AMD Announces The Ryzen 3 3100 + Ryzen 3 3300X Processors

[DRanged]

the real news here is B550 at last.
fingers crossed that June 16th is a hard launch!
for too long has AMD mid-range been held back by PCIe2 uplink/peripheral connectivity.

GN did already put one of those boards to the test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBympJkflks

[creative]

four cores is more than enought for gaming and most of people. only some pros need more for rendering or some really heavy and multi threat jobs

Really depends on the game. If you play older games 4 to 8 threads will slay forever. If you want to keep up with newer game engines you really want at least 12 threads. That is reality sadly, and what is even sadder is most/almost all games on newer engines suck.

No engine has yet had the longevity/staying power more than glorious id Tech 1 and Tech 2.

Just take Eviternity/Back To Saturn X/Sunlust megawads out for a drive and see how you feel or even Arcane Dimensions for that matter.

[caligula]

The i7-7700K makes that 3 years.

OTOH, 8700k was published in Q4/2017, that is 2.5 years ago. 7700k was still the king of the hill few days before the 8700k launch.

[starshipeleven]

If they made a dual socket AM4 board that 3100 would damn-near be a core-to-core, ghz-to-ghz upgrade from my current system. It boosts a tiny bit faster.

With all due respect, but what does this even mean. Ghz is meaningless as is number of cores because you are comparing hardware from wildly different architectures and generations.

That CPU is likely to be more poweful than your whole system even if it has half the cores and consumes like 1/4 or something the power.

Also, I'm pretty sure AM4 CPUs lack the ability to work in multi-CPU systems, besides the fact that there is really no reason to do that when you can just buy a 12-core 24 thread monster (Ryzen 9) for a few hundred euros more than a high-end AM4 CPU, if you really need performance. (and whatever Ryzen CPU can be sold quickly on the used market at very favourable prices)

[starshipeleven]

Really depends on the game. If you play older games 4 to 8 threads will slay forever. If you want to keep up with newer game engines you really want at least 12 threads. That is reality sadly, and what is even sadder is most/almost all games on newer engines suck.

Indie games are still a thing, now more than ever, that you can get a half-decent engine and slap your game on it.

For example I've been liking Iron Danger a lot lately, it's probably the first game that is turning savescumming into a core game mechanic for a tactical combat game.

And it's running fine on a garbage-grade dualcore A6-9500 APU (on AM4 platform, yes I repurposed a CPU I originally bought only to upgrade board firmware, sue me) on 1080p with the APU alone if you drop down details a bit, or widescreen 4k (3440x1440) with a RX 550 with all maxed

I have strong suspicions that other similar games like Divinity Original Sin would also work fine on this hardware.

[creative]

starshipeleven Cool

Would actually think higher and higher quality indies will eventually come out, on a philosophical to grass roots note—surpass greatly big budget games due to freer creative reign and imagination.

I meant to inference AAA games in terms of processing threads.

Agreed, yes indies can be pretty good here and there. They are kind of few and far between for my own taste. I did really enjoy Conarium and Hellblade Senua's Sacrifice.

To this date Conarium has been the best H.P. Lvecraft inspired game I have played, which is what I feel is the center-core of his cosmic horror imagination/experience from night-gaunts, area of location, his family history and finally—his developed mind.

In the vein of Divinity-esk games, I have Tyranny, I kind of checked it out but have yet to do a play through.

[skeevy420]

With all due respect, but what does this even mean. Ghz is meaningless as is number of cores because you are comparing hardware from wildly different architectures and generations.

That CPU is likely to be more poweful than your whole system even if it has half the cores and consumes like 1/4 or something the power.

Also, I'm pretty sure AM4 CPUs lack the ability to work in multi-CPU systems, besides the fact that there is really no reason to do that when you can just buy a 12-core 24 thread monster (Ryzen 9) for a few hundred euros more than a high-end AM4 CPU, if you really need performance. (and whatever Ryzen CPU can be sold quickly on the used market at very favourable prices)

It means that their boxes would have almost the same specs....duh

[starshipeleven]

It means that their boxes would have almost the same specs....duh

Are you Walmart, lol?

[skeevy420]

Are you Walmart, lol?

Nah, just thought it funny that in 10 years what was top of the line is now a bottom bin part. What was $1500 is now $100.

But it would be interesting to see benchmarks using only 4c/8t processors from the past 10 years all in 3.6Ghz range.

[creative]

skeevy420 Well if the Zen 2 RYZEN 3 follows the pattern of the last R3 processors, couple that with the higher cache and ipc, it could potentially slaughter for the money. Maybe even 10th gen i3's (which will undoubtedly use more power and puke more thermal waste", all things considered, the outcome is going to come down to how well all of the stuff is binned and the grade of silicon on AMD's side.

You are likely already thinking what I just blabbed. Don't know why I wasted time but blahhh, oh well.