# I5 9600K or Ryzen 5 3600



## Turmania (Dec 16, 2019)

Wanting to do a very small itx build, therefore I wanted to know what to expect from these both cpu`s when they are boosting at their stock values no overclocking involved. specifically their power draw?

assuming i5 9600K hit all core 4.3 ghz, with a z390 mobo what should I expect? and assuming Ryzen 5 3600 hits 4.2ghz all core with a b450 or x470 mobo what should I expect?


----------



## cucker tarlson (Dec 16, 2019)

depends on what you'll be using to cool it


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 16, 2019)

Ryzen 5 is the better CPU. i5 9600K is only better if you plan to OC and if you don't the fact of the matter is AMD's SMT implementation means its got better useful longevity as it has double the number of threads.

So Intel higher clocks 6 cores 6 theads,
AMD slightly lower clocks but 6 cores 12 threads.

Essentially stock out of box, Intel chip is 4% on average faster in gaming at 1080P beyond that GPU is the bigger limitation meanwhile in CPU tasks like rendering / creation / etc AMD has a 12% lead. So its a wash. In general the AMD chip is the better value as its about $15 cheaper, offers gaming performance that you wouldnt notice the difference between the two, while also providing better multi-threaded performance.


----------



## dirtyferret (Dec 16, 2019)

power draw is about the same but why get a 9600k if you don't OC it?


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 16, 2019)

Power consumption is pretty similar in most scenarios but the 3600 at least comes with a cooler you can use and is much faster in multithreaded scenarios and also has a much better upgrade path.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 16, 2019)

AMD cpu might come with a cooler but its not that great. Its Noisy and temps still peak into the mid to upper 80C range. (3600 comes with an all aluminum heatsink no copper etc)


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Dec 16, 2019)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> AMD cpu might come with a cooler but its not that great. Its Noisy and temps still peak into the mid to upper 80C range. (3600 comes with an all aluminum heatsink no copper etc)



Yeah it's crap but at least the CPU works out of the box vs a 9600k you have to add a $30-50 cooler with.


----------



## dirtyferret (Dec 16, 2019)

oxrufiioxo said:


> Yeah it's crap but at least the CPU works out of the box vs a 9600k you have to add a $30-50 cooler with.





			https://www.amazon.com/DEEPCOOL-GAMMAXX-400-Blue-Compatible/dp/B00JQ2YDCY/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=gammax+400&qid=1576533779&sr=8-2
		

$20 and better then the AMD budget cooler plus it could probably handle 4.7 to 4.8ghz all cores on the 9600k (moot since he won't be OC making the 3600 better as crazyeyes stated above)

then again it's an ITX build and we don't know the case or if can take the cooler

edit; then he can post his case after my post making the cooler two tall by 2mm


----------



## Turmania (Dec 16, 2019)

Thanks for the replies, I just wanted to do a very small itx build in a case which I had for 4 years and never used it  Jonsbo u1 plus. It only accomodates small psu sfx or sfx-l and only has 8mm fan option on the rear with only itx style GPU. I believe max around 180-190mm long. so cooling and heat build up will always be a problem and there is no getting around it figured I might go with lowest heat and power producing components the better. Normally i would always choose Intel I5 9600k and OC it to 5ghz easily on my main pc build with a 280MM aio. but in this case I think I go with ryzen build with a b450 itx mobo from gigabyte or asus or msi  which ever is cheaper.


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 16, 2019)

Turmania said:


> Wanting to do a very small itx build, therefore I wanted to know what to expect from these both cpu`s when they are boosting at their stock values no overclocking involved. specifically their power draw?
> 
> assuming i5 9600K hit all core 4.3 ghz, with a z390 mobo what should I expect? and assuming Ryzen 5 3600 hits 4.2ghz all core with a b450 or x470 mobo what should I expect?



The AMD processor will be more power efficient. 

The Intel processor will have larger gains in the memory performance department. Lower latency and higher clocks.

It's really a tough call IMO. 
I have love for both platforms actually. 
Both will game very well. Both have great performance to $ ratio. 

Maybe look at boards for both and see which one looks to suit your needs (over looks) and maybe that will help your decision?



Turmania said:


> but in this case I think I go with ryzen build with a b450 itx mobo from gigabyte or asus or msi  which ever is cheaper.



Not cheap.... but I suggest B450-I gaming from Asus (sig rig). It's a very stout motherboard. Lot's of goodies in this one. Built in Blue Tooth and Wifi also the bios is packed with features and I do mean Packed!


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 16, 2019)

Ryzen hands down. 6c6t is not going to last you as long, even if you clock it to the moon.

I'm keeping the stock cooler on my recent Ryzen 3600 build (just delivered it ) and unless you start crunching it will boost just fine. I see 4.2 most of the time. This is on Asus B450 Prime A. Simple board. Cost effective. Will do the job. mATX  So you'll need something smaller, but again, keep it simple, if you're not going for a high voltage/OC build, there is simply no question and Ryzen is the only choice.



crazyeyesreaper said:


> AMD cpu might come with a cooler but its not that great. Its Noisy and temps still peak into the mid to upper 80C range. (3600 comes with an all aluminum heatsink no copper etc)



This is true, it IS audible under load. Not jet engine like the older stock ones though.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 16, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Ryzen hands down. 6c6t is not going to last you as long, even if you clock it to the moon.
> 
> I'm keeping the stock cooler on my recent Ryzen 3600 build (just delivered it ) and unless you start crunching it will boost just fine. I see 4.2 most of the time. This is on Asus B450 Prime A. Simple board. Cost effective. Will do the job. mATX  So you'll need something smaller, but again, keep it simple, if you're not going for a high voltage/OC build, there is simply no question and Ryzen is the only choice.
> 
> ...


I just built a customers rig and noise levels reach 48 dBA under simple rendering loads. Temps spiked all over. new paste helped obviously compared to the stock junk, but ended up using a cheap $30 tower cooler and saw temps drop 15C. and noise level dropped from 48 while rendering to 40.


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 16, 2019)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> I just built a customers rig and noise levels reach 48 dBA under simple rendering loads. Temps spiked all over. new paste helped obviously compared to the stock junk, but ended up using a cheap $30 tower cooler and saw temps drop 15C. and noise level dropped from 48 while rendering to 40.



Yes I agree fully, its not for crunching. For everyday use and gaming, it will suffice.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 16, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Yes I agree fully, its not for crunching. For everyday use and gaming, it will suffice.


even gaming temps would spike into the 80C range with modern title, the cooler they include is trash, i didnt weight it but it felt lighter than even Intels generic stock cooler (all aluminum). Yes it works and if you never push the CPU sure it would be "adequate" but even minor loads had that tiny cooler sounding absolutely dreadful as the tonal quality of the fan was harsh. Keep in mind this was in a proper case not on an open test bench. As most cases muffle noise by about 2 dBA on CPU coolers from my experience (sound proofed are a bit better) that means that tiny cooler was hitting 50 dBA on an open bench. That is just plain unacceptable.

Possible my cooler was just meh compared to others but considering i review coolers. I found the AMD offering bundled with the CPU to be worse that what Intel typically offers. Now AMD's other coolers are actually pretty decent but the one that came with the 3600 was pretty much $3 hunk of junk.

So my mistake AMD cooler does weight more than Intel solid aluminum but the Intel with copper slug is a tiny bit heavier. That said AMDs cooler has more weight invested in the fan with a cheaper and simplier design.

If AMD included a Wraith Spire rather than a Wraith Stealth i would agree with you. But yeah the Stealth is pretty much usless unless at 45w TDP, where as the larger Spire is actually good enough for an acceptable user experience. The fact the cost between the two is probably a $1-2 AMD would be better off simplifying their expenses by using the Wraith Spire over the Wraith Stealth. Ah well it is what it is.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 17, 2019)

What are you doing with it? Why not an i5 9400? Clocks are less, but, does it matter in your use with this machine?


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Dec 17, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> What are you doing with it? Why not an i5 9400? Clocks are less, but, does it matter in your use with this machine?


Web browsing and face book bro....lol kidding


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Dec 17, 2019)

Wraith stealth isn’t a great cooler. I found it buzzy, but taking the shroud off of the fan helps with the rattling noise.

Also, I’m assuming you know the 3600 has no IGP. You said you were doing a small build, but I didn’t know if that was mini-ITX in a half-height case or what your plans are for a GPU.


----------



## moproblems99 (Dec 17, 2019)

Honestly, after using the Wraith spire, it is not suitable either.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 17, 2019)

Turmania said:


> Wanting to do a very small itx build, therefore I wanted to know what to expect from these both cpu`s when they are boosting at their stock values no overclocking involved. specifically their power draw?
> 
> assuming i5 9600K hit all core 4.3 ghz, with a z390 mobo what should I expect? and assuming Ryzen 5 3600 hits 4.2ghz all core with a b450 or x470 mobo what should I expect?


What are you going to do with this build? What’s the usage scenario?

I prefer to suggest Ryzen 3000 platform because of the upgradability and the slighter better power effectiveness.

And for the heads up the R5 3600 all core boost is about 4.0GHz and single core is 4.2GHz, but that should not be the decisive factor... the performance is there.


----------



## Khonjel (Dec 17, 2019)

If it's a secondary HTPC build, why not use an APU?


----------



## Outback Bronze (Dec 17, 2019)

Ryzen 5 3600.


----------



## Komshija (Dec 17, 2019)

Ryzen without a doubt. If you plan to buy non-X version go with B450 motherboard, otherwise X470 or X570. Pair it up with a better air cooler like Be Quiet Shadow Rock Slim and it will run like a charm.


----------



## ne6togadno (Dec 17, 2019)

System Builder
					






					pcpartpicker.com


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 17, 2019)

ne6togadno said:


> System Builder
> 
> 
> 
> ...


one problem the cooler it may interfere on some AM4 boards. But the issue is board specific. That said its a bit overpriced for what it is at nearly $40.


----------



## ne6togadno (Dec 17, 2019)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> one problem the cooler it may interfere on some AM4 boards.











						CRYORIG | M9 Plus
					





					www.cryorig.com
				



am4 support is listed.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 17, 2019)

Yeah edited it i was thinking M9i and M9a.


----------



## ne6togadno (Dec 17, 2019)

when am4 came out cryorig announced they will rework they installation system to support am4 too.
at first they've offered to post you am4 bracket if you present receipt for am4 board or ryzen cpu.
now they have all their coolers supporting out of the box am4


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 17, 2019)

ne6togadno said:


> when am4 came out cryorig announced they will rework they installation system to support am4 too.
> at first they've offered to post you am4 bracket if you present receipt for am4 board or ryzen cpu.
> now they have all their coolers supporting out of the box am4


True i forgot all about it due to their falling off the face of the planet when the Trade war started with China.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 17, 2019)

Komshija said:


> Ryzen without a doubt. *If you plan to buy non-X version go with B450 motherboard, otherwise X470 or X570.* Pair it up with a better air cooler like Be Quiet Shadow Rock Slim and it will run like a charm.


Care to elaborate?
Why the X versions are better with X470/570 and not B450?


----------



## ne6togadno (Dec 17, 2019)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> That said its a bit overpriced for what it is at nearly $40.


i saw the edit just now.
this is cooler that can fit in 133mm height limits of the case, has no ram size limitations and being tower will be able to push some hot air out of the case. there are cheaper tower coolers that fit in 133mm but those from arctic has 33mm ram limit and for silverstone option there isnt info about tdp and ram size. i think op can skip case fan at the back as it is dual fan too.
also we dont have info where op is located so the prices in the build are a bit irrelevant atm.


----------



## Komshija (Dec 18, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Care to elaborate?
> Why the X versions are better with X470/570 and not B450?


Better OC capabilities, SLI/Crossfire support (irrelevant for most people, but still...). The other thing is that X motherboards are better match with Ryzen X CPU's - such system just "sounds" better.


----------



## londiste (Dec 18, 2019)

X470 has very few benefits over B450 overall, even less benefits in mITX form factor. X570 has PCIe 4.0 (and possibly better PCIe lane allocation to M.2 ports) but that's pretty much it. X570 is more expensive and in cramped conditions the chipset fan is not likely to stay stopped.

In 9600K vs 3600 comparison, 3600 has two benefits - 3600 is 6c/12t vs 9600K 6c/6t and AM4 should hopefully get Ryzen 4000 series support as well. They are otherwise fairly evenly matched.


----------



## John Naylor (Dec 18, 2019)

Depends on what you will be using it for:

Rendering => 3600
Software and Game Development => 3600
Web Browsing => Either
Hi End Science Apps => 3600
Word Proc. / Spreadhseets => 9600k
Presentations => 3600
Photo and Video Editing => 9600k
Virtualization => 3600
Compression / Encryption =>3600
Encoding => 3600
Gaming @   720 => 9600k (+6.6%)
Gaming @ 1080 => 9600k (+4.4%)
Gaming @ 1440 => 9600k (+1.4%)
Gaming @ 2160 =>3600 (+0.3%)

AMD's general higher core count gives them in edge in many tasks.  The question is do you do any of them on a  regular basis.  For example... i zipped a file 2 days ago ... 1st time all year.  Should I base my CPU selection on compression performance ?  So suggestion here is look at only the things you do on a daily basis, whiuch ones your cuurent box striggles with and focus on ONLY those results.

But remember ... AMDs gaming performance decreases w/ OC and PBO max ... Intel's increases.  The OC gives Intel the sweep at all resolutions tho at 4k it's only by 0,1%

Power consumption = 356 Intel / 368 / AMD
Temps = 45C Intel / 65C AMD


----------



## Solid State Soul ( SSS ) (Dec 18, 2019)

Stop over complicating things. The Ryzen 3600 is arguably a better CPU to buy, even if the intel equivalent can be up to 4% better in gaming, having 12 threads instead of 6 means it will have longer life to play future next gen games where CPU requirements increase


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 18, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> Depends on what you will be using it for:
> 
> Rendering => 3600
> Software and Game Development => 3600
> ...



There really isn't a niche anymore where 4.4% more performance is better than 2x the core count, especially when some games already scale quite decently with 6> cores.

I mean past gen we looked at double that number. Now that is worth talking about. Today... cores are a little more important than yesterday and clocks actually a little less as AMD's IPC has gone up once more. But, you're right in the general sense I think, buy the CPU best suited to the task you throw at it most.

But there is another consideration for CPUs. We're already talking about the realm of 'can do pretty much anything well'-products. Its possible to get a CPU that will never feel lacking in its useful life (ie 4-5-7 years depending on your needs). In that time frame, the 6c6t will definitely show its age, while the 6c12t will not; the latter may score a few FPS less, but it won't be stuttery due to lack of threads for example. We saw the same thing with HT enabled quads a few years back. They're still relevant today, while a 4c4t really isn't all that anymore. So really its a choice between 4-6% best case gaming perf versus everything else, and that includes 'useful life'. Ryzen simply has a better deck of cards all the way right now.


----------



## JackCarver (Dec 26, 2019)

> Gaming @   720 => 9600k (+6.6%)
> Gaming @ 1080 => 9600k (+4.4%)
> Gaming @ 1440 => 9600k (+1.4%)
> Gaming @ 2160 =>3600 (+0.3%)



In higher resolutions CPU gets more and more irrelevant as GPU is more important there. For 2160p you should use a 2080 Ti . In 720p you see that the Intel CPU is 6.6% better in games, higher resolutions aren't useful for that comparison.

Edit:
Not said, that you don't need a good CPU for higher resolutions but it's not useful to compare one CPU to another in >1080p as the GPU is the limiting factor here, not the CPU. So for gaming go for the Intel independent what resolution you are using in games.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 26, 2019)

Komshija said:


> Better OC capabilities, SLI/Crossfire support (irrelevant for most people, but still...). The other thing is that X motherboards are better match with Ryzen X CPU's - such system just "sounds" better.



Uh, all this is pretty much horseshit.

- 3600 is not an "X CPU". They are essentially one and the same. Neither does it matter at all, given that the 3600 and 3600X are both at the bottom of the product stack, and therefore bottom of the barrel for silicon binning consistency, which is already poor for this initial N7FF process. 3700X is not much better, and the stats point to only the 3800X and 3900X being a little bit more consistent (3950X being a different story).
- There's no "but still". Multi-GPU on a board with one PCIe x16 slot means very literally, nothing.
- On these Asus 400-series ITX boards, B450 and X470 mean nothing more than the difference of the chipset - the board is physically identical. Pretty telling that the Asus X470 is the only real X470 ITX contender, as neither of the others from ASRock and Biostar are remotely in the same quality ballpark as Asus/GB/MSI B450s.
- With the vast majority of "good enough" VRM setups that aren't bargain basement-level, the quality of the power delivery makes little difference. It's up to your chip and the silicon lottery, and it's one hell of a lottery for the 3600s.
- X470 was not AM4's proudest moment when it came to power delivery quality.
- B450 is still a current product, and is considered by AMD to be the more affordable alternative to X570. Officially.
- X570 boards have a massive markup due to the PCH, and it shows. For premium-priced ITX boards, the value is pretty damn questionable when one's buying a R5 3600, an SKU cheaper than the board.
- Unlike the 400-series, all current generation ITX boards are X570 and thus designed as premium boards with extremely premium components (read: new IR TDA21472s), and have a price tag to match. Thus, it _really_ shows. ~$150 for a B450I Aorus, versus ~$300+ for a X570I Aorus.
- The extremely efficient ISL99227Bs and TDA21472s are chiefly for 3950X readiness, and pushing all-core OC on that SKU. Now, remind me why the X570I Aorus, X570I Strix and X570 TB3 are a good match for the 3600X?


----------



## HUSKIE (Dec 26, 2019)

go for 9600k


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 26, 2019)

JackCarver said:


> In higher resolutions CPU gets more and more irrelevant as GPU is more important there. For 2160p you should use a 2080 Ti . In 720p you see that the Intel CPU is 6.6% better in games, higher resolutions aren't useful for that comparison.
> 
> Edit:
> Not said, that you don't need a good CPU for higher resolutions but it's not useful to compare one CPU to another in >1080p as the GPU is the limiting factor here, not the CPU. So for gaming go for the Intel independent what resolution you are using in games.



Right and then by your next GPU upgrade you'll still end up preferring the faster CPU that already showed you what it had in store at a lower res.

This idea that a higher res warrants a slower CPU is utter BS and people oughta let it go... we are still talking about the combined average across a bunch of games here so those percentages are meaningless.. For gaming you simply want all the CPU grunt you can muster and that boils down to a simple duo of '*sufficient *cores' and 'high clocks/IPC'. And in that duo, AMD now has the better hand, and Intel's situational, very minor wins are negligible by now. Nobody benefits from 3-4% additional situational performance, it simply does not exist. The ONLY difference here is when all you do is play that specific niche of games that really puts the Intel option at a much greater advantage, which is anything you can play solidly at 150 FPS and up. And for those games, the GPU Is NEVER the limiting factor, and even thére AMD is now pretty close that you could ignore the minor situational wins. The additional cores AMD offers now at the same price points are worth so much more, even for just gaming.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2019)

I agree with your overall point (get the AMD), however Intel's wins don't seem to be only 'situational' though. There isn't a specific niche of games that do better with Intel (unless 'most' is considered a niche?)... at least no more than typical variance (that i have seen... links please?!). Intel does slightly better in most games at lower, more CPU bound resolutions, due to their clock speeds and high IPC like Ryzen 3.

Here is a recent link showing core scaling (Intel has a 'sufficient' amount of cores - and more)...as well as the CPU performance.








						Core Scaling and Gaming Performance — How Many Cores Do You Need?
					

Selecting the best processor for your new gaming PC build is a tough choice but can be critical to getting the optimal performance and…




					medium.com
				




Also a higher res doesn't 'warrant' a slower CPU, but a slower CPU can get the similar FPS as a lesser one at high resolutions. There are plenty of benchmarks that have been run showing this.








						AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Review
					

AMD's $330 Ryzen 7 3700X is an 8-core, 16-thread CPU that's clocked high enough to compete with Intel's offerings. Actually, its application performance matches even the more expensive Intel Core i9-9900K. Gaming performance has been increased significantly, too, thanks to the improved...




					www.techpowerup.com
				



You can see that at 4K UHD, a full 2/3 (17) of the CPUs tested are within 1% of 100% performance. In this case a Ryzen 7 1700 and a i9-9900k are less than 2% apart at 4K UHD. You drop down to 1080p and 3 processors are within 2% of 100%. The gap between 1700 and 9900k is 23%. So, yes, slower processors can do well at 4k. Didnt we have a thread of some guy (avrona?) touting how great amd fx was today in gaming, but he tested in 4k? Testing like that can make a potato look good. 

Note, you can still be GPU bottlenecked (and CPU bottlenecked) at 150 fps. Noticing it is another story.




Odd how I I can agree with the overall message but the supporting arguments are a bit off. lol


----------



## JackCarver (Dec 26, 2019)

> Also a higher res doesn't 'warrant' a slower CPU, but a slower CPU can get the similar FPS as a lesser one at high resolutions. There are plenty of benchmarks that have been run showing this.



As I said, the GPU is much more important in gaming than the CPU especially in higher res. You certainly need a good CPU with sufficient core count but when it comes to gaming I'd prefer a 9400 combined with a 2080 Ti over a Ryzen 3900X combined with a RX 5500XT. And it makes no sense to compare CPUs in higher res than 720p.

Edit: To be safe for the future I would go for an 8 core CPU like the 9700K or the 3700X...


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 26, 2019)

JackCarver said:


> And it makes no sense to compare CPUs in higher res than 720p.


It does, actually. Artificially lowering the resolution, while it does isolate the CPU a bit more than 1080p, doesn't scale up. So while it is good information for 720p, it isn't good information for 1080p. Most people do not play games at 720p and since it doesn't scale linearly, those results don't hold for higher resolutions.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Dec 26, 2019)

My vote goes for the 3600


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 26, 2019)

3600


----------



## R0H1T (Dec 27, 2019)

When in doubt ~ go with *Zen*, if there's no doubt you still go with Ryzen


----------



## Melvis (Dec 27, 2019)

I say its not about what CPU to get but what platform/Socket to go with and AMD has the more superior platform and longevity with alot more to offer with upgrades and with still even more to come so I think its more of a no brainer really, go with the AM4 platform and enjoy a great, well best upgrade path ever!


----------



## JackCarver (Dec 27, 2019)

> go with the AM4 platform and enjoy a great, well best upgrade path ever!











						AMD "Zen 4" 2021 Launch On Track as TSMC Optimistic About 5 nm
					

AMD's "Zen 4" CPU microarchitecture is on track for a 2021 launch as its principal foundry partner, TSMC, is optimistic about early yields of its 5 nm silicon fabrication node. TSMC supports the 5 nm product roadmaps of not just AMD, but also Apple and HiSilicon. "Zen 4" is particularly...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




As you can read this is true till 2021. Then they probably go for the AM5 socket with DDR5 RAM. So if you buy an AM4 system right now, your next AMD CPU upgrade comes also with a mainboard upgrade. They had a long time with AM4 but the AM4 era will be over soon.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 28, 2019)

JackCarver said:


> AMD "Zen 4" 2021 Launch On Track as TSMC Optimistic About 5 nm
> 
> 
> AMD's "Zen 4" CPU microarchitecture is on track for a 2021 launch as its principal foundry partner, TSMC, is optimistic about early yields of its 5 nm silicon fabrication node. TSMC supports the 5 nm product roadmaps of not just AMD, but also Apple and HiSilicon. "Zen 4" is particularly...
> ...


Still one more series to come for AM4 though... ZEN3 4000series. Even if AM4 is coming to en end (not yet), still is a way better platform with more options in CPUs. For me this platform can long last even a decade counting from now. You can buy right now a 6c/12t CPU and after 3-5years can buy a 12c/24t or even higher to go another 3-5years. So... it’s not even about doing math to determine the best platform right now.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 28, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> Still one more series to come for AM4 though... ZEN3 4000series. Even if AM4 is coming to en end (not yet), still is a way better platform with more options in CPUs. For me this platform can long last even a decade counting from now. You can buy right now a 6c/12t CPU and after 3-5years can buy a 12c/24t or even higher to go another 3-5years. So... it’s not even about doing math to determine the best platform right now.


I agree to an extent. But 10 years is a looooong time. I mean, 10 years ago you could have bought a phenom II with six cores...but due to the horrible ipc and clocks, performance is absolute garbage today. The difference in ipc and other features speeding things up are still going to play a huge role in these incredibly premature core wars amd started.

I mentioned in another thread, in 2019, I'd cry if I had to game (1080p - that glass ceiling though) on a Nehalem or especially a phenom based cpu...or god forbid doing productivity. Unless you are my AARP card carrying parents, 5-6 years for an enthusiast is is all I would build for. And even then a GPU swap is warranted (but that is a different discussion).

Edit: I've got a 7960x...a 16c/32t cpu... I'll cry in 7 years...lol


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 28, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I agree to an extent. But 10 years is a looooong time. I mean, 10 years ago you could have bought a phenom II with six cores...but due to the horrible ipc and clocks, performance is absolute garbage today. The difference in ipc and other features speeding things up are still going to play a huge role in these incredibly premature core wars amd started.
> 
> I mentioned in another thread, in 2019, I'd cry if I had to game on a Nehalem or phenom based cpu...or god forbid productivity. Unless you are my AARP card carrying parents, 5-6 years for an enthusiast is is all I would build for. And even then a GPU swap is warranted (but that is a different discussion).


If it’s premature then ZEN2 and 3 will suffice.
And it’s different now compared to a decade ago with phenoms X4 and X6. Your only upgrade option back then was the FX line and we all know how that turn out...
Now you have a 3600 and you can go to 4950X (or whatever it’s going to be called) with x2.66 the cores and an IPC uplift.
It’s far from the same... And things are going multicore... I can’t believe that a 12 or a 16 core ZEN3 CPU will be obsolete in 5-7 years. In 10 it should be, and it will be a time to upgrade.



EarthDog said:


> Edit: I've got a 7960x...a 16c/32t cpu... I'll cry in 7 years...lol


With what IPC?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 28, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> If it’s premature then ZEN2 and 3 will suffice.
> And it’s different now compared to a decade ago with phenoms X4 and X6. Your only upgrade option back then was the FX line and we all know how that turn out...
> Now you have a 3600 and you can go to 4950X (or whatever it’s going to be called) with x2.66 the cores and an IPC uplift.
> It’s far from the same... And things are going multicore... I can’t believe that a 12 or a 16 core ZEN3 CPU will be obsolete in 5-7 years. In 10 it should be, and it will be a time to upgrade.
> ...


more cores and threads will help... but IPC and other metrics will remain stuck at 2019 performance.

IPC, new instructions sets, efficiency, clock speeds...all will make a difference.

I'm not saying obsolete in 5-7 years, I'm saying that it will be long in the tooth for enthusiasts. 10 years, to me, they would only be good for minimal gaming and desktop/web/more basic uses.


I dont subscribe to 'good enough' when it comes to computing. Glass ceilings that are easily remedied bother me. I mean, sure you can reach 60 fps with a 5700xt and a decade old cpu, but with a modern cpu at 1080p, that could almost double allowing for an increase in IQ settings or go up in resolution and getting the most out of the money spent.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 28, 2019)

Yes but the OP seem like an enthusiast? From looking to buy a 9600K vs 3600 he is not... to me anyway. And my suggestion and statements are relating to this.
I know that enthusiasts and tech geeks will switch platforms way sooner than 5 years, not 10.

With all due respect...
Why are we loosing focus and drive (even unintentionally) the discussion elsewhere?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 28, 2019)

To me, this is all a part of the overarching discussion...and note I didnt bring it up, just piggy backed on....for better or worse. I dont think we're _losing_ focus... 

I digress though...


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 28, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> To me, this is all a part of the overarching discussion...and note I didnt bring it up, just piggy backed on....for better or worse. I dont think we're _losing_ focus...
> 
> I digress though...


Had to use vocabulary for a couple of words right there... LOL 

Anyway...


----------



## freeagent (Dec 28, 2019)

One thing AMD does get smoked in is memory latency in Aida64. Definitely not as snappy as an Intel. I don't have one so I cant say if the numbers lie.

Even my ancient mainstream system destroys any high end AMD in that regard, according to Aida64


----------



## Vario (Dec 28, 2019)

freeagent said:


> One thing AMD does get smoked in is memory latency in Aida64. Definitely not as snappy as an Intel. I don't have one so I cant say if the numbers lie.
> 
> Even my ancient mainstream system destroys any high end AMD in that regard, according to Aida64


To elaborate, this? https://techreport.com/review/34672/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-and-ryzen-9-3900x-cpus-reviewed/3/


----------



## JackCarver (Dec 28, 2019)

The question what CPU to buy depends on the use case. If you want to upgrade next year to Ryzen 4000 without changing the board then go with Ryzen 3600 and B450/X470/X570. If your use case is rendering or anything else which uses more cores and threads then go with Ryzen 3000. If the use case is gaming like in my case then go with Intel as it is 6.6% faster here as you can read. And not that much more expensive. Steve from GamersNexus came to the same result comparing i7 9700k with Ryzen 3700X.

And to say Intels gaming performance isn‘t that much higher so go with Ryzen...then you can also say Intel is fast enough in rendering for most people so go for Intel...

Edit:
You also have the possibiliy to overclock your CPU after a while. Intel is better for oc also.


----------



## Zach_01 (Dec 28, 2019)

freeagent said:


> One thing AMD does get smoked in is memory latency in Aida64. Definitely not as snappy as an Intel. I don't have one so I cant say if the numbers lie.
> 
> Even my ancient mainstream system destroys any high end AMD in that regard, according to Aida64


That is why ZEN2 has triple the cache memory count against Intel CPUs, to not have to access memory frequently.
You can’t compare it directly with synthetics like AIDA as the whole memory subsystem is different.
Performance in real apps is what counts.
ZEN2 system is snappy enough, as any Intel system. Only behind at gaming performance and not by much for the majority of users.
6 or 10% is for most gamers nothing. Unless you have already a 2080Ti and max out GPU performance is not worthing to go to Intel even for gaming, and I say it again for the majority of the gamers.
Just buy a 3600 or previous 6c/12t CPU with B450 and go with a higher tier GPU.

Plus to all that as time passes and higher resolutions become mainstream Intel CPUs will loose their small last remain advantage.


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 29, 2019)

Zach_01 said:


> That is why ZEN2 has triple the cache memory count against Intel CPUs, to not have to access memory frequently.
> You can’t compare it directly with synthetics like AIDA as the whole memory subsystem is different.
> Performance in real apps is what counts.
> ZEN2 system is snappy enough, as any Intel system. Only behind at gaming performance and not by much for the majority of users.
> ...


The only synthetic memory benchmark from AIDA64 that has a meaningful result of memory performance in other programs is memory Copy. Just remember though that 32 MB L3 Cache isn't a whole but is divided between the two CCXs.


----------



## tabascosauz (Dec 29, 2019)

freeagent said:


> One thing AMD does get smoked in is memory latency in Aida64. Definitely not as snappy as an Intel. I don't have one so I cant say if the numbers lie.
> 
> Even my ancient mainstream system destroys any high end AMD in that regard, according to Aida64



Irrelevant. The Zen 2 design increases DRAM latency as a tradeoff, but the other improvements including better prefetching more than makes up for that in bettering IPC, which you can't see in these strictly DRAM benchmarks. L3 is doubled, but the tradeoff is that it's still not unified like Intel's always is, and cache latency is up as well. 

Responsiveness as a function of DRAM latency is incredibly misguided. Anyone who owns Zen 2 as an upgrade from something else knows that CPPC's 1-2ns reaction time in ramping up cores in response to load makes Ryzen 3000 one of the most responsive platforms ever. Intel has a similar technology in Speed Shift of Kaby Lake and later platforms, but as of now, Ryzen's selling point is its snappiness.

This is exactly why benchmarks are only useful to a limited extent.


----------



## biffzinker (Dec 29, 2019)

Turmania said:


> Ryzen 5 3600 hits 4.2ghz all core with a b450 or x470 mobo what should I expect?


If you do decide on the Ryzen 5 3600 don't expect it to run at 4.2 GHz for an all core overclock. If you do try it your likely to need watercooling to keep core temperatures under control. Of course though you might get lucky, and end up with a golden CCD chiplet bin.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jan 2, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> If you do decide on the Ryzen 5 3600 don't expect it to run at 4.2 GHz for an all core overclock. If you do try it your likely to need watercooling to keep core temperatures under control. Of course though you might get lucky, and end up with a golden CCD chiplet bin.


This is very untrue

You do not need water cooling to achieve those clocks.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jan 2, 2020)

Pro11pse said:


> I would rather take and Intel processor, I know that there is much better % hyperthreading



My old 8600k was so good at hyperthreading, like the savory taste of Kobi beef in a beyond burger...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 2, 2020)

JackCarver said:


> AMD "Zen 4" 2021 Launch On Track as TSMC Optimistic About 5 nm
> 
> 
> AMD's "Zen 4" CPU microarchitecture is on track for a 2021 launch as its principal foundry partner, TSMC, is optimistic about early yields of its 5 nm silicon fabrication node. TSMC supports the 5 nm product roadmaps of not just AMD, but also Apple and HiSilicon. "Zen 4" is particularly...
> ...



Yup and skt 1200 will be dead too.



Spoiler

















Zach_01 said:


> If it’s premature then ZEN2 and 3 will suffice.
> And it’s different now compared to a decade ago with phenoms X4 and X6. Your only upgrade option back then was the FX line and we all know how that turn out...
> Now you have a 3600 and you can go to 4950X (or whatever it’s going to be called) with x2.66 the cores and an IPC uplift.
> It’s far from the same... And things are going multicore... I can’t believe that a 12 or a 16 core ZEN3 CPU will be obsolete in 5-7 years. In 10 it should be, and it will be a time to upgrade.
> ...


----------

