Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
AMD Hardware

AMD Launches Ryzen 3 Series Low Cost Processors Starting At $109 ( 80

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Launches Ryzen 3 Series Low Cost Processors Starting At $109

Comments Filter:
  • Intersting... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Thursday July 27, 2017 @02:55PM (#54893395)
    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.
    • If you're replacing half of your computer, logic says you ought to go for the higher-tier chips, simply for the reason of fixed costs you have to expend before you can actually plug in your CPU. To make a contrived example, even if the cheaper CPU costs $100 and the twice as fast CPU costs $300, they're effectively the same price per unit of performance if the motherboard required for both costs $100. So, go for the 1600 at least.
      • If you are concerned about price per unit of performance, then there is an obvious answer. Rather than get a more expensive CPU, simply forgo the upgrade completely. The performance difference will be barely noticeable while the cost savings in terms of time and money is substantial. Then you can wait and hope that the next round of CPUs at the preferred price point will provide more than a 10% improvement.

        • In case of AMD, the "next round" provided 50-60% improvement at the given price point compared to Intel, and 80% compared to AMD's FX chips. That's not interesting?
          • According to the original post, the price that creimer wanted to spend was $129, which only gave a 10% improvement. It doesn't matter what the price of the original CPU was as a point of comparison, what matters is what someone is willing to pay now. So no, 10% is not interesting.

            • It's very likely that he didn't buy an eight core FX chip for $129. That's just the current price that sellers are using to clear their old stocks. So I'm actually not sure what the "preferred price point" is here in the first place! Anyway, even a "10% increase" could be noticeable from a user's perspective, considering that the Ryzen 3 will have those 110% of performance spread into four threads whereas in case of the FX-8xxx chips, you needed eight balanced threads to fully utilize the 100%. Many extant
    • 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.

      I have a FX-8350 now and I'm not going to bother with Ryzen until after the first price drop at the earliest. The performance improvement just isn't there. Their old chips were too good [for the money] for their new chips to be meaningful to me [for the money].

      The problem in my case is the new socket. It's not a new processor for a couple hundred bucks. It's also a new motherboard, for at least $150 and probably more like a couple hundred since I have become accustomed to buying more feature-rich boards in

      • by kriston ( 7886 )

        That's an interesting point. I have an eight-core FX-8320 processor and with its huge compute performance and massive on-chip cache for each core I can't really justify upgrading until the computer it's on burns itself out.

        Trouble is these 5-year-old Vishera FX parts are so good they're still very valuable and expensive, like those amazing AMD Opterons produced more than 7 years ago.

  • by jandrese ( 485 ) <> on Thursday July 27, 2017 @02:59PM (#54893423) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Thursday July 27, 2017 @03:18PM (#54893595) Journal
      As far as I am concerned Intel has neglected their entire line of processors. Just imagine what processors we would have right now without AMD as a competitor.
    • by aliquis ( 678370 )

      Intel coffeelake will have i3 with four cores and i5 and i7 with six.

      I assume the i7 8700K will be really nice, two generations newer than the 7800X so performance will likely have increased and it got six cores so I assume single-threaded performance may be close to i7 7700K and multi-threaded close to Ryzen 7 1700/1700X.

      Best blend.

    • they added Hyper threading to the G series (though you might have to wait a bit to get a G4560 for a decent price, they're out there though). An i3-7350 can hang with last gen's i5s, which is something I didn't think I'd be writing again anytime soon. Intel isn't gimping their low end like they used to.
  • Intel's normal desktop chips are basically all the same performance (within an order of magnitude), so the main difference is the presence of various features, like virtualization.

    Are the Ryzen chips the same?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Generally speaking, AMD doesn't play games like that. If the chip have the capability to do something, it''s probably available. For instance, I think all AMD chips support ECC if you want it, the problem is the mobo manufacturers. I guess this one too falls to them, but as I said, if history is any indication, virtualization support will be there.

    • by unrtst ( 777550 ) on Thursday July 27, 2017 @03:39PM (#54893793)

      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: []

      I also ran into anandtech's review here: []
      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.

      • 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.
      • by amorsen ( 7485 )

        Intel's normal desktop chips also support virtualization in most cases

        From what I have seen of the spec sheets, those games didn't start until the last couple of generations. i3's basically don't support anything remotely modern these days.

        The rest of your information is very, well, informative. Thank you!

  • Ryzen has risen AMD from the ashes of Intel's crucifixion of them in the 2000s. I wonder what Andre Rison thinks about this new Ryzen processor? It will probably cause a rise in sales, with confidence on the rise.
    • Re:He is risen... (Score:5, Informative)

      by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Thursday July 27, 2017 @03:21PM (#54893629) Journal
      Your memory is short, Athlon 64 was released in 2004 and really put Intel's feet to the flame for several years.
      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        Your memory is short, Athlon 64 was released in 2004 and really put Intel's feet to the flame for several years.

        Intel had been losing ever since the original Athlon (mid-99) vs the Pentium IV (nov 2000) and Athlon 64 (sept 2003) was really killing it, but only until Intel Core (jan 2006). So who was killing who is almost split 50-50, first half AMD was killing Intel and last half Intel was killing AMD. Though in retrospect AMD pretty much killed themselves by buying ATI, if they had another $5.4 billion in their war chest they'd have pulled off a better response than Bulldozer. And if Intel had bought ATI which was t

        • by dbIII ( 701233 )

          Though in retrospect AMD pretty much killed themselves by buying ATI,

          Considering they laid off just about everyone involved in CPU development as part of the cost cutting to afford buying ATI you have a very good point.

  • SMT (Score:5, Informative)

    by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Thursday July 27, 2017 @03:11PM (#54893533)

    SMT is "simultaneous multi-threading", not "symmetrical multi-threading".

  • Binned parts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by williamyf ( 227051 ) on Thursday July 27, 2017 @04:24PM (#54894195)

    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

    • 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).
      • Disagree. 4 core is minimal now if you run Chrome. Each tab has its own process and even Windows itself got leaner and faster by creating more threads for individual tasks. A dual core would have hiccups from one tab slowing down other things. Add several Chrome tabs, Outlook, MCrappy anti virus and you got bottlenecks

        That's why even phones are all quad core minimum. They do many things and customers do not want jerky system performance.

        • Yes, for that money, today I would install a FX-4350 and get my onboard graphics on the motherboard, not on the CPU. That looks like another sixty bucks or so. That gives you a PCIe slot in case grandpa wants to play flight simulators on grandma's pc.

        • What a tab is... Hell I talk to people in their 20s who browse in one tab...
  • SMT is Simultaneous multithreading [], not Symmetrical multithreading. Possible naming confusion can be from SMP (Symmetric multiprocessing []).
    • It'll stand for Systemd Multithreading before the year's out.

      • by dbIII ( 701233 )

        It'll stand for Systemd Multithreading before the year's out.

        I think you are overestimating Lennart's ability. The "parallel startup" that upstart had and systemd was supposed to do didn't really happen. Multithreading is an "advanced topic" like checking that your inputs are valid.

  • Ryzen 3 features the same die as its higher-end Ryzen 7 and 5 siblings, but has fewer active cores

    Is that a clever plot to sell Ryzen 7 chips that turned to have defective cores?

    • 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

  • Intel has held back the whole computing industry with their dual core i3 and lower desktop chips, and all their (non QM) laptop chips. Game developers have explicitly stated many times that they do not target quad core systems because that locks them out of a large part of the market with lower-end hardware. Intel has made a killing for many years due to their very refined manufacturing process and chip designs yielding high clock speeds, allowing them to get away with only 2 cores while still delivering de

I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!