AMD’s Ryzen 3 1200 is turning the budget scene upside down, but how does it hold up
against a mid-range processor like Intel’s i5-7500?
Howdy howdy guys, ponchato here, and today we’ll be comparing the $109 Ryzen 3 1200
overclocked to 4.0GHz to the $200 i5-7500 in gaming benchmarks, synthetics, power consumption,
and more.
Let’s get started.
First up we’ll look at Cinebench.
Running both CPU tests, the Ryzen 3 1200 scores a 614 in multicore and 160 in single core.
That compares well with the i5-7500 getting a 603 in multicore and 164 in single core
performance.
That’s only a 2% difference in multicore with the 1200 coming out ahead and 2.5% difference
in single core with the i5 taking the lead.
With the Ryzen 3 1200 overclocked, it looks like this is going to be a very tight race.
Now we’ll look at Battlefield 1.
In my experience this game hasn’t tended to favor one company’s processors or GPUs
over another, so it’s a good balanced source for comparison.
At low settings the i5 ekes out a 9 FPS average lead over the 1200, with the 1% lows ahead
by 5 FPS and 0.1% lows ahead by 3.
On medium the 7500 again holds a slight lead in average FPS by 2 frames, but shows a heftier
increase in lows of 17 FPS and 14 FPS for 1% and 0.1% frames.
On high the results are nearly identical with no more than a 2 FPS difference between the
two processors; about 95 FPS average, 65 FPS 1% lows, and 50 FPS 0.1% lows.
Ultra is the only place where a distinct lead shows up; the 7500 beats out the Ryzen 3 1200
by 22% on average, 21% in 1% lows, and 16% in 0.1% lows.
Other than on ultra settings, Battlefield 1 performs almost identically between the
i5-7500 and overclocked Ryzen 3 1200.
Next up, Counter Strike: Global Offensive.
Being an esports title, CSGO generally keeps a very high frame rate, regardless of graphics
settings.
Here’s the graph.
On low, the 7500 has just under an 8% lead over the 1200 in average FPS, with a 13% increase
in 1% lows and 20% increase in 0.1% lows.
On medium, the Ryzen 3 trails by 22 FPS average, 6 FPS in 1% lows, and 7 FPS in 0.1%.
On high settings, the results are very close; only 5% separates the 7500 and the R3 1200
in average FPS. 1% lows differ by 6 FPS and 0.1% lows differ by 2, with the 7500 coming
out ahead in both cases.
Performance in CSGO is very similar between the two processors, but the i5-7500 does come
out slightly ahead.
Third we’ll look at Deus Ex: Mankind Divided.
This game tends to be GPU-bound, so if we do see any differences they’ll almost certainly
be in the 1% and 0.1% lows.
Looking at the graph, that holds true.
On low settings, average FPS is almost identical: 80 FPS for the 1200 and 78 FPS for the i5.
Lows are where the differences appear; the i5 maintains about 15% higher 1% lows and
a sizable 43% faster 0.1% lows.
Beyond low settings, however, the differences vanish as the GPU becomes the limiting factor.
On high settings the results are nearly identical: about 55 FPS average, 41 FPS in 1% lows, and
38 FPS 0.1% lows.
Similarly on ultra, average FPS for both processors is about 40 frames per second, 1% lows clocked
in at 30 FPS, and 0.1% lows were around 28 FPS.
The only situation where the RX 480 wasn’t completely bottlenecking the system was on
low settings, and in that case the i5 came out ahead with smoother 1% and 0.1% lows.
Fourth up is GTA V and we return to the weird “terrible stuttering on low settings”
bug.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, just take a look at this FPS graph.
On low, both the 1200 and i5 maintain over 120 FPS on average, but 1% and 0.1% lows drop
to well under 20 frames per second.
Because of that glitch, low settings almost never offer a valid comparison, nor would
you actually want to actually play on low.
On mediums settings, the glitch disappears and we have a reasonable comparison.
The Ryzen 3 1200 trails just a little in average FPS at 95 versus the i5-7500’s 101 FPS.
In 1% and 0.1% lows, however, the i5’s lead is sizable.
In the 1% case, the i5 leads by 22 FPS and in the 0.1% case leads by 19.
On high settings, the GPU limits average FPS for both processors to about 85 frames per
second, but again Intel leads in lows.
64 and 62 FPS vs the Ryzen 3’s 52 and 51 in 1% and 0.1% lows respectively.
Average FPS in GTA V doesn’t seem too dependent on the processor, with only a few frames difference
between the two.
In 1% and 0.1% lows, however, GTA favor Intel’s i5-7500 by about 20-40%.
Next we’ll look at Just Cause 3.
The results from this game are a little confusing; I’ve seen benchmark results that indicate
it’s a GPU-bound title, but others that show a distinct difference between CPUs.
Here’s what I found.
On low settings, results are almost identical; around 122 FPS average, 50 FPS 1% lows, and
0.1% lows in the mid-30s with a slight edge going to the Ryzen 3 1200.
On medium settings, the results do show a slight difference.
Average FPS is still almost identical at 112 FPS for the 1200 and 115 FPS for the i5-7500.
In 1% lows, the Ryzen 3 leads by 6 FPS and in 0.1% leads by 17.
On high settings, average FPS for both processors is right around 90 frames per second, but
the 1200 again leads in lows; about a 7 FPS advantage in 1% lows and 19 FPS advantage
in 0.1% lows.
Though average FPS is almost the same for both processors, the Ryzen 3 does come out
ahead by a fairly sizable margin in lows.
Next, Overwatch.
Despite being an esports title, the different graphics settings actually do have a significant
impact on game performance.
Here’s the graph.
Average FPS at low settings is limited by the game’s built-in 300 FPS limit, so both
processors sit at about 295 frames per second.
In lows, however, the Ryzen 3 shows an advantage: 9 FPS increase in 1% lows and a hefty 33 FPS
increase in 0.1% lows.
On high settings, average FPS is again almost the same at just under 230 frames per second.
The difference in lows is less pronounced; this time the 1200 only leads by 8 FPS in
1% lows and 10 FPS in 0.1% lows.
On epic, the results show a clear difference.
Average FPS for both CPUs is about 118 frames per second, but the Ryzen 3 1200 leads in
1% lows by 30% and 0.1% lows by a much larger 63%.
Though this game is fairly GPU-limited, the Ryzen 3 1200 will net you more consistent
performance due to the higher 1% and 0.1% lows.
The seventh game in our lineup is one that I’ve spent way too much time playing recently:
PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds.
This game is very demanding, partly because it has a huge map and 100 players in a single
match, and partly because it’s still in early access and horrifically optimized.
Anyway, here’s the graph.
On very low settings, the 7500 beats the R3 1200 in average FPS; 120 vs 103.
In lows, however, the 1200 comes out ahead.
It clocked in 72 FPS 1% lows compared to the 7500’s 63 and 50 FPS 0.1% lows compared
to the 7500’s 20.
On medium settings the story is similar; the i5 leads by 11 frames per second average but
trails in 1% and 0.1% lows by 3 and 10 FPS respectively.
On ultra, the game favors the i5 in all cases; 11 FPS faster average, 10 FPS better 1% lows,
and 6 fps better 0.1% lows.
The only conclusion I can draw from all this is the game is still pretty wonky.
There’s no clear winner between the Ryzen 3 and i5; the i5 averages faster, but the
Ryzen 3 tends to maintain much better lows.
We’ll see if that story changes as the game is optimized further into development.
The last game in our comparison is Rocket League.
It’s an esports title so it’s easy to run, easy to play, and hard to master.
In fact it’s hard to just get good because I still suck.
Anyway.
Here’s the graph.
On low settings, the 7500 comes out well ahead with a 34 FPS average lead, whopping 116 FPS
1% lead, and 102 FPS 0.1% lead.
I think this is a glitch like the GTA V bug, however, because the Ryzen 3’s 1% and 0.1%
performance on medium settings is significantly better.
On medium settings, the 7500 has a much smaller 10 FPS lead on average, but still maintains
a reasonable 19 FPS lead in 1% lows and 13 FPS lead in 0.1%.
On high settings, the trend actually reverses.
Average FPS for both processors is around 165 FPS, but this time the Ryzen 3 leads 1%
lows by 6 FPS and 0.1% lows by 9.
Barring the odd results on low graphics settings, the Ryzen 3 1200 and i5-7500 are very closely
matched in Rocket League.
Now we’ll look at power consumption and temperatures.
Power for both test setups was measured from the wall and all temperatures were taken in
a room at 24C.
With the overclock, the Ryzen 3 system drew 87W at idle, 235W while gaming in CSGO, and
261W under stress testing with Prime95 and Unigine’s Valley.
The i5-7500 test bed drew 68W at idle, 204W while gaming, and 232W under stress testing.
That’s 19W lower at idle, 31 fewer watts while gaming, and a 29W decrease under stress
testing for the 7500.
As for temperatures, the Ryzen 3 1200 idled at 34C, gamed in CSGO at 51C, and under stress
testing, reached a peak temperature of 68C.
The 7500 idled at 33C, gamed at 50C, and under stress testing stayed quite a bit cooler at
59C.
It’s no surprise here that the Ryzen 3 1200 ran hotter and drew more power due to the
significant overclock and extra voltage needed for stability.
Finally, we’ll take a look at performance per dollar.
For this stat I take the average and 1% FPS at medium settings for all the games in my
benchmark suite, get the average of those, and divide by the MSRP of the chip or the
most common price if the market is fluctuating.
Keep in mind prices may vary with sales and changing demand, but at least processor pricing
is generally more consistent than that of GPUs.
It’s no surprise that the Ryzen 3 1200 comes out well ahead here; in fact it’s almost
exactly twice the FPS per dollar of the i5-7500.
That makes sense, since the i5-7500 is roughly twice as expensive as the Ryzen 3 1200, and
their performance is, for the most part, closely matched.
So after overclocking, the Ryzen 3 1200 is a very close match for Intel’s i5-7500.
In certain games the R3 falls behind, in others it takes the lead, but they never differ by
a huge margin.
After looking at these results, I can say pretty confidently that AMD now outright owns
the sub-$200 price category.
You may say “well what about the unlocked i3-7350K?
That’s under $200!” and yes, it is, but you have to keep in mind that overclocking
those requires a motherboard with a Z-series chipset.
That’s a minimum of $40 more than overclockable AMD boards, which puts the 7350K right at
the edge of $200.
At that point, you can get a Ryzen 5 1500X, which gives you 4 actual cores and SMT for
a total of 8 threads.
I don’t have one on hand to test, but I’m willing to bet that a 4 core, 8 thread processor
will serve you better now and have a longer usable lifespan than a 2 core, 4 thread i3.
It’ll be interesting to see how Intel’s upcoming Coffee Lake processors perform; starting
with that generation, i3s will be true quad cores and we might see a 4 core i3 processor
for under $130.
I’ll be covering those when they’re released this October.
If you want to get notified of new videos as soon as they’re up, hit subscribe and
then click the bell icon to enable notifications.
Links to all my test bed components are in the description below.
So guys if you liked this video, hit the like button, if you want to see more hit subscribe,
and if you have any questions about these processors or the benchmarks, leave them in
the comments below.
Thanks for watching, I hope I helped, and I’ll see you in the next video.