Ryzen 3

Overview So far we have taken a close look at most of AMD's Ryzen line-up and, while there have been variances from model to model, overall both the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 series have indeed lived up to expectations. Their combination of performance, price, and technological innovation means it really is hard to go wrong with nearly any Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 7 CPU… as both series offer incredible value for their perspective classes. We have however fielded many questions about their lower priced Ryzen 3 siblings.

These questions run the gamut from what AMD has changed to which model would be right for a given budget build. Well today we are going to investigate theses smaller Ryzen siblings so as to provide insight into what makes them tick – and who they are right (and wrong) for. To be precise we will be putting the $130 (USD) Ryzen 3 1300X and the $110 (USD) Ryzen 3 1200 to the test. Then when the dust settles you will not have to take our word for it and rather will be able to clearly see if these down right inexpensive CPUs are right for your next build. Conversely you will be able to see if moving up a step to a Ryzen 5 makes more sense overall for your particular needs.

While we will go into greater detail later in the review, for those who have not been paying close attention to AMD's more recent Ryzen releases a brief overview is called for. The Ryzen 3 1300X is basically a 4 core Ryzen 5 with its native multi-threading disabled. To make up for this halving of threads compared to its Ryzen 5 and 7 siblings AMD has given it a base clock rate of 3.5Ghz, a maximum Turbo speed of 3.7Ghz, plus a XFR boost of 3.9Ghz. That is the same as AMD's Ryzen 5 1500X and is one of the highest XFR speed you will find in the entire Ryzen lineup. Though unlike the Ryzen 5 1500X AMD includes a low-profile CPU cooler – the Wraith Stealth – instead of the higher performance Wraith Spire. In other words, the Ryzen 3 1300X is focused in on budget constrained consumers who usually opt for Intel's lower priced i3 options… but want even more performance that can only come from having four cores and not 2 cores that – thanks to 'HyperThreading' – can handle four threads simultaneously. For $130 that is a lot of performance potential to say the least.

The Ryzen 3 1200 on the other hand is aimed squarely at those who are only interested in a budget build for low demanding tasks. For example, those interested in a basic word processing, web-surfing, java game playing system. Make no mistake this is a huge portion of the market and AMD were wise to offer a solution tailor made for these consumer's needs. This focus on the 'bottom line' means that the Ryzen 3 1200 is not going to be a speed demon… but not exactly slow by modern standards either. After all, four cores clocking in at 3.1Ghz that can boost to 3.4GHz or even 3.45GHz (via XFR) is nothing to sneeze at – especially when you get all this for a mere $110.

Specifications AMD's Zen: Hashing Intel's Mellow The reason that Intel has been able to outperform AMD's processors can be summed up in one simple acronym: IPC. IPC or Instructions Per Clock is a simple, yet effective, method of judging how efficient a CPU design is as it does not matter how fast the core is clocked, it does not matter how many cores there are… as the IPC of a design will remain the same. Oh sure the overall performance will go up when comparing a 3Ghz to a 4Ghz version of the same design, but the actual number of instructions per clock cycle it can handle will be the same.

This is the area that AMD has fallen a bit behind in when compared to Intel. This is not because of a lack of talent and simply a lack of resources. This should come as no surprise as Intel literally has a yearly research and development budget in the ten-figure range. When you 'you' as a company can literally throw hundreds and hundreds of millions and dollars at CPU architecture design every year 'you' can release a new architecture a lot faster than a company with a lot less resources. This is why even though AMD's Excavator team have refined the underlying design and reached performance levels they could have only imagined of when its ancestor Bulldozer was created Intel has been able to outpace them.

AMD really is the scrappy underdog of the computer world and their 'make do with less' attitude is why they are the only x86 CPU manufacture to still be standing and not be crushed into dust by the Intel juggernaut. So AMD knew they had a problem, they knew they were falling further and further behind – to the point where simply pushing the speed of the core would not let them stay competitive – and they decided to do something about it.

This is how Zen came about… and the dream of Zen was rather ambitious – to create a new design that had a 40% higher IPC than Excavator. To put this goal in to perspective they basically wanted to create a design that when running at a mere 2.8Ghz could perform the same as a 4Ghz Excavator core. Let the shear audacity sink in… and then realize that Intel is perfectly happy, and consider it a good return on their investment, when their new architecture is 5-10% better than their old one.

So did AMD succeed at their intended goal? Well yes and no. You see Zen is indeed did hit 40% improvement… but no AMD's team did not stop there. Instead they created a monster that is 52% better. Yes, and with all other things being equal (which they are not… more on this later), a single 1.92Ghz Zen core will basically perform the same as a 4Ghz Excavator core. Basically, Zen is an AMD 'Athlon 64 X2' sized leap forward for them.

So how did AMD go about creating this miracle? They rethought about how they were designing CPU's in the past and took a page from their APU and GPU design teams. At Zen's heart beats a modular building block called a CCX or Cpu CompleX. Much like a AMD's "Compute Unit" APU building block this CCX block is made up of a bunch of prefab parts. Want a bigger CPU… add more CCXs. Want a smaller one… turn off parts of a CCX. To be a bit more precise each ZEN CCX block houses four cores, 64K of L1 cache per core (256KB total), 512KB L2 cache per core (2MB total), and 8 MB of L3 cache that is shared across all four cores.

Unlike previous cores a Zen CCX has native simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) technology baked right in allowing each core to process two threads at a time… just like Intel cores… ish… as AMD's SMT is arguably smarter/better/more efficient than Intel's 'hyperthreading' design (right now). Put another way each four core CCX block can handle eight threads simultaneously. Yes no more 'core and a half' math needed when thinking about AMD processors as each core really is a full blown core that can handle all duties. Thus an 8 core Zen based Ryzen CPU is indeed an 8 core processor and not a 6 core with 2 more half cores for specialized work only.

Drilling down further each core in the CCX can not only handle two threads at once but AMD has given the Zen design a much-needed performance boost thanks to a much quicker instruction scheduler. To think of what an instruction scheduler is and does, imagine the I.S. is the foreman on a worksite directing what tasks go to what parts of the 'job site' and who will work on what (i.e. parts of the core). Basically, this foreman is a heck of a lot faster and smarter than its predecessor and a big reason why the IPC is 52% higher.

Backstopping this desperately needed scheduler is some really… really advanced predictive math for the cache buffer. You see a modern CPU vastly outstrips even the fastest external memory going so in order to keep the CPU actually working on tasks and not waiting for the equivalent of a cement mixer to come from across town, the CPU itself has to 'pre-order' data to fill its 'on-site' buffer (i.e. it's extremely fast L cache buffers). This is called 'pre-fetch' and if the pre-fetcher gets it wrong the CPU cycles that were used on going down that rabbit hole are wasted and the buffer may even need to be flushed before the CPU can do the actual work that comes in next. Basically, when it works the CPU hums along at max capacity and the overall system performance is outstanding… but when it gets it wrong often the system gets 'slow'.

AMD's improvement in this predictive analysis is called Neural Net Predication and is based on some pretty advanced deep learning and machine intelligence science. No its no SkyNet, or even StarTrek's Data… but it is a lot better than its ancestors. How it stacks up against Intel and their mega-budget remains to be seen… but AMD states the CPU 'learns' your habits and adjusts its pre-fetch routines based on your usage pattern… which is a little creepy… as do you really want the CPU knowing your web viewing habits… and judging you based on them?! In all seriousness it doesn’t judge it just does what is best for your habits… no matter how odd they may be.

Zooming out a bit, a Zen CPU (or the eventual Zen APU's for that matter) does not need to rely upon just one CCX building block… or even a full building block. For example a Ryzen R7 CPU makes use of two full CCX's, but smaller ones (like the APU 'G' series) only need one or one and a half. When more than one is used these CCX's are connected via what AMD calls Infinity Fabric… but can be considered AMD's next generation processor interconnect that sits on top of the CCX's and allows them to communicate with each other. In other words, you can consider it a modified/improved/etc version of AMD APU's Heterogeneous System Architecture (HSA) idea. This additional layer is however why you can expect Ryzen 'G' processors with built in GPUs to land in the future… and carry on the AMD APU tradition.

Now as this CCX is modular all the way down to the core level AMD can easily disable 1, 2 or even 3 cores in a CCX to create smaller core-count Zen processors. For example, disable one in each CCX and you have a '6 core Zen' (higher Ryzen R5 models). Disable two in each CCX and you have a '4-core Zen' CPU (AKA Ryzen 3 and lower Ryzen 5). This not only allows AMD a lot of flexibility in creating tailor made Zen processors for a wider range of the marketplace, it allows them to use Zen Ryzen cores that don't quiet pass muster at the full CCX level in the lower Ryzen series – more on this later in the review.

So in summary Zen is a lot faster at single tasks, is a heck of a lot smarter, is much more modular and overall a radical improvement for a single generation. This is exactly what AMD needed and we are glad to see that is what they did.

XFR and Precision Boost Ryzen is choke full of performance improve nets with everything from native SMT – that is arguably better than Intel's 'HyperThreading' - on down to eight physical cores. There are however two new technologies that are really, really exciting and deserve to be highlighted and showcased. These two technologies are of course XFR and Precision Boost.

Let's start with Precision Boost. For many, many years now CPU's come with two speed specifications: stock and boost. In a nut shell the 'stock' speed is what the CPU can do on all cores all the time, while 'Boost' (or 'Turbo Boost' as Intel calls it) is a higher clock speed that a couple of the cores can do. The CPU does this by increasing the multiplier a couple extra levels on an 'as needed basis' but usually only on a couple cores. In practical terms this means single and dual threaded tasks get more speed and for people who are unwilling to manually adjust the multiplier… the CPU does it for them. Of course, the boost in multiplier is a lot less than what you can do manually but it too was a game changer back when it first hit the scene.

The downside is that this 'boost' is extremely course in its adjustments as it only can go in 100Mhz– ie 1 CPU multiplier – increments. Thus on systems that are right at the ragged edge of cooling the boost number is a pipe dream. This is how Intel does it and how AMD did it. Ryzen on the other hand is a new and much more elegant take on things as Precision Boost allows for much, much finer grained core speed control.

This is because, just as the Ryzen design team borrowed their 'building block' idea to processor design from the APU and GPU team, the design team also borrowed precision frequency adjustment from their GPU team. Basically, the boost speed can vary from core to core in real time based upon actual loads upon the cores, can be adjusted in 25Mhz increments, and allows up to 0.6miliVolts of additional voltage to be fed to each core… all in real-time.

Of course, there is a few caveats to this new and improved Boost. First and foremost, Precision Boost is smart enough to actually not fry the CPU cores. So while it will Boost speeds there is two hard limits baked in. First it will start lowering CPU core speed (especially on those that don't need the extra performance) when the CPU starts demanding 128 Watts of power (in the case of the 95 TDP modes… expect it kick in much lower with the lower TDP variants). The other one is actually more troubling for the average consumer… as Precision Boost will start lowering core speed once Tcase (i.e. the CPU temperature via its integrated thermistors) hits 60-degrees C.

Sixty degrees is not all that hot and for most consumer it will be the real limiting factor. Thus cooling is very, very important to overall system performance and consumers who over-build with a high performance cooler will be rewarded with better real-world performance compared to those who stuck the cheapest cooler they could find on it. Lastly Precision Boost speed is different from all core boost speed. Basically, don't expect to get a Boost speed of say 4.0Ghz on all cores all the time. The CPU would probably pull more than PBoost allows. So its really more like a 1800x or 1600X will routinely do 4.0Ghz on two cores, with others running at lower core clocks… and maybe do more than 2 cores if power draw and cooling limitations are not hit first. This is still pretty darn decent as PBoost does adjust each core based on individual needs in real time so the cores that need the speed now get it while cores that don't… don't and needlessly raise the overall CPU temperature or pull more electricity than they need.

AMD however did not just stop there as they also included an entirely new boost mode. Basically, on top of Precision Boost AMD also offers XFR. XFR, or Extended Frequency Range, is designed solely for low core demand scenarios and only does a small boost on the max Boost specification. Basically Ryzen 'X' models will hit 100 (most X models) to 200 Mhz (oddball ones like the 1500X and 1300X) higher than their Boost rated speed, while non-X models will only go 50Mhz (most) to 100Mhz (oddball ones like the 1600) faster. Of course, cooling is once again the real limiting factor. So if you routinely are seeing 60-degree plus temperatures… swap out the cooler for a bigger, better model… and it in theory the CPU will reach its 'true' potential.

XFR is indeed a potential game changer but 50 to 200Mhz at most (depending on the model in question) is a bit of a disappointment… and something AMD did not do a great job of explaining in prelaunch. Which to be fair is to be expected as it is brand-new way of looking at things and they didn't want to give Intel time to prepare.

Will this change much as time goes by and Ryzen matures? Possibly. But AMD has to ensure that all Ryzen's can do it – even the 'worst' of them. Thus, XFR is not going to (entirely) replace manual overclocking… as with manual you the owner find and set the core speed limit. As such, XFR is very interesting technology but it does have that 'fresh from the oven' smell. Its enticing, but even it in conjunction with Precision Boost it may leave you wanting even more.

AMD's Binning Process Let's start with some background information on the Ryzen CPU design. AMD was and is upfront that going hand in hand with significant increase in performance was a significant increase in production efficiency. Basically, AMD wanted to create a brand-new architecture that could scale up or down as they see fit and had as close to 100% utilization from every wafer as possible right from day one. That was indeed a tall order but AMD actually succeeded by going to a modular design.

This last bit is key to understanding AMD's Ryzen's building block design. Usually when a new architecture is released it takes a while for the manufacturing process to work out all the kinks. This means a good portion of the wafer ends up in the garbage as they can't make a working CPU from it. This is why you will see limited production availability and even 'vaporware' releases from manufactures. AMD did not want that. They wanted the ability to shift gears from their outdated architecture to a new one and do so without running into a scenario where they had to modify and then sell more expensive models at lower prices just to meet demand for a mid-tier product. That actually does happen with new architectures and is a dirty little secret of the industry… and is why mad mod'ers were able to 'turn on' deactivated cores in some AMD CPUs back in the day.

When it comes to CPU manufacturing of brad new architecture it is best to imagine the circular wafer's final output as a bell curve. Some CPUs will be absolutely perfect, some will so bad as to be useable, and most the eventual CPUs on the wafer will fall somewhere in the middle. As time goes by the process gets refined and the output looks more like a falling line with more and more 'perfect' CPUs being harvested from every wafer.

With the building block architecture design AMD has taken a route that somewhat circumvents the usual manufacturing refinement needed. Instead of a bell curve it actually looks more like a small hill. Yes there will still be fewer 1800X per wafer then there will be as the manufacturing process matures but there will be more than there 'should be'. There will also be very, very few parts of the wafer that cannot be used at all. This is because all Ryzen models feature the exact same basic layout just with differing amounts of binning applied to them.

This binning process starts by checking out each CCX and making sure it is functioning. If both are they then get tested for their ability to handle given frequencies and will become Ryzen 7s. Since AMD has given themselves such a wide variance in rating frequencies very few fail to become at least Ryzen 7 1700's. Those few that do will become Ryzen 5s (and go through the Ryzen 5 binning process). However, the majority of Ryzen 5s will be from those parts of the wafer where a corner of the CCX may be 'missing' as the wafer is circular. Depending on how bad this defect is will determine if they become 6 core Ryzen 5 or 4 core Ryzen 5s… or even Ryzen 3s. Then they are binned into a given model based on frequency testing, SMT testing and if their L3 cache is functioning properly (those with defects or flaws in the L3 become either Ryzen 5 1400s or Ryzen 3s depending on how the SMT testing goes).

This multi-tier binning process ensures that as much of the wafer results in sellable CPUs as possible. Intel does something similar with their i3/i5/i7 designations but AMD's modular design allows this brand-new design to have yields that already rival more mature manufacturing process on homogenous CPU designs.

So why does this background information matter to Ryzen 3 and belong in a review on them? Simple. Entry level CPUs live and die by their price. While important, performance is only of secondary concern. By having such a fine grain binning process AMD is not only able to offer less expensive (than they otherwise would be) Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 CPUs they also can have less costly Ryzen 3 offerings. Remember Ryzen 3's may indeed be 'failed' Ryzen 5s which were in turn are failed Ryzen 7s but they are getting more working Ryzen 3s off the wafer than they should or could if the Ryzen family of CPUs was homogenous. They are also still four core unlocked processors which boasts frequency boosting technology. It took Intel eight generations to do what AMD has done in one. That is indeed turning lemons into lemonaide.

Ryzen 3 - Closer Look Ryzen R3 Series

Much like its higher priced brethren buyers of a Ryzen 3 can expect to find a nice sized shipping container that looks just like all other Ryzen shipping containers… just with a '3' instead of "5' or '7' on it. Inside this shipping container is housed the CPU in a nice little cardboard box and plastic clamshell holder, and a CPU cooler. Some of the Ryzen 5's and Ryzen 7's actually don’t come with a cooler so this is a nice little bonus that further boosts their overall value.

With that being said this CPU cooler is not in the same league as what ships with Ryzen 5s (the Wraith Spire LED) let alone the Ryzen 7's Wraith Max. It is still very decent for but it is a lower profile, and less capable cooler (as it solid aluminum, is missing the copper core of the Spire, and has only about half the heatsink mass of that AMD cooler). Basically, the Wraith Stealth is a dead ringer for Intel's i3 and i5 stock cooling solution, so while it is not as impressive as the Spire, let alone Max, versions it still is more than enough to keep a 65 watt TDP cooler like the Ryzen 3 1300X happy… at stock settings. So is this change in cooling solution worth sixty dollars of savings? Only you can decide… but we will show you thier impact later in the review.

As we went over in the previous page, Ryzen 3s are the last to come out of the factory testing. They consist of the Ryzen chips that failed to make the grade as a Ryzen 7 or 5. This is not to say that they are bad, rather that they are simply made up of the chips that could not be sold as higher priced models. This is perfectly fine as they are working processors, just ones that will be somewhat inferior to their higher priced brethren.

To be precise both the Ryzen 3 1300X and the Ryzen 3 1200 consists of two CCXs which only have two working cores in each CCX and only half the amount of L3 cache enabled. Furthermore, in order to pass factory performance levels they have also had their native simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) deactivated. That is basically where the similarities between these two Ryzen 3 processors end.

The Ryzen 3 1300X is for all intents and purpose a Ryzen 5 1500X that passed its frequency testing but failed in either the L3 or the SMT testing stage. To keep model numbers down all Ryzen 5 1500X's that fail either of these tests become Ryzen 3 1300X CPUs. What this means is that for a mere $129 buyers of this processor get four cores which may be lacking SMT but come with a rather high base clock of 3.5Ghz, a Turbo rating of 3.7Ghz… and even a 200Mhz XFR boost setting. This is literally the exact same frequency settings the $189 Ryzen 5 1500X boasts. In other words, for a whopping 46.5 percent reduction in asking price buyers are only asked to give up half the L3 cache (a still reasonable 8MB instead of 16MB) and can forget about SMT. For single threaded tasks neither of these two sacrifices will be overly concerning.

Moving on to the even lower priced - $109 USD – Ryzen 3 1200 we come to a CPU that is basically a slightly slower version of the Ryzen 5 1400 that also has SMT disabled. To be precise a $159 Ryzen 5 1400 clocks in with 8MB of L3 cache and its four cores set to 3.2Mhz/3.4Mhz/3.45Mhz (base/turbo/xfr). The Ryzen 3 1200 on the other hand has a base clock 100Mhz slower at 3.1Ghz… but all the other settings the same. The same 50Mhz XFR boost, the same Turbo rating of 3.4Ghz. Even the same 8MB of L3 cache.

This means the Ryzen 3 1200 is in all likelihood a Ryzen 5 1400 that simply was not stable at 3.2Ghz with SMT enabled. Though a few probably also needed a slightly lower base clock to ensure 100 percent stability, and others had issues in the L3 department. Once again to keep the number of model numbers down AMD combined these groups of factory binned processors into one Ryzen 3 model. In other words, they are the CPUs that only were able to pass the 'last chance' factory testing before being considered a write off. That however is only looking at the small picture and missing the forest for the trees. This processor still offers incredible value as it is a four core processor and not 2 cores plus SMT/hyperthreading… and is in all likelihood a big reason why Intel suddenly decided to make their eight gen series i3 processors… four cores. Yes this processor did send shockwaves through Intel's boardroom meetings… just like Threaripper did. Which is indeed great news for consumers!

Like its slightly more expensive Ryzen 3 1300X brother, the Ryzen 3 1200 comes with the low-profile, all aluminum Wraith Stealth. However, unlike the 1300X we have little issues over the use of a low-profile cooling solution as the Ryzen 3 1200 is meant for lower performance scenarios and will be putting out a lot less heat thanks to its noticeably lower factory frequencies settings.

Ryzen 3 - Overclocking Let us start with the obvious. We did not overclock either Ryzen 3 CPUs using the AMD Stealth stock cooler. Instead we used the Spire. This is because the Spire is simply a more capable cooling solution. Basically, the Stealth is perfectly capable at handling either CPU at stock settings but once you start to push the voltage and frequencies all bets are off. Its lack of a copper core and small mass of aluminum is its weakest link. Conversely the Spire was able to easily handle the increased cooling demands. As such, it really is the better stock cooler of the two. This is something to take into consideration if you plan on purchasing either CPU and wish to overclock them.

The 1300X proved to be the better of the two samples. Much like the Ryzen 5 1500X it is (probably) based off of it only required about 1.43 volts to be perfectly stable at 4.1GHz. This however is still a lot of extra voltage for a rather modest overclock. Good binning or not this is still a first-generation design and that is why hitting above 4Ghz is going to be a roll of the dice for any Ryzen CPU including the Ryzen 3 1300X. It however does add a nice little boost to this rather inexpensive CPUs performance numbers so it really will be up to you to decide if it is worth it or not.

The Ryzen 3 1200 on the other hand cries out for a healthy dose of overclocking. Yes we were only able to turn this 3.1GHz CPU into a 4.0GHz CPU but that is still a hefty 29 percent overclock! This turns a rather modest performing entry level CPU into a decidedly decent one that teeters on the edge mainstream levels of performance. This improvement is so noticeable that we would have little trouble justifying the added expense of an aftermarket cooler, or even the time it takes to overclock it, to darn near any buyer. The differences are that noticeable.

By the same token this CPU was not stable at anything above 4.0Ghz and no sane amount of additional voltage was going to change that. This sample's 'wall' really is in the 4Ghz zone. As such a conservative estimate is any Ryzen 3 1200 should be capable of handling 3.8Ghz or better – as it is always possible we got a better than average sample. In either case, this difference in overclocking potential is the price you pay for purchasing a rather inexpensive CPU… and if you really want to hit 4Ghz or better a Ryzen 3 1300X or even Ryzen 5 series CPU may be worth the additional expense. Of course, the pride and sense of accomplishment you will get with those more expensive CPUs will pale in comparison to doing it with this little bad boy. Only you can decide what your priorities are and which model you will want to take on your next overclocking adventure.

Ryzen 3 - Temperature Results For all temperature testing the cards were used in an open test bed environment. Ambient temperature was kept at a constant 20°C (+/- 0.5°C) and if the ambient room temperatures rose above 21°C or dropped below 19°C at any time, all benchmarking was stopped until proper temperatures could normalized.

For Idle tests, we let the system idle at the Windows 8.1 desktop for 25 minutes and recorded the peak temperature. For Load tests we ran AIDA64 for 20 minutes.

Sound Level Test Results While everyone "hears" noise differently there is one easy way to remove all subjectivness and easily compare different fans: use a sound level meter. This way you can easily compare the various fans noise envelopes without us coloring the results and see what fans fit within your personal comfort level. Of course, we will endeavor to try and explain the various results - which are taken at a 15 inch distance from the GPU’s fan(s) - to help you gain an even better understanding of how loud a cooler's stock fan is, but even if you discount our personal opinions, the fact remains numbers don't lie.

For Idle tests, we let the system idle at the desktop for 25 minutes and recorded the peak temperature. For Load tests we ran AIDA64 for 20 minutes.

As you can see the Stealth is a decent enough cooling solution for its class, it is just that it gets outclassed by the AMD Spire cooling solution. So much so that seeing XFR limiting heat levels will not be all that uncommon when using the 1300X. Put another way if you plan on overclocking, or just want to get the most out of your shiny new Ryzen 3 1300X an aftermarket cooling solution may be a wise investment. Conversely, the Ryzen 3 1200 is more than happy with the Stealth and an replacement cooling solution will only be warranted when you want a lower noise solution.

Adobe Testing Adobe Photoshop CC 2017

Adobe Photoshop is a raster graphics editor developed and published by Adobe Systems for macOS and Windows. To further make loading slower we have included a bunch of extra brushes that need to be loaded before the program is ready to use.

Adobe Premiere Elements 2015

Adobe Premiere Elements is a video editing software published by Adobe Systems. It is a scaled-down version of Adobe Premiere Pro and is tailored to novice editors and consumers. The entry screen offers clip organization, editing and auto-movie generation options. To stress the CPU we have disabled GPU rendering and instead Premier will use the CPU only.

Cinebench, GeekBench, PCMark, POV-Ray CINEBENCH R15

CINEBENCH is a real-world cross platform test suite that evaluates your computer's performance capabilities. CINEBENCH is based on MAXON's award-winning animation software CINEMA 4D, which is used extensively by studios and production houses worldwide for 3D content creation.

GeekBench Benchmark

Geekbench is a cross-platform processor benchmark, with a scoring system that separates single-core and multi-core performance, and workloads that simulate real-world scenarios

PC Mark 8

PCMark is a computer benchmark tool developed by Futuremark to test the performance of a PC at the system and component level. In most cases the tests in PCMark are designed to represent typical home user workloads.

POV-Ray Benchmark

The Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer, or POV-Ray, is a ray tracing program which generates images from a text-based scene description, and is available for a variety of computer platforms.

Assassins Creed, BF4, Crysis 3 Assassins Creed: Syndicate Gaming Benchmark

Assassins Creed: Syndicate is an historical action-adventure video game, published by Ubisoft and released in October 2015. Like Battlefield 4 this games does not include an in-game benchmark. This makes it perfect for more real world gaming testing. To obtain repeatable results we have used FRAPs and recorded a custom run through Thames River section starting on St. Pual's Pier. An average of four runs was taken.

The settings used in the testing below are stock highest settings for quality, VSync disabled and a resolution of 1920x1080.

Battlefield 4

Battlefield 4 is first person shooter video game, published by EA Digital Illusions CE and released in October 2013. Unlike most, this games does not include an in-game benchmark. This makes it perfect for more real world gaming tests. To obtain repeatable results we have used FRAPs and recorded the first 90 seconds of the single player Tashgar level. An average of four runs was taken.

The settings used in the testing below are Ultra pre-set for quality, with VSync disabled and a resolution of 1920x1080.

Crysis 3 Gaming Benchmark

Crysis 3 is a first person shooter video game, published by Electronic Arts and released in February 2013. While older than some of the others it is one of the most visually stunning games released to date and puts a lot of demands on the GPU. This makes it perfect for more real world gaming testing. To obtain repeatable results we have used FRAPs and recorded 90 seconds of the single player ‘Post Human' level, starting as soon as soon as prophet is handed a Hammer II pistol by Psycho. An average of four runs was taken.

The settings used in the testing below are highest settings for quality, VSync disabled and a resolution of 1920x1080. Texture Quality, Game Effects, Objects, Particles, Post Processing, Shadows, Shading, Water, and System Specs all set to Very High. Motion Blur was set to High and Lens Flare was set to On. Anti-Aliasing was set to MSAA 8X and Antistrophic Filtering was set to 16x.

GTA 5, Metro Grand Theft Auto 5 Gaming Benchmark

GTA V is an open world action-adventure video game published by Rockstar Games and released in April 2014 for the PC. The game has a benchmark component to it that mimics game play and an average of four runs was taken.

The settings used in the testing below are stock 'very high' settings for quality, VSync disabled and AA set to off, with a resolution of 1920x1080.

Metro: Last Light Gaming Benchmark

Metro: Last Light is a DX11 first-person shooter video game developed by Ukrainian studio 4A Games and published by Deep Silver released in May 2013. The game is set in a post-apocalyptic world and features action-oriented gameplay. The game has a benchmark component to it that mimics game play. Scene D6 was used and an average of four runs was taken.

The settings used in the testing below are Very High for quality and a resolution of 1920x1080. DirectX 11 is used, texture filtering is set to AF 16X, motion blur is normal, SSA turned on and tessellation is set to high.

winRAR, x264 HD winRAR Benchmark

WinRAR is a popular file compression and decompression tool that also happens to be multi-threaded application. While it does have a built in benchmark we have opted to use a custom 5GB test consisting of small, medium, and moderately large files. We then time how long it takes to compress the files into one .rar file with all WinRAR settings left at their defaults.

x264 HD Benchmark

x264 HD Benchmark is a benchmark that allows you to measure how fast your PC can encode a 1080p video clip into a high quality x264 video file. It allows for an easy comparison because everyone running it will use the same video clip and software. The x264 video encoder has a fairly accurate internal benchmark (in frames per second) for each pass of the video encode and it also uses multi-core processors very efficiently. All these factors make the x264 HD Benchmark an ideal tool in comparing the video encoding performance of different processors and systems.

Summary: Ryzen 3 at Stock Settings As the above summary charts show the Ryzen 3 series is packed with value. Yes you will get lower overall performance but the decrease in performance is in no way relative to the decrease in cost. With that being said the Ryzen 3 1300X is the better value as for only a couple bucks more you get a much more powerful CPU.

Summary: Ryzen 3 Overclocked Turning the tables on the cost vs reward equation, once you overclock the Ryzen 3 1200 its overall value sky rockets. This really is a CPU that was meant for overclocking as it may still be slower than a 1300X but its reduced asking price more than makes up for this shortcoming. As such only you can decide which is best for your particular needs. Our recommendation would be simple: at stock spend the extra $20 and get the 1300X, for overclocking get the 1200… as it is downright fun to see what it can do.

Closing Statement As we have shown both the Ryzen 3 1300X and Ryzen 3 1200 are tailor made for value orientated buyers as they are both packed with value. The very fact that AMD was able to offer such a value packed CPU like the Ryzen 3 series for only $130 or less just shows exactly how efficient their binning process is. So much so that we doubt AMD is leaving much on the table so to speak, and instead is able to create working CPUs from darn near the entity of each and every wafer. This combined with their building block design means that they are simply able to offer consumers more bang for their buck regardless of what class of Ryzen CPU they are looking at. With that being said these two Ryzen 3 models differ drastically in their performance abilities. These two CPUs really are aimed at radically different consumers and purchasing the 'wrong' one may lead to some disappointment.

Put simply the Ryzen 3 1300X is one of the best values in the existing Ryzen lineup. So much so that potential buyers of the Ryzen 5 1500X are going to have to carefully consider exactly what they are going to be using their system for. Do they need better single threading and multi-threaded performance… or could more RAM or a better SSD be a better use of their budget? After all the difference between a Ryzen 5 1500X and 1300X is sixty dollars and yet SMT and more L3 cache is basically the only thing the 1500X offers over the 1300X. Sixty dollars is not chump change when talking about a budget build! Honestly this is a rather difficult decision only you can make based on your particular requirements. Such a difficult decision is testament to just how good the 'little' Ryzen 3 1300X really is.

This brings us to the Ryzen 3 1200. This CPU is the slowest Ryzen in single threaded applications and only offers four threads of performance. That is not a slam against the Ryzen 3 1200, rather it just looks less than optimal compared to its higher priced siblings. Yes, it is going to be the slowest of all the various Ryzen CPUs but that is still a is a lot of power for an entry level system. So much so it is bordering on overkill… all for a mere $110. That too is a testament to just how packed with value the Ryzen 3 lineup is.

In the end only you can decide which of these two processors are right for your needs, but for those whose budgets can stretch the extra twenty dollars we would recommend the Ryzen 3 1300X as it is going to be a more optimal solution. For those who simply have zero wiggle room in their budget, rest assured that the Ryzen 3 1200 is still a very decent CPU whose performance will be more than enough for the typical consumer. After all, Intel has been hammering this home with 'four cores are more than enough for mainstream buyers' for years now. Mainstream performance at entry level pricing is indeed a rather impressive combination.