Possible Ryzen 3 3300 6 Core Benchmark Leaked, Faster Than Ryzen 7 2700X in Geekbench 4

Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
1,019
Source

"AMD’s New Entry Level Ryzen 3000 Series CPU Could Be Faster Than its Current AM4 Flagship, The Ryzen 7 2700X!"

"So, how well does literally the cheapest next gen Ryzen CPU perform? Well, as it turns out it performs better than the fastest AM4 compatible Ryzen 2000 series CPU you can buy today. The Ryzen 7 2700X."

"It’s very important to point out that Geekbench is Geekbench, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the Ryzen 3 3300 is going to outperform the 2700X at every task or benchmark. But it gives us a decent indication as to what to expect from AMD’s Zen 2 chips.

With that being said, these figures are absolutely astonishing for what is rumored to be an entry level $99 CPU. This begs the question, if this is the new low-end, how crazy is the new high-end going to be? Well, based on everything we’ve seen so far, pretty nuts. Let’s just say things are about to get VERY interesting in the CPU market."

graph_16.png


graph_15.png


AMD-Ryzen-3-3300-CPU-Benchmark-Leaked.png

http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13241660

Impressive, most impressive...
 
Last edited:
Source

"AMD’s New Entry Level Ryzen 3000 Series CPU Could Be Faster Than its Current AM4 Flagship, The Ryzen 7 2700X!"


Impressive, most impressive...

That could just be a labeling error.

Single core performance is only up by about 3%, so this is either a 6 core with some kind of magical SMT, or it's also an 8 core, if it's the later, it's very unimpressive.
 
That could just be a labeling error.

Single core performance is only up by about 3%, so this is either a 6 core with some kind of magical SMT, or it's an 8 core.
Just read this and thought the same thing. Single core is almost within margin of error. Doesn't really make sense.
 
Just read this and thought the same thing. Single core is almost within margin of error. Doesn't really make sense.

Ryzen 7 2700X clocks are 3.7GHz Base, 4.3GHz Boost, this chip is supposedly 3.2 / 3.9, that counts for something no?
 
Ryzen 7 2700X clocks are 3.7GHz Base, 4.3GHz Boost, this chip is supposedly 3.2 / 3.9, that counts for something no?

That does make for better IPC, but it doesn't explain how the multicore pulls so far ahead of other 6 cores, when the single core performance is about the same. SMT must be really amazing.
 
When are they gonna put up the fairy tail rumoured benchmarks for the cpu I want.

Max TDP 35 watts.
17/34 Cores at 8 Ghz base clock with a Boost clock of 18 Ghz on all cores simultaneously and it overclocks like a dream on air naturally.
75 percent increase in ipc over any other processor and it crushes every benchmark and real world scenario you through at it.
all for only $43 dollars
I'd buy just the rumor. :rolleyes:

PS It also runs crysis
 
That does make for better IPC, but it doesn't explain how the multicore pulls so far ahead of other 6 cores, when the single core performance is about the same. SMT must be really amazing.
No, it makes for better instructions per second. One clock = 1hz, and multiple instructions can be executed in a clock cycle. there are 4000000000 clock cycles in a second for a 4GHz cpu.
 
This is what always happens with AMD products, they get overhyped.
 
That does make for better IPC, but it doesn't explain how the multicore pulls so far ahead of other 6 cores, when the single core performance is about the same. SMT must be really amazing.

No, it makes for better instructions per second. One clock = 1hz, and multiple instructions can be executed in a clock cycle. there are 4000000000 clock cycles in a second for a 4GHz cpu.

Reading too fast??

IPC = Instructions per second.
 
ipc = instructions per cycle
ipc is independant of clock speed and invariable. clock speed varies based on load and configuration, and while increasing it improves performance, it does not improve ipc.

No one refers to Instructions per second which is why your post confused me.

Yes IPC is independent of clock speed, but running lower clock speed and delivering equal single core performance, indicates that it does indeed have better IPC. Which is what I originally stated.

Though it doesn't explain the much higher multi-core than 2600x. As I said, something really wild going on with SMT, either that or it doesn't clock down as all the cores ramp up.
 
No one refers to Instructions per second which is why your post confused me.

Yes IPC is independent of clock speed, but running lower clock speed and delivering equal single core performance, indicates that it does indeed have better IPC. Which is what I originally stated.

Though it doesn't explain the much higher multi-core than 2600x. As I said, something really wild going on with SMT, either that or it doesn't clock down as all the cores ramp up.
Right, he was saying it supposedly has higher base/boost clocks, which would show in multi thread as well (just not as much as single thread).

Sorry, I have a massive migraine right now...
 
Ryzen 7 2700X clocks are 3.7GHz Base, 4.3GHz Boost, this chip is supposedly 3.2 / 3.9, that counts for something no?

For single core
(5061/4923)*(4.3/3.9) = 1.133

So it looks like about a 13% boost in IPC (in geekbench anyway), and then whatever good stuff is going on in multi-threaded.

Still grain of salt with all of this, but I would say this would be a Ryzen 5 3600 (not 3300), which would line up with a complaint elsewhere about only getting a 3600 to test.

Clocks are similar to Ryzen 5 2600, which would call into doubt those 5GHz rumors.
 
I wish this looked like more than just a clock increase bump- but at least at that point it'd show evidence of linear performance increases with clockspeed, so that's still a good thing.
 
For single core
(5061/4923)*(4.3/3.9) = 1.133

So it looks like about a 13% boost in IPC (in geekbench anyway), and then whatever good stuff is going on in multi-threaded.

Still grain of salt with all of this, but I would say this would be a Ryzen 5 3600 (not 3300), which would line up with a complaint elsewhere about only getting a 3600 to test.

Clocks are similar to Ryzen 5 2600, which would call into doubt those 5GHz rumors.
What reason do you have to think this is a 3600 and not a 3300? They're just numbers at this point but those clock speeds certainly look like entry level 6 core speeds.
 
What reason do you have to think this is a 3600 and not a 3300? They're just numbers at this point but those clock speeds certainly look like entry level 6 core speeds.

Yes, it does look like the clock speed of the entry level 6 core.

The name for that in each generation would be:

1600 = Entry level 6 cores.
2600 = Entry level 6 cores.
3600 = Entry level 6 cores.

Why would it be otherwise?
 
3.4/3.9 vs 3.2/4.0

That’s not an upgrade much less a 12nm to 7nm upgrade. Hell, not even a Ryzen++ upgrade.
 
Too low clocks to be the 2600 equivalent.

How can it be too low to be a 2600 equivalent, when it's about the same?

You also get a single core IPC boost, and some kind of big SMT boost from the looks of things.
 
Yes, it does look like the clock speed of the entry level 6 core.

The name for that in each generation would be:

1600 = Entry level 6 cores.
2600 = Entry level 6 cores.
3600 = Entry level 6 cores.

Why would it be otherwise?

part of the rumors going around about AM4 Ryzen 3000 going up to 12/16 cores have also claimed that core counts will get boosted across the stack.

That still doesn't square with these benchmark results though because a 6C 3300 would likely not have SMT enabled, being a lower-end part
 
part of the rumors going around about AM4 Ryzen 3000 going up to 12/16 cores have also claimed that core counts will get boosted across the stack.

That still doesn't square with these benchmark results though because a 6C 3300 would likely not have SMT enabled, being a lower-end part

You mean that original set of absurdly "too good to be true" rumors?
 
Yes, it does look like the clock speed of the entry level 6 core.

The name for that in each generation would be:

1600 = Entry level 6 cores.
2600 = Entry level 6 cores.
3600 = Entry level 6 cores.

Why would it be otherwise?
Right but this gen has the entry level chip being a six core rather than a quad like previous gens. An entry level six core is no longer in the middle of the lineup price and performance wise. Of course just speculating.
 
It's taken four years, but the low end of the market from AMD (if that's what it is) is creaming my i7-6700, both in multi-threaded AND single-threaded workloads where AMD were traditionally quite weak. Take a look:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/13270523?baseline=13241660

The summary says quite a bit, but it gets worse the more in-depth one looks.

3pAlHSs.png


And the funny thing is, my i7-6700 meets and exceeds all my needs right now.

Or to put it another way: I'm a target customer of AMD's low end market. My 6700 blows the doors off my Xeon workstation at work, and these low end CPUs are even better than that.

I'm still shaking my head that AMD's baby CPUs will outclass my workstation, which is "good enough" for lots of data warehousing and ETL work.

I'm at a bit of a loss for words to describe the amount of CPU power which is now becoming mainstream and affordable.
 
Yeah, the cpu power these days is ridicilous.
I'm running a 3770K(@4.5ghz) and it has seen four gpus. From GTX460, 770, 1060 and now RTX2070 and the cpu is doing just fine for my needs(Gaming 1080p 120hz).
 
Right but this gen has the entry level chip being a six core rather than a quad like previous gens. An entry level six core is no longer in the middle of the lineup price and performance wise. Of course just speculating.

It's the Ryzen 5 3600, and it's $200.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1440...-cores-for-499-up-to-46-ghz-pcie-40-coming-77

As I have been saying since those December rumors were released, they were total fabrication. Obviously too good to be true and they were. Prices did not drop on AMD CPUs or GPUs.
 
Right but this gen has the entry level chip being a six core rather than a quad like previous gens. An entry level six core is no longer in the middle of the lineup price and performance wise. Of course just speculating.

nope you'll continue to see 4c/8t and 4c/4t parts which will be primary meant for the oem markets.. costs aren't low enough just yet for oem's to get rid of those parts in favor of 6c or 8c cpu's in budget level pre-builds.
 
Snowdog, I want a desktop 16C32T 5W 6GHz x86 CPU with 256MB of L1 cache that outperforms everything else for $5, ok? :)
 
Snowdog, I want a desktop 16C32T 5W 6GHz x86 CPU with 256MB of L1 cache that outperforms everything else for $5, ok? :)

Me too. I wished the original core count/pricing rumors were true, but wishing doesn't make it so. I expected exactly the pricing we got.
 
Back
Top