The 1200 AF is a Fun Novelty and Potential Value Proposition

Stretching the budget for something like a 3100 would be a long shot, but if you're doing a lot of premiere stuff and still on a strict budget, it might be worth it. The 1200 AF is kind of a fun novelty, with its $80 price tag on Newegg currently. We've seen it on all Dakota at UK, where we had builds, and it's about $70 USD after the conversion, which makes it a better buy than the Athlon 3000 G in that range.

The 1200 AF has improved overclocking ability compared to its predecessor, with clock speeds carried over from San Juan. This is an upside for buyers who want more performance without breaking the bank. In contrast, if you're buying a GPU, the 1200 AF seems fine if it's not too overpriced. However, if it's not $85 or less, then it's not worth considering.

Massive Scaling and Comparison to Original 1200

We can see massive scaling improvements from the original 1200, with better performance in various tests. The 1600 AF is a better choice for budget builds, especially in the sixty to sixty-five dollar range for the CPU. At that point, it's a better buy than the Athlon 3000 G, which has been priced at $50 and $60 lately. If you're looking at a $10 gap between the 1200 AF and the 3000 G, the 1200 AF is a much better part.

However, if you don't need integrated graphics (IGP), the 3000 G is still a better option, despite its higher price. The 1200 AF's advantage lies in a dGPU scenario where you can stretch the budget by $10. But if it's over a $10 price gap, it starts to get really hard to justify, as it encroaches on 3100 territory.

Justification for Buying the 1200 AF

If you see a 1600 AF for $85 again, just buy that instead of questioning it. It's rare and a better value proposition. However, if you're not sure whether to buy the 1200 AF or wait for a price drop, here are some points to consider:

* If you want a less performance-oriented build, the 1200 AF seems fine.

* If you don't need IGP but still want a decent CPU, the 3000 G is a better choice.

* If you're doing a dGPU solution and can stretch the budget by $10, then the 1200 AF is worth it.

The final verdict depends on your specific needs and budget. The author's preference is for the 3100, but if that's out of reach, the 1200 AF becomes an acceptable option.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the 1200 AF has its advantages in certain scenarios, it's not as exciting as the 1600 AF due to pricing. However, if you're on a tight budget and need a cheap CPU without IGP, the 1200 AF is worth considering. Ultimately, buyers should weigh their options carefully and consider their needs before making a decision.

Disclaimer: The author's opinion may vary depending on individual circumstances, and this article is intended to provide general information only. Please consult with experts or conduct your own research before making any purchasing decisions.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enwe're back today with another and the horizon as AF CPU and that's going to be the r3 1200 AF the AF naming got popularity with the 1600 AF and specifically that came about because the skew for the product was a II box for the original versus AF box for the newer one and so the community took to shortening it to AF Amazon and Newegg have caught on because some listings on both sites even official first party listings on new I now list the CPUs as 1600 AF or 1200 AF so good job we did it community the 1200 AF is another that's similar to the 1600 AF refresh where there's some core changes like one of them being a complete shift and process and architecture while maintaining the three-year-old naming so today that's what we're reviewing before that this video is brought to you by e V J's r-tx 2060 kayo we previously reviewed the r-tx 2060 ko model for it's fused down RTX 2080 die that uniquely benefitted blender and some professional applications offering better performance than expected in some pro workloads oil offering usual strong RT x 2060 performance for gaming the RT x 2060 KO also includes the game deliver us the moon for free with EVGA geforce r-tx cards EVGA is actively restocking it's RT x 2060 KO with new ties but she can find a link to the description below when we first reviewed the 1600 AF it was an $85 part and the conclusion in short was that it was a phenomenal price for the component unfortunately everyone else for you that out too and as it was sold out repeatedly the price slowly hiked and now at least that time of writing the script it was $100 at the cheapest on I think it was Newegg it was some legitimate retailer $100 is the cheapest we could find a 1600 AF kind of loses a lot of the novelty at that point and now you're looking at things like a 3100 or 3300 X instead unfortunately so it should be 85 the 1200 AF is in a similar boat though so just recap of the story is that the 1600 AF despite having the risin 5 1600 naming is actually a 2600 CPU and that's because AMD again the short of it is that am the ran out of supply of its original 40 nanometer wafers burned through it didn't have any more orders in the contract and so they've shifted the part which was presumably still desired by someone probably OEMs who wanted specifically the name 1600 still shifted the part to 12 nanometer and Zen Plus which is actually despite Zen plus being kind of a refresh of Zen it's actually a pretty significant change and one of the biggest changes there is the frequency stability with an overclock for all core you've gained 100 to 200 megahertz on average between Zen and zen applause the other major change is things like efficiency in terms of power for the amount of output you're getting and performance versus power consumption and there's some architectural key changes as well that we talked about in the Zen plus announcement video and in the 1600 AF review so we'll keep this one shorter the 1200 AF it's all the same story every single thing that was just stated about the 1600 1/2 it applies here except it's a different CPU so this is a follow-up to the 1200 original it's maybe more similar to horizon 2,300 X from the 2000 series it's part we never actually got to review it came out very late in the game and was more of an OEM part so the 1200 AF is sort of one of those the 1600 AFS 3.2 base and 3.6 boost was relatively close to the r5 2600 3.4 bays and 3.9 boosts stock clocks especially given that the 1600 AF remains almost constantly boosted to 3 point 6 so it's close enough to the 2600 in both stock and overclocked performance that we've always been able to say a 1600 F is a 2600 it's just cheaper on the other hand the 1200 AF and the 2300 X which is OEM only as far as we're aware have a wider gap at 3.1 base and 3.4 boost versus 3.5 base and 4.0 boost so that becomes significant the conclusion we can draw here is that the 1200 AF may be heavily limited by its Zen wan clock speeds that carried over despite moving to Zen + architecture that leaves it considerable overclocking Headroom though there's also a point to consider of the CCX configuration something we talked about with the 3300 and the 3100 CPUs from AMD based on what we know right now our current understanding is that the CPS we have at least ends up in a single four core CCX config for the 1200 AF verse is a 2+2 for the original 1200 now we're not on represent on that because the tools were using we don't have we're looking at rising master and you can see that you can toggle two plus two config for the original 1200 but it uses a different version of rising master and then it's just a single toggle for the 1200 AF so rumors online that look like other people came to the same conclusion either way if it's true if it's a 4 + 0 c CX config then there's some additional room for performance because you're reduced in the CC x - c CX latency which is something we talked about in the 3300 ax review and if it works out that it's not the case then it doesn't matter because we have all the benchmark charts anyway and those show objective performance so let's get into that we'll look at some of the frequency scaling and a bunch of gaming charts with just a couple of production ones thrown in for good measure testing a fork or for thread apart with a three-year-old name and a 2-year old set of infrastructure ironically is a breath of fresh air since for once we don't have to worry about GPU bottlenecking starting out with red dead redemption to using dx12 at 1080p in high settings the 1200 AF hits 57 FPS average not incredible in terms of playing the game but a massive 28% uplift versus the original stock r3 1200 overclocked in the 1200 AF pushed that performance up another large step to 69 FPS average with a 0.1% low of 42 fps that's potentially playable for a budget PC builder these results are well ahead of the - core for thread Athlon 3000 G which averaged only 41 FPS even when overclocked to 4 gigahertz and it's also ahead of the Intel - core four thread Pentium G 5500 the G 5500 is old at this point but the comet Lake G 6500 isn't yet available for sale and even when it does show up it'll still be a 2 core 4 thread part the four core 4 thread I 390 100 F outperforms even the overclocked 1280 F year by 15% at 79 FPS average its lows are about the same as the overclocked 1200 AF just for reference and the presumably $100 for core 8 thread to r3 3100 trances all of them with a 100 FPS average at 4.4 gigahertz OC or 97 FPS average stock since this OC is just for multiplier there's obviously more room if we did some manual tuning again the 3300 X is a better than the 3,100 in a lot of ways but the 3100 is a more appropriate price comparison based on the positioning of the 1200 AF and even then the 1200 AF is all over the place in price and so is the 3100 at stock settings the six core 12 thread 1600 AF approximately tied at the 3100 but overclocking across the higher thread count allows it to beat the 3100 even at 4.2 gigahertz versus 4.4 gigahertz that CPU should be $85 but alas the price is destabilized for the 1600 AF once reviewers got a hold of it so sorry moving to dx12 with medium settings the 1200 AF maintains almost exactly the same FPS for averages as seen in the 1080p test as do most of the other CPUs were comparing here since these are all budget parts GPU bottlenecking at high settings isn't much of a concern as it usually would be for CPU benchmarks and reviews if the question is how it scales with a price appropriate GPU we've done a recent GP bottlenecking test for that that's a different test than a straight CPU comparison and its purpose is to show maximum GPU support before being limited well direct you to our r3 3300 ax bottlenecking P is for more information on thresholds per CPU limitation Three Kingdoms campaign runs the 1200 AF stock CPU at 79 FPS average with low is proportionately behind the overclocked gains an additional 15% in average FPS which makes it worth overclocking actually like most Zen Plus CPUs that have lower starting frequencies this one has plenty of room to grow the original 1200 with an OC is almost equal to the 1200 af stock performance while the 1200 and both 3,000 G results sit closer to the 50 to 64 fps range for average framerate lowest scale proportionately across the board here and without any major dips CPU to CPU at least not outside of the norm the stock 3100 is about tied with the 1280 F with its own overclock while overclocking the 3100 boosts it toward 100 FPS the 1600 AF leads both of these easily and solidifies itself as a great CPU at its original $85 price that we paid retail but good luck getting that today shadow the tomb raider is next the AF upgrade may have made the difference between playable and unplayable performance with this test the original 1200 average of sixty-two FPS and a company in 1% low of 38 FPS boosted up to 92 fps and 57 FPS respectively on the overclocked to 1200 AF the overclocked r3 isn't far behind the 90 100 in this test although the stock 1600 AF yet again far outperforms it at 120 FPS average the 1600 AF and 3100 fight for dominance with similar stock and overclocked averages with the 4.4 gigahertz overclock 3100 holding a technical yet irrelevant lead the 1200 AF is definitely better than the 1200 and if priced similarly it'd be a better buy than the 3000 G if you're not going to use the 3000 G's IGP scaling between the CPUs is still impressive and hitman two but the average FPS numbers are low enough that it may not seem that way 68 FPS average for the 1200 AF verses 58 FPS average for the r3 1209 AF is still a 19% uplift and overclocking it pushes another 15% beyond that the stock 1600 AF ran 94 FPS average in this test and the stock 3102 held at 98 FPS average hitman twos results aren't determined entirely by corn thread count but clearly more than four threads is ideal for this game as usual F 1 2019 proves that it can achieve high frame rates on even the lowest end hardware which leaves plenty of room for differentiation between CPUs the original r3 1200 average 110 fps and the AF increased that by 26% up to 139 FPS average we're accustomed to CPU reviews where 10% scaling is a big deal the 1200 AF is a completely different part though than the original 1200 both in hardware and performance so it's not a typical same generation refresh despite its naming Zen plus was sort of a refresh architectural II but it was a significant process change and made some architectural changes so typically same name refreshes are a frequency change and that's it but this is more than that overclocking to 4.2 gigahertz on the r3 1200 AF raised the average again up to 159 fps a lead over the stock AF of 14% although it's not quite equal to the 90 100 F but it's getting there despite all that the 1600 AF is 33% ahead of the 1200 AF stock versus stock and well ahead even the 1200 AI was over result so these newer games they can make use of more than four threads and they do benefit from the 1600 AF or equivalent the results at 1440p tell the same story the 1200 AF greatly improves performance versus the original 1200 and overclocking has a greater effect than we've seen in a while but the results are still sandwiched between the two core for thread Pentium and the Athlon at the bottom and the four core for thread 90 100 F at the top without reaching the performance level of the higher thread count parts it just ends up sort of middle E the division ii is a relatively new arrival to our cpu test suite at 1080p and these cpus tend to level out at a maximum of 185 FPS while intel levels out at about 200 FPS the 1200 AF fortunately is in no danger of hitting either wall it averages 91 fps at 1080p medium results with a potentially troublesome 0.1% low of 48 FPS for a competitive game anyway that's better than the original r3 1200 which averaged just 76 FPS with 1% in 0.1 percent lows at 47 and 39 threads again matter here the stock 1600 AF operated 74% ahead of the stock 1200 AF and remember that both our Zen Plus same generation CPUs Intel's 4 core for thread i 3 90 100 F is in the same boat as the r 3s only slightly outperforming the overclocks 1200 AF at 109 FPS average vs. 104 moving the 1440p is enough that caused some GP bottlenecking on even the stock 1600 a app which dropped down to 142 FPS average and no longer gained any benefit from overclocking the top of the chart is obviously limited as the 10900 K 10 600 K 99er K are all the same and average although the 10900 K has a distinct advantage and lows that's because of the limits here the other cpus remain below the threshold 4gb limitation and still show some scaling so the 1600 AF retains a still gigantic lead of 61% over the 1200 AF stock for stock yes a price appropriate GPU for the 1200 AF will be the limiting factor in most games but the Gulf in performance between the 1600 AF and 1200 AF in any tasks I can use more than four threads is incredible and the number of those tasks is increasing Assassin's Creed is next all the 1,200 results suffered from frame time spikes in this game with even the overall FPS average not rising above 74 for the overclocked to 1200 AF the stock are 330 100 held 98 FPS roughly equivalent to the overclocked 1600 AF and the overclocks there do 100 ran 103 FPS average that's 39% beyond the over clocks at 1200 AF it's a strong overclocker but it takes more than that to make up the gap between zen to part with SMT and the Zen plus 1200 af it does however nearly tie Intel's lock to 90 100 °f although you shouldn't have bought that to begin with well do a couple of production benchmarks here we ran the whole suite on it but it's a cheap part it's not really meant to do this kind of workload so we're gonna keep it short we got Lee sees blender as a representative benchmark of pure thread scaling for a real workload the stock 1200 AF rendered our monkeyhead file 14% faster than the original 1200 and the overclocked 1200 AF rendered 27% faster than its original the overclocked results are almost on par with the i3 90 100 F but not quite obviously the 1600 F has a huge advantage in any tile-based renderer because I has 12 threads and one tile is spawned for each threat that's as opposed to the 1200 AFS for threats so the stock 1600 AF rendered unsurprisingly 54 percent faster than the stock 1200 AF don't buy a part with 4 cores and no SMT for explicitly doing rendering tasks like this one at least tile-based rendering like this 1 compression and decompression is a much more plausible task with a CPU it's probably something you'll run into in compression the 1200 AF executed 21,000 MIPS to the original 17 km it's and it doubled its gap with an OC to 4.2 gigahertz completing 24 point 4,000 mips the overclocked 1200 AF effectively tied or even slightly outperformed the 90 100 F here for once although the 1600 AF remains so far ahead that it's hardly a comparison at 41,000 mips the Pentium and Athlon are solidly at the bottom of the chart for real course is better than 2 with SMT and the rest of the difference is in veins like frequency and architecture but the threads are a major driver for this one the stack of 1200 results and the 90 100 F line up the same way with decompression for 7-zip but the 1600 AF is an untouchable 144 percent ahead of the 1200 AF stock versus stock and one 31 percent ahead OC versus OC overclocking helps a lot but this remains a thread bound benchmark adobe premiere is next hour 1080p project file doesn't take excessively long to render even on these low core count CPUs the overclocked 1200 AF for example ranked the best result for the 1200s at 8.5 minutes to render the 1600 AF is as much faster percentage-wise here as it ever is but this test is a reminder that not every workload is as massive of a thread bound workload as some of the previous ones sometimes the budget CPUs can cope that is as long as you're not doing this multiple times a day it's okay for a project every now and then if it's a simple one they do struggle to cope with the 4k 60 render and the associated project file though the original 1200 took about 40 minutes to render this video and although the overclocked 1200 AF takes a chunk out of that time at twenty eight point two minutes completion it's nothing compared to the 18 point two minutes stock or 16 point 1 minute overclocked result of the 1600 AF can manage even amateur video editing and production deserves a CPU with more than 4 threads and the 1600 afsoc time at 43% faster than the 1200 AFS makes it clear that this would be the best choice at a similar price if it existed but once again it's a mythical unicorn that will probably never be had at $85.00 again unfortunately still though stretching the budget for something like a 3100 would maybe be worth it if you're doing a lot of premiere stuff and still on a strict budget the 1200 AF is kind of a fun novelty it's it should be cheaper it's about $80 on Newegg right now we've seen it on all Dakota at UK which is where we had builds I'd buy it before it came to the US for us and ship it to us that it was about well it was a little bit cheaper there when we bought it might have been something like 70 USD after the conversion but either way $80 makes it kind of a fun novelty part it's potentially worth it the 1200 I have for budget builds especially in the sixty to sixty five dollar range for the CPU and at that point it's a better buy than the Athlon 3000 G 3000 days should be 50 it's been 60 lately and if the 1200 AF is anywhere close to the 3000 GN price if you're looking at a $10 gap it's a much better part so if you can't stretch to say a 3100 and you're looking at a 3000 G as your only real option the 1200 F is better if you don't need the IGP but the 3000 G has a cheap pretty low end but still integrated graphics processor and if you're not buying a GPU obviously that's your gonna have to go with an APU so 1200 AI was best advantage then is in a d GPU scenario where you can stretch the next with 10 bucks but if it's over a $10 price gap it starts get really hard to justify because now it's encroaching on 3,100 territory if you ever see a 1600 AF for $85 again just buy that instead don't even question it don't look back grab it while you can because it's rare but anything else you're you're kind of looking at a 3100 for the cheapest possible good gaming performer if it's a gaming build you're doing if you want a less performance oriented build 1200 AF seems fine if it's not too overpriced if it's not 85 plus then it's okay but either way we see massive scaling versus the original 1200 we see much improved overclocking ability and here it looks better than it does in others n plus parts because the clocks were carried over from San Juan despite being improved architecture so that's an up side as well and it's something that if you can't afford a 3300 X 3100 or you don't want a 3200 G or something like that and you shouldn't buy the 90 100 F then then it's okay that's kind of where we have to leave it it's not so it's not as exciting as the 1600 AF but we can see a justification for buying the 1200 AF it's just the reason I'm being wishy-washy right now is because the pricing is all over the freaking math lately partly because of supply constraints and availability so to lay it out really clear if the 1600 AF is $85 buy it if the 1200 AF is something like 60 to 70 dollars it's fine wouldn't jump and say buy it because it ten dollars to the assumes price of AF or it's $30 to a 3100 which might be a better choice overall but if you're at like 70 bucks 1200 AF is worth it for a cheap PC build that doesn't need an IG P otherwise by 3000 G for a cheap PC build that does need an IG P we've pretty much killed the 3000 G at this point with a 1200 AF if you're doing a d GPU solution and then 3100 if those prices are not where we just stated they should be you should buy a 3100 at $100 and not more 3300 X is our preference over the 3100 but now you're jumping 50 dollars and that's a lot so 3100 is it's reasonable if this if that's the stretch if it's $100 is the point at which you're stretching the budget that's an okay place to settle and land so that's it for this one thanks for watching subscribe for more go to stored on cameras XS dotnet 2 helps out directly like by grabbing some of our shirts mouse mats on backorder or mod mats and you can go to patreon.com/scishow and access where we just published a new behind the scenes video and we're working on one actually of popping the heat spreaders off of some memory modules with liquid nitrogen something that Stefan Z taught us thanks for watching we'll see you all next timewe're back today with another and the horizon as AF CPU and that's going to be the r3 1200 AF the AF naming got popularity with the 1600 AF and specifically that came about because the skew for the product was a II box for the original versus AF box for the newer one and so the community took to shortening it to AF Amazon and Newegg have caught on because some listings on both sites even official first party listings on new I now list the CPUs as 1600 AF or 1200 AF so good job we did it community the 1200 AF is another that's similar to the 1600 AF refresh where there's some core changes like one of them being a complete shift and process and architecture while maintaining the three-year-old naming so today that's what we're reviewing before that this video is brought to you by e V J's r-tx 2060 kayo we previously reviewed the r-tx 2060 ko model for it's fused down RTX 2080 die that uniquely benefitted blender and some professional applications offering better performance than expected in some pro workloads oil offering usual strong RT x 2060 performance for gaming the RT x 2060 KO also includes the game deliver us the moon for free with EVGA geforce r-tx cards EVGA is actively restocking it's RT x 2060 KO with new ties but she can find a link to the description below when we first reviewed the 1600 AF it was an $85 part and the conclusion in short was that it was a phenomenal price for the component unfortunately everyone else for you that out too and as it was sold out repeatedly the price slowly hiked and now at least that time of writing the script it was $100 at the cheapest on I think it was Newegg it was some legitimate retailer $100 is the cheapest we could find a 1600 AF kind of loses a lot of the novelty at that point and now you're looking at things like a 3100 or 3300 X instead unfortunately so it should be 85 the 1200 AF is in a similar boat though so just recap of the story is that the 1600 AF despite having the risin 5 1600 naming is actually a 2600 CPU and that's because AMD again the short of it is that am the ran out of supply of its original 40 nanometer wafers burned through it didn't have any more orders in the contract and so they've shifted the part which was presumably still desired by someone probably OEMs who wanted specifically the name 1600 still shifted the part to 12 nanometer and Zen Plus which is actually despite Zen plus being kind of a refresh of Zen it's actually a pretty significant change and one of the biggest changes there is the frequency stability with an overclock for all core you've gained 100 to 200 megahertz on average between Zen and zen applause the other major change is things like efficiency in terms of power for the amount of output you're getting and performance versus power consumption and there's some architectural key changes as well that we talked about in the Zen plus announcement video and in the 1600 AF review so we'll keep this one shorter the 1200 AF it's all the same story every single thing that was just stated about the 1600 1/2 it applies here except it's a different CPU so this is a follow-up to the 1200 original it's maybe more similar to horizon 2,300 X from the 2000 series it's part we never actually got to review it came out very late in the game and was more of an OEM part so the 1200 AF is sort of one of those the 1600 AFS 3.2 base and 3.6 boost was relatively close to the r5 2600 3.4 bays and 3.9 boosts stock clocks especially given that the 1600 AF remains almost constantly boosted to 3 point 6 so it's close enough to the 2600 in both stock and overclocked performance that we've always been able to say a 1600 F is a 2600 it's just cheaper on the other hand the 1200 AF and the 2300 X which is OEM only as far as we're aware have a wider gap at 3.1 base and 3.4 boost versus 3.5 base and 4.0 boost so that becomes significant the conclusion we can draw here is that the 1200 AF may be heavily limited by its Zen wan clock speeds that carried over despite moving to Zen + architecture that leaves it considerable overclocking Headroom though there's also a point to consider of the CCX configuration something we talked about with the 3300 and the 3100 CPUs from AMD based on what we know right now our current understanding is that the CPS we have at least ends up in a single four core CCX config for the 1200 AF verse is a 2+2 for the original 1200 now we're not on represent on that because the tools were using we don't have we're looking at rising master and you can see that you can toggle two plus two config for the original 1200 but it uses a different version of rising master and then it's just a single toggle for the 1200 AF so rumors online that look like other people came to the same conclusion either way if it's true if it's a 4 + 0 c CX config then there's some additional room for performance because you're reduced in the CC x - c CX latency which is something we talked about in the 3300 ax review and if it works out that it's not the case then it doesn't matter because we have all the benchmark charts anyway and those show objective performance so let's get into that we'll look at some of the frequency scaling and a bunch of gaming charts with just a couple of production ones thrown in for good measure testing a fork or for thread apart with a three-year-old name and a 2-year old set of infrastructure ironically is a breath of fresh air since for once we don't have to worry about GPU bottlenecking starting out with red dead redemption to using dx12 at 1080p in high settings the 1200 AF hits 57 FPS average not incredible in terms of playing the game but a massive 28% uplift versus the original stock r3 1200 overclocked in the 1200 AF pushed that performance up another large step to 69 FPS average with a 0.1% low of 42 fps that's potentially playable for a budget PC builder these results are well ahead of the - core for thread Athlon 3000 G which averaged only 41 FPS even when overclocked to 4 gigahertz and it's also ahead of the Intel - core four thread Pentium G 5500 the G 5500 is old at this point but the comet Lake G 6500 isn't yet available for sale and even when it does show up it'll still be a 2 core 4 thread part the four core 4 thread I 390 100 F outperforms even the overclocked 1280 F year by 15% at 79 FPS average its lows are about the same as the overclocked 1200 AF just for reference and the presumably $100 for core 8 thread to r3 3100 trances all of them with a 100 FPS average at 4.4 gigahertz OC or 97 FPS average stock since this OC is just for multiplier there's obviously more room if we did some manual tuning again the 3300 X is a better than the 3,100 in a lot of ways but the 3100 is a more appropriate price comparison based on the positioning of the 1200 AF and even then the 1200 AF is all over the place in price and so is the 3100 at stock settings the six core 12 thread 1600 AF approximately tied at the 3100 but overclocking across the higher thread count allows it to beat the 3100 even at 4.2 gigahertz versus 4.4 gigahertz that CPU should be $85 but alas the price is destabilized for the 1600 AF once reviewers got a hold of it so sorry moving to dx12 with medium settings the 1200 AF maintains almost exactly the same FPS for averages as seen in the 1080p test as do most of the other CPUs were comparing here since these are all budget parts GPU bottlenecking at high settings isn't much of a concern as it usually would be for CPU benchmarks and reviews if the question is how it scales with a price appropriate GPU we've done a recent GP bottlenecking test for that that's a different test than a straight CPU comparison and its purpose is to show maximum GPU support before being limited well direct you to our r3 3300 ax bottlenecking P is for more information on thresholds per CPU limitation Three Kingdoms campaign runs the 1200 AF stock CPU at 79 FPS average with low is proportionately behind the overclocked gains an additional 15% in average FPS which makes it worth overclocking actually like most Zen Plus CPUs that have lower starting frequencies this one has plenty of room to grow the original 1200 with an OC is almost equal to the 1200 af stock performance while the 1200 and both 3,000 G results sit closer to the 50 to 64 fps range for average framerate lowest scale proportionately across the board here and without any major dips CPU to CPU at least not outside of the norm the stock 3100 is about tied with the 1280 F with its own overclock while overclocking the 3100 boosts it toward 100 FPS the 1600 AF leads both of these easily and solidifies itself as a great CPU at its original $85 price that we paid retail but good luck getting that today shadow the tomb raider is next the AF upgrade may have made the difference between playable and unplayable performance with this test the original 1200 average of sixty-two FPS and a company in 1% low of 38 FPS boosted up to 92 fps and 57 FPS respectively on the overclocked to 1200 AF the overclocked r3 isn't far behind the 90 100 in this test although the stock 1600 AF yet again far outperforms it at 120 FPS average the 1600 AF and 3100 fight for dominance with similar stock and overclocked averages with the 4.4 gigahertz overclock 3100 holding a technical yet irrelevant lead the 1200 AF is definitely better than the 1200 and if priced similarly it'd be a better buy than the 3000 G if you're not going to use the 3000 G's IGP scaling between the CPUs is still impressive and hitman two but the average FPS numbers are low enough that it may not seem that way 68 FPS average for the 1200 AF verses 58 FPS average for the r3 1209 AF is still a 19% uplift and overclocking it pushes another 15% beyond that the stock 1600 AF ran 94 FPS average in this test and the stock 3102 held at 98 FPS average hitman twos results aren't determined entirely by corn thread count but clearly more than four threads is ideal for this game as usual F 1 2019 proves that it can achieve high frame rates on even the lowest end hardware which leaves plenty of room for differentiation between CPUs the original r3 1200 average 110 fps and the AF increased that by 26% up to 139 FPS average we're accustomed to CPU reviews where 10% scaling is a big deal the 1200 AF is a completely different part though than the original 1200 both in hardware and performance so it's not a typical same generation refresh despite its naming Zen plus was sort of a refresh architectural II but it was a significant process change and made some architectural changes so typically same name refreshes are a frequency change and that's it but this is more than that overclocking to 4.2 gigahertz on the r3 1200 AF raised the average again up to 159 fps a lead over the stock AF of 14% although it's not quite equal to the 90 100 F but it's getting there despite all that the 1600 AF is 33% ahead of the 1200 AF stock versus stock and well ahead even the 1200 AI was over result so these newer games they can make use of more than four threads and they do benefit from the 1600 AF or equivalent the results at 1440p tell the same story the 1200 AF greatly improves performance versus the original 1200 and overclocking has a greater effect than we've seen in a while but the results are still sandwiched between the two core for thread Pentium and the Athlon at the bottom and the four core for thread 90 100 F at the top without reaching the performance level of the higher thread count parts it just ends up sort of middle E the division ii is a relatively new arrival to our cpu test suite at 1080p and these cpus tend to level out at a maximum of 185 FPS while intel levels out at about 200 FPS the 1200 AF fortunately is in no danger of hitting either wall it averages 91 fps at 1080p medium results with a potentially troublesome 0.1% low of 48 FPS for a competitive game anyway that's better than the original r3 1200 which averaged just 76 FPS with 1% in 0.1 percent lows at 47 and 39 threads again matter here the stock 1600 AF operated 74% ahead of the stock 1200 AF and remember that both our Zen Plus same generation CPUs Intel's 4 core for thread i 3 90 100 F is in the same boat as the r 3s only slightly outperforming the overclocks 1200 AF at 109 FPS average vs. 104 moving the 1440p is enough that caused some GP bottlenecking on even the stock 1600 a app which dropped down to 142 FPS average and no longer gained any benefit from overclocking the top of the chart is obviously limited as the 10900 K 10 600 K 99er K are all the same and average although the 10900 K has a distinct advantage and lows that's because of the limits here the other cpus remain below the threshold 4gb limitation and still show some scaling so the 1600 AF retains a still gigantic lead of 61% over the 1200 AF stock for stock yes a price appropriate GPU for the 1200 AF will be the limiting factor in most games but the Gulf in performance between the 1600 AF and 1200 AF in any tasks I can use more than four threads is incredible and the number of those tasks is increasing Assassin's Creed is next all the 1,200 results suffered from frame time spikes in this game with even the overall FPS average not rising above 74 for the overclocked to 1200 AF the stock are 330 100 held 98 FPS roughly equivalent to the overclocked 1600 AF and the overclocks there do 100 ran 103 FPS average that's 39% beyond the over clocks at 1200 AF it's a strong overclocker but it takes more than that to make up the gap between zen to part with SMT and the Zen plus 1200 af it does however nearly tie Intel's lock to 90 100 °f although you shouldn't have bought that to begin with well do a couple of production benchmarks here we ran the whole suite on it but it's a cheap part it's not really meant to do this kind of workload so we're gonna keep it short we got Lee sees blender as a representative benchmark of pure thread scaling for a real workload the stock 1200 AF rendered our monkeyhead file 14% faster than the original 1200 and the overclocked 1200 AF rendered 27% faster than its original the overclocked results are almost on par with the i3 90 100 F but not quite obviously the 1600 F has a huge advantage in any tile-based renderer because I has 12 threads and one tile is spawned for each threat that's as opposed to the 1200 AFS for threats so the stock 1600 AF rendered unsurprisingly 54 percent faster than the stock 1200 AF don't buy a part with 4 cores and no SMT for explicitly doing rendering tasks like this one at least tile-based rendering like this 1 compression and decompression is a much more plausible task with a CPU it's probably something you'll run into in compression the 1200 AF executed 21,000 MIPS to the original 17 km it's and it doubled its gap with an OC to 4.2 gigahertz completing 24 point 4,000 mips the overclocked 1200 AF effectively tied or even slightly outperformed the 90 100 F here for once although the 1600 AF remains so far ahead that it's hardly a comparison at 41,000 mips the Pentium and Athlon are solidly at the bottom of the chart for real course is better than 2 with SMT and the rest of the difference is in veins like frequency and architecture but the threads are a major driver for this one the stack of 1200 results and the 90 100 F line up the same way with decompression for 7-zip but the 1600 AF is an untouchable 144 percent ahead of the 1200 AF stock versus stock and one 31 percent ahead OC versus OC overclocking helps a lot but this remains a thread bound benchmark adobe premiere is next hour 1080p project file doesn't take excessively long to render even on these low core count CPUs the overclocked 1200 AF for example ranked the best result for the 1200s at 8.5 minutes to render the 1600 AF is as much faster percentage-wise here as it ever is but this test is a reminder that not every workload is as massive of a thread bound workload as some of the previous ones sometimes the budget CPUs can cope that is as long as you're not doing this multiple times a day it's okay for a project every now and then if it's a simple one they do struggle to cope with the 4k 60 render and the associated project file though the original 1200 took about 40 minutes to render this video and although the overclocked 1200 AF takes a chunk out of that time at twenty eight point two minutes completion it's nothing compared to the 18 point two minutes stock or 16 point 1 minute overclocked result of the 1600 AF can manage even amateur video editing and production deserves a CPU with more than 4 threads and the 1600 afsoc time at 43% faster than the 1200 AFS makes it clear that this would be the best choice at a similar price if it existed but once again it's a mythical unicorn that will probably never be had at $85.00 again unfortunately still though stretching the budget for something like a 3100 would maybe be worth it if you're doing a lot of premiere stuff and still on a strict budget the 1200 AF is kind of a fun novelty it's it should be cheaper it's about $80 on Newegg right now we've seen it on all Dakota at UK which is where we had builds I'd buy it before it came to the US for us and ship it to us that it was about well it was a little bit cheaper there when we bought it might have been something like 70 USD after the conversion but either way $80 makes it kind of a fun novelty part it's potentially worth it the 1200 I have for budget builds especially in the sixty to sixty five dollar range for the CPU and at that point it's a better buy than the Athlon 3000 G 3000 days should be 50 it's been 60 lately and if the 1200 AF is anywhere close to the 3000 GN price if you're looking at a $10 gap it's a much better part so if you can't stretch to say a 3100 and you're looking at a 3000 G as your only real option the 1200 F is better if you don't need the IGP but the 3000 G has a cheap pretty low end but still integrated graphics processor and if you're not buying a GPU obviously that's your gonna have to go with an APU so 1200 AI was best advantage then is in a d GPU scenario where you can stretch the next with 10 bucks but if it's over a $10 price gap it starts get really hard to justify because now it's encroaching on 3,100 territory if you ever see a 1600 AF for $85 again just buy that instead don't even question it don't look back grab it while you can because it's rare but anything else you're you're kind of looking at a 3100 for the cheapest possible good gaming performer if it's a gaming build you're doing if you want a less performance oriented build 1200 AF seems fine if it's not too overpriced if it's not 85 plus then it's okay but either way we see massive scaling versus the original 1200 we see much improved overclocking ability and here it looks better than it does in others n plus parts because the clocks were carried over from San Juan despite being improved architecture so that's an up side as well and it's something that if you can't afford a 3300 X 3100 or you don't want a 3200 G or something like that and you shouldn't buy the 90 100 F then then it's okay that's kind of where we have to leave it it's not so it's not as exciting as the 1600 AF but we can see a justification for buying the 1200 AF it's just the reason I'm being wishy-washy right now is because the pricing is all over the freaking math lately partly because of supply constraints and availability so to lay it out really clear if the 1600 AF is $85 buy it if the 1200 AF is something like 60 to 70 dollars it's fine wouldn't jump and say buy it because it ten dollars to the assumes price of AF or it's $30 to a 3100 which might be a better choice overall but if you're at like 70 bucks 1200 AF is worth it for a cheap PC build that doesn't need an IG P otherwise by 3000 G for a cheap PC build that does need an IG P we've pretty much killed the 3000 G at this point with a 1200 AF if you're doing a d GPU solution and then 3100 if those prices are not where we just stated they should be you should buy a 3100 at $100 and not more 3300 X is our preference over the 3100 but now you're jumping 50 dollars and that's a lot so 3100 is it's reasonable if this if that's the stretch if it's $100 is the point at which you're stretching the budget that's an okay place to settle and land so that's it for this one thanks for watching subscribe for more go to stored on cameras XS dotnet 2 helps out directly like by grabbing some of our shirts mouse mats on backorder or mod mats and you can go to patreon.com/scishow and access where we just published a new behind the scenes video and we're working on one actually of popping the heat spreaders off of some memory modules with liquid nitrogen something that Stefan Z taught us thanks for watching we'll see you all next time\n"