Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza

#101

Post by zrm »

jdsully wrote: post #90
zrm wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most benchmarks show the 3900X with single thread performance competitive with Intel's offerings, including for software whose developers spend plenty of time optimizing it. Can you think of a reason they haven't realized this performance advantage in practice?

Zen is great if you have moderate utilization code around the ~2-3 instructions per cycle mark. This is common for most compiled C and C++ where it hasn’t been specifically tuned for ILP. In these scenarios even if Intel has an extra ALU it won’t be used anyways. It took 3 days of tuning to get to a point where Intel started pulling away from my Zen2 chip. No matter what I did the Zen2 would not get faster because it…

Are you measuring actual performance though or just IPC?

We know Intel has that problem with AVX-512. You can get a lot of throughput per cycle with those instructions but the cost is they cause the processor to run hot and have to downclock. It's possible (and really expected) that the same thing happens to some extent at unusually high IPC. Getting 15% higher IPC doesn't really buy you anything if the processor has to lower its clock speed by 15% to execute that type of code.

Re: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza

#102

Post by jeffbee »

aneutron wrote: post #99
jeffbee wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe but we can't tell from this article which should have compared against the $75 Core i3-9100F or maybe the $160 Core i5-9400F, instead of filling their graphs full of unavailable, ancient Intel parts like the 4th-gen core i7 that launched in 2014, and then listing the 2014 MSRP as if that was a relevant point of comparison.

Linus from LinusTechTips did include that specific processor, and even the 150$ Core i5 (I forgot which one specifically). I recommend you see that video for the comparison you're asking for.

Is there a bottom line? I can't find the video and the format of 10 seconds of information wrapped in a 10-minute video doesn't suit me.

Re: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza

#103

Post by jdsully »

zrm wrote: post #101
jdsully wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zen is great if you have moderate utilization code around the ~2-3 instructions per cycle mark. This is common for most compiled C and C++ where it hasn’t been specifically tuned for ILP. In these scenarios even if Intel has an extra ALU it won’t be used anyways. It took 3 days of tuning to get to a point where Intel started pulling away from my Zen2 chip. No matter what I did the Zen2 would not get faster because it…

Are you measuring actual performance though or just IPC? We know Intel has that problem with AVX-512. You can get a lot of throughput per cycle with those instructions but the cost is they cause the processor to run hot and have to downclock. It's possible (and really expected) that the same thing happens to some extent at unusually high IPC. Getting 15% higher IPC doesn't really buy you anything if the processor has…

Actual wallclock time. The code is 100% scalar - LZF is very byte oriented and I haven't found a good way to vectorize it. IPC counts were used to help guide tuning but not a determination of success.

I don't really understand why people think this is controversial. Somehow an Intel cpu on a generation behind process is still competitive with a 7nm CPU with more cache. Intel must have one hell of an architecture to make that possible. AMD did a good job for the most common workloads but they have work to do with Zen3 if they want to maintain that lead when Intel finally figures out its manufacturing.

Re: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza

#104

Post by toast0 »

derefr wrote: post #95
toast0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still need something for boot graphics for the BIOS, unless non-server motherboards are coming with serial redirection default enabled and nobody mentioned it.

I mean, why not use a server motherboard (i.e. one supporting AMT; not necessarily one that requires RDIMMs) if you're building a NAS? NASes are servers in terms of their workload. Take advantages of the features designed for server customers.

Mostly cost. The board itself, but also server boards are often hard to find for desktop sockets, so that drives cost for the CPU as well. But, if I get a server board, maybe I'm going to get one with IPMI, and those usually have serial consoles and some limited VGA for KVM over IP too.

I could afford a $800 server project, but I'd rather spend $300.

Re: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza

#105

Post by zrm »

jdsully wrote: post #103
zrm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you measuring actual performance though or just IPC? We know Intel has that problem with AVX-512. You can get a lot of throughput per cycle with those instructions but the cost is they cause the processor to run hot and have to downclock. It's possible (and really expected) that the same thing happens to some extent at unusually high IPC. Getting 15% higher IPC doesn't really buy you anything if the processor has…

Actual wallclock time. The code is 100% scalar - LZF is very byte oriented and I haven't found a good way to vectorize it. IPC counts were used to help guide tuning but not a determination of success. I don't really understand why people think this is controversial. Somehow an Intel cpu on a generation behind process is still competitive with a 7nm CPU with more cache. Intel must have one hell of an architecture to m…

Have you looked at what 7zip is doing? That should be a similar type of code and it runs very well on Zen2.

Re: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza

#106

Post by jdsully »

zrm wrote: post #105
jdsully wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual wallclock time. The code is 100% scalar - LZF is very byte oriented and I haven't found a good way to vectorize it. IPC counts were used to help guide tuning but not a determination of success. I don't really understand why people think this is controversial. Somehow an Intel cpu on a generation behind process is still competitive with a 7nm CPU with more cache. Intel must have one hell of an architecture to m…

Have you looked at what 7zip is doing? That should be a similar type of code and it runs very well on Zen2.

7zip doesn't use LZF. LZF is mandated by the file format I'm working with.

Re: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza

#107

Post by NullPrefix »

jeffbee wrote: post #46
zrm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name this Intel CPU which is as fast, has an iGPU and costs $99? Zen2 is faster than Zen+, but Zen+ isn't that slow.

No, I think the nearest thing is probably the $140 Core i3-9100. But look at Anandtech's comparison of the Zen and Zen2: at the same clock speed and core count, Zen2 stomps all over Zen. It's a much slower CPU. https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2333?vs=2590

This benchmark compares Zen against Zen2, not Zen+ against Zen2

Re: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza

#108

Post by greggyb »

ksec wrote: post #60
gambiting wrote: post #6

So I was recently looking at those as options for a very low budget video editing PC for someone, and yes, AMD destroys intel in raw CPU performance for the same price, however in those low-budget applications Intel has an upper hand - integrated GPU. With AMD you either have to go with the super crappy 3400G, which is a really poor CPU(but also very cheap), or for literally anything else + a dedicated GPU(which incr…

As you suggested I think there is market for Desktop using the Ryzen Mobile 4000 Parts. This used to be a thing where the Motherboard maker would sell the Board + Mobile Chip soldered. Not sure if you could still do that. And it is not like Zen 2 Desktop APU aren't coming. Just a tad later. I think the current roadmap from AMD is pretty solid. Although I do wish their sales and marketing execution to be much better.

Aliexpress has some good mini-PCs based on mobile CPUs. It's been a while since I went shopping for one, so I'm not sure where they are, right now. Since these are typically I run OpenBSD on an i5-5200U I picked up a few years ago (probably 2015, or early 2016). It serves as my router and runs a bunch of services for me. It lives in my basement next to the fiber line coming in from the road.

I wouldn't be surprised if an AMD -H part comes to market soon in this category.

Re: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza

#109

Post by greggyb »

gambiting wrote: post #6

So I was recently looking at those as options for a very low budget video editing PC for someone, and yes, AMD destroys intel in raw CPU performance for the same price, however in those low-budget applications Intel has an upper hand - integrated GPU. With AMD you either have to go with the super crappy 3400G, which is a really poor CPU(but also very cheap), or for literally anything else + a dedicated GPU(which incr…

Few thoughts for your friend. This is not a "you're wrong" post, but a "here are some options to consider, with different tradeoffs."

1. The AMD R3-3300X is neck and neck with the Intel i5-9600K in most productivity benchmarks in the GN test suite.[0] The 9600K is a step up from the 9400 you're looking at, so you could likely do an R3 build. With the clock differences, it's likely that the R3 would pull ahead of the 9400. The processor is $120 MSRP, but not available just yet. Also, you'll likely want to pair it with a B550 motherboard. Nevertheless, with a cheapest-available graphics card, this should be price-competitive with an i5-9400. The future upside is huge, as you could get a beast R9-3950X in a couple years when the price has come down a lot.

2. The AMD R5-1600AF is actually a Zen+ part, and MSRPs at $85. The theme of the entire 3300X review video I linked is to get one of these if you can. Availability is limited and resellers are marking up significantly. AMD is committed to providing more, though.

3. Depending on where your price/performance threshold is, dropping to an R5-2600 brings your price difference to $26 ($224 vs $250 for CPU+mobo and CPU+mobo+graphics, respectively). This should edge out the 1600AF mentioned above, and regularly beat the i5-9400.[1][2]

Of the options above, I'd lean toward the R3-3300X. This gives future expansion to a 16-core monster that is a chart topper for productivity workloads. You cannot make that jump with Intel, because their competitor is the 10980XE on a different chipset than the i5. Additionally, Ryzen 3000 and B550 supports PCIe gen 4, for double the bandwidth. Again, this is a future expansion option that you don't get with Intel.

My preference is definitely subjective, and there are good reasons to go for the Intel i5, first among them that you can buy the system today, instead of in a month.

[0] GN 3300x review: https://youtu.be/NM2fFpzPKPg?t=1063

[1] Cheapest i5: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/B3pFtp

[2] Cheapest R5 2600: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/HttVyk

Re: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza

#110

Post by greggyb »

all_blue_chucks wrote: post #56
greendave wrote: post #38

I like Anandtech. They have some really great deep dive articles on CPUs and system architecture. Which is why this type of 'test' is just weird. None of the CPUs they compare seem to be in the same price bracket. Many aren't even from the same generation. 7700K? 8086K? 4900HS? Yes, sometimes you have to work with what you have, but c'mon - at least one somewhat comparable CPU would've been nice for reference (i3 810…

They are comparing it against previous gen gaming CPUs to help people trying to decide if it is worth upgrading.

Additionally, AMD hyped beating i7s of yore.
Post reply on HN