AMD Ryzen 3 Review

[hahahanoobs]

"You don't put that much into a product to offer it at a discount."
That is literally the most stupid thing I've read in ages. It's like you work at AMD and you are telling us exact numbers that not even shareholders know. And we also know that AMD's CPU are very cheap to produce compared to Intel's CPUs. If a price cut is needed to put intel back in it's place then why not do it? AMD is literally crawling back from almost 0 market share for mid to high end desktop PCs at a super fast pace.
And how do you know that they are offering them at lower prices because of improved yields or/and production volume going up?

And where the hell are you taking that 20% number out of? Do you consider the "games only" type to be 80% of the market?

I am trying to read between the lines, but when you put it in black and white so directly it's pretty clear that you know some stuff that nobody here knows. I bet not even AMD themselves know.

"AMD sucks at raising clock speed" - spoken like a true fanboy
I don't remember 3.8-4GHz being bad at all (especially with the very acceptable IPC performance). It pretty much invalidates all CPUs aside from the K series from Intel and even those are recommended for gaming only (unless you have very specific needs) and are generally more expensive (depends on where you live). they also require a good cooler if you want to OC them high.
You've read the 30 games benchmark, you know exactly just how close AMD is in gaming vs a 7700k and just how far ahead it is for mostly everything else. And you also know just how bad Intel's new x299 platform is compared to even R7 1700 (forget the Threadripper which should pretty much destroy Intel in terms of value, especially if we manage to OC them to 3.8-4.0 on all cores).

I can't help it if you can't see the obvious. Good luck.

 

[Puiu]

I can't help it if you can't see the obvious. Good luck.

So, your "opinion" is obvious, but the facts that I mentioned are not? damn dude, your ego is sky high. Good luck with that.
this is your "benefits the ~20% of consumers":

 

[AntiShill]

Ryzen price points are all way too high. At $130 for the 1300x is utterly insane. They need to be priced at $79 to elimintate FX-8320e from the market. All the FX line is completely and utter obsolete and there is nothing reasonable to fill that gap. This where the 1300x should be priced at.

 

[AntiShill]

Looking at the 1500x which does worse than 1300x for single core performance see:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-1500X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-1300X/3921vs3930

There is no good justification for 1500x to be at $180-190 at all. Ryzen pricing is all price gouging right now. The 1500x should be priced at $125.

If AMD wants to reclaim the goodwill they once had, they should be playing Ryzen like they did with Athlon XP (t-bird/thoroughbred/bartons). Remember back in 2001 the when those socket A chips went for around $100 and it would be more than competitive enough with P4s at $200, even if they didn't win across the board.

This is where Ryzen stands now. The pricing should be
R7 - $250 max for the 1800x
R5 - $150 max for the 1600x
R3 -- $100 max for the 1300x

This will let AMD provide unrivaled value and really start a price war with intel for the benefit of everyone.

Because right now as it stands, these ryzens have a GPU bottleneck time bomb, that will only get worse will faster GPUs. See:
https://www.techspot.com/news/68407...ottlenecking-cpu-gaming-benchmarks-using.html
http://www.legitreviews.com/cpu-bot...-on-amd-ryzen-versus-intel-kaby-lake_192585/6
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide/8


Pretend all you want that 4K at 60fps or less is good enough for now which is where the GPU bottlenecks, then you need to price the CPU causing these bottlenecks at a much more disposable price so two years for now you can by AMD newer offerings.

 

[hahahanoobs]

dude you keep complaining about the price of Vega, but nobody but you has seen the price of those GPUs

And why isn't Zen enough? They have been selling like hot cakes.

Why are you on every AMD thread posting things like this? Are you getting paid for dissing AMD about things you don't know anything about? We've already pointed out multiple times the flaws in your logic.

The huge price cuts that Intel made since the launch of Ryzen shows clearly that whatever AMD is doing is working.

Oh look, I was right about the price. Imagine that.
btw, Once you factor in what Vega consisted of (HBM, new architecture, more SP's, HBCC etc) and what market it is going for (mid to high end), the price was quite obvious. If you thought $499, then maybe the technical side of computer hardware isn't for you anymore.

 

[Puiu]

Oh look, I was right about the price. Imagine that.
btw, Once you factor in what Vega consisted of (HBM, new architecture, more SP's, HBCC etc) and what market it is going for (mid to high end), the price was quite obvious. If you thought $499, then maybe the technical side of computer hardware isn't for you anymore.

and I was right 100%. but hey continue thinking that you were right by misunderstand what the hell I was reprimanding you for. in the end I still had the "last laugh".

 

[hahahanoobs]

and I was right 100%. but hey continue thinking that you were right by misunderstand what the hell I was reprimanding you for. in the end I still had the "last laugh".

All you did was repeat what other people have said with as little source material as possible.

 

[Puiu]

All you did was repeat what other people have said with as little source material as possible.

I never repeated anything. I all I did was present you with facts (sales, performance, manufacturers, and other claims you tried to give your "opinion" on).
In fact all you did was diss AMD's CPUs and GPUs with no real basis for your claims, especially on the CPU side. You've been caught lying or just being plain ignorant multiple times by multiple people.

I seriously have no idea why you are trying to troll so hard in a place that literally has all of the information needed to debunk whatever silly thing you keep writing (like that 20% number you keep trying to "sell" to us).

 

[hahahanoobs]

I never repeated anything. I all I did was present you with facts (sales, performance, manufacturers, and other claims you tried to give your "opinion" on).
In fact all you did was diss AMD's CPUs and GPUs with no real basis for your claims, especially on the CPU side. You've been caught lying or just being plain ignorant multiple times by multiple people.

I seriously have no idea why you are trying to troll so hard in a place that literally has all of the information needed to debunk whatever silly thing you keep writing (like that 20% number you keep trying to "sell" to us).

You had 0 facts.
20% of consumers. And that is an insanely generous number. Hordes of moms and dads aren't running to Ryzen because it "beats Intel at a fraction of the cost." If you think that, you're insane.

Consumers don't play Cinebench.
AMD has a long way to go.

 

[Puiu]

You had 0 facts.
20% of consumers. And that is an insanely generous number. Hordes of moms and dads aren't running to Ryzen because it "beats Intel at a fraction of the cost." If you think that, you're insane.

Consumers don't play Cinebench.
AMD has a long way to go.

ok dude, you got me. I had 0 facts. you are 100% right. enjoy your life thinking that no consumer in the world will think that perf/$ is the correct way of buying expensive PC components. the amazon top 10 best seller list for CPUs is "fake news".

it's a fact that AMD only wins in Cinebench! It's also a fact that AMD loses in games by 30-40%! the recent article with 30 games showed that clearly!

 

[AntiShill]

Can anyone figure out what is the video card used in this gaming benchmarks for this article?

 

[Puiu]

Can anyone figure out what is the video card used in this gaming benchmarks for this article?

it's written in the pictures with the gaming results. they used a Titan Pascal.

 

[AntiShill]

I am still trying to figure this out. Trying to figure out why there is the 4-6% performance deficit (10010 vs 9533) for the 1300x for the following bench:

FINAL FANTASY XIV: Stormblood Benchmark
Tested on: 8/16/2017 11:39:57 PM
Score: 10010
Average Frame Rate: 67.841
Performance: Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
Loading Times by Scene
Scene #1 2.770 sec
Scene #2 3.596 sec
Scene #3 2.954 sec
Scene #4 3.844 sec
Scene #5 7.158 sec
Scene #6 1.710 sec
Total Loading Time 22.034 sec

DAT:s20170816233957.dat

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
DirectX Version: 11

System
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (6.2, Build 9200) (15063.rs2_release.170317-1834)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2500K CPU @ 3.30GHz
8175.059MB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (VRAM 4058 MB)

-------------------------------------------

FINAL FANTASY XIV: Stormblood Benchmark
Tested on: 8/16/2017 11:39:52 PM
Score: 9533
Average Frame Rate: 65.725
Performance: Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
Loading Times by Scene
Scene #1 3.663 sec
Scene #2 4.256 sec
Scene #3 3.632 sec
Scene #4 4.780 sec
Scene #5 9.121 sec
Scene #6 2.023 sec
Total Loading Time 27.476 sec

DAT:s20170816233952.dat

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
DirectX Version: 11
Graphics Presets: Maximum

System
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (6.2, Build 9200) (15063.rs2_release.170317-1834)
AMD Ryzen 3 1300X Quad-Core Processor
8145.195MB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (VRAM 4058 MB)

I overclocked the 1300x to 3.9 Ghz, and I get maybee 100 point improvement. I tried enabling and disabling the SMT in the bios and that didn't do a lick of difference for the 1300x.

BTW @Puiu, I am going compare the 1300x to my old i5-2500k, because these are the CPUs I got. The two perform similar enough anyways see:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-1300X/619vs3930

And here are the corresponding benches for the systems on userbenchmark:
The 1300x: http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/4603369
The old 2500K: http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/4681505

I don't want to spend more money on more expensive ram for the 1300x, because that would defeat the purpose of being low cost bang-for-the-buck. DDR4-2400 should be adequate. The GTX970 should NOT be beyond the capability of a 1300x correct? So what is going on with AMD cpu? Is there rational root cause explanation for this?