Ryzen 3 1300X @ 4.0 GHz

File: cinebench.png (90KB, 806x615px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 806x615px

>>61559226
Some other Cinebench scores for comparison. Keep in mind 1300X will probably cost $120.

>>61559226
The whole point of Ryzen 3 is they're the badly binned chips. I really doubt 4ghz is going to be common.

>>61559349
Not necessarily. Just that the other half of the 8 cores is bad and therefore disabled. The other half might be good.

I guess that burries the Pentium.

>>61559375
The chips that are still good but have faulty cores are the Ryzen 1400-1600X. Everything below wasn't good enough to be Ryzen 5, unless the yields are actually so good that they don't even have enough shit models to supply their Ryzen 3 lineup but that's being optimistic. Nobody is expecting a higher overclock than 3.8 on these.

File: 16d.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>61559460
>This kills the bentium

>>61559482
The 1200 might have shit OCing. But that one is expected to cost $100.

>>61559262
Feels kinda uninteresting considering I can find used 4590k's for around that price and have been for a while. Just not the huge jump I was looking for in price to performance. Expecting something to blow out the water like the 4560 did.

>>61559226
>poor man's i5
what's the point? just buy 1600

>>61559880
>4590k
Interesting that you can find a CPU that doesn't exist for $120. Pretty sure you meant the i5-4590.

Anyway, 1300X wins at stock and would do even better when OCed.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-4590-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-1300X/2604vs3930

>>61559226
that score is kind of weak all things considered I'd rather get a 1400 or 1500x instead

this will be good for people who can't afford too much and are using shitty toasters that get 200cb multicore

>>61559957
Yeah AMD's SMT is so good that losing it feels like a much bigger blow than losing Intel's HT. At least it puts AMD in a spot in the low end market.

>>61560161
where I live an r5 1400 costs $260, so the r3's will be welcomed here with wide arms

>>61559262
>2500k @4.3GHz for 120 dollarydoos

Pretty good

File: 1417640136246.jpg (36KB, 417x366px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 417x366px

>>61559262
>those performance boosts on the 1700 just from the SMT being updated

File: 1500641822221.jpg (32KB, 877x568px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 877x568px

>>61560348
look at what a basic firmware update did to EPYC

>>61559936
Why? 1600 at least fiddy dollars more

>>61560279
now price a mobo

All the Ryzen chips seem to be capable of overclocking to 4GHz (or close to it, depending on your luck in the Silicon Lottery)

It's just a question of how many cores you want

File: 1500902870042.jpg (366KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1280x720px

>>61559226
The 1200/1300 feel like a stopgap chips until replaced with a model with IGPU. Though I presume they'll live on as chips with either a bunch of cores or the GPU cut off.

>>61559226
Should there be any reason to buy 1300x if 1200 can also be overclocked? Or 1200 will have worse OC capabilities?

>>61560598
those are the lowest of the lowest bins, i'd recommend the 1300X if you want higher clocks

>>61560489
80 bucks for a decent b350m or 110 for a decent but entry level x370. Not bad at all

>>61560598
I heard binning was by voltage, so lower models have a lower chance at a stable high-end OC

R3 1200 + GTX 1050 for ~$200 is gonna be lit

>>61560279
I'd hope you're getting a motherboard with that, lol

Even with OC they're probably pretty even. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-1300X/619vs3930

>>61560648
brah he's talking an z67/z77