Ryzen Release Thread

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-...49-10.html

AMD is hitting hard with Ryzen 3. The quad-core models aren't as aggressively segmented as Intel's Core i3 family, so you get unlocked ratio multipliers, a competent Wraith Spire cooler, and a lower cost to entry. And it isn’t like overclocking Ryzen 3 1300X requires much effort; we used a B350-based motherboard and the stock thermal solution for a quick and easy jump to 3.9 GHz.

In comparison, Intel's only overclockable Core i3 is pricey on its own, and that's before you factor in an expensive Z270-based motherboard or third-party heat sink/fan.
...
So, if you're only doing office work and don't plan on buying an add-in GPU, Intel's the way to go.

However, enthusiasts looking for a speedy chip should strongly consider the Ryzen 3 1300X. It's an excellent value that leaves room in your budget for other high-performance devices. It also gives you spare cores for productivity applications. AMD has solidified its AM4 motherboard ecosystem, so the platforms are stable, and we can confidently recommend them. We’ll follow up with in-depth application testing, but initial signs are positive. After all, it isn’t hard to imagine that quad-core models will best Intel's dual-cores offerings in most productivity applications.

Make no mistake, you’ll see the Ryzen 3 1300X on our Best CPUs list soon. We'll circle back with application testing in the Ryzen 3 1200 review. Meanwhile, the Coffee Lake processors can’t come soon enough for Intel.

http://techreport.com/review/32301/amd-r...eviewed/13

That's good news for AMD, but Ryzen 3 parts will still sell for as much as Core i3s—a fact that I find a bit hard to stomach.

As I noted at the beginning of this review, those prices seem ambitious for one major reason: onboard graphics and Ryzen's lack thereof. Intel's similarly-priced Core i3 chips offer a plug-and-play PC build for those who don't game. That missing graphics processor won't matter for gamers shopping Ryzen 3, of course, but it matters for the much larger market of basic PCs and home-theater machines out there. The unavoidable need for and cost of a discrete graphics card limits the appeal and design envelope for Ryzen 3 chips. All this will change with the eventual arrival of Ryzen APUs and their Radeon Vega onboard graphics, but for now, Intel would seem to maintain its lock on the basic DIY PC.

Considering Ryzen's missing integrated graphics, AMD might have considered even more aggressive pricing. A Ryzen 3 1300X for $99 or $109 and a Ryzen 3 1200 for $79 or $89 would have really given us something to talk about for performance-per-dollar, and it would also leave plenty of wiggle room for buyers to squeeze that discrete graphics card into their budgets. Those price points wouldn't be unprecedented, either: the company's unlocked and graphics-free Athlons of years past occupied similar brackets. Ryzen 3 chips seem like a perfect successor to those products.

In that light, Intel's Kaby Lake Pentiums and Core i3s (except the pricey i3-7350K) still have plenty of appeal in the face of the Ryzen onslaught. Kaby Lake chips still have a single-threaded performance advantage that will make basic desktop tasks feel snappier, and more well-heeled Core i3 buyers can add an Optane Memory cache to big hard drives for SSD-like performance from their large Steam libraries and other applications. That might be an appealing prospect given the industry-wide NAND supply crunch that's occurring right now.

No, you can't overclock any Core i3 (again, except the pricey i3-7350K), but I feel like that restriction isn't that choking given Kaby Lake chips' already-solid performance, high efficiency, and built-in graphics processors for those who need them. Intel also doesn't seem to lock down memory multipliers on its locked CPUs, so it's easy enough to run fast RAM with one of those chips for extra performance. Solid-looking Z270 boards are available for about the same price as AMD B350 boards, and USB 3.1 Gen 2 support is about the only thing missing from those inexpensive Intel mobos.

All that said, if you'd rather build an all-AMD budget gaming box with Ryzen 3, I wouldn't blame you. Socket AM4 motherboards should offer a fine upgrade path to Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 7 CPUs if more computing power is needed down the line, and USB 3.1 Gen 2 support baked in is a nice bonus versus affordable Intel mobos. AMD's Wraith Stealth cooler is both quiet and pleasant-sounding, too, a nice change of pace from Intel's bottom-dollar stock coolers of late.

Of the two Ryzen 3 CPUs launching today, I'd grab a Ryzen 3 1300X for its high stock clocks and wide XFR range, but that's because my patience for overclocking has waned in my old age. Folks willing to spend some time in firmware with the Ryzen 3 1400 may find enough performance left in the tank to make it worth the money saved, and since every dollar matters for gaming machines at this price point, AMD's unlocked multipliers on the Ryzen 3 1400 could help to move quite a few of those chips in budget gaming builds. Either way, you can't go wrong, and that should be music to AMD's ears as the Ryzen buzz continues to build.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/25...-i3-family

With Ryzen 3, AMD is targeting (relatively) budget gamers who don’t have a lot of cash to throw around, but who want more performance in multi-threaded applications than Core i3 can provide. True budget buyers who only require a basic system will be best served by the Core i3-7100, which offers an integrated GPU that Ryzen 3 lacks. But Intel’s GPUs, while far better than in the past, still never get the chance to strut their stuff on that platform. Intel reserves its highest performing GPUs for mobile products, which means you can’t really expect great 1080p performance out of a Core i3 without buying a GPU as well. AMD is betting that a true quad-core that frees up $20-40 in spending is more attractive to the budget gamer than the prospect of paying for an iGPU that never gets used at a higher price. Time will tell if they’re right about this.

Beyond that, Ryzen neatly slides into place at the bottom of AMD’s refresh cycle. If you’ve followed the launch of Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7, this won’t be a surprise. AMD’s decision to standardize its CPU configurations make performance fairly easy to predict. And in this case, Ryzen 3’s overall performance establishes it as competitive relative to the Core i3, though exactly how competitive will depend on what tests you care about and whether you want an iGPU. If you’ve got the cash to spend, we’d argue that the 1600X is the best multi-threaded performer in AMD’s lineup, with the best balance between price, single-threaded, and multi-threaded performance. But buyers who choose to save some money and opt for Ryzen 3 can count on a capable, solid CPU.