AMD's $120 Ryzen 3300X can best Intel's 2017 desktop flagship - The Ryzen Effect

[WYP]

AMD's deliver i7-7700K-like performance for a bargain price.



Read more about AMD's Ryzen 3 3300X processor besting Intel's i7-7700K.

 

[Dicehunter]

Excellent, There really is no reason to buy Intel anymore unless you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

 

[Dawelio]

Excellent, There really is no reason to buy Intel anymore unless you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Don't forget about all of Intels massive vulnerabilities.

 

[AlienALX]

I'm probably the only person in the entire world that isn't excited by this at all.

Mostly because I would rather have the 1600AF. Whilst these will probably be better at gaming and only gaming the AF will be much better for everything else. Streaming, encoding etc.

I also don't find B550 too exciting either. It'll just be basic boards with PCIE4, which will be less important (if it even is now) on lower end rigs. Why would you buy a quad core CPU and a cheap board and then spend as much on an SSD? it just seems a bit off balance.

 

[ImprovizoR]

I'm probably the only person in the entire world that isn't excited by this at all.

I'm not very excited about it either. But that's because this is the kind of progress that should have been happening all along. And it would have if AMD was more competitive before Ryzen. This is what real normal looks like. i7-7700 was three years ago. It should be at entry-level performance in 2020.

 

[AlienALX]

It should have come out in the first place. Instead AMD were rushing to match Intel's IPC and not thinking about the massive stocks of 1 and 2 series Ryzen chips.

Mind you to be fair the 3000 series were lower yield and did have issues at the start.

As for the board? a few YTers had them months ago. Asrock were slipping one into a rig from Best Buy? or something? and a few Youtubers had them. They're nothing exciting. Well, unless Asus knocks out another cracker.

But as I said, it's a bit of an oxy moron. Why pay £180 for a board and chip, and then £180 or more for an SSD? you'd have your priorities out of whack.

 

[Avet]

Excellent, There really is no reason to buy Intel anymore unless you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Not quite. There are many of us that use Thunderbolt devices (Music producers). Although some AMD motherboards kinda support it, TB on AMD is sketchy at best. Also, all AutoDesk apps still run much better on Intel and there are many more instances where I would recommend Intel over AMD.

YouTube community is slightly biased towards the Video editing and Tile base rendering uses where AMD absolutely rocks. Price/performance Gaming is awesome on AMD. Because of that, there is a justified hype towards AMD. But there are still a lot of people that actually benefit from Intel's CPUs.

Yes AMD has done an amazing job and I would recommend it to many people and it has pushed Intel from slumber, but saying that you are mentally deranged for buying Intel is just noncence when there is actual benefit from Intel CPUs in many, many usecases.

 

[Peace Ð]

Not that excited as well, because why would I want the performance of three years ago now? While it'd still be an upgrade over my 4770K, I'd rather save up some more and get something that's more up to date performance-wise or I'd have to upgrade sooner than I want to.
Or am I missing something here?

 

[WYP]

Not that excited as well, because why would I want the performance of three years ago now? While it'd still be an upgrade over my 4770K, I'd rather save up some more and get something that's more up to date performance-wise or I'd have to upgrade sooner than I want to.
Or am I missing something here?

It's that what was high-end desktop performance is now accessible at a price that's almost 3x cheaper in three years. This is a big deal for the low-end of the PC market.

 

[AlienALX]

It's that what was high-end desktop performance is now accessible at a price that's almost 3x cheaper in three years. This is a big deal for the low-end of the PC market.

1600AF.

Pretty much kills this launch stone dead.

Whilst these may be good for gaming and gaming only they'll be useless for anything else. That said, I would be a fool not to concede that the cash in gaming these days is all about Fortnite rigs, so the less educated will see these and think they won the lottery, whilst having no idea the 1600AF even exists.

 

[WYP]

1600AF.

Pretty much kills this launch stone dead.

Whilst these may be good for gaming and gaming only they'll be useless for anything else. That said, I would be a fool not to concede that the cash in gaming these days is all about Fortnite rigs, so the less educated will see these and think they won the lottery, whilst having no idea the 1600AF even exists.

Depends on your workload. A stronger quad-core will be better than a 6-core in a lot of cases. Ultimately depends on what you are doing.

Would love to test these head-to-head.

When it came to the 3600X VS older 2700X CPUs for the same money, I'd go for the 3600X. Better single-threaded made up for the core differences, as did the extra cache etc.

 

[AlienALX]

Some games want more than four cores. Though admittedly Fartnite doesn't.

 

[WYP]

Some games want more than four cores. Though admittedly Fartnite doesn't.

You are right, a lot of games are targeting higher core counts, but extra single-threaded performance preferable in a lot of cases.

These days straight quad cores are getting hard to recommend, but 4c/8th is still plenty for most titles if you want a straight 60+ FPS.

Again, I'd love to put these two CPUs head-to-head to see which is the best for gaming. My money is on the quad-core though. The question though is how well both will age, as the new consoles both use eight Zen 2 cores.