Ryzen 3 initial reviews breakdown

[mrchow19910319]

Isnt it ironic when it comes to informative benchmarks videos, Hardware Unboxed came up instead of Linus's video? 

 

Talk about video quality. Linus please. 

[Misanthrope]

25 minutes ago, mrchow19910319 said:

Isnt it ironic when it comes to informative benchmarks videos, Hardware Unboxed came up instead of Linus's video? 

 

Talk about video quality. Linus please. 

Actually it isn't: LTT has never been particularly accurate or unbiased for reviews or hardware tips with many examples through the years. Their content is more focused on crazy ideas related to tech not actual accurate measures and looking at things objectively.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

The 7350K will be fine if Intel gets realistic with the price. Really that applies to their whole product range - AMD hasn't beaten Intel on raw performance, just on performance per dollar.

Except that with Intel still on a monolithic die, they can't easily drop their prices enough to compete against AMD on that front.  Given the modular nature of Ryzen, it's very easy for AMD to drop their prices further and still make a profit (at least on the mid-high end, not quite as much on the low end).  Intel would have to lose profitability - or even take a loss - to compete in price.

[elkenrod]

i can't wait to get home and look at some of these bar graphs.

 

I also enjoy the clamoring for an AMD cpu at the pentium price point.   Like who are the people that care about this stuff that still buys pentiums?

[Liltrekkie]

7 hours ago, Denis Rakhmanov said:

I can repeat myself:

AMD producing only one zen die: 8 core/16threads. I dont expect thay can make profit with this die if they sell it for less then 100$. When you add Vega die, cost would go even higher.

Bristol ridge is supposed to use older CPU architecture, if i'm not mistaken.

 

Let me explain how you are wrong. There was an article on how the yields on the 1800x were 80%. Yes. 80%. Now, lets assume another 10% have some sort of core defect, and the other 10% are just screwed and out for recycle. 

 

The 10% that have a core defect, will have core disabled and turned into an r5, if a lot are disabled, they are turned into R3's. Intel does the same thing on their Xeons, most of their chips are the 22 core design, with certain cores non functioning due to a defect or whatever. While yes, some of those 1800x chips will have their cores manually turned off to meet demand, they will still profit greatly. Why? Efficiency. 80% yields are unheard of. I also saw another post where the cost of a Ryzen die was something like $30, minus R&D costs, just a die itself, whether that's true, I don't know.

 

Even if the true cost is not $30, using chips with defective cores, disabling them, and creating a working product, is a smart business move. If they weren't making money on the r3's, they wouldnt be selling them. I suspect the wafer cost is something low like $30, which is on par with what i read a while ago. 

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Except that with Intel still on a monolithic die, they can't easily drop their prices enough to compete against AMD on that front.  Given the modular nature of Ryzen, it's very easy for AMD to drop their prices further and still make a profit (at least on the mid-high end, not quite as much on the low end).  Intel would have to lose profitability - or even take a loss - to compete in price.

Aye after threadripper which has been delided we know it's 4x R5 1500 and the epycs will be 4x R7 1700s meaning that almost every die they produce they gets used.

 

Doesn't means that intel is in trouble though: having their own fabs is a big advantage still.

[TheKDub]

Nice job AMD, another nicely placed bullet in Intel.

 

Now they just need to get their single thread performance up a bit more and AMD takes the cake entirely. If it weren't for me sticking with Windows 8.1, I'd go with Ryzen for my next build instead of Intel.

[Sakkura]

24 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Except that with Intel still on a monolithic die, they can't easily drop their prices enough to compete against AMD on that front.  Given the modular nature of Ryzen, it's very easy for AMD to drop their prices further and still make a profit (at least on the mid-high end, not quite as much on the low end).  Intel would have to lose profitability - or even take a loss - to compete in price.

Hmm? Intel has a variety of dies addressing various market segments. Taking their 4-core die and cutting it down to 2 cores is certainly no worse for them than taking an 8-core die and cutting it down to 4 cores is for AMD.

[XenosTech]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Can you pinpoint exactly what is making you dislike his review so much? Because the way I see it, people (not necessarily you) are extremely mad because he compared the R3 to the i3.

*shrugs* people on this forum called a comparison of the 1600 and the 7800 an unfair comparison even though the result showed that the 1600 was slightly better at somethings than the 7800. Can't please people man but the article and video are in two different tones so you'll have to read it to see where Misanthrope is coming from.

[Drak3]

10 hours ago, Liltrekkie said:

If they weren't making money on the r3's, they wouldnt be selling them.

They'd absolutely sell a chip at a lost if it mitigates said loss. Let's pretend AMD pulls out a 4C/4T that could only manage 2GHz, and that was determined as a defect, and after market research, they figure they can only sell it and a $10 cost of manufacture cooler for a total of $35, and cost to manufacture said CPU is exactly $30. They're more likely to take the $5 profit loss on the chip than a $30 loss tossing it (because they'll absolutely use the cooler for other SKUs).

9 hours ago, XenosTech said:

*shrugs* people on this forum called a comparison of the 1600 and the 7800 an unfair comparison even though the result showed that the 1600 was slightly better at somethings than the 7800.

That's because people are fairly stupid. So long as the results are repeatable, and somewhat realistic scenarios are used, it's fair. I don't give a shit if we're comparing the first Pentium at base clock against a 7980XE at 10GHz, it's a fair comparison. Not one most people would even consider, and not a single person that needs one over the other will really use it, but fair.

[Castdeath97]

12 hours ago, mrchow19910319 said:

Isnt it ironic when it comes to informative benchmarks videos, Hardware Unboxed came up instead of Linus's video? 

 

Talk about video quality. Linus please. 

I was a bit busy back then with the family so I posted the ones I checked out. But seriously, LTT sometimes benchmarked CPUs in 4K WITHOUT minimums and still haven't fixed their delidding video, how did you ever come to the conclusion that their informative!?

[Red Hardware]

19 hours ago, SuperShires said:

LTT video is up also, damn these little beauties destroy the competition for value, wonder what Intels' response will be? i3 4 cores?

How will they response to this ? Simply by reducing the production of good high value i3s and thinking they still can force people to buy other stuff like few years ago  

[TheGunzPT]

I'm aiming to get the R3 1300x for my gf new PC.

I love the price/perf and it's gonna do just fine for a mini ITX 1080p gaming machine.

I finally made convinced her to move from Xbox to the PC side. Reason to finally change her ideas? I made her play Battlefield 1 on the ultrawide and she was insanely surprised about the immersion the ultrawide experience gives.

 

 

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, TheGunzPT said:

I'm aiming to get the R3 1300x for my gf new PC.

I love the price/perf and it's gonna do just fine for a mini ITX 1080p gaming machine.

I finally made convinced her to move from Xbox to the PC side. Reason to finally change her ideas? I made her play Battlefield 1 on the ultrawide and she was insanely surprised about the immersion the ultrawide experience gives.

 

 

 

If the system isn't going to be used for anything other than gaming and emails etc, then an i3 7100 will be slightly cheaper and perform on par.

 

But we're only talking $20-30 ($40 in Aus.) overall.   

[TheGunzPT]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

If the system isn't going to be used for anything other than gaming and emails etc, then an i3 7100 will be slightly cheaper and perform on par.

 

But we're only talking $20-30 ($40 in Aus.) overall.   

I know, however my GF main games are 4 core usable games like BF1.

 

Dual Core will be limited. I don't need high IPC on 2 cores, I need 3.5-3.7ghz on 4 cores.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, TheGunzPT said:

I know, however my GF main games are 4 core usable games like BF1.

 

Dual Core will be limited. I don't need high IPC on 2 cores, I need 3.5-3.7ghz on 4 cores.

i3 has higher min than the 1300x on battlefield 1 according to toms.  But as I said it's only $20-30, so if you're more comfortable with the 1300x then it isn't really money wasted.  Just thought it was something worth considering due to the budget nature of these cpu's.

[TheGunzPT]

Just now, mr moose said:

i3 has higher min than the 1300x on battlefield 1 according to toms.  But as I said it's only $20-30, so if you're more comfortable with the 1300x then it isn't really money wasted.  Just thought it was something worth considering due to the budget nature of these cpu's.

True and thanks for the feedback.

 

I've recently done a 1600x build and I'm quite happy as a secondary rendering machine (Got the 1600x for 100..)

 

I just think a 1300x would do just fine in terms of CPU Bottleneck with her 580 too

[Simon771]

Starting price is 110€ for it. In about 2 month, it will be at 99€ mark.

great for budget builds.

 

I might wait a bit and buy myself cheap R3 build for NAS.

[Denis Rakhmanov]

With recent Coffe Lake leaks i think that i3 will be 4/4, pentiums will remain 2/4, i5 6/6, and so on. So r3 and i3 will be with similar core counts.