Slashdot Mirror
AMD Launches Ryzen 3 Series Low Cost Processors Starting At $109 (hothardware.com)
Reader MojoKid writes: AMD is launching a new series of Ryzen processors today, the affordably priced Ryzen 3. Ryzen 3 will complement the previously launched Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 series of desktop processors, but will target entry-level price points. Ryzen 3 features the same die as its higher-end Ryzen 7 and 5 siblings, but has fewer active cores and symmetrical multi-threading (SMT) has been disabled. Ryzen 3 processors feature quad-core configurations, leverage the same socket and chip packaging and are also fully unlocked for easy overclocking. The Ryzen 3 1300X has a base clock of 3.5GHz, with a 3.6GHz all-core boost clock, a 3.7GHz two-core boost, and a max XFR boost clock of 3.9GHz. The Ryzen 3 1200's default clocks are decidedly lower. Its base and all-boost clocks are both only 3.1GHz, and its two-core boost tops out at 3.4GHz. XFR pushes its max single-core clock up to 3.45GHz. In the benchmarks, with multi-threaded workloads, the Ryzen 3's quad-core configuration generally gives it an edge over the dual-core / quad-thread Intel Core i3 and in some cases allows it to compete with more expensive Intel Core i5 chips. With single or lightly threaded workloads, however, Kaby Lake-based Core i3s are likely to pull ahead due to their increased IPC and typically higher clocks. Ryzen 3 1300X will retail for $129, while Ryzen 3 1200 will list for $109. Retail chips should be available today in the channel.
The price point is right for the high-end quad-core (four threads) Ryzen 3 at $129, as I usually don't spend more than $300 on a motherboard/processor/memory combo. However, the performance gain from the eight-core AM3 processor that I have isn't that great at 10%. It would probably be better to spend the extra $40 on the low-end quad-core (eight threads) Ryzen 5.
These chips really put the squeeze on Intel's low end, which it has somewhat neglected for some years now.
The 1200 looks to trade off too much performance for the $20 savings though, so I expect it to show up in every piece of crap low end computer in 6 months.
Actually, that's not true. It won't show up until the APU version comes out so the OEMs can pair up the shitty cpu with some shitty graphics a slow spinning hard drive and not enough RAM to make a computer that clueless people everywhere will buy and then complain about to me.
I read the internet for the articles.
SMT is "simultaneous multi-threading", not "symmetrical multi-threading".
Your memory is short, Athlon 64 was released in 2004 and really put Intel's feet to the flame for several years.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Intel's normal desktop chips also support virtualization in most cases (I have an old core2duo laptop that happened to be one of the few that did NOT support VT-x, but even most of those did).
The Ryzen chips do support virtualization. I couldn't find a spec sheet off hand that lists it, but there's plenty of reference to it out there.
One of the big differences between Intel and AMD consumer chips is that Intel frequently disables ECC support, but AMD leaves it enabled and up to the motherboard manufacturer to expose or not. Here's some detailed info on ECC support on Ryzen: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...
I also ran into anandtech's review here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/...
IMO, it has some very useful comparisons right on the first page of that review. Someone else in this thread had mentioned upgrading to the low end Ryzen 5 for an extra $40 to make the upgrade more meaningful from his current platform... but that doesn't seem to add all that much IMHO. Wish I could just paste in the table from that review...
Ryzen 5 1400 and 1500x are both 4 core, 8 thread, but, otherwise, they nearly mirror the specs of Ryzen 3 1200 and 1300x (which have 4 cores / 4 threads). Personally, I'd want to jump up to the 6 core / 12 threads versions, or just stick with the 1300x.
That review also has a nice comparison with Intel's comparatively priced cpus. The Ryzen's have twice the L2 cache (256kb intel, 512kb ryzen), more than twice the L3 cache (3mb intel, 8mb ryzen). and twice the cores (2 core 4 thread intel, 4 core ryzen), all with a similar TDP (51-54w intel, 65w ryzen). They seem like a pretty good option, at least on paper.
486DX-500
I do believe that these parts are not as useful without a IGP for things like entry level (Grandma) desktops, or entry level corporate desktops.
But please do notice that these are BINNED PARTS, therefore, between the option of making no profits on them, Vs the option of making a profit on the processor, and sell a mobo (also at a slight profit) that can latter be upgraded to more capable Rizen Chip (also at a profit), and sell maybe a (hopefully AMD) graphics card, or a (hopefully AMD) laptop graphics chip to be mounted in the mobo, AMD opted for the profit option.
Just do not expect these to seel like hotcackes in corporate and entry level desktops.
Just my two cents, YMMV
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
it's massively overkill for her. A Ryzen 3 is on par with a high end i3 or low end i5 (depending on the part). Grandma gets one of these. Ryzen 3 is for her grandson and his RX 460 (or 480 if he can talk Grandma into it).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
SMT is Simultaneous multithreading, not Symmetrical multithreading. Possible naming confusion can be from SMP (Symmetric multiprocessing).
Another big difference is that these Ryzen 3s allow for overclocking but the comparative Intel Core i3s do not. More expensive Core i3 models will allow it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Go Google 386 sx and 486 sx before bashing AMD? :-)
The chips that failed when the fpu used to take 1/3 of the chip got resold without it. Floating points were run in emulation
http://saveie6.com/