POST A COMMENT

138 Comments

Back to Article

  • HollyDOL - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Ian hasn't failed us. Thorough review on day one. Now to read it whole :-) Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Results are still coming in for the 1300X, this will take another day or two and I'll add in the graphs but all the Ryzen 3 1200 data is in Bench.

    Each of the 3 GPUs still to go is about 5 hrs each to test, Chrome Compile and SYSMark is another 10 hr. I've still got results for the 7300 coming in as well on my second test-bed.
    Reply
  • srkelley5 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Thank you! I know that it's more work, but is there any chance of getting charts that compare these results against Vishera cpu's? Reply
  • 0ldman79 - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    Seconded.

    It is a shame that we still don't have a direct comparison between AMD's big CPU from last gen vs the current generation.
    Reply
  • StevoLincolnite - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    Can't compare my Sandy-Bridge-E 3930K either.
    Or the Phenom 2 x6...
    Reply
  • 0ldman79 - Wednesday, August 02, 2017 - link

    It looks like a lot of the information is already on the bench, just formatted differently.

    Shame.
    Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link

    I've got a regression testing project ongoing which is taking most of my regular time to get sorted. More details soon. Reply
  • AndrewJacksonZA - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Thanks for your hard work, Ian (and team?) We appreciate it. I must say, I'm impressed with what this 1300X can do - and for only $130 too!

    Correction on the last graph: the X-axis title says, well, "Title." :-)
    Reply
  • ddriver - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    You should do relative x scale for the price/performance charts. It will be more informative than absolute scale, besides, how many CPUs under 50$ are there, and how many go as low as 0$? Reply
  • coolhardware - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Agreed, thank you for the review Ian! I've been waiting for a nice Ryzen close to the $100 price point, the 1300X is close enough in price for me and I like what I read in the review.

    Especially interested to see how performance in my daily work compares to my trusty 2500K and some more modern i7 mobile CPUs.

    Excited to pick one of these up! :-)

    NewEgg shows 7/31 release:
    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N...

    Amazon usually ships faster for me so I plan on ordering from them:
    http://amzn.to/2v1fJqh (url shortened)

    PS Does MicroCenter usually have CPUs in store on launch day?
    Reply
  • Gavin Bonshor - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    One of the hardest working men in the industry! :D Reply
  • edlee - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I dont understand the point of making a $100 cpu without an integrated gpu if you wanted to attract the lower end market, this is really silly mistake. Sort of like intel including an integrated gpu with i7-7700k, it doesnt make sense, 95% of those with a 7700k will buy a gpu, but someone who is looking for a lowend cpu is not going to buy a discrete graphics cards, its just silly Reply
  • phoenix_rizzen - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    It really depends on the use case.

    For example, are there any integrated GPUs that support 3 monitors? I know a lot of them support dual monitors, but haven't come across any that support 3 (although I haven't looked that hard). My work PC is a low-profile desktop running an AMD Athlon-II x4 CPU and an Nvidia 730 GT GPU for tri-monitor setup. Upgrading the CPU/motherboard/RAM to a Ryzen 3 1300X would be a huge upgrade for this system.

    90-odd % of the desktops in the schools here use AMD Athlon-II CPUs (graphics integrated into the chipset), with the rest using Intel Pentium CPUs (graphics integrated into the CPU). And we add Nvidia 210 or 730 GPUs to those that need better multi-monitor support or better 3D performance. Why do we do it that way? Cost. We try to keep the complete desktop system (case, motherboard,
    CPU, at least 2 GB RAM, no storage of any kind) to under $200 CDN (they're diskless Linux stations). We have just shy of 5000 of those in the district right now.

    We've avoided the Bulldozer-based APUs so far as the price/performance just wasn't there compared to the Pentium line (from our suppliers). But the Ryzen 3 looks like a decent upgrade. Will be interesting to see what the prices are like for it from our suppliers this winter/spring. Will also be interesting to see what the GPU side of the Zen-based APUs will be like next year.

    The other important bit is driver support. We are a mostly Linux-using school district, so we tend to use hardware that's at least 2 steps back from the bleeding edge. That way, we get better prices, and better driver support.
    Reply
  • edlee - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    i understand when upgrading from integrated to gpu like you stated in your use case, but from the low end price standpoint, a i3-7100 is cheaper because they dont need to add a gpu like the ryzen 3 needs, so its not competing on a performance standpoint or a price standpoint when you add the price of the cheapest gpu Reply
  • Outlander_04 - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    Using an integrated gpu is usually a poor choice. Intels drivers are so dumbed down they are worse than hopeless.
    Factor in that using integrated means less system RAM available as well so performance can be reduced
    Reply
  • Ratman6161 - Tuesday, August 01, 2017 - link

    Many people may be starting out from the position of knowing that the integrated graphics on any of the Intel CPU's in the test are not good enough for them. If you know that from the start then the argument that AMD doesn't have an IGPU is meaningless. I'm also somewhat interested in seeing overclocking tests with the R3 as that is one thing you just don't get with Intel at this level short of the 7350K. I sort of suspect that an OC'd 1200 could but just as fast or faster than a 1300X (though at only a $20 difference I'm not sure how much it matters).
    Also, in more computationally intense tasks, the 1300x really doesn't do badly against the i5 that costs $53 more so once again, if you don't care about integrated graphics it could be a good choice for some people.

    On the other hand, for someone for whom MS Office, email, and web browsing are their main uses, then something like the i3-7100 suddenly looks very attractive - or even the Pentium G.
    In this segment, AMD really needs to get a Ryzen Based APU on the market. If they did a single CCX, 4 core and used the empty space vacated by the second CCX for a decent IGPU they could definitely have an i3 killer.
    Reply
  • renw0rp - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I had HP Folio 9470m with core i5-3437U and it was driving 3 * 1920x1200 screens without an issue. And it's ~2013 processor...

    3rd gen of Core processors was the first to support 3 displays. The 2nd gen supported just 2.
    Reply
  • stuartlew - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    AMD Kaveri does three monitors Reply
  • serendip - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    Are there motherboards with integrated chipset graphics for Ryzen?

    I understand the good thing about adding a discrete GPU only to PCs that need one but not having an integrated GPU is nuts, for the mass market at least.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    No, but Bristol Ridge launched yesterday, so there are now APUs that use AM4. Reply
  • haukionkannel - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    You can install Ryzen 1200 and use Nvidia 1080ti and run games at 4K easily, so there is a point of these prosessors.
    There will be Ryzen based APU later in this or next year for Office computers and maybe even htpc usage and laptops. Those Are budget CPU for gaming and you can pair them as fast GPU as you like and still get reasonable good results!
    The Intel 7700 is in the top, but if you run games at 4K I think that you can save a big deal by usin amd 1200 instead of Intel 7700! The difference is so small in speed and so big in money!
    Reply
  • kaesden - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    dont forget that ryzen 1200 with a 1080ti could also have a 1700 dropped in down the line when budget allows, or when more cpu performance is needed. And the ryzen based APU's are coming eventually for those who just want basic integrated graphics. AMD isn't finished yet with their roll out. Reply
  • zodiacfml - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    The purpose is to make use/sell of disabled chips. This could be the reason why AMD and Nvidia started selling the new, lowest end discrete graphics cards. Desktop APUs will arrive early 2018.

    I wonder if AMD will ever have to cripple these Zen parts in the future as some articles mention they have high pretty good wields.
    Reply
  • lefty2 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    They aren't "making" a $100 CPU with no iGPU, they are just re-badging a $500 CPU. Much cheaper in research costs than having to design a new die. ...and the same logic applies to the 7700K Reply
  • bennyg - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I think the price/perf discussion should be a it broader in scope than just comparing CPU alone. The need to find or buy a GPU for the R3 compared to the Intel competition is a noticable omisson. Even the budgestest secondhandest GPUs will throw out the metrics of a $30 price comparison, but the extra graphics performance and/or features you may get from a dedicated GPU over iGPU should also be considered. Reply
  • bennyg - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    should be a *lot* broader. typo Reply
  • Manch - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    That's why these were tested with the higher end GPU's. To eliminate the IGP as a performance factor and compare CPU only. As you said, the extra performance you would get from even a low end discrete would be an unfair advantage for AMD. If you got one that was crappier than the IGP(if possible) then it would be an unfair advantage to Intel. It would be hard to decide which Discrete card would be the official stand in. On that note, doesn't AMD have discrete R7 cards that are paired with their APU's that are pretty much a copy of the IGP? They're not VEGA cores though so it wouldn't be a good way to predict the performance of the upcoming APU's. It would however give an idea as to what Bristol would have been using ZEN cores. Reply
  • extide - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    Latest AMD APU's are still construction cores (Excavator) with Polaris based graphics. Ryzen with Vega based will come later. Reply
  • Alexvrb - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I don't know... maybe... gaming on a relatively small budget? Ryzen 3 plus a $150-200 graphics card is clearly better than an equivalent i3 build, plus they overclock even with a cheap B350 board. Reply
  • serendip - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    For a cheapo gamer like me, Ryzen 3 + a $100 card is fine, but how big is that market anyway?

    AMD needs to go beyond servicing enthusiasts, it has to get OEMs to use Ryzen in cheap PCs for basic use in schools, homes and businesses. These segments won't bother going for Ryzen 5 or i5, they just want the cheapest computer available. AMD doesn't have a good name in the low end of the market because of its terrible APUs.
    Reply
  • CSM 2 - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    1200 with A320 + GTX 1050ti perfect family pc or sff media pc I'm very impressed. Thanks AMD for some competition Reply
  • slickr - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link

    They actually are releasing their APU's at the same time, so if you want cpu+igp you can buy their new APU's. Reply
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Could you add an overclocking section? I've been seeing the 1200 overclock well, and that could definitely close the gap with the i3's Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    In the plans, maybe Pt 2 next week after finishing the 1300X. Reply
  • T1beriu - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Yey! Reply
  • AndrewJacksonZA - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    "M." You're missing an "m" at the end of your username, T1beriu. ;-) Reply
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Awesome! I think overclocking is one of Ryzen's strong points, and it doesn't seem to drive up power consumption too much, because you can hit good clocks on stock voltage Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Or, maybe we could see what happens without being kneecapped by the absurd JEDEC RAM setting. Reply
  • venkatsrin - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Thanks, can only second this request! Pls, pretty pls, do include the overclocked benchmarks for gaming not only with high-end cards like GTX1080 but also the RX470 that you have in there currently. Reply
  • QinX - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    The Blender graph seems to be wrong for the 1300X, beating the 1500x by 500 seconds seems excessive. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    lol yup, just saw it. Should be 889, not 89. Reply
  • T1beriu - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Congrats on getting the review out on day one!

    Blender 2.78 chart has wrong result number for 1300X.

    http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11658/8919...
    Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    We always get CPU reviews out on day one... ;)
    Blender is fixed.
    Reply
  • T1beriu - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Another chart that needs a little bit of edit - "Title" at the bottom.

    http://images.anandtech.com/doci/11658/combined_cp...
    Reply
  • jjj - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    For value,in the real world mixed or lightly threaded should have more weigh, especially in the lower end where low core count and lower clocks can be a limitation.
    For power, when comparing diff numbers of cores , the system power is important too- lets say you can have a dual core system at 60W vs a quad at 70W peak. Even if the dual core is more efficient, at the system level the quad wins.
    Reply
  • nathanddrews - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Performance is nice and price is good IF you have a dGPU. For entry-level gaming/HTPC builds, that Intel IGP is more valuable than most people think, especially given the amount of media decode/encode power it has. All you need is i3 and you can be watching Netflix 4K or UHD Blu-ray and then switch to playing 1080p 60fps Rocket League. You can do the latter with R3 if you buy a dGPU, but sadly there's no current way to do Netflix or UHD Blu-ray without Intel SGX. Reply
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I think that's why AMD also picked this time to release Bristol Ridge Reply
  • mczak - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Yes, imho these cpus are only mildly interesting.
    In this cpu performance segment, chances are pretty high that a integrated gpu would be good enough. (Sure there's always someone who has a need for high cpu / low gpu, or low cpu / high gpu performance, but I don't think that's the norm.)
    So, if a integrated gpu is good enough, with factoring in the cost of an additional gpu amd can't compete on price here. The really interesting competition from AMD in this lower end market has to come from Raven Ridge APUs.
    Reply
  • nathanddrews - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    In the wise words of Peter Klavin, "Totes McGotes." Reply
  • T1beriu - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Done! Thanks.

    When should I come back for the full review?
    Reply
  • uibo - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I thought you guys hated misleading scales on graphs.
    Looking at the performance per dollar graphs, I think the lowest point vertically should be -100%
    Reply
  • lefenzy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    That's silly. 0% is the zero on that graph, not some arbitrary -100% Reply
  • akrobet - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Keep in mind that Intel is pulling the G4560 from the market, because it's "too good" for its price. Reply
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Source? Reply
  • MrCommunistGen - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Not counting it as a "source" but I saw this pop up at wccftech. I didn't spend any time looking, but I haven't stumbled upon any corroboration on other sites in my tech reading. Reply
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I just found the article on wccftech. It actually said that Intel is NOT killing off the G4560 Reply
  • T1beriu - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    wccftech

    ....

    ....

    BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH
    Reply
  • GreenMeters - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    SHED does not exist. Ryzen 7 maps to the standard i7 market that has never been called HEDT. Threadripper is HEDT. The fact that it puts Intel's HEDT to shame doesn't mean it's a new segment. It means Intel better get with the program. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Ryzen 7 was mapped against Intel's Broadwell-E HEDT platform at launch for core count, performance, and aggressive pricing. Threadripper is a stage above that, and isn't even called HEDT internally at AMD. Then we have the HCC core count silicon coming from Intel. SHED exists. Reply
  • DrKlahn - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Ok I'm seriously beginning to wonder about the objectivity here. So your conclude this:

    "First is that the Ryzen 3 1200 does not look like an attractive option. It performs +2-3% of the Pentium but is $30 more expensive, and the Core i3-7100 beats it by 8% for only a sub-$10 cost."

    But aren't mentioning that the Pentiums are locked parts and the 1200 isn't? Your competing sites do have overclocking data and the Pentiums are hopelessly outclassed. Granted not everyone overclocks, but on an enthusiast site that at least warrants a mention. Not everyone will read your followup(s) and that conclusion does not tell the full story. I know if I was building a machine a 1200 4 core that overclocks to 3.8-4GHz is well worth the $30.
    Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    So one, overclocking is for a later review. Can't pass judgement on something that's not been tested. Other sites have certainly had more time (I get my chips 3-4 days after the US sites do, as I'm not in the US). This review was being written as the deadline passed, and is still being tested. It's not written it weeks in advance, with time to tooth comb and perfect every sentence. I've pulled an all-nighter to get to where it is now, even with some of the missing tests which are still being run. So when you say 'does not tell the full story', well not everything has been tested. I've made that abundantly clear several times in the review.

    Two, these chips are filling in volume at the lower end, especially in B2B where nothing is overclocked. You want me to sing the praises of a feature that we haven't had time to test for a product that's going to fill a market that won't use that feature, even though some in a different market might? If/when we get around to a pt2, I'll focus more on the enthusiast perspective. If you've read most of our CPU reviews over the past two years, most of the emphasis usually goes on out-of-the-box performance anyway.

    Third, on the very first page, in black and white, it states 'The big upswing for AMD here is going to be overclocking, and potentially push the Ryzen 3 CPUs through to compete with the next one up the stack depending on stock performance.'
    Reply
  • vanilla_gorilla - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Ian, first off, great review as always and thank you. Second, you should just write up a large FAQ/disclaimer for your reviews that you can just link in the article and in comment replies. The same questions and complaints come up over and over, you've got to be tired of addressing them. Reply
  • DrKlahn - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    As I said, I understand it is for a later review. I also understand that a lot of these chips will never be overclocked. I don't want you to sing the praises of anything. I want a caveat in the conclusion that this potential exists and it impacts the value proposition. History has shown us (think the initial Radeon 290 reviews) that the first impression sticks with the reader regardless of how a product fares in the future. I have zero issues with your conclusion as an out of the box evaluation and appreciate your efforts. However your conclusion should have a caveat attached to it to call attention to everything the chip offers. Reply
  • mikato - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I think that's fair. Here's another vote. Reply
  • Gothmoth - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    just saw your reply.... and i count on that. :-) Reply
  • Gothmoth - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    i hope anandtech will test the overcloked ryzen against the locked intels.
    but then... is amd paying enough fot advertising on anandtech..... :)
    Reply
  • willis936 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    There is an R7 review and now an R3 review but nothing on the most interesting segment: R5. I've seen multiple other sites say that the R5 segment is where AMD is the clear winner for all workloads. Go up or down $50 and Intel makes more sense for gaming. Reply
  • MrCommunistGen - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-... Reply
  • willis936 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I wonder why that doesn't show up when using anandtech's search feature.

    http://www.anandtech.com/SearchResults?q=R5
    Reply
  • MrCommunistGen - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    This article doesn't show up when you search R3, and the 1800X article doesn't show up if you search R7.

    AMD isn't actually using R3, R5, and R7 as part of their branding for Ryzen, though I guess at least some are using that shorthand. The R3/5/7 are being used for GPU branding for some generations of discrete cards and APUs.

    If you look at the top of the article underneath the author's name, you'll see what tags the article has (and thus search terms) that you could use to find it in the future. Looks like "Ryzen" or "Ryzen 3" "Ryzen 5" and "Ryzen 7" are good terms.

    On the other hand, I found the link I posted above by going to Google and typing:
    anandtech 1600x review
    Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    AMD doesn't use the R3 / R5 / R7 nomenclature - that's for graphics. Reply
  • Gothmoth - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    i don´t care about gaming or heating my house with a cpu..... so ryzen makes more sense for me. :)

    x299 was such a disappointment.
    Reply
  • MrCommunistGen - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Ian, first off, thanks for the benchmark numbers! I look forward to seeing the rest once they are completed.

    As far as data is concerned, is there a chance that the DigiCortex results have the wrong numbers next to a couple CPUs?

    I'm specifically looking at the i3 7100 being the fastest Intel CPU at 0.63, compared to the rest of the offerings clustering together at 0.37-0.38. To me it looks like the 0.63 should be the i5 7400 and the 7100 should be with the other dual cores.

    On another note, it looks like the RoTR Geothermal Valley scene really HATES AMD's HyperThreading - at least on Nvidia hardware/drivers. At first I thought there might be another set of numbers transposed somewhere since the Ryzen 3 CPUs perform SO MUCH better than the 1500X. But I looked back at the 1600X review and the numbers seem consistent -- bad performance on HyperThreaded AMD on a GTX 1080. Prophet's Tomb seems to behave better. Just shows how much architecture and software optimizations for said architecture can either oppose or compliment each other.

    As for small typos, there's also a couple spots where the 1200 is referred to as "1200X". There was another one I found during my initial read that I can't find now that I'm commenting.
    Reply
  • MrCommunistGen - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Not the typo I was looking for, but I just noticed that the intro/description for Civ6 looks like it has a typo I've missed in previous articles:
    "...but every edition from the second to the sixth, including the fifth as voiced by the late Leonard Nimoy, it a game that is easy to pick up, but hard to master."

    "it a game" should probably be "is a game"

    Not a criticism, just trying to help out where I can. :)
    Reply
  • MrCommunistGen - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Gah... brain fart this morning. Please read my references to AMD "HyperThreading" as "SMT"... smh Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    i3 7100 should be 0.363x on DigiCortex. I've corrected three 7100 results today in our database from my personal master copy. I think I'll have to go through them all and double check.

    RoTR Geothermal on 1080p with a GTX 1080 really loves quad cores without hyperthreading, AMD or Intel. I'm not sure what it is with that test on that benchmark - in our KBL-X review, all the i5s got top results by a good margin. I think it's been optimized specifically for quad-core, or there's something iffy in the game code/drivers.

    Appreciate the typo point outs for sure. These things are always last minute and you can never have too many eyes on it. :)
    Reply
  • DanGer1 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    The review is lacking, especially the value charts. Ryzens come with a cooler, their motherboards cost less and they are overclock-able. Adjusting the cost for the motherboard and the cooler changes the value charts significantly in R3's favor. Overclocking on stock air makes makes performance and value a no contest in favor of the R3s. Reply
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Intel's processors also come with a cooler. Reply
  • wallysb01 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Basic 1511 boards that would go into i3/Pentium builds are really not much more, if at all, than the lower end AM4 boards. Plus, the Intel stuff has an iGPU and if you're buying a low end desktop, you probably don't care a lot about heavily multithreaded workloads. So, I'd actually argue the i3/Pentiums are getting under sold in the value charts.

    Its kinda funny how the landscape has switched, in that Intel might actually be the better low-end, value winner, while AMD is the best mid/mid-high end value winner.
    Reply
  • Gothmoth - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    +1 for overclocking.
    the tested intel cpus are sure not k models.

    as for intel having internal GPU.. i never used them not even on my cheapest system builds.
    Reply
  • wallysb01 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    And you're an N=1. Intel iGPUs are more than enough for plenty uses now, and have been for a while actually. I built a cheap office machine for my wife that we use also use for streaming, for example, I even played some DOTA on it for a time. That computer has the G3220 and it works just fine. HTPC, office/web, even a little light/cheap gaming... Intel iGPU is all you need. The extra $50+, power use and space (for those that want small form factors) for a dGPU is just thrown in the garbage and lit on fire for most computer use. Reply
  • DanGer1 - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    If you want to compare to an APU you will have to wait for Raven Ridge and I am pretty sure we all know what integrated Radeon graphics compare to Intel....no contest. It is my understanding that Raven Ridge will be coming out on 14nm+ as well. AMD will have a clear win in this segment. Reply
  • KAlmquist - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Currently, the lowest priced AM4 motherboard on Newegg is the ASRock A320M-HDV for $55 including shipping. There are a number of Intel LGA 1151 boards for less than that, starting with the GIGABYTE GA-H110M-M.2 for $48 and the ASRock H110M-HDS R3.0 for $51. So motherboard costs currently favor Intel at the low end. That said, the price differential is small, and may disappear over time as manufacturers recover their development costs. Reply
  • DanGer1 - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    Right, but you can overclock the R3 without needing to by a "K" and it comes with a cooler. Reply
  • SlowSpyder - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Looks like AMD aimed for the i5 7400, but priced it with the i3's. Not much to complain about here. Reply
  • Otritus - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    The third(last) chart on the first page is listed as Comparison: AMD Ryzen 3 1300X when it should be Comparison: AMD Ryzen 3 1200 Reply
  • Otritus - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    On the second page it says fury x uses hdm not hbm Reply
  • Drake H. - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    just missed the dolphin... Reply
  • rocky12345 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Great review thank you.

    After watching a review on YT from AdoredTV and reading your review here I feel the R3 Ryzen's are pretty much what we all expected. They beat that useless Pentium CPU and duke it out with the i3's and the non K i5's. On AdoredTV he got the 1200 to 3.9Ghz and the 1300x to 4.0Ghz on the stock coolers with good temps. Once overclocked they really show their value in everything more so in the games. They both make the useless Pentium and the i3's look pretty sad.

    Another thing to look at is the R3's come with a stock cooler and are unlocked as well right their that adds value because unlike a K CPU you do not need to buy a cooler and if you get a Intel non K you can't make them faster by overclocking the Intel CPU's.
    Reply
  • rocky12345 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Made a mistake it is Hardware Unboxed not AdoredTV I was referring to in my first comment. My bad sorry. Reply
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    You make a couple good points. Ryzen 3 is definitely on my watchlist Reply
  • iwod - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    What are the Power Load for each CPU and not whole system? Zen is more SoC like and harder to compare to Intel. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    System is variable. CPU numbers in a CPU review. Reply
  • ampmam - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Great review but biased conclusion. Any idiot can sense it. Reply
  • MrCommunistGen - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    For us idiots, can you possibly elaborate what bias you're seeing? Reply
  • vMax65 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    ampmam, good to know you are an idiot...Great review Ian. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Biased in what way? I've been called an Intel shill and an AMD shill this week, will be glad to listen to what you think. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Then don't open yourself up for these accusations by doing things like kneecapping Zen with 2400 speed RAM.

    If you think 2400 speed RAM is more beneficial than not then, at least, show the best case results for 3200 speed RAM and say "See — it's not important"

    It's not good to see the same site that overclocking by telling people testing for serious stability isn't important and which pumps unwise levels of voltage in hobbling the RAM that's used to test Zen, a platform that most everyone knows benefits more from faster RAM than Intel does.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    Perhaps it does, but it's not massive. Also, Ian did say he would test at faster settings at a later date.

    RAM prices are quite high at the moment for the higher clocked parts, which brings about an interesting observation - the Ryzen 3 is the cheapest part of this entire setup.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    The RAM that he used was rated at 3000 and he chose to downclock it. Reply
  • ampmam - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Great review but biased conclusion. Reply
  • tvdang7 - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    No overclock? Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    No, just a RAM underclock. Reply
  • zodiacfml - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    overclocking tests on the ryzen 3 1200 please. the only weakness of the chip is for non-gaming or htpc usage as it will require purchasing a discrete graphics card. otherwise, it presents good value for most things like gaming and multi-threaded applications, add overclocking, and it gets even better. Reply
  • kaesden - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    one thing to not overlook with the ryzen 1300x is the platform. Its competitive with budget intel offerings and can take a drop in 8 core 16 thread upgrade with no other changes except maybe a better cooling solution, Something intel can't match. Intel has the same "strategy" at their high end with the new X299 platform, but they seem to have lost focus of the big picture. The HEDT platform is too expensive to fit this type of scenario. Anyone who's shelling out the cash for a HEDT system isn't the type of budget user who is going to go for the 7740x. they're just going to get a higher end cpu from the start if they can afford it at all, not to mention the confusion about what features work with what cpu's and what doesn't, etc...

    TLDR; AMD has a winner of a platform here that will only get better as time goes on.
    Reply
  • peevee - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    From the tests, looks like Razen 3 does not make much sense. Zen arch provides quite a boost from SMT in practically all applications where performance actually matters (which are all multithreaded for years now), and AMD artificially disabled this feature for that stupid Intel-like market segmentation.

    Also I am sure there are not that many CPUs where exactly 2 out of 4 cores on each CCX is broken. So in effect, in cases like one CCX has 4 good cores and another has only 2 they kill 2 good cores, kill half of L3, kill hyperthreading...

    It would be better to create a separate 1-CCX chip for the line, which would have much higher (more that twice per wafer) yield being half the size, and release 2, 3 and 4 core CPUs as Ryzen 2, 3 and 4 accordingly. With hyperthreading and everything. I am sure it does not cost "tens of millions of dollars" to create a new mask as even completely custom chips cost less, let alone that simple derivative.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    "It would be better to create a separate 1-CCX chip for the line"

    Or, it could be explained by this article why AMD can't release a Zen chip with 1 CCX enabled and one disabled. Instead, we just get "obviously".
    Reply
  • silverblue - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    He did explain it. Page 1. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    Where?

    All I see is this: "Number 3 leads to a lop-sided silicon die, and obviously wasn’t chosen."

    That is not an explanation.
    Reply
  • peevee - Tuesday, August 01, 2017 - link

    That is still be half the yield per wafer compared to a dedicated 1-CCX line. Twice the cost. Cost matters.
    And the 3rd chip must be 1CCX+1GPU. SMT must be on everywhere though, it is too good to artificially lower value of your product by disabling it by segmentation.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    "The Ryzen 3 1200 brings up the rear of the stack, being the lowest CPU in the stack, having the lowest frequency at 3.1G base, 3.4G turbo, 3.1G all-core turbo, no hyperthreading and the lowest amount of L3 cache."

    That bit about the L3 is incorrect unless the chart on page 1 is incorrect. It shows the same L3 size for 1400, 1300X, and 1200.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    And this:

    "Number 3 leads to a lop-sided silicon die, and obviously wasn’t chosen."

    Obviously?
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    "DDR4-2400 C15"

    2400, really — even though it is, obviously, known that Zen needs faster RAM to perform efficiently?

    Joel Hruska managed to test Ryzen with 3200 speed RAM on his day 1 review. I bought 16 GB of 3200 RAM from Microcenter last Christmastime for $80. Just because RAM prices are nuts right now doesn't mean we should gut Ryzen's performance by sticking it with low-speed RAM.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    "This is also typically run at JEDEC subtimings where possible. It is noted that some users are not keen on this policy"

    Maybe you guys should rethink your logic.

    1) You have claimed, when overclocking, that it's not necessary to do full stability testing, like with Prime. Just passing some lower-grade stress testing is enough to make an overclock "stable enough".

    2) Your overclocking reviews have pushed unwise levels of voltage into CPUs to go along with this "stable enough" overclock.

    So... you argue against proof of true stability, both in the final overclock settings being satisfactorily tested and in safe voltages being decided upon.

    And — simultaneously — kneecap Zen processors by using silly JEDEC standards, trying to look conservative?

    Please.

    Everyone knows the JEDEC standard applies to enterprise. Patriot is just one manufacturer of RAM that tested and certified far better RAM performance on B350 and A320 Zen boards. You had that very article on your site just a short time ago.

    Your logic doesn't add up. It is not a significant enough cost savings for system builders to go with slow RAM for Zen. The only argument you can use, at all, is that OEMs are likely to kneecap Zen with slow RAM. That is not a given, though. OEMs can use faster RAM, like, at least, 2666, if they choose to. If they're marketing toward gamers they likely will.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    "Truth be told I never actually played the first version, but every edition from the second to the sixth, including the fifth as voiced by the late Leonard Nimoy"

    You mean Civ IV.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    And, yeah, we can afford to test with an Nvidia 1080 but we can't afford to use decent speed RAM.

    Yeah... makes sense.
    Reply
  • Hixbot - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Are you having a conversation with yourself? Try to condense your points into a single post. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    I don't live in a static universe where all of the things I'm capable of thinking of are immediately apparent, but thanks for the whine. Reply
  • Manch - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    Really snowflake? You're saying he is whining? How many rants have you posted? LOL The difference between 2400 and 3200 shows up more on the higher end processors bc bigger L3 & HT err SMT. The diff in CPU bound gaming is 5-10% at most with the Ryzen 7's. Smaller with the 5's. Even more so with the 3's. Small enough to the point that it would not change the outlook on the CPU's. Also consider that if Ian change the parameters of his test constantly it would also skew numbers more so and render bench unreliable. Test the Ryzen 7's with 2133 then the 5's with 2400 then the 3's with 3200? Obviously anandtechs test are not the definitive performance bench mark for the world. What it is, is a reliably consistent benchmark allowing you to compare diff cpus with as little changed as possible as too not skew performance. Think EPA gas mileage stickers on cars. Will you get that rating? maybe. What it does is it gives you comparative results. From there its fairly easy to extrapolate the difference. Now I'm sure they will as they have in the past update there baseline specs for testing. You're running off the rails about how much the memory effects are. Look at all the youtube vids and other reviews out there. Difference yes. A lot? meh I also believe anandtech has mentioned doing a write up on the latest agesa update since its had a significant impact(including memory) on the series. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    "You're saying he is whining? How many rants have you posted?"

    Pot kettle fallacy.
    Reply
  • dave_the_nerd - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    Yes, obviously. That would be terrible. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    I'm glad you're not a tech reviewer. You could just say "Obviously" for every technical detail and that would be your article. Reply
  • Gothmoth - Thursday, July 27, 2017 - link

    you can overclock the cheap AMD cpus... what about the intels?

    i am to lazy to check but are the testets intels k models? i guess not.
    Reply
  • ddhelmet - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    One thing I am really curious about is Citra performance. It would be an important test for single thread performance. All about that IPC. Reply
  • serendip - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    Sorry but I don't see the point of these chips. An i3 is supposed to be a cheap do-everything CPU for basic business and school PCs. The Ryzen 3 not having a GPU really hurts its chances in those segments and it probably won't get picked up by OEMs. AMD needs mass market sales right now and Ryzen APUs can't come soon enough.

    I'm also wondering if yields are good enough that Ryzen 7s are the main chips being produced, with few 5s and 3s left over from the 7s that didn't meet spec.
    Reply
  • Outlander_04 - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    The core count of the Ryzen chips is going to be a significant advantage over any dual core .

    Adding a basic graphics card will cost about $30 . For that you free up system RAM that the onboard would otherwise be using, and you get decent drivers that let you make some adjustments that intel removed when they dumbed down their drivers a few years back
    Reply
  • serendip - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    Yeah but most office tasks run fine on 2 cores. Most users probably won't even notice they're using quad core processor.

    That $30 extra is a lot when it comes to speccing thousands of machines. A cheap discrete GPU is also another potential point of failure that large enterprises might not want on a big rollout. I understand the enthusiast reasoning for a cheap but powerful CPU like the Ryzen 3 paired with a decent midrange card, but this setup doesn't make sense for large corporate orders. AMD needs to sell lots of chips to large clients to survive.
    Reply
  • Outlander_04 - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    It's not just the "Office tasks". Its the network services, antivirus and updating that goes on in what should be the background, but is not when you have a dual-core. I speak from experience. The HP desktops we have at work can be frustrating. Reply
  • buxe2quec - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    Posting a review with placeholders for the benchmarks is definitely not professional.
    Delay it two days and post it in full, or split it in two reviews.
    Looks like clickbaiting...
    Reply
  • supdawgwtfd - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    Ian. Your a shill. Or you just completely biased.

    Every single other review i have read has said the Ryzen 3 it the better option. In price and performance.

    WTF has happened to Anandtech? Why are you guys spewing BS? Why can't you be unbiased?

    Seriously?

    Have been reading the site for almost 20 years. I think i will now have to officially NOT come here again...
    Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • jamyryals - Friday, July 28, 2017 - link

    It's great to have some competition going on again! Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • harobikes333 - Saturday, July 29, 2017 - link

    AMD pretty much has all the CPU segments covered <3
    Planning on a build soon!
    Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Wednesday, August 02, 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. Reply
  • Mugur - Thursday, August 03, 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now