AMD Reveals Ryzen 3 1300 & 1200 Details with Ryzen PRO Launch

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
AMD introduced their Ryzen PRO processors for business and commercial desktop PCs this morning. Included were specifications on the Ryzen PRO 3, which means we now have a solid idea of what the consumer Ryzen 3 will bring (seeing that every other announced Ryzen Pro chip has identical speeds and feeds as mainstream Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 processors). The Ryzen 3 Pro 1200 hovers between 3.1GHz and 3.4GHz, while the faster Ryzen 3 Pro 1300 rocks clocks between 3.5GHz and 3.7GHz: both are true quad-core chips without multi-threading.

With the release of the Ryzen PRO 3 specifications, AMD has now confirmed what we’ve been suspecting for the Ryzen 3 specifications for a while now. Ryzen 3 is a quad-core CPU without SMT, so we’re looking at just 4 threads instead of 8, albeit 4 threads without any of the resource contention SMT can sometimes cause. On which matter, it’s worth pointing out that AMD has already previously commented that Ryzen 3 will use the same die as Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7, so we’re looking at 4 cores distributed over 2 CCXs, like the Ryzen 5 1400 & 1500X. Similarly, AMD’s reveal indicates that Ryzen 3 will have the same cache structure as the lowest-end Ryzen 5, the 1400.
 
Crazy, it seems the smallest they'll go is 4 cores, and I bet they're super cheap.
 
"Just like other Ryzen CPUs, all the Ryzen PRO chips fully support ECC technology"

This is incredibly misleading. Ryzen "supports" ECC in only the most technical sense. Platform support for ECC is so bad that it is (and likely will remain) virtually non-existent.

I was bashed here a few months ago for griping about ECC, since Ryzen was supposedly "not aimed at professionals," yet here we are with the "PRO" lineup and ECC is still a mess....
 
Nice. But will they perform the same gaming wise and oc the same to 4ghz.... Can't wait to see the actual reviews on these little darlings.
 
If they come in at $60-80 they'll sell. Any higher and might as well go Pentium G.
 
Not sure I understand the Pentium G comments. Why would you want a dual core with HT over 4 actual cores?
 
Verge said:
Faster cores, better gaming.

Personally I would opt for ryzen.
Click to expand...

Whether the Ryzen 3's have slower cores than the Pentium and whether it is better or worse for gaming would be up for debate at the moment, unless you could share some benchmarks.
 
Last edited:
InorganicMatter said:
"Just like other Ryzen CPUs, all the Ryzen PRO chips fully support ECC technology"

This is incredibly misleading. Ryzen "supports" ECC in only the most technical sense. Platform support for ECC is so bad that it is (and likely will remain) virtually non-existent.

I was bashed here a few months ago for griping about ECC, since Ryzen was supposedly "not aimed at professionals," yet here we are with the "PRO" lineup and ECC is still a mess....
Click to expand...

Are you saying that in order to have ECC working, you have to buy a motherboard that has it enabled?

Shocking I say.

Much like AM3+..... Half those boards supported ECC but it wasn't advertised.
 
Lets get this straight. Intel CPUs are still faster clock for clock when the core count is equal. I am glad to see that AMD is ONLY going as low as 4 cores.
 
If the 1200 falls right around $100 this will be a perfect upgrade for my wifes system (currently an old fm2 5400k).
 
A bunch of folks have run those gameplay and bench vids with Cores and SMT disabled to simulate these. I feel those will be close to what we will see. I'm interested in seeing the real deal benches though.
 
Much like AM3+..... Half those boards supported ECC but it wasn't advertised.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if Ryzen is better or worse on that versus AM3+. I mean for some boards ECC memory is supported but it clearly states the ECC function will be ignored. A few boards have support for ECC officially listed and then the bulk of boards don't mention ECC. What scares me most is the boards that accept ECC but ignore it.
 
drescherjm said:
I am not sure if Ryzen is better or worse on that versus AM3+. I mean for some boards ECC memory is supported but it clearly states the ECC function will be ignored. A few boards have support for ECC officially listed and then the bulk of boards don't mention ECC. What scares me most is the boards that accept ECC but ignore it.
Click to expand...


Why does that scare you? If one was in need of ECC, they would do the research to know they were getting ECC supported products. It's quite simple.
 
The documentation is not always clear about ECC being supported and actually used which comes to question because of the boards that list ECC support but the ECC function is ignored.

I do know 3 or so boards that do have ECC supported and enabled but that is somewhat limiting.
 
drescherjm said:
The documentation is not always clear about ECC being supported and actually used which comes to question because of the boards that list ECC support but the ECC function is ignored.

I do know 3 or so boards that do have ECC supported and enabled but that is somewhat limiting.
Click to expand...


Can you provide example this?
 
Verge said:
Faster cores, better gaming.

Personally I would opt for ryzen.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about faster, and if you we're gaming I'm also not sure why you'd take Pentium G, the rest of the chip is gimped as well (less cache, features, differing instruction sets, etc). At least with Ryzen 3 you could buy a 3.1 GHz chip and clock it to 3.8-4.0 GHz for basically free.

You remember the Pentium G3258? It had two cores, no HT, but it was "unlocked." Even at 4.4 GHz it sucked for any real gaming tasks, had barely any cache.
 
That's because it's a non-issue. People don't buy gaming boards to shove ECC on them.
Click to expand...

However currently most Ryzen boards are listed gaming boards... I wonder if having a "PRO" part will get motherboard manufacturers to produce at least some workstation boards.
 
The Ryzen 1400 is under $160 I would think the 1200 would be $99 and the 1300-$129. The G4600 is still $20 cheaper but at that point many would take the 4 core chip. Especially if the AM4 mobos are cheaper than the B250/H270 boards.
 
Under the light of this generation of processors, I can not consider true nor right saying that Intel processors are faster.
There is such a casuistic in the software toolchain that simply saying that Intel performs better than Ryzen, lacks a lot of accuracy.
Research papers measure improvements based on benchmarks with source code available.
In a market with a monopoly, closed source software vendors target for a CPU vendor and they do not even try to perform the best on different architectures. Check out the ATLAS library as an example of software trying to perform the best on multiple architectures. They even take into account the layout of Bulldozer cores, which we all know is a bit of a nightmare with their shared FPUs and fetch engine.

You know what software vendors should do? Ship intermediate representation code and during installation in the final user machine, transform that IR into machine code.
That is how graphic shaders work.

Shipping binaries does not benefit anyone: final users, hardware vendors and even software vendors due to clients complaining about low performance.

AMD has shipped a boatload of cores to final users. Now they are able to compile their software optimized for their machine twice times quicker.
 
Last edited:
Emission said:
You remember the Pentium G3258? It had two cores, no HT, but it was "unlocked." Even at 4.4 GHz it sucked for any real gaming tasks, had barely any cache.
Click to expand...

I still have mine. Although not in use. Was great for older games. Red Orchestra 2 and World of Tanks loved it when combined with an SSD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top