The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza
by Dr. Ian Cutress on May 7, 2020 9:00 AM ESTCPU Performance: New Tests!
As part of our ever on-going march towards a better rounded view of the performance of these processors, we have a few new tests for you that we’ve been cooking in the lab. Some of these new benchmarks provide obvious talking points, others are just a bit of fun. Most of them are so new we’ve only run them on a few processors so far. It will be interesting to hear your feedback!
NAMD ApoA1
One frequent request over the years has been for some form of molecular dynamics simulation. Molecular dynamics forms the basis of a lot of computational biology and chemistry when modeling specific molecules, enabling researchers to find low energy configurations or potential active binding sites, especially when looking at larger proteins. We’re using the NAMD software here, or Nanoscale Molecular Dynamics, often cited for its parallel efficiency. Unfortunately the version we’re using is limited to 64 threads on Windows, but we can still use it to analyze our processors. We’re simulating the ApoA1 protein for 10 minutes, and reporting back the ‘nanoseconds per day’ that our processor can simulate. Molecular dynamics is so complex that yes, you can spend a day simply calculating a nanosecond of molecular movement.
Crysis CPU Render
One of the most oft used memes in computer gaming is ‘Can It Run Crysis?’. The original 2007 game, built in the Crytek engine by Crytek, was heralded as a computationally complex title for the hardware at the time and several years after, suggesting that a user needed graphics hardware from the future in order to run it. Fast forward over a decade, and the game runs fairly easily on modern GPUs, but we can also apply the same concept to pure CPU rendering – can the CPU render Crysis? Since 64 core processors entered the market, one can dream. We built a benchmark to see whether the hardware can.
Smooth#canitruncrysis pic.twitter.com/k7x31ULndF
— ๐ท๐. ๐ผ๐๐ ๐ถ๐ข๐ก๐๐๐ ๐ (@IanCutress) May 4, 2020
For this test, we’re running Crysis’ own GPU benchmark, but in CPU render mode. This is a 2000 frame test, which we run over a series of resolutions from 800x600 up to 1920x1080.
Crysis CPU Render Frames Per Second |
||||||
AnandTech | 800 x600 |
1024 x768 |
1280 x800 |
1366 x768 |
1600 x900 |
1920 x1080 |
AMD | ||||||
Ryzen 9 4900HS | 11.50 | 8.75 | 7.44 | 6.83 | 5.21 | 4.30 |
Ryzen 5 3600 | 9.98 | 7.84 | 6.69 | 6.15 | 4.75 | 3.92 |
Ryzen 3 3300X | 8.42 | 6.52 | 5.43 | 5.01 | 3.92 | 3.07 |
Ryzen 3 3100 | 7.50 | 5.78 | 4.87 | 4.5 | 3.54 | 2.77 |
Intel | ||||||
Core i7-7700K | 7.63 | 5.87 | 4.95 | 4.55 | 3.57 | 2.79 |
Core i7-9750H | 6.78 | 5.17 | 4.37 | 3.99 | 3.12 | 2.46 |
Dwarf Fortress
Another long standing request for our benchmark suite has been Dwarf Fortress, a popular management/roguelike indie video game, first launched in 2006. Emulating the ASCII interfaces of old, this title is a rather complex beast, which can generate environments subject to millennia of rule, famous faces, peasants, and key historical figures and events. The further you get into the game, depending on the size of the world, the slower it becomes.
DFMark is a benchmark built by vorsgren on the Bay12Forums that gives two different modes built on DFHack: world generation and embark. These tests can be configured, but range anywhere from 3 minutes to several hours. I’ve barely scratched the surface here, but after analyzing the test, we ended up going for three different world generation sizes.
Interestingly Intel's hardware likes Dwarf Fortress.
We also have other benchmarks in the wings, such as AI Benchmark (ETH), LINPACK, and V-Ray, however they still require a bit of tweaking to get working it seems.
249 Comments
View All Comments
destorofall - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
you sound butthurt0ldman79 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Heaven forbid his data set of God knows how many CPU doesn't include the one you want to see...Damn, you really should demand a refund.
LMonty - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
You should really file a complaint, buddy. Gotta fight for your rights. ;Pjimbo2779 - Sunday, May 10, 2020 - link
What has happened to the comments section here. Can we go back to just ignoring the ignoramus'. It often means they just go away.psychobriggsy - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
It was mentioned that Intel didn't even send these CPUs out for review, and that they're hard to obtain because Intel isn't making many of them.However, a few more data points would be nice. I think Ian needs to set up a system test datacentre like Phoronix so the rebuilding is kept to a minimum!
twizzlebizzle22 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
AMD must have sent the 7700k or specified it's use. I've noticed every review using that specific CPU. AMD aiming for the used market upgraders it seems.amrnuke - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
I believe that's the last Intel chip that was 4C/8T as well, right? Seems a fair comparison, I guess if AMD really think that's the market.Anyway, TechPowerUp went ahead and lined up the 3300X against a bunch of other relevant chips (https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-3-330... It's 1% slower than the 3600 at 720P gaming, 16.5% slower than the 9900K at 720P gaming.
CPU tests show the 4C/8T 3300X holding up well to the 6C/6T 8600K and 9400F. It pretty well trounces the 9100F.
The 3100 beats the 9100F by 14% in CPU tests.
schujj07 - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
720p gaming isn't even relevant. If these were iGPU tests then sure, but even a GTX 1050 can do better than 720p gaming.supdawgwtfd - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link
Are you stupid?To test CPU performance you run lower resolution to ensure the CPU is the bottleneck
Your comment is not relevant.
schujj07 - Saturday, May 9, 2020 - link
Hence why most review sites use 1080p. 720p benchmarking on modern hardware is akin to Quake 3 benchmarking at 640x480 resolution back in 2000. All you end up seeing are crazy high numbers that don't mean anything. We see it all the time that CPU A is faster at 720p but then slower at 1080p?