# AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review Leaks, Shows Impressive Performance



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 25, 2019)

El Chapuzas Informático has posted an early review of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 which was tested on a Gigabyte Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi motherboard, G.Skill FlareX DDR4 @ 3200 MHz and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti FE graphics card. Looking at the data presented, it becomes clear the performance on offer if real looks to be quite impressive. The site compared AMD's latest offering to the Intel Core i9-9900K and the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X with the Ryzen 5 3600 typically slotting in between the two and in some cases beating both. This is interesting to note as the Ryzen 7 2700X offers similar clock speeds to the Ryzen 5 3600 but the former has a 2C/4T advantage. Even so, the newer AMD CPU tends to outpace the Zen+ based Ryzen 7 2700X in multiple tests. In Cinebench R15, for example, the Ryzen 5 3600 had the lead in single-core performance while multi-core was held by the Ryzen 7 2700X. Cinebench R20 roughly mimics these results as well.

While memory latency was quite high 80.5 ns, it didn't seem to impact performance to any serious degree. In fact, in wPrime 2.10 32M running on a single core showed the Ryzen 5 3600 coming in just behind the Intel Core i9-9900K while being faster than the previous generation Intel Core i7-8700K, i7-8600K, and AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and 1700X. That said, the previous generation Ryzen processors were far slower here were as the Intel chips were still competitive. In the multi-core test, the Ryzen 7 2700X took a slight lead while the Ryzen 7 1700X was a bit slower than the Ryzen 5 3600. One interesting quirk of note was the lack of write speed on the memory with the Ryzen 5 3600 only hitting 25.6 GB/s which is quite a drop from the 47 GB/s seen on the Ryzen 7 1700X and Ryzen 7 2700X. However this could be due to the X470 motherboard being used or maybe an issue with sub timings on the memory, something that will need to be verified in future reviews.


 

 

 

 

Other than that, the Ryzen 5 3600 proves to be a capable processor. While not quite on par with the Intel Core i9-9900K in gaming tests, it does get quite close and typically beats the Ryzen 7 2700X. While the margins of victory are not staggering, it's still good to see as it does show an improvement since the Ryzen 5 3600 does have a lower clock speed and fewer cores and threads compared to the previous generation. If these chips are decent overclockers, they may prove quite interesting for mid-range gaming builds since they Ryzen 5 3600 has an MSRP of $199. Considering other AMD processors in the lineup can boost up to 4.6 GHz, these mid-range Ryzen chips could be quite the gaming CPUs as a potential 400 MHz overclock would likely let them close the gap with Intel's far more expensive unlocked processors.


 

 

 
You can check the full review at the source below, and while the results appear plausible, we suggest taking them with a grain of salt.

*Update Jun 26th*: El Chapuzas Informático has posted a follow up review, using a motherboard with X570 chipset. Looks like the differences are only minor.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jun 25, 2019)

we suggest taking them with a grain of salt. 
we suggest taking them with a grain of salt. 
we suggest taking them with a grain of salt. 

^ that


----------



## noel_fs (Jun 25, 2019)

LUL gaming


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 25, 2019)

Gaming perf seems to be pretty stagnant but then this is only a very limited view.

Still. Not bad. I think the more interesting bit here is the actual power draw for this performance, and the gap with the X models.


----------



## biffzinker (Jun 25, 2019)

Time to move on from DDR4-3200? Wonder if DDR4-3600/3700 would improve write bandwidth, and latency?


----------



## dirtyferret (Jun 25, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Gaming perf seems to be pretty stagnant but then this is only a very limited view.
> 
> Still. Not bad. I think the more interesting bit here is the actual power draw for this performance, and the gap with the X models.



Someone posted a chinese gaming benchmark on the forum which had the 3600 performing similar to the 8700k at stock although you can take that leak with a grain or mound of salt depending on allegiance.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 25, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Someone posted a chinese gaming benchmark on the forum which had the 3600 performing similar to the 8700k at stock although you can take that leak with a grain or mound of salt depending on allegiance.



Gaming is a fickle beast. Needs a very large amount of benches and especially OC results.


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 25, 2019)

Interesting 75c with stock cooler in stress test.


----------



## Midland Dog (Jun 25, 2019)

impressive no way, i want better ST than intel, no point upgrading from haswell still


----------



## dicktracy (Jun 25, 2019)

Meh... Skylake 2.0

Also they retested it with x570 motherboard: https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2019/06/amd-ryzen-5-3600-x570-review/


----------



## Imsochobo (Jun 25, 2019)

Xzibit said:


> Interesting 75c with stock cooler in stress test.



With the stealth...
It's absolutely tiny!


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 25, 2019)

Imsochobo said:


> With the stealth...
> It's absolutely tiny!



Yup, Plus if this is to be believed



dicktracy said:


> Meh... Skylake 2.0
> 
> Also they retested it with x570 motherboard: https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2019/06/amd-ryzen-5-3600-x570-review/



It ran 5c cooler on idle and stress on a X570


----------



## bug (Jun 25, 2019)

> The site compared AMD's latest offering to the Intel Core i9-9900K and the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X with the Ryzen 5 3600 typically slotting in between the two and in some cases beating both. This is interesting to note as the Ryzen 7 2700X offers similar clock speeds to the Ryzen 5 3600 but the former has a 2C/4T advantage.



Which just goes to show additional cores can be a waste if you don't match them carefully to your workflow (e.g. I don't edit videos or transcode).
An impressive show, nonetheless.


----------



## ShurikN (Jun 25, 2019)

Quite impressive if you consider it only boosts to 4.2, and 3200MHz ram was used. Does the review mention all core boost values during gaming and heavy load?


----------



## mstenholm (Jun 25, 2019)

Unless this review is a poor copy&paste of the one with the same chip on the x470 board we most hope that the board manufactures get their act together and releases a BIOS that actually allows overclocking. It is not because I'm disappointed about the performance but part of the fun with a new chip is the OC. Did I miss that the 3600 isn't supposed to be able to be OC'ed?


----------



## Casecutter (Jun 25, 2019)

Nice, let's hope this is what competition looks like!  For a non-X  not OC'd it seems.. too good?



Xzibit said:


> Interesting 75c with stock cooler in stress test.


I only see that they saying in the X570 review ; they indicate a  Corsair H110i RGB Platinum Liquid Cooling used in the comparison with Intel Core i9-9900K... Am I missing something?  Or they've the AIO for the i9, while the R5 3600 with a Wraith Stealth... that's a super fair fight?


----------



## mstenholm (Jun 25, 2019)

Casecutter said:


> Nice, let's hop this is what competition looks like!  for a non-X  not OC'd it seems to good
> 
> 
> I only see that they say for the X570 review they say a  Corsair H110i RGB Platinum Liquid Cooling used in the comparison with Intel Core i9-9900K... Am I missing something?  Or they've the AIO for the i9  and the R5 3600 with a Wraith Stealth... that's a super fair fight?


I read it as the Intel has the AIO. In the x470 review the Wraith was mentioned but I didn't see it mentioned in the x570 review.

Edit: I have two 2700Xs and they don't start to lose all core boost before start/mid 70 C so if the same is the case here then the stock cooler is sufficient/fair for a review.


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 25, 2019)

Casecutter said:


> Nice, let's hope this is what competition looks like!  For a non-X  not OC'd it seems.. too good?
> 
> 
> I only see that they saying in the X570 review ; they indicate a  Corsair H110i RGB Platinum Liquid Cooling used in the comparison with Intel Core i9-9900K... Am I missing something?  *Or they've the AIO for the i9, while the R5 3600 with a Wraith Stealth... that's a super fair fight?*



The bold. The AIO adds $130+ to the I9-9900K. With the difference one can go from a R5 3600 to a R7 3700X or stick to the R5 3600 and buy a 16gb 3600 C16 memory kit.

Also hes running 3200 Ram (Stock 2666) on the 9900K. I doubt hes running it at stock, Not OC but MCE might be on by default given the board hes using and the mem.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 25, 2019)

Looks like they still have 20ns latency to get another IPC bump. I wonder what implementing all the security fixes on Intel will do to their latency though....

Also 7nm must be amazing to handle that voltage and still run cool with that much cache.


----------



## Manu_PT (Jun 26, 2019)

Still not there in gaming. 6700k performance. 30fps less on far cry 5, ouch. I know 3800x is superior + oc but dont think it can beat Intel in games, so no upgrade to me. Change my mind AMD.


----------



## Crackong (Jun 26, 2019)

Grain of salt indeed.

Just 10 more days and we'll have the truth.


----------



## Makaveli (Jun 26, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> impressive no way, i want better ST than intel, no point upgrading from haswell still



lol this is either a joke or your delusional.

Zen 2 has better ST than Haswell.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 26, 2019)

Makaveli said:


> lol this is either a joke or your delusional.
> 
> Zen 2 has better ST than Haswell.


According to AMD.


----------



## Manu_PT (Jun 26, 2019)

Makaveli said:


> lol this is either a joke or your delusional.
> 
> Zen 2 has better ST than Haswell.



IPC/ST only matters so much on AMD, because their latencies are higher. So in fact they would need like 20% better IPC than Intel to have same framerates on non GPU bound scenarios. This is why on Far Cry 5 you see the Ryzen chip doing the same as an old 6700k. It won´t still reach Intel numbers for high refresh gaming, but it´s getting better. By the time they catch Intel or even surprass, that´s when I will change to AMD. Until then, Intel it is to me.


----------



## Jism (Jun 26, 2019)

Good to see the 2700x still holding up very well against a newer generation of AMD cpu's.


----------



## Hotobu (Jun 26, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> Still not there in gaming. 6700k performance. 30fps less on far cry 5, ouch. I know 3800x is superior + oc but dont think it can beat Intel in games, so no upgrade to me. Change my mind AMD.



Isn't FC5 known to be a disproportionately poor performer on AMD platforms?


----------



## dicktracy (Jun 26, 2019)

Hotobu said:


> Isn't FC5 known to be a disproportionately poor performer on AMD platforms?


9900k looks to be GPU bound on the other games. One one hand, this just proves that you should spend more on the GPU instead. On the other hand, buying a brand new CPU today---you would want something that blows previous CPUs out of the water outside of fancy Cinebench numbers. I don't see that happening with Zen 2 or even Comet Lake.


----------



## Bones (Jun 26, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> IPC/ST only matters so much on AMD, because their latencies are higher. So in fact they would need like 20% better IPC than Intel to have same framerates on non GPU bound scenarios. This is why on Far Cry 5 you see the Ryzen chip doing the same as an old 6700k. It won´t still reach Intel numbers for high refresh gaming, but it´s getting better. By the time they catch Intel or even surprass, that´s when I will change to AMD. Until then, Intel it is to me.



The very fact AMD is catching up is good for *both* camps - No way I could have scored the two Apex IX boards for dirt-cheap ($89 per board - Shipped! ) as I did last week yet I did.

AMD stuff is performing better and since Intel is having so many issues, prices of their stuff is falling. All we can hope for is to not have a total flip of the situation and I don't believe that will happen, I'm expecting things to level out in time between the two.

Doesn't matter to me, I'm getting a Ryzen chip and possibly a board coming up on the 7th.


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 26, 2019)

Hotobu said:


> Isn't FC5 known to be a disproportionately poor performer on AMD platforms?



TPU had a 29fps difference at 1080p between 9900K to 2700X

9900K = 133.6
2700X = 104.3



Spoiler:  TPU 9900k FC5 1080p chart












Going by the ELC charts 3600 is able to close the gap by half of the difference.


----------



## Zareek (Jun 26, 2019)

If these are real numbers, that is a lot of performance for a $200 processor.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jun 26, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> impressive no way, i want better ST than intel, no point upgrading from haswell still



agreed, was hoping for actually beating intel at all levels with 7nm.


----------



## Caqde (Jun 26, 2019)

I wonder what clockspeeds the 3600 was actually hitting in FC5 it seems to utilize 6 threads from what core utilization benchmarks show so I'm certain that the 3600 is running at < 4.2Ghz maybe 4Ghz or less and the 9900K should be running at ~4.8ghz to 5ghz depending on the Motherboard settings. Based on this the IPC of Ryzen 3x00 is equal to or slightly higher than the 9900k in FC5 if it is running at 5ghz which is likely.


----------



## Zubasa (Jun 26, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> impressive no way, i want better ST than intel, no point upgrading from haswell still


Skylake already has some IPC advantage over Haswell.
The fact that the 3600 edges out the 6700k is pretty impressive.
The 6700k has a base clock of 4Ghz, while the 3600 is a 65W part with a base clock of 3.6Ghz.
Then there is MCE, which runs all of the 6700K's cores at 4.2Ghz.
Chances are on average the 3600 is running at lower clocks than the 6700k while beating it.



Manu_PT said:


> IPC/ST only matters so much on AMD, because their latencies are higher. So in fact they would need like 20% better IPC than Intel to have same framerates on non GPU bound scenarios. This is why on Far Cry 5 you see the Ryzen chip doing the same as an old 6700k. It won´t still reach Intel numbers for high refresh gaming, but it´s getting better. By the time they catch Intel or even surprass, that´s when I will change to AMD. Until then, Intel it is to me.


The IPC numbers already have taken latency into account.
You cannot measure IPC without being affected by latency.
AMD claims 15% IPC over Zen+ and it does perform more than 15% faster than 2700X in Farcry 5,
The 3600 non-X should be running slightly lower clock speeds than the 2700X as well.
Given that the 2700X has 100Mhz higher base and boost clocks.



Caqde said:


> I wonder what clockspeeds the 3600 was actually hitting in FC5 it seems to utilize 6 threads from what core utilization benchmarks show so I'm certain that the 3600 is running at < 4.2Ghz maybe 4Ghz or less and the 9900K should be running at ~4.8ghz to 5ghz depending on the Motherboard settings. Based on this the IPC of Ryzen 3x00 is equal to or slightly higher than the 9900k in FC5 if it is running at 5ghz which is likely.


For the 9900k, high-end motherboards have MCE on by default, so in games it is pretty much running 5Ghz all core.
Only on things like encoding etc where you will see less boost.


----------



## dyonoctis (Jun 26, 2019)

i'm confused. Isn't zen 2 supposed to have better lantency than zen ? And what's up with that write speed ? it's like they took a step back from even zen...


----------



## biffzinker (Jun 26, 2019)

dyonoctis said:


> Isn't zen 2 supposed to have better lantency than zen ?


Might have something to do with the CPU cores on the chiplet die having to go through the revised Infinity Fabric bus out to the I/O die with the memory controllers. Adds distance between the cores and memory controller compared to everything before on one die.


----------



## Metroid (Jun 26, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> we suggest taking them with a grain of salt.
> we suggest taking them with a grain of salt.
> we suggest taking them with a grain of salt.
> 
> ^ that



hehe, dont think people understood what you meant here, i did hehe,


----------



## HwGeek (Jun 26, 2019)

I see many are complaining about high voltages for 7nm part, but as Lisa told us that going down to 7nm made moving electrons harder, so maybe they overcome this by increasing the voltage but the current decreased? [P=IV], after looking at 3600 leaks I saw that the max core voltage was 1.45V and max power was 10.5~11W, for contrary my 2700X at same voltage consumed 13~14W.
* So who can test this? 






Also They added the WR on LN2 for the 16C ES @5.27Ghz:








						SampsonJackson`s Geekbench4 - Multi Core score: 64953 points with a Ryzen 9 3950X
					

The Ryzen 9 3950X @ 5273MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the Geekbench4 - Multi Core benchmark. SampsonJacksonranks #1 worldwide and #1 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




					hwbot.org
				



*


----------



## Crackong (Jun 26, 2019)

If 4.2GHz is all they needed to reach 487 pts in R20 single threaded test,  it is really impressive.


----------



## Xuper (Jun 26, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> Still not there in gaming. 6700k performance. 30fps less on far cry 5, ouch. I know 3800x is superior + oc but dont think it can beat Intel in games, so no upgrade to me. Change my mind AMD.


Why Should AMD change your mind when You're of Top AMD haters in entire Forum ?


----------



## 64K (Jun 26, 2019)

It's pretty impressive to me what AMD has managed to accomplish on the CPU side. Remember it was just a few years ago that some financial analysts were saying it was likely that they would have to file for bankruptcy and possibly sell off RTG. Lisa Su chose to put most of the company's efforts into Ryzen and let their graphics business flounder somewhat and for anyone that keeps up with the financials that was obviously the smart thing to do.

Last I saw AMD had a 20% market share in discrete GPUs and when Intel launches their lineup next year then AMD's market share will probably drop even further.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 26, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> IPC/ST only matters so much on AMD, because their latencies are higher.



If only you'd have a clue about how these things work you'd realize that if AMD was able to increase IPC even though memory bandwidth and latency remained constant that meant this wasn't the primary constraint.

But keep making stuff up for your template Intel fanboy comments and entertain us.


----------



## HwGeek (Jun 26, 2019)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1140843448372797440Looks like the CPPC2 ain't active yet.


----------



## XiGMAKiD (Jun 26, 2019)

9900K is now within spitting distance


----------



## bug (Jun 26, 2019)

XiGMAKiD said:


> View attachment 125734
> 9900K is now within spitting distance


Doesn't really matter. What matters is 3600 is the weakest of the new bunch 
Besides vacation photo editing, I don't have much use for more than the 4 cores I currently have. But these new CPUs are really, really tempting.


----------



## ic3r0ck (Jun 26, 2019)

I'm very curious to know why the memory write speeds are so low. They tested on x470 and also x570 and the same low speed was observed. I'm a bit worried because it's almost half the write speed of 2700x and also the higher latency does not explain the lower write speed. Let's hope it's a BIOS issue that will be fixed soon and/or that it's not present on all x570 motherboards.


----------



## bug (Jun 26, 2019)

ic3r0ck said:


> I'm very curious to know why the memory write speeds are so low. They tested on x470 and also x570 and the same low speed was observed. I'm a bit worried because it's almost half the write speed of 2700x and also the higher latency does not explain the lower write speed. Let's hope it's a BIOS issue that will be fixed soon and/or that it's not present on all x570 motherboards.


Well, the memory controller _was_ moved onto a separate die. That never improves latency. But latency by itself doesn't mean much. If it does not impact the greater picture (i.e. performance), don't worry about it.


----------



## Fabel (Jun 26, 2019)

3200 is below AMD recommendation for Zen2 RAM settings and latency does not match.

Either AMD was too optimistic or that review is pretty suspect.


----------



## bug (Jun 26, 2019)

AMD's graph says 69, that review says 76. That's a 10% difference it could be explained by a number of factors. One of them being AMD knows better how to tweak memory timings.


----------



## Fabel (Jun 26, 2019)

bug said:


> AMD's graph says 69, that review says 76. That's a 10% difference it could be explained by a number of factors. One of them being AMD knows better how to tweak memory timings.


10% in RAM latency and 3200 which affects IF frequency, not the best conditions. It looks it isn't even CL14.

I'd like info on the older AMD and Intel setups to compare apples to apples. 3200 is low even for Zen+ IMHO.


----------



## bug (Jun 26, 2019)

Fabel said:


> 10% in RAM latency and 3200 which affects IF frequency, not the best conditions. It looks it isn't even CL14.
> 
> I'd like info on the older AMD and Intel setups to compare apples to apples. 3200 is low even for Zen+ IMHO.


You'll have your answers in like 10 days. Don't fret


----------



## HD64G (Jun 26, 2019)

Jism said:


> Good to see the 2700x still holding up very well against a newer generation of AMD cpu's.


Not in single-threaded apps and in multithreaded ones it goes well only vs the weakest of the Ryzen 3X00 CPUs which will cost $200. I like 2700X but Zen2 arch is on another level on all aspects (efficiency, clocks, cache, etc).


----------



## efikkan (Jun 26, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Time to move on from DDR4-3200? Wonder if DDR4-3600/3700 would improve write bandwidth, and latency?


Higher memory speed will potentially improve bandwidth (if there are no other bottlenecks), but not latency.
Time to move on? These are the first products rated for DDR-3200, and it's plenty for most uses.



Fabel said:


> 10% in RAM latency and 3200 which affects IF frequency, not the best conditions. It looks it isn't even CL14.
> 
> I'd like info on the older AMD and Intel setups to compare apples to apples. 3200 is low even for Zen+ IMHO.


What is wrong with testing the product under the maximum rated speed?
Running beyond 3200 MHz is overclocking and is no longer a benchmark of the product at stock.


----------



## Casecutter (Jun 26, 2019)

mstenholm said:


> I read it as the Intel has the AIO. In the x470 review the Wraith was mentioned but I didn't see it mentioned in the x570 review.


Okay, I see in the X470 it says that "we have used the reference heatsink" in the Temperature and Consumption section.  While in the X570 article there's a block of text under the Test Equipment that said "Equipment used for this comparison with the Intel Core i9-9900K".  

Now we don't know which version of Wraith, but as the R5 2600 and this is a 65W part it probably the Wraith Spire.  So as a Core i9-9900K doesn't include a stock cooler we have no idea what Intel would have to actually limit that chip to if they had to box it with some prohibitive lub of aluminium.  See if they said this is all the cooler/cost we can stomach to give would they still be able to infer the same performance/clocks/TDP at only about $500?   That's what I'm getting at, the Core i9-9900K is great because they can un-hinder it from any base required cooling system.  If AMD said this part not held to 65W, say more like the Core i9-9900K and you find you own cooling, what would AMD be able to bin parts at and what would that be able to offer?  Sure the way AMD provides the clocks/TDP it's copacetic with the Wraith Spire we believe they will provide.  CPU spec's in many respects are tethered to what the cost (and total price point) that a cooling solution can support.    



mstenholm said:


> Edit: I have two 2700Xs and they don't start to lose all core boost before start/mid 70 C so if the same is the case here then the stock cooler is sufficient/fair for a review.


Are both running with a completely different Wraith Prism?  As that a better and more costly cooler,  even demanding tests it will do decently in permitting a 2700X provide it's rated stock configuration.  

For a supposed $200 CPU +Cooler to present what is said here is just crazy competitive.


----------



## Manu_PT (Jun 26, 2019)

Xuper said:


> Why Should AMD change your mind when You're of Top AMD haters in entire Forum ?



Wanting high framerates/performance is being AMD hater? I also hate Opel because they failed to deliver an electric car with 700km capacity. Low performance, so I bought Audi instead. Because "I hate" Opel.

This is your pathetic logic.



Vya Domus said:


> If only you'd have a clue about how these things work you'd realize that if AMD was able to increase IPC even though memory bandwidth and latency remained constant that meant this wasn't the primary constraint.
> 
> But keep making stuff up for your template Intel fanboy comments and entertain us.



If you knew how CCX works and how certain engines starve for low latencies instead of raw instructions per clock, you would understand. Keep getting salty bud, try again on 7nm+, maybe then intel is done. For now, nop, not yet.


----------



## Fabel (Jun 26, 2019)

efikkan said:


> What is wrong with testing the product under the maximum rated speed?
> Running beyond 3200 MHz is overclocking and is no longer a benchmark of the product at stock.


Nothing wrong with that as long as the specs are listed, but neither the CL nor the specs of the other systems are specified. 
Intel's superior memory controllers usually allow higher memory clocks and If that is the case on those charts I'd like to know.

What is wrong with asking for all the specs?


----------



## Midland Dog (Jun 26, 2019)

Makaveli said:


> lol this is either a joke or your delusional.
> 
> Zen 2 has better ST than Haswell.


new mobo, new cpu and new ram worth of ST gain? or just buy a proven 4790k that can do 4.9ghz for less


----------



## Fabel (Jun 26, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> new mobo, new cpu and new ram worth of ST gain? or just buy a proven 4790k that can do 4.9ghz for less


Wait a couple weeks, look at the reviews and decide, but for god's sake, don't buy a CPU that becomes slower every few months thanks to all the security patches.


----------



## Midland Dog (Jun 26, 2019)

Fabel said:


> Wait a couple weeks, look at the reviews and decide, but for god's sake, don't buy a CPU that becomes slower every few months thanks to all the security patches.


i haven noticed any slowdowns, probs coz im on an old patch. Is broadwell affected too, coz a 5775c works in my board too


----------



## mstenholm (Jun 26, 2019)

Casecutter said:


> Okay, I see in the X470 it says that "we have used the reference heatsink" in the Temperature and Consumption section.  While in the X570 article there's a block of text under the Test Equipment that said "Equipment used for this comparison with the Intel Core i9-9900K".
> 
> Are both running with a completely different Wraith Prism?  As that a better and more costly cooler,  even demanding tests it will do decently in permitting a 2700X provide it's rated stock configuration.
> 
> For a supposed $200 CPU +Cooler to present what is said here is just crazy competitive.


Just wait for a proper review. My equipment is under System Spec.


----------



## coozie78 (Jun 26, 2019)

Exactly what was the point of this ' review '?  They're comparing a 8c/16t part that'll set you back over £600 once a decent cooler is factored in with a sub £300 6c12t part.  What's worse is the fact the R5 3600 has been hampered with slow memory AND the games chosen are all known to favour either Intel arch or high core counts. Surely an i5 9600/9600K would have made a fairer comparison?

  Those latency numbers aren't too great, though, and the memory performance doesn't seem to bode well for those of us who regularly shift fairly large files. Add in the expected high cost of the new '570 motherboards and the requirement for fast-read expensive-memory and AMD may find this a more difficult sell than previous Ryzen releases, particularly to those on older Intel hardware that are looking for an upgrade.

Looks like my 2700X is still safe  but, as has already been said by many: Add your own salt and wait until more comprehensive reviews are in.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 26, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> If you knew how CCX works and how certain engines starve for low latencies instead of raw instructions per clock, you would understand.



One simple way to dismiss this mind bogglingly stupid theory that game engines "starve" for latency is the fact that the 3600 is equal or slightly ahead of the 6700K which is reported as having a massive 40% lower latency advantage. Let's see with what sort of made up groundbreaking explanation you come up for this one.

And for the record so that you can learn something new today, IPC is a function of latency among other things. That means that tuning for performance is a multi variable optimization problem where some things can become the bottleneck as you progress through this process of finding the optimum. If AMD increased performance that means latency isn't the bottleneck, plain and simple fact. 

Games, as with any other software needs instruction throughput , *you can't get better latency without also increasing the instructions throughput and that's what matters.*


----------



## bug (Jun 26, 2019)

Manu_PT said:


> Wanting high framerates/performance is being AMD hater? I also hate Opel because they failed to deliver an electric car with 700km capacity. Low performance, so I bought Audi instead. Because "I hate" Opel.


Don't like electric from Opel, buy from the people that brought you dieselgate. You rock, dude


----------



## Manu_PT (Jun 26, 2019)

bug said:


> Don't like electric from Opel, buy from the people that brought you dieselgate. You rock, dude



Why you using Windows and Google? Want me to describe their dirty measures in the last 10 years? If we go by that we dont use anything!


----------



## biffzinker (Jun 26, 2019)

efikkan said:


> Time to move on? These are the first products rated for DDR-3200, and it's plenty for most uses.


I was referring to enthusiasts that buy overclocked DDR4 that's above JEDEC spec. AMD had a press slide with DDR4-3600 as a cost/performance sweet spot or DDR4-3700 as a high performance/lowest latency, and runs at a 1:1 ratio with Infinity Fabric.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 27, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> One simple way to dismiss this mind bogglingly stupid theory that game engines "starve" for latency is the fact that the 3600 is equal or slightly ahead of the 6700K which is reported as having a massive 40% lower latency advantage. Let's see with what sort of made up groundbreaking explanation you come up for this one.
> 
> And for the record so that you can learn something new today, IPC is a function of latency among other things. That means that tuning for performance is a multi variable optimization problem where some things can become the bottleneck as you progress through this process of finding the optimum. If AMD increased performance that means latency isn't the bottleneck, plain and simple fact.
> 
> Games, as with any other software needs instruction throughput , *you can't get better latency without also increasing the instructions throughput and that's what matters.*


 IPC has a lot to do with out if order performance with things like gaming where the effect is additive, between thread sync, input, and frame render time it does add up. It's why AMD has added more cache, which limits clock speed and consumes a lot of energy without extra logic to gate more areas, which increases die size and complexity.

No one is saying it's a bad design, but the oddities of the design let us know it's limits, and I'm going to guess that 5.2Ghz is going to be the high end of this design, it will double the power consumption to achieve it on good chips and it's going to be temperature sensitive and we see some death from the variable thermal expansion and two dies soldered in a couple years.


----------



## GLD (Jun 27, 2019)

I am really happy with my 2nd gen Ryzen, and am really looking forward to Ryzen 3rd gen. My B450 board list support for HyperX 3466MHz, and I bought some and it works great, @1.2v with my Ryzen 2600, sweet!

So surely 3rd gen Ryzen will happily run ram higher then 3200MHz. 

Good times ahead!


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 27, 2019)

AMD 3600X 6 cores will be slower than a Intel 8086K 6 cores cpu. 

8086K will remain the world's fastest 6 cores dual channel cpu for 2019. 

But the 3600X will have a great price and good power efficiency. 

Same thing with AMD 3800X 8 cores will be slower than Intel 9900KS 8 cores dual channel CPU for 2019. But better on price and power efficiency. 

So take your pick....price and power efficiency or the fastest 6 or 8 cores CPU.


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 27, 2019)

ToxicTaZ said:


> AMD 3600X 6 cores will be slower than a Intel 8086K 6 cores cpu.
> 
> 8086K will remain the world's fastest 6 cores dual channel cpu for 2019.
> 
> ...



Doubt anyone be willing to buy 8086Ks at current prices. They are above $700 USD.  For that amount you can probably get the 3600X with a X570 MB a SSD and a 16gb 3600 C16 kit.

Even if it was at "MSRP" of $425 for the 8086K you can get a 3600X with a 16gb 3600 C16 Kit and have money left over to go see a movie and buy the BIG JUMBO popcorn with drink.


----------



## geon2k2 (Jun 27, 2019)

Midland Dog said:


> impressive no way, i want better ST than intel, no point upgrading from haswell still



According to the El Chapuzas site R5 3600 has better single thread performance than i7 8700K, at least in wPrime. 







This should be quite a lot better than Haswell.


----------



## Midland Dog (Jun 27, 2019)

geon2k2 said:


> According to the El Chapuzas site R5 3600 has better single thread performance than i7 8700K, at least in wPrime.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


literally less than %10 difference in IPC from haswell to skylake


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jun 27, 2019)

AMD gaming people holding out since Phenom, welcome to 2015 I guess?


----------



## HwGeek (Jun 28, 2019)

I am interested who can test the new Ryzen with power limit of 3~3.5W per core to see what's the max frequency it can operate, since this will give us some info on the new 64C TR that will be 250W TDP for backwards compatibility[50W+ will go for the IO chiplet]


----------



## garie234 (Jun 28, 2019)

Caqde said:


> I wonder what clockspeeds the 3600 was actually hitting in FC5 it seems to utilize 6 threads from what core utilization benchmarks show so I'm certain that the 3600 is running at < 4.2Ghz maybe 4Ghz or less and the 9900K should be running at ~4.8ghz to 5ghz depending on the Motherboard settings. Based on this the IPC of Ryzen 3x00 is equal to or slightly higher than the 9900k in FC5 if it is running at 5ghz which is likely.


Judging by the cinebench r15 score the 9900k is just running at stock clocks a 5ghz 9900k will score 2150-2200 cb score.


----------



## Nkd (Jun 29, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> Meh... Skylake 2.0
> 
> Also they retested it with x570 motherboard: https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2019/06/amd-ryzen-5-3600-x570-review/



Amd must match skylake and more cores I will buy.

Amd matches skylake and delivers more cores.

meh, its skylake 2.,0 lol.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 29, 2019)

Nkd said:


> Amd must match skylake and more cores I will buy.
> 
> Amd matches skylake and delivers more cores.
> 
> meh, its skylake 2.,0 lol.


In all the hype it's easy to forget that AMD is catching up to Skylake's performance level. The competition brings the price per performance and price per core down, but performance per core have been largely unchanged for years.

Whether it's worth buying or not depends on what you already have. If you have a Skylake family CPU and your usage don't really benefit from more cores, then wait for the next performance level from either company (or your needs to change). E.g. if you own an i7-8700K and only really do gaming, there is no point in "sidegrading".


----------



## medi01 (Jun 29, 2019)

Just to clarify, we are comparing $200 CPU to a $500 CPU, right?


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 29, 2019)

*Passmark Software: Single Thread Performance - Updated 29th of June 2019 AMD Ryzen 5 3600 = 2,979*

Here is a screenshot of the site








> The system reportedly *uses a B450 Aorus M board*, not an X570 board. According to the reported clock speed, *the CPU doesn't seem to be overclocked either*; all three tests show the same turbo of 4.21 GHz, and one result shows a "measured speed" of 3.37 GHz, and the other two 3.61 GHz. It doesn't seem like there was some sort of trick making this 3600 so fast, at least not something we can glean from Passmark's reported information.
> 
> Interestingly, the *third benchmark for the 3600 uses a 16GB kit of 3200 MHz CL14 G Skill RAM*, unlike the first two benchmarks which used a *single stick of Crucial RAM at 2666 MHz CL16*. The third benchmark reports a score of *7% faster than the two previous scores*, which implies that Zen 2 and/or Passmark benefits heavily from having high-speed low-latency dual-channel RAM, something which previous iterations of Zen also benefit from.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jul 3, 2019)

Intel will remain King of the world's fastest 6 cores CPU with the 8086K for now...

As the 3600X is going after the 18 months old 8700K blow for blow.

Same thing going to happen with the 3800X going after the 9900K blow for blow.

Thus Intel has the 9900KS to keep the world's fastest 8 cores CPU on Earth for 2019.

AMD wins power efficiency and price but slower than Intel top 8086K and 9900KS.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 3, 2019)

Caqde said:


> and the 9900K should be running at ~4.8ghz to 5ghz depending


only if a user enables some board's multicore enhancement would it run that fast. You're going to be in the 4.4 range I'd guess (since Intel stopped posting that Info...grrr.....). Still faster... but you'll likely barely be able to get all c/t on the amd much past that anyway.


----------



## medi01 (Jul 3, 2019)

Xzibit said:


> *Passmark Software: Single Thread Performance - Updated 29th of June 2019 AMD Ryzen 5 3600 = 2,979*
> 
> Here is a screenshot of the site



This... can't be stock 3600.


----------



## RichF (Jul 6, 2019)

So many comments written as if the Intel security flaws haven't come with serious performance regressions.

You know, like having to completely disable hyperthreading? It's not just me saying that, either. It's the OpenBSD team, Apple, and various others.

I suppose if your gaming box has no sensitive information of any kind on it (and you're not worried about resources being drained away by the addition of surreptitious malware) then don't worry about patching all of the security flaws. It's not just hyperthreading that many are ignoring because of the performance regression problem. So, don't expect that the performance you have seen by not actively seeking out and patching for all of the flaws is the same thing as the true performance level of Intel's parts. Decisions have been made to sacrifice security for performance (e.g. what Windows 10 will patch and what it will ignore unless the user manually patches), from what I've read.


----------

