AMD Ryzen 3 3300X

[Ravenas]

Thank you for the review W1zzard.

For a strictly gaming CPU standpoint, I'm not sure it's possible to beat this CPU in terms of performance value and "horsepower" needed for gaming, even at high resolutions.

W1zzard one request that I have for CPU reviews, and I don't know if this is feasible for you... Is it possible to get Streaming/Gaming combo performance numbers?

 

[Dyatlov A]

I will sell my 3950X, this better for gaming. Just give me an overclocked version!

 

[Bee9]

I will sell my 3950X, this better for gaming. Just give me an overclocked version!

Oh no, don't sell your 3600X too. Poor thing.

 

[SL2]

Oh, they are.

Nah, it was a direct reply to your claim that this one is half the price.

 

[Turmania]

So how come much laughed intel i5 9600k in power consumption beats this,with a room to spare.

 

[Jism]

However, overclocking is complicated by the fact that the processor will boost very high out of the box. My maximum overclock, using 1.25 V, is lower than the maximum boost clock. Out of the box, at default settings, the CPU will run up to 1.36 V when all cores are loaded.

I tried this voltage setting, too, but could not even achieve stability at the maximum boost clock of 4.35 GHz in all our benchmarks. The underlying reason is that the processor will intelligently detect the type of load and adjust the frequency accordingly—sometimes lower, sometimes higher, but always stable. Fixed clock overclocking can't do that, so overclocking really isn't worth it on Ryzen 3 3300X.

No sir, you just encountered the FIS of the CPU, which is a protection layer to prevent the CPU from consuming too much current, which will fry the chip within months.

The clocks, voltages are based on current workload, how much power its pulling and what the temperature is. PBO is a safe by design feature that pretty much maxes out already the best possible clocks / voltages / current(s), hence the difference of clocks in AVX or FPU etc.

Apart from that a very compelling CPU with the right price.

 

[thebluebumblebee]

@W1zzard , I know it would have been a lot more work, but it sure would have been nice to see the i7-7700K in this test.

 

[RandallFlagg]

So...

Anyone else noticing how the i5-9400F, which can be had for $120 now, is beating this thing in most benchmarks and also consumes about 35% less power?

Just sayin...

 

[Bee9]

Anyone else noticing how the i5-9400F, which can be had for $120 now, is beating this thing in most benchmarks and also consumes about 35% less power?

Can you point me to the store that sell it new for $120... Amazon and newegg runs for $160...

Intel Core i5 9th Gen - Core i5-9400F Coffee Lake 6-Core 2.9 GHz (4.1 GHz Turbo) LGA 1151 (300 Series) 65W BX80684I59400F Desktop Processor Without Graphics - Newegg.com

Buy Intel Core i5 9th Gen - Core i5-9400F Coffee Lake 6-Core 2.9 GHz (4.1 GHz Turbo) LGA 1151 (300 Series) 65W BX80684I59400F Desktop Processor Without Graphics with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.com

 

[1d10t]

Wow...I mean wow, for the same price and less core this CPU outclasses my R5-2600 in 1440p gaming.

 

[W1zzard]

@W1zzard , I know it would have been a lot more work, but it sure would have been nice to see the i7-7700K in this test.

Not a lot of extra work, but why? As I said on reddit: AMD kept parading the 7700k argument at everyone in briefings, I dropped 7700k out of comparisons a long time ago, so I saw no reason to put it back in. My review has lots of comparison CPUs that are actually relevant today.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Can you point me to the store that sell it new for $120... Amazon and newegg runs for $160...

Intel Core i5 9th Gen - Core i5-9400F Coffee Lake 6-Core 2.9 GHz (4.1 GHz Turbo) LGA 1151 (300 Series) 65W BX80684I59400F Desktop Processor Without Graphics - Newegg.com

Buy Intel Core i5 9th Gen - Core i5-9400F Coffee Lake 6-Core 2.9 GHz (4.1 GHz Turbo) LGA 1151 (300 Series) 65W BX80684I59400F Desktop Processor Without Graphics with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.com

Top right corner :

 

[Bee9]

Top right corner :

I forgot to check microcenter. This only applies to US market where microcenter is available though. Poor Canadian.
So if we take the combo, we can have the 9400F for $100 pretax. Sounds like a good idea for me.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I forgot to check microcenter. This only applies to US market where microcenter is available though. Poor Canadian.
So if we take the combo, we can have the 9400F for $100 pretax. Sounds like a good idea for me.

Yeah, it is a good deal. I was thinking about going to that, but a couple of disadvantages.

1 - 1151 isn't going beyond 9th gen, so while there are upgrades out there they aren't up to current
2 - The i5-10400 is 6c/12t, and will only about $60 more than the sale price here (~ $180 MSRP). It will prob be on sale at microcenter for -$20 or more pretty quickly and initial benchmarks show it being on par with an i7-9700 (non-k) - even beating it more than one bench
3 - 10400 has some ability to be overclocked, unlike the 9400

I'm wondering why release this now, if Ryzen 3 desktop chips are just around the corner.

 

[dicktracy]

Runs too hot and loud for a quadcore. I rather get nextgen consoles than this...

 

[Bee9]

I'm wondering why release this now, if Ryzen 3 desktop chips are just around the corner.

Timing and $. Some marketers want to saturate the market with products suitable for all budgets. New Ryzen will likely be released to capture higher end or mid tier audience first and the low budget skus will roll out later. That will be a couple months later.
Obviously those 3300x and 3100 is the defect of 3950x and 3900x. So they produce higher end products first then once the defects inventory is big enough, they release budget models with cores disabled.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Timing and $. Some marketers want to saturate the market with products suitable for all budgets. New Ryzen will likely be released to capture higher end or mid tier audience first and the low budget skus will roll out later. That will be a couple months later.
Obviously those 3300x and 3100 is the defect of 3950x and 3900x. So they produce higher end products first then once the defects inventory is big enough, they release budget models with cores disabled.

Ahhh... This may explain the bizarre thermals and power draw. AMD has been very good about power and thermals with the 3000 series so far, but frankly this chip really blows in that area.

The reviews all seem to be picking benchmarks that are highlighting it's strength vs multi-core / multi-thread chips. Which is fine, until you get another chip that is fast but few cores. And for the tasks this chip does well via overclocking, the i3-9350KF seems to do it better.

Example - see how many times the overclocked i3-9350KF is #1 on these benchmarks in Tom's review.

AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 Review: Low-End Gaming Gets a High-End Boost

$120 scores a potent chip

www.tomshardware.com

 

[thebluebumblebee]

but why?

4c/8t comparison, and some people might be presented with the option of a used 7700K system vs building with this 3300X

 

[Bee9]

AMD has been very good about power and thermals with the 3000 series so far, but frankly this chip really blows in that area.

They don't blow. It's physic. For 3900x, the heat is distributed through all 12 cores in a much bigger surface AND the workload is distributed too. With higher surface and lower overall load, the CPU tends to get cooler. With 3300X, you deal with a smaller surface area and the cores are taxed more often. That explains higher temperature. Oh, and I forgot the included 3300x cooler just is not as good as the RGB one came with the 3900x.

 

[olymind1]

I wish AMD would have released this 3300X last year, i would have bought it, instead of my 2600.

 

[Neverdie]

Hi everyone!

I was waiting for this review as I am thinking about upgrading my ancient cpu. I game only on 1080p 60hz, my config is in system specs, nothing fancy here. To be honest, my dirty old i5 is still holding up pretty well in gaming. There are only two games where I found my cpu insufficient. First is Battlefield 1 multiplayer with 64 players on smaller maps (singleplayer and 32 player servers are totally fine). When things get intense with 64 players my framerate drops from around 80-90 down to 30-40 and that is very noticable, destroys aiming and fun factor. The other game is Insurgency Sandstorm. Now this one used to be bad in regards of optimization, but it got much better over time. In this game I have the same problem, intense multiplayer kills my framerate even with smaller amount of players. In these 2 games I see near constant 100% cpu utilization on all 4 cores.
In other games I can still usually play with max graphic options with good framerates. To sum it up, my cpu works where 4 cores are enough, but when a game needs more, it runs out of juice.
The 3300x is very tempting for me, but I fear it would have similar problems, being a 4 core cpu. Yes I know there is smt and 8 threads with the ryzen, but I am not convinced if that would work well.
By the way I have a strange little experience about Battlefield 1 vs Battlefield V. I tried BF V on my system and it handled multiplayer noticably better than BF1, so I think they made optimizations to the game.
Just mentioning this because there is BF V test in this review, but no BF 1 and I don't know if BF V was tested in multiplayer anyway.
For me it would be interesting to see how this new cpu handles BF1 64 player multi and Insurgency sandstorm, maybe other cpu intense games. Personally I haven't found other games that really needed more than 4 cores yet.

 

[Bee9]

The 3300x is very tempting for me, but I fear it would have similar problems, being a 4 core cpu. Yes I know there is smt and 8 threads with the ryzen, but I am not convinced if that would work well.

I think it all depends on your budget. How much money are you willing to spend? If I were to buy a CPU right now, I will go with a mid tier X570 board and a Ryzen 5 then upgrade later.

 

[Neverdie]

Unfortunately I am on tight budget. I would buy a good B550 board with 2 x 8gb ddr4 ram and try to save on the cpu front with the 3300x. Maybe a few years later go for a higher core count ryzen 4000 cpu, when more cores are really badly needed.

 

[Bee9]

Unfortunately I am on tight budget. I would buy a good B550 board with 2 x 8gb ddr4 ram and try to save on the cpu front with the 3300x. Maybe a few years later go for a higher core count ryzen 4000 cpu, when more cores are really badly needed.

You should be good with 3300x upgrade path. It will last for quite some time. Go for it.

 

[Neverdie]

Maybe it would be interesting if Mr W1zzard could do some testing about smt on vs off on these 4 core little beasts.