Techgage logo

AMD Ryzen 3 3100 & 3300X Quad-core CPU Performance Review

AMD Zen 2 Ryzen 3 Packaging

Date: June 22, 2020
Author(s): Rob Williams

With its Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X quad-core processors, AMD is delivering some new options to those who want to build a new rig on the cheap. Fortunately, today’s ~$100 processors are pretty powerful, with both of these options impressing us in various ways. So, let’s walk through an onslaught of test results across workstation and gaming workloads to see how these chips stack up.



Introduction

It’s hard to believe what’s happened over the past few years in the processor market. No one truly knew what to expect from AMD’s original Zen launch, but from the get-go, it became clear that Intel was about to face some heavier competition in both the desktop and enterprise market than it was used to. When Zen 2 launched last summer, AMD didn’t just inch closer to Intel’s overall performance – it beat it in many cases.

Anyone who’s paid attention to the processor market usually knows what to expect from one generation to the next, but we’re not sure how many truly understood the advantages Zen 2 would bring. All of the CPUs have a lot more cache than the original Zen chips did, and architectural benefits beyond that have helped deliver huge gains in areas like video encoding or even rendering.

AMD Ryzen 3 3100 and Ryzen 3 3300X

Naturally, with Zen 2 being as impressive as it was at its launch, it was hard to not think about the potential of really cheap CPUs – those that just scream value. It took a little while, but AMD has recently delivered a couple of solutions that, for many reasons, are intriguing.

Before we move on, here’s a quick look at AMD’s current lineup:

AMD’s Ryzen & Ryzen Threadripper Lineup
CoresClock (Turbo)L2+L3MemoryTDPPrice
Ryzen Threadripper
3990X64 (128T)2.9 GHz (4.3)288MBQuad280W$3990
3970X32 (64T)3.7 GHz (4.5)144MBQuad280W$1999
3960X24 (48T)3.8 GHz (4.5)140MBQuad280W$1399
Ryzen 9
R9 3950X16 (32T)3.5 GHz (4.7)72MBDual105W$749
R9 3900X12 (24T)3.8 GHz (4.6)70MBDual105W$499
Ryzen 7
R7 3800X8 (16T)3.9 GHz (4.5)36MBDual95W$399
R7 3700X8 (16T)3.6 GHz (4.4)36MBDual65W$329
Ryzen 5
R5 3600X6 (12T)3.8 GHz (4.4)35MBDual95W$249
R5 36006 (12T)3.6 GHz (4.2)35MBDual65W$199
R3 3300X4 (8T)3.8 GHz (4.3)18MBDual65W$120
R3 31004 (8T)3.6 GHz (3.9)18MBDual65W$99
Ryzen w/ Radeon Vega Graphics
R5 3400G4 (8T)3.7 GHz (4.2)0.5+4MBDual65W$149
R3 3200G4 (4T)3.6 GHz (4.0)0.5+4MBDual65W$99

Given what we’re used to, the fact that we’re seeing a quad-core with eight threads and 18MB of cache at ~$100 is downright impressive. That ignores the fact that the Zen 2 architecture is quite a bit more effective than the original, which itself was impressive in a number of ways. Architectural enhancements will shine through in some of the tests strewn across the next slew of pages.

AMD Ryzen 3 Processor Topologies

The 3100 and 3300X might appear to be similar enough to the point that having two separate models is unnecessary, but, the secret is what’s under the hood. On the Ryzen 3 3100, AMD keeps 2 cores and 4 threads on two separate CCXs, whereas the 3300X keeps everything to just one. That means latencies will be reduced on the 3300X, something that will reveal itself throughout this article.

As the next page will highlight, all of our AM4 testing is completed on the same motherboard, which is an X570 variant. AMD has also just launched the B550 chipset, which cuts certain features in order to bring boards down to a cheaper price point.

Naturally, you’ll want to scour around before deciding on your motherboard, because it wouldn’t surprise us if there will be odd occasions where an X570 board costs less than a B550.

ASUS TUF Gaming B550M-PLUS
ASUS’ TUF Gaming B550M-PLUS

Whereas X570 offers PCIe 4.0 across the board, B550 whittles support down to 20x lanes, while also offering 4x PCIe 3.0 and 8x PCIe 2.0 lanes. 8 SATA ports are officially supported, rather than 12, while 2 USB 3.2 SuperSpeed 10Gbps are offered rather than 8. Will any of this matter for chips like the Ryzen 3 3100 or 3300X? Not for everyone, but it’s worth being aware of the differences anyway.

With that covered, you can peruse our system setups on the next page, or head on straight to page three to get started with rendering performance.

Test Methodology & Systems

Benchmarking a CPU may sound like a simple enough task, but in order to deliver accurate, repeatable results, strict guidelines need to be adhered to. This makes for rigorous, time-consuming testing, but we feel that the effort is worth it.

This page exists so that we can be open about how we test, and give those who care about testing procedures an opportunity to review our methodology before flaming us in the comments. Here, you can see a breakdown of all of our test machines, specifics about the tests themselves, and other general information that might be useful.

Let’s start with a look at the test platforms. For AMD’s AM4, we’re using ASRock’s X570 TAICHI, while for Intel’s Z390, we’re using ASUS’ ROG STRIX Z390-E GAMING. For this particular review, we didn’t test AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper or Intel’s Core X-series, as both of these reviewed chips don’t need them to help paint a fuller picture. No one eying a $120 CPU is going to suddenly decide on one that costs over $1,000.

As for Intel’s 10th-gen, we have two chips we’ll be benchmarking in full soon, but again, neither of those would help the performance picture here, since neither one competes directly with these Ryzen 3 chips. We sadly do not have any current generation Intel i3 and i5 processors at hand for a price-point comparison.

Our AMD platform is configured simply: XMP for DDR4-3600 is enabled, and that’s enough to get the performance we expect. On the Intel platform, XMP is also enabled, but the ASUS MultiCore Enhancement feature which auto-overclocks the CPU is disabled. The memory speed for Intel is also decreased to DDR4-3200, because we couldn’t get 3600MHz stable this go-around (despite hitting it before). In the future, we’re likely to stick to 3200MHz memory across-the-board(s), because we’ve also had flaky performance on AMD AM4 before.

On the security mitigation front, nothing is explicitly done outside of having the most up-to-date EFI and chipset driver installed on every motherboard. Systems are effectively default, and whichever security mitigations are applied will be automatic ones applied by the motherboard firmware or driver vendor. All platforms are run with 64GB (16-18-18) memory configurations.

Here’s the full breakdown of the test rigs:

Techgage’s CPU Testing Platforms

AMD AM4 Test Platform
ProcessorsAMD Ryzen 9 3950X (3.5GHz, 16C/32T)
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X (3.8GHz, 12C/24T)
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X (3.6GHz, 8C/16T)
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X (3.8GHz, 6C/12T)
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X (3.8GHz, 4C/8T)
AMD Ryzen 3 3100 (3.6GHz, 4C/4T)
MotherboardASRock X570 TAICHI
CPUs tested with BIOS P2.80 (January 3, 2020)
MemoryCorsair VENGEANCE (CMT64GX4M4Z3600C16) 16GB x4
Operates at DDR4-3600 16-18-18 (1.35V)
GraphicsNVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti (12GB; GeForce 442.92)
StorageWD Blue 3D NAND 1TB (SATA 6Gbps)
Power SupplyEVGA Bronze 600B1 (600W)
ChassisFractal Design Define C
CoolingCorsair Hydro H115i PRO RGB (280mm)
Et ceteraWindows 10 Pro (1909, Build 18363)

Intel LGA1151 Test Platform
ProcessorsIntel Core i9-9900KS (4.0GHz, 8C/16T)
Intel Core i7-8700K (3.70GHz, 8C/16T)
MotherboardASUS ROG STRIX Z390-E GAMING
CPUs tested with BIOS 1502 (February 21, 2020)
MemoryCorsair VENGEANCE (CMT64GX4M4Z3600C16) 16GB x4
Operates at DDR4-3600 16-18-18 (1.35V)
GraphicsNVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti (12GB; GeForce 442.92)
StorageWD Blue 3D NAND 1TB (SATA 6Gbps)
Power SupplyCorsair RM650X (650W)
ChassisCorsair Crystal X570
CoolingCorsair Hydro H100i V2 AIO Liquid Cooler (240mm)
Et ceteraWindows 10 Pro (1909, Build 18363)

Testing Considerations

For our testing, we use Windows 10 build 18363 (1909) with full updates. Here are some basic guidelines we follow:


Encoding Tests

Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z) Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z)
Encoding: Adobe Lightroom
Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z)
Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z) Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z)
Encoding: Adobe Premiere Pro
Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z)
Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z) Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z)
Encoding: Blackmagic RAW Speed Test
Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z)
Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z) Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z)
Photogrammetry: Agisoft Metashape
Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z)
Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z) Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z)
Music Encoding: LameXP
Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z)

Adobe Lightroom Classic
Adobe Premiere Pro
Agisoft Metashape
Blackmagic RAW Speed Test
HandBrake
LameXP

(You can click each name to go straight to that result.)


Rendering Tests

Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View
Rendering: Autodesk Arnold in Maya
Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View
Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View
Rendering: Blender
Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View
Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View
Rendering: Chaos Czech Corona Renderer in 3ds Max
Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View
dBpoweramp - Convert FLAC to MP3 dBpoweramp - Convert FLAC to MP3
Rendering: Chaos Group V-Ray Next in 3ds Max
dBpoweramp - Convert FLAC to MP3
Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View
Rendering: MAXON Cinebench
Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View
Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View
Rendering: MAXON Cinema 4D
Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View
Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View
Rendering: POV-Ray
Sony Ps4 Pro Angled View
Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z) Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z)
Rendering: V-Ray Next Benchmark
Intel Core i7-6700K (CPU-Z & GPU-Z)


Arnold (Maya 2019) (Also relevant to: 3ds Max, C4D, Houdini, Katana, Softimage)
Blender
Cinebench
Corona (3ds Max 2019) (Also relevant to: C4D)
KeyShot (Also relevant to: 3ds Max, Maya, Creo, SketchUp, SolidWorks, NX, Rhino)
POV-Ray
V-Ray Next (3ds Max 2019) (Also relevant to: C4D, Houdini, Maya, Rhino, SketchUp)
V-Ray Benchmark
SiSoftware Sandra 2020

(You can click each name to go straight to that result.)


If you think there’s some information lacking on this page, or you simply want clarification on anything in particular, don’t hesitate to leave a comment.

Encoding: Premiere Pro, Vegas Pro & Agisoft Metashape

We’re going to kick off this performance look with a handful of encode tests. Encoding is one of those scenarios that can be extremely hit-or-miss when it comes to taking good advantage of big CPUs. Sometimes, applications will give the impression that they’re making proper use of the CPU, but we’ve found more than once that some applications actually just use the entire CPU very poorly.

Fortunately, the situation is getting a lot better over time. As an example, for most of its life, Adobe’s Lightroom didn’t use more than a few cores and threads. Today, the application can use most of whatever CPU you can hand it.

The performance look on this page is going to tackle Adobe’s ever-popular Premiere Pro, as well as MAGIX’s Vegas Pro. That duo takes care of video encoding for this page, while Agisoft’s Metashape will help with a photogrammetry scenario.

Adobe Premiere Pro CC – CPU

Adobe Premiere Pro 2020 - 1080p YouTube CPU Encode (AVC) Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Adobe Premiere Pro 2020 - 4K YouTube CPU Encode (AVC) Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

It might look like we’re off to a rough start considering both the 3100 and 3300X are sitting at the end of the chart, but, that’s to be expected when they are effectively the lowest-end of this particular lineup. What we can glean from these first results is that neither of these new Ryzen 3s perform poorly, and in fact, they seem to scale well against the six-core chips. It’s worth remembering that these Ryzen 3s are $99 and $119. Intel’s six-core i7-8700K released for around $349 in late 2017.

Adobe Premiere Pro CC – Codec Comparisons

Adobe Premiere Pro 2020 - 4K60 AVC to 1080p AVC Encode Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Adobe Premiere Pro 2020 - 4K60 AVC to 1080p HEVC Encode Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Adobe Premiere Pro 2020 - 8K24 RED to 1080p HEVC Encode Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Adobe Premiere Pro 2020 - 8K24 ProRes 422 to 1080p HEVC Encode Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

We’re once again seeing good scaling out of these Ryzen 3 chips, although we were hoping for some of Zen 2’s architectural enhancements to catch them up a bit more to the likes of the 8700K. That will be happening later with our Lightroom results, so don’t miss it.

Adobe Premiere Pro CC – CPU + GPU

Adobe Premiere Pro 2020 - 1080p YouTube CPU Encode (CUDA, AVC) Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Adobe Premiere Pro 2020 - 4K YouTube CPU Encode (CUDA, AVC) Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Adobe Premiere Pro 2020 - 4K60 AVC to 1080p AVC (CUDA) Encode Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Adobe Premiere Pro 2020 - 4K60 AVC to 1080p HEVC (CUDA) Encode Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Adobe Premiere Pro 2020 - 8K24 RED to 1080p HEVC (CUDA) Encode Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Adobe Premiere Pro 2020 - 8K24 ProRes 422 to 1080p HEVC (CUDA) Encode Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

There could be merit to using only the CPU for encoding, but while that was once de facto, the performance improvements a GPU can bring can make a huge difference. What took the Ryzen 3 3100 1,026 seconds to encode dropped to 200 seconds once a GPU was added in.

Since this testing was completed, Premiere Pro 14.2 released with some huge GPU performance improvements. You can get a detailed look at those in this dedicated article.

MAGIX Vegas

MAGIX Vegas Pro 17 - Median FX CPU Encode Performance - (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
MAGIX Vegas Pro 17 - Median FX NVENC Encode Performance - (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

MAGIX’s Vegas loves AMD GPUs, and given what Zen 2 brings us, it’s no surprise that it also happens to like AMD CPUs. Again, we’re seeing the 3300X and 3100 lag behind the rest of the pack, but being the lowest-end in the stack, we expect that. What’s impressive is the amount of value these meager ~$100 chips offer.

For a current look at GPU performance in Vegas, you can check out our recent review of AMD’s Radeon Pro W5500.

Agisoft Metashape

Agisoft Metashape Photogrammetry Performance - Build Dense Cloud (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Agisoft Metashape Photogrammetry Performance - Build Depth Maps (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Agisoft Metashape Photogrammetry Performance - Build Mesh (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

Yet again, both of these Ryzen 3s perform in accordance to our expectations. The Build Mesh operation is particularly sporadic, which sees a massive chip like the 12-core 3900X land at the bottom. There really is no such thing as a perfect photogrammetry CPU – performance can shake up based on the test, and all of them are required for the finished product.

Encoding: Adobe Lightroom, BRAW Speed Test, HandBrake & LameXP

On this page, we’re going to be tackling a few additional encoding-type projects. Since the beginning of its life, we’ve benchmarked with Adobe’s Lightroom, but dropped it for about a year or two because it wouldn’t reliably scale. Over time, things changed, and now the application is pretty efficient on multi-core CPUs.

In addition to Lightroom, we also have Blackmagic RAW Speed Test, which acts as a simple way to see how a CPU can handle playback of BRAW footage at different compression levels. In time, we’ll be adding a much fuller Resolve test to the suite, but this BRAW test fills in for now. Finally, we’re also testing with LameXP, an open-source music encoder that can take advantage of many-core CPUs, as well as the super-popular HandBrake transcoder.

Adobe Lightroom Classic

Adobe Lightroom Classic - RAW to JPEG Export Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

When can a $120 quad-core CPU beat out a $500 one? When that CPU is AMD’s, and the test is Adobe Lightroom. Last September, we wrote about AMD’s “Cache Rich” Zen 2 architecture improving Lightroom performance, but based on these fresh results, it’s not cache that’s doing it. Both the eight-core 9900KS and four-core 3300X have 16MB of L3 cache available, yet AMD’s chip with half the number of threads manages to win.

This is not at all the kind of performance scaling we’d expect to see from these CPUs, but it’s of course a great thing to see. We should note that all of the photos we use for this test are older, so we plan to overhaul with more modern resolutions and files soon (that will tie in with getting Capture One tested again).

Blackmagic RAW Speed Test

Blackmagic RAW Speed Test (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

As with other video encoding work, BRAW use will be improved when the GPU is involved, but you still want a competent enough CPU that’s not going to hold the efficiency back. We’d wager that if you’re using DaVinci Resolve, you probably take your work seriously enough to not deliberately throttle yourself with a quad-core. The results here are proof that it doesn’t take much more to improve performance quite a bit. A chip like the 3700X looks like a particularly good value in this test.

HandBrake

HandBrake AVC Encode Performance - (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
HandBrake HEVC Encode Performance - (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

We’re seeing more of the same with HandBrake. It’s clear that if you care at all about CPU-based encoding, you’ll want a decent CPU – which is to say, one that’s going to cost much more than $100. The performance gains by moving to the 3600X (from 3300X) is hugely notable.

LameXP

LameXP - FLAC to MP3 Encode Performance - (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

Core count matters quite a bit in a test like this, but so does per-core frequency. Thanks to that, Intel has a strong edge here if core counts align, with the older 8700K six-core beating out AMD’s newer 3600X, and the eight-core 9900KS leaping ahead of AMD’s 3700X.

Rendering: Arnold, Blender, KeyShot, V-Ray Next

There are few things we find quite as satisfying as rendering: seeing a bunch of assets thrown into a viewport that turn into a beautiful scene. Rendering also happens to be one of the best possible examples of what can take advantage of as much PC hardware as you can throw at it. This is true both for CPUs and GPUs.

On this page and next, we’re tackling many different renderers, because not all renderers behave the same way. That will be proven in a few cases. If you don’t see a renderer that applies to you, it could to some degree in the future, should you decide to make a move to a different design suite or renderer. An example: V-Ray supports more than just 3ds Max; it also supports Cinema 4D, Maya, Rhino, SketchUp, and Houdini.

Autodesk Arnold

Autodesk Arnold CPU Render Performance - Jaguar E-Type Scene (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Autodesk Arnold CPU Render Performance - Sophie Scene (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

For our first rendering test, we get quick proof that low-end CPUs are not going to get the job done too quickly. Yet again, we’d never suggest focusing only on the CPU for rendering, since more and more heterogeneous (or NVIDIA OptiX) options are popping up. Arnold in particular supports CUDA-equipped GPUs, which uses OptiX by default.

Blender – CPU

Blender 2.83 Cycles CPU Render Performance - BMW (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Blender 2.83 Cycles CPU Render Performance - Classroom (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Blender 2.83 Cycles CPU Render Performance - Controller (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

These Blender results might stand out due to the fact that there are many more CPU models involved than in the other tests (including dual Intel 10th-gen). That’s because this performance was pulled from our recent in-depth look at Blender 2.83. We’d suggest checking that out for a lot more information, including tile size considerations and viewport performance.

AMD’s two new Ryzen 3s not surprisingly fall to the bottom of this pile, but that’s again helped by the fact that they are effectively the lowest-end of the bunch. While a chip like the six-core Ryzen 5 3600X costs about twice as much as the 3300X, it’s clear that those extra cores open up a lot more breathing room.

What happens when a GPU is added in?

Blender – CPU + GPU

Blender 2.83 Cycles CPU+GPU Render Performance - BMW (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Blender 2.83 Cycles CPU+GPU Render Performance - Classroom (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Blender 2.83 Cycles CPU+GPU Render Performance - Controller (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

Performance scaling changes a lot with heterogeneous rendering, in some cases making the CPU choice matter far less than a GPU one. That said, as always, you don’t want to skimp on a CPU, because if you’re trying to get creative work done, you don’t want to force yourself to straddle the line of acceptable performance like this. Blender is very unlikely to be the only tool you’re running, and once you start loading up multiple tools or general software, extra cores is going to deliver a better experience.

KeyShot

Luxion KeyShot 9 - Character Render Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Luxion KeyShot 9 - Room Render Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

As we discovered in our in-depth look at KeyShot 9 back in January, we noticed that most of our CPU projects scaled identically across-the-board, and as it happens, we don’t see a great deal of deviation with these two chosen projects in our latest testing. Overall, everything scales here according to our expectations.

It’s worth noting that KeyShot is another solution that has gained NVIDIA GPU rendering support, and in many cases, that could improve your overall rendering speed quite a bit. That said, we’ve found in our testing that 8GB graphics cards need to be considered the starting-point for KeyShot, and you may have to make some changes to your scene to have it render properly. Thankfully, all you have to do is click the GPU mode in KeyShot and get immediate feedback.

Chaos Group V-Ray Next – CPU

Chaos Group V-Ray - Flowers CPU Render Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Chaos Group V-Ray - Flowers CPU+GPU Render Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

The CPU set of results scales as we’d expect, but the CPU + GPU results shake things up. At first, we believed something was wrong with our Intel results, but based on previous testing, scaling between models remains similar. For some reason, Intel’s chips just struggle here, to the point that the 8-core falls behind the 6-core. We’re not sure why this is the case, but this is one downside of only having one project to test with.

Things do change up for Intel with the standalone benchmark:

V-Ray Next Benchmark

Chaos Group V-Ray Next Benchmark - CPU Render Score (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Chaos Group V-Ray Next Benchmark - CPU+GPU Render Score (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

Now this is more like the scaling we’d expect to see. Because V-Ray gives you the option to render to both the CPU and GPU, both processors could be weighed heavily into your considerations. That said, the above performance ignores performance with NVIDIA OptiX, something we’ll have a fair bit of data to present for soon.

Rendering: Cinebench, Cinema 4D, Corona, LuxMark, POV-Ray

We covered a handful of major renderers on the previous page, but we’re not done yet. On this page, we’re going to take a look at a few more, including some industry mainstays and newbies. That includes Corona Renderer, LuxMark, POV-Ray, and Cinema 4D.

Cinebench R20 & Cinema 4D S22

Maxon Cinebench R20 - Multi-threaded Score (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Maxon Cinebench R20 - Single-threaded Score (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

To start with a familiar test, we see pretty good performance out of the Ryzen 3 chips, especially in the single-thread, where the 3300X inches ahead of Intel’s aging Core i7-8700K (we’d imagine a 9700K or 10700K would catch right up). How does this carry over to real-world performance?

Maxon Cinema 4D S22 - Energy Drink Render Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Maxon Cinema 4D S22 - Staircase Render Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Maxon Cinema 4D S22 - Abstract Loop Animation Render Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

Yet again, it’s made really obvious that if you care at all about rendering performance, you’re going to need a beefy processor. Quad-cores in 2020 are just not ideal for this kind of work. That said, while that’s the case, it’s interesting to see the differences in performance between the 3100 and 3300X. It’s made obvious that the internal design of the former chip differs from the latter, making that extra $20 spent on the 3300X seem like a bargain.

Corona Renderer

Chaos Czech Corona Renderer 5 Performance - Livingroom Scene (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Chaos Czech Corona Renderer 5 Performance - Sales Gallery Scene (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

We’re continuing to see more of the same here, with the bottom Ryzen 3 chips sitting just where we’d expect them. It’s worth noting that while it’s not present, the 3400G would be even slower than the 3100, since it’s based on the Zen’s second release, not “Zen 2”, which is in effect the third Zen release (we get that it can be confusing). Those G chips are still fine for those who want integrated graphics, but for everyone else, these new Ryzens are a massive improvement that can’t be ignored.

LuxMark

LuxMark Food (C++) Render Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
LuxMark Hall Bench (C++) Render Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

Overall, there are no surprises with LuxMark, but AMD’s bottom chips still hold their own given they’re lacking cores compared to the next steps up.

POV-Ray

POV-Ray 3.8 Multi-threaded Score (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
POV-Ray 3.8 Single-threaded Score (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

To wrap up our rendering with a classic, POV-Ray delivers similar scaling as we’ve seen in a number of our rendering tests, the single-thread performance of the 3300X being particularly strong, as it matches the 3600X. The lower clock of the 3100 makes it the only chip to fall under 500 points here.

System: SiSoftware Sandra

While this article has no lack of synthetic benchmarks, SiSoftware’s Sandra makes it very easy to get reliable performance information on key metrics, such as arithmetic, multimedia, cryptography, and memory. Sandra is designed in such a way that it takes the best advantage of any architecture it’s given, so each CPU always has its best chance to shine.

That means a couple of things. This is definitely the “best” possible performance outlook for any chip, and doesn’t necessary correlate with real-world performance in other tests. It’s best used as a gauge of what’s possible, and to see where one architecture obviously differs from another.

Multimedia

SiSoftware Sandra 2020 - Multi-media Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

There are no surprises to be seen at this point with AMD’s lower-end Ryzens. We had wondered if the boost to cache and architecture improvements would help them edge closer towards a chip like the i7-8700K, but not so. Given all of that, this is basically what we’d expect to see, yet again.

Arithmetic

SiSoftware Sandra 2020 - Arithmetic Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

A chip like the 3950X sure knows how to stand out of a crowd, although it itself might look a tad weak if we had the Core X and Threadripper chips in here. Thankfully, if you have important multimedia or arithmetic needs, a bigger processor should really help you out.

Cryptography

SiSoftware Sandra 2020 - Cryptography (High) Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
SiSoftware Sandra 2020 - Cryptography (Higher) Performance (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

We’re seeing a little bit of a shake-up here, which is great, because we’ve been needing one for interest’s sake. Here, the 3100 actually outperforms the 8700K in the 256-bit cryptography test, but Intel redeems itself when the difficulty is cranked to 512-bit. Overall, still great performance out of these Ryzen 3 options.

Memory Bandwidth

SiSoftware Sandra 2020 - Memory Bandwidth (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

Memory scaling is an odd beast, especially when we see results like this. Here, the 3300X and 3100 both keep near the top, as it takes little variation for models to flip back and forth here. We regrettably didn’t test latencies, as it’s not part of our normal testing, but we will rectify that when we retest our stack using the updated Windows 10 build in the weeks ahead.

Gaming: CS: GO, Far Cry 5, R6 Siege & Three Kingdoms, 3DMark

For our testing with real games, we’re sticking to using 1080p and 4K resolutions. If we’re going to benchmark games, it makes sense to us to run them at realistic resolutions, because a gain seen at 720p or lower quite literally doesn’t matter if there’s no differences seen at the higher resolutions people actually play at.

With the four games here, we have two esports titles, as well as two bigger AAA titles that are actually designed to punish your system, rather than run as fast as possible without looking awful. Synthetics found at the end of the page will act as an easy second opinion.

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

Counter-Strike Global Offensive - 1080p Average FPS (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Counter-Strike Global Offensive - 4K Average FPS (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

In lower-resolution games, Intel tends to win more often than not, but sometimes, that’s even true of 4K gaming, as is proven here by the 9900KS. On the Ryzen 3 front, we can really see the performance differences between the 3100 and 3300X due to their different internal designs. If you’re a gamer, you’d be doing yourself a disservice to go with the 3100 when a 3300X can be had for only twenty dollars more.

Far Cry 5

Far Cry 5 - 1080p Average FPS (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Far Cry 5 - 4K Average FPS (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

At 4K, Far Cry 5 really doesn’t seem to care about your CPU too much, although even still, Intel managed to eke a couple of more extra frames out of this game than the others. At 1080p, the 3100 yet again falls a fair bit behind the 3300X, while the 3300X manages to leap ahead of the 3950X, of all chips.

Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege - 1080p Average FPS (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege - 4K Average FPS (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

Siege is one of those games that runs at such a high FPS, that poorer gaming performance largely revolves around whether or not you want to play at hundreds of frames-per-second. In that regard, the 3100 might not seem so bad here, but given everything else we know about the chip, we’d have to assume that everyone would fare better for gaming with a 3300X.

All of that said, we’d never suggest that a quad-core is something you should target for gaming, but if you’re on a really strict budget, the 3300X delivers a real punch for its price.

Total War: THREE KINGDOMS

Total War Three Kingdoms - 1080p Average FPS (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
Total War Three Kingdoms - 4K Average FPS (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

To wrap-up our real-world game testing, Three Kingdoms reinforces many of our other findings. The 3100 is without question not a great choice for gaming when the 3300X is available for a modest premium. The effects of course change at higher resolutions – which likely no 3100 owner would be targeting. In this case, low-resolution FPS really matters.

Synthetic Benchmarks

UL 3DMark - Fire Strike CPU Score (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
UL 3DMark - Fire Strike Overall Score (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
UL 3DMark - Time Spy CPU Score (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)
UL 3DMark - Time Spy Overall Score (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

Overall, AMD’s Ryzen 3 chips perform admirably for their price-point, but once again, it’s obvious that if you want an ideal gaming experience, going the low-end route won’t be ideal. The upside, though, is that if you are really budget-constrained, you’re still going to be getting a really great processor compared to what was available months ago for these prices.

Power & Final Thoughts

For the latest round of power consumption testing, we’ve decided to use a Blender project render to help push these CPUs using a realistic workload (rather than a power virus). We’re not testing for temperatures, as we’ve not found a truly reliable way to do so without casting doubt in our minds about some of the results.

It’s important to note that these results are for the entire PC, which is plugged by itself into a Kill-a-Watt power monitor. Fortunately, this is a stable workload, so getting a peak load value is easily done. We capture the idle power use five minutes after booting up, and the load wattage ten minutes into Blender’s Classroom render.

Power Consumption (AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100)

We couldn’t finish off the review without one more odd result, and that in this case is the 3950X using less power than the 3900X. This was such an oddity, that we had to reinstall both chips just to sanity check, and sure enough, we got the same result the second time around. This reminds us of how we see NVIDIA’s GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER occasionally outperform the bigger 2080 SUPER in some GPU compute tests.

Nonetheless, both the 3100 and 3300X (not surprisingly) lead this test, sipping the least amount of power overall. We do have to say, though, that 16-cores at 230W is really impressive, considering 4-cores hits 142W. If a GPU were added into this render, it’d of course increase power usage more, but we’re still impressed by just how powerful and power-efficient today’s hardware is.

Final Thoughts

It’s sometimes just as much fun to take a look at budget gear as it can be top-end kit, something these new Ryzen 3 chips prove in spades. In some ways, we can’t believe how much power can be had for such an affordable price nowadays. Ryzen’s introduction in 2017 brought us quad-cores with eight-threads, and now that feature set has trickled down to Ryzen 3.

Both of these chips offer a lot of value, but as we’ve said before, the 3300X is almost a no-brainer considering it’s clocked a bit faster, and has a more efficient internal design – all for just $20 added to the price tag. If you are doing no gaming or don’t care about our reported performance deltas, the 3100 will still suit many people just fine.

AMD Ryzen 3 3100 and Ryzen 3 3300X

Of course, while the 3300X is the better of the two chips for gaming, we wouldn’t suggest targeting a quad-core unless your budget dictates it. Ideally, eight-cores should be the minimum for serious gamers nowadays, or six-cores for more casual gamers (even if a game won’t use six cores, you don’t want to be giving your PC the bare minimum to work with.)

At the time we received these chips, the B550 chipset wasn’t available, but since we drug our heels unreasonably, that has now come to market. So, if you want the best value with either of these new Ryzen 3 chips, you should target that platform. You will forego some features, like system-wide PCIe 4.0, but when the chip in question is $100, those losses are not much to cry over.

We’d have to say this is one of the more exciting Ryzen launches of this generation, since the unlocking of threads on these quad-cores is helpful, as is the increase of cache. Then we also have increased efficiency and better performance over the previous gen. Now all we can think of are APUs with integrated graphics using Zen 2, but such a thing might not come for a while, since 3400G already exists, and don’t use Zen 2. At least the current selection isn’t exactly lacking, though.

AMD Ryzen 3 3300X - Techgage Editor's Choice
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X Desktop Processor

Pros

Cons

Copyright © 2005-2020 Techgage Networks Inc. - All Rights Reserved.