-
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
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,903
- Location
- Oxon
Hmm, debating whether to upgrade to this from my 4670K or just try and get another chip with hyperthreading (Xeon 1241 or 4770/90K) and stick with what I have. None of the games I play run badly but I'd rather hold off replacing everything for as long as possible especially with AMD now saying current motherboards (except X570) won't support the 4000 series.
Tempted by this along with the new B550 board.
Not got a system built at the moment and this looks like a decent way to get back in, it's likely this cpu would do for everything I'd throw at it but in a couple of years I could upgrade the cpu and have a system that will run those "next gen" games.
Not got a system built at the moment and this looks like a decent way to get back in, it's likely this cpu would do for everything I'd throw at it but in a couple of years I could upgrade the cpu and have a system that will run those "next gen" games.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,125
- Location
- The Orion Spur
Guys, the 3600 can be had for £144 if you look, that is a much better buy than this.
Not a realistic overclock but at 4.575Ghz and probably combined with the Singular CCX architecture it beat a 9900KS in Fortnight 
Edit: not "Probably" factually, the dual CCX 3100 at the same clock speed is...... drum role: about 7% behind, again.
Edit: not "Probably" factually, the dual CCX 3100 at the same clock speed is...... drum role: about 7% behind, again.
Without a doubt if you can stretch the extra £30 then you should, but for budget builds where every pound counts, this is the new king. "i7" performance for "i3" money.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,519
- Location
- Warwickshire
It's only a much better buy if you get 25% more value from it for your purposes.
My skills must be weak, I can't find it at that price anywhere anyway, cheapest I can find it without being in the know is £165.
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,394
- Location
- Planet Earth
I would say wait until the B550 arrives though for anyone who wants this CPU. For me,the B450 motherboards are severely devalued with the B550 arriving next month,and if someone is fine with the B450,I would expect deals on them with the A520 and B550 being released.
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,394
- Location
- Planet Earth
I don’t agree. 1600AF and 3100 or 3300 aren’t really aimed at the same market sector. Whilst all three are budget friendly. The former is more general purposes. Imagine someone on 4790k or 2600k coming to AMD4, I would be expecting some additional cores as an upgrade instead of just RAM upgrades.
from what I can see, the new ryzen 3s are really for existing AM4 users who are on maybe Zen or Zen+ CPUs specially ryzen 3 and Ryzen 5. If you are on Ryzen 7 or 9 no way you will be trading down to loose that many cores as you would be buying into higher cores for a reason. AMD is also using the new ryzen 3 to lure people into AMD platform ie gamers.
the 1600AF is really for people who use their PC across a spectrum of workloads and budget conscious.
I think the current range AMD is nice as it has a CPU for every single scenario of usage. Content creation, gaming, general home use, professional work load types etc etc.
I definitely do not want to see a high end APU from AMD. It’s a waste of space, unless they can somehow make the graphic core to accelerate or work together with their Radeon cards.
A monolithic 8 core Zen die is TINY. It won't be very big even with a more capable GPU than found in the 3400G, look at the 4800H in mobile! There's some rumor mill speculation that APUs will form the low to upper mid range of the stack for the 4000 series, thats up to and including something like a 4800G (rather than X)...
For OEMs it'd be a win/win. No need for a dGPU to add to cost/complexity. Smaller cases, simpler cooling, more than 4 cores. I've always been bemused by mainstream Ryzen NOT having a basic iGPU
for high end CPU, 99.9% of the time the system will have a discrete GPU. To have additional graphics cores on a CPU chip wastes energy and thus cause greater heat output more cooling. And most importantly adds the cost to the whole package.
For budget systems or mobile systems yes I agree. However high end mobile computing system aimed at gaming they shouldn’t have these graphic core in there either. It again waste space, energy and money.
Having a low power iGPU is how Ryzen 4xxx (and Intel for that matter) "gaming" laptops achieve such good battery life. They power gate the dGPU, it's RAM and ancillary components.
Your average buyer walking into the purple shirt place doesn't give a monkeys about gaming performance, and quite a few that do see "Intel HD Graphics" and think that it'll do. You can buy OEM PCs with an i7 and no dGPU!
Also
Maybe 8 cores is no longer so "high end" then...
I find gaming laptop is a bit of a marketing ploy. I mean yes it is a laptop form factor. But do you really game on these machines that can pull 65w from CPU and probably another 100w from GPU on battery alone. Lol. It is really a small form factor gaming machine that needs to be plugged in when it does what it says on the tin.
So for those people buying the so called gaming laptop, I don’t think battery life is really their primary concern. They want a fast CPU paired with a powerful GPU in a small case that they can lug it round for LAN parties (maybe).
I don’t disagree that having integrated APU will be more efficient in laptops again I don’t think they are meant for gaming experience.
I don’t know why AMD offers 4800H or the 4900H with graphics core. I guess they are trying to prove a point that they can do what intel does and offer laptop OEM flexibility as well as shift of some of their graphic cores that no one is buying (maybe).
In truth, those graphics cores will be redundant in the high end gaming machines with 1660super it 2060super
Last edited:
It costs AMD <$20 to make a 4800H die, it's 156 mm² and it's not 65w. A single Zen 2 chiplet is 74mm2 each, then the 12mn IO die at 125 mm2 plus all the extra packaging cost. The whole point is not to be using that high power dGPU for basic stuff. Believe it or believe it not, not everyone is you and people do all sorts of things with their "gaming laptops"
Every dollar and cent makes a difference. By the time that difference makes its way to RRP it won’t be a dollar mark up.
those B450 Max boards are decent example. The Max branding somehow managed to hold the respective boards at close to launch prices.
Also when I said earlier “waste of space” isn’t literal meaning of the words. It was meant as waste in general - resources in production of something unwanted or redundant, the energy used etc. Of course there will always be sufficient space on the die to fit everything.
Except now you are selling the 3300X for £150 which makes 0 sense.