23 ms·
The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza
- hellogoodbye 6y agoIntel can't match this performance to price ratio
- jeffbee 6y agoMaybe but we can't tell from this article which should have compared against the $75 Core i3-9100F or maybe the $160 Core i5-9400F, instead of filling their graphs full of unavailable, ancient Intel parts like the 4th-gen core i7 that launched in 2014, and then listing the 2014 MSRP as if that was a relevant point of comparison.
- dathinab 6y agoThere are currently a bunch of this articles (and videos) out there. Other do compare against that CPUs and it's still much better to buy the Ryzen then the Intel ones (at least if you go headless or if you will put one a dedicated GPU anyway).
- leeter 6y agoSo GN looked at it, the lack of the IGPU basically killed the i3-9100F in premiere pro as did the lower base clock; even compared to the 3100. The i5 parts seem to do better particularly the 9600K (I don't see the 9400F which again would be hampered by the lack of an IGPU). https://youtu.be/V4nQpXVTh0g?t=1195 https://youtu.be/V4nQpXVTh0g?t=1195
- makomk 6y agoThere's a hint as to why they didn't include the i3-9100F in the conclusion section: "Even with this, Intel's ability to provide enough stock of these low-end parts, depending on your location, is questionable as previously mentioned. Case in point: the company never even made it as far as sampling any of the 9th Generation i3 parts for review."
- jeffbee 6y agoYou can literally order this part for next-day delivery on Newegg. They are also, literally, on the shelf at Central Computer. https://www.centralcomputer.com/intel-core-i3-9100f-3-6ghz-4c-4t-fc-lga14-6mbcache-bx80684i39100f.html https://www.centralcomputer.com/intel-core-i3-9100f-3-6ghz-4...
- aneutron 6y agoLinus from LinusTechTips did include that specific processor, and even the 150$ Core i5 (I forgot which one specifically). I recommend you see that video for the comparison you're asking for.
- jeffbee 6y agoIs there a bottom line? I can't find the video and the format of 10 seconds of information wrapped in a 10-minute video doesn't suit me.
- greggyb 6y agoR3s outcompete i3s, pretty much across the board. They are bested by i5+ for gaming, but not by much. They are competitive with, or beat i5s in productivity. GN has timestamps in the video description if you want to jump to graphs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM2fFpzPKPg&t=0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM2fFpzPKPg&t=0s The top comment on HN for the Anandtech article (at the time of my posting) is about a comparison for a budget machine. They choose an i5-9400, because this includes an iGPU. If you are going for extreme budget, the low-tier Intel chips may win for this reason.
- reaktion 6y agoI wanted to update my system with the Ryzen 5 1600 AF, given its value at $85 - but it's no longer in stock anywhere at that price, so the 3300X is looking appealing.
- all_blue_chucks 6y agoDo you find upgrading low end CPUs to be less expensive overall than going straight to mid range CPUs and skipping the upgrade cycle?
- reaktion 6y agoI admit that I'm not as concerned with long-term performance for this system. I've managed to stretch a Phenom II 1055T for more than 10 years now - my interest in PC gaming fell off for a while there - so I've already skipped more than a few upgrade cycles!
- greggyb 6y agoAMD has committed to restocking to retailers who should be selling at least close to MSRP, but this part is underpriced. We'll likely see it continue to be bought in bulk and resold at a higher price as long as this is true. You're getting what is very nearly a half-price 2600.
- paulmd 6y ago3100/3300X will also be compatible with 500 series boards, while it's likely that AMD will drop support for Zen+ (like 1600AF) on B550.
- bzb3 6y agoHow about single core performance? Many games are pegged to one or two cores only. I've always found the AMD approach of throwing more cores at the problem not to be optimal.
- gambiting 6y ago>> Many games are pegged to one or two cores only That hasn't been the case for a looong time. But to answer your question, they are much faster than anything from Intel at comparable pricing: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-amd-ryzen-3100-3300x-cpu-review https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-amd-r... "The results here are immediately interesting. Despite costing less than every other CPU represented, the 3100 manages to tie the Core i5 9600K in single-core performance and outperform the Ryzen 2600 and 2700X by around 12 per cent. The 3300X is even more impressive, with a single-core score that exceeds the Core i7 9700K and only falls behind the Ryzen 9 3900X and Core i9 9900K."
- jdsully 6y agoI have a Ryzen 3900X, and also an i5 for software development. With unoptimized code the Ryzen is pretty close to the i5. But when you start to really optimize it becomes obvious the i5 has more execution resources and is faster single threaded.
- ccffpphh 6y agoIs this including SPECTRE, etc. mitigations?
- jeffbee 6y agoWhy would anyone enable speculative execution mitigations on a computer used to build software?
- monotypical 6y agobecause it's the default on most operating systems
- tracer4201 6y agoI have a 5 year old Intel i7 CPU. Not to diverge too far from the topic, but would I have any reason to upgrade my CPU for gaming? I assume swapping my GTX 760 with a latest generation card would give me better gaming performance.
- aquaticsunset 6y agoI'm in a similar-ish boat. I've got an i5-6600k with a solid overclock on it. Single core performance is completely modern competitive, but it falls very flat in multicore. Most games will get a huge bump just with a new GPU - You'd do well with an RTX 2070, or the next generation AMD GPUs (speculating - but there's a lot of momentum on that front). That being said - LinusTechTips did a head to head benchmark comparison between the i7-7700k (the latest my Z170 chipset can handle) and this 3300X. Bottom line - the 3300X is an insanely good value for performance.
- gambiting 6y agoDepends which one - I have a 4790K + a GTX1080Ti and I see absolutely no reason to upgrade. There are no games that I cannot play at near max settings in 1440p. The only game that has somewhat stretched the CPU is Satisfactory, but then I think all machines struggle with it once you have a large enough factory.
- leetcrew 6y agoas always, no need to upgrade if you're happy with your current setup. you're definitely leaving some performance on the table with that combo though. I just upgraded 4670K -> 9700K also with a 1080 ti and I've seen some nice fps boosts in most of the games I play. as an added benefit, it's an absolute beast for c++ compilation. takes less than half the time to build compared to my actual work computer with a 7700.
- toast0 6y agoThis should be easy for you to test. Play the game you want, at the settings you want. If the cpu is running at 100%, get a faster CPU; if it's not, get a faster GPU.
- gambiting 6y agoSo I was recently looking at those as options for a very low budget video editing PC for someone, and yes, AMD destroys intel in raw CPU performance for the same price, however in those low-budget applications Intel has an upper hand - integrated GPU. With AMD you either have to go with the super crappy 3400G, which is a really poor CPU(but also very cheap), or for literally anything else + a dedicated GPU(which increases the cost significantly above Intel's offering). I was surprised to find out it's actually cheaper to go with say i5 9400 with an integrated GPU than with Ryzen 5 3600 + cheapest dedicated GPU. Yes the dedicated gpu will be better than intel's offering(marginally so) but if you only care about the CPU performance, don't have a lot of money and yet you need something to drive your monitor, then Intel has that integrated GPU to offer that AMD lacks.
- XzAeRosho 6y agoYou still have the Ryzen 5 3400G with integrated graphics
- jeffbee 6y agoThis is the problem with AMD's intentionally misleading marketing. The Ryzen 5 3400G is an APU with a Zen+ CPU. The CPU core that's actually good, that everybody wants, is the Zen2. The Zen+ is pretty slow. It has performance comparable to $99 Intel CPUs from last year.
- zrm 6y agoCan you name this Intel CPU which is as fast, has an iGPU and costs $99? Zen2 is faster than Zen+, but Zen+ isn't that slow.
- jeffbee 6y agoNo, I think the nearest thing is probably the $140 Core i3-9100. But look at Anandtech's comparison of the Zen and Zen2: at the same clock speed and core count, Zen2 stomps all over Zen. It's a much slower CPU. https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2333?vs=2590 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2333?vs=2590
- greendave 6y agoI like Anandtech. They have some really great deep dive articles on CPUs and system architecture. Which is why this type of 'test' is just weird. None of the CPUs they compare seem to be in the same price bracket. Many aren't even from the same generation. 7700K? 8086K? 4900HS? Yes, sometimes you have to work with what you have, but c'mon - at least one somewhat comparable CPU would've been nice for reference (i3 8100 or i5 9400F).
- all_blue_chucks 6y agoThey are comparing it against previous gen gaming CPUs to help people trying to decide if it is worth upgrading.
- gameswithgo 6y agoits usually faster than the i5 9400F
- greendave 6y agoI would expect so, but that's what benchmarks are for!
- greggyb 6y agoGN has a very thorough review of each of the 3100 and the 3300X. Note, the 3100 review is also positioned against a 7700K. The comparison charts are well-populated, though still have some gaps, as GN just updated their processor testing methodology, so some benchmarks are incomplete. 3100: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nQpXVTh0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nQpXVTh0g 3300X: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM2fFpzPKPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM2fFpzPKPg