AMD Ryzen 5 3600

[kapone32]

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

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

 

[Bones]

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

Hater's gonna hate.

 

[HenrySomeone]

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

 

[kapone32]

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

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

 

[HenrySomeone]

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

 

[dirtyferret]

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

Actually they never said that.

 

[kapone32]

Actually they never said that.

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

 

[Bones]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dirtyferret]

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

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

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

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

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

www.gamersnexus.net

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

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

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

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

www.gamersnexus.net

i5-8600k review

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

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

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

www.gamersnexus.net

i5-9600k review

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

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

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

www.gamersnexus.net

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

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

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

 

[kapone32]

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

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

 

[bobalazs]

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

 

[Dyatlov A]

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

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

 

[kapone32]

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

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

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

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

www.gamersnexus.net

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

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

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

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

www.gamersnexus.net

i5-8600k review

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

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

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

www.gamersnexus.net

i5-9600k review

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

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

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

www.gamersnexus.net

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

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

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

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

 

[Dyatlov A]

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

 

[W1zzard]

because consumes less power and heats less

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

 

[Footman]

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

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

 

[gasolin]

Pretty good or what?

 

[Mussels]

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

 

[gasolin]

I think it's pretty good

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

 

[AusWolf]

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

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

 

[gasolin]

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

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

A little better cpu cooler won't hurt

 

[kapone32]

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

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

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

 

[HandyTechShare]

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