# AMD Ryzen 5 3600



## W1zzard (Jul 18, 2019)

Ryzen 5 3600 is the most affordable Zen 2 processor in AMD's lineup. At just $200, it offers six cores and twelve threads, yielding a significant advantage in applications against the competition from Intel. Gaming performance is also improved nicely as it is around 10% higher than with previous Ryzens.

*Show full review*


----------



## Lightofhonor (Jul 18, 2019)

Very nice. Still happy with my 3700X, but if I only gamed this would be a great choice.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 18, 2019)

Nice little all around $200 CPU and a clear winner at this price.  I'd still prefer an OC 9600k for pure gaming but Intel has that currently over priced @ $250.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 18, 2019)

Thanks for the review. Summary,

cpu tests, 3600 is 11.5% faster than the 9600k. Both stock
Gaming tests, 720p,1080p, 1440p,2160p, all combined,  3600 is 3% slower than the 9600k.

So all in all, 3600 is 11.5 - 3 = 8.5% faster than 9600k while it costs less, at $200. Intel recently reduced 9600k to $219, it's a start.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 18, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Thanks for the review. Summary,
> 
> cpu tests, 3600 is 11.5% faster than the 9600k. Both stock
> Gaming tests, 720p,1080p, 1440p,2160p, all combined,  3600 is 3% slower than the 9600k.
> ...


The 9600k is only $219 at microcenter, $246 on Amazon and $254 on Newegg.  If you look at GN review they include OC 9600k results which increase the gaming performance between it and the ryzen 3600.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 18, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> The 9600k is only $219 at microcenter, $246 on Amazon and $254 on Newegg.  If you look at GN review they include OC 9600k results which increase the gaming performance between it and the ryzen 3600.



If anybody plans to overclock then the 9600k matches the 3600, the 3600 is only good at stock, the 9600k can probably hit 4.9ghz stable 24/7. I would go for 9600k. Also to point it out, both 3600 and the 9600k need a cooler.

"Overclocking the Ryzen 5 3600 was mostly held back by temperatures. When using our typical OC voltage of 1.4 V, the CPU temperature would skyrocket above 100°C within seconds of applying a heavy load. After backing down a bit on the voltage, to 1.37 V, we could reach 4.125 GHz all-core perfectly stable. Now of course that frequency is lower than the chip's maximum boost frequency of 4.2 GHz. As our performance numbers show, the manual overclock can only shine in specific applications that fully load all cores, and even there, the differences are small.

Using a 240 mm AIO watercooler yielded another 25 MHz, because we could bump up voltage a little bit — not worth it. "









						AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review
					

Ryzen 5 3600 is the most affordable Zen 2 processor in AMD's lineup. At just $200, it offers six cores and twelve threads, yielding a significant advantage in applications against the competition from Intel. Gaming performance is also improved nicely as it is around 10% higher than with previous...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## HimymCZe (Jul 18, 2019)

I was waiting for this for so long...
*$200 AMD* 3600 *==* *$1600 Intel* 9900k ... and *COMPLETELY *puts in shame every other Intel CPU


----------



## Lightofhonor (Jul 18, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Also to point it out, both 3600 and the 9600k need a cooler.



Why does the 3600 need a cooler? For that 1% overclock?


----------



## Metroid (Jul 18, 2019)

Lightofhonor said:


> Why does the 3600 need a cooler? For that 1% overclock?



Some people are complaining it is hitting 80c or more when 100%, probably because is summer.


----------



## bug (Jul 18, 2019)

> Unlike Core i5 parts at this price-point such as the i5-9500, the Ryzen 5 3600 offers an unlocked base-clock multiplier making it capable of CPU overclocking.





> PBO and manual overclocking yield no significant gains


Nice.


> Boost doesn't maximize low-threaded clock potential


I think you may have found the differentiator between these 2 CPUs. The 3600X is rated at 95W, that's where that's put to (good?) use.


----------



## Stano (Jul 18, 2019)

Dear TPU team,

thanks for testing this small gem, especially for all non-game tests


----------



## tvamos (Jul 18, 2019)

Price for 3900x needs fixing in that CPU table.


----------



## Lightofhonor (Jul 18, 2019)

Metroid said:


> Some people are complaining it is hitting 80c or more when 100%, probably because is summer.


I view it as a feature. You CPU auto-overclocks when it gets cold.  

And having run my 3700X with the stock cooler, a Big Shuriken 3, and H100i AIO, the performance difference between them all is pretty small. Does show up in benchmarks, but really we are talking about ~100mhz of all core frequency difference.

Very small undervolt reduces that clock difference to like 10mhz in my case.


----------



## bug (Jul 18, 2019)

Lightofhonor said:


> I view it as a feature. You CPU auto-overclocks when it gets cold.
> 
> And having run my 3700X with the stock cooler, a Big Shuriken 3, and H100i AIO, the performance difference between them all is pretty small. Does show up in benchmarks, but really we are talking about ~100mhz of all core frequency difference.
> 
> Very small undervolt reduces that clock difference to like 10mhz in my case.


Not sure if you're familiar with this: 




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ceakbs


----------



## Lightofhonor (Jul 18, 2019)

bug said:


> Not sure if you're familiar with this: [/MEDIA]



Very. The biggest drops start happening around -.1v. There is another post on reddit about this, at least for the 3700x.


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/cc19mm

LIttle to no performance loss up to -.075v and I can confirm. This is me running at -.075v, mostly since it keeps my Big Shuriken 3 around 75c under load. Tried lowering it and performance in Cinebench R20 didn't increase. Seems to be virtually identical to setting it to 85w.


----------



## Metroid (Jul 18, 2019)

I watched a video here and there was something the reviewer said "you must go into bios and enable cool and quiet feature for single thread performance to reach 4.4ghz." Also he said " voltages up to 1.50v is normal in single thread because that is the required voltage to hit 4.4ghz" It makes sense, people are undervolting their cpu for 24/7 1.32v and then they complain it never hits even 4.2ghz. That video made a lot of sense. It's understandable that for 4.4ghz it needs 1.4v minimum and if you manually set it lower than that then you will not get that magical 4.4ghz on 3700x hehe


----------



## Agent_D (Jul 18, 2019)

For the price point, it's great.

Have been playing with my 3600x since I got it a few days ago. I've been able to run 4200MHz all cores at 1.33v and 4300 all cores at 1.35v, though it gets to ~91c on the stock cooler running Cinebench at 4300 on all cores. Water block will take care of that.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 18, 2019)

Lol @ people saying the unlocked multiplier is a bonus over Intel when these chips are already running maxed out out of the box.


----------



## Jism (Jul 18, 2019)

dgianstefani said:


> Lol @ people saying the unlocked multiplier is a bonus over Intel when these chips are already running maxed out out of the box.



Yes. AMD already stated that their tech is out there to maximize the silicon's performance. So any manual overclocking over XFR does'nt really gain not that much. The days of the FX are over, where a 3.2Ghz base model would easily overclock to 4.8Ghz. This is just about getting memory with low latency and a beefy cooler and call it a day. You can bet that future video cards of AMD will have the same, as Nvidia is doing as well currently with their Current limits.

If you want premium you pay for premium. Or go intel. But to be honest the XFR on my 2700x really does a good job. As long as you keep the CPU cooled under 60 degrees it will stay all core at 4.15Ghz and single at 4.35Ghz.


----------



## Deathy (Jul 19, 2019)

If I wanted a CPU now (and I kinda do) I'd go for the 3600. The 8 cores seem overpriced compared to it (210€ vs. 350€ vs 430€) and the 12 core is out of stock everywhere (between 1 week and 3 weeks according to so-so reliable statements from the etailers). 6 core and 12 core seem the best priced, I don't think the 3800x will offer a lot of reasons to get it over the cheaper 3700x or the 100€ more expensive 3900x. That R9 being out of stock everywhere is a real bummer.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 19, 2019)

this thing matches my 2700x in gaming, i'm impressed


----------



## Khonjel (Jul 19, 2019)

Man I'm so fucking confused right now. The government recently put 12% or so tax on pc parts so by all accounts the Ryzen 5 3600's gonna be priced equal to currently available pre-tax i5 9600k. Even that won't last cause the importers are saying post-tax shipments will jump in price.

So the genius (if I say so myself) in me is saying since I mostly only game I should just get the i5 9600k since it can reach 5.0 Ghz or so.

But the other genius in my head saw the CPU utilisation in newer games like AC Odyssey in various YT benchmarks. Comfortable 40-50% on 3600/x vs 70-80% on the i5 9600k. That's awfully cutting close to being bottlenecked.

Man I'm so confused.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 19, 2019)

Khonjel said:


> Man I'm so fucking confused right now. The government recently put 12% or so tax on pc parts so by all accounts the Ryzen 5 3600's gonna be priced equal to currently available pre-tax i5 9600k. Even that won't last cause the importers are saying post-tax shipments will jump in price.
> 
> So the genius (if I say so myself) in me is saying since I mostly only game I should just get the i5 9600k since it can reach 5.0 Ghz or so.
> 
> ...



basically, all modern CPUS are good enough for gaming.

two years ago CPU prices were so high, you had to get THE BEST to justify the cost, now you can get cheap stuff and have them handle high end gaming just fine.

get a (bios updated) B450, a 3600, and you're gunna be fine for any kind of gaming unless you want 240Hz CSGO or something equally unlikely


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 19, 2019)

Agent_D said:


> For the price point, it's great.
> 
> Have been playing with my 3600x since I got it a few days ago. I've been able to run 4200MHz all cores at 1.33v and 4300 all cores at 1.35v, though it gets to ~91c on the stock cooler running Cinebench at 4300 on all cores. Water block will take care of that.


Try per CCX overclocking, it might show better results.


----------



## gasolin (Jul 19, 2019)

Not much oc, i have mine at 4.2ghz 1.350 volt an llc at 5 (asus prime x470 pro)

240mm aio with Noctua NF-F12PWM with LNA prime 95 small fft 79 c


----------



## Agent_D (Jul 19, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> Try per CCX overclocking, it might show better results.



I'm doing it per CCX; I haven't delved too deeply into it yet, but for some quick initial tinkering, I set each CCX to match cores across the board. I'll be playing around with it a lot more when the water block goes on.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 19, 2019)

9700k still king for gaming, but if you want a good all around cpu go for Ryzen.


----------



## laszlo (Jul 19, 2019)

this cpu is king of wallets ....


----------



## gasolina (Jul 19, 2019)

at the same price which is better though for the 3600 and the 2700 ...so confused which one to pick though, i only game at 2560x1440 144hz or 3200x1800 144hz ......


----------



## gasolin (Jul 19, 2019)

gasolina said:


> at the same price which is better though for the 3600 and the 2700 ...so confused which one to pick though, i only game at 2560x1440 144hz or 3200x1800 144hz ......




Theres a huge difference in power consumption 50+ between a ryzen 2600 and 3600 at 4.1 and 4.2ghz so it won't be hard to choose


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 19, 2019)

gasolina said:


> at the same price which is better though for the 3600 and the 2700 ...so confused which one to pick though, i only game at 2560x1440 144hz or 3200x1800 144hz ......


3600,no question.


----------



## guser (Jul 19, 2019)

well, i  think Intels 14nm cpu runsvery well against amd 7nm cpu.

hmm,intel is still better in games.

just waiting intels 10nm ice lake,then i choose.


----------



## bug (Jul 19, 2019)

guser said:


> well, i  think Intels 14nm cpu runsvery well against amd 7nm cpu.
> 
> hmm,intel is still better in games.
> 
> just waiting intels 10nm ice lake,then i choose.


You'll be waiting for one more year, unfortunately. But if your current CPU isn't holding you back, why not?


----------



## gasolin (Jul 19, 2019)

intel is often in games where the game isn't optimized for any cpu, no more than 5-10% faster and if you can't change graphic settings to something that makes a noticeable difference, who cares abot 10%


----------



## bug (Jul 19, 2019)

gasolin said:


> intel is often in games where the game isn't optimized for any cpu, no more than 5-10% faster and if you can't change graphic settings to something that makes a noticeable diffrence, who cares abot 10%


I think his point is when Intel does 5-10% better with old tech, waiting for Intel's new tech can be an option.


----------



## r9 (Jul 19, 2019)

4.1GHz that's terrible.
Initial rumors were 5Ghz than 4.8 than 4.6 but 4.1 GHz that's plain terrible.


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 19, 2019)

r9 said:


> 4.1GHz that's terrible.
> Initial rumors were 5Ghz than 4.8 than 4.6 but 4.1 GHz that's plain terrible.


It's competitor (9600K) boosts to 4.6 and is barely faster.


----------



## gasolin (Jul 19, 2019)

Only the big cpus since they are binnede to make them run as fast as they are rated for and with the very modest tdp


----------



## Frick (Jul 19, 2019)

Will anyone on this site review the new APU's? @W1zzard @btarunr


----------



## bug (Jul 19, 2019)

Frick said:


> Will anyone on this site review the new APU's? @W1zzard @btarunr











						Anyone know where 3200g/3400g reviews are ?
					

I mean they`ve been released right ? There are a few on youtube but I was looking for in depth facts. Am I missing something ?




					www.techpowerup.com
				




Though he said he'll lead with 3600X and we got 3600 first. (There are 3600X bars in there, don't think I didn't notice that @W1zzard )


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 19, 2019)

Was just looking at the charts on passmark and noticed this CPU:









__





						PassMark - AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3600 - Price performance comparison
					





					www.cpubenchmark.net


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 19, 2019)

r9 said:


> 4.1GHz that's terrible.
> Initial rumors were 5Ghz than 4.8 than 4.6 but 4.1 GHz that's plain terrible.


 Clock speed is not everything. That is why you do not put any weight towards rumours. Even though the clocks are not as high as mentioned in rumours they are still excellent processors based on TDP, IPC gains, platform flexibility and cost makes the AM4 platform more attractive


----------



## bug (Jul 19, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> Clock speed is not everything. That is why you do not put any weight towards rumours. Even though the clocks are not as high as mentioned in rumours they are still excellent processors based on TDP, IPC gains, platform flexibility and cost makes the AM4 platform more attractive


Actually, since they barely touched IPC, frequency would have been the only thing that would have put AMD conclusively in front of Intel.
But of course, rumors are rumors, you can't crucify AMD (or anyone else, for that matter) for not meeting them.


----------



## Liquid Cool (Jul 19, 2019)

Interesting review.

Thanks.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 19, 2019)

Frick said:


> Will anyone on this site review the new APU's? @W1zzard @btarunr


Techspot has a review up








						Ryzen 5 3400G Review: CPU + Vega Graphics
					

As part of the big Zen 2 Ryzen processor launch, AMD released two Ryzen 3000 parts that include a graphics component. The new Ryzen 3 3200G and...




					www.techspot.com


----------



## r9 (Jul 19, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> Clock speed is not everything. That is why you do not put any weight towards rumours. Even though the clocks are not as high as mentioned in rumours they are still excellent processors based on TDP, IPC gains, platform flexibility and cost makes the AM4 platform more attractive



I don't dispute that they made improvements.
But to have no clock advantage on 7nm over Zen+ it's disappointing especially all the rumors floating around.
And I know you not supposed to to trust the rumors that's why when they said 5GHz I was thinking alright we should at least get 4.5Ghz.
Zen 2 would have kicked ass at 4.5+GHz.
I was hoping that AMD would take over the gaming crown now Intel still tops gaming charts.


----------



## Agent_D (Jul 19, 2019)

r9 said:


> I don't dispute that they made improvements.
> But to have no clock advantage on 7nm over Zen+ it's disappointing especially all the rumors floating around.
> And I know you not supposed to to trust the rumors that's why when they said 5GHz I was thinking alright we should at least get 4.5Ghz.
> Zen 2 would have kicked ass at 4.5+GHz.
> I was hoping that AMD would take over the gaming crown now Intel still tops gaming charts.



For the larger majority of what sales are targeted at, AMD is still going to take the overall winner at this stage. Clock for clock the 3000 series is either faster, or on par with, Intel in every aspect (yes gaming too). The audience that the sales are targeted at are the ones who will never touch an overclock or even know what overclocking is, my 3600X is faster in every aspect than the 8700k (at stock clocks) that it replaced. Those of use who like to tinker/overclock/tweak/etc. are the minority, not the ones who equate to enough of the profits to keep the bills paid. While I agree, it would have been nice to be a fun overclocking CPU series, it just isn't a smart business decision given the circumstances of the market currently in the places that actually financially make sense.


----------



## Chomiq (Jul 19, 2019)

r9 said:


> 4.1GHz that's terrible.
> Initial rumors were 5Ghz than 4.8 than 4.6 but 4.1 GHz that's plain terrible.



"Initial rumors" were pulled out of someone's a**. For $200 this is good enough.


----------



## B-Real (Jul 19, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Nice little all around $200 CPU and a clear winner at this price.  I'd still prefer an OC 9600k for pure gaming but Intel has that currently over priced @ $250.


Honestly, what do you get with a 9600K? 5% with a 2080 Ti on FHD. It means it gets 199 fps instead of 190. You can't tell the difference. And when you switch to 1440P or 4K (which is the 2080Ti's territory) that 5% disappears. Same is true for 2080 or cheaper GPUs in FHD. 0% difference.

You can tell that AMD not only got better IPC and single threaded workload performance than Intel, but they managed to equal it in gaming.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 19, 2019)

This chip is okay-ish and nothing more. In gaming and general use it gets matched by a 150$ 9400f and clearly beaten (close to 15% in fact) by an OCed 9600k which is now 220$ at several places already. Also, the bundled cooler is the crap one (Stelath) which gets loud and the temps run high, so you'll ideally want to replace it too (if it had the Prism, that might be an argument, but as it stands, it's not)


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 20, 2019)

Frick said:


> Will anyone on this site review the new APU's? @W1zzard @btarunr


AMD sent a 3400g, got a bunch of other reviews to take care of first


----------



## r9 (Jul 20, 2019)

Chomiq said:


> "Initial rumors" were pulled out of someone's a**. For $200 this is good enough.


They always offered good value no doubt and keeping intel honest to a degree.
But "Good enough" that's the key word, I was looking forward for AMD to be faster in everything not just good enough.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Jul 20, 2019)

Nice review. So that confirms I have no reason to upgrade from 2600x for 1440p gaming


----------



## Khonjel (Jul 20, 2019)

So quick question. Is the 3600X worth it over 3600. I can get a decent cooler like H7 Quad Lumi with the 3600 for the same price as 3600X.

Looks like AMD changed bunch of things again and so does the TDP rate (65w vs 95w) affect OC or PBO?


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 20, 2019)

B-Real said:


> Honestly, what do you get with a 9600K? 5% with a 2080 Ti on FHD. It means it gets 199 fps instead of 190. You can't tell the difference. And when you switch to 1440P or 4K (which is the 2080Ti's territory) that 5% disappears. Same is true for 2080 or cheaper GPUs in FHD. 0% difference.
> 
> You can tell that AMD not only got better IPC and single threaded workload performance than Intel, but they managed to equal it in gaming.
> [/QUOTE





B-Real said:


> Honestly, what do you get with a 9600K? 5% with a 2080 Ti on FHD. It means it gets 199 fps instead of 190. You can't tell the difference. And when you switch to 1440P or 4K (which is the 2080Ti's territory) that 5% disappears. Same is true for 2080 or cheaper GPUs in FHD. 0% difference.
> 
> You can tell that AMD not only got better IPC and single threaded workload performance than Intel, but they managed to equal it in gaming.



Obviously you get a similar CPU results when the GPU becomes the bottleneck and if you have zero plans to ever go beyond the Nvidia 2080 then your CPU choice is less important when all FPS is at similar levels.  What the 9600k gives you when OC is two fold

1 - better performance at 720p resulting in more headroom once more powerful GPUs are released and you plan to go past RTX 2080 performance at some point.  Many people fail to understand this point and simply believe 1440p or 4k should be the end all be all of gaming performance.

2- from every gaming programmer interview I've read they have stated how much easier Intel is to program for over AMD.  That its much easier to load up cores one a time then try to program for HT, SMT, and what happens when user 1 has four cores, user 2 has eight and user 3 has ten.

So those are my reasons for my view.  That said it also makes little real world difference at current same price level CPU offerings unless you have a specific niche for a specific CPU.  It's not as if the 9600k can a play a game the Ryzen 3600 can't or vice versa.  If you watch the video of below you will see that even people who dedicate their profession for PC hardware reviews have a hard time choosing Intel over AMD or vice versa.


----------



## Aretak (Jul 20, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> 2- from every gaming programmer interview I've read they have stated how much easier Intel is to program for over AMD.  That its much easier to load up cores one a time then try to program for HT, SMT, and what happens when user 1 has four cores, user 2 has eight and user 3 has ten.


Could you link some of these interviews which definetly exist and state that developing for Intel CPUs is easier than developing for AMD CPUs? Given that you're talking in terms of "every one you've read" I'm sure you'll be able to come up with a top five. Cheers!


----------



## Khonjel (Jul 20, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Obviously you get a similar CPU results when the GPU becomes the bottleneck and if you have zero plans to ever go beyond the Nvidia 2080 then your CPU choice is less important when all FPS is at similar levels.  What the 9600k gives you when OC is two fold
> 
> 1 - better performance at 720p resulting in more headroom once more powerful GPUs are released and you plan to go past RTX 2080 performance at some point.  Many people fail to understand this point and simply believe 1440p or 4k should be the end all be all of gaming performance.
> 
> ...





dirtyferret said:


> Obviously you get a similar CPU results when the GPU becomes the bottleneck and if you have zero plans to ever go beyond the Nvidia 2080 then your CPU choice is less important when all FPS is at similar levels.  What the 9600k gives you when OC is two fold
> 
> 1 - better performance at 720p resulting in more headroom once more powerful GPUs are released and you plan to go past RTX 2080 performance at some point.  Many people fail to understand this point and simply believe 1440p or 4k should be the end all be all of gaming performance.
> 
> ...


Dude. I was in the same dilemma a few days ago. But watch the vs benchmark videos on youtube. Recently released games Shadow of the tomb raider, AC odyssey, Battlefield 5 are already saturating the i5 to 70~90% utilisation. As someone who has been suffering from 100% CPU usage stutter for a few months, no way in hell am I going back to that mess in a few years by choosing i5 9600k over 3600/x.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 20, 2019)

Aretak said:


> Could you link some of these interviews which definetly exist and state that developing for Intel CPUs is easier than developing for AMD CPUs? Given that you're talking in terms of "every one you've read" I'm sure you'll be able to come up with a top five. Cheers!



google.com

cheers!

PS. If you watched the linked video you would see they briefly touch on the subject.



Khonjel said:


> Dude. I was in the same dilemma a few days ago. But watch the vs benchmark videos on youtube. Recently released games Shadow of the tomb raider, AC odyssey, Battlefield 5 are already saturating the i5 to 70~90% utilisation. As someone who has been suffering from 100% CPU usage stutter for a few months, no way in hell am I going back to that mess in a few years by choosing i5 9600k over 3600/x.



I'm not recommending one CPU over another for any person, its up to you to get whatever parts deliver the performance you want.  I posted my opinion at that price point if the 9600k was selling at the stated price point on the review.

I do know from techspot's testing of ACO, the 8600k had higher CPU utilization then the Ryzen 1600x (those were the chips at the time of the test) but that also resulted in higher GPU utilization and better performance (more then playable on both CPUs) so CPU utilization is not a clear cut provider for performance alone.
_
Something key to note here is the GPU utilization which is locked pretty much at 97% on the 8600K system. Now it we look at the R5 1600X, the GPU utilization is mixed in with the CPU threads so sorry about that, we can see that GPU utilization is usually around 80% but does fluctuate quite a lot and at times dropped as low as 53%. This is interesting as CPU utilization almost never cracked 90% and was often around 80%. Despite this due to the much lower GPU utilization the Ryzen CPU was overall much slower. 









						Assassin's Creed Origins: How Heavy Is It on Your CPU?
					

Today we're doing a little benchmarking, a little playing around with Assassin's Creed Origins to see how it behaves on different CPUs. For those of you unaware Assassin's Creed Origins was recently released, and it has been creating a bit of a stir in the PC tech community due how aggressively...




					www.techspot.com
				



_


----------



## EatingDirt (Jul 21, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Obviously you get a similar CPU results when the GPU becomes the bottleneck and if you have zero plans to ever go beyond the Nvidia 2080 then your CPU choice is less important when all FPS is at similar levels.  What the 9600k gives you when OC is two fold
> 
> 1 - better performance at 720p resulting in more headroom once more powerful GPUs are released and you plan to go past RTX 2080 performance at some point.  Many people fail to understand this point and simply believe 1440p or 4k should be the end all be all of gaming performance.
> 
> ...



1. There's so many things you have to assume for, in a few years, the 9600k still being faster than the 3600 in games. You need to assume games will not better utilize threads on CPU's better in a few years. You need to assume that graphics won't continue to get more GPU intensive, so the CPU will become the bottleneck. You need to assume we'll be getting 2080 Ti performance in a mid range card anytime soon. You need to assume programmers won't get better at optimizing for Zen with _both _consoles using Zen & coming out in 2020.

2. Old architectures are easier to program for than new ones. Intel has essentially used the same architecture for 8+ years, so of course it's easier to program for, as developers have already learned all the tricks, but they sure better get used to programming for Zen, as both new consoles will be utilizing them.

There's 1 reason I'd ever recommend a 9600k/9700k/9900k over a Ryzen 3xxx series at this point, and that is if you're a gamer that will 100% always lower the settings in your games so you can hit 144 fps on a 144hz+ monitor. Otherwise, at their current prices, the Intel CPU's just aren't worth it. The 3600 is 20% cheaper for 6.6% lower performance at 720p with a $1,300 GPU. With a mid-range GTX 1660 that gap would probably disappear, and that 20% cheaper isn't even taking into account that you'll _need _to spend another $30+ on a CPU cooler for the Intel part, raising the price gap further.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 21, 2019)

9600k is now 220$ in more and more places, so 3600 is NOT 20% cheaper + it has the crappiest of amd's coolers (Stealth) which pretty much everyone recommends should be upgraded. Besides, 9600k is up to 20% faster in games and by the time 3600 might start catching up due to greater thread count, they will both be ripe for replacement anyway. For pure gaming, it's still 9400f/9600k/9700k all the way.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 21, 2019)

I watched Hardware Unboxed's gigantic 36-game bench comparing the 9900K to the 3900X with the unrealistic test conditions of a 2080 Ti benched at 1080p. Under this academic set-up, the 9900K was only 5% faster or 6% faster when overclocked to 5Ghz.

So much for 'gaming king', the average difference with all types of games tested is almost meaningless, and when you consider the 3900X uses less power under load despite 4-more cores, enjoys up to 45% better productivity perf, comes with a good cooler, and is on a socket with more longevity (Ryzen 4000 compatible), a 6% gap in gaming but only when overclocked using a 2080 Ti @ 1080p is a hilarious justification for opting for the Intel.

With the 3600, the pros and cons are largely the same compared to Intel's price equivalent/s.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 21, 2019)

Leaving cpu testing methodology aside (the principles of which should be abundantly clear to anyone following computers for more than a week), 2080Ti on 1080p isn't quite as unrealistic as it might seem as there are plenty of people who want the maximum framerates while retaining very high settings, which often isn't quite possible at 1440, not even with a 2080Ti, I know 3 such just myself. Granted, none of them has just a 1080p monitor, but still, they are using it for FPS games at least. Next, the quted 6% difference was at stock, it is larger when 9900k is pushed to the limit and also at stock it does NOT consume more power than 3900X, not in gaming at least and especially not when the latter is paired with a X570 chipset. But perhaps more importantly, none of these two chips should be considered just for gaming, especially not the 3900X.


----------



## EatingDirt (Jul 21, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> 9600k is now 220$ in more and more places, so 3600 is NOT 20% cheaper + it has the crappiest of amd's coolers (Stealth) which pretty much everyone recommends should be upgraded. Besides, 9600k is up to 20% faster in games and by the time 3600 might start catching up due to greater thread count, they will both be ripe for replacement anyway. For pure gaming, it's still 9400f/9600k/9700k all the way.


Where's this magical land where the 9600k is only $220? It's $250, everywhere. The 9600k_ has_ been $220 before, but it's not right now. The 3600 is $200, everywhere. That is... 20% cheaper.

"Up to 20% faster" is just a way of ignoring that the 9600k is only 6.6% faster in the games on average right on this site, at 720p with a 2080 Ti, no less. There will be  outliers, which is why I said: 





> There's 1 reason I'd ever recommend a 9600k/9700k/9900k over a Ryzen 3xxx series at this point, and that is if you're a gamer that will 100% always lower the settings in your games so you can hit 144 fps on a 144hz+ monitor.... With a mid-range GTX 1660 that gap would probably disappear...


Because of that, if someone absolutely has to game at 144 fps on a 144hz monitor, then Intel might be the right choice. For literally everyone else, Zen offers better value near-equal performance in the majority of games.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 21, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Leaving cpu testing methodology aside (the principles of which should be abundantly clear to anyone following computers for more than a week), 2080Ti on 1080p isn't quite as unrealistic as it might seem as there are plenty of people who want the maximum framerates while retaining very high settings, which often isn't quite possible at 1440, not even with a 2080Ti, I know 3 such just myself. Granted, none of them has just a 1080p monitor, but still, they are using it for FPS games at least*. Next, the quted 6% difference was at stock*, it is larger when 9900k is pushed to the limit* and also at stock it does NOT consume more power than 3900X*, not in gaming at least and especially not when the latter is paired with a X570 chipset. But perhaps more importantly, none of these two chips should be considered just for gaming, especially not the 3900X.




1. Actually, it's only *5% difference when 9900K is overclocked to 5Ghz and the 3900X is set to auto-overclock. *So as I said, almost totally insignificant seeing as this is only when benched @ 1080p using a 2080 Ti. You may know people that game at 144Hz with a 2080 Ti @ 1080p, I don't, regardless, that is the nichest of niches.










2.  I said less power under load, as in, full load, it draws less power than a 9900K, which is great as it has 4-more cores:


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 21, 2019)

EatingDirt said:


> Where's this magical land where the 9600k is only $220? It's $250, everywhere. The 9600k_ has_ been $220 before, but it's not right now. The 3600 is $200, everywhere. That is... 20% cheaper.
> 
> "Up to 20% faster" is just a way of ignoring that the 9600k is only 6.6% faster in the games on average right on this site, at 720p with a 2080 Ti, no less. There will be  outliers, which is why I said:
> Because of that, if someone absolutely has to game at 144 fps on a 144hz monitor, then Intel might be the right choice. For literally everyone else, Zen offers better value near-equal performance in the majority of games.


MicroCenter for one and over in Europe as well








						Intel Core i5 9600K 6x 3.70GHz So.1151 WOF - Sockel 1151 | Mindfactory.de
					

INTEL Desktop von Intel | Intel Core i5 9600K 6x 3.70GHz So.1151 WOF :: Lagernd :: über 15.270 verkauft :: 24 Jahre Kompetenz | Hier bestellen




					www.mindfactory.de
				



(this is the store that AMD fans like to quote on numbers of cpus sold so now I occasionally check their prices just for reference; oh and as far as I understand, they are shipping continent-wide, so you can't say it's just one store...)
Regarding value - a 3600 might be technically better value than say 8700k, but there is another problem for the 3000 series as far as gaming is concerned - also according to this site, a 150$ 9400f already matches or almost matches their best skus...


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 21, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> MicroCenter for one and over in Europe as well
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Silly argument as the 9400F is only 4% behind Intel's 8700K too. And good luck anyone using that for next year's games with its paltry 6-threads. 

Aside from that, for general use you pay for what you get - the 9400F is a full 20% slower in CPU tests compared to 3600, which is certainly something you'd notice day to day unlike 5% gap with 2080 Ti @ 1080p.


----------



## Ergastolano (Jul 22, 2019)

It's time to buy an AMD Processor


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 22, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Silly argument as the 9400F is only 4% behind Intel's 8700K too. And good luck anyone using that for next year's games with its paltry 6-threads.
> 
> Aside from that, for general use you pay for what you get - the 9400F is a full 20% slower in CPU tests compared to 3600, which is certainly something you'd notice day to day unlike 5% gap with 2080 Ti @ 1080p.


What games won't it play next year, I would like a list please?


----------



## Bones (Jul 22, 2019)

dgianstefani said:


> Lol @ people saying the unlocked multiplier is a bonus over Intel when these chips are already running maxed out out of the box.



No they're not maxed out right out of the box - And I'll just say it, misinformation like this is not constructive, it's certainly not the truth.

And even if so, then maybe you'd care to explain how I got my 3600X to run over 4.4 on air with the stock wraith cooler..... All cores going too.

According to you it can't do this.... But it did.... And we're talking about the X version I used that's rated at 95W's, the regular 3600 being reviewed here is rated for 65W's.










						Bones`s SuperPi - 32M with BenchMate score: 8min 4sec 389ms with a Ryzen 5 3600X
					

The Ryzen 5 3600X @ 4448MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the SuperPi - 32M with BenchMate benchmark. Bonesranks #318 worldwide and #2 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




					hwbot.org


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 22, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> What games won't it play next year, I would like a list please?


Yeah, that's total bullshit from him - it'll take at least 3 years before 6c/6t chips start to really struggle outside of maybe like one badly optimized game. Developers need to have a resonable common denominator in mind as far as cpu requirement is concerned (much more than for gpus, where settings are far more scalable) and currently that are STILL quad cores and we've only started to shift to 6 as a minimum.


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

Bones said:


> No they're not maxed out right out of the box - And I'll just say it, that's total Intel fanboy FUD.
> 
> And if so, then maybe you'd care to explain how I got my 3600X to run over 4.4 on air with the stock wraith cooler..... All cores going too.
> According to you it can't do this.... But it did.... And we're talking about the X version I used that's rated at 95W's, the regular 3600 is rated for 65W's.
> ...


Well, according to this: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-3600/5.html
You gained a bit over 8% compared to stock 3600X.

Also, you boast about all-core overclock, but you've linked to a single threaded benchmark 



dirtyferret said:


> What games won't it play next year, I would like a list please?


I hear Minesweeper is getting one thread per square. It's going to murder CPUs


----------



## Bones (Jul 22, 2019)

bug said:


> Well, according to this: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-3600/5.html
> You gained a bit over 8% compared to stock 3600X.
> 
> Also, you boast about all-core overclock, but you've linked to a single threaded benchmark


I'm well aware it's singlethreaded and yes, to be fair that is a factor but do consider it still had to boot the OS and all else just to do and complete the run.

My point is these are not maxed out right from the box as claimed, they can and will do more.








						Bones`s Geekbench3 - Multi Core with BenchMate score: 31182 points with a Ryzen 5 3600X
					

The Ryzen 5 3600X @ 4323MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the Geekbench3 - Multi Core with BenchMate benchmark. Bonesranks #29 worldwide and #7 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




					hwbot.org
				











						Bones`s wPrime - 1024m score: 1min 31sec 6ms with a Ryzen 5 3600X
					

The Ryzen 5 3600X @ 4348MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the wPrime - 1024m benchmark. Bonesranks #291 worldwide and #4 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




					hwbot.org
				




And these use all available cores/threads - 4.3+ isn't bad for stock air and not that far off of 4.4 either.

Additional:
The thread itself isn't about the X version but it has been said they can do about as well as the X versions, with their lower wattage rating they could possibly do even better once clocked up.

Oh yeah - Can't wait to try out the new Minesweeper bench!


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

Bones said:


> I'm well aware it's singlethreaded and yes, to be fair that is a factor but do consider it still had to boot the OS and all else just to do and complete the run.
> 
> My point is these are not maxed out right from the box as claimed, they can and will do more.
> 
> ...


Well, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. You're just enforcing precisely what you're trying to refute: compared to a standard configuration there's just about 8% more to squeeze out of these.
Current power management won't squeeze _everything_ out of Zen2, but it's getting pretty darn close.


----------



## Bones (Jul 22, 2019)

bug said:


> Well, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.* You're just enforcing precisely what you're trying to refute*: compared to a standard configuration there's just about 8% more to squeeze out of these.
> Current power management won't squeeze _everything_ out of Zen2, but it's getting pretty darn close.



No, my whole point is these are Not maxed out right from the box. 
Also bear in mind what I did was on stock air, if on better air or even water it would do even more, certainly beyond 8% which BTW is still more than just "Out of the box".


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

Bones said:


> No, my whole point is these are Not maxed out right from the box.
> Also bear in mind what I did was on stock air, if on better air or even water it would do even more, certainly beyond 8% which BTW is still more than just "Out of the box".


Come on, 4.4 is like a brick wall for Zen2. Sure, some will be able to hit 4.6 or maybe 4.8, but can you really compare this to old CPUs that would overclock 30% or more without breaking a sweat?

Plus, the original point was not whether these overclock or not, was about the unlocked multiplier being pointless. Did you need to change the multiplier to achieve your overclock?


----------



## Bones (Jul 22, 2019)

Not trying to compare them that way.
The statement about being maxed right out of the box is my issue.

I know compared to previous chips they are limited, no doubt with results to prove it. BTW I"ve had this one actually hit 4500, wasn't stable at all but it got into the OS at least. That's not bad for it being on stock air alone in summertime at the hottest time of the year no less.

Once I get my watercooling setup repaired and a block for AM4 I can try it again and see where it winds up.


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

Bones said:


> Not trying to compare them that way.
> *The statement about being maxed right out of the box is my issue.*
> 
> I know compared to previous chips they are limited, no doubt with results to prove it. BTW I"ve had this one actually hit 4500, wasn't stable at all but it got into the OS at least. That's not bad for it being on stock air alone in summertime at the hottest time of the year no less.
> ...


If it's within 10% of what it can do, it's maxed out for all intents and purposes.
What will an additional 10% net you? 22fps in a game that was previously running at 20fps? 110fps in a game that ran at 100fps? The differences are just for bragging rights.


----------



## Bones (Jul 22, 2019)

Based on percentages as you put it, the chip in my case has already exceeded 10%. 

10% of 3800MHz (3.8GHz) is 380MHz, add that to the base value of the chip's 3.8GHz value and you've sitting at 4180MHz (4.18GHz). 
10% of A 3600 rated at 3600MHz is 360MHz. To get the 10% would have it at 3960MHz (3.96GHz) to reach 10% OC which they clearly can.

The 3600 is a good chip.
That's all I have to say about it.


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

Bones said:


> Based on percentages as you put it, the chip in my case has already exceeded 10%.
> 
> 10% of 3800MHz (3.8GHz) is 380MHz, add that to the base value of the chip's 3.8GHz value and you've sitting at 4180MHz (4.18GHz).
> 10% of A 3600 rated at 3600MHz is 360MHz. To get the 10% would have it at 3960MHz (3.96GHz) to reach 10% OC which they clearly can.


I was calculating based on what the chip will boost on its own.


Bones said:


> The 3600 is a good chip.
> That's all I have to say about it.


It's a great chip, there's no disputing that. Especially for someone like me who always buys in the $200-250 range  The only dark cloud is if you want the latest and greatest, you'll probably be spending another $200 on a mobo


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 22, 2019)

bug said:


> If it's within 10% of what it can do, it's maxed out for all intents and purposes.
> What will an additional 10% net you? 22fps in a game that was previously running at 20fps? 110fps in a game that ran at 100fps? The differences are just for bragging rights.



You argue that 10% is negligible but you're the first person to say a 5% gaming performance gap (@ HD res using a 2080 Ti) is reason to pick a 9900K over a 3900X


----------



## bug (Jul 22, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> You argue that 10% is negligible but you're the first person to say a 5% gaming performance gap (@ HD res using a 2080 Ti) is reason to pick a 9900K over a 3900X


I dare you to find a post where I said you should pick the 9900K over the 3900X for gaming "@ HD res using a 2080 Ti".


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 22, 2019)

bug said:


> I dare you to find a post where I said you should pick the 9900K over the 3900X for gaming "@ HD res using a 2080 Ti".



I personally find anyone who purchased the AMD 3900x over the Intel 9900k has made a tragic and reprehensible mistake.  One that will haunt them dearly for the rest of their PC gaming lives...
I also feel the same way about anyone who purchased the Intel 9900k over the AMD 3900x so it's a rather unique juxtaposition.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 22, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> I personally find anyone who purchased the AMD 3900x over the Intel 9900k has made a tragic and reprehensible mistake.  One that will haunt them dearly for the rest of their PC gaming lives...
> I also feel the same way about anyone who purchased the Intel 9900k over the AMD 3900x so it's a rather unique juxtaposition.



The FX series is bashed beyond belief but it still sells on Amazon. Ignorance is bliss, most people that buy a CPU can't afford to buy an Intel or AMD similar, and I would also counter with AMD is great for driver support and Ryzen3 is an absolute no brainer at this point. I will agree though that, the 3900x will give you 90% of the total performance of the AM4 platform in gaming vs the 9900K in most games using a 2080TI. It will be interesting to see how OC Navi cards work with AM4 CPUs going forward as that will basically be the PS5 and driver updates are actually tangible from AMD.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 23, 2019)

bug said:


> I dare you to find a post where I said you should pick the 9900K over the 3900X for gaming "@ HD res using a 2080 Ti".



Didn't take me long:



bug said:


> That's interesting, because either of the CPUs you have right now are better for gaming than the 3700X. Not by much, but since you said "crucial" I'm thinking every bit counts.



You question here why someone wants a 3700X over a 8700K, as if a 4% gap @1080p using a 2080 Ti outweighs the numerous and tangible advantages and pros that the Ryzen has over that CPU.


----------



## bug (Jul 23, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Didn't take me long:
> 
> 
> 
> You question here why someone wants a 3700X over a 8700K, as if a 4% gap @1080p using a 2080 Ti outweighs the numerous and tangible advantages and pros that the Ryzen has over that CPU.


I don't think switching between those CPU makes sense. I have clearly said Intel is only a little bit faster, so for all intents and purposes they're on par. But make of that what you want.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 23, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> ...Ryzen3 is an absolute no brainer at this point.



Ryzen 3 are great CPUs



kapone32 said:


> I will agree though that, the 3900x will give you 90% of the total performance of the AM4 platform in gaming vs the 9900K in most games using a 2080TI.



So if we agree the Ryzen 3900x is great and a "no brainer" and costs $499 then wouldn't the Intel 9900k for $484 and giving you about 10% more gaming performance (using your 90% of the total performance from above) then also be at the very minimum great and a "no brainer"?


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 23, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Ryzen 3 are great CPUs
> 
> 
> 
> So if we agree the Ryzen 3900x is great and a "no brainer" and costs $499 then wouldn't the Intel 9900k for $484 and giving you about 10% more gaming performance (using your 90% of the total performance from above) then also be at the very minimum great and a "no brainer"?



Indeed it would be if that you just wanted to get the most FPS in Games period then the 9900K makes sense. If you wanted the best price/performance and future proofing for games the 3600 at $199 US would be a no brainer too. However there is more to the argument about the 9900K vs the 3900x. There are following things.

1. The 3900x comes with a usable cooler 
2. Not saying you should but there are currently 4 chipsets that work with the 3900x B450, X370, X470, X570 evewn though there are a few boards that won't.

Just those 2 points would feasibly make the 8700K a more expensive CPU than the 3900X.....for a new build.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 23, 2019)

Just for gaming, 3900X is plain stupid (not to mention it's mostly sold out everywhere right now), even 9900k is not the best choice. For purely gaming builds a 350-ish$ 9700k is where it's at.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 23, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Just for gaming, 3900X is plain stupid (not to mention it's mostly sold out everywhere right now), even 9900k is not the best choice. For purely gaming builds a 350-ish$ 9700k is where it's at.



Nah the $200 3600 is where it's at. I could spend the $150 I save on a better GPU or faster storage.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 23, 2019)

Maybe for mid-range builds...or if you only play at 4k (but in both of these cases 9400f is the same at 50-60$ less), but for proper high-refresh rate gaming, 9700k still has the clear edge.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 23, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> 1. The 3900x comes with a usable cooler
> 2. Not saying you should but there are currently 4 chipsets that work with the 3900x B450, X370, X470, X570 evewn though there are a few boards that won't.



1. true it does but for savings plus an extra $10 you can get a gammax 400 which could handle stock settings easily and even a slight OC
2. the i9-9900k also works on the the Z390, Z370, H370, and B360 (according to gigabytes CPU support list) 

I'm not stating one option is better then another just that it's not a very cut and dry situation


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 23, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Just for gaming, 3900X is plain stupid (not to mention it's mostly sold out everywhere right now), even 9900k is not the best choice. For purely gaming builds a 350-ish$ 9700k is where it's at.



Nope, a 9700K would be a stupid choice with the 3700X now on the market. Why limit yourself to 8-threads when you can get 16 and more or less the same gaming perf with a 3700X? Why choose a dead platform over one that will be supported next year with Ryzen 4000 and has PCIE4? Why stump up more cash for the 9700K when the 3700X also includes a cooler?

You're trying your best but some of your claims are illogical given the facts.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 23, 2019)

Didn't GN the be all and end all of PC hardware gaming call the 3700x the "odd man out" and state the 9700k as the best pure gaming CPU....


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 23, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Didn't GN the be all and end all of PC hardware gaming call the 3700x the "odd man out" and state the 9700k as the best pure gaming CPU....



That is still one person's opinion, the fact that there are about 100 total MBs you could pair a Ryzen3 with and about 55 of them are X570 alone means that Ryzen will be well supported in the CPU space for some time to come; not that Intel will not take back the overall performance crown at some point in the next 2 to 3 years.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 23, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> That is still one person's opinion, the fact that there are about 100 total MBs you could pair a Ryzen3 with and about 55 of them are X570 alone means that Ryzen will be well supported in the CPU space for some time to come; not that Intel will not take back the overall performance crown at some point in the next 2 to 3 years.



Why wouldn't Ryzen be supported?

As for GN, they are not the only professional review site with that opinion and they are brought up on these forums as if their word is gospel by a number of people.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 23, 2019)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Nope, a 9700K would be a stupid choice with the 3700X now on the market. Why limit yourself to 8-threads when you can get 16 and more or less the same gaming perf with a 3700X? Why choose a dead platform over one that will be supported next year with Ryzen 4000 and has PCIE4? Why stump up more cash for the 9700K when the 3700X also includes a cooler?
> 
> You're trying your best but some of your claims are illogical given the facts.


For pure high-refresh-rate gaming, 3700X is a stupid choice over 9700k as the latter is up to 20% faster in certain games and 8 hardware threads on a low-latency interconnect will continue to be faster for the forseeable future. You might be able to make an argument that a 9600k will fall behind in a couple years, but not the 9700k, not even close.


----------



## bug (Jul 23, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> For pure high-refresh-rate gaming, 3700X is a stupid choice over 9700k as the latter is up to 20% faster in certain games and 8 hardware threads on a low-latency interconnect will continue to be faster for the forseeable future. You might be able to make an argument that a 9600k will fall behind in a couple years, but not the 9700k, not even close.


It's not a stupid choice, it's a little more complicated.
If you take a look here: https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/
there's a difference in minimum frame rates. The thing is, sometimes the 8700k is on top, sometimes it's the 9600k. So you don't have an easy pick even if you want to stick with Intel. And if that wasn't enough, depending on title, AMD also scores some wins in minimum frames.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 23, 2019)

bug said:


> It's not a stupid choice, it's a little more complicated.
> If you take a look here: https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/
> there's a difference in minimum frame rates. The thing is, sometimes the 8700k is on top, sometimes it's the 9600k. So you don't have an easy pick even if you want to stick with Intel. And if that wasn't enough, depending on title, AMD also scores some wins in minimum frames.


So that would make calling any choice "stupid"... stupid (see what I did there).


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 24, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> For pure high-refresh-rate gaming, 3700X is a stupid choice over 9700k as the latter is up to 20% faster in certain games and 8 hardware threads on a low-latency interconnect will continue to be faster for the forseeable future. You might be able to make an argument that a 9600k will fall behind in a couple years, but not the 9700k, not even close.



'Up to 20%', nope, stop cherry-picking, there are titles where the 3700X is faster, but we don't cherry-pick, we look at averages across many games to come to a conclusion over what is the performance gap between the two.

It's _4 PERCENT _@ 1080p. The two are neck and neck in gaming but the 3700X is significantly faster in general CPU performance, more power efficient, cheaper, it's on a more modern platform, comes with cooler. No one in their right mind should choose a 9700K in today's market, luckily something better has come along.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 24, 2019)

It's not cherry-picking if you say it's up to, and depending on what you game the most, that could be your case. Next, there are zero titles where 3700X is faster, zero and also, unlike the 9600k, 9700k always leads in the minimum framerates as well, often even exceeding the 9900k. Furthermore, for gaming focused builds, the so called general cpu performance is of limited value and for what other tasks will be done on a gaming build (generally mostly browsing), 9700k will be no slower. It's also more power efficient at lighter loads and only overtakes 3700X in consumption in heavily threaded tasks, in gaming tests show very similar numbers. Then, due to the shortages of Zen2 chips, they are oftenplace sold above MSRP, while 9700k's price has been lowered in several places to as little as 329$, yes it doesn't have a cooler but ideally, one will want to upgrade the one on 3700X as well. And lastly, considering there will be just one more series of chips on the AM4 platform and all the leaks and rumors so far suggest it will only be a small, incremental upgrade over Zen2 similar to Zen -> Zen+, even 4000 chips will likely only match the i7 in games at best, meaning that a more modern platform is also a non-argument for gaming. Once again, for a gaming-only or at least mostly build, the 9700k is currently (still) the best choice and as several others have pointed out, quite a few reviewers have said the same thing.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 24, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> It's not cherry-picking if you say it's up to, and depending on what you game the most, that could be your case. Next, there are zero titles where 3700X is faster, zero and also, unlike the 9600k, 9700k always leads in the minimum framerates as well, often even exceeding the 9900k. Furthermore, for gaming focused builds, the so called general cpu performance is of limited value and for what other tasks will be done on a gaming build (generally mostly browsing), 9700k will be no slower. It's also more power efficient at lighter loads and only overtakes 3700X in consumption in heavily threaded tasks, in gaming tests show very similar numbers. Then, due to the shortages of Zen2 chips, they are oftenplace sold above MSRP, while 9700k's price has been lowered in several places to as little as 329$, yes it doesn't have a cooler but ideally, one will want to upgrade the one on 3700X as well. And lastly, considering there will be just one more series of chips on the AM4 platform and all the leaks and rumors so far suggest it will only be a small, incremental upgrade over Zen2 similar to Zen -> Zen+, even 4000 chips will likely only match the i7 in games at best, meaning that a more modern platform is also a non-argument for gaming. Once again, for a gaming-only or at least mostly build, the 9700k is currently (still) the best choice and as several others have pointed out, quite a few reviewers have said the same thing.



Do you have a 3700X and 9700K to stand behind your rant?


----------



## Bones (Jul 24, 2019)

I've touched on this before concerning others - Almost the entire arguement quoted is about gaming and nothing else making it a incomplete, hollow point of view.
Also with the blatant amount of bias against AMD seen in other posts from him there is no way I can take any arguement from him with _any_ amount of seriousness.

Hater's gonna hate.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 24, 2019)

Of course it's about gaming! The whole point of it is that for purely (high-end) gaming builds, the 9700k is still superior in every way; 9600k vs 3600 you can argue a bit about the future (currently the i5 is clearly better as well) because of the former's "just" 6 threads, but that's just not the case with the i7 and I'm inclined to agree with GN's statement: "For gaming we continue to recommend the 9700k" far above some anonymous AMD fanboy saying otherwise.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 24, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Of course it's about gaming! The whole point of it is that for purely (high-end) gaming builds, the 9700k is still superior in every way; 9600k vs 3600 you can argue a bit about the future (currently the i5 is clearly better as well) because of the former's "just" 6 threads, but that's just not the case with the i7 and I'm inclined to agree with GN's statement: "For gaming we continue to recommend the 9700k" far above some anonymous AMD fanboy saying otherwise.



What is a high end gaming build a 1440P monitor or 4K combined with a Veg56,64, Navi 5700XT or Nvidia 2060,2070,2080 both regular and super? If that is the case then the CPU choice is moot between AMD and Intel. Unless you mean old DX11 games running at 1080P or god forbid 720P. You quote GN but they have also said for a couple years now that I5's are a waste of money compared to AMD's 6 core parts. There is also the fact that a lot of gamers like to stream their gameplay and again GN showed that AMD beats Intel when it comes to gaming and streaming. I am not saying that the 9700k or 9600k are not good gaming CPUs. I just don't like the way you make it sound like AMd's offerings are garbage against Intel.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Jul 24, 2019)

A lot of gamers like to stream? How much is a lot? I think you will find the percentage in the low single digits...


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 24, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> You quote GN but they have also said for a couple years now that I5's are a waste of money compared to AMD's




Actually they never said that.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 24, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Actually they never said that.



You should watch the reviews on the 1600, 2600 and 3600


----------



## Bones (Jul 24, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> Of course it's about gaming! The whole point of it is that for purely (high-end) gaming builds, the 9700k is still superior in every way; 9600k vs 3600 you can argue a bit about the future (currently the i5 is clearly better as well) because of the former's "just" 6 threads, but that's just not the case with the i7 and I'm inclined to agree with GN's statement: "For gaming we continue to recommend the 9700k" far above some anonymous AMD fanboy saying otherwise.



No it's not.
This thread is about the 3600 CPU, _not gaming itself_.

The above also sounds to an extent like a marketing pitch here.... Hey - You sure you're not a paid Introll trying to trash AMD and getting paid by the post?

BTW I"ll go ahead and clarify since the term "Fanboy" appeared.... I run both.

This is a review thread about the 3600 guys.
I've already said it's a good chip because it is and well worth getting too.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 24, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> You should watch the reviews on the 1600, 2600 and 3600


I have, you should learn not to make hyperbole comments to justify your fears in your purchases

from the ryzen 3600 review
_The i5-9600K outperforms the 3600 in most of our game benchmarks as games have been slow to adapt to CPUs with more than 8 threads, and the 5GHz+ overclocking potential of the 9600K makes it an even clearer winner for exclusively gaming, but the R5 3600 is the more versatile and potentially cheaper option at $200 MSRP 









						AMD Ryzen 5 3600 CPU Review & Benchmarks: Strong Recommendation from GN
					

Alongside the 3900X and 3700X that we’re also reviewing, AMD launched its R5 3600 today to the public. We got a production sample of one of the R5 3600 CPUs through a third-party and, after seeing its performance, we wanted to focus first on this one for our initial Ryzen 3000 review.  -




					www.gamersnexus.net
				



_
from the 1600x review (the i5 in discussion is the i5-7600k)

_Yes, i5 CPUs still provide a decent experience – but for gaming, it’s starting to look like either you’re buying a 7700K, because it’s significantly ahead of R5 CPUs and it’s pretty well ahead of R7 CPUs, or you’re buying an R5 CPU. We don’t see much argument for R7s in gaming at this point, although there is one in some cases, and we also see a fading argument for i5 CPUs. It's still there, for now, but fading 









						AMD R5 1600X, 1500X Review: i5's Fading Grasp
					

Both the R5 1600X ($250) and R5 1500X ($190) CPUs are in for review today, primarily matched against the Intel i5-7500 and i5-7600K. - P4: R5 1600X & 1500X vs. i5-7600K Gaming




					www.gamersnexus.net
				



_
i5-8600k review

_And that has shaped up like this: An i5-8600K, for a person who is primarily playing games, is more than adequate when compared to an i7-8700K. In most instances, ignoring special use cases like livestreaming via H264, production tasks, or 144Hz framerates, an i7 would be excess spending. The i5-8600K’s high frequency and core count make it fully capable of gaming at its own similarly high framerates, and significantly more mobile and future-looking than the 7600K was _









						Intel i5-8600K Review & Overclocking vs. 8400, 8700K, & More
					

This review looks at the Intel i5-8600K benchmark performance, including overclocking (to 5GHz), Blender, gaming, thermals, and power consumption. - P3: i5-8600K Rendering, Power, & Thermals




					www.gamersnexus.net
				




i5-9600k review

_For anyone working with Blender in addition to gaming, the R7 2700 is a better choice. For pure gaming, the 9600K is “better” in most the games we tested, but that frametime inconsistency in some games causes us to hesitate. 









						Intel i5-9600K Review vs. R7 2700, R5 2600, i7-8700K, et al.
					

When we last reviewed an i5 CPU, our conclusion was that the i7s made more sense for pure gaming builds, with the R5s undercutting Intel’s dominance in the mid-range. We’re revisiting the value proposition of Intel’s i5 lineup with the 9600K, having already reviewed the 9900K and, of course, the...




					www.gamersnexus.net
				



_
and GN latest video about Intel vs AMD where Steve and Jayz discuss it makes little difference between the CPUs and depends on the buyers desire (gaming or heavy muli-thread) and even then you are talking about capable products across the board that are slightly better in one area.  The only thing they state is from a pure gaming experience they both recommend the 9700k but even that is a luke warm recommendation as the AMD alterative is more then capable.










I dare you to post anything from GN where they state any modern Intel or AMD is a "waste of money".  

The problem with fan boys such as yourself is you look at thing as a "zero sum" position.  If one thing is good then the other thing must be completely bad.  There is no room for two good things in your world.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 24, 2019)

HenrySomeone said:


> A lot of gamers like to stream? How much is a lot? I think you will find the percentage in the low single digits...



If you are looking at it from Enthusiasts stand point I would agree. Look at the number of users on Twitch.


----------



## bobalazs (Jul 24, 2019)

I'd like to see some boinc calculation benchmarks for cpus.


----------



## Dyatlov A (Jul 27, 2019)

If x470 motherboard has Windows 7 drivers, will this CPU also work with Windows 7?

update,
ok, it will, I have found the answer on reddit.


----------



## kapone32 (Jul 28, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> I have, you should learn not to make hyperbole comments to justify your fears in your purchases
> 
> from the ryzen 3600 review
> _The i5-9600K outperforms the 3600 in most of our game benchmarks as games have been slow to adapt to CPUs with more than 8 threads, and the 5GHz+ overclocking potential of the 9600K makes it an even clearer winner for exclusively gaming, but the R5 3600 is the more versatile and potentially cheaper option at $200 MSRP
> ...



I wish I could say I was a fan boy. I should not have said that the I5s are a waste of money. I do not think that Intel is bad or good. In terms of performance there is more than anecdotal data that they perform between 90 to 95% with each other. The only thing for me personally is tech is about innovation and tangible improvement. Using that principle there is no I5 processor that gives you everything you get with the 3600 for $200. If you build a computer strictly for gaming then I guess an I5 would make sense but part of a building a PC as a poor man's enthusiast is budget. In fact I have had a few bevys (It is hot outside and it Saturday and it's sumnmertime) so I will not authoraize anything I say here. I rememeber when I had a need to upgrade my PC (TW Shogun 2 release) I set myself a $1000  budget. I found a 1090T for $159.99 vs the Intel I7-2500K for $349.99. At the time AMD motherboards gave you more accoutrements than the same priced Intel boards. During the search I found a (refurbished) OCZ Revodrive3 240GB for $199 on Newegg. All I will say that that is the reason I am a believer in NVME. The CPU is only one of the components in a complete computer


----------



## Dyatlov A (Jul 28, 2019)

I’m reading that with x470 motherboard is better, because consumes less power and heats less. Would have been more accurate test with same motherboard all


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 28, 2019)

Dyatlov A said:


> because consumes less power and heats less


X570 motherboards actually consume more power than X470 due to the chipset+fan. The CPU heat output will be identical, unless they run at different voltages


----------



## Footman (May 29, 2020)

Wanted a change from my 8700k and as I am interested in zen3. I picked up a 3600 and x570 motherboard yesterday at Microcenter. Definitely worth the 160 mile round trip as I bought the 3600 for $159 and got an additional $20 off for buying the x570 motherboard together. As far as performance is concerned, the 3600 at stock is on par with my stock 8700k. The 8700k is faster when overclocked to 4.8ghz. I purchased this kit in advance of zen3 to make the upgrade process easier later in the year. Been some time since I went all and, cpu and gpu.

Just saying that I had a few issues getting the Asus x570 Tuf and 3600 playing nicely until I realized that pbo set at auto was actually still enabled! I had to disable it completely before the cpu would downclock correctly! Now everything is running as it should. Bit disappointed that I am not able to boost to 4200mhz on a single core in Cinebench. I can get close at 4.161mhz!! Guess my chip is not an amazing chip! This is under water and in single core Cinebench my cpu never goes over 54c, so no temp or throttling issue. It's been years since I played with and cpu. Am I missing something else that is preventing me from reaching 4.2ghz on single core? I will also say that pbo is worthless with this cpu and I am seeing consistently better benchmark score with it completely disabled.... Go figure...


----------



## gasolin (Jul 14, 2020)

Pretty good or what?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 14, 2020)

looks a little hot, have you checked if you can lower the volts? my 3700x can do 4.3 at 1.2v, maybe the 3600s are binned worse


----------



## gasolin (Jul 14, 2020)

I think  it's pretty good 

My old 3600 https://valid.x86.fr/2bw95d


----------



## AusWolf (Apr 26, 2021)

What conditions have to be met to achieve this 4200 MHz all-around clock?

I'm currently in the process of downgrading from a 5950X (I only ever use it for games), and I chose this CPU specifically because of its stable clock speed. However, with all auto bios settings, it fluctuates between 4050-4150 MHz depending on the type of load. Not a big deal for gaming, but it's bugging me. My Ryzen 3 3100 runs at 3900 MHz day and night, so what's up with the 3600? I'm assuming there's either something with power limits somewhere, or the Wraith Stealth cooler is a piece of rubbish for this CPU (be quiet! Shadow Rock LP coming today).


----------



## gasolin (Apr 26, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> What conditions have to be met to achieve this 4200 MHz all-around clock?
> 
> I'm currently in the process of downgrading from a 5950X (I only ever use it for games), and I chose this CPU specifically because of its stable clock speed. However, with all auto bios settings, it fluctuates between 4050-4150 MHz depending on the type of load. Not a big deal for gaming, but it's bugging me. My Ryzen 3 3100 runs at 3900 MHz day and night, so what's up with the 3600? I'm assuming there's either something with power limits somewhere, or the Wraith Stealth cooler is a piece of rubbish for this CPU (be quiet! Shadow Rock LP coming today).



A little better cpu cooler won't hurt


----------



## kapone32 (Apr 27, 2021)

AusWolf said:


> What conditions have to be met to achieve this 4200 MHz all-around clock?
> 
> I'm currently in the process of downgrading from a 5950X (I only ever use it for games), and I chose this CPU specifically because of its stable clock speed. However, with all auto bios settings, it fluctuates between 4050-4150 MHz depending on the type of load. Not a big deal for gaming, but it's bugging me. My Ryzen 3 3100 runs at 3900 MHz day and night, so what's up with the 3600? I'm assuming there's either something with power limits somewhere, or the Wraith Stealth cooler is a piece of rubbish for this CPU (be quiet! Shadow Rock LP coming today).


The 3600 could sit at 4.4 GHZ all day long with an air cooler like the Antec A400.


----------



## HandyTechShare (May 5, 2022)

I hade mine (AMD 3600) staying stable at 4.2 Ghz for 7 minutes at max temp to 71°C until i stop benchmarking with cinebench R20 (score 3812 with antivirus closed and internet closed), to reach that goal i did this:
- Buy a very descent cooler that comes with push/pull dual fans and direct CU base, having 4 8mm coper pipes.
- Set manual cpu clock ratio at 42 and manual core voltage (overwrite mode) at 1.250V in the bios.
My motherboard is MSI B450 gaming plus max, memory is 2x8Gb balistix at 3200 Mhz (manualy set in bios).
The system is kept that way for daily use for regular or gaming and still shows a perfect stability.


----------

