• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

ShurikN said:
Try per CCX overclocking, it might show better results.
Click to expand...

I'm doing it per CCX; I haven't delved too deeply into it yet, but for some quick initial tinkering, I set each CCX to match cores across the board. I'll be playing around with it a lot more when the water block goes on.
 
9700k still king for gaming, but if you want a good all around cpu go for Ryzen.
 
this cpu is king of wallets ....
 
at the same price which is better though for the 3600 and the 2700 ...so confused which one to pick though, i only game at 2560x1440 144hz or 3200x1800 144hz ......
 
gasolina said:
at the same price which is better though for the 3600 and the 2700 ...so confused which one to pick though, i only game at 2560x1440 144hz or 3200x1800 144hz ......
Click to expand...


Theres a huge difference in power consumption 50+ between a ryzen 2600 and 3600 at 4.1 and 4.2ghz so it won't be hard to choose
 
gasolina said:
at the same price which is better though for the 3600 and the 2700 ...so confused which one to pick though, i only game at 2560x1440 144hz or 3200x1800 144hz ......
Click to expand...
3600,no question.
 
well, i think Intels 14nm cpu runsvery well against amd 7nm cpu.

hmm,intel is still better in games.

just waiting intels 10nm ice lake,then i choose.
 
guser said:
well, i think Intels 14nm cpu runsvery well against amd 7nm cpu.

hmm,intel is still better in games.

just waiting intels 10nm ice lake,then i choose.
Click to expand...
You'll be waiting for one more year, unfortunately. But if your current CPU isn't holding you back, why not?
 
intel is often in games where the game isn't optimized for any cpu, no more than 5-10% faster and if you can't change graphic settings to something that makes a noticeable difference, who cares abot 10%
 
Last edited:
gasolin said:
intel is often in games where the game isn't optimized for any cpu, no more than 5-10% faster and if you can't change graphic settings to something that makes a noticeable diffrence, who cares abot 10%
Click to expand...
I think his point is when Intel does 5-10% better with old tech, waiting for Intel's new tech can be an option.
 
4.1GHz that's terrible.
Initial rumors were 5Ghz than 4.8 than 4.6 but 4.1 GHz that's plain terrible.
 
r9 said:
4.1GHz that's terrible.
Initial rumors were 5Ghz than 4.8 than 4.6 but 4.1 GHz that's plain terrible.
Click to expand...
It's competitor (9600K) boosts to 4.6 and is barely faster.
 
Only the big cpus since they are binnede to make them run as fast as they are rated for and with the very modest tdp
 
Was just looking at the charts on passmark and noticed this CPU:
Capture.PNG


 
Last edited:
r9 said:
4.1GHz that's terrible.
Initial rumors were 5Ghz than 4.8 than 4.6 but 4.1 GHz that's plain terrible.
Click to expand...
Clock speed is not everything. That is why you do not put any weight towards rumours. Even though the clocks are not as high as mentioned in rumours they are still excellent processors based on TDP, IPC gains, platform flexibility and cost makes the AM4 platform more attractive
 
kapone32 said:
Clock speed is not everything. That is why you do not put any weight towards rumours. Even though the clocks are not as high as mentioned in rumours they are still excellent processors based on TDP, IPC gains, platform flexibility and cost makes the AM4 platform more attractive
Click to expand...
Actually, since they barely touched IPC, frequency would have been the only thing that would have put AMD conclusively in front of Intel.
But of course, rumors are rumors, you can't crucify AMD (or anyone else, for that matter) for not meeting them.
 
Interesting review.

Thanks.
 
kapone32 said:
Clock speed is not everything. That is why you do not put any weight towards rumours. Even though the clocks are not as high as mentioned in rumours they are still excellent processors based on TDP, IPC gains, platform flexibility and cost makes the AM4 platform more attractive
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that they made improvements.
But to have no clock advantage on 7nm over Zen+ it's disappointing especially all the rumors floating around.
And I know you not supposed to to trust the rumors that's why when they said 5GHz I was thinking alright we should at least get 4.5Ghz.
Zen 2 would have kicked ass at 4.5+GHz.
I was hoping that AMD would take over the gaming crown now Intel still tops gaming charts.
 
r9 said:
I don't dispute that they made improvements.
But to have no clock advantage on 7nm over Zen+ it's disappointing especially all the rumors floating around.
And I know you not supposed to to trust the rumors that's why when they said 5GHz I was thinking alright we should at least get 4.5Ghz.
Zen 2 would have kicked ass at 4.5+GHz.
I was hoping that AMD would take over the gaming crown now Intel still tops gaming charts.
Click to expand...

For the larger majority of what sales are targeted at, AMD is still going to take the overall winner at this stage. Clock for clock the 3000 series is either faster, or on par with, Intel in every aspect (yes gaming too). The audience that the sales are targeted at are the ones who will never touch an overclock or even know what overclocking is, my 3600X is faster in every aspect than the 8700k (at stock clocks) that it replaced. Those of use who like to tinker/overclock/tweak/etc. are the minority, not the ones who equate to enough of the profits to keep the bills paid. While I agree, it would have been nice to be a fun overclocking CPU series, it just isn't a smart business decision given the circumstances of the market currently in the places that actually financially make sense.
 
r9 said:
4.1GHz that's terrible.
Initial rumors were 5Ghz than 4.8 than 4.6 but 4.1 GHz that's plain terrible.
Click to expand...

"Initial rumors" were pulled out of someone's a**. For $200 this is good enough.
 
dirtyferret said:
Nice little all around $200 CPU and a clear winner at this price. I'd still prefer an OC 9600k for pure gaming but Intel has that currently over priced @ $250.
Click to expand...
Honestly, what do you get with a 9600K? 5% with a 2080 Ti on FHD. It means it gets 199 fps instead of 190. You can't tell the difference. And when you switch to 1440P or 4K (which is the 2080Ti's territory) that 5% disappears. Same is true for 2080 or cheaper GPUs in FHD. 0% difference.

You can tell that AMD not only got better IPC and single threaded workload performance than Intel, but they managed to equal it in gaming.
 
This chip is okay-ish and nothing more. In gaming and general use it gets matched by a 150$ 9400f and clearly beaten (close to 15% in fact) by an OCed 9600k which is now 220$ at several places already. Also, the bundled cooler is the crap one (Stelath) which gets loud and the temps run high, so you'll ideally want to replace it too (if it had the Prism, that might be an argument, but as it stands, it's not)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top