AMD Ryzen 3 3300X

[HugsNotDrugs]

/cries in 6700k tears

What a time we live in where the once-mighty 4c8t CPUs are now demoted to budget offerings.

 

[Raendor]

/cries in 6700k tears

What a time we live in where the once-mighty 4c8t CPUs are now demoted to budget offerings.

and yet when I look at the gaming benchmarks I see no major uplift going for something like 3600 as an upgrade. It’s nice to see that level of performance for a bit over 100 though.

 

[bug]

does communication within the same ccd even go over IF ?

It does. The CCXs within the die talk over IF.
For the curious, Anandtech has some pretty nifty charts of latency for Threadripper or Epyc. It's so complicated, you wouldn't believe.

 

[dicktracy]

Also, it's pretty weird with TPU's test system. Gamer Nexus seems to have more headroom with their 2080 ti, whereas TPU is held back by GPU bottlenecks.

 

[lmille16]

Me sitting here with a 3570k at 4.2...... whelp might be time to move it on to pasture....

 

[trparky]

Me sitting here with a 3570k at 4.2...... whelp might be time to move it on to pasture....

I moved that onto the pastures two years ago. Yes, I had a 3570K overclocked to 4.4 GHz. Sadly, it finally died; BSODs galore.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

All you really did here was explain a theory as to why it blows. It still blows. Look at the temperature charts.

It's getting hotter than a 6C/12T 3600X (and the 3600X has higher boost clock), has power draw that is within 1W of that 3600X and actually 1W higher than a 1700X under load. There's no way you can spin that, it blows. You would have to buy an aftermarket cooler for this chip, which means the $120 price is an illusion unless you happen to have a good cooler sitting around.

 

[Caring1]

It's getting hotter than a 6C/12T 3600X (and the 3600X has higher boost clock), has power draw that is within 1W of that 3600X and actually 1W higher than a 1700X under load. There's no way you can spin that, it blows. You would have to buy an aftermarket cooler for this chip, which means the $120 price is an illusion unless you happen to have a good cooler sitting around.

Nah, the stock cooler that comes with a 3600X or higher is larger than the stock non rgb cooler that comes with the lesser CPUs, so a stock cooler will still suffice.

 

[ppn]

Between $120 R3 3300X and $157±10% I5 10400, I still choose the intel, sorry but 4 x cores, is really not a very good idea even if it works for now, it gets quickly obsoleted. And there will be ondie Memory controller versions of it with renoir and 4000 series. So it is just a useless defective chip pushed as great value now, but that is just what it looks like. a flop in the long run.

 

[W1zzard]

Gamer Nexus seems to have more headroom with their 2080 ti,

I think they're running reduced details, not highest settings?

 

[nguyen]

All you really did here was explain a theory as to why it blows. It still blows. Look at the temperature charts.

It's getting hotter than a 6C/12T 3600X (and the 3600X has higher boost clock), has power draw that is within 1W of that 3600X and actually 1W higher than a 1700X under load. There's no way you can spin that, it blows. You would have to buy an aftermarket cooler for this chip, which means the $120 price is an illusion unless you happen to have a good cooler sitting around.

Nah with practically 0% OC headroom and really strict power + thermal restrictions placed on the CPU, all you get with the stock heatsink on a 3300X is imperceptibly slightly lower performance than what reviewers get...Unless for some reason you put 1.5V onto the CPU for no good reason then it would die, but not because the temperature were high...

 

[Chrispy_]

Awww yisss.
You did the thing I was talking about where we get to see how much performance is lost between cores in different CCXs vs having them in the same CCX.
Great review.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

I'm very impressed with how this 3300X performs despite only using a single Zen2 chiplet. Guess that used Intel processors are no longer relevant when this chip costs $120.

 

[bug]

I'm very impressed with how this 3300X performs despite only using a single Zen2 chiplet. Guess that used Intel processors are no longer relevant when this chip costs $120.

Well, intels are still an option if you need an IGP. But being able to build a gaming rig around a $120 CPU is something else.

 

[theonek]

well that wasn't expected when 4/8 cpu to be equal or even faster than 8/16 cpu's.... and very good gaming perfomance for no money.... amd, what have you done?

 

[kapone32]

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?

The upcoming 10th gen I3 might compete.

 

[dirtyferret]

/cries in 6700k tears

What a time we live in where the once-mighty 4c8t CPUs are now demoted to budget offerings.

It's five years old ...and still performs great.

well that wasn't expected when 4/8 cpu to be equal or even faster than 8/16 cpu's.... and very good gaming perfomance for no money.... amd, what have you done?

What will all the "future proof" fan boys think?! Quick scour the internet for any micro stutter benchmarks! Tech Jesus save us with your benchmarks! Better performing cores = better gaming performance is blasphemy!!!

 

[RandallFlagg]

I'm not sure why these results are surprising. I'm going to guess due to the way it was framed by the reviewer. If you do actual games, then high clock fewer core chips do win.

Real games rarely use more than 4 cores effectively, there are only a few exceptions - like Ashes.

What this review actually shows is how real games rely on IPC and clock speed, while synthetics like 3DMark rely on threads. This and earlier reviews on the i3-9350K throw into question the usefulness of synthetics for anything other than GPU tests.

Add in that 3/4 the reviewers seem to be unaware that this i3 is this AMD chips direct competitor, and instead compare them to high core / high thread CPUs.

This is some kind of cognitive bias. In December 2019 Tom's says the i3-9350K is 'too little too late'. Then in May 2020 they say the 3300x is 'just what gamers need'.... It looks to me like these merely prove that games are not actually all that reliant on multiple threads.

4 very fast cores is what they need.

I'll leave ya'll with this, from Tom's, from December :

The 3300X in synthetics, it gets repeatedly pounded by the 3600 and 7700K, and even the 1600:

Now some real games with the 3300X vs 9350KF :

 

[B-Real]

This is absolutely fantastic. The 3100 is faster than the 9100F in games when OCd and destroys it in CPU heavy programs (nearly 30% + when OCd) for an extra $25, while the 4/8 3300X is neck-to-neck with the 6/6 9400F in games and is ~7% faster in CPU heavy programs for $40 less!

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...

The 9400F costs $160. You can find it cheaper only at Microcenter. But if you check AMD CPU prices, they are also cheaper there than f.e. at Newegg. So check MC's prices of the 3300X when they hit the market. And to come with power consumption, really..... For sure this doesn't have the best efficiency, but we are talking about 10-20W difference.

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

Tom's Hardware has always been biased towards Intel/NV.

Between $120 R3 3300X and $157±10% I5 10400, I still choose the intel, sorry but 4 x cores, is really not a very good idea even if it works for now, it gets quickly obsoleted. And there will be ondie Memory controller versions of it with renoir and 4000 series. So it is just a useless defective chip pushed as great value now, but that is just what it looks like. a flop in the long run.

Hope you say the same for i3.

The upcoming 10th gen I3 might compete.

Yes, maybe. Until autumn (?) when Zen3 arrives.

 

[Bee9]

All you really did here was explain a theory as to why it blows. It still blows. Look at the temperature charts.

I'm not trying to defend anything. Just explaining the fact. My apologies if that offends you or something.
If you think the 3300X blows, and it's a really bad CPU, then I respect your opinion. Nothing to debate over your opinion.


Here is my point of view:

Ryzen 5 3600 Pricing History

Core i3 9350KF Pricing history

So it makes sense to me that a Ryzen 5 3600 (priced at $170) and a Core i3 9350KF (priced at $170) will beat the Ryzen 3 3300X ($120) easily.
Regarding Ryzen 5 1600AF, it's basically a Ryzen 5 2600. I wish it's still available at $85... No where to be found at that price anymore. Demand / supply law takes it away from our hands. Right now, the market prices it at $145 in the US market. So if reviewers want to compare, they should compare processors at the same price point.

One more thing: the core i3 9350KF launched at $200 last year offering 4 cores 4 threads. 1 year later, the 3300X launched at $120, forcing Intel to drop price for upcoming Core i3 10th gen to match the $100 to $120 price point. That's a good news to me. Competition drives the price down and consumers can enjoy better products.

Edit: adding additional thought
I think when reviewers say gamers, they aim squarely at the budget segment who has very tight budget and will need to balance CPU - GPU power to get the most fps.

 

[B-Real]

I'm not sure why these results are surprising. I'm going to guess due to the way it was framed by the reviewer. If you do actual games, then high clock fewer core chips do win.

Real games rarely use more than 4 cores effectively, there are only a few exceptions - like Ashes.

What this review actually shows is how real games rely on IPC and clock speed, while synthetics like 3DMark rely on threads. This and earlier reviews on the i3-9350K throw into question the usefulness of synthetics for anything other than GPU tests.

Add in that 3/4 the reviewers seem to be unaware that this i3 is this AMD chips direct competitor, and instead compare them to high core / high thread CPUs.

This is some kind of cognitive bias. In December 2019 Tom's says the i3-9350K is 'too little too late'. Then in May 2020 they say the 3300x is 'just what gamers need'.... It looks to me like these merely prove that games are not actually all that reliant on multiple threads.

4 very fast cores is what they need.

I'll leave ya'll with this, from Tom's, from December :

The 3300X in synthetics, it gets repeatedly pounded by the 3600 and 7700K, and even the 1600:

View attachment 154315

Now some real games with the 3300X vs 9350KF :

View attachment 154316

View attachment 154318

I see you are an Intel fanboy, but when you check 3300X and 9350KF without OC, in the really CPU-bound Far Cry 5, the 3300X is faster. And the 9350KF costs NEARLY $170. LOL, funny guy you are.

And you speak about thermals. Really, we speak of 67C? Is it high or what? You get 90C or near 100C with an OCd 9900K.

 

[kapone32]

Yes, maybe. Until autumn (?) when Zen3 arrives.
[/QUOTE]

Totally agreed my friend if the 3300 is already faster than a 7700K then nothing in the I3 range will compete.

 

[B-Real]

If someone is interested why the high power consumption, check Guru3D for Hilbert's review: the answer is X570 mobo.

 

[Bee9]

If someone is interested why the high power consumption, check Guru3D for Hilbert's review: the answer is X570 mobo.

Aww I see. Thanks for pointing this out.
Btw, my wife just pulled a joke: I will turn off one of my 80W lightbulbs to save some power for my 3300X. LMAO.

 

[Chrispy_]

If someone is interested why the high power consumption, check Guru3D for Hilbert's review: the answer is X570 mobo.

I've built about 30 Zen 2 machines so far (4 a month since launch and a few extras) and only six of them have used X570 boards - Not really because of PCIe 4.0 but because availability of decent B450 was patchy at the time. I just can't be trusting 40mm fans on something as irritating to replace 3 years down the line as a motherboard.