After reading a couple of AMD Ryzen 1200/1300 reviews my opinion is that they are missing the point

I've been reading reviews for the latest AMD processors and it's clear that the hardware reviewers don't really see the larger picture. Now that's what I get when I google "ryzen 3 review" - from the flood of the new articles about it:  

"Zen on a Budget"... "Core i3-busting performance"... right... Let me start by saying, I'm an AMD fan from the early 90s of the am386, and for years we've been waiting for something competitive to stir up the market, and Ryzen definitely did that in the high-end. However Ryzen 3 isn't going to cut it in the low end and nobody is addressing the failure. 

The reason that Ryzen 3 won't "cut it", is simple: It has problematic targeting. Who exactly should buy Ryzen 3 and why? This is the key question.

Gamers who want a cheap gaming-PC build will be better suited with a Pentium 2C/4T and use the extra 60$ (cheaper Intel cpu, cheaper Intel-based mobos), for either a better CPU, more RAM, or an SSD. The money saved from the AMD, if invested there will make a hell of a difference in gaming. Plus, from what I'm seeing, the frame rates of a 1200 vs a G4560 aren't that dissimilar, and in some cases the Pentium is in front.

The Pentium is still the far better option for office users who do not have to pay for a discrete GPU. The combined saving of lower CPU price point (2c/4t Pentium G4560 vs AMD vs 1200/1300 models) and the money saved on a discrete GPU makes it around 100$ cheaper in total, which affords an office user to buy a better monitor, more RAM, a better HDD or SDD, things like that.

Now, home users, who are mostly into browsing, media reproduction, and do occasional light gaming - typically through browser-based games - will not really see any benefit if they spend 100$ more on a more expensive CPU and discrete GPU. They don't need it. What they need is RAM and an SSD so that their Windows are not crawling as they open a lot of tabs, or their antivirus is making their system slow.

There is also a category of power users, whether these are using Linux or Windows, who may be doing more CPU-intensive stuff, who however may not be gamers. This means that suddenly, the budget must escalate by 50-60$ to buy a discrete GPU if they opt for the Ryzen 1200/1300 - which they won't do, because it's not in their best interest. Assuming the power user opts for a i3 at least or the 1300 ryzen, they now have an extra 50-60$ to spend and get a i5 7500 (prices currently at $130 vs $190 on amazon for the AMD Ryzen 1300 vs Intel 7500).

Most reviewers are completely overlooking the fact that the vast majority of PCs sold are without discrete GPUs because their users don't need them. They pretend that the CPU comparison of a i3 or a pentium versus the low-end ryzen models is "fair", and conveniently "forget" or downplay the GPU costs. Well, no matter what their spin is, the bottom line is that the client will end up getting a better value-for-money PC system if they opt for the pentium, in the vast majority of cases due to the built-in GPU (even if it's "crappy").  The end-client with low-computational demands could even save a further 20-30$ on the Pentium and go even lower for the Celeron and add the money for SSD upgrades or +4G of RAM.

The Verdict

Before proclaiming victory for AMD, based on a couple of benchmarks, AMD needs to start offering competitively priced APUs (CPUs with integrated GPU) if they want to ever target the 70-80% of the PC market which doesn't even need discrete GPUs. For the immediate future, only 28nm parts are expected from AMD - which are obviously 2 generations behind in terms of technology. Let's hope they launch something serious otherwise Intel will continue their domination in the budget segment - which is traditionally where AMD was good at.