Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday July 28 2017, @08:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the has-no-internal-GPU dept.

AMD has launched the Ryzen 3 1300X and Ryzen 3 1200. Both models are quad-core CPUs with only one thread per core, a TDP of 65W, and both come bundled with a "Wraith Stealth" cooler. The 1300X ($129) has the same clocks as the Ryzen 5 1500X ($189), but with no simultaneous multithreading and half of the L3 cache. The Ryzen 3 1200 ($109) has lower clock speeds.

Like all of the Ryzen CPUs released so far, integrated graphics is not included, but both are unlocked processors that can be overclocked.

There are two ways to approach analyzing the competition: configuration and price. For configuration, Ryzen 3 are quad-core CPUs without simultaneous multithreading, which would put them up against the Core i5 CPUs, which range from $182 to $239. Comparing on price, the Ryzen 3 1300X at $129 fits between the Core i3-7100 ($109) and Core i3-7300 ($149).

The conclusion of the AnandTech review does not take into account overclocking, which will be done in a later article. Tom's Hardware reviewed just the Ryzen 3 1300X, overclocking it to 3.9 GHz easily. After the overclock, the 1300X pulls ahead of Intel's Core i3-7100 and i3-7300 in gaming benchmarks.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @03:05PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @03:05PM (#545779)

    Am I old fashioned, but I found the last comment about not taking overclocking into account to be stupid and unnecessary.

    You may or may not be old fashioned, but I consider the information that those are results that were achieved without overclocking worthwhile. It means that I can rely on those results to give me a proper estimate of what to expect from that processor. With Tom's Hardware, OTOH, I'd have to carefully look at all data to check whether they include results from overclocked processors or not.

    OTOH, I don't see why gamers shouldn't overclock their gaming machines if they are not using them for serious work. If their computer crashes, well, the worst thing that happens is a lost chance at winning a game.

    If AMD could boost their performance by just raising the clock frequency, would they not do it?

    Because whoever buys the processor might use it for productive purposes, and will rightly expect it to work as flawlessly as possible.

    Basically by allowing overclocking, AMD effectively is selling in the same product both a reliable but lower performing CPU for serious work, and a faster but potentially unstable CPU for gaming. And if you are stupid enough to overclock a processor for productive work and it crashes, AMD is safe from liability because you operated it out of specification.

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 28 2017, @03:40PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Friday July 28 2017, @03:40PM (#545808) Journal

    If you look at the graphs in the Tom's review, you can see that the overclocked CPU is compared to the same CPU run at the stock clock. So you are getting both results in each graph. The overclocked chips are labeled "@ 3.9" in this case.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]