Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,709
- Location
- Warwickshire
That's funny, I still have Q6600s in two of my family PCs and paired with SSDs and 8GBs of RAM, they're great in Windows 10 for work, media, and light gaming.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Ryzen 3300X - not as popular as I expected
- Thread starter Masterdog
- Start date
well I have a 7700k in one machine and get maxed out pretty quickly, I probably do more intensive stuff than you anyway - I was using 8gb ram too but it would always run at 95% utilisation so I had to move to 16gb and now the RAM sits at 80% utilisation - I do a lot of tasks that involve number crunching, working with large data and a lot of multitasking
Last edited:
The more I read this forum lately the more I think that half the members don't really know what they are talking about. There are so many silly blanket statements that either make me laugh, sigh or scratch my head.
My work laptop that I do everything on including data analytics is a dual core 7th gen Intel i5 from 5 years ago. Now THAT is getting slow. The 3300x based on Zen2 with single CCX is a thoroughbred racehorse in comparison and the reviews show exactly what it is a capable of.
In gaming, the 3300x is neck and neck with the 3600 and 3700x much of the time, even overtaking the 3700x when overclocking:
And for those who don't know Gamers Nexus please check it out, it is the most scientific and consistent PC hardware testing outfit I have ever seen. Exhaustively and boringly so, substance over style, which is exactly why it's great
And for those who don't know Gamers Nexus please check it out, it is the most scientific and consistent PC hardware testing outfit I have ever seen. Exhaustively and boringly so, substance over style, which is exactly why it's great
nah...disagree with you on your last bit but spot on for the rest.
for people thinking dual core or quad core with no HT and still ok for use these days must be using browsers built in the 90s (exaggerations!)
just try open chrome or chromium based browsers. Chrome is ridiculously thread hungry. Even a couple of tabs you will have it latched on every logical cores there is. Then there is the ridiculous memory hog. Not sure what it is trying to do, running content rich website on my i5 dual core 4T laptop is a struggle while having any kind of word, excel and other office based applications open.
I use Chrome every day on both a dual core and a quad core CPU. I am now writing this on an ultrabook with a i7-7500 a dual core and 8GB RAM and it is handling 13 tabs fine, one of which is always Youtube. On my notebook with 7700HQ quad core CPU and 16GB it runs Chrome with around 15 tabs (I never usually have more than this because I see no need to be so disprganised) without a hitch.nah...disagree with you on your last bit but spot on for the rest.
for people thinking dual core or quad core with no HT and still ok for use these days must be using browsers built in the 90s (exaggerations!)
just try open chrome or chromium based browsers. Chrome is ridiculously thread hungry. Even a couple of tabs you will have it latched on every logical cores there is. Then there is the ridiculous memory hog. Not sure what it is trying to do, running content rich website on my i5 dual core 4T laptop is a struggle while having any kind of word, excel and other office based applications open.
Lets not exaggerate how a 6 core CPU is "needed" for browsing the internet smoothly, because then this really is getitng into some very silly territory...
I also did heavy photo editing on my 7700HQ which it also managed fine, and gamed well at 1440p with a GTX 1070m, so I can only imagine how a 3300X would improve things as it is around 50% stronger.
As a short-term solution until AMD 4000 hits I don't think there is any bette price/performance option (at £120). When Zen3 hits and price settle I will be dropping in something meaty like a 4700x/4900x.
Last edited:
You are mixing things up a little bit here. Photoshop/light room are not heavily threaded program. Photoshop with loads of layers or exposure stacks or loads of photos open at once is extreme memory intensive. When doing some edits the program loads a couple of the threads and the workload is spikey.
4 logical cores were more than enough for photoshop for me when I used a 2C4T Athlon CPU. that had enough grunt to deal with the CPU demand of photoshop. But the ram is another storey.
Chrome is thread heavy and also ram intensive. Not necessarily will load up all the logical cores but it will take performance away from other productivity work loads. In the days I only had 4 logical cores and 16GB ram I could not afford to have chrome running while doing my photo edits at the same time. I am not a photo professional, I do it for hobby so I struggle to think “heavy photo edit” would be ok with 4 logical cores and only 8GB ram.
anything more fancy than photoshop or lightroom will require even more grunt and ram.
I am not mixing anything up and I have close to 3 decades of almost daily PC experience behind me so I am confident in what I am talking about based on my own experience and the wealth of information available on the web to support it. For gaming and general use, a quad core still performs adequately. I photoshop/browse at the same time (browse Chrome while it processing large batches) and at other times I game and browse at the same time (total war and browsing inbetween turns) with a quad core from 4 years ago (7700HQ) and I have no performance issues worth speaking about. Some general use applicatons benefit from more than 4c8t, but do they need them? I doubt it. I do occasional photo editing... again fine with a quad core. Nothing I run in terms of games or productivity does not run at least adequately on a 4 year old quad core. Would it run better on a 6 or 8 core? Perhaps... but
Your post is in the end subjective and I would challenge you to provide any tangible evidence that an advanced and powerful quad core like the 3300x cannot adequately handle browsing or gaming tasks (most people don't do both at the same time). If for whatever reason you believe otherwise then I am happy to disagree rather than waste time debating against something I know is not true.
Summary: The 3300x is a great budget CPU for £120 and perfect for the months leading up to Zen3. Fact.
Last edited:
If your referring to the 3300x or even a i7 4 core 8 thread chip your clearly talking out of your bottom.
if you look at the actual gaming benchmarks its basically a stock intel 4790k performance 4 core chip. the thing is its way to expensive. also for those on intel i7s of yesterday id get em sold while still worth something and swap over to a amd platform. it wont cost you much even anything at all if you still got high end old i7s. then buy a cheap six core on amd boards. 4790s still fetch silly money and you could literally buy a 3600 for the same 2nd price of a 4790. that wont last long so swap over sell old gear and have a nice cheap upgrade.
if these 3300s were £100 they might be okay at that. the thing is you need x6 really now. so tbh i wouldnt pay more than £80 for one new. especially when you can get new 6 core amd cpus for around £100 new anyway.
if these 3300s were £100 they might be okay at that. the thing is you need x6 really now. so tbh i wouldnt pay more than £80 for one new. especially when you can get new 6 core amd cpus for around £100 new anyway.
The 3300x at stock is equivalent to a 7700k at stock, plenty of benchmarks directly confirm that. Not sure a what the rest of your post is supposed to mean as it's written in a very legible way.
The 4790 is around 30% slower overall than the 3300x:
Which new 6 core AMD CPU can be had for £100?
The absolute cheapest price I can find for a 3600 is £155. Overclockers UK is £180.
Last edited:
its same as a 4790k seen a few gaming benchmarks comparing also overclocked they about the same. so at the current pricing pointless. as for which new 6 core amd cpus. you just have to look at deals they on all the time. £100 will get you a amd 6core.
so sell old 4790k now. you could literally move to a new faster platform for literally nothing if you sell now and get more cores for doing so. before the bottom drops out of the older i7s and prices drop down. you can then just drop in a better highend cpu when needed on the amd platform but still have almost identical performance while you wait for the new amd cpu range.
infact think about it even more and with the real prices of these settling. you could just buy one of these when they hit £100 and still have the same or faster than your old i7 for no price difference. when you look at the actual price they are retailing at there not that far off tbh. sell sell sell.
so sell old 4790k now. you could literally move to a new faster platform for literally nothing if you sell now and get more cores for doing so. before the bottom drops out of the older i7s and prices drop down. you can then just drop in a better highend cpu when needed on the amd platform but still have almost identical performance while you wait for the new amd cpu range.
infact think about it even more and with the real prices of these settling. you could just buy one of these when they hit £100 and still have the same or faster than your old i7 for no price difference. when you look at the actual price they are retailing at there not that far off tbh. sell sell sell.
It's the same as a 7700k in pretty much every respect, look at the video I posted above with detailed testing. I have no idea why you are referring to a 4790k as that will be slower overall.
Can you please share the "few benchmarks" you are referring to? or maybe you are thinking of the AMD 3100x? You cannot get a 3600 for £100 and I would not buy a 2600 as it is slower than the 3300x for gaming.
Basically very little that you are saying (that I can understand from your posts) makes good sense to me.
Last edited:
i understand your view. everyones is different . benchmarks are often different as well . so who do you believe go with ?
you can get a few amd chips for around £100 which are about the same performance as a old 4790k so all i was saying is sell those while they good money move to a newer platform. for little cost then drop in a newer cpu at a later date.
Umm, you do realise that video shows the 3300X to be faster right? Gaming is faster overall and it gets destroyed in Cinebench. Did you even watch that video thoroughly before presenting it as evidence?
Slower at F1 2019
Its a bad set of benchmars to test anyway and the 3300x wins 80% of them. The 4790 only catcheds up when heavily overclocked but then gets left behind when the 3300x is overclocked.
Also vague statements like "you can get a few AMD chips for £100 don't help anyone. Name them or please stop posting repeating that stuff.
Anyway I have (annoyingly) wasted enough of my time here and have provided all of the evidence needed to show people reading that you are not making sense, so lets just agree to disagree. Cheers.
ffs have you got a brain ? you know i cant mention hint at prices . then you complain when i dont list them. these forums are hard work.
i said gaming and if you look in many of the games the 4790k is going to be around the same area especially if overclocked and most people who have them will overclock them. next..even if they are quicker i said to get one ! sell your old i7s and move to a newer platform for next to nothing. so rather than try and pick holes in what im putting look at whats helpful about it and right. you can sell your old high end i7 gear 2nd hand pay for new amd stuff which at the very worst is on par with your older i7s or if not quicker ! for next to no money but you want to be doing this now. before all think the same.
also benchmarks as said it depends what you choose. the 3300 is sorta between a 4790k and a 7700k they go 2nd hand for £100 - £150 so there is no point in buying them but there is point in selling them now. to get a faster better cpu.
ive also seen these chips we saying are too expensive for as low as £110. which you could get from selling your older i7s.
i said gaming and if you look in many of the games the 4790k is going to be around the same area especially if overclocked and most people who have them will overclock them. next..even if they are quicker i said to get one ! sell your old i7s and move to a newer platform for next to nothing. so rather than try and pick holes in what im putting look at whats helpful about it and right. you can sell your old high end i7 gear 2nd hand pay for new amd stuff which at the very worst is on par with your older i7s or if not quicker ! for next to no money but you want to be doing this now. before all think the same.
also benchmarks as said it depends what you choose. the 3300 is sorta between a 4790k and a 7700k they go 2nd hand for £100 - £150 so there is no point in buying them but there is point in selling them now. to get a faster better cpu.
ive also seen these chips we saying are too expensive for as low as £110. which you could get from selling your older i7s.
You could get the 1600 AF very cheap up until a couple of months ago, there's absolutely no stock anywhere right now though.
This thread really has gone to **** if people are recommending a new build with a 1600AF over a 3300x for gaming and general use.
Who recommended one?
That said, when the 3300X is £150 like it is on OCUK I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Have you even read the thread you are replying to?
DG has made multiple posts about buying an "AMD 6 core CPU for around 100", instead of a 3300x. If the 1600x is that CPU then his argument is even worse than I thought.And really, who cares about the OCUK price when it doesn't represent the actual rrp price at other etailers? Simply ignore it as the normal price you can find it for (even if not currently in stock) is £120.