I'm not sure I really understand the point of the 2300X. Seems a little too niche (especially for the power consumption), and I'm sure AMD still has plenty of stock left over from 1st gen Ryzen 3s.

schmidtbag:

I'm not sure I really understand the point of the 2300X. Seems a little too niche (especially for the power consumption), and I'm sure AMD still has plenty of stock left over from 1st gen Ryzen 3s.

Ryzen 3 is here to cover a certain price range that no Ryzen 5 can cover so it's a necessity. Also having 4 more virtual threads (4/4 vs 4/8) is not something everyone need, especially considering the difference in price between the twos. I think the current lineup is pretty good, I see no need to add more Ryzen 2000s.

Warrax:

Ryzen 3 is here to cover a certain price range that no Ryzen 5 can cover so it's a necessity. Also having 4 more virtual threads (4/4 vs 4/8) is not something everyone need, especially considering the difference in price between the twos. I think the current lineup is pretty good, I see no need to add more Ryzen 2000s.

First, I'd like to point out that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having a 4c/4t CPU. After all, my primary gaming PC uses a 1500X, so I'm certainly not one to judge people for low thread count. Meanwhile I'm writing this on a 2c/4t laptop. Anyway, you would have a valid point, if the 2300X were priced accordingly, but I have a feeling it won't. The 2200G has a pretty decent GPU built in, it is clocked roughly the same to the 1300X, and it costs roughly the same as the 1300X. The 2200G is a better value, whether you use the IGP or not (sure, there are fewer PCIe lanes, but I'm pretty sure nobody is going to saturate x16 3.0 lanes on a 4c/4t CPU). In order for the 2300X to be a sensible purchase, it needs to be $80 or less, but with that price tag, there will be even less of an incentive to get the gen 1 Ryzen 3s, so they will basically stay on the shelves indefinitely. Maybe AMD (or the retailers) don't care, but I would think they'd at least try clearing out old stock before they make their old stock a bad purchase. So - if AMD doesn't make the 2300X $80 or less, it isn't worth buying, and that's why I don't think it makes sense as a product.

schmidtbag:

I'm not sure I really understand the point of the 2300X. Seems a little too niche (especially for the power consumption), and I'm sure AMD still has plenty of stock left over from 1st gen Ryzen 3s.

pretty sure its ryzen equivalent to the entry level black editions of athlons they sell (860k black edition), probably a pretty decent overclocker, one of these paired with a b350 and a 1060, if its priced between the 2200g and the 2400g , pretty strong competition to the intel i3's if you have no need for igpu.

user1:

pretty sure its ryzen equivalent to the entry level black editions of athlons they sell (860k black edition), probably a pretty decent overclocker, one of these paired with a b350 and a 1060, if its priced between the 2200g and the 2400g , pretty strong competition to the intel i3's if you have no need for igpu.

But these aren't based on the Excavator architecture (or are they?) so they aren't going to clock any higher than any other 2nd gen Ryzen.

schmidtbag:

But these aren't based on the Excavator architecture (or are they?) so they aren't going to clock any higher than any other 2nd gen Ryzen.

no its not excavator, but it fills the same "niche" as those steamroller based black editions(860k), the 2300x wont clock higher than a 2600x, but it will likely clock ~150mhz higher than the ravenridge apus (2200g/2400g) since the 2300x is 12nm, where as the apus are 14nm. could be a pretty good budget overclocker option if its priced between 100-130$

user1:

no its not excavator, but it fills the same "niche" as those steamroller based black editions(860k), the 2300x wont clock higher than a 2600x, but it will likely clock ~150mhz higher than the ravenridge apus (2200g/2400g) since the 2300x is 12nm, where as the apus are 14nm. could be a pretty good budget overclocker option if its priced between 100-130$

That still makes for a poor value. In that scenario, you're paying roughly the same price as the 2200G with no IGP and a ~150MHz boost. That just doesn't sound worth it to me, if budget is the priority. I'm not sure even a modest 300MHz would be worth it, either. Don't forget - there are also the forgotten AM4 Athlons. I would argue those are a better value for budget-oriented high-clocking CPUs. The Athlon X4 950 is around $60, and it is unlocked. I'm not suggesting it will outperform either the 1300X or 2300X but if you want a quad core on a budget, I'd say that's a better value.

schmidtbag:

That still makes for a poor value. In that scenario, you're paying roughly the same price as the 2200G with no IGP and a ~150MHz boost. That just doesn't sound worth it to me, if budget is the priority. I'm not sure even a modest 300MHz would be worth it, either. Don't forget - there are also the forgotten AM4 Athlons. I would argue those are a better value for budget-oriented high-clocking CPUs. The Athlon X4 950 is around $60, and it is unlocked. I'm not suggesting it will outperform either the 1300X or 2300X but if you want a quad core on a budget, I'd say that's a better value.

the 950 is also 1/2 the speed in many situations ,best case its 50% slower,(its not unlocked normally i believe only asus boards have the ability to unlock the multiplier on bristol ridge), its worth it if you were intending to overclock and dont need an igpu, over an i3 8100 or 8300, thats for sure. the 8350k has much harder time justifying its existence in its price bracket when the 2600 is only 10-15$ more. the 2300x can probably do 4.2-4.3ghz , its not the best value, but its certainly not a poor value compared to other options in its price range (if priced in the 100-130$ range) the only chip that really has a better value than a 2300x as far as cpu performance, would be the 2200g, which is pretty much unbeatable for 100$

schmidtbag:

That still makes for a poor value. In that scenario, you're paying roughly the same price as the 2200G with no IGP and a ~150MHz boost. That just doesn't sound worth it to me, if budget is the priority. I'm not sure even a modest 300MHz would be worth it, either.

Its not apples to apples 45W vs 65W CPU, its not standard desktop, where TDP doesnt matters too much..

schmidtbag:

So - if AMD doesn't make the 2300X $80 or less, it isn't worth buying, and that's why I don't think it makes sense as a product.

I agree, they use the same marketing strategy as Intel but all their processors are unlocked so the cheapest at their respective core/thread configuration is usually the way to go with AMD. These new SKUs seems to be the results of better yields so they try to capitalize on that but any tech savy knows these SKUs don't have great value.

schmidtbag:

Don't forget - there are also the forgotten AM4 Athlons. I would argue those are a better value for budget-oriented high-clocking CPUs. The Athlon X4 950 is around $60, and it is unlocked. I'm not suggesting it will outperform either the 1300X or 2300X but if you want a quad core on a budget, I'd say that's a better value.

Those AM4 Athlons are also based on Excavator and not Zen. As such, they'll have lower performance.

sykozis:

Those AM4 Athlons are also based on Excavator and not Zen. As such, they'll have lower performance.

I'm aware - this is also why they clock so much higher, and why they cost so much less. Though their clock-per-clock performance will be terrible in comparison, I'm sure you can OC them to have performance very similar to a 2300X and they'll probably cost about $40 less. If you're on a budget and want discrete graphics, they're not a terrible choice. Keep in mind, I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending them to anybody, but I wouldn't recommend a 2300X to anybody, either.

They will also consume even more power than the 2300X once overclocked to match performance..... They already consume as much or more at their base frequency.

schmidtbag:

I'm aware - this is also why they clock so much higher, and why they cost so much less. Though their clock-per-clock performance will be terrible in comparison, I'm sure you can OC them to have performance very similar to a 2300X and they'll probably cost about $40 less. If you're on a budget and want discrete graphics, they're not a terrible choice. Keep in mind, I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending them to anybody, but I wouldn't recommend a 2300X to anybody, either.

afaik the bristolridge chips require >1.6v to go past 4.3ghz , no one really even knows what kind of voltage is safe ,presumably its 1.55-1.6v like kaveri since its billed as the same process (28nm), not the 32nm soi that piledriver used that can do 4.8-5ghz Also the nb frequency starts bottlenecking them pretty hard by that point, and afaik there is no way to change the nb frequency since its on chip where as on kaveri it was controlled by the motherboard, which is why the athlon 845 ( carrizo , which is basically the same chip as bristolridge /stoneyridge)lacks nb frequency control on fm2+. another thing to keep in mind is that the 2300x has 8mb of l3cache 2x what raven ridge has, bristolridge doesnt even have l3 cache i'd definitely recommend a 120$ 2300x ( or the similarly priced 100$ 2200g) as a better deal over a bristol ridge athlon , there is no way even with a monster overclock that bristolridge will reach parity with a stock 2300x, it has half the fpus and 50% lower ipc

that 2200g is a good deal but not better then even the 1300x. for one all amd apu only clock at certain ghz when igpu is maxxed out it has less l3 cache, wont support as high ddr4 speeds, and it only has 8 pci-e lanes and i think b350 only adding 6 from chipset. nvme runs x4 your wifi card run x1 that leave x3 for gpu off the cpu and additional drives legacy hardware. the 2200g is gonna be more prone to higher latency; additionally nvme raids are gonna become main stream for us hobby developers & content creators. so if you got a rx460 1060 or 1050ti when they where like $70-$150 the 1300x & 2300x could see some sales and overall that caches, clocks, ddr4 speeds, pcie lanes, zen+ revisions are all gonna boost min fps for us budget gamers. basically these apu for people who dont care about gaming, development, and content creation; although im rooting for it in laptop platform if amd doesnt cut it to garbage and oem give you single channel memory controller in 2018. also with 2200g at $99 there is absolutely no reason to buy old amd cpu like kalvari, fx unless you want to upgrade a exsisting fm2 am3 pc. kalvari has better single core then fx and they will bottleneck very easy more so on any unreal engine game with physx cpu api. either way neither of these cpu will reach ryzen architecture. i would like the 2300x if it came with spire amd should drop stealth cooler altogether. this will be decent cpu when the sales come & motherboards compatibility is fixed an you dont need 1st gen lmao to upgrade 90% of bios on market.