fx 6300 to a ryzen 3 1300x

[manlykeweaver465]

the new ryzen 3 cpu's are released on the 27th and was thinking about upgrading to them i know they aint out yet and there are only simulated benchmarks for the chips but would it be a viable upgrade from an fx 6300 or would it be worth it to go for an i5, currently im only gaming but i occasionally do a bit of coding for games as a hobby 

[LHJKO]

why not just go for the 1400 it cant cost that much more 

 

and if you wanted to spend the extra $$$ to get an i5 get the 1600 instead 

[GirlFromYonder]

11 minutes ago, manlykeweaver465 said:

the new ryzen 3 cpu's are released on the 27th and was thinking about upgrading to them i know they aint out yet and there are only simulated benchmarks for the chips but would it be a viable upgrade from an fx 6300 or would it be worth it to go for an i5, currently im only gaming but i occasionally do a bit of coding for games as a hobby 

well from the fx 6300 to ANY ryzen processor is a HUGE upgrade. From fx 6300 to any intel processor is a HUGE but waay to expensive upgrade........I say stick to ryzen and get the 1400 or 1600 if u can. If not stick to the 1200.

[manlykeweaver465]

Just now, DeezNoNos said:

well from the fx 6300 to ANY ryzen processor is a HUGE upgrade. From fx 6300 to any intel processor is a HUGE but waay to expensive upgrade........I say stick to ryzen and get the 1400 or 1600 if u can. If not stick to the 1200.

well id go for the 1400 provided my ssd doesnt break lol, i got a feeling my ssd is on its way out so i may need to buy another

[MyName13]

R3 1300x is a bad choice just like r5 1500x, either wait for 1200 or buy 1400.Zen has 52% higher IPC btw.

[mariushm]

Hold on to deciding on a particular cpu. See the first reviews ,  benchmarks and so on..

 

1200 and 1300x are both supposed to be 4 core , 4 threads with the only difference being default clock speeds

 

The 1200 is supposed to be 3.1 ghz , 3.4 ghz "turbo" , while 1300x is supposed to be 3.5 ghz base, 3.7 ghz turbo

 

If it's like Ryzen 1700 vs Ryzen 1800x , you could probably overclock easily most Ryzen 1200 to 3.5 ghz .. 3.7 ghz  so with overclocking the 1200 will have almost if not better performance than 1300.

You'll just have to buy a motherboard with B350 or x370 chipsets, not the basic boards with a320 chipsets as those don't support overclocking.

Also, the stock cooler that comes with these Ryzen 3  I think are rated for maximum 65w TDP, and if you're going to overclock the Ryzen 1200 you may go over 65w tdp so you may need a better cooler... but you'd buy one anyway if you go with 1300x (from memory i think that one doesn't come with cooler in box but I may be wrong)

 

Overclocking is quite easy on AMD and these processors, and pretty much risk free.

 

AMD has very good dies coming out the factory, so chances are the huge majority of the dies and these processors that come out aren't dies with faulty disabled cores, but rather actual 100% working dies on which they artificially disable cores, or cores that had some bit of flaws in the portion of level 3 cache that's disabled (ryzen 3 uses 8 MB l3 cache instead 16 MB) so these dies may have good potential for overclocking.

 

[GirlFromYonder]

31 minutes ago, manlykeweaver465 said:

well id go for the 1400 provided my ssd doesnt break lol, i got a feeling my ssd is on its way out so i may need to buy another

Well that is a problem. But stick with it till it dies. Though how old...can u RMA?

[MyName13]

18 minutes ago, mariushm said:

Hold on to deciding on a particular cpu. See the first reviews ,  benchmarks and so on..

 

1200 and 1300x are both supposed to be 4 core , 4 threads with the only difference being default clock speeds

 

The 1200 is supposed to be 3.1 ghz , 3.4 ghz "turbo" , while 1300x is supposed to be 3.5 ghz base, 3.7 ghz turbo

 

If it's like Ryzen 1700 vs Ryzen 1800x , you could probably overclock easily most Ryzen 1200 to 3.5 ghz .. 3.7 ghz  so with overclocking the 1200 will have almost if not better performance than 1300.

You'll just have to buy a motherboard with B350 or x370 chipsets, not the basic boards with a320 chipsets as those don't support overclocking.

Also, the stock cooler that comes with these Ryzen 3  I think are rated for maximum 65w TDP, and if you're going to overclock the Ryzen 1200 you may go over 65w tdp so you may need a better cooler... but you'd buy one anyway if you go with 1300x (from memory i think that one doesn't come with cooler in box but I may be wrong)

 

Overclocking is quite easy on AMD and these processors, and pretty much risk free.

 

AMD has very good dies coming out the factory, so chances are the huge majority of the dies and these processors that come out aren't dies with faulty disabled cores, but rather actual 100% working dies on which they artificially disable cores, or cores that had some bit of flaws in the portion of level 3 cache that's disabled (ryzen 3 uses 8 MB l3 cache instead 16 MB) so these dies may have good potential for overclocking.

 

Instead of buying 1200+cooler+b350 you can just buy 1400+A320 motherboard.

[theHuntronTracker]

I'm also looking to upgrade from the FX-6300 to the Ryzen 1300X. I'm curious as to why so many people are recommending going with the 1400 though. For some reason it's not reviewed as often as the rest of the processors (my guess is because AMD realizes it's not a very good processor and didn't push it to reviewers), but in the couple of reviews I've seen about it it doesn't seem great at all.

On the other hand, the reviews I've seen of the 1300X, particularly Tom's Hardware where they actually benchmark the chip overclocked, have been pretty impressive.

Is there a reason you guys are suggesting the 1400 over the 1300X, besides the fact that it's got more cores for only $30 more?

 

BTW I'm a web developer who likes to game on the side. My dev tool consists of CLI programs and VS Code, none of which benefit from multiple cores.

[Dalitten]

53 minutes ago, theHuntronTracker said:

I'm also looking to upgrade from the FX-6300 to the Ryzen 1300X. I'm curious as to why so many people are recommending going with the 1400 though. For some reason it's not reviewed as often as the rest of the processors (my guess is because AMD realizes it's not a very good processor and didn't push it to reviewers), but in the couple of reviews I've seen about it it doesn't seem great at all.

On the other hand, the reviews I've seen of the 1300X, particularly Tom's Hardware where they actually benchmark the chip overclocked, have been pretty impressive.

Is there a reason you guys are suggesting the 1400 over the 1300X, besides the fact that it's . 

 

BTW I'm a web developer who likes to game on the side. My dev tool consists of CLI programs and VS Code, none of which benefit from multiple cores.

Gaming wise, they perform so similarly. But the 1400 is still a good CPU because of SMT and other heavy applications(Videorendering, virtualization). Since gaming doesn't use more than 4 cores the SMT don't really help here. 

Instead of the 1300x, get the 1200 and overclock it. 

And because it's so simply to upgrade on Ryzen, you can easily upgrade to say a R5 16000 if you ever where to get a more powerful GPU. 

Another reason is that a 1200 would easier bottleneck higher end GPUs, while the 1400 wouldn't, but at the price point it should be a problem. 

 

Quote

got more cores for only $30 more?

Not physical cores, but "simulated", they work a little differently  

 

[KarathKasun]

1400 scores better than 1300x in newer games because moar threads.

[MyName13]

3 hours ago, theHuntronTracker said:

I'm also looking to upgrade from the FX-6300 to the Ryzen 1300X. I'm curious as to why so many people are recommending going with the 1400 though. For some reason it's not reviewed as often as the rest of the processors (my guess is because AMD realizes it's not a very good processor and didn't push it to reviewers), but in the couple of reviews I've seen about it it doesn't seem great at all.

On the other hand, the reviews I've seen of the 1300X, particularly Tom's Hardware where they actually benchmark the chip overclocked, have been pretty impressive.

Is there a reason you guys are suggesting the 1400 over the 1300X, besides the fact that it's got more cores for only $30 more?

 

BTW I'm a web developer who likes to game on the side. My dev tool consists of CLI programs and VS Code, none of which benefit from multiple cores.

1400 "might" last longer than r3, but the problem is that Zen quad cores with smt perform like Intel's quad cores without smt, so their longevity is questionable.Btw people who recommend r5 are the ones who recommend 1500x (horrible choice) and 1600 (which won't be used properly for a long time in gaming).

[ZenMonkey]

On 7/23/2017 at 8:27 AM, manlykeweaver465 said:

the new ryzen 3 cpu's are released on the 27th and was thinking about upgrading to them i know they aint out yet and there are only simulated benchmarks for the chips but would it be a viable upgrade from an fx 6300 or would it be worth it to go for an i5, currently im only gaming but i occasionally do a bit of coding for games as a hobby 

 

I see a lot of people are recommending that you pick the R5 1600 instead of the R3 1300, but you haven't indicated your budget.

 

Assuming you're on a tight budget, the 1300X will be a significant improvement for a low price point. I wouldn't recommend the 1200 over the 1300X just to save $20, because that's not much money and while you might get a 1200 that overclocks just as well, you probably won't, and for just $20 you'll get a chip that is more likely to push the highest speeds of the Ryzen 3 line.

 

If you have a higher budget, the R5 1600 is the best bang for your buck in the entire Ryzen line, in my opinion, and probably the entire mid-range market. In gaming, you'll probably see 10-20% lower FPS than you would with a 7600k, the range is depending on other system factors, but in everything else it will perform as well or better and 6 cores seems to be the sweet spot for gaming in the near future, so it'll probably serve you better over the next 5 years than the 7600k.

 

My only reservation with the Ryzen line is that it's brand new. I generally like to wait until at least the second, and possibly even the third, iteration of a technology before adopting it so a) the manufacturers can refine it and b) third party support can grow.

[theHuntronTracker]

I just ordered the 1300X and I think I'll be happy with it.

 

Ultimately the deciding factor was its performance with Google Octane. The work I do on my PC is through VS Code and Google Chrome, both of which are built on top of Google Chromium. I think it makes sense to get the processor that performs the best in the Google Octane benchmark.

 

Obviously I should have gone with the i3-7100, but I absolutely loathe Intel. In my mind they are just a bunch of 9 to 5'ers more concerned with maximizing profits than pushing the state of the art of processors.

[SubLimation7]

9 minutes ago, theHuntronTracker said:

I just ordered the 1300X and I think I'll be happy with it.

 

Ultimately the deciding factor was its performance with Google Octane. The work I do on my PC is through VS Code and Google Chrome, both of which are built on top of Google Chromium. I think it makes sense to get the processor that performs the best in the Google Octane benchmark.

 

Obviously I should have gone with the i3-7100, but I absolutely loathe Intel. In my mind they are just a bunch of 9 to 5'ers more concerned with maximizing profits than pushing the state of the art of processors.

Definitely an upgrade, but I'd definitely wait till you have another 100+ so u can go for r5 or r7, would be good bit better value long run IMO.

 

Guess its too late though.