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

111–120 of 127 posts

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

#111

Post by greggyb »

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…

GN has a very thorough review of each of the 3100 and the 3300X. Note, the 3100 review is also positioned against a 7700K. The comparison charts are well-populated, though still have some gaps, as GN just updated their processor testing methodology, so some benchmarks are incomplete.

3100: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nQpXVTh0g

3300X: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM2fFpzPKPg

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

#112

Post by SomeoneFromCA »

FieryTransition wrote: post #98
ciupicri wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They still work, until they don't because the vendor stops supporting them.

I've yet to see a graphics card which stopped being supported in reasonable terms. Except if you count 3dfx or other really old stuff, at which point it gets silly. Or awesome, guess it's kinda retro by now.

Opencl is not supported on IVY BRIDGES anymore for example, although there is no technical obstacles to provide such support.

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

#113

Post by greggyb »

jeffbee wrote: post #102
aneutron wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

R3s outcompete i3s, pretty much across the board. They are bested by i5+ for gaming, but not by much. They are competitive with, or beat i5s in productivity.

GN has timestamps in the video description if you want to jump to graphs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM2fFpzPKPg&t=0s

The top comment on HN for the Anandtech article (at the time of my posting) is about a comparison for a budget machine. They choose an i5-9400, because this includes an iGPU. If you are going for extreme budget, the low-tier Intel chips may win for this reason.

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

#114

Post by greggyb »

reaktion wrote: post #3

I wanted to update my system with the Ryzen 5 1600 AF, given its value at $85 - but it's no longer in stock anywhere at that price, so the 3300X is looking appealing.

AMD has committed to restocking to retailers who should be selling at least close to MSRP, but this part is underpriced. We'll likely see it continue to be bought in bulk and resold at a higher price as long as this is true. You're getting what is very nearly a half-price 2600.

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

#115

Post by greggyb »

tracer4201 wrote: post #5

I have a 5 year old Intel i7 CPU. Not to diverge too far from the topic, but would I have any reason to upgrade my CPU for gaming? I assume swapping my GTX 760 with a latest generation card would give me better gaming performance.

In your case, it is quite likely that the GPU is the better money for an upgrade.

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

#116

Post by lonelappde »

morsch wrote: post #86
SomeoneFromCA wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone is willing to buy old underpowered yet power hungry cards. You'd waste your time searching, you card would'not support 4k and VP9, no warranty. It gets especially expensive if you purchasing machines for some software developing shops - you want to have similar configuration on each machine, to save on IT support.

You're not wrong, the GT 710 only does 4k at <=30 Hz, which makes it a terrible choice for general purpose computing at this point. It also doesn't do VP9 acceleration. The GT 1030 does these things, but it's also twice as expensive.

What is "general purpose" computing at 30+Hhz?

710 plays 1080p YouTube and non-graphics intensive games fine.

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

#117

Post by sintaxi »

tracer4201 wrote: post #5

I have a 5 year old Intel i7 CPU. Not to diverge too far from the topic, but would I have any reason to upgrade my CPU for gaming? I assume swapping my GTX 760 with a latest generation card would give me better gaming performance.

Absolutely no doubt a GPU upgrade would be the way to go in your situation. A 2015 i7 can still keep up with a monster GPU such as the RX5600XT or RX5700XT.

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

#118

Post by greggyb »

greggyb wrote: post #109
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…

An update. Phoronix's benchmarking includes the i5-9400F, which is the no-iGPU version of the Intel chip. F chips are typically expected to edge ahead of their iGPU siblings. The 3300X beats the 9400F in nearly every single benchmark (I think two or three total exceptions).

Additionally, the 9400F seems to struggle to even beat the 8400. Their composite scores are insignificantly different. Perhaps this is why a 9400 is cheaper than an 8400....

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-ryze...

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

#119

Post by AlfeG »

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…

For this reason, I bought used cheapest GPU with 3 outputs. More than happy.

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

#120

Post by sjwright »

bzb3 wrote: post #17
hyperbovine wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that was not your original premise. "Many" games are not single core. Rather, a few old classics that refuse to die are.

https://store.steampowered.com/stats/Steam-Game-and-Player-S... Probably most games on that list don't use all cores. So yeah not "many" but "most". Thanks for the correction.

Any older single core game will run just fine on probably any (non-embedded) x64 CPU on sale right now. Your original premise simply isn’t a problem.
Post reply on HN