The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza
by Dr. Ian Cutress on May 7, 2020 9:00 AM ESTPower Consumption and Frequency Ramps
On the box, both processors are listed as having 65 W TDPs. With its Zen-based hardware, AMD has been relatively good at staying around that official on-the-box value, even during turbo. In the last generation, AMD introduced a feature called PPT, or Package Power Tracking.
- For 105 W processors, PPT is >142 W
- For 65 W processors, PPT is >88 W
- For 45 W processors, PPT is >60W
This allows the processor to raise its power limits, assuming it isn’t breaching thermal limits or current limits, and consequently raise the frequency. As a result, while we see 65 W on the box, the real world power consumption during most tasks is likely to be nearer 88 W, unless the current or thermal lines are crossed.
As a new element to our testing, we are recording power over a number of benchmarks in our suite, rather than just a simple peak power test.
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X
For the faster chip, we saw a peak power in both of our tests of around 80 W.
With yCruncher, which is somewhat of a periodic load, the power consumption dropped over time to nearer 75 W.
3DPM is more obvious with its idle steps between loads, being 10 seconds on then 10 seconds waiting. The power almost peaked at a similar amount here.
In both of these graphs, the package power when idle is around 16-17 W. I looked back through the data, and noticed that out of this power only 0.3 W was actually dedicated to cores, with the rest being towards the big IO die, the memory controllers, and the Infinity Fabric. That’s still pretty substantial for an idle load.
At low loads, the power per core was around 14 W, while at full load it was slightly less depending on the test. This is a bit away from the 20 W per core we get from the high end Zen 2 processors, but these only go to 4.3 GHz, not 4.7 GHz+. This is about in line with what we expect.
On our frequency ramp test, the Ryzen 3300X went from an idle state to peak power within 17 milliseconds, or approximately a frame at 60 Hz.
One of the new features with Ryzen 3000 is CPPC2 support, which AMD claims to reduce idle-to-turbo ramping from 30 milliseconds to 2 milliseconds. We’re seeing something in the middle of that, despite having all the updates applied. That being said, the jump up to the peak frequency (we measured 4350 MHz, +50 MHz over the turbo on the box) is effectively immediate with zero skew across a range of frequencies.
AMD Ryzen 3 3100
Given that the TDP number on the side of the box says 65 W as well, any reasonable user would assume that the power of this chip would be equal, right? Regular readers will know that this isn’t always the case.
In our yCruncher test, because the turbo frequency is lower than the 3300X, it means the voltage can be lower, and thus power is lower. Our history of testing Zen 2 has shown that these cores get very efficient at lower frequencies, to the point where our processor doesn’t even break that 65 W threshold during yCruncher.
Similarly the 3DPM peaks are also lower, barely going to 55 W during an AVX2 workload.
On the frequency ramp side, we see another instance of a 16-17 ms transition.
Summary
For the peak power out of all of our testing, we saw the Ryzen 3 3300X hit a maximum of 80 W, and the Ryzen 3 3100 go to 62 W. When we compare that to the Core i7-7700K, at 91 W TDP / 95 W peak, combined with most of the results on the next few pages, AMD by comparison is more efficient.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
249 Comments
View All Comments
callmebob - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Haha to myself.AMD's B550 slide tricked me for a moment, as it makes it appear as if the CPU only has 20 PCIe lanes total. Which is of course bollocks, Ryzen has 24 PCIe lanes total (20 usable + 4 chipset link).
Does it mean AMD artifically only allows 16 of the 20 CPU PCIe lanes to be used on B550 motherboards? Really? I am confused whether that is a mistake in the slide, or if that will be the actual reality. I hope, and for AMDs sake, it is the former...
DanNeely - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
If you're talking about the "The New AMD B550 chipset" slides, the problem is they're poorly designed and you've misread them. On the left side of the 1st one you've got a box with 20 PCIe lanes 16 for the graphics and 4 for the chipset, then below that you've got a box with what is either 4 lanes for a single 4x 4.0 SSD, 2 sets of 2 lanes for a pair of 2x 4.0 SSDs, or a 2x PCIe link and 2 sata ports. Below that in the list of text it has 16 lanes and 8 lanes as the first two items.Makaveli - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
The cooling fans on the X570 are silent as I've never heard mine once in the 6 month's I've been using it. I wouldn't worry about it.wr3zzz - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
It's less about noise than durability. I've had two MB died on me prematurely in 30+ years and both are due to the little cooling fans dying. Unless you are buying top of the line $1000 MB, those fans are garbage comparing to what's used on GPU and CPU.callmebob - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link
> Unless you are buying top of the line $1000 MBOi, are you still using Zimbabwe dollaroos? ;-)
But yeah, other than the creative pricing i am totally with you in regard to those little teeny fans...
lightningz71 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
If I’m interested in CPUs in this price range, I’m also considering the following units:2700
2600x
2600
1600AF
3600
While I realize that the intel 10 series isn’t available yet, a low end current 9 series i5 and a higher end 9 series i3 would have also been relevant.
I realize that this was under a short deadline, but at least a couple of comparisons in that range for maybe a few tests would have helped.
For my money, the base 2700 is very hard to beat in this price range. It would only ever loose in things that are strictly single core or strictly AVX2, which are very case specific, and would wipe the floor with the 3300x in anything multi core sensitive, judging by the 2600 tests alone. It can usually be had for within $10 of the msrp of the 3300x.
The 3300x is interesting at $99. The 3100 at $80
Holliday75 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Why does everyone spell lose with two "O's"?Namisecond - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Two not mutually exclusive possibilities:1. English is not their native language
2. They failed at English.
callmebob - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
...because they are playing it loose with the spelling of lose.Also, Double O's posess a certain elgance, sophistication and general badassery. They are also deadly. Ooh, and keep your girl away from them, especially one particular Double O.
Ian Cutress - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
When some people say lose, they put all the emphasis on the o, so it sounds longer, so they think one is not enough. Ask them to spell loose straight after, and you get to see some good old gears start clunking into place.