Ryzen 3 / Bristol Ridge AM4 owners thread

[VirtualLarry]

So, how many of you out there have decided to go with some of the "baby" Ryzen CPUs, the quad-cores without SMT? Don't be shy, I know that there are nerds out there on a budget...

Please fill us in on the build details, intended usage, and impressions. Also, whether you have overclocked the CPU manually, and what cooling you are using.

Edit: Also, if the motivation for getting one was NOT financial, please let us know what it was. Also, if you choose this over Intel, tell us why.

Edit: Expanding this thread to Bristol Ridge owners / discussion, since the thread meandered off that way anyways.

 

[kwalkingcraze]

What about Athlon X4 950? Forgotten by most people, it's an even cheaper solution than Ryzen 3 1200. Almost half the price too.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113456

I'm sure this baby can drop down to $49.99 shortly.

 

[Shmee]

Does that have graphics? It sure is cheap...

 

[sandorski]

Does that have graphics? It sure is cheap...

It's just the AM3 variant with no graphics.

 

[Ancalagon44]

What about Athlon X4 950? Forgotten by most people, it's an even cheaper solution than Ryzen 3 1200. Almost half the price too.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113456

I'm sure this baby can drop down to $49.99 shortly.

Half the price and half the speed! If you look at benchmarks, it is terrible. As I said in another thread, it shows you why AMD is abandoning Bulldozer.

EDIT: I currently have an AMD Phenom II X6 1055T, which is now 7 years old at this point and it was made on an old process node (45nm). That CPU would be a DOWNGRADE for me. That is how bad it is.

The only thing it would improve is my power consumption, and that only because it was 2 fewer "cores".

 

[VirtualLarry]

I was looking at getting an Athlon X4 950 last night... but then I looked at YouTube for reviews. That chip is basically crap, just like the FX line. Sure, it's Excavator, the most advanced of the Bulldozer lineage, but ... there's a reason why it's so cheap, and Ryzen 3 has a slight premium.

Ryzen 3 1200 is $105 on ebay. It overclocked (for me) easily to 3.80Ghz. At that clock speed, it benchmarks with CPU-Z, FASTER than a 2600K at 3.4Ghz (stock), and even an FX-8350 at 4.0Ghz (stock). (This is in both ST and MT.)

So, Ryzen 3 is a little powerhouse, as far as I'm concerned. For a little over $100, you can get something that's more powerful than an FX-8350, on a modern platform, with a PCI-E NVMe M.2 SSD.

In fact, it's the fastest platform that I've tested, in my informal "Malwarebytes benchmark", completing a scan in 30secs, the fastest that I've seen yet!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Please fill us in on the build details, intended usage, and impressions. Also, whether you have overclocked the CPU manually, and what cooling you are using.

Edit: Also, if the motivation for getting one was NOT financial, please let us know what it was. Also, if you choose this over Intel, tell us why.

Build details:
Ryzen 3 1200 $103
ASRock AB350M (not the Pro4) $60
2x4GB Avexir DDR4-2400 (Blue LED) $70
Plextor M8Se(G) TLC PCI-E NVMe M.2 SSD 128GB $75
Rosewill FBM-X1 micro-ATX case w/window $23
EVGA 400W ATX PSU $33
Zotac GT630 1GB DDR3 $35
Windows 10 Pro

total: $399

Intended usage:
Non-gaming, pretty-much, just 4K desktop / productivity usage.

Impressions:
I think that this is a solid platform, nice and speedy, especially with the PCI-E NVMe M.2 SSD installed.
Malwarebytes scans in 30secs, amazing!

I did overclock, manually, using the stock cooler, to 3.80Ghz @ 1.350V. Stays under 73C under heavy load.

My motivation for choosing this was, it was new, I wanted to try a Ryzen 3, and overclock, for the scant ~$100 it costs, it blows away an i5-7500 in nearly everything, except possibly games. (Haven't gamed on it yet.)

I choose it over Intel, because Intel is overpriced.

 

[Topweasel]

ad.

My motivation for choosing this was, it was new, I wanted to try a Ryzen 3, and overclock, for the scant ~$100 it costs, it blows away an i5-7500 in nearly everything, except possibly games. (Haven't gamed on it yet.)

I choose it over Intel, because Intel is overpriced.

This is where Intel is going to hurt the most. I mean yeah true Intel would have to miss out on 100 sales of an i3 or 50 sales of an i5 compared to losing one sale on their 10k behemoth CPU. But there are becoming less and less room where a Ryzen or Zen based solution just doesn't just out value a chip so heavily it sometimes seems silly to get anything else. For the most of the market which isn't "economy enthusiasts" you either save so much over an i5, or get so much over an i3. That it makes either of those terrible choices. Even on the 7600k end you are still on a resource limited system that is only fractionally faster than a 1600x or 1600 overclocked, with so much more resources to spare. The 7700k and CFL are a swan song for an architecture on its death throes. They can be quite it bit faster in area's where those resources aren't important but basically only for single task systems (ie gaming only). Which is sad considering the $300+ price. The 8 and 10 core SLX are the only interesting CPU's on the higher end, because they are still able to flex their clock speeds a bit and with core counts still in the territory of where ST performance might matter more. Even then a lot of people will be better served with a 12c or 16c Threadripper. Then EPYC realistically just destroys value and connectivity on Intel's side. Once Ryzen mobile and desktop Zen based CPU's are available. It would be hard to recommend any Intel CPU, for anything other than pure gaming or absolute cheapest price (I don't see AMD pushing in on Pentium and Celeron offerings).

All the Value is in AMD's court. Even if the solution costs more, you finally feel like you are getting something extra for the price.

 

[sandorski]

This is where Intel is going to hurt the most. I mean yeah true Intel would have to miss out on 100 sales of an i3 or 50 sales of an i5 compared to losing one sale on their 10k behemoth CPU. But there are becoming less and less room where a Ryzen or Zen based solution just doesn't just out value a chip so heavily it sometimes seems silly to get anything else. For the most of the market which isn't "economy enthusiasts" you either save so much over an i5, or get so much over an i3. That it makes either of those terrible choices. Even on the 7600k end you are still on a resource limited system that is only fractionally faster than a 1600x or 1600 overclocked, with so much more resources to spare. The 7700k and CFL are a swan song for an architecture on its death throes. They can be quite it bit faster in area's where those resources aren't important but basically only for single task systems (ie gaming only). Which is sad considering the $300+ price. The 8 and 10 core SLX are the only interesting CPU's on the higher end, because they are still able to flex their clock speeds a bit and with core counts still in the territory of where ST performance might matter more. Even then a lot of people will be better served with a 12c or 16c Threadripper. Then EPYC realistically just destroys value and connectivity on Intel's side. Once Ryzen mobile and desktop Zen based CPU's are available. It would be hard to recommend any Intel CPU, for anything other than pure gaming or absolute cheapest price (I don't see AMD pushing in on Pentium and Celeron offerings).

All the Value is in AMD's court. Even if the solution costs more, you finally feel like you are getting something extra for the price.

Ya, rumour has it that AMD has had >50% marketshare in German CPU sales since Ryzens release. AMD has really upset the cart.

 

[AtenRa]

EDIT: I currently have an AMD Phenom II X6 1055T, which is now 7 years old at this point and it was made on an old process node (45nm). That CPU would be a DOWNGRADE for me. That is how bad it is.

I have a Core i7 920 @ 3.8GHz from 2009, which is now 8 years old and it was made on an old process node of 45nm. The Intel Pentium G4400 on 14nm (same price segment as Athlon X4 950) would be a DOWNGRADE for me. That is how bad it is.

Now I hope you understand that comparing a 6-7-8 year old High-End CPU to Todays Entry-level CPU is aples to oranges no matter how good they are.

 

[AtenRa]

Ya, rumour has it that AMD has had >50% marketshare in German CPU sales since Ryzens release. AMD has really upset the cart.

>50% on the $100+ segment (R3/ Core i3 and Above). But still this is exeptional from where they were in the start of 2017.

 

[Topweasel]

I have a Core i7 920 @ 3.8GHz from 2009, which is now 8 years old and it was made on an old process node of 45nm. The Intel Pentium G4400 on 14nm (same price segment as Athlon X4 950) would be a DOWNGRADE for me. That is how bad it is.

Now I hope you understand that comparing a 6-7-8 year old High-End CPU to Todays Entry-level CPU is aples to oranges no matter how good they are.

I get what you are saying but Stars, the core design in that Phenom is very slightly tweaked version of the K8 that launched in 2003. A present day 4 core CPU of a new arch shouldn't fall behind in any way no matter the target market.

Whereas you are taking what is primarily the same arch (though SB included the biggest change in the core series over it's life) and are comparing that 4c8t and comparing it to a present day 2c2t CPU.

But compare that CPU to 1200, the 1200 would walk circles around it. Your example has more to do with Intel's hardline segmentation of cores to markets, than it it does with CPU development as a whole. A duron 650 would run laps around a K6-III 450, a 3200+ A64x2 would destroy a 2500+ Barton. But ignoring that, remove the Phenom, a Llano based A series would destroy the Evacuator x4. Just as a PIII 1GHz+ gave all the Willamettes a run for it's money.

If it wasn't for BD you would realize a 8 year old high end CPU should be destroyed by a present day low end CPU. That has been the case for decades running up to that release. Maybe we should compare performance of a Pentium Pro versus Celeron A?

 

[Ancalagon44]

I have a Core i7 920 @ 3.8GHz from 2009, which is now 8 years old and it was made on an old process node of 45nm. The Intel Pentium G4400 on 14nm (same price segment as Athlon X4 950) would be a DOWNGRADE for me. That is how bad it is.

Now I hope you understand that comparing a 6-7-8 year old High-End CPU to Todays Entry-level CPU is aples to oranges no matter how good they are.

With Intel's IPC improvements, you might even gain in single threaded performance. Sure, the Thuban will win in multithreaded benchmarks as expected, but it should lose in single threaded benchmarks. In a lot of them, it does not lose, and there is a the problem.

In any case, my point is that even AMD released a 6 core consumer desktop CPU based on the Excavator architecture as a high end replacement for my CPU, it would not convincingly beat it. The FX 6300 does not convincingly beat a Thuban, for instance.

So yes, it is a valid comparison.

 

[LTC8K6]

I have a Core i7 920 @ 3.8GHz from 2009, which is now 8 years old and it was made on an old process node of 45nm. The Intel Pentium G4400 on 14nm (same price segment as Athlon X4 950) would be a DOWNGRADE for me. That is how bad it is.

Now I hope you understand that comparing a 6-7-8 year old High-End CPU to Todays Entry-level CPU is aples to oranges no matter how good they are.

Well, your 920 is also way yonder above it's stock speed of 2.66,and the G4400 is not even overclockable.

The 7350K does pretty darn well against the old I7 chips.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/47?vs=1829

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/45?vs=1829

 

[LTC8K6]

The I7-965 was $990 in 2008, which would be about $1,150.00 today.
A $300 to $350 chip runs rings around it today.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/45?vs=1832

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/45?vs=1826

 

[AtenRa]

With Intel's IPC improvements, you might even gain in single threaded performance. Sure, the Thuban will win in multithreaded benchmarks as expected, but it should lose in single threaded benchmarks. In a lot of them, it does not lose, and there is a the problem.

Sorry but at default the Athlon X4 950 has higher Single Thread performance than Phenom 1055t.

Edit: And MT Throughput of a single Module is way higher than Phenoms single Core.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Sorry but at default the Athlon X4 950 has higher Single Thread performance than Phenom 1055t.

Edit: And MT Throughput of a single Module is way higher than Phenoms single Core.

In your opinion, would an Athlon X4 950 be an upgrade for someone with an Athlon II X4 640 3.0Ghz CPU (not overclocked, they're not into overclocking)?

What about a $70 A8-9600 ? Those have some sort of GCN iGPU on them. My friend is currently using a GT610 card, which could probably stand to be replaced with something with newer video-decode hardware support.

Monitor is 1080P. Friend does not PC game (yet - I've sold him a different gaming PC, with G4560, GTX950 2GB, 16GB DDR4, and a 240GB SSD). Yet, he doesn't use it. Not sure why. Probably doesn't want to make the transition from his current Windows 7 64-bit install.

 

[AtenRa]

In your opinion, would an Athlon X4 950 be an upgrade for someone with an Athlon II X4 640 3.0Ghz CPU (not overclocked, they're not into overclocking)?

What about a $70 A8-9600 ? Those have some sort of GCN iGPU on them. My friend is currently using a GT610 card, which could probably stand to be replaced with something with newer video-decode hardware support.

Monitor is 1080P. Friend does not PC game (yet - I've sold him a different gaming PC, with G4560, GTX950 2GB, 16GB DDR4, and a 240GB SSD). Yet, he doesn't use it. Not sure why. Probably doesn't want to make the transition from his current Windows 7 64-bit install.

The A10-9700 at $76 (Same CPU as Athlon X4 950 + R7 iGPU) on newegg is good replacement for the Athlon X4 640 + GT610 for every day use and light gaming.

 

[Topweasel]

Sorry but at default the Athlon X4 950 has higher Single Thread performance than Phenom 1055t.

Edit: And MT Throughput of a single Module is way higher than Phenoms single Core.

The module itself is better and why AMD thought it was okay to call the IPC of BD as higher, but we know and you know that is not actually the case. Unthreaded or weakly threaded tasks were trashed making early BD solutions look worse then Netburst in simple workloads. Also that only works when comparing a FX-8k to Phenom X4 or Athlon X4 or Llano APU. The CPU in question is 2 module 4 thread CPU. The Older CPU is a 4 core CPU. The result is much better ST and MT results. A 4c Phenom based CPU is better in every way.

 

[kwalkingcraze]

Half the price and half the speed! If you look at benchmarks, it is terrible. As I said in another thread, it shows you why AMD is abandoning Bulldozer.

But the Athlon 950 has nearly a 50-point higher single-thread score than Ryzen 3 1200. I think this is a toss-up for sure. Neither one is faster than another.

 

[AtenRa]

A 4c Phenom based CPU is better in every way.

No it is not, it was against the first Bulldozer but not against the SteamRoller (Kaveri) and Excavator Models.
Check default Phenom X4 3.0/3.2GHz against Kaveri/BristolRidge Models with 3.8/4.0GHz turbo. Single Core performance is higher than Phenom X4.

 

[kwalkingcraze]

No it is not, it was against the first Bulldozer but not against the SteamRoller (Kaveri) and Excavator Models.
Check default Phenom X4 3.0/3.2GHz against Kaveri/BristolRidge Models with 3.8/4.0GHz turbo. Single Core performance is higher than Phenom X4.

There's no such thing as a Steamroller AM3+ CPU. Piledriver was the last. K10 vs. Piledriver, I would love to know which one has faster single-thread performance.

 

[AtenRa]

There's no such thing as a Steamroller AM3+ CPU. Piledriver was the last. K10 vs. Piledriver, I would love to know which one has faster single-thread performance.

4GHz Piledriver (FX8350 with Turbo) has a faster Single Core performance than Phenom II at 3.0/3.2GHz.

But the question was about Athlon X4 640 at 3.0GHz vs BristolRidge (Excavator). In this comparison the Star core is way slower.

 

[kwalkingcraze]

4GHz Piledriver (FX8350 with Turbo) has a faster Single Core performance than Phenom II at 3.0/3.2GHz.

That's right. But, what happens if a Phenom is a Black Edition, and it runs at 4.3GHz dual-core at 1.52V. Would replacing to a FX-6300 for me in the future be faster, about the same, or worse? That's my main question.

 

[AtenRa]

That's right. But, what happens if a Phenom is a Black Edition, and it runs at 4.3GHz dual-core at 1.52V. Would replacing to a FX-6300 for me in the future be faster, about the same, or worse? That's my main question.

I used a Phenom II X6 1090T at 4GHz and i can tell you a 4.6GHz FX8350 was way better, especially today that most of the software is optimized for the Piledriver.
To unswer your question, i wouldnt go to FX6300 from Phenom II 4.3GHz but i would easily go to FX8350 and OC to 4.6GHz or higher.