ago

        The video capability is the reason to get the [url=https://ark.intel.com/compare/97143,97453,97455,97527,97147,97129<]Pentium G4600[/url<] instead of the slightly-cheaper but much less capable G4560. Raven Ridge APUs should be very interesting for this application.

          • LoneWolf15
          • 2 years ago

          Yes, I completely misspoke myself. The HD 630 is what you want, so the G4600 is a better choice. Nice link.

          Truthfully, I think the iGPU is one of the few reasons to favor Kaby Lake over Skylake (unless you’re starting from scratch). Skylake doesn’t do VP9 decode on-GPU.

          And I agree, I can’t wait to see Raven Ridge. If TDP is in the ballpark, it will be a fun chip to play with, and the best desktop choice for the everyday user AMD has had in years.

    • Anovoca
    • 2 years ago

    I understand why, but never the less, seeing a RYZEN 3 paired with a GTX 1080 just makes me cringe.

    • gru
    • 2 years ago

    AMD, I’m waiting for a Zen APU. When?

      • Zizy
      • 2 years ago

      Officialy: Mobile this year in time for holidays (Q4 2017), desktop early next year (Q1 2018?)

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    What I find interesting here is the comparison between the 1300X and the 1500X. Base and turbo clock speeds for these two are pretty much the same (like, 100MHz apart) but the 1500X has 16MB instead of 8MB of L3 and SMT is enabled. There are some cases where the extra cache and SMT don’t help much but in most cases the difference between these two is very dramatic. That’s the performance SMT and more L3 unlock. Feed those cores!

    Pricing for the 1300X is $130 while the 1500X is $180 right now at The Egg. While you can argue that $50 is still $50, it’s still just $50. And if you’re buying a complete system and you’re spending 4 digits anyway, that $50 gets you a much better computer. Like I said earlier, unless you’re strapped for cash, skip the Ryzen 3 and head on straight to Ryzen 5.

    • D00m3dHitm4n
    • 2 years ago

    My only question is, why didn’t you overclock any of the unlocked CPUs? Not just the Ryzen CPUs, but also i3 7350k. Overclock-ability is a part of any value proposition that a customer will be looking at when building a new system.

      • willmore
      • 2 years ago

      Silicon lottery and small sample size.

        • bandannaman
        • 2 years ago

        Also at least double the work/time required to release the review.

        Although I too no longer give a rat’s ass about overclocking (my time has become too precious to me to deal with the occasional instability, and I can now afford to buy bigger, faster hardware instead), I think overclockability of the platform would be worth its own article.

          • farmpuma
          • 2 years ago

          Since my main use case would be SMP folding @ home, I also can’t help but wonder how far up the multi-threaded productivity charts the 1400 and 1700 would jump with all cores cranked to eleven.

      • bwoodring
      • 2 years ago

      I know in my case, I don’t find overclocking testing to be terrifically valuable. There is just too much variability to make it useful to my decision. So what if they got a really good or really bad CPU? That doesn’t impact the odds I will get a good one.

    • meerkt
    • 2 years ago

    On the topic of prices…

    Using coupon code ITSELECTRIC25,

    Ryzen 1400 for $135:
    [url<]https://jet.com/product/c1efeb3988ab49e4bd1c90e6f566a9ae[/url<] Ryzen 1500X for $164: [url<]https://jet.com/product/2ed46461798941969924403d76f5a14b[/url<]

      • ronch
      • 2 years ago

      I think the 1500X is really the sweet spot for anyone who doesn’t need many cores. It’s practically a lower clocked i7 on the cheap. Not many folks even need an i7 yet here we are, you can get what’s practically an i7 for $165. The fastest mainstream 4C i7 models were stuck at ~$340 for so many years. Think about that.

      As an aside, when Ryzen came out and offered more cores for similar money as Intel does, people suddenly say more cores are the future when most of us said we didn’t need 8 cores as recently as last year when we only had the FX. Suddenly, everyone wanted and cheered for more cores just because it’s now more affordable. Funny.

      Bottomline, for $165 or so you can either get a ‘high end’ i3 or a ‘low end’ i7 (quotes very much intentional). I know which one I’d choose.

      • Ruiner
      • 2 years ago

      MC is selling the 1500x for 180 with a $50 mobo combo discount. It’s tempting to finally make the trip across the (Ivy) bridge.

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        Newegg now has the 1500X for $180 too. Not sure if they’re also offering a combo deal though. I once shrugged off the 1500X but soon realized the Ryzen 7 is ultrakill and I might as well settle down to what’s essentially a 4770K for almost half the price.

    • Delta9
    • 2 years ago

    Would like to have seen how these chips fair when overclocked. Without the overclocked performance we are kind of missing out on the value proposition for gamers on a budget. If you are building a budget box to game chances are that Intel IGP is going to sit there and not get used. I think that overclocked the 1200 would make a much better value proposition than the 6100 due to its locked multiplier, IGP or no IGP. It also makes the unlocked i3 more compelling as well.

    • coolflame57
    • 2 years ago

    [quote=”Jeff Kampman”<] Regardless of how much they've been tweaked and optimized, Bristol Ridge APUs still trace their CPU cores' heritage through the maligned Piledriver and Bulldozer "modules," and we already know that Zen handily outpaces a representative of that architecture from our Ryzen 7 testing. [b<]Bristol Ridge[/b<] parts will surely lessen that gap, but we're betting they won't come anywhere close to closing it. [/quote<] The bolded section should be Raven Ridge, unless I'm mistaken? (Which I may as well be)

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      He’s right. Bristol Ridge (which theoretically “launched” today too with minimal celebration) is a temporary solution that will slightly “close the gap” until Raven Ridge launches and actually closes the gap with 4-core RyZen parts (since it is a 4-core RyZen part).

        • ptsant
        • 2 years ago

        Although I couldn’t find a test for Bristol Ridge AM4 parts, I believe that people have been considerably underestimating the differences between bulldozer family generations.

        Vishera is a 2012 part. Excavator is much more recent and it’s also 28nm (vs 32nm). So although the FX chips have always been outperforming the APUs (8 vs 4 cores and L3 cache), I do believe that Excavator is much more competitive (per core, per watt) than the FX8350 that we see in most tests vs Zen.

        So, Raven Ridge CPU will be faster but not 2x faster than Excavator (like Ryzen vs Vishera). The GPU performance will be much better thanks to 11 vs 8 GCN clusters, DDR4 and more efficient, recent GCN version.

          • kalelovil
          • 2 years ago

          AMD claims 50% faster CPU, 40% faster GPU, whilst using half as much power compared to Bristol Ridge.
          [url<]https://techreport.com/news/31918/ryzen-mobile-apus-are-coming-to-a-laptop-near-you[/url<] (Although they also claimed Vega would have significantly greater performance/watt than Polaris, and that currently looks unlikely)

            • Voldenuit
            • 2 years ago

            [quote<](Although they also claimed Vega would have significantly greater performance/watt than Polaris, and that currently looks unlikely)[/quote<] Actually, the official claim was "Such performance, much watts, very Vega."

      • cygnus1
      • 2 years ago

      Bristol Ridge are the recently released excavator based APUs. Raven Ridge is Zen based APUs. Raven Ridge will be in laptops this year and possibly AM4 desktop form next year.

      [url=http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AMD-Raven-Ridge-APU-Specs-and-AMD-Pinnacle-Ridge-CPU-Specs.png<]Roadmap Link[/url<] edit: got sniped by chuckula

        • coolflame57
        • 2 years ago

        It appears I was mistaken. (No surprise there)

    • Shobai
    • 2 years ago

    I may have missed a couple throughout the rest of the review, but your last paragraph talks about an “R3 1400” a couple of times – I’m guessing that should be the R3 1200.

    • Zizy
    • 2 years ago

    Mostly as expected, these parts are interesting for e-sports gaming. Or some ok-ish entry level workstation where you want certified drivers on the lowend GPU. So, it isn’t completely pointless chip, and offers 4 ok cores at low prices.

    But for office use, HTPC and similar? Just don’t bother until APUs launch next year, and just grab G4560.
    I don’t understand why didn’t AMD request one of board manufacturers to put some cheapo GPU on their board and connect it to the outputs. It wouldn’t cost more than 10$ and would be possibly even free if AMD just gave them a stock of cheapo GPUs to be put on such boards – to make Ryzen more attractive.

    • synthtel2
    • 2 years ago

    What is going on with memory timings here? Were the new chips unstable at 15-15-15-35?

    • AMDisDEC
    • 2 years ago

    Half decent review.

    Like to have seen less gaming, more real world productivity and more Linux compatibility.

    These chips are going to sell bit time. I may even build a few systems for my nieces and load Ubuntu since Microsoft will probably buy them next year.

    Lisa Su is on a roll and I don’t expect it to stop until she fills in all the gaps. I can’t wait until the APU is released.

      • synthtel2
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]load Ubuntu since Microsoft will probably buy them next year.[/quote<] What?

        • Redocbew
        • 2 years ago

        This way madness lies.

        • ptsant
        • 2 years ago

        Maybe he is referring to this:
        [url<]https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/commandline/wsl/install_guide[/url<] You can actually install ubuntu linux under windows 10 via the app store... Seems much more tempting that dual boot.

          • just brew it!
          • 2 years ago

          As long as all you care about is CLI, yeah it’s a nice (and cleaner) alternative to Cygwin. Good luck getting a Linux GUI DE to work smoothly though.

          • synthtel2
          • 2 years ago

          None of “buy”, “next year”, and “probably” apply to that.

            • ptsant
            • 2 years ago

            I didn’t say they will buy them, however Microsoft went from not even acknowledging that Linux exists to actually helping people use CLI tools within windows 10.

            What I’m saying is that MS may have an (undisclosed) Linux strategy. Buying companies (or not) may be part of that plan. Can’t say I expect them to buy Ubuntu, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they offered transparent access to linux VMs or something similar for some version of windows.

            Finally, don’t forget that MS was buying almost any visible threat in the past. They seem much more quiet now, but they were very aggressively buying their opponents off business for more than a decade. If they feel threatened by a $1B company, it may make more financial sense to buy them for $2B instead of spending $10B to become more competitive in that field (which is what we would prefer, obviously).

        • AMDisDEC
        • 2 years ago

        You heard it here first!

          • synthtel2
          • 2 years ago

          [insert skepticism here]

            • AMDisDEC
            • 2 years ago

            While eating booger from nose.

            • synthtel2
            • 2 years ago

            Trying to make it personal because I don’t believe something very implausible that you aren’t backing up in the slightest? Cool story bro.

            • AMDisDEC
            • 2 years ago

            Don’t tase me Bro humor. Rad.

        • Demetri
        • 2 years ago

        It’s all part of his big plan to get Lisa-senpai to notice him.

          • AMDisDEC
          • 2 years ago

          Sorry bird brain, Lisa don’t do TR

            • CuttinHobo
            • 2 years ago

            I’d hate to burst your bubble but Lisa won’t do you, either. 😛

            • AMDisDEC
            • 2 years ago

            Hobo, I am your father

            • CuttinHobo
            • 2 years ago

            No… No! That’s not true! That’s impossible!

            • AMDisDEC
            • 2 years ago

            Yes son.
            Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

      • jihadjoe
      • 2 years ago

      When’s the last time you’ve seen a system that felt slow doing ‘real world productivity’? For actual office work that makes use of Word or Excel even an old Pentium is quick enough.

        • AMDisDEC
        • 2 years ago

        Who said anything about Word or excel.
        When is the last time you used COMSOL or did any CAD work?

          • Waco
          • 2 years ago

          When is the last time those products made up a measurable segment of the market buying $110 non-professional line CPUs?

            • AMDisDEC
            • 2 years ago

            Good question, but personally, I haven’t the motivation to try to find out.
            I use AMD exclusively, and haven’t given a dime to Intel or Microsoft in 10 years.
            The peaks and valleys AMD has gone through over the last 10 years has it’s good and bad aspects.
            The bad is pretty obvious, but the good aspect is, with intelligent timing, it has enabled getting a much greater ROI on stock than I could with Intel.

            • Waco
            • 2 years ago

            Using AMD exclusively doesn’t reinforce your position in any way.

            • AMDisDEC
            • 2 years ago

            Which of my positions are you making emotional assumptions about?
            Never mind explaining what you meant.
            All of my positions are well thought out, strategic and more than good enough for my purposes.

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 2 years ago

        I encounter plenty of slow systems trying to do real world productivity tasks at my workplace.

          • AMDisDEC
          • 2 years ago

          Perhaps your IT pro (:p)made decisions based on Doom performance?

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 2 years ago

            Maybe my IT pro bought whatever hardware was cheapest, whether it could handle our corporate software packages or not.

            • LoneWolf15
            • 2 years ago

            And chose hard drives, `cuz cheaper than SSDs. But buying what is cheapest usually comes at management/accounting request, sadly.

    • Dposcorp
    • 2 years ago

    Excellent review Jeff.
    As someone running a i7-6700 and i3-6100, I think the IGP adds enough value to the CPU to stick with intel for a lot of builds; I wish AMD would have included something, no matter what. They can still do it, using the old school method of putting it on the motherboard chipset.

    Just for trouble shooting it is worth have basic on board video.

    Not surprised that the i3-6100 did so well.
    I have believed for a long time that normal i3 Kaby and Sky cpus are great chips for most builds,
    since with no turbo, they are clocked pretty good at stock and give you 4 threads.

    for now, I still dont feel a need to upgrade.

      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      Well, these are placeholders from AMD for now to fill the market for people wanting a CPU to drive a dedicated GPU.

      The APUs you’re wanting won’t appear until the fall at the earliest, but more likely Q1 2018.

        • Dposcorp
        • 2 years ago

        It all depends on how those APUs are configured.
        You have finite thermal range / die area that has to be devised between CPU and GPU.
        The Kaby/Sky i3 range does really well without a mid-range GPU, and really well with one. That is good balance.

        If you look at the review again, the i3-6100 is almost always close to the middle, and does that at a comparable price AND with integrated video. That new APU better keep pace in the non-gaming benchmarks to top the i3 line

    • Unknown-Error
    • 2 years ago

    Raven Ridge couldn’t come sooner

    • derFunkenstein
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<] The DAWBench VI test really punishes our test lineup at a buffer depth of 64. While the i5-7500 and Ryzen 5 1500X can run the benchmark at those settings, it's questionable whether that would translate into actual usefulness for DAW applications given how few voices of polyphony either chip can support.[/quote<] It's been a while, but I've very rarely gone beyond 20 tracks. At home, this is probably good enough, even at 64 samples. If you're in a studio doing this for a living and you're spending $100,000 on preamps, mics, acoustic treatment, and the like, you can spring for a higher-end CPU. 😆

    • Voldenuit
    • 2 years ago

    Agree that Ryzen 3 looks like a stopgap until the new APUs come out. Still, though, having half the silicon on a package disabled to get to a 4/8 setup… ouch.

    Can someone do some latency testing to figure out if the 4 core parts have one fully disabled CCX, or if there are some 2+2 (or even 3+1) parts out there?

    EDIT: [url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/07/amd-ryzen-3-1300x-1200/<]According to ars[/url<] the Ryzen 3 parts are 2+2 units. Still, might be interesting to verify.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 2 years ago

      From TR’s review:

      [quote<] To make Ryzen 3s, AMD disables two of the four cores on each CCX, turns off simultaneous multi-threading, and halves the amount of L3 on board to get four-core, four-thread chips.[/quote<]

      • Zizy
      • 2 years ago

      4+0 is just not useful bin. It would require 3 or 4 dead cores in one CCX, while the other is completely fine. Not completely impossible, but it should be extremely rare (and those 3 dead in one CCX can be still used for Epyc).

      • maxxcool
      • 2 years ago

      Problem will be the APU’s will not have as much on die cache.. i imagine less than half.

    • Voldenuit
    • 2 years ago

    Hi Jeff, can we get a table on the first or second page with core counts, cache and frequency? I had to google to refresh my memory that the 1500X was a 4/8 part with 16 MB of L3, and that the 1600 was a 6/12 with 16 MB L3.

    EDIT: Thanks!

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 2 years ago

      Added.

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    Ryzen’s lack of an IGP becomes more critical as you go down the price tiers, eh? Then again I’m guessing they’re prioritizing higher models with fatter margins.

      • DPete27
      • 2 years ago

      But why even waste your time at the Ryzen 3 level? Spend those precious design hours on getting Raven Ridge to market. Ryzen 3 seems like a pointless stop-gap.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        [quote<] precious design hours[/quote<] Plus all the gas you have to spend on the tiny chainsaws

          • K-L-Waster
          • 2 years ago

          Has anyone told the Dremel people about this? I smell opportunity!!

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        They need to plug every hole in their lineup. Personally I’d advise anyone not strapped for cash to just spend a bit more and get even a 1400, if $250 is a bit too much for the 1600X. Heck even the 1500X looks compelling at $190.

          • Redocbew
          • 2 years ago

          Yesterday I’m in the weirdest tangent ever and now I almost agree with Ronch. Weird.

          Plugging every hole is clearly what they’re trying to do. They could have spaced these launches out more if they wanted to funnel people more towards the higher end chips. Ryzen 5 was released just a few weeks after Ryzen 7, and now we’ve got a Ryzen 3 which is of questionable utility. It seems like AMD just wants to replace chips that suck with chips that don’t and then worry about everything else later.

          If I was strapped for cash and looking for a build though, I wouldn’t pay $190 for a CPU at all. 🙂

            • SomeOtherGeek
            • 2 years ago

            LOL! Sorry about that. I enjoyed it tho.

            • Redocbew
            • 2 years ago

            It’s cool. No worries.

            • ronch
            • 2 years ago

            I didn’t say anyone strapped for cash could get the 1500X. That’s higher up the ranks.

            • Redocbew
            • 2 years ago

            The 1400 at 160ish is still more than I’d pay for a budget build. If it was 160-ish with an IGP, then maybe.

            • ronch
            • 2 years ago

            Um, recap:

            “Personally I’d advise anyone not strapped for cash to just spend a bit more and get even a 1400”

            $165 for the 1400 is too much if one is swamped with fat bills to pay.

            • Redocbew
            • 2 years ago

            [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qcccZy03s<]I reject your reality, and substitute my own.[/url<]

    • willmore
    • 2 years ago

    If you want to consider that the Ryzen chips lack a GPU while the corresponding Intel chips include one, then you’ll need a different set of benchmarks using a ‘naked’ Intel CPU vs a Ryzen+GPU.

    The testing in the review is always CPU+1080 and would bear no relation to the results you would get in the other scenario.

    So, if you want to question the price points of the chips, do so, but the existing data can’t be used to support any kind conclusion at this point.

      • RAGEPRO
      • 2 years ago

      With the exception of the LuxMark OpenCL testing, all of the non-gaming tests will be essentially unchanged regardless of what graphics adapter is used. Saying that they “bear no relation” is literal nonsense.

        • willmore
        • 2 years ago

        And in what sense does the IGP matter in those tests? Try rereading.

          • RAGEPRO
          • 2 years ago

          Because you could perform those tests with the IGP on the Intel chips. You can’t perform them with the IGP on the Ryzen chips. Because there isn’t one. Ergo, it affects the value proposition.

            • willmore
            • 2 years ago

            Which is what I was saying. But you’re missing the other side. You have to include the price of the GPU in the Ryzen calculation.

            • RAGEPRO
            • 2 years ago

            [quote=”RAGEPRO”<]Because you could perform those tests with the IGP on the Intel chips. You can't perform them with the IGP on the Ryzen chips. Because there isn't one. Ergo, it affects the value proposition.[/quote<]What did you think I meant by "it affects the value proposition"?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 2 years ago

      in the gaming tests, sure. In the CPU-only tests, the results should be pretty darn comparable.

        • willmore
        • 2 years ago

        Still effects power draw and cost of the Ryzen systems–and helps the Intel systems as they don’t have to power an idling 1080.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 2 years ago

          True, true, but based on TR’s [url=https://techreport.com/review/30281/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-graphics-card-reviewed/13<]1080 review[/url<] the 1080 isn't drawing much at idle in the first place. edit: or maybe Tom's is better, since [url=http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-pascal,4572-10.html<]they measure card consumption[/url<]. An average of 7 watts.

            • willmore
            • 2 years ago

            That’s quite impressive.

      • ronch
      • 2 years ago

      If you want upthumbs you need to agree with the review. Otherwise people here will not like you.

      And everyone says fanbois are crazy.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        No, his assertion that using a 1080 for CPU-only tasks would be completely invalidated in an iGPU-equipped scenario is kind of wrong.

    • DPete27
    • 2 years ago

    I really feel that Kaby Lake Pentiums should have been mentioned more than in passing. Considering that the i3-6100 performance sits somewhere between the $80 Pentium G4560 and the $86 G4600 I’m dissapointed those didn’t even make it into the testing and scatter plots. THAT’S the pricepoint the Ryzen 3’s are going up against.

      • Mr Bill
      • 2 years ago

      +1 Bump
      Consider the poor overclocking potential of AMD’s current APU’s (albeit different core design). I have a 7870 and it throttles very easily. These little Ryzen 3’s might be better at overclocking without an IGP than with.

        • DPete27
        • 2 years ago

        Looks like the Ryzen 3 1300X can hit 3.9GHz and the 1200 can hit 3.7GHz on all cores pretty reliably. Thats 8% and 26% respectively. Pretty decent for the R3-1200 and translates loosely into about a 20% improvement in gaming performance for that chip which would put it near the performance of the i3-7350K at stock clocks.

        I think the R3-1200 would actually beat the price/performance trendline between Kaby Lake Pentiums and the stock i3-7350K by a smidge if you’re looking for a budget CPU to go into a gaming rig.

        Also, not many of the stalwart review sites OC’d their Ryzen 3 samples, which seems odd. Perhaps they didn’t have much time to test? That’s definitely a potential gap that TR could fill in the current literature considering their nice price/performance scatter plots. [b<]HINT HINT[/b<]

    • ludi
    • 2 years ago

    Good review and a fair conclusion. No iGPU, no sale, especially for system integrators selling small-form-factor office machines in four- or five-digit quantities. Not sure what this part’s real purpose is except to ape Intel’s 3/5/7 marketing strategy without understanding [i<]why[/i<] the i3 and i5 are positioned so well in the OEM space.

      • slaimus
      • 2 years ago

      I have not seen much desktop i3/i5s in production systems. The low end OEM market is almost all laptops or SFF desktops with laptop CPUs. The 1300x compares well against the i5 7400, which is an often recommended budget CPU: [url<]http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/1/3886vs3930[/url<]

      • spiritwalker2222
      • 2 years ago

      My HTPC case doesn’t have room for a graphics card. Full height, half height, nothing will fit in there.

      Surprised to see Ryzen 3 don’t have IGP’s.

        • smilingcrow
        • 2 years ago

        It’s been known for probably over a year that the desktop APUs won’t be out until much later which might mean 2018.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 2 years ago

    Is it weird that the Ryzen 3 far outpaces Ryzen 5 on some of those theoretical memory benchmarks? AIDA64 memory write performance, in particular, is quite different. No comment as to why? The Ryzen 5 1400 in particular looks bad there. Not even a note of the difference.

    [s<]The buttons on the frame time graph on the Doom page do nothing.[/s<] - this appears to be fixed. I like the value scatter plots but I miss power consumption numbers. The Core i3-7350K doesn't look all that great anymore. Non-gaming apps are better on the Ryzen 3 1300X. AM4 motherboards are generally a few bucks cheaper than comparable LGA1151 boards, too (especially if you're overclocking because you need a Z270 board for that, where AM4 can OC on B350). That'll help make up the difference where you have to buy a GPU. If you want to play games anyway and want to OC a CPU, the Ryzen 3 1200 looks like a seriously good buy. The real winner is still the Ryzen 5, though, which is nice for enthusiasts on a ~$800-1000 budget. Things have changed quite a bit since March. The platform is much more solid and I can get something approaching my (unoptimized) RAM's XMP timings with little fuss. Now if only AMD could turn these things into money...

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 2 years ago

      Power consumption is coming later today.

        • chuckula
        • 2 years ago

        Power consumption doing a basic task like HEVC video playback using the IGP in any of the Intel parts vs. the RyZen parts with some sort of lower-end GPU would also be quite interesting.

        At this hardware level we aren’t focusing on the ultimate gaming machine but on real-world uses like watching high definition video.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 2 years ago

          I initially thought AMD might lose that one quite handily, but the GTX 1080 manages to only draw 7W at idle (Tom’s review, linked elsewhere). Maybe it wouldn’t be as far apart as we think.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        Great!

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        I like the scatter plot visualization that shows both total energy and time. Stuff in the lower-left would be ideal, right? Ryzen 5 and Core i5 definitely steal the show in those cases (for different reasons)

      • juampa_valve_rde
      • 2 years ago

      I’m not surprised by the bandwidth results, 4 cores less, 12 threads less, that makes a lot less traffic to snoop. That’s also probably the reason to launch EPYC 7251 with lower core count but full quad channel for intensive RAM usage and density.

      • blahsaysblah
      • 2 years ago

      I have to agree 100% with TRs conclusion, not sure of value proposition of Ryzen 3.

      In real world, you need to spend(just checking newegg) around $70 to get an HDMI 2.0 port, $25 to get HDMI 1.x, again $70 to get more than one HDMI port, $70 for displayport,…

      G4600-ish seems much better value. $130 is not far off from $200, much better off waiting a month to save money for 1600X and friends. Besides all the folks that only need basic iGPU.

        • K-L-Waster
        • 2 years ago

        Agreed — without onboard graphics these are effectively priced out of the market for non-gamers. The price matches the i3 competition, but then you need to buy a graphics card.

        So you’re stuck with gamers who can live with lower performance but still have the budget for a graphics card or business users who will get a graphics card for multi-monitor output.

        An APU based on one of these would make the value proposition a lot better for AMD.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        I get ya, but I understand the pricing. If yields are as good as AMD fanboys would have you believe, then AMD is selling fully-capable parts with strictly market-driven hobbled performance. They can’t just give away too much performance.

        Zen APUs will fix that…someday…

          • DPete27
          • 2 years ago

          Yields may be good, but every process has it’s share of defects. AMD would be smart to put their defects into the Ryzen 3 lineup instead of artificially hobbling perfectly good Ryzen chips that could be sold as Ryzen 5s. Not like Ryzen 3 will grab any significant portion of the market away from Kaby Lake Pentiums and i3/i5s anyway.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            Sure they would. But what if they have more good dies than they have demand for Ryzen 7? That’s what I’m getting at – how many fully-capable dies are they selling hobbled? Nobody knows.

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 2 years ago

        Just getting to a Ryzen 5 1400 seems like a way better deal than any Ryzen 3.

      • TravelMug
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]The Core i3-7350K doesn't look all that great anymore.[/quote<] To be honest, it never did. It was an awful product from the get go.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        A fair point – the price was always higher than it should have been.

      • mtcn77
      • 2 years ago

      The timings are different. Probably different bios revisions also.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This