Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

AMD Ryzen 5 3600X and 3400G CPU/APU Review - MMORPG.com

SystemSystem Member UncommonPosts: 3,129

imageAMD Ryzen 5 3600X and 3400G CPU/APU Review - MMORPG.com

AMD has disrupted the market. With the launch of their Ryzen 3000 series, AMD is finally giving Intel a run for their money, and the CPU industry is more exciting than it’s been in years. When I reviewed the Ryzen 3700X and 3900X last month, I found them to be some of the best-value CPUs you could buy. But what about gamers who fall more toward the middle of the market or only want to do some light gaming? AMD has an answer and that’s what we’re out to investigate today. This is our review of the Ryzen 3600X CPU and Ryzen 3400G APU.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • Prime_DirectivePrime_Directive Member RarePosts: 1,142
    mid level offerings.
    There is a multiverse inside our minds which millions live.
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,473
    You entirely forgot to mention that the 3400G graphics are about 300% better than the Intel integrated graphics.
  • PhyxsyusPhyxsyus Member UncommonPosts: 1
    Why not benchmark Mmorpgs? Wtf? GW2, Tera, ffVIX? What a waste of oportunity
    Asm0deusMikehadoomex
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,175


    mid level offerings.



    Not sure what you mean by that.

    Given the price point for a cpu and gpu combination (apu) the Ryzan 5 3400G is arguably positioning itself almost at the bottom. Yes you can buy cpus for less but add in a gpu and the price difference won't be that big.

    And yet what a "mid level" - or bottom level - offering it is. If this had released even a few years ago it would have been top of pile as far as cpu performance goes.
    Gdemami
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,175

    Ozmodan said:

    You entirely forgot to mention that the 3400G graphics are about 300% better than the Intel integrated graphics.



    Certainly appears to be the case. Which is not to say that the Intel offering was "bad"; the latest versions - after many years and multiple iterations - have achieved "decent-ish" graphics performance and arguably have driven the market for apus. To the detriment of low end gpus.

    For Intel the strategy (made) makes sense. No graphics presence - so all upside. And the market leader for low end gpus was dominated by AMD so a chance to hurt AMDs revenue. Sadly for Intel the strategy requires cpus that compete!

    AMD - who already made decent apus - have taken their foot of the gas so to speak. Probably reasoning that:
    a) whilst Intel is down its not out and will doubtless return with a cpu + improved integrated graphics.- so the long term trend will be towards ever more powerful apu - eroding the mid-market.
    b) they are powering both the next gen XBox and Playstation. for previous generations this was a non-trivial 10% of their revenue stream - it should be higher going forward;
    c) And its a chance to hurt NVidia of course.

    Another 2 or 3 years? RT only games probably can't come quickly enough for NVidia.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,870
    gervaise1 said:

    AMD - who already made decent apus - have taken their foot of the gas so to speak. Probably reasoning that:
    a) whilst Intel is down its not out and will doubtless return with a cpu + improved integrated graphics.- so the long term trend will be towards ever more powerful apu - eroding the mid-market.
    b) they are powering both the next gen XBox and Playstation. for previous generations this was a non-trivial 10% of their revenue stream - it should be higher going forward;
    c) And its a chance to hurt NVidia of course.
    No.  High margin parts are always the priority on an expensive, new process node, not cheap APUs.  AMD will launch an APU on 7 nm, but not until after they've gotten their higher margin parts out.

    The only times that an APU has ever been the lead part on a process node were on 32 nm because Bulldozer (which was supposed to be the lead part) was delayed and 28 nm, because they had no high margin parts but only APUs.
  • LaucianNailorLaucianNailor Member UncommonPosts: 49
    So for a ‘price comparison’, AMD includes a cooler within the box for the RRP you provide. I don’t think Intel does the same?? If not, you also have to factor the additional cost for an Intel solution.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,175
    edited August 5

    Quizzical said:


    gervaise1 said:



    AMD - who already made decent apus - have taken their foot of the gas so to speak. Probably reasoning that:

    a) whilst Intel is down its not out and will doubtless return with a cpu + improved integrated graphics.- so the long term trend will be towards ever more powerful apu - eroding the mid-market.

    b) they are powering both the next gen XBox and Playstation. for previous generations this was a non-trivial 10% of their revenue stream - it should be higher going forward;

    c) And its a chance to hurt NVidia of course.


    No.  High margin parts are always the priority on an expensive, new process node, not cheap APUs.  AMD will launch an APU on 7 nm, but not until after they've gotten their higher margin parts out.

    The only times that an APU has ever been the lead part on a process node were on 32 nm because Bulldozer (which was supposed to be the lead part) was delayed and 28 nm, because they had no high margin parts but only APUs.



    And?
    My comment is about company corporate strategy. Which is about how companies see - and hope to shape - the market.

    The type of question that AMD asked themselves when, for example, they decided to go with cpu development ahead of gpu development on 7nm. They did so because it was better strategy for them in their view.

    As for margin what comes first are profit forcasts combined with their strategy. They may sell at a lower (profit) margin if they believe this will grow their market share e.g. selling consoles at cost or even at a loss. (Lots of examples not just in computing, its basic stuff). And there are always multiple factors. You mentioned Bulldozer - stuff happened they adapted as best they could. In fact since AMD do not own the manufacturing for them its just a question of getting the best price for them.

    Going forward AMD will be looking at the future market. A future in which apus may - may - become the dominant force. And if that happens they will want to be a big part of it. And their strategic goal at this point in time will be to ensure that they are well positioned in the supply chain. And if - if - apus become dominant they will move forward seeking to maximise their profit margin. And that will be true whether they are using new nodes or old nodes. Making apus or cpus or gpus.
    Post edited by gervaise1 on
  • GladDogGladDog Member RarePosts: 968


    So for a ‘price comparison’, AMD includes a cooler within the box for the RRP you provide. I don’t think Intel does the same?? If not, you also have to factor the additional cost for an Intel solution.



    If you buy an OEM Intel CPU there is no cooler added. If you buy a retail CPU (often only a few bucks more) you get a very adequate cooler if you are not planning on overclocking and a full year of warrantee, compared with the 90 days supplied by the OEM CPUs.

    The 3600X comes with the Wraith cooler, which is about as good as you are going to get with a fan/ heatsink supplied with the CPU. The Wraith is plenty of cooling for moderate overclocking according to Tom's Hardware.


    The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!


Sign In or Register to comment.