AMD Ryzen 3 3300X continues its benchmark rampage by fending off both the Intel Core i3-10300 and Core i7-7700K in Fire Strike

[Redaktion]

The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X has been spotted on 3DMark's Fire Strike racking up a healthy Physics Score that should please anyone considering a future purchase of this budget desktop CPU. The Ryzen 3 3300X managed to surpass the upcoming Intel Core i3-10300 and scored higher than the Intel Core i7-7700K that we have tested several times.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-3-3300X-continues-its-benchmark-rampage-by-fending-off-both-the-Intel-Core-i3-10300-and-Core-i7-7700K-in-Fire-Strike.463121.0.html

[andrius]

i7 7700k will be better in games than those for sure, otherwise its bad move from business perspective. we know ryzen 1600 is equal to i7 2600 so assume this is the same

[Devil]

Again with this misconceptions or advertising for amd? Altough it improved from generation to generation in the last few years, amd cpus architecture still has high latency in the memory controller so that is not even comparable to intel counterparts while playing some games. If you have eyes to see you can go on YouTube and look at a difference in smoothness while playing the same game. It should be evident that a proc like the i3 9100 draws circles even on the "exceptional" ryzen 5 3600, it seems very clear to me that every frame of the intel is clear and stable while the 5 3600 seems like a little laggy continuosly. Considering this and the state of current cpus how can you compare an actual budget quad core with the i7 7700k that represents the top of quad core technology? Where is the logic? In some games also the frame rate is much lower than intel counterparts beacuse of the various optimization problems amd Always has, not to speak of hardware fallacies. It's sad that most pc sites now are biased towards amd saying it's better than intel at ALL price points while the truth says it's otherwise.

[A]

Again with this misconceptions or advertising for amd? Altough it improved from generation to generation in the last few years, amd cpus architecture still has high latency in the memory controller so that is not even comparable to intel counterparts while playing some games. If you have eyes to see you can go on YouTube and look at a difference in smoothness while playing the same game. It should be evident that a proc like the i3 9100 draws circles even on the "exceptional" ryzen 5 3600, it seems very clear to me that every frame of the intel is clear and stable while the 5 3600 seems like a little laggy continuosly. Considering this and the state of current cpus how can you compare an actual budget quad core with the i7 7700k that represents the top of quad core technology? Where is the logic? In some games also the frame rate is much lower than intel counterparts beacuse of the various optimization problems amd Always has, not to speak of hardware fallacies. It's sad that most pc sites now are biased towards amd saying it's better than intel at ALL price points while the truth says it's otherwise.

The whole latency thing has been a Windows issue, not an AMD issue (AMD runs fine on linux for same games). This is why MS decided to make AMD surface to sort through all the issues.

[anonymous]

Again with this misconceptions or advertising for amd? Altough it improved from generation to generation in the last few years, amd cpus architecture still has high latency in the memory controller so that is not even comparable to intel counterparts while playing some games. If you have eyes to see you can go on YouTube and look at a difference in smoothness while playing the same game. It should be evident that a proc like the i3 9100 draws circles even on the "exceptional" ryzen 5 3600, it seems very clear to me that every frame of the intel is clear and stable while the 5 3600 seems like a little laggy continuosly. Considering this and the state of current cpus how can you compare an actual budget quad core with the i7 7700k that represents the top of quad core technology? Where is the logic? In some games also the frame rate is much lower than intel counterparts beacuse of the various optimization problems amd Always has, not to speak of hardware fallacies. It's sad that most pc sites now are biased towards amd saying it's better than intel at ALL price points while the truth says it's otherwise.

What? You're telling me you're not impressed by a $119 quad-core that beats the top of the line intel CPU from 3 years ago? At a third of the price, you are getting the same performance in all except gaming. And in gaming, the difference is marginal, like what? 5%? 10%? Wow.

"i3 9100 draws circles even on the "exceptional" ryzen 5 3600"
um, no lol. Mind sending me your sources?

If AMD hasn't launched their 8 core ryzen CPUs, intel would still be offering us overpriced quad cores. Please, if the overwhelming majority is telling you that AMD is beating Intel in basically every category, maybe there is a reason. The only advantage Intel has at the moment is in gaming and it's marginal in most games unless the game favors Intel (like CSGO). In CPU focused games like Civilization, the difference actually favors AMD (could you believe it, the more powerful CPU is more powerful? Ik insane).

[Dharan]

I would say wait for Ryzen 4000 desktop APUs... They will be awesome and will even rival AMDs own 8 core and 6 core offerings...

[Tmehrl]

AMD admits that the Zen 2 architecture has a latency problem due to the L3 cache being split between two separate 4 core compute complexes.  When the MS Windows scheduler switches a thread from a core in one CCX to another core that happens to be in the other CCX then the new core needs to deal with the added latency of accessing the L3 cached thread values through an infinity fabric connection. The result is a lower single thread performance and reduced ICP (instruction per clock)  rate. The 3300x has 4 cores that share the same L3 cache, resulting in better IPC. Recent testing leaks showing the 3300x IPC much higher than the 3100 (4 cores but split L3 cache) bears this out. Zen 3 will have a unified L3 cache. If you can't wait for Zen 3 then in a few weeks you can get a 3300x for $120 and put it in a $80 550 motherboard for a fine gaming system !

[Devil]

Again with this misconceptions or advertising for amd? Altough it improved from generation to generation in the last few years, amd cpus architecture still has high latency in the memory controller so that is not even comparable to intel counterparts while playing some games. If you have eyes to see you can go on YouTube and look at a difference in smoothness while playing the same game. It should be evident that a proc like the i3 9100 draws circles even on the "exceptional" ryzen 5 3600, it seems very clear to me that every frame of the intel is clear and stable while the 5 3600 seems like a little laggy continuosly. Considering this and the state of current cpus how can you compare an actual budget quad core with the i7 7700k that represents the top of quad core technology? Where is the logic? In some games also the frame rate is much lower than intel counterparts beacuse of the various optimization problems amd Always has, not to speak of hardware fallacies. It's sad that most pc sites now are biased towards amd saying it's better than intel at ALL price points while the truth says it's otherwise.

What? You're telling me you're not impressed by a $119 quad-core that beats the top of the line intel CPU from 3 years ago? At a third of the price, you are getting the same performance in all except gaming. And in gaming, the difference is marginal, like what? 5%? 10%? Wow.

"i3 9100 draws circles even on the "exceptional" ryzen 5 3600"
um, no lol. Mind sending me your sources?

If AMD hasn't launched their 8 core ryzen CPUs, intel would still be offering us overpriced quad cores. Please, if the overwhelming majority is telling you that AMD is beating Intel in basically every category, maybe there is a reason. The only advantage Intel has at the moment is in gaming and it's marginal in most games unless the game favors Intel (like CSGO). In CPU focused games like Civilization, the difference actually favors AMD (could you believe it, the more powerful CPU is more powerful? Ik insane).

The difference will be more than that, but it's not only about the frame rates, it's the actual smoothness and experience that matters. If you type in YouTube i7 7700k vs ryzen 5 3600 you'll see that on the i7 is more fluid while the ryzen seems a bit stuttery and the same in my opinion applies to the i3 9100 to an extent (even if it gets lower frame rates than the 3600, but at 100 fps the difference doesn't matter). You can go on userbenchmark to see that on the major esports games like cs go, fortnite... the i3 and the ryzen get the same fps and you can read the article that explains the problem. Cs go for example is heavily bound to single core perfomance and in fact it plays much much smoother on intel's architecture while you see that problem i described above gets worse here and that's a big difference. Again what i'm  trying to say is that it plays better, you're get more in control of the game while amd seems sluggish still. In some games like ashes of the singularity that favorse multi core it does much more than intel but you told exactly about civilization: in that game it does 120 avg, like 10 fps more than the i3 and the same as the i5 9400. Now for the price i should call this "more than exceptional value" considering that the ryzen is abou 200 euros and the i3 is about 100 or even less? Of course in other type of workloads (rendering) it destroys the i3 but you can see that single core performance is very behind what it should have been and what's really bad  is that it shows while using it. Speaking of tom hardware they seem to point out every drop or stutter an intel cpu has while testing in game but doesn't write when the amd cpu lags in other game tests. Man even the ryzen 9 3900x bottlenecks the gtx 2070 while the i5 9600k does not( check again userbenchmark), if this is okay i don't know what's okay anymore. And don't worry if one day intel sucks and amd will do good then i will happily say amd is better but right now those 8 cores apparently aren't a gift from amd to save us from the overpriced intel quad cores, considering the core itself is pretty mediocre. So for me the choices are simple with i3 9100 for the low range and the 9400f and 9600k for mid and mid to high range as generalist choices for pc users and for gaming; of course for more specific tasks wich i don't even know or care about the ryzens will be better or much better and if one wants to buy amd there's absolutely no problem for me since for games again anything above the i3 9100 is sufficient to play every modern game and that's very good for the consumer but it Always remains what i said before and it is not a thing to hide to make amd shine uncontested while there is much to criticize (of course again from our perspective, for the avarage user all choices will be equally good because they don't care too much).