Ryzen 3 1300X $129, 1200 $109 Exc VAT

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jul 14, 2017.

  1. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,083
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I predict an overclocked 8120 will outperform a stock 1300X for your workload. The FX series is better at handling multi-threaded tasks rather than multi-tasking, so despite the 1300X (even overclocked) having better IPC, I think the 8120 would be slightly better for video editing, albeit, a lot more power-hungry. In terms of gaming, I think the 8120 will likely be better for newer titles but the 1300X is better for "last-gen" titles. But again, power consumption, and it wouldn't be a big difference.

    Overall, I wouldn't consider the Ryzen 3 series an upgrade, but rather side-stepping. With an FX 8370, a Ryzen 3 might even be a downgrade. If you had a FX 6000 series CPU, then I'd say a Ryzen 3 would be an upgrade.

    Personally, I'd say cancel the order for the 8370, get yourself a better heatsink (maybe one that will be compatible with a socket like AM4 for future-proofing) and push your 8120 a little harder.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2017
  2. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,793
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    The point of my post was OEM's not DIY. Dell, HP, Compaq and the like will not build many cheep business targeted PC's based on R3 as the added cost of dGPU cuts into margin and adds complexity not needed in that segment. i3 will still rule this segment for likely the next year until AMD APU's hit full swing.
     
  3. Texter

    Texter Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,175
    Likes Received:
    256
    GPU:
    Club3d GF6800GT 256MB AGP
    It should be close enough except for the ridiculous FX power draw. 1300X will probably match a FX-9590 in gaming most of the time, at a 3rd of the latter's thirst for juice.
     
  4. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1,222
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    Reading this thread again reminded me of the fact that it's not the 98% of time when the PC works nicely that you will remember but the 2% of time when you notice something annoying. So, even if 2C was enough for the grand majority of use time, it's still the moments when it's not enough that make you dislike it. Optimally, you should have a CPU that will hardly ever make you notice any slowdowns, no matter what Windows decides to throw at you. Not talking about purposefully running really intensive work here.
     

  5. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,083
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Ah I didn't catch that, my bad. I'm sure you're right about the i3, though existing APUs still make for a decent alternative if you need a little GPU power over CPU.

    Maybe so, but it can also be seen a testament to people's impatience and unnecessary demand for instant gratification. People are so fussy nowadays, where 55FPS "isn't smooth enough", 30Mbp/s Internet is "so slow", 1080p is "low-res", and waiting an extra 2 seconds seems to "take forever". Personally, I don't get why people are willing to spend so much more for such petty gains. What's the rush?

    Optimally, or ideally? Because spending more to give into one's wants (rather than needs) isn't optimal. What would be optimal is if Windows figured out to run updates when the PC has been idle for a while, or if people learned how to manage their tasks better.

    If people want to spend the extra money on something completely avoidable and lower battery life as a result (on laptops, anyway) then by all means, go ahead. But it is easily possible to comfortably use a 2c/4t PC for everyday or office tasks.
     
  6. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1,222
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    It drives development forward! We could still use horses to travel between towns, what's the rush?

    I dare say optimally because in reality i3s should be 4-cores today, not the same 2C/4T they have been for too many years, for the same price, plus general inflation. Things stagnated. Stagnation equals death.
     
  7. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,083
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    There's necessary development to help further productivity, and then there's just blatant impatience. I'm all in favor of software utilizing 8+ threads. I see a real need for hardware like Threadripper and i9. But when people start whining that their i3 isn't loading cat videos fast enough, that's where I draw the line. When people keep tossing random applications at their PC without closing them and whine that things are going too slow, that's where the user is the problem, not the hardware.

    Keep in mind too, progress and innovation stifles whenever people aren't challenged. Software will not be optimized if all you have to do is just slap more cores on or boost the frequency another few hundred Hz. I'm not saying we need to micro-optimize software to the point that NASA did with the AGC, but software is so needlessly bloated nowadays.

    That I completely agree with.
     
  8. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,835
    Likes Received:
    4,748
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8
    something tells me a new i3 will kick this 1300x a** at gaming...?
     
  9. chispy

    chispy Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,061
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    GPU:
    RX 6900xt / RTX3090
    Nice way to finish the cpu portfolio of AMD from top to bottom. This will most likely end up in a lot of cheap , budget oriented gaming PCs. All we need now it's the APU's , i'm eagerly awaiting for those as i want to update my ancient FM1 APU rig for my htpc on the family living room.
     
  10. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,835
    Likes Received:
    4,748
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8
    no intel fan boy here but I can get an i3-7350K and a cheap mobo and be a lot faster at gaming.....period...
     

  11. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,809
    Likes Received:
    3,366
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    At old games, yes. But facing your virtual intent: "Cheap PC" ...
    If Cheap PC is target, then R3 has no problem to drive 60+ fps as well as i3.
    And in cheap PC, GPU will be main bottleneck in both configurations.

    And that i3 will be 1st to drop fps below 60.
     
  12. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,835
    Likes Received:
    4,748
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8
    Nope^...Bet!.....Lol

    i3-7350K can/will kick this cheap processors a**........why you think its so cheap dude?

    Heck I would rather have a bulldozer than this weak thing?....
     
  13. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,809
    Likes Received:
    3,366
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    I am not sure if you do sarcasm and I am that blunt :D
    But: http://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/compare/2556237?baseline=2810818
    Best FX-8350 result vs. generic non OC Ryzen 1400. (Which should be comparable to 2 chips this thread is about, because this geekbench kind of ignores SMT/HT.)

    When you look at that mentioned i3:
    i3-7300: ST ~5000; MT ~10000 (For setting up 4GHz locked chip baseline, so we know approximate OC required by next score.)
    i3-7350k: ST ~6400; MT ~12660 (Approximate 27% OC ~ 5.1GHz)

    Above is vacuum of synthetic tests, next My conclusion:
    There is no Bulldozer consumer CPU for average user which would be better than any released Ryzen.

    i3 from practical standpoint is gaming suicide. It at best turns PC into gaming console and you can forget about multitasking:
    Imagine having Firefox with quite a few tabs and some hungry add or player. One Core of CPU is dead, you can't game on it.
    So you turn your PC into console and have just game running, but then Windows may start any of its scans, and you are done again.

    With modern Win 10, you have to count that one core will be fully used by OS at times. Losing 1 of 2 cores, vs. 1 of 4 cores, vs. 1 of 6 cores, ...
    i3 is simply bad choice if you want to have uninterrupted fun.
     
  14. EspHack

    EspHack Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,694
    Likes Received:
    127
    GPU:
    ATI/HD5770/1GB
    I wonder if they dare set the 1300 at 99$ just to put the new(now overpriced af) HT pentiums on a grill, that g4560 was the budget king at 60$ but now at close to 80-90 if a ryzen quad is only 10$ more I guess intel would have to go back to msrp at least lol
     
  15. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,793
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    That's the miners raising the price of the Pentium not Intel.
     

  16. randomizer

    randomizer Master Guru

    Messages:
    853
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    5600 xt Gaming OC
    I fantasize Microsoft reveal the APU lineup using Surface Pro 6 launch!

    "R3 1200+RX 530 2gb APU with HBM technology"

    NOW that will kick Intel in the balls!!
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2017
  17. JethroTu11

    JethroTu11 Member

    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    GTX 1050ti
    I'd agree. I've been looking at the benchmarks for the R5 1400 and FX-8370. Both cpus are similar priced in the US now. The multithreaded results are about even while the R5 has much better single threaded results.

    I may buy a R3. I want to see how they compare to the other Ryzens in gaming. At the moment I like the R5 1500X. If the R3s give similar results in gaming to the 1500X, I'll probably build my first AM4 system with a R3. This will later allow me to make nice cpu upgrade.

    Thanks AMD. It's good to see you producing good cpus again.
     
  18. fantaskarsef

    fantaskarsef Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,436
    Likes Received:
    4,705
    GPU:
    2080Ti @h2o
    I wonder if such a CPU would be a good upgrade / replacement to my sooner or later dying HTPC (Intel i7 950, socket 1366)?

    I could use everything but the mainboard and chip of course, but would this CPU be enough for light gaming (Hearthstone and the likes)?
     
  19. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,083
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    You wouldn't be able to use your RAM either - Ryzen is DDR4. Your i7 is likely overall worse, but not by a lot (due to the additional threads). If you're on a budget, I'd say keep the i7. If you want a brand new HTPC where you have a smaller and quieter enclosure, I think an Ryzen 3 would make a good choice, though I think the Ryzen-based APUs still make a lot more sense.
     
  20. fantaskarsef

    fantaskarsef Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,436
    Likes Received:
    4,705
    GPU:
    2080Ti @h2o
    It's not so much of a budget choice but to go with Ryzen, just to see how it is, but not necessarily spend 400€ just for mainboard / CPU as I don't really need the performance. :D

    Yes the CPU doesn't do much in my current build, I barely use more than 5% of it, probably Hearthstone stresses it the most (no video encoding or anything, and watching TV / streaming doesn't seem to stress the CPU at all). I'm just thinking ahead, and Intel doesn't seem that attractive for my HTPC setup.
     

Share This Page