News Intel's Core i3-12100 Demolishes The Ryzen 3 3300X In An Early Review

Hm... Don't get me wrong here as I do agree it's nice to see more competition and specially in the lower end, but... Beating Zen2 (an almost 3 year old uArch) with something fresh and using about the same power while doing so doesn't strike me like a "demolishing". It beats it, sure, but... It doesn't read like a big achievement from the behemoth with almost endless R&D budget... Maybe more data is needed to show more strengths, but at a first glance, I just don't see this a a confidence boost. Specially since this is a locked part and the 3300X is unlocked and you can extract a lot more brute performance out of it if needed (like Intel with the 12900K, lol) to reach parity or even beat it in some metrics.

Anyway, competition is always welcome. Let's see if AMD feels any form of pressure by this xD

Regards.
 

Makaveli

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2001
1,189
255
19,670
4
Hm... Don't get me wrong here as I do agree it's nice to see more competition and specially in the lower end, but... Beating Zen2 (an almost 3 year old uArch) with something fresh and using about the same power while doing so doesn't strike me like a "demolishing". It beats it, sure, but... It doesn't read like a big achievement from the behemoth with almost endless R&D budget... Maybe more data is needed to show more strengths, but at a first glance, I just don't see this a a confidence boost. Specially since this is a locked part and the 3300X is unlocked and you can extract a lot more brute performance out of it if needed (like Intel with the 12900K, lol) to reach parity or even beat it in some metrics.

Anyway, competition is always welcome. Let's see if AMD feels any form of pressure by this xD

Regards.
lol this is par the course i've seen comparisons with adl-s vs a Threadripper 2990WX which is based on Zen+
 
Last edited:

escksu

Respectable
Aug 8, 2019
520
192
2,060
0
Hm... Don't get me wrong here as I do agree it's nice to see more competition and specially in the lower end, but... Beating Zen2 (an almost 3 year old uArch) with something fresh and using about the same power while doing so doesn't strike me like a "demolishing". It beats it, sure, but... It doesn't read like a big achievement from the behemoth with almost endless R&D budget... Maybe more data is needed to show more strengths, but at a first glance, I just don't see this a a confidence boost. Specially since this is a locked part and the 3300X is unlocked and you can extract a lot more brute performance out of it if needed (like Intel with the 12900K, lol) to reach parity or even beat it in some metrics.

Anyway, competition is always welcome. Let's see if AMD feels any form of pressure by this xD

Regards.
Alderlake is hampered by lack of suitable boards. Z690 is currently way too expensive. Nobody will buy a 200-300 Z690 board and use it for a 120-130 CPU..

At this price point, cost matters more than performance..

If a person has to consider these CPU, its obviously he/she do not have alot of budget. However, I wouldn't consider 3300x due to lack of integrated GPU (GPUs are EXPENSIVE!!).... So, its either the G series AMD or Intel i3

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3-3300x-3100-cpu-review/2
 
Last edited:
Reactions: artk2219

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,600
792
3,560
0
Hm... Don't get me wrong here as I do agree it's nice to see more competition and specially in the lower end, but... Beating Zen2 (an almost 3 year old uArch) with something fresh and using about the same power while doing so doesn't strike me like a "demolishing". It beats it, sure, but... It doesn't read like a big achievement from the behemoth with almost endless R&D budget... Maybe more data is needed to show more strengths, but at a first glance, I just don't see this a a confidence boost. Specially since this is a locked part and the 3300X is unlocked and you can extract a lot more brute performance out of it if needed (like Intel with the 12900K, lol) to reach parity or even beat it in some metrics.
The 3300X is currently $325 on Amazon and $350 on Newegg from 3rd party companies I've never heard of. This was a textbook example of a vaporware launch. It's not Intel's fault AMD has completely ignored this part of the market. There's no point in trying to list any of the strengths of a chip you can't buy. i3-10105 is currently available for $130. That's the CPU the i3-12x should be compared to.
 

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,600
792
3,560
0
There are currently only Z690 alderlake boards and they are very expensive. Nobody will buy a 200-300 board pair with a 120-130 CPU....

Intel needs cheaper boards......
CPU isn't out yet. Don't need to worry about motherboard selection until the chip is available for purchase. Most of these are going to end up in cheap OEM desktops which won't be using Z690 motherboards.
 
Aug 16, 2021
11
8
15
0
Clearly, Tom's got a BIG check from Intel. Not an ounce of journalism in sight, just 'spin' Pure marketing fluff. Pure fanboi-ism. Pure fantasy.
 

OriginFree

Honorable
May 23, 2015
48
18
10,545
1
Hm... Don't get me wrong here as I do agree it's nice to see more competition and specially in the lower end, but... Beating Zen2 (an almost 3 year old uArch) with something fresh and using about the same power while doing so doesn't strike me like a "demolishing". It beats it, sure, but... It doesn't read like a big achievement from the behemoth with almost endless R&D budget... Maybe more data is needed to show more strengths, but at a first glance, I just don't see this a a confidence boost. Specially since this is a locked part and the 3300X is unlocked and you can extract a lot more brute performance out of it if needed (like Intel with the 12900K, lol) to reach parity or even beat it in some metrics.

Anyway, competition is always welcome. Let's see if AMD feels any form of pressure by this xD

Regards.

I'm more interested in the 65 vs 60/77 power usage numbers. If intel is usually running closer to 77 than 60/65 then that also must be factored in to some (minimal) extent.
I'd like to see the benchmarks (just for laughs) adjusted for a per watt performance and see how close things are then.
Obviously if you're buying a desktop system, that extra 12w isn't going to play a role in the decision, but for an apples vs apples comparison, it could be interesting.
 
Reactions: artk2219

m3city

Prominent
Sep 17, 2020
21
18
515
0
And I'm demolished by the title of this news.
On more serious side, it's not unfair to compare new intel to 2yo AMD. Thruth is that AMD does not have a more recent cpu in this class. There is 5300G/GE. It would be SHOCKING if intel did not match AMD now. I could't agree more with @-Fran- that it's not that impressive after all. But intel is so much cheaper, and when equally cheap boards come up, then one can't argue about platform cost anymore.

Does anyone know if there will be new AMD cpu/apu in the basic class anytime soon? Like ZEN1 athlons?
 
Reactions: artk2219
The 3300X is currently $325 on Amazon and $350 on Newegg from 3rd party companies I've never heard of. This was a textbook example of a vaporware launch. It's not Intel's fault AMD has completely ignored this part of the market. There's no point in trying to list any of the strengths of a chip you can't buy. i3-10105 is currently available for $130. That's the CPU the i3-12x should be compared to.
The MSRP of the 3300X and 3100 is lower than the new 12100, so I can assume these new 12th gen i3's will sell above their 1K price psudo-MSRP when they launch. And there's still no B or H boards from Intel announced or released, so specially at this price range, the CPU expected price is really non-consequential. Also, the 3300X has been EOL'ed it seems, so not much of a competition anyway. AMD just doesn't care about the lower end and only has the 3400G, it seems.

Regards.
 

bernardv

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2009
33
2
18,535
0
Hm... Don't get me wrong here as I do agree it's nice to see more competition and specially in the lower end, but... Beating Zen2 (an almost 3 year old uArch) with something fresh and using about the same power while doing so doesn't strike me like a "demolishing". It beats it, sure, but... It doesn't read like a big achievement from the behemoth with almost endless R&D budget... Maybe more data is needed to show more strengths, but at a first glance, I just don't see this a a confidence boost. Specially since this is a locked part and the 3300X is unlocked and you can extract a lot more brute performance out of it if needed (like Intel with the 12900K, lol) to reach parity or even beat it in some metrics.

Anyway, competition is always welcome. Let's see if AMD feels any form of pressure by this xD

Regards.
Fran, in case you haven't noticed, guys here at Tom's are huge Intel fans.
 

escksu

Respectable
Aug 8, 2019
520
192
2,060
0
I'm more interested in the 65 vs 60/77 power usage numbers. If intel is usually running closer to 77 than 60/65 then that also must be factored in to some (minimal) extent.
I'd like to see the benchmarks (just for laughs) adjusted for a per watt performance and see how close things are then.
Obviously if you're buying a desktop system, that extra 12w isn't going to play a role in the decision, but for an apples vs apples comparison, it could be interesting.
On a per Watt basis. Nope, AMD isn't able to match. In the 12900K vs 5950x match, I originally thought that the 5950x is severely hampered by its TDP limit. But this is not really the case.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ju1dnp View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ju1dnp/amd_ryzen_9_5950x_overclocking_benchmarks_timespy/


Someone has oc the 5950x to 4.75GHz on all cores.... 31617 is a really good result but its just ~4400pts higher than 12900K. Power seems to be ~260W on R20 (assume R23 is similar). So, despite having 16 cores and 32 threads, its not really much faster than 12900K. Now, imagine 12900K has 16 Pcores instead of 8P/8E.....
 
Reactions: rtoaht

escksu

Respectable
Aug 8, 2019
520
192
2,060
0
Fran, in case you haven't noticed, guys here at Tom's are huge Intel fans.
Doesn't matter which camp, benchmarks are benchmarks and prices are prices. doesn't change. Supporting AMD doesn't make its CPUs become cheaper nor perform faster. Same goes for intel.

I used to be a big big AMD fan (since K6 days). But now, I don't care at all.... I just buy what my budget allows and which seems better buy. I used to be running a pair of Fury X on FX9590 (oc to 5.2GHz), because I was a hardcore AMD supporter. This means no Nvidia too....lol...

Btw, I am still using 3600 on B450 board. Previously on 1700 (skipped 2000 series). Now, I yet to decide if I will get Intel or AMD for my next upgrade.
 
Fran, in case you haven't noticed, guys here at Tom's are huge Intel fans.
I don't think they are, personally. I have my doubts about the editorial being totally impartial thanks to that good ol' "just buy it", but other than the cringe headlines to grab clicks, I think their data proves useful regardless of their interpretation. If they were truly biased, they'd skew the data in some way to make Intel/AMD/nVidia look better and I don't see any of that happenin. Wording is just that and interpretation is always up for debate, so as long as the data they provide is "clean" to my eyes, I won't assign immediate bias.

The cringe though... I can't argue there, haha.

Regards.
 

wifiburger

Honorable
Feb 21, 2016
502
35
11,040
9
You shouldn't give any slack to AMD for Zen2 being 3years old

They are responsible for slow CPU releases. If I remember both Zen2 and Zen3 launches were delayed so they sneak in their GPU for free marketing.

For us that don't care about AMD GPUs , we just ends up with overpriced / delayed CPU launches.

If AMD was serious about competition, they need to stop this consumer CPU/ GPU dual release and go back to 6month cycle for CPUs !

Makes no sense to have one strong cpu gen (Zen3) if prices are bad and Intel pumps out 2 gen cpus during the same time !!!!!
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
718
106
19,170
4
Doesn't matter which camp, benchmarks are benchmarks and prices are prices. doesn't change. Supporting AMD doesn't make its CPUs become cheaper nor perform faster. Same goes for intel.

I used to be a big big AMD fan (since K6 days). But now, I don't care at all.... I just buy what my budget allows and which seems better buy. I used to be running a pair of Fury X on FX9590 (oc to 5.2GHz), because I was a hardcore AMD supporter. This means no Nvidia too....lol...

Btw, I am still using 3600 on B450 board. Previously on 1700 (skipped 2000 series). Now, I yet to decide if I will get Intel or AMD for my next upgrade.
One of the most important aspects for me is this: you couldn't do this upgrade if you where on Intel. You also can upgrade to a 5900x and get a big performance boost without changing your motherboard. That's massive value to me.

If you want my advice (since you upgrade instead of replace), wait for AM5 next year and go that route. Alder Lake probably won't be upgradeable, so what you buy is what you get for good.
 
Reactions: mrv_co
Apr 1, 2020
416
201
1,060
0
The problem I see is that Intel's Alchemist GPU isn't going to be on the market until after July next year according to current projections, and with no discussion about the Eurozone and USA banning cryptomining, the GPU shortage isn't going to end anytime soon. With the 1660 Ti retailing for $400-$700 even with a $120 entry level CPU and easily $500 entry level rest of the system (motherboard, RAM, PSU, HDD, case, monitor) you're still talking about $1000-$1200 easy for an entry level system.

At that price you could get a laptop with a more powerful GPU and much faster CPU, like the Lenovo Legion 5 at $1200 right now.

  • 3.2 GHz AMD Ryzen 7 5800H 8-Core CPU
  • 8GB of DDR4 RAM | 512GB M.2 NVMe SSD
  • 15.6" 1920 x 1080 IPS Display
  • NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 (6GB GDDR6)
  • USB 3.2 Gen 1 & 2 | HDMI 2.1
  • Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) | Bluetooth 5.1
  • Gigabit Ethernet Port
  • 165 Hz Refresh Rate, G-SYNC & FreeSync
  • 4-Zone RGB Backlit Keyboard
  • Windows 11 Home (64-Bit)

Lenovo 15.6" Legion 5 Gaming Laptop (Phantom Blue) 82JU00N2US (bhphotovideo.com)
 
Reactions: RodroX and ROOT#

rtoaht

Prominent
Jun 5, 2020
44
35
560
0
Thanks for all the support to 3300X in the comment section. It is currently selling for $330 in amazon and fanboys like you are buying it at that price. Keep supporting so that Lisa can charge $500 for it.
 
Oct 7, 2021
6
9
15
0
Who in their right mind would pair ANY low end CPU with a 3060Ti
For that matter, who would use one on a 200$ motherboard.
At today's prices the CPU cost is an afterthought - I've seen sales on a 12600k for 250, which is nothing when a 690+3060Ti is at least $800

Show me the performance of integrated graphics on a 75-100$ motherboard

To the extent that I care about missing AMD chips, its the missing upgrade to RDNA2 on the higher end APUs and the missing 5300G

The integrated graphics on the 12 series is supposedly not horrible in the higher end config.
A low end intel chip with their highest end integrated graphics could be interesting once we have cheaper 600 series boards
 
Reactions: mrv_co

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,600
792
3,560
0
With the 1660 Ti retailing for $400-$700 even with a $120 entry level CPU and easily $500 entry level rest of the system (motherboard, RAM, PSU, HDD, case, monitor) you're still talking about $1000-$1200 easy for an entry level system.
If you know you're going to be building a system any time soon, or you are already in need of a GPU, and you live in the US, you need to be hitting the Newegg Shuffle 6 days a week. You will get selected eventually, and you won't get completely hosed on cost. You'll certainly get something much better for $400 to 700 than a 1660Ti.
 

rtoaht

Prominent
Jun 5, 2020
44
35
560
0
Clearly, Tom's got a BIG check from Intel. Not an ounce of journalism in sight, just 'spin' Pure marketing fluff. Pure fanboi-ism. Pure fantasy.
Exactly. It is not fair that Intel is going to release a much faster CPU at a cheaper price than my favorite brand. Moreover, it is outrageous that a tech news site is even publishing the tech news. It shouldn't be publicized so that people can stay uninformed and keep purchasing 3300X for $330 or more.
 

mrv_co

Honorable
Jan 18, 2016
102
44
10,610
0
It's about time that Intel finally came up with a 'tit' for a 2+ year old 'tat'. Better late than never. Clearly better based on the benchmarks, but Intel PR seems to be leaning in pretty hard here with the 'demolishes' verbiage.
 

rtoaht

Prominent
Jun 5, 2020
44
35
560
0
It's about time that Intel finally came up with a 'tit' for a 2+ year old 'tat'. Better late than never. Clearly better based on the benchmarks, but Intel PR seems to be leaning in pretty hard here with the 'demolishes' verbiage.
Sure. Intel currently has no CPU that is cheaper than the 3300X ($330 in amazon and $350 in NewEgg) and outperforms it. Oh wait...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS