Are you talking about Passmark, CPU-Z, or GeekBench?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.
Oh, and not sure which Newegg site you're looking at, but newegg.com, and Newegg's ebay store, both list the A10-9700 at $89.99. If it were only $6 more than the A8-9600, it would be a no-brainer, but an additional $20? For what, a few hundred more Mhz, and maybe some GPU clusters? For non-gaming purposes, and seeing how it's easy to overclock Bristol Ridge (supposedly, according to some YouTube vids) with a B350 motherboard (at least Asus can), then it seemed a better value to stick to the $70 USD A8-9600, and spend the extra few dollars to get a B350 board, over an A320. Plus, that leaves the window open, to buying a proper Ryzen CPU and dropping it in and overclocking it, although, that would mean getting a video card too. Or waiting until Raven Ridge release.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.
I'm only allowed to buy CPUs valued at $15 or less, per my strict policy. FX-8350 will never get there, only FX-6300. I work hard constantly each day finding the fastest CPU for less than $15. Phenom 570 overclocked at 4.3GHz and A6-5400K overclocked at 4.9GHz are my top 2 picks so far. An A6-5400K at 4.9GHz has a higher single-thread score than your FX-8350 at 4.6GHz.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.
Oh, and not sure which Newegg site you're looking at, but newegg.com, and Newegg's ebay store, both list the A10-9700 at $89.99. If it were only $6 more than the A8-9600, it would be a no-brainer, but an additional $20? For what, a few hundred more Mhz, and maybe some GPU clusters? For non-gaming purposes, and seeing how it's easy to overclock Bristol Ridge (supposedly, according to some YouTube vids) with a B350 motherboard (at least Asus can), then it seemed a better value to stick to the $70 USD A8-9600, and spend the extra few dollars to get a B350 board, over an A320. Plus, that leaves the window open, to buying a proper Ryzen CPU and dropping it in and overclocking it, although, that would mean getting a video card too. Or waiting until Raven Ridge release.
Anyways, I did it. I didn't quite have the money, but I ordered an A8-9600 for $70, an Asus B350 board with the full complement of video outputs, for $60 (Newegg sale), and a FireCuda 2.5" SSHD, which Newegg had on sale for $55 until the end of today.
https://youtu.be/JoqO-JkmlnQ
Edit: Seems I didn't have to do that. JayzTwoCents did a comparison video between an AM4 (Athlon X4 950, and Ryzen 3 1200) and Socket 1151 (G4560) build, and they were all close, but the two guests he brought on, both preferred the G4560 by a hair. The G4560 build also edged out both others in benchmarks, but was also more expensive.
I wish that he would have tried manually overclocking the AMD rigs, and had used a B350 board, instead of an A320. (Intel bias? I hope not.) I mean, the G4560 doesn't overclock, but the AMD platforms do... if you spend the extra $10 on a B350 motherboard, rather than an A320.
I think that the games that he tried, may have been a tad GPU-limited as well, with the GTX1050 2GB cards he used in both of them. After all, according to the HardwareUnboxed videos on the G4560, that CPU has enough grunt to scale all the way up to the GTX1070 or even GTX1080 territory.
Ever since Bristol Ridge AM4 desktop CPUs were release I was thinking if it would be worthwhile to build a low cost Linux system around one or go with the G4560? I wonder how much the entry level Raven Ridge CPUs will cost?
Can't wait to read the reviews.Im sure there will be sub $100 models of RR APUs, perhaps not day one but a few months later.
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.
I recently made this comparison, it is only Cinebench R15 but this is more than enough comparison.
Hmm, I initially overclocked to 3.80Ghz, at 1.350V vcore, before I even installed Windows 10. Well, that has proven to be a stable OC, so I wanted to try for a little more.
I had previously tried to clock to 3.90Ghz at the same 1.350V, but that didn't work out.
So, I tried 3850Mhz @ 1.400V. It booted, IIRC, but was locked at a 15.5 multi, for some strange reason. (I've heard other people complain about this, too.)
So I tried 3900Mhz @ 1.3895V, and that ... sort of worked. It POSTed and booted Win10, ran CPU-Z benchmark, with HWMonitor open. Got to 77C Package temp after five minutes. Thought, that's not so bad, let's try higher. So I selected "Restart"... and it never came back.
I honestly thought that perhaps I fried my Ryzen 3, somehow, because it wasn't responding at all. My AB350M Pro4 board has a "failed boot recovery" mode, whereas, if it fails to POST, it retries three times, then resets to stock settings. This AB350M board evidently doesn't have that feature.
Even after 3-5 manual force power-offs and power-ons, it still wouldn't POST. So I had to pull the video card, and clear CMOS.
Thankfully, after that, and a nail-biting long time, it POSTed.
Long story short, 3900Mhz or 4000Mhz was no-go on my chip, essentially.
So, I'm back at my 3800Mhz @ 1.350V, and it's working great again, and I have had no problems restarting, at these settings.
It's really no surprise, that AMD would stick the "junk silicon" into their lineup at the lowest end, the R3 1200. It does make you wonder, though, if those YouTubers that get a R3 1200, and then, clock it up to 4.1Ghz, if AMD isn't shipping them "Golden Samples". (Edit: Or they were using third-party cooling, and an X370 board.)
I have a Ryzen 1200 now thanks to Microcenter and their insane open box deals. They had an open box Ryzen 1200 for $87.96, and I also got an open box Asrock AB350 Pro4 that was $44.96. On top of that they let me have the $30 off bundle deal, so the total out the door was around $114. And then there was a $10 rebate for the board which I sent in already. Even if I don't get that this was a great budget deal.
I'm not pushing it very hard and am only running at 3.6Ghz. According to Ryzen master it's at around 1.225V so temps are low and it's very stable. I'm sure it's good for a bit more but I'm not sure how much and I'm just using the stock cooler so I'm happy for now.
Techspot did a nice test of the Ryzen 3 1200 against some other cpus: https://www.techspot.com/review/1474-ryzen-vs-older-budget-cpus/
The interesting thing is that the Ryzen 5 1400 isn't much better at all for gaming. The SMT doesn't seem to help much, so really for just gaming I don't see a big reason to spend more for the 1400. You probably have to go up to a 1600 to get a significant jump in performance.
How does your Bristol Ridge compare to $15 A6-5400K overclocked at 4.9GHz? Hmmm... probably no difference, right? There are open-box Gigabyte F2A88XM-D3HP boards as low as $10.50 clearance at my local Micro Center, still no taker.Ah well, even at a round 4.0Ghz, this things like a slug, kinda. Well, all Bulldozer-derivative CPUs and APUs feel like that to me.
What kind of board do you have? My board (Gigabyte AB350N-Gaming WIFI) doesn't allow any tweaking - can't set multiplier, ram voltage etc. I only have the A12-9800, but I guess it would be the same with the A8-9600.Ok, who's got an A8-9600 besides me, and is overclocking it?
Ah well, even at a round 4.0Ghz, this things like a slug, kinda. Well, all Bulldozer-derivative CPUs and APUs feel like that to me.
It's probably, roughly G4560 territory, but according to TechSpot's review, the A12-9800, is inferior to the G4560 when paired up with a dGPU. But for desktop tasks, it's OK. I would probably prefer the G4560 though, to be honest. It does seem ever-so-slightly more "snappy". After all, the two CPUs aren't so different, this is a four-core only in marketing-speak, it's really dual-module, just like the G4560 is dual-core, with HyperThreading. Although, I've read that the Excavator arch. removed the "module penalty", so possibly these really are more akin to a quad-core, albeit with much lower IPC than Ryzen or Kaby Lake cores. Oh well.
How does your Bristol Ridge compare to $15 A6-5400K overclocked at 4.9GHz? Hmmm... probably no difference, right?
What kind of board do you have? My board (Gigabyte AB350N-Gaming WIFI) doesn't allow any tweaking - can't set multiplier, ram voltage etc. I only have the A12-9800, but I guess it would be the same with the A8-9600.
I can only achieve 2400 MHz with single rank memory modules. I can't post with dual rank 2400 MHz.
Can you do me a favor and run GTA V built-in benchmark? I experience huge stutters in the last part of the benchmark (fighter chase) and enormous LoD issues.
In short, they're more dual-core-with-super-HT then proper quad cores.
Does the $15 A6-5400K overclocked at 4.9GHz receive the same single-thread score as the Ryzen 3 1200? Trying to determine its actual number.yes but the main problem is not that, it's just the base single thread performance being a lot lower than average