# AMD Ryzen 3 1300X 3.4 GHz



## W1zzard (Jul 27, 2017)

The AMD Ryzen 3 1300X, which is priced at $129, comes with a 3.4 GHz base clock and 3.7 GHz Boost. It offers four real cores that manage to beat the dual-core Intel Core i3-7300 with HyperThreading, which is significantly more expensive at the same time.

*Show full review*


----------



## EzioAs (Jul 27, 2017)

Sayonara i3.


----------



## zzzaac (Jul 27, 2017)

When are ones with integrated GPUs coming ?. Would be perfect for building a rig for the elders


----------



## FrustratedGarrett (Jul 27, 2017)

So the new 1300 and 1200 parts are still harvested 2-CCX chips with the extra issue of not supporting high RAM frequencies. Wow... I would expect nothing less from AMD; a truly useless product!  It's well known that cross-CCX latency is the main culprit behind Ryzen's poor performance in gaming and memory-sensitive applications. The 1300 losses to Intel's dual core 7300 in games and most other benchmarks.


----------



## R00kie (Jul 27, 2017)

Motherboard AIB's still need to get their heads out of their asses and release more lower end ITX mobos. This would've been a perfect contender for a living room HTPC/gaming rig.


----------



## Flanker (Jul 27, 2017)

Geez what's up with the relatively high idle power consumption?


zzzaac said:


> When are ones with integrated GPUs coming ?. Would be perfect for building a rig for the elders


Excuse me, I'm in my twenties and would love to have a Ryzen APU rig as well


----------



## Mirkoskji (Jul 27, 2017)

In 4k gaming the fastest processor of the chart has only a 3,5% advantage over a r3 1300x. If you stop thinking about this, it feels insane.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 27, 2017)

Mirkoskji said:


> In 4k gaming the fastest processor of the chart has only a 3,5% advantage over a r3 1300x. If you stop thinking about this, it feels insane.


Why is that? Resolution doesn't increase the CPU workload significantly, as the CPU is used for getting all of the details and physics organized which is pretty much entirely independent of resolution.

This is also why I can game on two 4k screens with my 7700HQ without issue.


----------



## bug (Jul 27, 2017)

Mirkoskji said:


> In 4k gaming the fastest processor of the chart has only a 3,5% advantage over a r3 1300x. If you stop thinking about this, it feels insane.


Yes, but if you have the dough for a GPU capable of 4k, you're probably not looking to save on the CPU.

There are great compared to similar i3 parts. Yet I'm looking at the 7600k: also a true 4 core chip, roughly the same frequency, but it beats 1300x both in performance and in power usage. Granted, 1300x is significantly cheaper, but I'm looking at the overall architecture here.


----------



## xorbe (Jul 27, 2017)

Were the minimum fps charts collected from a single frame?  Or the average of the bottom 1% of frames?


----------



## Disparia (Jul 27, 2017)

I'll echo the conclusion and previous postings: would be nice if it were an APU. When that happens I'll be looking to switch out the core of my A8-5500 system for one.


----------



## B-Real (Jul 27, 2017)

The R3 actually destroys i3 (in fact, it was already destroyed by G4560) and i5 except for the 7600K. Former is just not enough with 2 cores and is expensive compared to R3, the latter is way more expensive with not offering enough plus in games. The palette seems like: g4560 to 7700K. Everything between is Ryzen.


----------



## EntropyZ (Jul 27, 2017)

All well and good, but.

Where is RX Vague-A? Get it, Vega? I'll be going now.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 27, 2017)

Making these entry levels chips as APU would have been more useful for the intended audience.


----------



## Manu_PT (Jul 27, 2017)

loved the 720p benchmarks part. That's what I look for on all cpu review and rarely can find it! (Hardocp does it too). I'm an high refresh gamer (240hz) and we can clearly see AMD just cant keep up. On some cases Intel i5 has almost double framerate!! That is crazy really


----------



## ironwolf (Jul 27, 2017)

> Those wanting to build non-gaming desktops can only choose between Core i3 and AMD's new 7th generation "Bristol Ridge" socket AM4 APUs right now


Wait, Bristol Ridge APUs are publicly available for building a system?  I have only seen them on major OEM boxes, aka HP, etc or pulls on eBay.


----------



## Static~Charge (Jul 27, 2017)

ironwolf said:


> Wait, Bristol Ridge APUs are publicly available for building a system?  I have only seen them on major OEM boxes, aka HP, etc or pulls on eBay.



AMD just released them to retail.


----------



## ironwolf (Jul 27, 2017)

Static~Charge said:


> AMD just released them to retail.


Aha, just saw the article.  Bout time they came out retail.


----------



## CounterSpell (Jul 27, 2017)

g4560 still kicking ass...


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 27, 2017)

Great CPU


----------



## Frick (Jul 27, 2017)

So there's like seven CPUs to buy now on mainstream platforms.

G4560
R3 1300X
R5 1400
R5 1600
i5 7600K
R7 1700/X sans cooler
i7 7700K


----------



## rhythmeister (Jul 28, 2017)

Are there no gaming benchmarks at the overclocked speed?


----------



## Melvis (Jul 28, 2017)

FrustratedGarrett said:


> So the new 1300 and 1200 parts are still harvested 2-CCX chips with the extra issue of not supporting high RAM frequencies. Wow... I would expect nothing less from AMD; a truly useless product!  It's well known that cross-CCX latency is the main culprit behind Ryzen's poor performance in gaming and memory-sensitive applications. The 1300 losses to Intel's dual core 7300 in games and most other benchmarks.



You was saying?


----------



## mtcn77 (Jul 28, 2017)

This cpu has SMT? CTRL+C/V too much?


> Single-threaded performance still lags behind competing Intel chips
> 
> Gaming performance slightly behind Intel chips
> 
> ...


----------



## Konceptz (Jul 28, 2017)

Manu_PT said:


> loved the 720p benchmarks part. That's what I look for on all cpu review and rarely can find it! (Hardocp does it too). I'm an high refresh gamer (240hz) and we can clearly see AMD just cant keep up. On some cases Intel i5 has almost double framerate!! That is crazy really



If your looking to do high end gaming you shouldn't buy anything less then a i7 or Ryzen 7 anyway.....


----------



## Brusfantomet (Jul 28, 2017)

How does the I3-7300 at 4 Ghz beat everything in fallout 4 on 4K ? not only does it it beat the i7-7700k it gets a significant higher score as well, 14 % higher average FPS.





from page 13


----------



## bug (Jul 28, 2017)

Brusfantomet said:


> How does the I3-7300 at 4 Ghz beat everything in fallout 4 on 4K ? not only does it it beat the i7-7700k it gets a significant higher score as well, 14 % higher average FPS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It probably ramps up to 4GHz and stays there, whereas more powerful CPUs will boost but also throttle from time to time. Sometimes less is more.


----------



## Brusfantomet (Jul 28, 2017)

bug said:


> It probably ramps up to 4GHz and stays there, whereas more powerful CPUs will boost but also throttle from time to time. Sometimes less is more.


but then the i3-7100 also should be up at the same level, where its down at 55 FPS.

also, i do not think a i7-7700 will throttle to that much under Fallout 4.


----------



## mcborge (Jul 28, 2017)

I would have liked to have seen how these chips compare to previous gen amd chips (mainly in gaming), as an owner of an fx 8350 i would like to know which ryzen chip will give me enough of an increase in performance to justify upgrading my system.


----------



## bug (Jul 28, 2017)

mcborge said:


> I would have liked to have seen how these chips compare to previous gen amd chips (mainly in gaming), as an owner of an fx 8350 i would like to know which ryzen chip will give me enough of an increase in performance to justify upgrading my system.


Pretty much any of them?


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 29, 2017)

That fallout 4 result does look odd, will retest on Tuesday when I'm back from where I can't tell you


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 29, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> That fallout 4 result does look odd, will retest on Tuesday when I'm back from where I can't tell you



VIA's secret RnD facilities.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jul 29, 2017)

How does amd disable multithreading on these cores?


----------



## mtcn77 (Jul 30, 2017)

de.das.dude said:


> How does amd disable multithreading on these cores?


I looked at the Aida64 results from Guru3D. 1200 & 1400 are half-dies while on the other hand, 1300X and 1500X are two half-dies. It crimps the L3 write bandwidth. Therefore, I recon, 1200 is a better pick.


----------



## mcborge (Jul 30, 2017)

bug said:


> Pretty much any of them?


Well obviously... What i need is specific comparisons. Going ryzen means shelling out for more than just the cpu and if a ryzen 3 will give me a decent boost in gaming then fine but if i need to go for at least a ryzen 5 or 7 then i need to know just how much the extra expense is justified.


----------



## infrared (Jul 30, 2017)

mtcn77 said:


> I looked at the Aida64 results from Guru3D. 1200 & 1400 are half-dies while on the other hand, 1300X and 1500X are two half-dies. It crimps the L3 write bandwidth. Therefore, I recon, 1200 is a better pick.


I may have this wrong myself but I thought all the 4 core ryzens used 2ccx's and 2 cores active per ccx.. Have you got a link to where you read that?


----------



## xorbe (Jul 30, 2017)

bug said:


> It probably ramps up to 4GHz and stays there, whereas more powerful CPUs will boost but also throttle from time to time. Sometimes less is more.



This is why I set min cpu state to 100% while gaming.


----------



## mtcn77 (Jul 31, 2017)

infrared said:


> I may have this wrong myself but I thought all the 4 core ryzens used 2ccx's and 2 cores active per ccx.. Have you got a link to where you read that?


No, as I said previously I checked Aida64 memory bandwidth results from Guru3D and LanOC's reviews. Split L3's have fewer direct processor ports, but more memory ports. Therefore 1300X and 1500X copies from memory(L3 copy) faster, whereas their L3 writes are crimped.
I know nothing about processors btw, this is all my estimation.


----------



## bug (Jul 31, 2017)

xorbe said:


> This is why I set min cpu state to 100% while gaming.


Doesn't help. If you let it boost, it will still throttle from time to time.
Fwiw, I let mine at default and I'm not bothered at all. At the same time, I don't play competitive online and rarely the latest titles (lack of time).


----------



## rruff (Oct 31, 2017)

From the conclusions page: "It's pointless to pair this chip with an entry-level graphics card, such as the Radeon RX 550 or GeForce GT 1030, because you'd rather spend the extra $50 on a quad-core Intel Core i5 CPU with integrated graphics."

I'm not understanding that. A 1300x with one of those cheap cards will perform a lot better in games than an i5 on integrated graphics. 

Actually the 1200 OC'd to 4 GHz (which is easily attained on cheap MBs), paired with a mid-range card looks like a very viable value solution, for gaming and computing.


----------



## Frick (Oct 31, 2017)

rruff said:


> Actually the 1200 OC'd to 4 GHz (which is easily attained on cheap MBs), paired with a mid-range card looks like a very viable value solution, for gaming and computing.



Aye and it can be had for pretty cheap.

The real budget champions are the HT Pentiums though, if they are found at their original prices.


----------



## rruff (Oct 31, 2017)

After looking at some more reviews, the 1200 easily clocks to 3.8, but several got 4.0. 

The Pentiums are cheap but there are more situations where they are limited. Still think the 1200 has a niche for low-mid budget gaming where it makes the most sense.


----------



## infrared (Oct 31, 2017)

And you can drop in a Zen 2 eventually. You could get a budget ryzen 1200 now, overclock it as far as possible, enjoy it for a bit, then put in a monster 8c zen 2 in a year or so and turn it into a beast, some of the budget B350 motherboards are excellent, no real need to spend £200+ on a board unless you want the overkill vrm and SLI support.


----------

