Thursday, July 27th 2017

AMD Announces the Ryzen 3 Series Desktop Processors

AMD today announced its Ryzen 3 series value desktop processors in the socket AM4 package. The lineup consists of the Ryzen 3 1200 priced at $109, and the faster Ryzen 3 1300X priced at $129; and compete with Intel Core i3 dual-core SKUs, such as the i3-7100 and the i3-7300, respectively. What AMD has going for these chips is that they are quad-core, even if they lack SMT featured on Ryzen 5 series quad-core parts. Both are endowed with 8 MB of shared L3 cache, and unlocked base-clock multipliers.

The Ryzen 3 1200 is clocked at 3.10 GHz, with 3.40 GHz boost, and XFR (extended frequency range) adding another 50 MHz; while the Ryzen 3 1300X is clocked at 3.40 GHz, with 3.70 GHz boost, and XFR adding a further 200 MHz. In most scenarios, the chip should boost up to 3.90 GHz. AMD carved the two Ryzen 3 series parts out of its 14 nm "Summit Ridge" silicon, by disabling two cores and 4 MB L3 cache per CCX, resulting in 4 cores and 8 MB of total L3 cache. Both chips feature TDP ratings of 65W, and include AMD Wraith Stealth cooling solutions.
Add your own comment

45 Comments on AMD Announces the Ryzen 3 Series Desktop Processors

#1
FrustratedGarrett
So the new 1300 and 1200 parts are still harvested 2-CCX chips with the extra issue of not supporting high RAM frequencies. Wow... I would expect nothing less from AMD; a truly useless product! It's well known that cross-CCX latency is the main culprit behind Ryzen's poor performance in gaming and data-intensive applications. The 1300 losses to Intel's dual core 7300 in games and most other benchmarks.
Posted on Reply
#2
Boatvan
I don't know a whole lot about the subject, but from a layman's perspective, AMD seems to be making good moves in the processor game. Unlike most people that will post in this thread, I am processor neutral. For the common man, these are affordable and will do what they need.
Posted on Reply
#3
trparky
FrustratedGarrett said:
supporting high RAM frequencies
Some of the recent BIOS and AGESA updates have solved a lot of those issues so no, the high RAM frequency issues aren't nearly as bad as they once were when Ryzen first launched. These issues still exist for some but they're not nearly as widespread an issue now.
Posted on Reply
#4
Easo
FrustratedGarrett said:
So the new 1300 and 1200 parts are still harvested 2-CCX chips with the extra issue of not supporting high RAM frequencies. Wow... I would expect nothing less from AMD; a truly useless product! It's well known that cross-CCX latency is the main culprit behind Ryzen's poor performance in gaming and data-intensive applications. The 1300 losses to Intel's dual core 7300 in games and most other benchmarks.
Useless? Poor performance? How did you conclude this?
Posted on Reply
#5
IceScreamer
FrustratedGarrett said:
So the new 1300 and 1200 parts are still harvested 2-CCX chips with the extra issue of not supporting high RAM frequencies. Wow... I would expect nothing less from AMD; a truly useless product! It's well known that cross-CCX latency is the main culprit behind Ryzen's poor performance in gaming and data-intensive applications. The 1300 losses to Intel's dual core 7300 in games and most other benchmarks.
You really do live up to your name.
Posted on Reply
#6
buggalugs
They are OK, competitive at least.
Posted on Reply
#7
FrustratedGarrett
buggalugs said:
They are OK, competitive at least. I dont understand why tf AMD doesnt have a low end CPU with integrated graphics.
It's not priced competitively, being overall on par or slower than the Pentium G4560, and it lacks an IGP, which makes it useless for HTPC builds. People were expecting true quad cores without all the cross-CCX latency issues.



Posted on Reply
#8
JATownes
FrustratedGarrett said:
So the new 1300 and 1200 parts are still harvested 2-CCX chips...
Using harvested CCX chips for the quads is a decision that was made to get high yields from the wafer. (Some estimates put yields at upwards of 90%+). This is a great decision from a business perspective, though I understand an enthusiasts frustration with it.

JAT
Posted on Reply
#9
DeOdView
FrustratedGarrett said:
So the new 1300 and 1200 parts are still harvested 2-CCX chips with the extra issue of not supporting high RAM frequencies. Wow... I would expect nothing less from AMD; a truly useless product! It's well known that cross-CCX latency is the main culprit behind Ryzen's poor performance in gaming and data-intensive applications. The 1300 losses to Intel's dual core 7300 in games and most other benchmarks.
^^ Same post from PCPer.

You must have gotten INTEL INSIDE!

- Final blow to I3... RIP.
Posted on Reply
#10
Fx
The 1300X sounds like it strikes a fine balance for the workstation that I want to build for my wife. 129$ sounds like a pretty sweet deal for a quad-core at 3.4GHz.
Posted on Reply
#11
theoneandonlymrk
FrustratedGarrett said:
So the new 1300 and 1200 parts are still harvested 2-CCX chips with the extra issue of not supporting high RAM frequencies. Wow... I would expect nothing less from AMD; a truly useless product! It's well known that cross-CCX latency is the main culprit behind Ryzen's poor performance in gaming and data-intensive applications. The 1300 losses to Intel's dual core 7300 in games and most other benchmarks.
Yes because loads spend 129 on a cpu but 2-300 on memory for the same.
And loads will pair it with a 1080ti to run 1080p games at less then intel fps will they, no no they won't , have a word with yourself these are budget/ lower end parts , they will do fine for their typically bought role.

The fact your surprised these are the same zen chip with bits not working over a cut in half chip says it All.

Go read some more.
Posted on Reply
#12
jaggerwild
I wonder if we will be able to unlock the extra cores like old AMDs did?
Posted on Reply
#13
RejZoR
FrustratedGarrett said:
So the new 1300 and 1200 parts are still harvested 2-CCX chips with the extra issue of not supporting high RAM frequencies. Wow... I would expect nothing less from AMD; a truly useless product! It's well known that cross-CCX latency is the main culprit behind Ryzen's poor performance in gaming and data-intensive applications. The 1300 losses to Intel's dual core 7300 in games and most other benchmarks.
It's a budget CPU. What are you expecting, top notch binning? be serious for a second will ya? I'd rather have a "harvested" proper quad core than crappy Intel dual core with HT... People are making too much of a drama out of it.
Posted on Reply
#14
DeOdView
jaggerwild said:
I wonder if we will be able to unlock the extra cores like old AMDs did?
With the kind of yield that's AMD having, it is quite possible if AMD didn't laser cut it.

I'll definitely picked one up just for the GOOD OLD KICK!
Posted on Reply
#15
Readlight
I hope people wont be problems after 10 years and more after this purchase, like i haw whit Athlon in games.
Posted on Reply
#16
DeOdView
I'll replaced my wife's PhII with the 1200 (with a little OC). She couldn't tell the different either way. LOL.

But a very happy WIFY

BTW: Thank for the Review Wizz! keep it up!

Cheer.
Posted on Reply
#18
Durvelle27
Reviews are showing performance above the i3
Posted on Reply
#19
FrustratedGarrett
You're better off buying a used 6500 or 6600/k for that much money. You get an IGP, much better CPU performance, and better peripheral performance. The R3 lineup is a total waste.
Posted on Reply
#20
Durvelle27
FrustratedGarrett said:
You're better off buying a used 6500 or 6600/k for that much money. You get an IGP, much better CPU performance, and better peripheral performance. The R3 lineup is a total waste.
Show me where you can get a 6600K for $109 or $120

Please do
Posted on Reply
#21
the54thvoid
Durvelle27 said:
Show me where you can get a 6600K for $109 or $120

Please do
Yar, good point - a 6600k in UK is £240 give or take. (would be about $240 due to tax differences and US historically having better electrical hardware costs, due top the dollar being the defacto currency)

Ryzen 1300X is is half that cost.
Posted on Reply
#22
P4-630
The Way It's Meant to be Played
the54thvoid said:
Yar, good point - a 6600k in UK is £240 give or take.
He said:
FrustratedGarrett said:
buying a used 6500 or 6600/k
But still....
Posted on Reply
#24
DeathtoGnomes
FrustratedGarrett said:
So the new 1300 and 1200 parts are still harvested 2-CCX chips with the extra issue of not supporting high RAM frequencies. Wow... I would expect nothing less from AMD; a truly useless product! It's well known that cross-CCX latency is the main culprit behind Ryzen's poor performance in gaming and data-intensive applications. The 1300 losses to Intel's dual core 7300 in games and most other benchmarks.
FrustratedGarrett said:
It's not priced competitively, being overall on par or slower than the Pentium G4560, and it lacks an IGP, which makes it useless for HTPC builds. People were expecting true quad cores without all the cross-CCX latency issues.




FrustratedGarrett said:
You're better off buying a used 6500 or 6600/k for that much money. You get an IGP, much better CPU performance, and better peripheral performance. The R3 lineup is a total waste.
You intel fanboism is showing. This is not APU chips so no there is no IGP, duh. Also, your not fairly comparing the rest of the meat to the loaf, you know the price and the TDP rating, and prolly a few more things that not worth my time to type out.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment