• 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.

OcUK Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X review thread

chippy08 said:
so is the 1600 AF still the one to get if at original price
Click to expand...

If you can get it at £85?

For games that's difficult to answer, i would count out the 3100 as the IPC on that one doesn't seem to make up for the loss of the 2 extra cores, the 3300X actually has about 7% higher IPC in Intercore latency sensitive games (vs the 3100), per thread that IPC is also true for all other Zen 2 CPU's as they all spread the cores across multiple CCX's.

It is a better gaming CPU than the 1600AF, significantly so in some cases, those are the grounds in which you should decide if the 3300X is worth it over an £85 1600AF, i think it is.... the 3100 isn't.
 
Ryzen 3 3300X does not beat a Ryzen 5 2600 or Ryzen 5 1600AF in all games. DF and Gamersnexus showed they could have better frametime consistency and better minimum FPS in some games,so its not all cut and paste!
 
I've been thinking about updating my ageing fx 8230 8 core for a while now and think the 3300x might be the a good route to go down for me with a tight budget.

The boost in gaming performance will be handy as I plan to upgrade my also aging 7950 down the line, but one thing I want to make sure is that I'm getting a significant upgrade in performance for encoding raw video to .264 and I'm wondering whether the 3300x is going to actually give me that boost.

I have been trawling the internet for used i7 hardware but even the i7 4790k still commands similar money to the 3300x!
 
I hope Paul's hardware does another review with an aftermarket cooler as I have a feeling that's the only reason the intel chip won those low % wins as he said the chip got to 94° and downclocked would be nice to see a follow up imo
 
Check gamernexus site out they do a lot of productivity and video tests.

It's crazy how you can get a really good gaming rig for so little cash thanks to AMD, a 3300X paired with a B450 and 16GB of ram can be had for £240. Yet I see people in members market paying more for a 6700K bundle, mad.
 
dragonslayer said:
I hope Paul's hardware does another review with an aftermarket cooler as I have a feeling that's the only reason the intel chip won those low % wins as he said the chip got to 94° and downclocked would be nice to see a follow up imo
Click to expand...

I never did get why some reviewers insist on using the Box cooler for Ryzen testing while at the same time using £150 AIO's for Intel.

I would say AMD need to take a leaf out of Intel's book and just not have box coolers for their CPU's because clearly some reviewers have some sort of fetish for them, AMD didn't even send coolers with these samples and so Paul for some peculiar reason went and dug one out from somewhere... and it was not the larger prism cooler.
Edit: you have to treat these people like children, take their tools of mischief away from them.
 
Last edited:
Paul tested 3300X in a case with wraith spire vs 7700K on open bench with aftermarket cooler.. why even test like that it’s bs.

Since when do they test new vs used parts in a primary review it’s usually done as secondary interest piece.
 
Toasty said:
Paul tested 3300X in a case with wraith spire vs 7700K on open bench with aftermarket cooler.. why even test like that it’s bs.

Since when do they test new vs used parts in a primary review it’s usually done as secondary interest piece.
Click to expand...

Apples vs Boiled Oranges.

Once upon a time reviewers were anal about Apples to Apples comparisons when testing hardware, what happened to that? Why has that suddenly gone out the window?
 
dragonslayer said:
Because AMD has caught up/ taken over :p
Click to expand...

It does make you wonder, there has been a sudden change in how a lot of reviewers now approach their testing methodology, very highly knowledgable reviewers suddenly claiming ignorance about MCE, Boosting behaviour under thermal conditions, the difference between PL states on junk $40 Motherboards for power consumption testing and performance testing on high end $300+ Motherboards....
 
humbug said:
The 7700K sells for 200 to £300 used, even older Intel quads still sell for £100+ used.

Huge numbers of people still think Hyper Threaded quads are good.

AMD are happy to oblige them for around the £100 mark, its why AMD want Reviewers to make a point of comparing them to the 7700K.....
Click to expand...


Huge numbers of people yes, but not most of us on here, AMD have just showed the true value of a hyperthreaded quad, around a hundred quid, an entry level CPU, can't see many of us here using it for a gaming rig, especially when you can grab a 3600 for £144! (spotted today on offer).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom