AMD Ryzen 3 1300X Review

[loki1944]

Spoiler

The average pc gamer isn't going to be someone who frequents cpu reviews. And they most likely wouldn't even know whether they were at or below 50 FPS to begin with. There is a very clear distinction between my pc gamer and pc enthusiast friends; the former don't care about hardware, don't really know what hardware they have, don't frequent pc hardware sites, are satisfied with "good enough", and are fine with low FPS (and typically couldn't tell you what FPS they are playing at) as long as it's playable. PC enthusiasts on the other hand are generally the opposite of all that and lack the low performance/quality/fps tolerance of the average pc gamer.

Drops in framerate present as stuttering, and you don't have to be an enthusiast to notice that or find it annoying (even if you maybe don't know what it is or what's causing it). You can see it in all the threads asking "why does my computer lag when playing [video game]?", which are often by new(ish) users who don't seem to have a lot of knowledge of PC hardware.

Again, you underestimate the tolerance level of the average pc gamer, the statistics are not even remotely in your favor.

I don't see how the stats you presented are relevant to what I said. You claimed that typical gamers are oblivious to framerate drops, 1%/0.1% frametimes, etc. because they don't frequent HW sites, don't look at reviews/benchmarks, and in general don't know enough. My point is that some aspects of performance (i.e. framerate drops) don't require any expert knowledge of HW or gaming to notice. Regarding the masses of people still using dual cores, maybe they're not experiencing framerate drops in the games they're playing, or maybe they are but not to the point they feel compelled to upgrade. Or maybe they just don't have the money to upgrade to a quad core (another common theme in the threads on this site), given that until recently that meant spending $200+ on a CPU.

Read the rest of my posts, I have supported my argument with referenced data, all responses are conjecture and exceptions to this point.

Referenced data? LOL it's your opinion based upon a very limited data set. That in no way makes your argument valid.

It's far more than anyone conjecturing has brought to the table; and the data itself is validated, unlike what you have presented. Don't like the data? Disprove it. Just keep in mind fantasy does not equal reality.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Spoiler

I don't see how the stats you presented are relevant to what I said. You claimed that typical gamers are oblivious to framerate drops, 1%/0.1% frametimes, etc. because they don't frequent HW sites, don't look at reviews/benchmarks, and in general don't know enough. My point is that some aspects of performance (i.e. framerate drops) don't require any expert knowledge of HW or gaming to notice. Regarding the masses of people still using dual cores, maybe they're not experiencing framerate drops in the games they're playing, or maybe they are but not to the point they feel compelled to upgrade. Or maybe they just don't have the money to upgrade to a quad core (another common theme in the threads on this site), given that until recently that meant spending $200+ on a CPU.

Read the rest of my posts, I have supported my argument with referenced data, all responses are conjecture and exceptions to this point.

A quick glance of your sources show: the most popular games, that many people still use dual cores, and movement from dual to quad cores has been slow. They in no way support your claims that 'average' gamers are oblivious to frametime variance, and that they are perfectly content (and therefore have no desire to upgrade) as long as the game runs.

 

[loki1944]

Spoiler

I don't see how the stats you presented are relevant to what I said. You claimed that typical gamers are oblivious to framerate drops, 1%/0.1% frametimes, etc. because they don't frequent HW sites, don't look at reviews/benchmarks, and in general don't know enough. My point is that some aspects of performance (i.e. framerate drops) don't require any expert knowledge of HW or gaming to notice. Regarding the masses of people still using dual cores, maybe they're not experiencing framerate drops in the games they're playing, or maybe they are but not to the point they feel compelled to upgrade. Or maybe they just don't have the money to upgrade to a quad core (another common theme in the threads on this site), given that until recently that meant spending $200+ on a CPU.

Read the rest of my posts, I have supported my argument with referenced data, all responses are conjecture and exceptions to this point.

A quick glance of your sources show: the most popular games, that many people still use dual cores, and movement from dual to quad cores has been slow. They in no way support your claims that 'average' gamers are oblivious to frametime variance, and that they are perfectly content (and therefore have no desire to upgrade) as long as the game runs.

Actually it does, because they aren't bothering to play games that need more juice, obviously. You can literally combine demanding games on pc in terms of concurrent users and fall far, far, far short of these games requiring low end hardware.I know analysis is hard in the enthusiast cocoon.

 

[-Fran-]

Spoiler

I don't see how the stats you presented are relevant to what I said. You claimed that typical gamers are oblivious to framerate drops, 1%/0.1% frametimes, etc. because they don't frequent HW sites, don't look at reviews/benchmarks, and in general don't know enough. My point is that some aspects of performance (i.e. framerate drops) don't require any expert knowledge of HW or gaming to notice. Regarding the masses of people still using dual cores, maybe they're not experiencing framerate drops in the games they're playing, or maybe they are but not to the point they feel compelled to upgrade. Or maybe they just don't have the money to upgrade to a quad core (another common theme in the threads on this site), given that until recently that meant spending $200+ on a CPU.

Read the rest of my posts, I have supported my argument with referenced data, all responses are conjecture and exceptions to this point.

A quick glance of your sources show: the most popular games, that many people still use dual cores, and movement from dual to quad cores has been slow. They in no way support your claims that 'average' gamers are oblivious to frametime variance, and that they are perfectly content (and therefore have no desire to upgrade) as long as the game runs.

Actually it does, because they aren't bothering to play games that need more juice, obviously. You can literally combine demanding games on pc in terms of concurrent users and fall far, far, far short of these games requiring low end hardware.I know analysis is hard in the enthusiast cocoon.

For what it's worth, I agree with you.

The key word being ignored from your argument is "tolerance". Non-enthusiast do note stuttering and other "artifacts" (whatever you want to call them) in games, but don't mind as long as they *can play*. Is it a painful or expensive upgrade? Keep on playing! Is it a cheap upgrade they can do easily? Go for it.

Most non-enthusiasts still use laptops or pre-built computers, so their rate of adoption goes in-line with what is put in the cheapest bracket. This is a bit like "chicken and egg". I can guarantee if all 4C CPUs go to the $70 price range and OEMs put those in the same price bracket as regular 2C PCs, they will fly off the shelves and move the Steam statistics to 4C overnight. Will that happen? Nope; self-fulfilled prophecy of sorts.

Cheers!

 

[madmatt30]

I think the term 'average gamer ' is a misuse personally, there's not really any such thing.
Casual gamer maybe would be better used.

Have you thought maybe the reason that lol & the like are so popular is simply because they are titles than can still be played on old core2duos, quads & first gen i3's at least part successfully ??

You're assuming that owners of old 2009/2010/2011 systems are entirely happy not playing newer titles but I think the main reason they don't is simply because they know their systems aren't capable & they don't (or didn't) have the budget until now to do so.

Owners of systems that old were likely at the time still in full time education with very little money to spend.They'll now likely be in full (or at least part-time) employment & have spare cash now.
The cheap ryzen 3 chips offer a foothold into real performance (not enthusiast) computing & gaming.
For that $100ish pricepoint for a full blown quad core with excellent capabilities amd should be applauded full stop IMO.

& I'm still talking about the ryzen 1200 here , I think the 1300x is just off-kilter price compared to the rest of the ryzen lineup.

Apart from the vast IPC difference of core2 & first gen Intels the fact is that hardware changes in general will force people to upgrade eventually.
Got even a 2nd gen Intel sandy/ivy & if the board dies you're Sol getting a replacement nowadays .
Older than that ?? Good luck finding anything from ddr2 ram to ide hard drives unless you risk second hand.
GPU upgrades ?? A lot won't work on boards pre 2012 full stop , you've then got Microsoft forcing win 10 & removing (or at least ignoring) compatibility with older hardware.

A massive percentage of people with a system Pre 2012 (sandy/ivy & am3+ era) is going to have to upgrade at some point in the next 2 years IMO.

 

[bloodroses]

I think the term 'average gamer ' is a misuse personally, there's not really any such thing.
Casual gamer maybe would be better used.

Have you thought maybe the reason that lol & the like are so popular is simply because they are titles than can still be played on old core2duos, quads & first gen i3's at least part successfully ??

The other reason is because they can be played on Intel based laptops that only have the HD onboard graphics on it. I'm actually surprised I can play Heroes of the Storm on my i5 5200u Broadwell (HD5500 graphics) laptop. Granted it's no where close to the quality of playing on my desktop, but the portability factor is nice.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Spoiler

I don't see how the stats you presented are relevant to what I said. You claimed that typical gamers are oblivious to framerate drops, 1%/0.1% frametimes, etc. because they don't frequent HW sites, don't look at reviews/benchmarks, and in general don't know enough. My point is that some aspects of performance (i.e. framerate drops) don't require any expert knowledge of HW or gaming to notice. Regarding the masses of people still using dual cores, maybe they're not experiencing framerate drops in the games they're playing, or maybe they are but not to the point they feel compelled to upgrade. Or maybe they just don't have the money to upgrade to a quad core (another common theme in the threads on this site), given that until recently that meant spending $200+ on a CPU.

Read the rest of my posts, I have supported my argument with referenced data, all responses are conjecture and exceptions to this point.

A quick glance of your sources show: the most popular games, that many people still use dual cores, and movement from dual to quad cores has been slow. They in no way support your claims that 'average' gamers are oblivious to frametime variance, and that they are perfectly content (and therefore have no desire to upgrade) as long as the game runs.

Actually it does, because they aren't bothering to play games that need more juice, obviously. You can literally combine demanding games on pc in terms of concurrent users and fall far, far, far short of these games requiring low end hardware.I know analysis is hard in the enthusiast cocoon.

Sigh, I'll try this one this one more time. Your sources only show the level of dual vs quad core adoption, and which games are most popular. Unless I missed something, they don't say why people are sticking to dual cores, or why they're playing those games. You clearly have your own ideas on this, but they're based on conjecture and anecdotes, at least based on what you've said in this thread so far. Does that necessarily mean you're wrong? Nope. But you can't just keep telling people who question you to 'look at my sources, they prove I'm right', when those sources only support half your argument.

 

[InvalidError]

Your sources only show the level of dual vs quad core adoption, and which games are most popular. Unless I missed something, they don't say why people are sticking to dual cores, or why they're playing those games.

Exactly. A list of most popular games and a list of what percentage of people game on how many cores does not establish any sort of correlation between the games being played, CPU performance and those people's appreciation of those games with whatever hardware they are running them on.

Just because I couldn't afford a Voodoo card back when I was in high school didn't mean that I enjoyed playing games at 20-30fps nor that I stuck strictly to Warcraft and other "hardware-appropriate" games of that time.

 

[Ne0Wolf7]

Spoiler

The average pc gamer isn't going to be someone who frequents cpu reviews. And they most likely wouldn't even know whether they were at or below 50 FPS to begin with. There is a very clear distinction between my pc gamer and pc enthusiast friends; the former don't care about hardware, don't really know what hardware they have, don't frequent pc hardware sites, are satisfied with "good enough", and are fine with low FPS (and typically couldn't tell you what FPS they are playing at) as long as it's playable. PC enthusiasts on the other hand are generally the opposite of all that and lack the low performance/quality/fps tolerance of the average pc gamer.

Drops in framerate present as stuttering, and you don't have to be an enthusiast to notice that or find it annoying (even if you maybe don't know what it is or what's causing it). You can see it in all the threads asking "why does my computer lag when playing [video game]?", which are often by new(ish) users who don't seem to have a lot of knowledge of PC hardware.

Again, you underestimate the tolerance level of the average pc gamer, the statistics are not even remotely in your favor.

Said average PC gamer just made the thread he was talking about

Got something of value to contribute or just felt like saying stuff?

Speaking of value of what has been said, everything you have said is based off of a very large assumption on a huge group of people that none of us can either prove or disprove. Your entire argument is based on the idea that people on budget systems can not decect, or dont mind stuttering or poor frame times. Maybe they don't, maybe they do, we can not say. My system is sort of budget, and all I play is minecraft, but I can see when my frames go to the forties, and I do mind, but I am only one person