The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X and Ryzen 3 1200 CPU Review: Zen on a Budget
by Ian Cutress on July 27, 2017 9:30 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- AMD
- Zen
- Ryzen
- Ryzen 3
- Ryzen 3 1300X
- Ryzen 3 1200
Power Consumption
For our power consumption readings, we run a Prime 95 load and slowly ramp up the number of threads in play, taking power data from the internal CPU registers that report for when turbo modes or thermal modes should activate. Depending on the CPU access, we can get data that varies from the full package down to individual cores, uncore, integrated graphics and DRAM controllers.
For the Ryzen CPUs, the API pulls out the total package power consumption first.
At idle, all the CPUs are pretty much equivalent. The cores are fully idle here, leaving the rest of the chip active enough for tick-over. As we ramp up the load, the higher-frequency Ryzen CPUs move towards their 65W TDP, with the Ryzen 3 1300X almost being spot on at 64.2W. The Intel CPUs are clocked higher, but only have two cores to contend with. The Ryzen 3 1200 is clocked lower than the Ryzen 3 1300X, hitting a better efficiency point in the Zen design. This ultimately bodes well for upcoming quad-core SKUs in laptops.
One of the odd things about the power consumption of the Ryzen 3 CPUs is the difference between how much power the cores internally measure compared to the full power consumption of the package measured as a whole, including the Infinity Fabric, DRAM controllers, IO and such. For the Ryzen 3 1200 for example, at full load the package has a power consumption of 40.43 W total, but the cores only count for 23.05W, leaving 17.38W on the table for the non-core elements in the chip. If we compare that to the Ryzen 5 1500X, we have 68.79W for the package and 49.69W for the cores, a 19.1W difference. For the Ryzen 7 1700X, it becomes 81.51W for the package and 62.10W for the cores, a 19.4W difference.
On the high-end chips, the difference is a smaller portion of the full power consumption, but on the Ryzen 3 processors the cores are only 57% of the power consumption, leaving 43% for the rest of the chip. A lot of this power could be the inter-CCX infinity fabric path, which means that packages like EPYC are giving away a lot of power to IF. If it is more other features, it could spell a number of problems for upcoming mobile chips, limiting the lower bounds of the power consumption. Naturally, I actually want to get my hands on to an EPYC processor in my own lab to see if we can pin down what is happening here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
140 Comments
View All Comments
Teknobug - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link
Guess the Rzyen 3 1300X isn't much of an upgrade over my other PC which is i5 3550 (OC'd to 3.9GHz) system then.jamyryals - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link
It's great to have some competition going on again!Mumrik - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link
If you run a 0% line horizontally through a graph like you do on page 17, and especially if it actually moves around a bit from graph to graph, I'd suggest making that line thicker than the others.harobikes333 - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link
AMD pretty much has all the CPU segments covered <3Planning on a build soon!
LostPassword - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link
i know a lot of people will say it doesn't matter. but the beauty about these ryzen 3 is that they are unlocked. i see alot of youtubers hit 3.7-3.8ghz on stock cooler.Oxford Guy - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link
Tom's Hardware used 3200 RAM for its review. I suggest reading that one because it paints a different picture than this one which uses slow RAM.Mugur - Thursday, August 3, 2017 - link
I think the author missed the point with this review: Ryzen 3 is obviously targeted towards gaming to a very tight budget, not B2B, not Enterprise, not Office, etc...Of course, this doesn't mean that certain cpu benchmarks shouldn't be used, but the test bed should definitely include overclocking (using the included Stealth cooler) and 3200 Mhz RAM (I wonder about AGESA 1006?). I don't care as much for "normalizing" benchmarks and Anandtech bench (a useful tool though), but just make me see how those 2 cpus are performing in the kind of environment they will be used. And add 2 entry level cards like RX 560 and GTX 1050/Ti; I know the reason about using a high end graphics card and I agree on paper, but this is not how those cpus will be used. It's an academical exercise.
Not everything should be a PhD dissertation, especially for this low level, budget components. If I have to reconmmend someone a cheap gaming machine I need to know whether a Ryzen 1200@3.9 Ghz + 8 GB 3200 DDR4 + RX 560 4 GB is a viable option (or not), better than a G4560 + 8 GB 2400 + GTX 1050 for example, especially in the long run.
Oxford Guy - Friday, August 11, 2017 - link
Worrying about RAM speed when you're using a low-grade GPU is unwise. You'll be very GPU-limited most of the time.No, what this review needed was 3200 RAM plus relevant GPUs. At the very least the 3000 speed RAM in the machine they tested with shouldn't have been heavily downclocked.
chiname - Saturday, November 18, 2017 - link
This actually depends on where you live.I did a pc a week ago.It's just an small entry level pc for kids to play some games.The price to performance was favoring AMD.I really wouldve liked to get an intel i3 7100 but the cost was higher than the 1200 amd.So hench we went with amd.Complete amd pc cost 6.5k include gfx card.intel wouldve cost us over 8k.
John_M - Sunday, April 29, 2018 - link
"We’re still working through our gaming testing as this review goes live, and we’ll add graphs for that in a bit."I've read that so often on this site but the promise is seldom fulfilled.