Come on Greg! Chuck in some 2080Ti-s with 32 gig of 4200Mhz RAM and test games on 720p resolution, like every other tech does. Who cares about real life performances? :D
Both are great chips for the price. The fact that you can get something that will hang with a i7 7700k for $100 is crazy. However, if it was my money and I had to choose one of these, it would be the 2600/1600AF. You get very simmilar gaming performance today, but as time progresses games are likely to get more parallelized. I'd predict in 4 years the 2600 will do a bit better in gaming than the 3100. On top of that, you have 4 extra threads you can use for streaming, better video editing, etc.
Yesterday my 2600 beat 7700k in cinebench20 by 29 points lmao i applied new thermal paste and decided to stress test my cpu and that's what i noticed xD
10:56 the 3300x has all of its 4 cores in ONE CCX. This makes a big difference in games, since there is no latency penalty with threads jumping between cores that are physically on different CCXes. So the moral is: coose the 3100 for media boxes, office machines or home NAS / servers but choose the 3300x for entry level gaming, with no intent to stream 👍
Yeah im doing my first build, was gonna go with the 3100 because of the pricetag, but the 3300x definitely looks like the way to go now (and its only 20 more dollars for goodness sakes...)
seems like a whole lot of people had the same thought "everyone is gonna use a high end GPU to get rid of the bottle neck, so I'm going to do something different and show how it behaves with a GPU that people would actually buy!"
I see how that theory of using a mid range card makes sense short term but many people who buy budget CPUs will likely be using them as long as they can, I think a 2080 is more representative of what we'd be using 2-4 generations ahead and as such makes more sense.
I've never seen anything convincing in terms of the theory that large numbers of people swap out GPUs independently of CPUs. I think a lot of people just don't touch anything and replace it all at once. Also, if someone is going to spend hundreds of dollars replacing the GPU, he can spend another $100 or so on a better used CPU as well if he needs it, especially on this platform. Finally, there is a lot more to future game performance than using a high-end GPU on today's games. This is evidenced by how poorly 2c4t and even 4c4t processors have aged in the last 2.5 years.
@@dycedargselderbrother5353 If you think everyone can just double the amount of money they are spending on an upgrade without a thought then you are missing the reason behind budget builds, you upgrade when you HAVE to and the longer between upgrades the better. Myself my partner and our child all have PCs we play games on, I don't have the luxury of refreshing my CPU and graphics card every generation. A lot of people don't bother building their own PCs, many people will buy prebuilt systems. Actually more people use laptops than PCs, but from AMDs perspective budget parts aren't at all about what large numbers of people do they are about selling off supply that otherwise would've been wasted to help mitigate cost.
@@karlkingofducks5764 And you're missing the point that using a bigger GPU with current (or even old) games to predict future performance in new games is ineffective and not a good way to budget.
I think I missed my chance. I don't see the 1600 AF for $85 anywhere anymore (and at $150 like most sellers are asking I'd rather just spend $170 on a new 3600).
Dylan Premo 150 is ridiculous. I was able to get mine for 85 on amazon early April, I must have purchased it right as it restocked, maybe you could find a 3300x for 120? Has some pretty good single core performance
I bought a 1600 af two weeks ago from Amazon. It was $109. The day before, it was $85. I went ahead and got it before the price went up even more. I was afraid they had stopped making them, and that the price would never be the same.
As someone with two rigs, both running Zen+ (a 2600 and a 1600AF), I very much appreciate the comparison. Seems that six cores is the sweet spot in most instances.
Bcuz youtuber are not allowed to post before the scheduled time .. aaron a phone reviewer mention this.. the 1st review is not a real review this are all good review base on the manufacturer or company brand .. after another scheduled date is the real review of the reviewers and here they will say both good or bad ..
Excellent channel. I have been looking into AMD for some time. Planning on making my 1st rig for office work, and writing. Channels like these are real deciding factors for me. Hope you're doing well, and please keep bringing us the solid content
Sorry to ask a stupid question, I have googled this for days and can't find an answer. I have 4400mhz viper ram and want a cpu that can utilise this. I've been told the 1600af wont support this, even with xmp enabled. Will the 3100 support this ram speed?
Hi Greg i want to ask you what's your opinion about overclocking ryzen 3600 or 3700x? i see a lot of peoples overcloking 3600/3700x to 4,2 Ghz, but what's the point to oc if Ryzen 3600/3600x allredy boost all core to 4,2 Ghz/ 4,35 Ghz when you enable PBO? Also i see today Gamer Nexus publish a video Bench about Ryzen 3100 oc to 4,4 Ghz, and they also included in them graphic chart Ryzen 3600 at stock and Ryzen 3600 overclocked at 4,3 Ghz, and from what i see there Ryzen 3600 at 4,3 Ghz gain only 1 FPS over stock frequency in all them games bech? strange:D. I have an 3600x and with PBO active and with Ryzen balacend power plan all core boost to 4.350 Mhz at 1.475 V while i watching a youtube video, and when i switch to windows balanced power plan all core boost to 4.125 Mhz at 1.260 V while watching a youtube video. Also i see + 8 C to + 10 C more with ryzen balanced vs windows balanced while watching youtube, so i guess is not worth +200 Mhz for + 8 C so i leave it to windows balanced. (Also when i do full stres prime or cinebench all core boost to 4.150 Mhz in bouth variants ryzen on windows balance power plan).
Good to see you used a reasonable GPU to pair them with. Only the Verge would actually pair a 2080 Ti with a Ryzen 3 3100 and think nothing would be wrong with it.
i just bought a asus tuf gaming B550M-plus and now im looking to get a processor and gpu, I found that the motherboard I bought supports 3rd gen adm ryzen product only i believe? I dont know a lot and Im on a budget and would like to know if the B550M will work with the ryzen 3 3100
if you are reading this in 2024 and only have budget for 1600AF or 2600. go for it. its not that bad. they scale well. do NOT however get a 3100 or ANY quad core ryzen, regardless of budget.
Great video, however the 4k rendering in adobe was only shown once. I'm about to get my 2600, I will be very grateful if you could tell me if it is good enough for rendering 4k videos... Thanks!
Mr.Magnificent my 3600 had been on 4.2ghz @1.42v OC with 240mm AIO since pretty much day one, its nearly 8 months now and it is completely fine, i don’t know where people get ideas you can’t oc 7nm
@@lansiman some people that had their 3. gen ryzen 7 overclocked saw their cpus degrading. Actually Hardcore Overclocking had his ryzen 7 3700X only at 1.35v for a while and it degraded to the point where it crashed at stock clocks. Also 1.42v for only 4.2ghz isnt a good overclock at all for ryzen 3000
@@riceshard9614 Static OC is a FIXED frequenzy without changes, is not a good OC but its good for OC competitors in sports Offset voltage is the best OC where you can have more freedom to OC and take the benefit from idle states or base clock (wich reduces power usage)
So i got a 2070 super FE as a gift, was planning to use a 3600X with a tomahawk b450 mobo and 16 gigs of 3600 mhz ram but now with these new gen processors and mobo should i hold off if so any suggestions on a build because i got the GPU part done
I'd hold out for a Ryzen 5 3600 Non-X (there is virtually no reason to spend the extra cash on a 3600X) and a solid B550 motherboard. You're gonna have an upgrade path to Ryzen 4000 and PCI-e 4.0 SSDs which you will be thankful for in the future.
@@blackzfive thanks for the comment, looked more into it so apparently they're moving on with the b550 mobos and the previous gens are not to be supported with the new boards for exactly what you put it as looking towards the future but could they move the older gen processors to the new format?
For my daily driver, mostly an office PC for light editing and work I chose the 1600AF... futureproof for years (With a GTX 970) For my music studio I use a 2600 (With an old R9 280X, just a display manager), for my main editing machine a 1700x (With an 580 8GB), and as a HTPC a 1200AF (With an R9 380)... so all in a nice budget and it works wonderful! Four beautiful machines for around 4000 dollar... AMD makes me happy!
Would like some I out here, am I the only person who plays games with like 20 Firefox tabs open, watching netflix or RUclips while possibly voice chatting or streaming?, Just no channel seems to run benchmarks in what I'd consider a real world scenario. I'm still running an FX8350 but it's getting so slow I'm getting frozen videos and system hangs more often when games utilise it 100%. I'm going to upgrade soon and suspect a 1700, 2600 or even 3600 will be my best bet but don't find any examples of how I utilise my hardware to confirm this. I'm starting to gravitate more toward the earlier gen 8 core part the more I think about this actually, I'd appreciate any input though. Also just a thought but with these Ryzen 3s being budget parts I think it makes more sense using high end GPUs like an RTX 2080, people who buy budget CPUs often won't be upgrading their build until they are forced to by performance dips, so testing top end GPUs is a good way to tell how well these CPUs will work with GPUs 2-4 years down the line depending upon how much pressure Nvidia is under from AMD to push their limits.
Very goodd review Greg. Personally between those two i'd buy the 3100x, i wouldn't benefit of higher core count with lower single core perfomance, i'd rather buy the 3600 but that's not what the video is discussing obviously.
Greg at the end of the video you kind of dismissed the 3300X and I disagree with you there. The 3300X has all 4 cores on one "CCX" (the chiplets in an AMD high core count CPU) while 3100 has two of these CCX chiplets, each of them has 2 cores and the other 2 are fused off. In other words, 3100 is built from two bottom-binned chiplets. The 3300X has a significant edge over the 3100 because of this structural difference. It matters more for pairing with mid-range GPUs, if you're "really and truly budget building" then you're buying a 580 and none of this matters.
In the portuguese market there's no contest, the 3100 wins hands-down: it's at pre-sale for 83€, against the 136 of the 3300X; 1600 AF is at 102, while the 2600 is at 120. I honestly believe the store where I found them (the biggest online store around here) has a pricing error, but oh well... Amazing deal for budget gamers!
Seems pretty odd that you only managed 4.2 ghz , on my r7 2700x i got all core 4.25 ghz without issues just with ryzen master. I don t know much about overclocking but i expected more with it being zen 2 and having half of the cores
The 3300X and 3100 are VERY DIFFERENT as the former has all the 4 cores in a single CCX and the latter has them in a 2+2 configuration across 2 CCXs. This increases latency between the cores and shows a very significant difference in gaming, as what I've seen in almost all reviews so far, be it LowSpecGamer or Hardware Unboxed. I believe you should've tested both of them to actually see if there was a difference. This is the first time I have disliked one of your videos, and trust me I've been watching you from the day you started off, I was ofc just a 'kid' back then. Don't know if you read comments anymore like you used to but yeeeh
Couple points you missed IMO. There is a measurable difference between the 3100 & 3300x at the same clock speed. Why, topology. 3100 is a 2+2 design while the 3300x is one ccx with 4 cores. There are several reviews showing a difference in results when both are clocked at the same speed. 3300X has a reduction in latency using a single ccx design. On motherboards, AMD announced a 500 series board (B550/X570) will be required for a zen3 (4000 series) CPU. X470, B450, X370 etc will not support the upcoming 4000 CPUs. So there will be a reason to purchase a B550, if you want a 4000 chip that is.
The clear winner (until the we see what the Intel CPUs can do) to me is the1600 AF IF you can them at MSRP 85 bucks. That chip is a steal. Yea some games won't do as well (as shown) as the 3100. However is it really worth 15 bucks more to gain some performance in some games, I don't think so. I think it is a better all around chip for a cheaper price if you can find them at 85 bucks.
Doesnt the 3300X use a 4+0 CCX instead of 2+2 on the 3100?Surely the infinity fabric latency would give it some extra juice,you should probably test that chip too since you have it hands-on
but even if the 3100 and 3300x have the same clock speeds, the 3300x would still come on top with even quite a margin because they have a different ccx and l3 cache layout. imo going for 3300x is a much better choice.
I simply love the way he thinks about REAL user. Not the one, who will buy the buget CPU because he doesn't have unlimited cash, but for decreasing BOTTLENECK he/she will put 2080ti, just to make sure his/hers BUDGET BUILD isn't compromised ...
I think the reason why you would also chose some lower mid range gpu is because the sad thing is, we often don't earn much money to begin with. So having something entry level that also beats intel's $400+ cpus is a nice thing. All that for under 500 bucks, and thats the best thing
Even though it might not make an overall difference in your conclusion, it might have been worth mentioning the CCX and L3 cache layout differences between the 3100 and 3300X.
Give the 3300x a spin, it will probably surprise you, especially if you try a faster graphics card. So perhaps give something like a 5700XT or a 2070 Super a spin with the 3100 and the 3300x both stock and overclocked to the same speed? The 3300x is NOT just a 3100 with a slightly higher clocks peed, they are actually different internally. The 3100 uses both CCX in a 2 + 2 core configuration. That means the 16MB cache is split into two 8MB pools, one in each CCX. Any time a core need to access data in that is in the cache on the other CCX there is a latency. The 3300x on the other hand uses all four cores of one CCX, with all cache in one pool available to all the cores without any latency cost. This improves the performance in most games and a lot of other applications by up to around 20%. In games with both processors clocked the same the 3300x tend to outperform the 3100 by between 10 and 20 % if they are not running into GPU limitations. For a gamer that's probably the best $20 investment you will find, provided the GPU used isn't limiting the experience. But even then I feel the added performance headroom might be worth it. Note that there are a few (very few) applications that doesn't seem the least bit affected by the latency introduced by the 2 + 2 core configuration of the 3100, but all game benchmarks I've seen show a big difference. Funny thing is that in a couple of games the 3300x is capable of actually beating the 3600 which makes it excellent value if one of those are your favorite title.
@@miniweeddeerz1820 Especially true if you are using a lot of background processes. Like to have Chrome open in the background with hundreds of tabs, then yes, more cores a re better. Same with video streaming and such. From the look of things using RTX Voice might put some extra strain on the CPU even though it's supposedly using the GPU for the heavy lifting. But other noise cancellation tech such as Krisp will definitely add to the CPU overhead. And then there is RGB LED software... But if you are looking for the best gaming bang for the buck the R3 3300X is not a bad choice, especially if it means you can put more money into the graphics card.
@@blahorgaslisk7763 that's true but FPS means nothing if the game doesn't feel responsive or snappy. The 3300x can push out the same FPS as a 3600, but the game will be better to play. So a better gpu might actually not affect much.
Wow! I mean I was expecting some good performance here for the pricepoint but I'm blown away. This gets me even more hyped for the higher end of the new Ryzen generation!
Prices because of the hype still haven't died down. At the time I'm writing this, It IS more sensible to just buy the 2600. Prices for the 3100 are similar to the msrp for the 3300x at launch, and reverse for the 2600.
I'm seriously considering as I should go with a 1600 af or a 3900x for a second pc that I will keep exclusively at my office to edit short simple 1080p videos.
I just bought a ryzen 3 3100, 16gb 3200mhz ddr4, and a B450 motherboard, I'm so excited to upgrade from my beloved FX 8350 OC'd @4.6Ghz. I know the fanboys will hate me for saying this but if you get an FX 8 series cpu and overclock it, It can still be relevant, The only issue with running AM3+ is that there is nowhere else to upgrade to, and it actually gets slightly cheaper to just go with ryzen. I'm paring the new platform up with my rx 470, should run beautifully at 1080p high settings 60+fps
@John Hooper Well, weather or not the 8350 actually had 8 cores is debatable. But on a processor, Core count means nothing unless each CPU core can perform well individually, The 8350 has pretty bad single core performance, and I gave it a 4.6Ghz overclock to give it at much help as I can. The ryzen 3 3100, is a 4 core 8 threaded cpu, it has much better single core performance. In older games that only utilize a single core, such as Team Fortress 2, the processor actually struggles a little bit and especially while trying to stream the game
@John Hooper Tbh I just wanted to upgrade to the newer AM4 platform, I can also upgrade to way more powerful 6 and 8 core processors down the line if I chose to do so.In cinebench my 8350 gets like 780pt's, and I believe the 3100 gets over 1100
G'day Greg, Loved the video using a more reasonable priced GPU, Did you watch the Gamers Nexus R3 3300X vs R3 3100 video, with the EVGA RTX2080Ti the R3 3300X does have an advantage in gaming over the R3 3100 even when OC'd, at the end of this video you made the comment that you 'Assume' there won't really be a difference in performance so not worth the $20, as someone who loves science I thought you would be like Steve & the G/N team & want to do the real evaluation 😁, so a video with the difference between the 2 R3's with the RTX2060 to see if the difference like the RTX2080Ti is still there, also comparing them with a GTX1650Super to see if it botlenecks the R3's would be great
You might be pleasantly surprised at the 3300x ‘s performance in gaming+streaming vs the 2600. As pointed out by others, it’s not just the clock speed difference but the improved core-to-core latency due to the 3300X using a single CCX for all cores.
Do a 3300x review. It’s noticeably faster due to its core architecture being more more unified on its CCX. All the other reviewers have been really hyped about it because it beat the 7700K in many various applications, and is a stellar deal.
In this case using the New NVENC encoder in the 2060KO would more than likely level the playing field - as that's what would be the most recommended to do in this use case. Now if the GPU didn't have the new encoder then yes the 1600AF/2600 would be the route.
Come on Greg! Chuck in some 2080Ti-s with 32 gig of 4200Mhz RAM and test games on 720p resolution, like every other tech does. Who cares about real life performances? :D
🤣🤣
Spot on :D
@Motgy LMAO
Motgy how could he forget??
who are you
referencing to?
Both are great chips for the price. The fact that you can get something that will hang with a i7 7700k for $100 is crazy. However, if it was my money and I had to choose one of these, it would be the 2600/1600AF. You get very simmilar gaming performance today, but as time progresses games are likely to get more parallelized. I'd predict in 4 years the 2600 will do a bit better in gaming than the 3100. On top of that, you have 4 extra threads you can use for streaming, better video editing, etc.
In addition to the fact that 6 cores is stutter free, whereas 4 cores is not in some games.
Yesterday my 2600 beat 7700k in cinebench20 by 29 points lmao i applied new thermal paste and decided to stress test my cpu and that's what i noticed xD
Do you think a 1600AF and a GTX1060 or 1050ti can stream 1080P and 60FPS as a dedicated stream PC? 20 Upload btw
@AquaLion GG COD mostly. APEX, etc
@AquaLion GG Im more concerned about the GPU. Would a 1060 or 1050ti handle a 1080 stream 60fps?
a review of this cpu without a $800 dollar gpu something reasonable and more average use case senerio
bruh
Like a RX 580 or 1660s
@@nolesfan2769 truueeee
10:56 the 3300x has all of its 4 cores in ONE CCX. This makes a big difference in games, since there is no latency penalty with threads jumping between cores that are physically on different CCXes. So the moral is: coose the 3100 for media boxes, office machines or home NAS / servers but choose the 3300x for entry level gaming, with no intent to stream 👍
Facts
"with no intent to stream" is only true if not getting an RTX card
@@EverSnaxolotl yeah if I wanted to stream I'd get a 3300X + a 1660 Ti
Yeah im doing my first build, was gonna go with the 3100 because of the pricetag, but the 3300x definitely looks like the way to go now (and its only 20 more dollars for goodness sakes...)
Damn, I wish the upcoming r5 4600 would have this feature
seems like a whole lot of people had the same thought "everyone is gonna use a high end GPU to get rid of the bottle neck, so I'm going to do something different and show how it behaves with a GPU that people would actually buy!"
GGG
I see how that theory of using a mid range card makes sense short term but many people who buy budget CPUs will likely be using them as long as they can, I think a 2080 is more representative of what we'd be using 2-4 generations ahead and as such makes more sense.
I've never seen anything convincing in terms of the theory that large numbers of people swap out GPUs independently of CPUs. I think a lot of people just don't touch anything and replace it all at once. Also, if someone is going to spend hundreds of dollars replacing the GPU, he can spend another $100 or so on a better used CPU as well if he needs it, especially on this platform. Finally, there is a lot more to future game performance than using a high-end GPU on today's games. This is evidenced by how poorly 2c4t and even 4c4t processors have aged in the last 2.5 years.
@@dycedargselderbrother5353 If you think everyone can just double the amount of money they are spending on an upgrade without a thought then you are missing the reason behind budget builds, you upgrade when you HAVE to and the longer between upgrades the better. Myself my partner and our child all have PCs we play games on, I don't have the luxury of refreshing my CPU and graphics card every generation.
A lot of people don't bother building their own PCs, many people will buy prebuilt systems. Actually more people use laptops than PCs, but from AMDs perspective budget parts aren't at all about what large numbers of people do they are about selling off supply that otherwise would've been wasted to help mitigate cost.
@@karlkingofducks5764 And you're missing the point that using a bigger GPU with current (or even old) games to predict future performance in new games is ineffective and not a good way to budget.
Recently bought a 1600 af with a 5700 that I flashed to a 5700 xt, Not regretting it at all after this vid :)
I think I missed my chance. I don't see the 1600 AF for $85 anywhere anymore (and at $150 like most sellers are asking I'd rather just spend $170 on a new 3600).
@@dylanpremo5290 Yeah, seems like a lot of components are going out of stock. Can't find a tomahawk max anywhere
Dylan Premo 150 is ridiculous. I was able to get mine for 85 on amazon early April, I must have purchased it right as it restocked, maybe you could find a 3300x for 120? Has some pretty good single core performance
I take that back, 3600 with the wraith stealth is definitely the way to go haha, especially for 170
I bought a 1600 af two weeks ago from Amazon. It was $109. The day before, it was $85. I went ahead and got it before the price went up even more. I was afraid they had stopped making them, and that the price would never be the same.
That 1600af gonna be value king as long as it’s produced
Once again Greg, another quality video! Thanks for all you do for us!
Thanks for the support!
As someone with two rigs, both running Zen+ (a 2600 and a 1600AF), I very much appreciate the comparison. Seems that six cores is the sweet spot in most instances.
Linus, Jay2cents,Bitwit and you all post at the same time!
That's because the NDA was lifted for the CPU's so everyone wants to release the second that it's lifted..
I love Jay, but a budget build is not an OC RTX 2080, lol
Bcuz youtuber are not allowed to post before the scheduled time .. aaron a phone reviewer mention this.. the 1st review is not a real review this are all good review base on the manufacturer or company brand .. after another scheduled date is the real review of the reviewers and here they will say both good or bad ..
Exactly what I was wondering today thanks Greg; great vid
Thank you so much I was looking for this kind of review for years 😂👍🎉🔥
I have never been so fast! Great video Greg!
Exactly what i was looking for Greg!!
You reviewed my exact setup and answered the exact question I was asking! Thank you!
Excellent channel. I have been looking into AMD for some time. Planning on making my 1st rig for office work, and writing. Channels like these are real deciding factors for me. Hope you're doing well, and please keep bringing us the solid content
man, i still remember the day i watch your videos on how to base oc a skylake cpu. how far have tech and you come
I am currently running a Ryzen 2600 with an EVGA RTX 2060 KO Ultra and 16 gigs of Corsair DDR4 3200Mhz ram. LOVE this setup. :D
HORY SHEEEET O.o THANKS for the review Greg!!!
These are confusing times.
Oh hey man!. Love your content!.
Bruh how u not have a check mark yet lol
which one is better?
@@playdemowithme6636 for work(for example editing, rendering, packaging games) r5 2600
For gaming they are basically the same
Never thought to see you here, love ur vids btw
Is there going to be a comparison between the 3300X and the 2600X?
Thank god, my 4.1Ghz 2600 is still in the game. Phew..
Should i buy 2600 gtx1650 super?
@@slijepcevicnikola7275 go with rx590
@@ryanolsen294 In serbia its 150$ more exspensive then 1650 supee
The Ryzen 3100 will replace my always on PC.
Sorry to ask a stupid question, I have googled this for days and can't find an answer. I have 4400mhz viper ram and want a cpu that can utilise this. I've been told the 1600af wont support this, even with xmp enabled. Will the 3100 support this ram speed?
Hi Greg i want to ask you what's your opinion about overclocking ryzen 3600 or 3700x? i see a lot of peoples overcloking 3600/3700x to 4,2 Ghz, but what's the point to oc if Ryzen 3600/3600x allredy boost all core to 4,2 Ghz/ 4,35 Ghz when you enable PBO? Also i see today Gamer Nexus publish a video Bench about Ryzen 3100 oc to 4,4 Ghz, and they also included in them graphic chart Ryzen 3600 at stock and Ryzen 3600 overclocked at 4,3 Ghz, and from what i see there Ryzen 3600 at 4,3 Ghz gain only 1 FPS over stock frequency in all them games bech? strange:D.
I have an 3600x and with PBO active and with Ryzen balacend power plan all core boost to 4.350 Mhz at 1.475 V while i watching a youtube video, and when i switch to windows balanced power plan all core boost to 4.125 Mhz at 1.260 V while watching a youtube video.
Also i see + 8 C to + 10 C more with ryzen balanced vs windows balanced while watching youtube, so i guess is not worth +200 Mhz for + 8 C so i leave it to windows balanced. (Also when i do full stres prime or cinebench all core boost to 4.150 Mhz in bouth variants ryzen on windows balance power plan).
Good to see you used a reasonable GPU to pair them with. Only the Verge would actually pair a 2080 Ti with a Ryzen 3 3100 and think nothing would be wrong with it.
i just bought a asus tuf gaming B550M-plus and now im looking to get a processor and gpu, I found that the motherboard I bought supports 3rd gen adm ryzen product only i believe? I dont know a lot and Im on a budget and would like to know if the B550M will work with the ryzen 3 3100
if you are reading this in 2024 and only have budget for 1600AF or 2600. go for it. its not that bad. they scale well. do NOT however get a 3100 or ANY quad core ryzen, regardless of budget.
Thanks man this was very helpful! You’ve earned this sub from me🙏
Great video, however the 4k rendering in adobe was only shown once.
I'm about to get my 2600, I will be very grateful if you could tell me if it is good enough for rendering 4k videos... Thanks!
Greg, good idea to show with the 2060. Realistic results. I liked the streaming numbers. Good content.
Bottom line, AMD has a cpu for EVERYONE at EVERY price range.
be careful with overclocking 7nm, it doesnt like static overclocks that much
Yeah please explain me what static overclock means, I'm not an Oc'er so I don't know much about Oc
Mr.Magnificent my 3600 had been on 4.2ghz @1.42v OC with 240mm AIO since pretty much day one, its nearly 8 months now and it is completely fine, i don’t know where people get ideas you can’t oc 7nm
@@lansiman some people that had their 3. gen ryzen 7 overclocked saw their cpus degrading.
Actually Hardcore Overclocking had his ryzen 7 3700X only at 1.35v for a while and it degraded to the point where it crashed at stock clocks.
Also 1.42v for only 4.2ghz isnt a good overclock at all for ryzen 3000
@@riceshard9614 static overclock means all core overclock, the other and better method with ryzen is to change the pbo behaviour
@@riceshard9614 Static OC is a FIXED frequenzy without changes, is not a good OC but its good for OC competitors in sports
Offset voltage is the best OC where you can have more freedom to OC and take the benefit from idle states or base clock (wich reduces power usage)
Is your camera handheld? I can't tell if it's on a tripod or not but the little shakes bother me a bit.
But Greg the 3300x is on a 4+0 while the 3100 is on a 2 + 2 ccx. Wouldn't that make a difference?
Thanks for the realistic aproach sir
So overall would the 2600 be better than the 3100 when it comes up to newer game tittles like warzone?
thanks man,i subed
What´s the best graphics card for ryzen 3 3100?
Counting with the bottleneck
1660 super
I'm planning to use a 3300x for gaming/emulating ps, xbox 360 games. Would it be enough or should I go for a 2600? Thanks!
So i got a 2070 super FE as a gift, was planning to use a 3600X with a tomahawk b450 mobo and 16 gigs of 3600 mhz ram but now with these new gen processors and mobo should i hold off if so any suggestions on a build because i got the GPU part done
I'd hold out for a Ryzen 5 3600 Non-X (there is virtually no reason to spend the extra cash on a 3600X) and a solid B550 motherboard. You're gonna have an upgrade path to Ryzen 4000 and PCI-e 4.0 SSDs which you will be thankful for in the future.
@@blackzfive thanks for the comment, looked more into it so apparently they're moving on with the b550 mobos and the previous gens are not to be supported with the new boards for exactly what you put it as looking towards the future but could they move the older gen processors to the new format?
My ryzen 5 2600 reaches 3.8Ghz with stock cooler and temp of 103C and a best score of 2824Pts on cinebench R20. is the cooler the bottleneck here?
hey Greg, did you use NVENC in your "Streamer-Side" test?
No. I literally said "x264."
@@GregSalazar i mean, you should go with NVENC for streaming. its like modern streamer 101.
For my daily driver, mostly an office PC for light editing and work I chose the 1600AF... futureproof for years (With a GTX 970) For my music studio I use a 2600 (With an old R9 280X, just a display manager), for my main editing machine a 1700x (With an 580 8GB), and as a HTPC a 1200AF (With an R9 380)... so all in a nice budget and it works wonderful! Four beautiful machines for around 4000 dollar... AMD makes me happy!
The real world comparison with the 1600AF while simultaneously gaming & streaming was exactly the question I had. Smart video all the way through.
Should I go for 2600 which is about $125 in my country for a tray type then buy a cpu cooler or should I go for 3600 which is about $210-240?
Please do a video that ryzen 3 3100 + gtx 1660 super.it will bottleneck or not
Would like some I out here, am I the only person who plays games with like 20 Firefox tabs open, watching netflix or RUclips while possibly voice chatting or streaming?, Just no channel seems to run benchmarks in what I'd consider a real world scenario.
I'm still running an FX8350 but it's getting so slow I'm getting frozen videos and system hangs more often when games utilise it 100%. I'm going to upgrade soon and suspect a 1700, 2600 or even 3600 will be my best bet but don't find any examples of how I utilise my hardware to confirm this.
I'm starting to gravitate more toward the earlier gen 8 core part the more I think about this actually, I'd appreciate any input though.
Also just a thought but with these Ryzen 3s being budget parts I think it makes more sense using high end GPUs like an RTX 2080, people who buy budget CPUs often won't be upgrading their build until they are forced to by performance dips, so testing top end GPUs is a good way to tell how well these CPUs will work with GPUs 2-4 years down the line depending upon how much pressure Nvidia is under from AMD to push their limits.
Thank you Gerg, very cool
Thanks for watching.
Damn 😢 Greg is comparing my CPU that I paid $180 for to a $99 CPU. Time to upgrade.
Nah man try the 3300X. It has more differences than you think. It is honestly worth the extra 20$.
Nah man try the 3600. It has more differences than you think. It is honestly worth the extra 50$.
Nah man try the 3600x. It has more differences than you think. It is honestly worth the extra 30$.
Nah man try the 3700x. It has more differences than you think. It is honestly worth the extra 100$.
Nah man try the 3800x. It has more differences than you think. It is honestly worth the extra 30$.
@@PunxTV123 Ok? I was specifically talking about the 3300X since it has decreased latency due to a different core structure.
Which video card did you use
I said what I used in the video...
It's like muda muda muda vs ora ora ora...
Spoiler: 2600 is a Star Platinum
Bro you not only spoiled this video but jojo too
What is this power?
@@monkeyman2728 Stop, nobody have to know that i am a spoilerman.
Stand User:@@OneShootYT
Stand name: spoilerman
So the 3100 can Stop time? Amazing
@@naofumi4358 TRIPLE SPOILER
with regards to gpu pairing..what is best gpu for r5 2600?
in my opinion a 5600xt, if you dont like amd, i would say 1660 super.
is it usual to squish the carbonaut looks like a paste and unable to reuse?or i tighten too hard??
Can i buy one of your old gpu’s? Do you have a 1030 or 1050ti, i just wanna experience playing gta 5. Hope you can sell me a cheap one
why the shaky handheld cam? why not just use a tripod for such a static shot?
Very goodd review Greg. Personally between those two i'd buy the 3100x, i wouldn't benefit of higher core count with lower single core perfomance, i'd rather buy the 3600 but that's not what the video is discussing obviously.
Greg at the end of the video you kind of dismissed the 3300X and I disagree with you there. The 3300X has all 4 cores on one "CCX" (the chiplets in an AMD high core count CPU) while 3100 has two of these CCX chiplets, each of them has 2 cores and the other 2 are fused off. In other words, 3100 is built from two bottom-binned chiplets. The 3300X has a significant edge over the 3100 because of this structural difference. It matters more for pairing with mid-range GPUs, if you're "really and truly budget building" then you're buying a 580 and none of this matters.
In the portuguese market there's no contest, the 3100 wins hands-down: it's at pre-sale for 83€, against the 136 of the 3300X; 1600 AF is at 102, while the 2600 is at 120. I honestly believe the store where I found them (the biggest online store around here) has a pricing error, but oh well... Amazing deal for budget gamers!
Finally the video i've been waiting for
Seems pretty odd that you only managed 4.2 ghz , on my r7 2700x i got all core 4.25 ghz without issues just with ryzen master. I don t know much about overclocking but i expected more with it being zen 2 and having half of the cores
The 3300X and 3100 are VERY DIFFERENT as the former has all the 4 cores in a single CCX and the latter has them in a 2+2 configuration across 2 CCXs. This increases latency between the cores and shows a very significant difference in gaming, as what I've seen in almost all reviews so far, be it LowSpecGamer or Hardware Unboxed.
I believe you should've tested both of them to actually see if there was a difference.
This is the first time I have disliked one of your videos, and trust me I've been watching you from the day you started off, I was ofc just a 'kid' back then. Don't know if you read comments anymore like you used to but yeeeh
I would've came in earlier but time zones lol I am at the opposite end of the globe
Couple points you missed IMO. There is a measurable difference between the 3100 & 3300x at the same clock speed. Why, topology.
3100 is a 2+2 design while the 3300x is one ccx with 4 cores. There are several reviews showing a difference in results when both are clocked at the same speed. 3300X has a reduction in latency using a single ccx design.
On motherboards, AMD announced a 500 series board (B550/X570) will be required for a zen3 (4000 series) CPU. X470, B450, X370 etc will not support the upcoming 4000 CPUs. So there will be a reason to purchase a B550, if you want a 4000 chip that is.
I don't understand, why benchmark with both on OC? That doesnt give people real life comparison, considering not all are willing to OC their chips.
Congrats on over half a million subs Greg!
The clear winner (until the we see what the Intel CPUs can do) to me is the1600 AF IF you can them at MSRP 85 bucks. That chip is a steal. Yea some games won't do as well (as shown) as the 3100. However is it really worth 15 bucks more to gain some performance in some games, I don't think so. I think it is a better all around chip for a cheaper price if you can find them at 85 bucks.
I can get both for the same price which one should I get
this is very freaking good content, respect and thanks
Doesnt the 3300X use a 4+0 CCX instead of 2+2 on the 3100?Surely the infinity fabric latency would give it some extra juice,you should probably test that chip too since you have it hands-on
liked the lighting in the talking head portions. feels like we are out for coffee.
but even if the 3100 and 3300x have the same clock speeds, the 3300x would still come on top with even quite a margin because they have a different ccx and l3 cache layout. imo going for 3300x is a much better choice.
I simply love the way he thinks about REAL user.
Not the one, who will buy the buget CPU because he doesn't have unlimited cash, but for decreasing BOTTLENECK he/she will put 2080ti, just to make sure his/hers BUDGET BUILD isn't compromised ...
Can someone please tell me which one is worth buying? I'm not that much of a pc geek.
Is a 3100 and a RX 5700 a good combo? Will there be any bottlenecks?
i'm getting a rtx 2060 8GB and a ryzen 5 3600 and memeroy 3200 16GB is it good for streaming and recording
yeah
@@JonHunt292 ok
I think the reason why you would also chose some lower mid range gpu is because the sad thing is, we often don't earn much money to begin with. So having something entry level that also beats intel's $400+ cpus is a nice thing. All that for under 500 bucks, and thats the best thing
I literally built a PC with a 1600 and an RTX 2060 right before they went out of stock
Well... I bought the 1600 AF for 95€ (about $103) a few weeks ago. Should I have waited or was that the right choice? (for a RX 5700)
Honestly if you are gaming you should be more than happy
Did you not watch the ending of the video?
Even though it might not make an overall difference in your conclusion, it might have been worth mentioning the CCX and L3 cache layout differences between the 3100 and 3300X.
wait the ryzen 5 2600 and 1600 af are the same?
Give the 3300x a spin, it will probably surprise you, especially if you try a faster graphics card. So perhaps give something like a 5700XT or a 2070 Super a spin with the 3100 and the 3300x both stock and overclocked to the same speed?
The 3300x is NOT just a 3100 with a slightly higher clocks peed, they are actually different internally.
The 3100 uses both CCX in a 2 + 2 core configuration. That means the 16MB cache is split into two 8MB pools, one in each CCX. Any time a core need to access data in that is in the cache on the other CCX there is a latency.
The 3300x on the other hand uses all four cores of one CCX, with all cache in one pool available to all the cores without any latency cost. This improves the performance in most games and a lot of other applications by up to around 20%.
In games with both processors clocked the same the 3300x tend to outperform the 3100 by between 10 and 20 % if they are not running into GPU limitations. For a gamer that's probably the best $20 investment you will find, provided the GPU used isn't limiting the experience. But even then I feel the added performance headroom might be worth it. Note that there are a few (very few) applications that doesn't seem the least bit affected by the latency introduced by the 2 + 2 core configuration of the 3100, but all game benchmarks I've seen show a big difference. Funny thing is that in a couple of games the 3300x is capable of actually beating the 3600 which makes it excellent value if one of those are your favorite title.
Tbh the 6 core cpu is still a smoother experience even against the 3300x simply because of the extra cores.
@@miniweeddeerz1820 Especially true if you are using a lot of background processes. Like to have Chrome open in the background with hundreds of tabs, then yes, more cores a re better. Same with video streaming and such. From the look of things using RTX Voice might put some extra strain on the CPU even though it's supposedly using the GPU for the heavy lifting. But other noise cancellation tech such as Krisp will definitely add to the CPU overhead. And then there is RGB LED software...
But if you are looking for the best gaming bang for the buck the R3 3300X is not a bad choice, especially if it means you can put more money into the graphics card.
@@blahorgaslisk7763 that's true but FPS means nothing if the game doesn't feel responsive or snappy. The 3300x can push out the same FPS as a 3600, but the game will be better to play. So a better gpu might actually not affect much.
As mentioned, thanks for using a mid-range GPU in your testing (no way I'll spend more than $500USD on a GPU).
So what should I get Ryzen 3 or 5
3300x or 2600 for gaming and a little editing. Please tell
Wow! I mean I was expecting some good performance here for the pricepoint but I'm blown away. This gets me even more hyped for the higher end of the new Ryzen generation!
What voltage i must set , if i want 3100 oc 4.3ghz sir?
Thank you
Prices because of the hype still haven't died down. At the time I'm writing this, It IS more sensible to just buy the 2600. Prices for the 3100 are similar to the msrp for the 3300x at launch, and reverse for the 2600.
I’m so sad that the 3100 and 3100x is so expensive right now
@Kenneth Kyle De Luna yeah that’s what I meant
Is there any alternative APU of Ryzen 3100? with same performance.
No
I'm seriously considering as I should go with a 1600 af or a 3900x for a second pc that I will keep exclusively at my office to edit short simple 1080p videos.
I think a video on the 3300X is needed tbh. Gamers Nexus noted a 20% (up to) difference
I just bought a ryzen 3 3100, 16gb 3200mhz ddr4, and a B450 motherboard, I'm so excited to upgrade from my beloved FX 8350 OC'd @4.6Ghz. I know the fanboys will hate me for saying this but if you get an FX 8 series cpu and overclock it, It can still be relevant, The only issue with running AM3+ is that there is nowhere else to upgrade to, and it actually gets slightly cheaper to just go with ryzen. I'm paring the new platform up with my rx 470, should run beautifully at 1080p high settings 60+fps
@John Hooper Well, weather or not the 8350 actually had 8 cores is debatable. But on a processor, Core count means nothing unless each CPU core can perform well individually, The 8350 has pretty bad single core performance, and I gave it a 4.6Ghz overclock to give it at much help as I can. The ryzen 3 3100, is a 4 core 8 threaded cpu, it has much better single core performance. In older games that only utilize a single core, such as Team Fortress 2, the processor actually struggles a little bit and especially while trying to stream the game
@John Hooper Tbh I just wanted to upgrade to the newer AM4 platform, I can also upgrade to way more powerful 6 and 8 core processors down the line if I chose to do so.In cinebench my 8350 gets like 780pt's, and I believe the 3100 gets over 1100
G'day Greg,
Loved the video using a more reasonable priced GPU,
Did you watch the Gamers Nexus R3 3300X vs R3 3100 video, with the EVGA RTX2080Ti the R3 3300X does have an advantage in gaming over the R3 3100 even when OC'd,
at the end of this video you made the comment that you 'Assume' there won't really be a difference in performance so not worth the $20, as someone who loves science I thought you would be like Steve & the G/N team & want to do the real evaluation 😁, so a video with the difference between the 2 R3's with the RTX2060 to see if the difference like the RTX2080Ti is still there,
also comparing them with a GTX1650Super to see if it botlenecks the R3's would be great
1600AF is 149$ right now and the 3300X outperformed both the AF and 2600 for 120$
1600af used to be $85. AMD Reseller prob ran out of stonk
I don’t know if it’s just me but everyone is saying these cpu cost like 99$ or 150$ but now 8 months later the same cpu cost 50-100$ more
You might be pleasantly surprised at the 3300x ‘s performance in gaming+streaming vs the 2600. As pointed out by others, it’s not just the clock speed difference but the improved core-to-core latency due to the 3300X using a single CCX for all cores.
Can you test same with 1660 or 1660 super??.
Do a 3300x review. It’s noticeably faster due to its core architecture being more more unified on its CCX. All the other reviewers have been really hyped about it because it beat the 7700K in many various applications, and is a stellar deal.
In this case using the New NVENC encoder in the 2060KO would more than likely level the playing field - as that's what would be the most recommended to do in this use case. Now if the GPU didn't have the new encoder then yes the 1600AF/2600 would be the route.