AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and Ryzen 3 3100 Review

Luay

Posts: 103   +39
Since SandyBridge i5 2500K in 2010, I never felt so excited for a CPU release. The minimum cost for a top performing component went down $100. Anything below an i7 for a gaming rig is obsolete now.

Even against an i7, combined with a high-end vga card and connected to a 2K or higher resolution display, the 3300X is hard to ignore with a $250 lower price.
 

Mithan

Posts: 87   +65
I am mixed. It is GREAT they can do 7700k performance for this price. On the flip side, it took 3 years and 4 Cores have a very limited life going forward with gaming. Still, its amazing performance for the price.

I feel bad for AMD though, we all want them to perform better than Intel AND be cheaper.
 

candle_86

Posts: 244   +176
I am mixed. It is GREAT they can do 7700k performance for this price. On the flip side, it took 3 years and 4 Cores have a very limited life going forward with gaming. Still, its amazing performance for the price.

I feel bad for AMD though, we all want them to perform better than Intel AND be cheaper.
4 years for the budget chip to topple the previous high end, and beat the 7700k 4 years ago in everything but games.
 

Adi6293

Posts: 434   +464
I am mixed. It is GREAT they can do 7700k performance for this price. On the flip side, it took 3 years and 4 Cores have a very limited life going forward with gaming. Still, its amazing performance for the price.

I feel bad for AMD though, we all want them to perform better than Intel AND be cheaper.
They dont have to be cheaper if they are better but then even at the same price you still get more performance
 

Peter Farkas

Posts: 417   +216
3300x beats my 2600. this chip is an amazing value for gamers.
Well done AMD! Now lets hope the 10100 will be competitive in both performance and price.

Budget gaming will go wild thanks to chips like this but that is bittersweet in the shadow of the covid induced economic crisis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs

Irata

Posts: 512   +635
TechSpot Elite
The 3300x is a beastly little budget gaming chip @$ 120 including a useable HSF.
Budget buyers can use the money they save over e.g. a 3600 to get a better GPU or more memory.

Other sites tested the 3100 and 3300x locked at the same frequency and the 3300x showed better results by a few percent in games. This bodes well for the upcoming Ryzen 3 CPU with an eight core CCX (unified CCD?).

One little nitpick: I would still much prefer to see budget CPU reviewed and compared using their stock coolers. This would be important for budget customers allowing them to see if the stock HSF do their job within acceptable temp / noise parameters or if they need to spend another $ 20 on an HSF.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

Ludak021

Posts: 150   +117
Can't wait for Comet lake benchmarks. Then again, the test parameters are going to change at that point, they will no longer be tied to the similar price here, right? How about if one had 9400f since it came out, vs one that sat on some vintage CPU, waiting all this time for r3 3300 just to be undone by upcoming i3 and i5? Yea, future proofing and waiting always pays of, doing all that backlog.
 

Achaios

Posts: 15   +59
Ryzen 3300G is so awesome.

We are talking about top performance beating an 7700K@4.5 GHz at R20 Cinebench Single Threaded, PCIE 4.0 motherboards, and all that for ca. $200.

Chipzilla is really feelin' the heat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Reehahs

Evernessince

Posts: 4,986   +5,110
I am mixed. It is GREAT they can do 7700k performance for this price. On the flip side, it took 3 years and 4 Cores have a very limited life going forward with gaming. Still, its amazing performance for the price.

I feel bad for AMD though, we all want them to perform better than Intel AND be cheaper.
Sounds like someone didn't see the 1600 AF on all the benchmarks and topping the price / performance chart. 6 core 12 threads for $85.

 

R00sT3R

Posts: 224   +420
I hope people aren't going to buy these thinking they'll be set for gaming over the next 3-5yrs. Once the new consoles turn up and devs start optimising for the 7 cores 14 threads that they will have to play with, 4 cores 8 threads is going to come up well short of what's needed to avoid horrendous 1% low framerate figures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Dimitrios

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,769   +994
I am mixed. It is GREAT they can do 7700k performance for this price. On the flip side, it took 3 years and 4 Cores have a very limited life going forward with gaming. Still, its amazing performance for the price.

I feel bad for AMD though, we all want them to perform better than Intel AND be cheaper.
Don't agree this is for a budget builds which means you are not building for long term. High end systems last longer because of better component choices and a bigger budget. I've been using AMD system since the Early 90's they have always been the underdog and always rise to the challenge eventually. When you are fighting a Giant like Intel that doesn't always play fair its not an easy road.

A secondly there is a whole computing world outside of Gaming!
 
Last edited:

neeyik

Posts: 894   +831
Staff member
The 3300X looks fantastic for $120, but I'm not feeling the same way about the 3100 - it's another great CPU, but I do feel that it could have been priced a little lower, say, $89. Twenty dollars for such a difference in performance just seems too small to ignore, and since neither CPU has an integrated GPU and $20 doesn't go far when buying a GPU, I can't see it being the sensible choice for budget consumers.
 

meric

Posts: 233   +158
These are small and cheap power houses (got me excited, to be honest) but at the same time I wouldn't go for anything below 6 core CPU now, nor I would recommend this to anyone. If budget is low, 1600 AF (where available) is hard to beat, personally I'd pay a little more for a R5 2600 or even a 3600 if I had to choose.
 

amstech

Posts: 2,617   +1,789
AMD is entering what was known as the "Intel revolving door mechanism", where they have a excellent shelf of product, but like Polaris outdoing themselves with a better Ranger every other year, they are in a sense, competing against themselves, the same way Intel has.
The 3600 is still, IMO, the 'cheap' to beat...see what I did there :D.
Being a 6/12 its still very capable and dare I say future proof like the 8700K, but for $165 of whatever a 3600 costs now, its still my favorite Ryzen to date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,292   +1,245
TechSpot Elite
These are great times to build a mid-range PC.
I built a PC about 10 mo. ago with a $130 R5 2600 and that was a steal.
Then I upgraded an R3 1200 to an R5 1600AF for $85 about 5 months later.

And now there are just as good, to better, options for $99-120 with Zen2 inside. Crazy good choices.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 569   +333
This is a great gaming CPU. Especially as we all know it’s going to be years before we need a minimum of 6 cores for a good experience.

It’s good that it beat a 7700K (or almost matched, whatever). But if you have a 7700K or even most quad Core Intel chips from the last decade then there still isn’t really a chip that you can buy that provides a significant upgrade in gaming performance. I think a lot of gamers are in this position. I’m on a 4790K OCd to 4.8. Even if I buy a R9 3950X it’s not going to be more than what 10-20% faster than my 4790k at gaming if that? And it costs a bomb.

As soon as there’s a chip out there than can beat something like a 7700K by 50%+ in games then I think a lot of people will start upgrading. I would, for me extra cores don’t mean much. I want extra gaming performance.
 
Last edited:

Irata

Posts: 512   +635
TechSpot Elite
I hope people aren't going to buy these thinking they'll be set for gaming over the next 3-5yrs. Once the new consoles turn up and devs start optimising for the 7 cores 14 threads that they will have to play with, 4 cores 8 threads is going to come up well short of what's needed to avoid horrendous 1% low framerate figures.
Seems to be doing fine with current games due to it having eight threads.
And once there are games you want to play that struggle with 4C8T, you could always ugrade to something with more cores on a B550 board (that is what I would pair the 3300X with).

Since I recently built my B450 Max + 2700x, it's not for me and considering that I only paid € 150 for my CPU (on sale) including a game I wanted anyhow, I essentially paid what the 3100 would cost , so no regrets (prefer having more threads for multi-tasking).
The only potential regret is that B550 was not available then, but I still hope Ryzen 3 will work with B450 Max boards.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

mrvco

Posts: 62   +55
I hope people aren't going to buy these thinking they'll be set for gaming over the next 3-5yrs. Once the new consoles turn up and devs start optimising for the 7 cores 14 threads that they will have to play with, 4 cores 8 threads is going to come up well short of what's needed to avoid horrendous 1% low framerate figures.
More set at least... buy a B550 board, drop in a 3300x now and swap it out with a Zen 3 proc next year if and when needed... without replacing your B550 board (no word on B450 yet) and associated components.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Irata

bluetooth fairy

Posts: 143   +90
That's how Zen2.5 works when there's no need for the 3300X to communicate between its CCX's: this approach buries everything pre-Zen2 in gaming. Probably, same thing can happen to 3700X/3800X upon Zen3 arrival.

Another point here is that 3300X is ~ 20% faster than 3100 in 1% lows. That is, 2x more than just plain boost clock difference. Basically, it pays off 20% in price increase.

Interestingly, this move by AMD reminds its own competitor behavior on the GPU front, when nVidia did undercut 5700(xt) Radeons with the Super lineup announcement. And after that AMD has managed to lower the prices to stay more competitive.
 

Latest posts