AMD's latest Ryzen processors cost just $ 4 with quad cores and SMT support.
Meet the new Ryzen 3 3100, which costs just $ 100. It has 4 cores, 8 threads and clocks between 3.6 and 3.9 GHz, depending on the workload. For such an affordable processor, it also offers a fairly large 18 MB cache. This part is designed for a TDP of 65 watts and so you get the Wraith stealth cooler, a nice addition to this price.
Then we have the Ryzen 3 3300X, which costs $ 120. It is also a 4 core, 8 thread part with the same cache, TDP and box cooler. The core clocks are somewhat higher and are between 3.8 and 4.3 GHz. Now you may think that a 10% increase in clock frequency is somewhat weak for a 20% price increase, but there's more to it than that. The R3 3100 and 3300X have a different topology. In other words, they are arranged differently within the core complex chip.
For a quick refresh, the 3rd generation Ryzen core chip chip, or CCD for short, contains two core complexes that are often referred to as CCX. Each CCX contains four cores, so a fully activated CCD contains a total of eight cores. Throw two of them together in one package and you will get the Ryzen 9 3950X.
The R3 3100 and 3300X both have a single CCD, and only half of the cores are active because they are quad-core processors. The Ryzen 3 3100 has two active CCXs, each with 2 cores, 4 threads and 8 MB L3 cache. In simple terms, AMD would call this a 2 + 2 configuration. If more than 2 cores are used, there is crosstalk between CCX modules, which increases latency.
The Ryzen 3 3300X, on the other hand, has a single active CCX. This means that all four cores are housed in the same CCX. This reduces core-to-core latency and unifies the 16MB L3 cache for all cores and threads, resulting in better multi-core performance. In this case, the 3300X could be worth the additional $ 20.
As for the competition, the R3 3100 would currently be battling the Intel Core i3-9100F. The 9100F currently only costs $ 75, but this is just a 4-core / 4-thread part that is sure to be brutal. The real match will be with the upcoming Intel Core i3-10100, a 4-core 8-thread CPU that works between 3.6 and 4.3 GHz at a price of $ 122.
The Core i5-9400F is currently competing with the R3 3300X, which may currently be an even tougher competition for Intel. Recently, the price for the 6-core Intel CPU with 6 threads was set at around $ 150. This is a discount from the original MSRP of $ 180. It will be interesting to see how these two CPUs can be compared in terms of performance. The cheapest Core i5 that Intel shipped with the Comet Lake series is the 10400, but that's a 6-core processor with 12 threads, so it's likely to be a class above the R3 3300X.
AMD moved past these new Ryzen 3 processors for a moment and released more information about the upcoming B550 chipset. The long-awaited B550 will be here soon when the boards will be available in mid-June. Highlights include PCIe 4.0 support for graphics cards and NVMe storage.
The chipset itself does not support PCIe 4.0, but B550 motherboards. There are no PCIe 4.0 lanes attached to the chipset, but AMD enables B550 motherboards to use 3rd generation Ryzen PCI 4.0 lanes. These PCIe lanes have been updated compared to the B450 and X470 chipsets, while the 400 series chipsets included PCIe 2.0 and the B550 now receives PCIe 3.0. So that's a pretty big deal.
B550 cards now support two GPUs. Until now, this function was only available for X470 and X570 cards. Not exactly an exciting addition, but we are sure that someone will find it useful.
The B550 chipset supports a total of four PCIe 3.0 lanes with the option of two additional PCIe 3.0 lanes or two additional SATA 6 Gbit / s ports. There are also four fixed SATA 6 Gbit / s ports, six USB 2.0 480 Mbit / s ports, two USB 3.0 5 Gbit / s ports and two USB 3.1 10 Gbit / s ports. Rest assured, we will test as many B550 boards as possible as they hit the shelves on June 16.
In the meantime, we are using the Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master for all benchmarks and 32 GB DDR4-3200 CL14 memory for today's test, so that all 4 DIMM sockets are occupied. Exactly the same memory configuration was used to test the Intel CPUs with the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra. Unless otherwise stated, all AMD and Intel CPUs were cooled with the 360 mm AIO liquid cooler Corsair Hydro H150i Pro. We use an RTX 2080 Ti for the graphics card.
Much of this benchmarking data has been freshly captured over the past few weeks with the latest Windows 10 Build 1909 and the latest BIOS available for each motherboard. Full disclosure: We ran out of time, so we couldn't test all the CPUs we wanted. For example, we tested all AMD CPUs that we were able to, but could not install in 1st generation Ryzen 3 parts in time.
We also included the directly competing Intel CPUs, but due to the same time constraints, there are no high-end parts. The graphics include the Ryzen 7 3700X, for example, but we couldn't include the Core i7-8700K. This was not done to make AMD CPUs look faster. Intel is faster for high-end games, but we just couldn't complete all of the benchmarks for this test. More positive is that we will have the opportunity to include them all shortly in our upcoming 10th generation Intel CPU test. Let us come to the results.
Based on the Cinebench R20 multicore results, we see that the R3 3300X can outperform the R5 1600 and outperform the 9400F by 10%. It was also only 7% slower than the R5 2600.
The R3 3100 also fits well with the 9400F and is therefore almost 50% faster than the Core i3-9100F.
The R3 3300X's single core performance is very strong. Here it was 19% faster than the 9400F. The R3 3100 clearly outperformed the 9100F and outperformed it by 16%.
When using 7-Zip to measure compression performance, we see that the R3 3300X is slightly ahead of the R5 1600, while the R3 3100 is slightly behind. However, both easily beat the competing Intel parts and were even faster than the Core i7-7700K.
The decompression performance was equally impressive: here the R3 3300X was 24% faster than the 9400F, while the R3 3100 was almost 70% faster than the 9100F.
Here's a look at AES performance with the very powerful performance of these new quad-core processors. The R3 3300X was 21% faster than the 9400F and 37% faster than the 7700K, while the R3 3100 completely destroyed the 9100F by almost 50%.
The Ryzen 3 3300X was 11% faster than the Core i5-9400F in the Blender Open Data benchmark and thus delivered a performance similar to that of the Ryzen 5 1600. The R3 3100 dominates the 9100F and beats it by 45% this time.
V-Ray is another rendering benchmark where the R3 3300X performs well and is 13% faster than the 9400F with the R5 1600. Then we see the R3 3100 outperform the 9100F by 38%.
The R3 3300X cannot keep up with the R5 1600 in the Corona benchmark, but has surpassed the 7700K by a few percent and was 14% faster than the 9400F. Here, too, the R3 3100 easily beat the 9100F, this time with a whopping 52% lead.
The code compilation performance for the Ryzen 3 3300X was excellent and essentially matched the Ryzen 5 2600, which means that it was 10% faster than the Core i5-9400F. The R3 3100 was not much slower than the 7700K and as such destroyed the 9100F by almost 50%.
DaVinci Resolve Studio is a new addition to our benchmarking suite. Here we see that the R3 3300X performs slightly better in the Puget Systems benchmark. It was 16% faster than the 9400F, which was in line with previous margins. The R3 3100 was also 57% faster than the Core i3-9100F.
Of course, we're still testing the Puget Systems benchmark with Adobe Premiere Pro 2020. The R3 3300X was 19% faster than the 9400F, while the R3 3100 was 42% faster than the 9100F. The 3300X was also 10% faster than the 3100, so not a big margin.
The Ryzen 3 3300X seems to be a great option for Photoshop users. Here he scores 844 points and is 20% better than the 9400F. The R3 3100 also outperformed the 9100F by 14%, making these new Ryzen 3 CPUs an excellent option even for Photoshop users on a tight budget.
We see similar margins when we run the Puget Systems Lightroom Classic benchmark. Here the 3300X has displaced the Core i7-7700K and is therefore 8% faster than the 9400F. In the meantime, the R3 3100 outperformed the 9100F by 15%.
The last productivity benchmark we ran was After Effects 2020, where the new Ryzen 3 processors performed well and performed closely against the Ryzen 5 2600 and the Core i7-7700K.
A quick look at the total system power consumption shows that the 3300X is on par with the slightly lower clocked Ryzen 5 3600, while the R3 3100 reduced power consumption by almost 10%. Both used a lot more power than the Intel alternatives, but were then much faster.
We'll start with Battlefield V using the DX11 API to test game performance. Here the R3 3300X did exceptionally well and was just behind the R3 3600. With an average of 152 fps it was 7% faster than the 9400F, but 24% faster than the comparison of the 1% low data.
The R3 3100 also did well, at least compared to the competition. Although it only matched the average frame rate of the 9100F, it was significantly faster when comparing 1% less power and delivered 41% more power. This leads to a much smoother and noticeably better gaming experience.
Increasing the resolution to 1440p creates a slight GPU bottleneck, and although the 7700K took the lead at the average frame rate, the 1% low result on the R3 3300X was still significantly lower. The same applies to the 9400F, which achieved the average fps result of the 3300X, but was 22% slower when considering the 1% low result. The R3 3100 offers significantly better performance of 1% compared to the 9100F.
If we move on to Far Cry New Dawn, we have a title here that is known to not work very well with Ryzen CPUs, at least compared to the Intel competition. The R3 3300X can still keep up with the 9400F, although the R3 3100 lags behind the 9100F. Nevertheless, the overall performance was good and certainly very smooth.
Jumping to 1440p doesn't change too much since the CPU was limited to 1080p. So the edges are all very similar, although the R3 3300X jumps just before the 9400F.
Gears 5 Tactics is a new title and this is the first time that we have tested the game. Here the AMD CPUs look very competitive because the R3 3300X displaces the 7700K and is therefore 12% faster than the 9400F. The R3 3100 also performs well and corresponds to the average frame rate of the 9100F, but exceeds its 1% low result by 14%.
The results come together from 1440p and we see little difference between most CPUs tested. The R5 1600 is the only processor that drops noticeably from the package.
Next up is Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege with the new Vulkan implementation. We see a fairly large gap between the 3300X and 3100, with the more expensive quad-core achieving a 15% faster average frame rate and a 20% faster 1% lower performance.
The 3300X could also keep up with the 2700X. That meant it was slightly slower than the 7700K for average frame rates, but still 13% faster when you look at the 1% lows. It was also 30% faster than the 9400F when looking at the same data. The R3 3100 reached the R5 2600 with average frame rates comparable to the 9100F, but 38% faster when comparing the 1% low data.
Jumping to 1440p leads to a GPU bottleneck, especially when looking at the average frame rate performance. Nevertheless, the 3300X and 3100 models do well and beat the competing Intel CPUs when you look at the 1% low data.
Ghost Recon Breakpoint has also been tested with the Vulkan API. Here we see that the Ryzen 3 3300X roughly corresponds to the 2700X, 3600 and 3700X. While it was slightly faster than the 9400F for the 1% low result, it was also somewhat slower when comparing the average frame rate. Then we see that the R3 3100 loses significantly against the 9100F.
The edges usually close at 1440p with negligible differences. For example, the 9400F was 9% faster than the 3300X when comparing the average frame rate, but slightly slower at 1% low.
With Shadow of the Tomb Raider, the 3300X looks good and enables an average of 102 fps. This is slightly faster than the 7700K and 9400F and outperforms the Core i5 processor by 10%. The 3100 also impressed, at least compared to the 9100F.
Margins narrow at 1440p, but even then the R3 3100 is significantly better than the 9100F thanks to an absolutely massive 59% increase with 1% less power.
In the last game in our roundup, Red Dead Redemption 2, the R3 3300X can keep up with the 7700K, making it a bit faster than the 9400F. Interestingly, the R3 3100 can only roughly keep up with the 3400G and was even slightly worse than the 9100F compared to 1% less power.
The 3300X remained strong at 1440p and essentially matched the R3 3600 and R7 3700X. In the meantime, the R3 3100 was roughly at the level of the 3400G.
Put everything together
That's a lot of graphics. So let's try to summarize that we will focus on the game numbers first. Productivity is equally important, but performance there depends heavily on the workload. It is therefore best to analyze the data relevant to your application individually.
If we look at the game results of 7 games, we see here that the 3300X is on average comparable to the 2700X and the older Core i7-7700K CPU. It was also 4% faster than the 9400F for the average frame rate, but 13% faster when comparing 1% lows. Compared to the inexpensive 1600 AF you can expect an average increase of 16%.
On average, the 3300X is comparable to the 2700X and the older Core i7-7700K. It was also only 4% faster than the 9400F for the average frame rate, but 13% faster when comparing 1% low data. Compared to the 1600 AF, you see an average increase of 16%.
The Ryzen 3 3100 was on par with the popular 1600 AF for gaming. We saw a slight increase in average frame rates of 2.5% over the 9100F, but saw a sharp increase of 21% when we look at the key 1% low data.
Taking into account the 1% low data, you can see the cost per frame here. We picked up the 1600 AF for $ 85, although it is currently selling for around $ 150 – it is not worth buying it for $ 150 – but we wanted it to be a highly desirable reference Priced at $ 85 as it was a good option here for pretty much everyone.
The Core i3-9100F ranks well here due to its extremely low price of $ 75, but there are some limitations. The 9100F suffers from poor performance of 1% on a number of modern titles, resulting in stuttering frame rates and a poor gaming experience. It also has a poor upgrade path and we test it on an expensive Z390 motherboard with high performance memory. Then it will be destroyed outside of play.
The poor performance of 1% on demanding titles tells us that you should avoid the 9100F if you are interested in gaming performance. For just $ 25 more, the R3 3100 is a remarkable upgrade that offers an average of 21% better 1% low performance, or much more than that, for example in Battlefield V, where this margin has more than doubled.
And yet, if you can justify letting go of another $ 20, the Ryzen 3 3300X seems to be the way to go, though they are identical in terms of cost per frame. When it comes to the Core i5-9400F, the 3300X is the obvious choice: it's faster, cheaper, and available on a better platform.
What we have learned
We believe the new Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X CPUs are the new undisputed budget champions. Not only is the 3300X cheaper than the 9400F, it also offers superior application and gaming performance. It is available on a better platform and supports up to 16 cores. It can be paired with a $ 70 B450 motherboard without memory restrictions.
The same applies to the R3 3100 compared to the 9100F. The Ryzen 3 processor offers better and more consistent gaming performance with better application performance worldwide. Granted, the Core i3 processor is $ 25 cheaper, but entry-level Z390 cards cost $ 30 more. If you want to run the memory over DDR4-2400, the CPU savings are eliminated, and if you work at this speed, the performance is drastically reduced compared to the ones shown here.
If these new Ryzen 3 CPUs are the new "undisputed budget champions", the question remains how long? The Core i3-10100 will soon be on stage and will be available with 4 cores and 8 threads for $ 122. Looking at the datasheet, the 10100 is a few hundred MHz slower than the 7700K and has 25% less L3 cache. If we take it alone, the i3-10100 will be a few frames slower on average than the R3 3300X in games, while Ryzen 3 should comfortably be faster in most applications. We just have to wait and see how this develops, but it looks like AMD has positioned the new Ryzen 3 parts very well.
Something we haven't touched on yet is overclocking. Both Ryzen 3 parts are unlocked, but can also be locked, especially the 3300X, as they appear to have been pushed to the maximum after unpacking. When PBO + Auto OC is enabled, performance can be increased by 2%, while manual overclocking of the 3300X could not improve performance at all. The 3100 saw high single-digit gains, but that's about it. For those wondering, the Ryzen 3 3100 is maximum with an all-core overclocking of 3.9 GHz and the 3300X at 4.2 GHz. We had very little time to mess around with overclocking, but due to our limited testing, there doesn't seem to be any real headroom.
For those who switch between the Ryzen 3 3100 and the 3300X, we personally get the 3300X each time higher quality silicon and the better optimized core configuration. These two things alone make it worth the $ 20 additional cost, and on top of that, you get superior performance. Both CPUs will hit stores later this month on the 20th, and motherboards that are already flashed with a BIOS that supports 3rd generation Ryzen processors do not need to be updated.