Slash Boxes

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This discussion has been archived.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, @03:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @03:06PM (#545780)

    Overclocking is at least 'on the table' if not a desired feature.

    Personally I test overclocking on new processors I buy, find the highest stable point which doesn't throw errors (often anywhere from 10-30 percent more than the rated clock rate), run some burn in tests, then use the power management features to run it at stock clocks, with some available overhead if future applications require it.

    Since at least the pentium 4 era the clock rate was usually *NOT* the determining factor in what a processor could be run at. More often than not it was the maximum safe junction temperature before the part became erratic, or the maximum TDP of either included, or available heatsinks. If you had a heatsink capable of dissipating 300-600W of waste heat, and a motherboard capable of supplying said chip power, you could running much higher clock rates than current desktop processors allow on essentially the same silicon. If you are in doubt, go look at the clock rates for Oracle/Sun, IBM, etc. Many of them are running 20+ percent higher clocks than Intel, due solely to the ability to dissipate higher amounts of heat per chip. The past few generations of Intel/AMD chips have shown those higher clocks can be attained even on consumer hardware given sufficient cooling resources, and even get to speeds that previously were thought to require cryonic cooling methods, instead only utilizing water or air cooling devices.