Thursday, April 23rd 2020

AMD Ryzen 3 3300X Single Core Cinebench Score Suggests Performance Close to i7-7700K

Intel's Core i7-7700K "Kaby Lake" quad-core processor may fall significantly behind its 9th generation successor and today's Ryzen 7 chips, but it remains a formidable piece of silicon for strictly-gaming builds. Can it be bested by a $120 AMD Ryzen 3 3300X? A leaked, alleged Cinebench R15 score suggests that something very fascinating is brewing at AMD. The score points to the i7-7700K having a single-thread score just 0.5 percent higher than the 3300X, which means the multi-threaded score of the 4-core/8-thread AMD chip could end up within striking distance of the i7-7700K.

If this holds up, then AMD has a shot at bringing i7-7700K levels of gaming performance down to $120 (SEP). That would have the potential to seriously disrupt the sub-$200 processor market for gamers, enabling them to build fairly powerful 1440p (or higher) gaming builds. The low price will also let builders allocate more money to the graphics card. Adding to its gaming credentials could be the fact that the "Matisse" MCM features PCI-Express gen 4.0 x16 when paired with an X570 or upcoming B550 chipset motherboard, as detailed in AMD's announcement of the processor. The Ryzen 3 3300 is a 4-core/8-thread processor based on the "Zen 2" microarchitecture, clocked at 3.80 GHz, with 4.30 GHz boost frequency, and featuring 18 MB of total cache. It is expected to be available from May 2020.
Source: fxckingrich (Reddit)
Add your own comment

44 Comments on AMD Ryzen 3 3300X Single Core Cinebench Score Suggests Performance Close to i7-7700K

#1
Imsochobo
for intents and purposes it's a 7700K, just at 120$ and a better platform.
thankfully that is entry level budget class cpu's now, perfectly balanced as things should be :)
Posted on Reply
#2
AusWolf
AMD has been great in Cinebench even with the last generation chips. Let's see what the 3300X can do in games and other applications before we jump to conclusins.
Posted on Reply
#4
las
I doubt it will beat 7700K in gaming and regular workloads. Even tho 7700K is 4 years old now. I would never buy a quad core these days anyway. Only for browsning and emails or old games maybe. 6C/12T is bare minimum if you don't want to replace it within a year or two for AAA games. Personally 8C/16T is what you should get for futureproofing for AAA gaming.

Cinebench does not tell much, Zen has been performing good in this benchmark since 1st gen but realworld performance and especially high-fps gaming and emulation is a whole different story.

I would much rather see more 4000 mobile parts than this low-end desktop stuff. Desktop is already cheap as it is.
Posted on Reply
#5
Tsukiyomi91
at least it's not making lots of heat like the i7... *pfft* Still, Intel will have a hard time trying to beat AMD in the lower-end market.
Posted on Reply
#6
ARF
Tsukiyomi91
at least it's not making lots of heat like the i7... *pfft* Still, Intel will have a hard time trying to beat AMD in the lower-end market.
Core i7-7700K is 32% slower in CB R20 MC, and 58% slower in CB R15 MC.
Posted on Reply
#7
Fourstaff
This seems to slot between i3 9100F and i5 9400F from a price perspective, I wonder how it will perform in 1080p gaming situations.
Posted on Reply
#8
Vayra86
For all intents and purposes the only real choice in CPU land now is actually this thread count isn't it? Single thread scores are bunched up together now so close with the versatile boost/turbo systems that its quickly moving into margin of error territory.

And yes, there is a niche where 5 Ghz CPUs still shine... but it is getting marginal at best. Pretty cool to see how this has shifted from a single core performance struggle to a competition over C/T.
Posted on Reply
#9
Medicate
ARF
Core i7-7700K is 32% slower in CB R20 MC, and 58% slower in CB R15 MC.
Where did you get those numbers from. The 7700k has a score of around 1000 in CB R15 MC and around 2300 in CB R20 MC. That's nowehere near 58% and 32%.
Posted on Reply
#10
ARF
Medicate
Where did you get those numbers from. The 7700k has a score of around 1000 in CB R15 MC and around 2300 in CB R20 MC. That's nowehere near 58% and 32%.
It's 700 and 1700. I gave links in my previous post :D
Posted on Reply
#11
Medicate
ARF
It's 700 and 1700. I gave links in my previous post :D
Your previous post is using numbers for the i7-4770k. This thread is about the i7-7700k and Ryzen 3300x
Posted on Reply
#12
Adc7dTPU
Awesome news for budget-builders. Things are finally looking good (about bl***y time). I'm looking forward to even more great experiences happening further ahead like an 8-Core 16-Thread 4600X ^_^
Posted on Reply
#13
HD64G
For budget gamers and since they won't use a top of the line GPU to be bottlenecked from the CPU, this 4C/8T CPU will be perfect for 1080P high settings and allow a new lowest in the cost of a gaming PC.
Posted on Reply
#14
ARF
Medicate
Your previous post is using numbers for the i7-4770k. This thread is about the i7-7700k and Ryzen 3300x
Sorry, it's my fault with typing. With those idiotic Intel generations with almost no performance improvement, it's so easy to confuse people.

But it's still 995 and 2200 www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-intel_core_i7_7700k-664
Against 1120 and 2350 for the Ryzen 3 3300X.
Posted on Reply
#15
ZoneDymo
meanwhile im STILL on a 2600k....and I call myself a pc enthusiast....smh
Posted on Reply
#16
AusWolf
ARF
Sorry, it's my fault with typing. With those idiotic Intel generations with almost no performance improvement, it's so easy to confuse people.

But it's still 995 and 2200 www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-intel_core_i7_7700k-664
Against 1120 and 2350 for the Ryzen 3 3300X.
Now, I wouldn't call that a meaningful difference. It's just interesting how a low-end CPU compares to what was the top of the line 3 years ago.

Btw, why are we making such a big deal out of Cinebench scores? They're just numbers with no real-world use, right?
ZoneDymo
meanwhile im STILL on a 2600k....and I call myself a pc enthusiast....smh
With games and software not evolving as fast as they did 10-15 years ago, I think we're still good with our quad-core i7s for a while.
Posted on Reply
#17
notb
Tsukiyomi91
at least it's not making lots of heat like the i7... *pfft* Still, Intel will have a hard time trying to beat AMD in the lower-end market.
Lots of heat?
7700K mentioned here uses 75W normally, boosts to around 90W.

So even if 3300X never goes past the 65W TDP (I bet it does), it's not exactly an enormous difference, is it?
25W, seriously. LEDs in your PC probably pull that much.

So it'll definitely be a capable CPU, but really not an upgrade from an Intel quad-core that one may have used for 3 years already.
For someone who wants a budget CPU in 2020 - we'll know when we learn Intel 10th gen pricing.
We may also see some nice discounts on 9400F.
Posted on Reply
#18
ZoneDymo
notb
Lots of heat?
7700K mentioned here uses 75W normally, boosts to around 90W.

So even if 3300X never goes past the 65W TDP (I bet id does), it's not exactly an enormous difference, is it?
25W, seriously. LEDs in your PC probably pull that much.

So it'll definitely be a capable CPU, but really not an upgrade from an Intel quad-core that one may have used for 3 years already.
For someone who wants a budget CPU in 2020 - we'll know when we learn Intel 10th gen pricing.
We may also see some nice discounts on 9400F.
The TDP's are complete nonsense though.
Posted on Reply
#19
notb
ZoneDymo
The TDP's are complete nonsense though.
Until this is tested, TDP is the best estimation we have.

Ryzen 3600 is rated at 65W, but I've seen reviews with boost power draw figures over 80W.
It would be naive to expect 3300X to draw less than 2/3 of that.
But considering uncore, maybe slightly higher clocks and lower quality (leftover) dies...
OK, I think it's going to be between 60 and 65W. But I'll say 70W as a known AMD hater. We'll see soon enough. :)
Posted on Reply
#20
CandymanGR
notb
Until this is tested, TDP is the best estimation we have.

Ryzen 3600 is rated at 65W, but I've seen reviews with boost power draw figures over 80W.
It would be naive to expect 3300X to draw less than 2/3 of that.
But considering uncore, maybe slightly higher clocks and lower quality (leftover) dies...
OK, I think it's going to be between 60 and 65W. But I'll say 70W as a known AMD hater. We'll see soon enough. :)
TDP is not power consumption. Jeez!
But what else should i've expected from someone who says that gaming needs a cpu with 8c/16threads!
Posted on Reply
#21
notb
CandymanGR
TDP is not power consumption. Jeez!
Isn't that what I said?
But what else should i've expected from someone who says that gaming needs a cpu with 8c/16threads!
That I didn't say for sure.
Posted on Reply
#22
EarthDog
For the extreme budget gamer.... unless i absolutely couldnt afford it, there is no way I'd buy a 4c/8t processor to play games. Too many AAA titles already today have a glass ceiling on them because of core/thread count.

So.. cool.. for extreme budget crowd... but I'd save up more money and get something with more c/t in 2020..
CandymanGR
But what else should i've expected from someone who says that gaming needs a cpu with 8c/16threads!
He didnt say that... but I will (sort of)

If you dont want a glass ceiling on some titles, you'll need to go higher than 4c/8t. 6c/12t or 8c/8t parts are the minimum I would go today for a system designed to play AAA titles.
Posted on Reply
#23
ManofGod
CandymanGR
TDP is not power consumption. Jeez!
But what else should i've expected from someone who says that gaming needs a cpu with 8c/16threads!
Considering quad cores are a thing of the past for gaming and 4c / 8t are probably not much better, I would say that 8c / 16t is the way to go, moving forward. (Better 1% and 0.1% lows.) And I own a 2600, 3600 and 3700x.
Posted on Reply
#24
notb
EarthDog
For the extreme budget gamer.... unless i absolutely couldnt afford it, there is no way I'd buy a 4c/8t processor to play games. Too many AAA titles already today have a glass ceiling on them because of core/thread count.
But how much would you have to spend on a GPU to make 7700K a bottleneck?
At that point it's not a budget CPU, but an unbalanced setup.

This should be a fine CPU for anything up to probably RTX2060 - independent of what games you throw at it. So it's well above "budget gaming".
Of course I'll change my mind completely if few months from now AMD launches their "RTRT" idea and it's CPU-based. ;)
Posted on Reply
#25
ManofGod
notb
But how much would you have to spend on a GPU to make 7700K a bottleneck?
At that point it's not a budget CPU, but an unbalanced setup.

This should be a fine CPU for anything up to probably RTX2060 - independent of what games you throw at it. So it's well above "budget gaming".
Of course I'll change my mind completely if few months from now AMD launches their "RTRT" idea and it's CPU-based. ;)
Bottlenecks are not the important measurement but 1% and 0.1% lows are what matter.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment