AMD Talks Improved Ryzen Memory Support, Ryzen 3, and Game Optimization

[Liviu Cojocaru]

But what about the multi threaded apps, is that ~20% less performance in single core worth it over the two 100% more cores and the fact that R3 can be OC'ed?

 

[r9]

I think they would be great for budget gaming build.
For office computer to have to buy a dedicated graphic card is a big disadvantage.

 

[Flyrobot27]

10% isn't much but you will have to pay more to reach it .using an a320m mobo without overclocking you will pay the same price as for intel+h110 mobo but end up 20% slower single core and no gpu that will cost you more.

I agree. In terms of regular office usage (not gaming), single core performance is the key, and I think even after 20 years multi core performance will not help it a lot if not talking about multi tasking. It is simply because office task cannot be executed by the CPU in parallel, and that is the reason for multi core setup. For office, i3 or Pentium is better simply for its better single core and iGPU. For gamers r3 will be a better go

 

[meirb111]

But what about the multi threaded apps, is that ~20% less performance in single core worth it over the two 100% more cores and the fact that R3 can be OC'ed?

if i would make the comparison with a 64$ g4560 vs r3 120$ than amd's really lose big time. and as i said in my first post for light gaming or no gaming.

 

[RejZoR]

if i would make the comparison with a 64$ g4560 vs r3 120$ than amd's really lose big time. and as i said in my first post for light gaming or no gaming.

Even with that, R3 would be so much better. C'mon, this isn't 2002 anymore...

 

[Imsochobo]

if i would make the comparison with a 64$ g4560 vs r3 120$ than amd's really lose big time. and as i said in my first post for light gaming or no gaming.

have you tried a G4560, it feels like a unopened computer from 2012, cause it got 2012 performance.
If you want 65$ cpu, buy an used 2600K and get BETTER performance.
Ryzen 3ghz = 3.5 ghz G4560 in single core performance, more cache, better memory performance, faster cache +++

Just be happy that AMD messed up the entire intel lineup\product stack so we will get better products cause Intel still has the better CPU designs, however now with a very small margin!

 

[meirb111]

have you tried a G4560, it feels like a unopened computer from 2012, cause it got 2012 performance.
If you want 65$ cpu, buy an used 2600K and get BETTER performance.
Ryzen 3ghz = 3.5 ghz G4560 in single core performance, more cache, better memory performance, faster cache +++

Just be happy that AMD messed up the entire intel lineup\product stack so we will get better products cause Intel still has the better CPU designs, however now with a very small margin!

i don't want a G4560 (no avx2 for x265 encoding) but for office usage that a winner for now. amd didn't messed the entire intel lineup ,they left the lower segment to be ruled by intel the G4560 is the smartest move intel made.adding Hyper-threading in the same price is step forward for lower segment.

 

[Liviu Cojocaru]

i don't want a G4560 (no avx2 for x265 encoding) but for office usage that a winner for now. amd didn't messed the entire intel lineup ,they left the lower segment to be ruled by intel the G4560 is the smartest move intel made.

To be honest I am not sure how many people are building a custom PC only to use office applications and when it comes to business, trust me, they go with whatever the OEM gives them.

 

[RejZoR]

People are so funny. Remember how everyone was bitching over Core i3's still being just dual cores. AMD offers true quad core instead. And same people go "Well, but you see..." C'mon people, who are you all kidding?

 

[meirb111]

To be honest I am not sure how many people are building a custom PC only to use office applications and when it comes to business, trust me, they go with whatever the OEM gives them.

really? so a business owner will want to pay double for an amd cpu ? so that his lazy ass employees will have a 4 core cpu to play with.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

about time they fixed the temp offset.

 

[Liviu Cojocaru]

really? so a business owner will want to pay double for an amd cpu ? so that his lazy ass employees will have a 4 core cpu to play with.

No I was saying that your argument about businesses is obvious and most of them don't really care about single core or multi core, they have contracts with different OEM's and they get what's cheap. I thought this discussion was about the consumer (end user).

 

[Captain_Tom]

If they could place a 4/4 CPU at $99, and it clocks to at least 3.5GHz - it would be a game changer in budget PC cpu performance.

 

[Octopuss]

really? so a business owner will want to pay double for an amd cpu ? so that his lazy ass employees will have a 4 core cpu to play with.

I don't like your generalization that employees are lazy asses, I don't like your tone, I don't like your smartass comments... and I don't like you.

 

[meirb111]

I don't like your generalization that employees are lazy asses, I don't like your tone, I don't like your smartass comments... and I don't like you.

generalization? not really you are way too serious ,are you a lazy employee? is that why you were offended? you are taking it way too Personally and i never even responded to you before.

 

[eidairaman1]

I think they would be great for budget gaming build.
For office computer to have to buy a dedicated graphic card is a big disadvantage.

APUs for that.

 

[notb]

But what about the multi threaded apps, is that ~20% less performance in single core worth it over the two 100% more cores and the fact that R3 can be OC'ed?

I honestly doubt the target audience of Ryzen 3 is interested in OC (even if they know what it is and are allowed to do it).

Comparing the performance based on numbers that we've seen here (I don't want to go into details and look for better estimations), let's assume that:
- Intel has 20% better single-thread performance,
- HT gives 30% of what a normal core does,
- 4 real cores are 100% faster than 2 real cores (not true)
we arrive at a result that R3 4C/4T is 28% faster than i3 2C/4T in full load.

That's not very impressive considering the lack of IGP.
Keep in mind this is the lowest price level AMD has in the Ryzen lineup. In this case a need to buy a GPU card - even the cheapest one - significantly impacts the platform price.
And while Ryzen 3 is the cheapest Ryzen planned (at this point), Kaby Lake lineup goes way down to cheap Pentiums and Celerons (the cheapest one is ~$50). And they all have an IGP...

 

[Captain_Tom]

I honestly doubt the target audience of Ryzen 3 is interested in OC (even if they know what it is and are allowed to do it).

Comparing the performance based on numbers that we've seen here (I don't want to go into details and look for better estimations), let's assume that:
- Intel has 20% better single-thread performance,
- HT gives 30% of what a normal core does,
- 4 real cores are 100% faster than 2 real cores (not true)
we arrive at a result that R3 4C/4T is 28% faster than i3 2C/4T in full load.

That's not very impressive considering the lack of IGP.
Keep in mind this is the lowest price level AMD has in the Ryzen lineup. In this case a need to buy a GPU card - even the cheapest one - significantly impacts the platform price.
And while Ryzen 3 is the cheapest Ryzen planned (at this point), Kaby Lake lineup goes way down to cheap Pentiums and Celerons (the cheapest one is ~$50). And they all have an IGP...

Yup. Unless the top R3 is clocked at 4GHz, they should sell them for $79 - $119. That's what's required to fully shake up the Pentium/i3 market. Any more for them and they are kinda pointless compared to AMD's $169 4/8 R5's.

 

[Technomancer]

There's a very thin line between making argument and TROLLING.

 

[notb]

Yup. Unless the top R3 is clocked at 4GHz, they should sell them for $79 - $119. That's what's required to fully shake up the Pentium/i3 market. Any more for them and they are kinda pointless compared to AMD's $169 4/8 R5's.

I'm with you on the ~$80 expectation. It would steal some market share in this segment (now dominated by Pentiums) and also give an upgrade path for current low-budget AMD FX users.
That would also leave a gap for the APU (it has to be more expensive than an IGP-less Ryzen counterpart, but at the same time cheaper than competing i3.

However, it has to be said that early leaks mentioned $120 for R3 and they were quite accurate for Ryzen 5 models:
https://www.techpowerup.com/230916/pricing-of-entire-amd-ryzen-lineup-revealed

Moreover, the cheapest GPU card you can buy today is AFAIK a GT210 for $30 and it's performance is really not enough for entertainment (it can struggle with 1080p video...).
A more sensible GT730 is $50 already (GT1030/RX550 >$70)...
While adding $50 to a Ryzen 7 gives you a great value productivity PC, I really don't see a point of a Ryzen 3 + RX550 combo.
And I don't think many gamers will pair R3 with a more expensive GPU. What for? Upgrade to a Ryzen 5 hardly changes the cost of gaming-oriented rig anyway...

Honestly, I'm surprised AMD is still planning to release the R3. I though they'll scrap it and cover the sub-$150 segment with APUs.

 

[kruk]

That's not very impressive considering the lack of IGP.
Keep in mind this is the lowest price level AMD has in the Ryzen lineup. In this case a need to buy a GPU card - even the cheapest one - significantly impacts the platform price.
And while Ryzen 3 is the cheapest Ryzen planned (at this point), Kaby Lake lineup goes way down to cheap Pentiums and Celerons (the cheapest one is ~$50). And they all have an IGP...

You can buy a used AMD/nVidia PCI-E GPU for like $20. How does that significantly impact the platform price? If you look at every penny you spend, why do you have to buy the latest and the greatest hardware anyway?

also

APUs for that.

 

[mcraygsx]

So this reassures that current early adopters are sort of Beta Testers?

"AMD confirmed that its AGESA update for May improves DDR4 memory compatibility, although it also stressed on the need for motherboard manufacturers to improve their board designs in the future, with more PCB layers and better copper traces between the DIMM slots and the SoC socket."

 

[notb]

You can buy a used AMD/nVidia PCI-E GPU for like $20. How does that significantly impact the platform price? If you look at every penny you spend, why do you have to buy the latest and the greatest hardware anyway?

I bet you can buy a used GPU for $1, so how exactly is this advancing our discussion? Let's just stay with the new stuff pricing. Corporate clients won't buy used stuff. Many private owners won't consider that as well.

I know this is a tough call here, where we talk about $200 keyboards, but remember that some people spend $300 on their desktops (for this price you can even get a keyboard and mouse in the bundle ).
$50 can be surprisingly significant - especially when you really don't get anything special in return. Most people will be totally happy with the IGP in Pentiums.

 

[eidairaman1]

Higher quality phases, mosfets/chokes, direct cooling.

 

[Fluffmeister]

So this reassures that current early adopters are sort of Beta Testers?

"AMD confirmed that its AGESA update for May improves DDR4 memory compatibility, although it also stressed on the need for motherboard manufacturers to improve their board designs in the future, with more PCB layers and better copper traces between the DIMM slots and the SoC socket."

It does imply AMD aren't entirely happy with their mobo partners and there is only so much they can do with a software update.

Still early days and a promising start regardless.