CP is Pose a Real Threat to Intel i3 Lineups: The G45 6P Holds Strong at the Cheaper Price Point

The recent release of AMD's Ryzen 3 series has been a significant threat to Intel's i3 lineup. However, not all Ryzen 3 CPUs are created equal. While the R3 1200 is a capable CPU, it lacks the performance of its higher-end counterparts. In contrast, the G45 6P, which is priced lower than the R3 1200, holds strong in terms of performance. This makes it an attractive option for those looking to save money without sacrificing too much performance.

The R3 1200's Performance in Gaming Tests and Blender Rendering

In gaming tests, the R3 1200 performs well, but not exceptionally so. It outperforms the R3 1100 in some games, but falls short of the R3 1300 X in others. However, when it comes to blender rendering, the R3 1300 X takes the lead, demonstrating its superiority over the R3 1200 and even the higher-end i5-7600K. This shows that while the R3 1200 may be a good all-around CPU, it's not the best choice for tasks that require high performance.

The Impact of the IGP on Gaming Performance

One significant advantage of using an Intel i3 CPU is its Integrated Graphics Processing Unit (IGP). While AMD's Ryzen 3 CPUs also have IGPs, they are not as powerful. By using an Intel i3 CPU and a dedicated graphics card, users can save money while still enjoying good gaming performance. This makes the R3 1200 an attractive option for those on a budget.

Upgrade Pathways: A Key Consideration

For those planning to upgrade in the future, AMD's Ryzen platform offers a wider range of options than Intel's. With new CPUs and motherboards being released regularly, users can easily switch between different platforms without worrying about compatibility issues. This makes it a good idea to consider upgrading to an AMD CPU like the R3 1200 if you're looking for flexibility in the long term.

Power Consumption: A Key Differentiator

In terms of power consumption, the R3 1200 is more efficient than its Intel i3 counterparts. This can lead to cost savings over time, especially for those who plan to use their CPU for extended periods without overclocking. However, if you do plan to overclock your CPU, it's essential to note that the R3 1200 may require a higher TDP (thermal design power) than expected.

Cooling: A Key Concern

Unfortunately, the stock cooler on the R3 1200 is not very effective. Even at moderate clock speeds, it can lead to thermal shutdowns. This makes it essential to use a third-party cooling solution or repurpose an old cooler to ensure stable operation. While this may require additional investment, it's worth considering if you plan to overclock your CPU.

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 X: A Superior Option

In the higher-end segment, AMD's Ryzen 5 1600 X is a clear winner over Intel's i5-7600K. This CPU offers superior performance in gaming and content creation tasks, making it an excellent choice for those who need high-performance processing power.

Comparison of the R3 1200 and i3 CPUs

The R3 1200 competes well with Intel's i3 CPUs, but ultimately falls short in terms of performance. However, if you're on a tight budget, the R3 1200 may be a good option. Its lower price point makes it an attractive choice for those who don't need extreme performance. Additionally, its power efficiency and upgrade pathways make it a more future-proof option.

Editor's Choice Award: Ryzen 5 1600 X

The Ryzen 5 1600 X has earned our Editor's Choice Award due to its exceptional performance and value for money. This CPU offers superior performance in gaming and content creation tasks, making it an excellent choice for those who need high-performance processing power.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the AMD Ryzen 3 series is a strong competitor to Intel's i3 lineup. While not all Ryzen 3 CPUs are created equal, the R3 1200 holds its own against its higher-end counterparts. Its lower price point and power efficiency make it an attractive option for those on a budget. Additionally, its upgrade pathways offer flexibility in the long term. However, if you're looking for extreme performance or high-end features, other options like the Ryzen 5 1600 X may be more suitable.

Next Article: AMD Ryzen 3 1200 Review

As always, stay tuned for our next article, where we'll dive deeper into the world of AMD's Ryzen 3 series and review the R3 1200 in greater detail. Be sure to check out our Patreon page and subscribe to our channel for more content like this.

Patreon: patreon.com/gamersystem

Subscribe to our channel: youtube.com/gamersystem

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enambi is rising three CPUs are in for reviews starting with the $130 r3 1300 X CPU a fork or four thread units at 2.5 gigahertz base and 3.7 boost the r3 1300 X competes most directly with the Intel i3 line where Intel Zone G 4560 already strikes hard this lands the r3 at 1300 X pricing about 20 dollars below nearby i3 CPUs at about 40 to 50 dollars below nearby r5 CPUs today we're looking at the r3 1300 x4 thermal power gaming performance and some production workloads before that this is brought to you by EVGA s at CLC 280 liquid cooler for CPUs which we previously benchmarked and found to be a high performer given its relative silence the temperature output learn more about this $140 cooler at the link in the description below and immediately before even getting into numbers the effects of the r3 CPUs can be felt the i3 70 to 50 K let CPU that we previously said was good had great ideas but had a terrible price when it launched is not $150 that's a pretty big change in price and it was originally in the 180 territory at which point you really might as well have bought an i-5 when it came out or later in r5 as we said in our review of the are 5s but now at 150 that's a big difference and that change is almost certainly because of the pressure felt at the lower end and mid-range markets placed by AMD with the r5 s and now with the r3 CPUs coming out today so that's immediate noticeable and that's an important thing the 1750 K is therefore a somewhat comparable product in terms of price it's $20 more than the closest r3 CPU the 1300 X and the 7300 is actually now about the same price as the 70 250 K on all major US retailers that we've checked both being around $150 or previously it was 150 and 180 for those two SKUs the r3 1200 review is the other counterparts to the 1300 X we're reviewing today and we do have a separate review for that one it will go up probably tomorrow so subscribe to that if you want to catch that one today though we're focusing entirely on power thermals and gaming performance with some production workloads on the 1300 X it's enough to focus on for one thing including tests on the stock cooler so we tested the stock that's shipped with the unit and tested it in stock CPU configuration with a torture workload and Prime and a realistic workload and blender and into the same two workloads for an overclock configuration we'll get through those results today as well as some power testing done at the EPS 12-volt cables coming out of power supply directly rather than using wall meter measurements so that improves our accuracy greatly to a point where plus or minus 2% basically so let's get into all that will start with power for the testing methodology for all the stuff you can check the link in the description below to the article that covers the testing that we're doing and then has additional benchmarks and charts in the article that won't be in this video just for time purposes and length of the video we have a bunch more synthetic tests that will be in there on with some extra thermal and power tests looking at power first under idle Windows 10 conditions the and the r3 1300 x stock Seaview consumes about 3.7 watts with plus or minus 2 percent error for comparison the Intel i3 73 50k is showing 4.9 watts or about 7 watts when overclocked keep in mind that this is the first time we're really adding the EPS 12 volt power readings for CPUs so that means these charts are sparse we are well aware of that and are adding things as we go these will grow with time as always moving on to a blender workload blender consume the 42 watts for the stock 3100 X with an overclocking increasing power consumption 252 watts that's about a 24% power consumption increase for what we later find out to be a 4.6 percent render time reduction the i3 72 50k meanwhile consumes about 29.5 watts during this workload with the overclocked growing power consumption to 49 point 2 watts the 1750 K appears to be less power Andriy than the r3 1300 X as of now moving on to a fire strike physics test shows us some gaming workloads placing the 70 350 K at 22 watts 1300 X at thirty eight watts consumption at EPS 12 volt again with the overclock 1750 K at 39 point 4 Watts when on a 1.3 5 volt V Corps the 1300 X pushes to 47 watts when requires as well within 0.1 volt offset total war Warhammer is our real gaming workload the 7250 Capo's 23 watts to run this game with the 1,300 X at 42 watts stock overclocking increases their power consumption metrics to 54 watts on the 1300 x + 58 watts on the 70 to 50k with prime95 l FFT is version 28 point 5 we observed a power consumption of 39 watts on the 70 50k and 56 point six watts on the r3 1300 X with the overclocked counterparts at 59 and 64 watts respectively the additional power consumption metrics in the article link below next with thermals we've completely overhauled our thermal testing procedure for CPUs this is also brand-new and so this one starts out with just the stock cooler performance or expanding this for a feature piece tune and it will recap all the CPUs with our new testing or at least all the major ones along with the stock cooler testing for each of those note that we ran all of our actual testing with the standard X 62 that we always use so no thermal throttling occurred as for the stock cooler operating temperature landed at 59 Celsius when executing a blender workload with the stock configuration and max fan speed that's definitely getting up there but not deadly yet prime95 29.2 with 8k sizes burned at 74 C which is rapidly approaching the 85 C shutdown threshold that we encountered when running the stock core with our overclock so the stock cooler could not sustain our overclocks at all it would just thermal crash eventually from a shutdown temperature of around 85 Celsius depending on what we were doing and how quickly the thing heated up this also produced some interesting power leakage numbers and you can look at the stock not overclocked temperatures the best for that because the overclocked one just didn't survive long enough to really show any power leakage as other than just a runaway and eventual shutdown scenario but this shows the over time plot of power consumption as we draw more power from higher thermals and just leakage overall with these stock configuration 30 and X and the stock cooler before we get into gaming performance let's take a look at blender animation render and premiere in code times with our in-house blender testing the Andy risin are three thirteen hundred ex stock CPU with no overclocked completes the render in eighty nine dot two minutes the CP is ranked just ahead of an these are once flagship FX 83-70 and that's stock and just behind Intel's Nehalem i7 930 CPU or about eight point six percent behind the i5 2500 k overclocked to four point five gigahertz similarly and just for historical context really the are three CPU the 1300 X is behind the Phenom 2 X 6 CPU overclock switch sit around 81 minutes compared more reasonably to the recent generation products the r3 1300 X CPU completes its render about 2 minutes faster than the stock I 373 50k for a time reduction of 2.3 percent overclocking the r3 1300 X results in a render time reduction of 4.6 percent from stock r3 setup or 6.8 percent from the stock 73 50k overclocking me 72 50 K to 5 gigahertz boost its speed to about seventy eight point three minutes reducing render time by 12.2% from the overclocked 1300 X using an r5 CPU would net a significant boost as shown here will highlight a couple of them if CPU rendering on a budget is in your use cases you should really consider stepping up to an r5 series CPU they make a whole lot more sense for this type of task and they're good performers overall the extra $40 for a low-end unit would be worth it in this case but ideally if you can stretch the bit higher SKU then it might be worthwhile for a budget rendering machine as our three ultimately suffers from only having four threads available that said if you use CUDA for everything anyway then it doesn't matter quite as much speaking of CUDA rendering a 1080p at 60 AVCHD source video into a video card review with Adobe Premiere takes 156 minutes on the rs3 1300 x1 overclocked to 4 gigahertz so it's 2.5 hours to finish the render the 1500 X stock CPU reduces this time requirement by 19% we didn't bother running the test stock on the 13 out of X because it just would take far too much time to be worth it at this point you really shouldn't be using these products in this manner anyway premier is not as good of a use case for the r3 CPU does for the r5s previously don't be talked into thinking that the r3 will suffice for any meaningful production work in Adobe Premiere either rendering can be drastically accelerated by CUDA in some instances like an hour test but that doesn't help with certain types of effects or some preview playback although it is possible to use an r3 CV for this task we would strongly recommend purchasing something better suited for video production if that's the desire r7 1700 is a good place to look for a more professional outfit where you make some money or maybe the r5 again there's something where it's more of a hobby we have additional synthetic and production testing in the article so you can check the link in the description below for Cinebench multi-threaded and single threaded pov-ray fire strike and time spy and I believe a couple others are down there as well with the power testing that wasn't covered here now though we're going to move into gaming for the r3 1300 X started with total war Warhammer first note that items containing asterisks have been rerun with the most recent version of total war hammer which we plotted previously in our eyes and revisit coverage as improving fps by several percentage points on both AMD and Intel CPUs all the relevant units were updated for this review and previously we found that the performance uplift for Rison when this game updated derived from the game update itself which also benefited intel so it wasn't just some arbitrary BIOS update or something like that that just magically fixed performances actually developers waking up and using the extra threads and optimizing their game code the MDR 3 1300 x stock cpu performs at an average frame rate of 118 FPS with low that's seventy one one percent and 65 G over one percent the closest current gen neighbor is the i3 7300 stock CPU at 128 FPS average with low as compare ibly times given that these 70 370 250k have both been at $150 for a while now we can nicely look to the 72 50k style performance at 134 FPS average this plans to the seventy three hundred and seventeen fifty K eight percent and 13 percent ahead of the 1300 X stock CPU respectively the 7300 is it locked so that's the end of its performance overclocking the 1300 x2 4.1 gigahertz permits the r3 CPU under test today those are past the 7300 in-game performance with this title that's everything 50k o'clock to 5 gigahertz boost to 150 FPS average leading the 1300 x OC by 16% in average FPS with lows also ahead in the total war update battlefield 1 is next and is also on the list of titles that received an update boosting both Intel and and the performance following the rise and launch in this game the 1300 X operates an average FPS of 110 which places our 3tu ahead of the FX 8270 and i7 930 by about 14% the G 4560 leads the r3 1300 x stock CPU by about 2% battlefield 1 has routinely shown strong performance on these Intel CPUs so this isn't all that surprising overclocking the 1300 X bolsters performance to 116 FPS average and that's a gain of 5.9% over stock performance for those keeping track this lands the 1300 x OC around the 2500 K and for a current gen comparison instead the 7300 cpu averages 125 FPS for the 14% lead at gains over the stock 1300 X and 7.8% Lita gains over the overclocked 1300 X looking to the 1750 K which receives its price drop almost certainly because of rising 3s launch and so Verizon 3 is already doing its job prevalent leads by 17% at 128 FPS average stock or 17% when both these 70 250 K and 1300 XR overclocked watchdogs 2 has proven to be a heavily multi-threaded game and has benefited from iron core and thread counts in the past but also cares about the frequency still as most games do here's the r3 1300 X CPU operates at 51 FPS average stock with lows at 41% and 32.5 0.1% overclocking to 4.1 gigahertz gets us an improvement of 7.3% now at 50 4.5 FPS average instead this plants the i3 6300 right between the r3 1300 X stock and overclocked values at this before FPS average and runs the 1300 X stock CPU behind the 7300 block CPU by 16 percent that's pretty comparable to what we've been seen in the rest of the test so far overclocking closes of the 7300 lead 27.9% the 72 50k stock CPU manages 66 FPS average for a lead of 30% stock over the 1300 X and our talking doesn't do much for the 1750 KS performance here it's already quite high that we do gain another couple of frames per second ashes of the singularity is mostly treated as a synthetic benchmark in our test at this point and so isn't really a game scenario which is really useful scenario we most need to understand scallion particularly with a well optimized DX well title the r3 1300 x5 CPU operates at 21 FPS average placing it between the i3 6300 to nfx 83-70 the i3 7300 CPU operates 5.7 percent faster and over fog in the 13 100x to four point one gigahertz boosts it beyond the seventy three hundred by three percent the 1750 K stock CEO outperforms the 1300 actor overclocked Seaview marginally though sustains better low-end performance and over parking the study 350 K boosts it to 16% ahead of the 1300 X overclocked which again remains consistent with previous tests is about the same spacing as we've been seen for more gaming benchmarks additional power and thermal tests and synthetics be sure to check the full written review that's the link of the description below again this contains a couple of extra game at charts starter three TVs are interesting they're not quite as clear-cut a decision as the r5 T P is where we've more or less said buy these instead of the i5 s going forward unless asterisks some special situation applies these though are interesting primarily because they've already forced Intel to respond with the 30 to 50 K price reduction or at least they contributed to that response and that's helpful the 180 price point previously was just untenable this makes the 1750 K a real competitor it's not too distant in price now and it's unlocked whereas the 7,300 priced out the same on Newegg and Amazon for us buyers is locked and just not as good period and same price so we can kind of forget about that one until a point that was the 30 to 50 K changes in price whether it's every 300 drops in price at which point we evaluate our charts because they have the data for you if you need it so the 1750 K is interesting Anthea 1300 ex runs a $130 price target this makes it 20 dollars cheaper than the 70 to 50 K it is a reasonable performer in games if generally behind the 70 to 50 K and the 7300 again generally speaking so it manages a decent performance overall but it's still a little bit behind in performs and a production synthetic type workloads the 1,300 acts isn't as impressive as the higher-end r5 CPUs where you have more cores and threads and so they perform better the 1,300 acts ultimately is a fork or four thread parts and if it's competing against other four core or four thread parts even if there are two core and four threads really it's going to be closed it just comes down to frequency at that point and other potential architectural optimizations or software level optimizations because at that point you don't have the brute force power of something like a 1,700 where you've got way more threads and just will clearly dominate and attest that as thread limited so again some 70 350 K something like blender just doesn't make the 1300 X look as good as the blender tested for previous launches like the r5 CPUs versus the very thread and court limited I 5 CPS by comparison that means that for our perspective on this if you are actually serious about doing something with production other than just brandishing the results to say this is what the CPU does we would recommend that you strongly consider an r5 if you're looking at an r3 and considering using it for blender it probably means that you're on a pretty tight budget if that's the case if you can manage to shore up another $40 or $60 and you're not going to benefit from something like CUDA acceleration that much then we'd recommend going for an r5 not an i-5 and r5 to be clear if you can't afford that just look at our benchmarks and all the other ones and try and piece together what makes sense for you ultimately the r3 CP is pose a real threat to Intel i3 lineups the g45 6p holds strong at the cheaper price point but the r3 doesn't challenge in that territory the i3 is however have already been weakened by Intel's own G 45 60 and now by ambe's our threes the i3 70 50k is a superior CPU and nearly all the gaming tests and manages to hold a lead in blender rendering on to overclock but not stock stock the 1300 X outperforms the 1750 K in our blender test the next major differentiator is the IGP if that's of interest cost can be saved by going with the Intel i3 part it's actually using the IGP and not just letting it sit there with a d GPU this helps hold the line for SI we're an IGBT might be preferred forbids client type systems so we may see AMD growth in that market sector which is certainly important for gaming builds that's not much of a concern and the r3 1,300 X can help save $20 by cutting the IDP and then resorting to a d GPU for your gaming performance as for the stock cooler it's not terribly loud so Andy is at least done decently there unfortunately it's also not terribly good it's it's actually kind of bad so if you're doing any kind of overclocking at all just get rid of this immediately repurpose it as perhaps a hockey puck and then get a real cooler even if it's a $20 cooler because we were seeing thermal shutdowns at 1300 X when overclocking it to our anywhere really in the 3.9 to 4 point 1 gigahertz range even was as low as an offset of 0.1 volts with a with a voltage offset so it's the plan is to overclock and you can gain a decent amount of performance from overclocking so we would encourage it within normal warranty reason them and not slowing things up then get a better cooler otherwise if you don't plan the overclock it's not terrible it'll keep the thin alive it won't scream like some of the other coolers that intel has made in the past and AMD to be fair but it's not very good so this is the kind of thing you replace a little bit later maybe after the thermal compound has turned into thermal concrete anyway and you need to replace it with a better cooling solution the R 3 CPUs compete well we still think that AMD estranja is in the r5 territory so the r5 1600 1600 XR the most interesting to us we gave the r5 1600 X an Editors Choice Award and highly recommended it over the i-5 7600 K at its price point so those still have our interest primarily not everyone can afford those and that's fine at that point it makes little sense to buy an i-5 you're looking at our 3s and i3 s our threes round out an T's pack and now it's basically are you gaming or do you have I don't know it's even even outside the gaming scenarios now you're looking at four threads versus four threads so in something like blender it just doesn't matter just whatever clocks higher and has better optimization it's going to win so it just it comes down to does the r3 offer something specifically you want maybe there some sort of power reason you'd want it or maybe you have platform reasons if you want a m4 rather than an Intel platform there's a potential argument that you have a wider length for upgrade pathways by going in for so if the plan is to buy low in CPU like an i3 or an r3 and you're looking to the distant future then potentially the amp or platform will get you further with the next den launch because if you're trying to stick with the same platform same everything same LS will be a lot easier to drop into CPU that's the valid reason to go our three instead of i3 at this point even though the i3 is pushing better performance in gaming workloads and things like that so that's an item to think about upgrade pathways saving a couple bucks $20 cheaper and potentially ending up with a cooler that's not terrible unless you're overclocking so that could save you some money as well but that's all for this one as always check the article below for more information there's a lot more in there especially on the power side and subscribe for more the r3 1200 review is next and we'll be on our channel as soon as we can get it done as always patreon.com slash gamers Nexus to help stop directly gamers Nexus squarespace.com to pick up a shirt like this one this is the GN Graff logo I'll see you all next time the ISIS however have been weakened we get isolated having a weekendambi is rising three CPUs are in for reviews starting with the $130 r3 1300 X CPU a fork or four thread units at 2.5 gigahertz base and 3.7 boost the r3 1300 X competes most directly with the Intel i3 line where Intel Zone G 4560 already strikes hard this lands the r3 at 1300 X pricing about 20 dollars below nearby i3 CPUs at about 40 to 50 dollars below nearby r5 CPUs today we're looking at the r3 1300 x4 thermal power gaming performance and some production workloads before that this is brought to you by EVGA s at CLC 280 liquid cooler for CPUs which we previously benchmarked and found to be a high performer given its relative silence the temperature output learn more about this $140 cooler at the link in the description below and immediately before even getting into numbers the effects of the r3 CPUs can be felt the i3 70 to 50 K let CPU that we previously said was good had great ideas but had a terrible price when it launched is not $150 that's a pretty big change in price and it was originally in the 180 territory at which point you really might as well have bought an i-5 when it came out or later in r5 as we said in our review of the are 5s but now at 150 that's a big difference and that change is almost certainly because of the pressure felt at the lower end and mid-range markets placed by AMD with the r5 s and now with the r3 CPUs coming out today so that's immediate noticeable and that's an important thing the 1750 K is therefore a somewhat comparable product in terms of price it's $20 more than the closest r3 CPU the 1300 X and the 7300 is actually now about the same price as the 70 250 K on all major US retailers that we've checked both being around $150 or previously it was 150 and 180 for those two SKUs the r3 1200 review is the other counterparts to the 1300 X we're reviewing today and we do have a separate review for that one it will go up probably tomorrow so subscribe to that if you want to catch that one today though we're focusing entirely on power thermals and gaming performance with some production workloads on the 1300 X it's enough to focus on for one thing including tests on the stock cooler so we tested the stock that's shipped with the unit and tested it in stock CPU configuration with a torture workload and Prime and a realistic workload and blender and into the same two workloads for an overclock configuration we'll get through those results today as well as some power testing done at the EPS 12-volt cables coming out of power supply directly rather than using wall meter measurements so that improves our accuracy greatly to a point where plus or minus 2% basically so let's get into all that will start with power for the testing methodology for all the stuff you can check the link in the description below to the article that covers the testing that we're doing and then has additional benchmarks and charts in the article that won't be in this video just for time purposes and length of the video we have a bunch more synthetic tests that will be in there on with some extra thermal and power tests looking at power first under idle Windows 10 conditions the and the r3 1300 x stock Seaview consumes about 3.7 watts with plus or minus 2 percent error for comparison the Intel i3 73 50k is showing 4.9 watts or about 7 watts when overclocked keep in mind that this is the first time we're really adding the EPS 12 volt power readings for CPUs so that means these charts are sparse we are well aware of that and are adding things as we go these will grow with time as always moving on to a blender workload blender consume the 42 watts for the stock 3100 X with an overclocking increasing power consumption 252 watts that's about a 24% power consumption increase for what we later find out to be a 4.6 percent render time reduction the i3 72 50k meanwhile consumes about 29.5 watts during this workload with the overclocked growing power consumption to 49 point 2 watts the 1750 K appears to be less power Andriy than the r3 1300 X as of now moving on to a fire strike physics test shows us some gaming workloads placing the 70 350 K at 22 watts 1300 X at thirty eight watts consumption at EPS 12 volt again with the overclock 1750 K at 39 point 4 Watts when on a 1.3 5 volt V Corps the 1300 X pushes to 47 watts when requires as well within 0.1 volt offset total war Warhammer is our real gaming workload the 7250 Capo's 23 watts to run this game with the 1,300 X at 42 watts stock overclocking increases their power consumption metrics to 54 watts on the 1300 x + 58 watts on the 70 to 50k with prime95 l FFT is version 28 point 5 we observed a power consumption of 39 watts on the 70 50k and 56 point six watts on the r3 1300 X with the overclocked counterparts at 59 and 64 watts respectively the additional power consumption metrics in the article link below next with thermals we've completely overhauled our thermal testing procedure for CPUs this is also brand-new and so this one starts out with just the stock cooler performance or expanding this for a feature piece tune and it will recap all the CPUs with our new testing or at least all the major ones along with the stock cooler testing for each of those note that we ran all of our actual testing with the standard X 62 that we always use so no thermal throttling occurred as for the stock cooler operating temperature landed at 59 Celsius when executing a blender workload with the stock configuration and max fan speed that's definitely getting up there but not deadly yet prime95 29.2 with 8k sizes burned at 74 C which is rapidly approaching the 85 C shutdown threshold that we encountered when running the stock core with our overclock so the stock cooler could not sustain our overclocks at all it would just thermal crash eventually from a shutdown temperature of around 85 Celsius depending on what we were doing and how quickly the thing heated up this also produced some interesting power leakage numbers and you can look at the stock not overclocked temperatures the best for that because the overclocked one just didn't survive long enough to really show any power leakage as other than just a runaway and eventual shutdown scenario but this shows the over time plot of power consumption as we draw more power from higher thermals and just leakage overall with these stock configuration 30 and X and the stock cooler before we get into gaming performance let's take a look at blender animation render and premiere in code times with our in-house blender testing the Andy risin are three thirteen hundred ex stock CPU with no overclocked completes the render in eighty nine dot two minutes the CP is ranked just ahead of an these are once flagship FX 83-70 and that's stock and just behind Intel's Nehalem i7 930 CPU or about eight point six percent behind the i5 2500 k overclocked to four point five gigahertz similarly and just for historical context really the are three CPU the 1300 X is behind the Phenom 2 X 6 CPU overclock switch sit around 81 minutes compared more reasonably to the recent generation products the r3 1300 X CPU completes its render about 2 minutes faster than the stock I 373 50k for a time reduction of 2.3 percent overclocking the r3 1300 X results in a render time reduction of 4.6 percent from stock r3 setup or 6.8 percent from the stock 73 50k overclocking me 72 50 K to 5 gigahertz boost its speed to about seventy eight point three minutes reducing render time by 12.2% from the overclocked 1300 X using an r5 CPU would net a significant boost as shown here will highlight a couple of them if CPU rendering on a budget is in your use cases you should really consider stepping up to an r5 series CPU they make a whole lot more sense for this type of task and they're good performers overall the extra $40 for a low-end unit would be worth it in this case but ideally if you can stretch the bit higher SKU then it might be worthwhile for a budget rendering machine as our three ultimately suffers from only having four threads available that said if you use CUDA for everything anyway then it doesn't matter quite as much speaking of CUDA rendering a 1080p at 60 AVCHD source video into a video card review with Adobe Premiere takes 156 minutes on the rs3 1300 x1 overclocked to 4 gigahertz so it's 2.5 hours to finish the render the 1500 X stock CPU reduces this time requirement by 19% we didn't bother running the test stock on the 13 out of X because it just would take far too much time to be worth it at this point you really shouldn't be using these products in this manner anyway premier is not as good of a use case for the r3 CPU does for the r5s previously don't be talked into thinking that the r3 will suffice for any meaningful production work in Adobe Premiere either rendering can be drastically accelerated by CUDA in some instances like an hour test but that doesn't help with certain types of effects or some preview playback although it is possible to use an r3 CV for this task we would strongly recommend purchasing something better suited for video production if that's the desire r7 1700 is a good place to look for a more professional outfit where you make some money or maybe the r5 again there's something where it's more of a hobby we have additional synthetic and production testing in the article so you can check the link in the description below for Cinebench multi-threaded and single threaded pov-ray fire strike and time spy and I believe a couple others are down there as well with the power testing that wasn't covered here now though we're going to move into gaming for the r3 1300 X started with total war Warhammer first note that items containing asterisks have been rerun with the most recent version of total war hammer which we plotted previously in our eyes and revisit coverage as improving fps by several percentage points on both AMD and Intel CPUs all the relevant units were updated for this review and previously we found that the performance uplift for Rison when this game updated derived from the game update itself which also benefited intel so it wasn't just some arbitrary BIOS update or something like that that just magically fixed performances actually developers waking up and using the extra threads and optimizing their game code the MDR 3 1300 x stock cpu performs at an average frame rate of 118 FPS with low that's seventy one one percent and 65 G over one percent the closest current gen neighbor is the i3 7300 stock CPU at 128 FPS average with low as compare ibly times given that these 70 370 250k have both been at $150 for a while now we can nicely look to the 72 50k style performance at 134 FPS average this plans to the seventy three hundred and seventeen fifty K eight percent and 13 percent ahead of the 1300 X stock CPU respectively the 7300 is it locked so that's the end of its performance overclocking the 1300 x2 4.1 gigahertz permits the r3 CPU under test today those are past the 7300 in-game performance with this title that's everything 50k o'clock to 5 gigahertz boost to 150 FPS average leading the 1300 x OC by 16% in average FPS with lows also ahead in the total war update battlefield 1 is next and is also on the list of titles that received an update boosting both Intel and and the performance following the rise and launch in this game the 1300 X operates an average FPS of 110 which places our 3tu ahead of the FX 8270 and i7 930 by about 14% the G 4560 leads the r3 1300 x stock CPU by about 2% battlefield 1 has routinely shown strong performance on these Intel CPUs so this isn't all that surprising overclocking the 1300 X bolsters performance to 116 FPS average and that's a gain of 5.9% over stock performance for those keeping track this lands the 1300 x OC around the 2500 K and for a current gen comparison instead the 7300 cpu averages 125 FPS for the 14% lead at gains over the stock 1300 X and 7.8% Lita gains over the overclocked 1300 X looking to the 1750 K which receives its price drop almost certainly because of rising 3s launch and so Verizon 3 is already doing its job prevalent leads by 17% at 128 FPS average stock or 17% when both these 70 250 K and 1300 XR overclocked watchdogs 2 has proven to be a heavily multi-threaded game and has benefited from iron core and thread counts in the past but also cares about the frequency still as most games do here's the r3 1300 X CPU operates at 51 FPS average stock with lows at 41% and 32.5 0.1% overclocking to 4.1 gigahertz gets us an improvement of 7.3% now at 50 4.5 FPS average instead this plants the i3 6300 right between the r3 1300 X stock and overclocked values at this before FPS average and runs the 1300 X stock CPU behind the 7300 block CPU by 16 percent that's pretty comparable to what we've been seen in the rest of the test so far overclocking closes of the 7300 lead 27.9% the 72 50k stock CPU manages 66 FPS average for a lead of 30% stock over the 1300 X and our talking doesn't do much for the 1750 KS performance here it's already quite high that we do gain another couple of frames per second ashes of the singularity is mostly treated as a synthetic benchmark in our test at this point and so isn't really a game scenario which is really useful scenario we most need to understand scallion particularly with a well optimized DX well title the r3 1300 x5 CPU operates at 21 FPS average placing it between the i3 6300 to nfx 83-70 the i3 7300 CPU operates 5.7 percent faster and over fog in the 13 100x to four point one gigahertz boosts it beyond the seventy three hundred by three percent the 1750 K stock CEO outperforms the 1300 actor overclocked Seaview marginally though sustains better low-end performance and over parking the study 350 K boosts it to 16% ahead of the 1300 X overclocked which again remains consistent with previous tests is about the same spacing as we've been seen for more gaming benchmarks additional power and thermal tests and synthetics be sure to check the full written review that's the link of the description below again this contains a couple of extra game at charts starter three TVs are interesting they're not quite as clear-cut a decision as the r5 T P is where we've more or less said buy these instead of the i5 s going forward unless asterisks some special situation applies these though are interesting primarily because they've already forced Intel to respond with the 30 to 50 K price reduction or at least they contributed to that response and that's helpful the 180 price point previously was just untenable this makes the 1750 K a real competitor it's not too distant in price now and it's unlocked whereas the 7,300 priced out the same on Newegg and Amazon for us buyers is locked and just not as good period and same price so we can kind of forget about that one until a point that was the 30 to 50 K changes in price whether it's every 300 drops in price at which point we evaluate our charts because they have the data for you if you need it so the 1750 K is interesting Anthea 1300 ex runs a $130 price target this makes it 20 dollars cheaper than the 70 to 50 K it is a reasonable performer in games if generally behind the 70 to 50 K and the 7300 again generally speaking so it manages a decent performance overall but it's still a little bit behind in performs and a production synthetic type workloads the 1,300 acts isn't as impressive as the higher-end r5 CPUs where you have more cores and threads and so they perform better the 1,300 acts ultimately is a fork or four thread parts and if it's competing against other four core or four thread parts even if there are two core and four threads really it's going to be closed it just comes down to frequency at that point and other potential architectural optimizations or software level optimizations because at that point you don't have the brute force power of something like a 1,700 where you've got way more threads and just will clearly dominate and attest that as thread limited so again some 70 350 K something like blender just doesn't make the 1300 X look as good as the blender tested for previous launches like the r5 CPUs versus the very thread and court limited I 5 CPS by comparison that means that for our perspective on this if you are actually serious about doing something with production other than just brandishing the results to say this is what the CPU does we would recommend that you strongly consider an r5 if you're looking at an r3 and considering using it for blender it probably means that you're on a pretty tight budget if that's the case if you can manage to shore up another $40 or $60 and you're not going to benefit from something like CUDA acceleration that much then we'd recommend going for an r5 not an i-5 and r5 to be clear if you can't afford that just look at our benchmarks and all the other ones and try and piece together what makes sense for you ultimately the r3 CP is pose a real threat to Intel i3 lineups the g45 6p holds strong at the cheaper price point but the r3 doesn't challenge in that territory the i3 is however have already been weakened by Intel's own G 45 60 and now by ambe's our threes the i3 70 50k is a superior CPU and nearly all the gaming tests and manages to hold a lead in blender rendering on to overclock but not stock stock the 1300 X outperforms the 1750 K in our blender test the next major differentiator is the IGP if that's of interest cost can be saved by going with the Intel i3 part it's actually using the IGP and not just letting it sit there with a d GPU this helps hold the line for SI we're an IGBT might be preferred forbids client type systems so we may see AMD growth in that market sector which is certainly important for gaming builds that's not much of a concern and the r3 1,300 X can help save $20 by cutting the IDP and then resorting to a d GPU for your gaming performance as for the stock cooler it's not terribly loud so Andy is at least done decently there unfortunately it's also not terribly good it's it's actually kind of bad so if you're doing any kind of overclocking at all just get rid of this immediately repurpose it as perhaps a hockey puck and then get a real cooler even if it's a $20 cooler because we were seeing thermal shutdowns at 1300 X when overclocking it to our anywhere really in the 3.9 to 4 point 1 gigahertz range even was as low as an offset of 0.1 volts with a with a voltage offset so it's the plan is to overclock and you can gain a decent amount of performance from overclocking so we would encourage it within normal warranty reason them and not slowing things up then get a better cooler otherwise if you don't plan the overclock it's not terrible it'll keep the thin alive it won't scream like some of the other coolers that intel has made in the past and AMD to be fair but it's not very good so this is the kind of thing you replace a little bit later maybe after the thermal compound has turned into thermal concrete anyway and you need to replace it with a better cooling solution the R 3 CPUs compete well we still think that AMD estranja is in the r5 territory so the r5 1600 1600 XR the most interesting to us we gave the r5 1600 X an Editors Choice Award and highly recommended it over the i-5 7600 K at its price point so those still have our interest primarily not everyone can afford those and that's fine at that point it makes little sense to buy an i-5 you're looking at our 3s and i3 s our threes round out an T's pack and now it's basically are you gaming or do you have I don't know it's even even outside the gaming scenarios now you're looking at four threads versus four threads so in something like blender it just doesn't matter just whatever clocks higher and has better optimization it's going to win so it just it comes down to does the r3 offer something specifically you want maybe there some sort of power reason you'd want it or maybe you have platform reasons if you want a m4 rather than an Intel platform there's a potential argument that you have a wider length for upgrade pathways by going in for so if the plan is to buy low in CPU like an i3 or an r3 and you're looking to the distant future then potentially the amp or platform will get you further with the next den launch because if you're trying to stick with the same platform same everything same LS will be a lot easier to drop into CPU that's the valid reason to go our three instead of i3 at this point even though the i3 is pushing better performance in gaming workloads and things like that so that's an item to think about upgrade pathways saving a couple bucks $20 cheaper and potentially ending up with a cooler that's not terrible unless you're overclocking so that could save you some money as well but that's all for this one as always check the article below for more information there's a lot more in there especially on the power side and subscribe for more the r3 1200 review is next and we'll be on our channel as soon as we can get it done as always patreon.com slash gamers Nexus to help stop directly gamers Nexus squarespace.com to pick up a shirt like this one this is the GN Graff logo I'll see you all next time the ISIS however have been weakened we get isolated having a weekend\n"