Overclock.net banner

[Various] Ryzen 3 Review roundup

8K views 121 replies 41 participants last post by  EastCoast 
#1 ·
#8 ·
Then Basically a dual core with HT is faster than a Quad core?
https://youtu.be/kGsbV2X749E?t=587
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-07/amd-ryzen-3-1300x-1200-test/2/
http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-3-review/
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-3-1300X-and-1200-Processor-Review/Gaming-Performance
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis2307 View Post

since coffeelake i3s are gonna be 4c/4t, that's reasonable
it seems more like an advancement of what will come with coffee lake
 
#9 ·
i wanna see cofee lake 4c/4t vs zen 4c/4t
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpm888 View Post

The performance is good but lacking an igpu is a problem.

I want to upgrade my i3 3220 htpc but I dont want to have to buy another graphics card
The APUs will take care of that. These will be pretty decent for super budget gaming rigs. League, Dota, CS:Go all should run pretty well on 4 physical cores. Pair it with a ~100 gpu and you've got a medium-high setting 1080 system.
 
#11 ·
OP pls link thanks: http://anandtech.com/show/11658/the-amd-ryzen-3-1300x-ryzen-3-1200-cpu-review

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpm888 View Post

The performance is good but lacking an igpu is a problem.

I want to upgrade my i3 3220 htpc but I dont want to have to buy another graphics card
Raven Ridge APUs are coming either at the end of this year or the start of the next. Think of Ryzen R3s like the Trinity or Kaveri Athlons: they're cheap CPUs and nothing more.

AMD also announced Bristol Ridge for the non-OEM market today. One of those could tide you over, but they're Carrizo-based parts using Excavator cores, so they aren't exactly fast. The iGP isn't bad though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis2307 View Post

since coffeelake i3s are gonna be 4c/4t, that's reasonable
Source?
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

Source?
It is a deduction coming from: the Flagship CPU on mainstream will be a Core i7 and not i9, then there will be Core i5 with no HT. the 6c/6t that leaves either lower end i5 with 4c/8t(or i3) and i3 with 4c/4t and Pentium with 2c/4t or Core i5 6/6t.Core i3 4c/4t Pentium 2c/4t

if the 4c/8t CPUs might be unlocked to overclock would be an interesting point if they are priced below i5 with 6c/6t
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post

Then Basically a dual core with HT is faster than a Quad core?
IPC advantages, intel's AVX is faster than AMD's to boot.

also, apps are still thread bound with the first thread having the highest "weight", even for most multi-threaded apps.
the key point is the first two threads are "critical" where as the latter threads are "supplemental".

this is the case where the supplemental threads aren't "heavy" enough to require true cores, and "light" enough that it won't burden the cores when sharing resources.
in which case, you'd find that 2C/4Ts can perform like a 4C/4T with minimal downsides, and 4C/8T not performing much faster than 4C/4T.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

IPC advantages, intel's AVX is faster than AMD's to boot.

also, apps are still thread bound with the first thread having the highest "weight", even for most multi-threaded apps.
the key point is the first two threads are "critical" where as the latter threads are "supplemental".

this is the case where the supplemental threads aren't "heavy" enough to require true cores, and "light" enough that it won't burden the cores when piggybacking on the first two thread's share.
in which case, you'd find that 2C/4Ts can perform like a 4C/4T with minimal downsides, and 4C/8T not performing much faster than 4C/4T.
Yes.Games should be taking advantage of cores over SMT... and it seems the clock speed difference isnt a big deal a 4.2GHz 7350k is performing similar to a 4.1GHz Ryzen 3(GamerNexus?)
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post

It is a deduction coming from: the Flagship CPU on mainstream will be a Core i7 and not i9, then there will be Core i5 with no HT. the 6c/6t that leaves either lower end i5 with 4c/8t(or i3) and i3 with 4c/4t and Pentium with 2c/4t or Core i5 6/6t.Core i3 4c/4t Pentium 2c/4t

if the 4c/8t CPUs might be unlocked to overclock would be an interesting point if they are priced below i5 with 6c/6t
So no source. My prediction is hex-core i5s and i7s, and tri-core i3s and Pentiums. 4C/8T and 6C/6T are far too close in multithreaded performance to separate tiers of CPU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

IPC advantages, intel's AVX is faster than AMD's to boot.

also, apps are still thread bound with the first thread having the highest "weight", even for most multi-threaded apps.
the key point is the first two threads are "critical" where as the latter threads are "supplemental".

this is the case where the supplemental threads aren't "heavy" enough to require true cores, and "light" enough that it won't burden the cores when sharing resources.
in which case, you'd find that 2C/4Ts can perform like a 4C/4T with minimal downsides, and 4C/8T not performing much faster than 4C/4T.
AVX isn't nearly prevalent enough to be a selling point for end users, but otherwise yeah.
thumb.gif
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

AVX isn't nearly prevalent enough to be a selling point for end users, but otherwise yeah.
thumb.gif
true, plus you can still run AVX code on non-AVX compatible CPUs.
they simply end up using AVX-SSE mode instead and it'll be running at a drastically slower rate.

so not having AVX or having a slower AVX support is not entirely a deal-breaker.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: sumitlian
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

So no source. My prediction is hex-core i5s and i7s, and tri-core i3s and Pentiums. 4C/8T and 6C/6T are far too close in multithreaded performance to separate tiers of CPU.
AVX isn't nearly prevalent enough to be a selling point for end users, but otherwise yeah.
thumb.gif
I dont seee why Intel would make a CPU with not even cores they have never done it, and disabling/shutting down a core instead using the 4c-8t to compete with equivalent AMD Products.

Ryzen 3 Refresh would probably beat a triple core,Ryzen 5 Refresh would probaly beat a triple cores and then there is nothing to compete with that for this price tag, intel would leave a huge market they could be getting profits? it would be like having no i3 competing with Athlon CPUs leaving the only worthwhile segment the i5 which is 50usd more
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artikbot View Post

Lol at eTechnix. Pitting a Ryzen 3 against a host of i7-X and i9-X chips, seems like a good review!
rolleyes.gif
They are Intel shills no doubt.
I felt those days when reviewers were doing RX 460 shadow of mordor 4k ultra with ultra hd texture pack.
biggrin.gif
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

So no source. My prediction is hex-core i5s and i7s, and tri-core i3s and Pentiums. 4C/8T and 6C/6T are far too close in multithreaded performance to separate tiers of CPU.
AVX isn't nearly prevalent enough to be a selling point for end users, but otherwise yeah.
thumb.gif
and my predictions are 4c4t i3s and 4c8t + 6c6t i5s, that's just logical going forward if Intel wants to compete with AMD, and since Intel never made uneven core number chips
 
#20 ·
In all seriousness the best reason for the Ryzen 3 to exist is for people to be able to buy a cheap OEM PC with a Ryzen 3 and have a upgrade path to Ryzen refresh (or a Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 7). In most cases PC manufacturers tier the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 systems in the same way as i5/i7s even though the price differential isn't as large between the Ryzen 5 CPUs.

The Ryzen 5 isn't massively more expensive than Ryzen 3, on sale the Ryzen 5 1500X is about $150-170 and the Ryzen 5 1400 can be had for $130-140...

A Cyberpower Ryzen 3 or other system with B350 chipset could be an immense value during Black Friday for example.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post

In all seriousness the best reason for the Ryzen 3 to exist is for people to be able to buy a cheap OEM PC with a Ryzen 3 and have a upgrade path to Ryzen refresh (or a Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 7). In most cases PC manufacturers tier the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 systems in the same way as i5/i7s even though the price differential isn't as large between the Ryzen 5 CPUs.

The Ryzen 5 isn't massively more expensive than Ryzen 3, on sale the Ryzen 5 1500X is about $150-170 and the Ryzen 5 1400 can be had for $130-140...

A Cyberpower Ryzen 3 or other system with B350 chipset could be an immense value during Black Friday for example.
APUs would've made more sense in that case.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PontiacGTX View Post

I dont seee why Intel would make a CPU with not even cores they have never done it, and disabling/shutting down a core instead using the 4c-8t to compete with equivalent AMD Products.
57-core and 61-core Knights Corner, 15-core Ivy Bridge-EX, and (because it's technically correct) quite literally every CPU before the Pentium D.
thumb.gif


There's nothing inherently illogical in using an odd number of cores, and traditionally the i3 and i5 have had the same number of threads. Skylake has such a good clock advantage that 3C/6T i3s would compete nicely with 4C/8T R5s.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

57-core and 61-core Knights Corner, 15-core Ivy Bridge-EX, and (because it's technically correct) quite literally every CPU before the Pentium D.
thumb.gif


There's nothing inherently illogical in using an odd number of cores, and traditionally the i3 and i5 have had the same number of threads. Skylake has such a good clock advantage that 3C/6T i3s would compete nicely with 4C/8T R5s.
how about 4C/6T? partial hyper-threading, with the first two cores not having hyper-threading at all.
i could see this being advantageous in evenly spreading load, considering windows sucks in allocating threads ( always prioritizes Core#0 ).

if intel could play around with partial hyper-threading, then they'd be able to implement more exotic core configurations.
i could imagine intel implementing 4-way hyperthreading to increase thread scaling while minimizing die-size increase.
imagine a 4C/10T processor ( 2C + 2C/8T ), and a 6C/14T processor ( 2C + 2C/4T + 2C/8T ).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top