AMD Ryzen 5 3600

[Bones]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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

Ryzen 3 are great CPUs

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.