AMD Ryzen 3 3300X – when cheaper Matisse is not enough

Intro

The duel of Ryzen 3 3100 and Intel Core i3-10100 processors showed that AMD can beat Intel in most tests at a lower price. However, the R3 3100 is not the only new model introduced by the manufacturer. The 3300X is more powerful, with higher clock speed and, coincidentally, it also sells for the same price as the Ci3-10100. In addition to significantly higher clock speed, it also has different CCD composition.

Basic specs


Ryzen 3 3300X was released at the same time as the 3100 and represents the top model in Ryzen 3 series. Paper parameters show up to 400 MHz higher clock speed and a higher price which is at the level of Intel Core i3-10100. However, if the difference was only the clock speed, the 3300X would probably not be bought by anyone, as it would be enough to slightly overclock the 3100.

However, the difference between the processors is also below the surface, and this is quite significant. It results from different configurations of chiplets in the CCD. While the 3100 has two active CCXs with two cores, a 2 + 2 configuration, the 3300X uses only one full-featured CCX with 4 cores and thus a 4 + 0 configuration. Thanks to the fact that all 4 cores are also 16 MB L3 cache in one CCX, the 3300X offers better core-to-core latency and therefore theoretically also higher performance. It will be interesting to see how much these changes will be reflected in our tests.

Testing methodology

We tested the processors at home, not in a laboratory environment. Nevertheless, the effort was made for the most accurate results. These are therefore the average of the measured values from repeated tests. We tried to eliminate factors that would affect performance in addition to the processor itself and the motherboard. We used the same components in both cases. The idea of all tests was to use base settings and turning on XMP, no other adjustments were made. This is how most users will actually function.


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Flattr this!

Duel of processors: AMD Ryzen 3 3100 vs. Intel Core i3-10100

A year has passed since the introduction of AMD’s Ryzen third generation, but the product line was still not complete. We were waiting for the lowest line to be refreshed with the designation Ryzen 3. In the meantime, the 10th generation of Intel Core processors has been released, including new i3 SKUs. We got novelties from both manufacturers, namely Ryzen 3 3100 and Core i3-10100. Which one is better? Read more “Duel of processors: AMD Ryzen 3 3100 vs. Intel Core i3-10100” »

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Intel Core i7-10700K: lower digit, lower price, higher performance?

In the latest Core i9-10900K test, we found it to be great for high fps games, but the power draw, price and performance are not as good as the competition, AMD, offers. Intel still maintained its lead in games, but the 10900K is definitely not an ideal processor. If games are your priority, the alternative may be the Core i7-10700K which is actually just a redesignated and slightly modified Core i9-9900K. Read more “Intel Core i7-10700K: lower digit, lower price, higher performance?” »

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

ClockTuner for Ryzen auto-tunes performance and power draw

Overclocking and tweaking performance on Ryzen is not an easy thing because, compared to the automatic boost, it cannot often squeeze too much extra and silicon does not have large reserves. But if you are not satisfied with a “stock” processor, you will now be able to use automated OC. The new ClockTuner tool will allow you to automatically undervolt Ryzen 3000 CPUs or automatically overclock them, separately for both CCX blocks. Read more “ClockTuner for Ryzen auto-tunes performance and power draw” »

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

One comment Add comment

  1. Sorry you spent time on this.Can you find one for 120 dollars.Im starting to feel amd raging like intel used 2.Gak I should have stayed blue.Bought an a320 with a 3200g to see what the craz was about.Was not bad.I now have the 3200 in a gigabyte b550 and again not bad https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/33156011.Now i see the cheap cpu is no longer cheap.Iwish i had just gone 9400f.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *