AMD Ryzen 3 1300X Review

Power Consumption

Our power consumption results are based on the sensor readings provided by MSI's motherboard. We use adjusted averages and a special low-pass filter that discards brief peaks and valleys for these runs. The displayed sections show a two-minute window, but the bar graphs include the full 15 minutes that are necessary for precise measurements. We didn't have the i3 and Pentium models in the German lab, but we do have enough comparative data to provide a good sense of the power consumption trends of the Ryzen 3 1300X.

Power Consumption Of The Individual Ryzen 3 Processors

Only during the stress test does AMD's Ryzen 3 1300X encounter a significant power consumption increase. Even then, the differences aren’t that large, and almost completely in line with the performance gains.

Power Consumption Comparison For All CPUs

The differences between AMD's Ryzen CPUs at idle are extremely small. It takes a 15-minute test to measure such slight variations reliably. This lends credence to our hypothesis that the models with disabled resources aren't fused off electrically.

It's anyone's guess if there's a way to reactivate those pieces of on-die hardware, though we suspect AMD took measures to make sure it doesn't happen.

Working with a lightly threaded AutoCAD project doesn’t produce any large differences, either.

It takes more taxing workload for the higher-end Ryzen model to start drawing notably more power.

The same can be said for our stress test results.

Our findings confirm what we’ve found through our other Ryzen CPU reviews. Ryzen 3 isn’t significantly more efficient at idle and under low loads than Ryzen CPUs with more active cores or threads. This leads us to two conclusions. First, the new chip's quality isn’t worse to the point that it causes lower efficiency and higher power consumption. Second, deactivating parts of the chip doesn’t improve efficiency. In other words, the disabled parts are still, and permanently, supplied with power.

Compared to Intel's equivalent offerings, the power consumption demonstrated by AMD's Ryzen family is acceptable to good. The only exception is idle power consumption. AMD’s efficiency is really no better or worse than Intel's so long as the software you're using (including the operating system) supports Ryzen's power-saving features.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

This thread is closed for comments
108 comments
    Your comment
  • yankeeDDL
    Wow.
    I don't remember when it was last time when we saw a review where, practically, in every chart AMD was at the top, and Intel at the bottom. It is refreshing really. Hopefully this will drive Intel to cleanup the mess it created in 5+ years of unchallenged leadership, and get its acts in order.

    I'm enjoying the moment though. With my Ryzen 5 1600 :)
  • blackmagnum
    This is the product segment my slim wallet has been waiting for. I just hope that Intel will fight back with a price war. Now bring in the Ryzen+IGP for office gaming!
  • SS_1__
    The only mainstream chips Intel makes worth buying are the G4560 and 7700k, AMD has the rest of the product stack.
  • mjslakeridge
    The thing I found interesting from the review is that the disabled cores still receive power (second to last page of the review). Now we just need to figure out how to enable the "hidden" cores!
  • bloodroses
    While I wasn't impressed with the Ryzen 5, their 7 and 3 are really putting the hurt on Intel. Good job AMD for getting back into the race. :) Let's hope they can do the same against Nvidia so true competition will finally be back.
  • InvalidError
    49670 said:
    Hopefully this will drive Intel to cleanup the mess it created in 5+ years of unchallenged leadership, and get its acts in order.

    There isn't a whole lot that Intel can do about it other than drop prices for a given amount of cores and threads, though you can expect Intel to hold on to premium pricing for its IPC, clock frequency and lower power advantages.

    What I'm really curious to see for the mainstream/office segment is the Ryzen-Vega APUs.
  • madmatt30
    Amd are just absolutely smashing it this year.
    Which is a great great thing after Intel's dominance & stranglehold for the last 6 years.

    Intel price war ??
    No that's not going to happen if it hasn't already ,they're way too arrogant to ever do that.
  • ajac09
    OH YEAH!!! AMD AMD AMD!
  • redgarl
    One of the best CPU of the year with the 1600x. I still take my 1700x over them, but if you are under budget, there is no questions.

    Too bad their Vega card seems like another Fury. I sold my stock and wait for the first benches before rebuying it. Also, indication is that RX will cost 600-650$ and barely beating a 1080 GTX. However Vega core are going to be incridilbe with AMD APU on the laptop segment. Nvidia MXM cards are going to be a bad investment and cost a fortune while everything will be on the same chip for AMD.
  • dudmont
    If AMD wants to grab business/oem market, they should come out with a very low end graphics card, something that costs 40$(preferably 20$) or less, that they could bundle with these Ryzen 3s and sell as a one stop solution. So long as it performed similarly to intels IGPs, and the price was competitive, their performance advantage would give them a shot at stealing sales. For them to really get market share, which is where these Ryzen 3s sit, they need to be able to offer something to more than just gamers on a budget.
  • neblogai
    1270020 said:
    The thing I found interesting from the review is that the disabled cores still receive power (second to last page of the review). Now we just need to figure out how to enable the "hidden" cores!


    That is just Paul's assumption. It could very well be (and is probably more likely) that those cores do not receive power- the opposite, in light testing unlocked but unused cores could be switched off very very effectively, to the point end result is the same- unused or locked off.
  • g-unit1111
    Man I was just going to slap a 4930K in my work PC and be done with it, but considering I could get a Ryzen 3 1300X and a B350 motherboard for less than $250, it suddenly makes things much more interesting! AMD definitely hit a home run with the 1300X!
  • InvalidError
    1919666 said:
    If AMD wants to grab business/oem market, they should come out with a very low end graphics card, something that costs 40$(preferably 20$) or less, that they could bundle with these Ryzen 3s and sell as a one stop solution.

    Why is nobody manufacturing new GPUs under ~$80? Because even the cheapest modern GPU you can build still costs ~$50 to make and by the time you add the chip manufacturers' margins, their distributors' margins, the board manufacturers' margins, the board distributors' margins and the stores' margins, you're at the $80+ mark for the cheapest GPU that still wouldn't make any sense next to modern IGPs.

    Businesses who want the cheapest graphics money can buy will buy APUs and Raven Ridge should be out by the end of the year to cover that market segment. Until then, companies can get things like GT730s to put in their Ryzen-pased office PCs if they can't wait for APUs.
  • dudmont
    125865 said:
    1919666 said:
    If AMD wants to grab business/oem market, they should come out with a very low end graphics card, something that costs 40$(preferably 20$) or less, that they could bundle with these Ryzen 3s and sell as a one stop solution.
    Why is nobody manufacturing new GPUs under ~$80? Because even the cheapest modern GPU you can build still costs ~$50 to make and by the time you add the chip manufacturers' margins, their distributors' margins, the board manufacturers' margins, the board distributors' margins and the stores' margins, you're at the $80+ mark for the cheapest GPU that still wouldn't make any sense next to modern IGPs. Businesses who want the cheapest graphics money can buy will buy APUs and Raven Ridge should be out by the end of the year to cover that market segment. Until then, companies can get things like GT730s to put in their Ryzen-pased office PCs if they can't wait for APUs.


    Indeed, and that is why AMD will have a hard time getting serious penetration of the business/oem market. What Granny, who wants a cheap system to search the web and look at pictures of her grandkids, is going to need/want a more convoluted/complex solution that AMD offers?
    Without the computing power of Ryzen in an APU, AMD still can't compete in that very large market segment. Those APUs that were announced today don't have the punch of Zen.
  • Ne0Wolf7
    It seems AMD has taken over.
    Just a note, I use computers mostly for CAD and CAM, not gaming. I run the whole CAD/CAM thing for my highschool robotics team. I have some saplings (called so because they call me tree due to my height) who have come to me wishing to learn programs like Solidworks and Inventor, but I have to turn don their requests for the software at home due to their insuffecient computers (I'm talking like acer laptops with two cores and IntelHD here).
    In the future, I would apriciate including the CAD/CAM software testing in your reviews of the lower end hardware like these new Ryzens so I can show them some cheap(ish) ways to get Solidworks and Inventor up and running at home so they can really learn how to use it.
    Regardless, this was a great and refreshing review.
  • InvalidError
    1919666 said:
    Those APUs that were announced today don't have the punch of Zen.

    Those APUs were released to system integrators around a year ago, the only change with the announcement is that they are becoming available at retail now that most older APU stock has been phased out. While bulldozer-v2 isn't as good as Ryzen, it should still be more than good enough for most office and grandma uses.
  • spdragoo
    125865 said:
    1919666 said:
    If AMD wants to grab business/oem market, they should come out with a very low end graphics card, something that costs 40$(preferably 20$) or less, that they could bundle with these Ryzen 3s and sell as a one stop solution.
    Why is nobody manufacturing new GPUs under ~$80? Because even the cheapest modern GPU you can build still costs ~$50 to make and by the time you add the chip manufacturers' margins, their distributors' margins, the board manufacturers' margins, the board distributors' margins and the stores' margins, you're at the $80+ mark for the cheapest GPU that still wouldn't make any sense next to modern IGPs. Businesses who want the cheapest graphics money can buy will buy APUs and Raven Ridge should be out by the end of the year to cover that market segment. Until then, companies can get things like GT730s to put in their Ryzen-pased office PCs if they can't wait for APUs.


    Or they can go ahead with the Bristol Ridge APUs -- Piledriver CPU cores & R7 graphics, but use the same Socket AM4 motherboards & support DDR4 RAM -- until Raven Ridge comes out.
  • takeshi7
    I wish you'd make your Gaming Price/Performance chart start at 0 on both axes. It makes the CPUs more clumped up, but it also makes it easier to visualize price performance just from the slope of the line to the origin. Tech Report does this and I like it better.
  • the nerd 389
    Can you, by any chance, add the i9-7900x to the power consumption charts?

    It would help drive home some of the issues with it if we could see it's results next to the FX-9590.
  • madmatt30
    As said the raven ridge are the zen core apu's.
    I'd expect the same CPU grunt as the ryzen 3 with the inclusion of an igp with similar performance to the RX 550.

    I see a pricepoint issue with those though personally , they're going to cost more than the r3 chips without a doubt.

    For a budget gamer they'll be a good buy , for your average Granny (your words) who just wants the internet & a bit of word processing the Pentium is still going to be untouchable on price.
    Intel killed their own i3 range releasing that CPU for that rrp - with no help from amd whatsoever !
  • bloodroses
    1031363 said:
    As said the raven ridge are the zen core apu's. I'd expect the same CPU grunt as the ryzen 3 with the inclusion of an igp with similar performance to the RX 550. I see a pricepoint issue with those though personally , they're going to cost more than the r3 chips without a doubt. For a budget gamer they'll be a good buy , for your average Granny (your words) who just wants the internet & a bit of word processing the Pentium is still going to be untouchable on price. Intel killed their own i3 range releasing that CPU for that rrp - with no help from amd whatsoever !


    I agree, especially since up this point I've been recommending the Pentium G4560 over the i3.
  • allstarspfunk
    would like to see the performance with other graphic card like the gtx1050ti, gtx1060, gtx1070, rx570, rx580... thanks
  • hannibal
    Nice!

    Very interesting to see those Ryzen based APUs later. Am I remembering righ that those will include one cpu cluster and gpu. So the best models have gpu four real cores and four hyper threats. So the size is quite same with Ryzens with two CPU clusters. The price point can be sensible. The top model will be more expensive than Ryzen 3, but cut down versions can be even cheaper.
  • pico_ohms
    I came here to read the Ryzen review. Every page plays the same unrelated autoplay video for some product I'm not remotely interested in. Who do you think wants this spam? This site used to be awesome, but in the past 12months it's been on a downwards trend (ads, ads, ads, video, video, video). Annoying stuff on a mobile data plan.