Overclock.net banner

41 - 60 of 112 Posts

·
AMD fan
Joined
·
1,839 Posts
9900k boosts to 5.0 ghz. 6700k boosts to 4.2 ghz. 3600 boosts to 4.2 ghz. Do the math.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,627 Posts
Why are you comparing your 350-400 dollar CPU to AMDs 200 dollar CPU?
Not to mention that it has 50% more cores so it's actually 50% more computational power for 50% of the price, not even a sidegrade.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,366 Posts
Why are you comparing your 350-400 dollar CPU to AMDs 200 dollar CPU?

This occupies the same slot the old i5-6500 occupied, if you want to see what progress has been made compare it with that.

To upgrade from your 6700k your gonna have to look at the 3800x or even 3900x
The 3700X/3800X aren't going to be much faster than the 3600 in single core/gaming is my point. I paid $288 for my 6700K 4 years ago, while it was initially slightly more expensive than the 3600 that was also 4 years ago and my CPU is considered ancient tech at this point.
While I want AMD to dethrone Intel to break up their monopoly it doesn't look like they're going to do so in gaming performance quite yet and hopefully AMD can gain the lead until Intel can produce 7nm.

If I were to build an entirely new system I would go for AMD, hands down. However if you have a 2700X or 6700K it seems it would be a waste of money to upgrade to a 3700X/3800X for gaming.
 

·
sudo apt install sl
Joined
·
7,323 Posts
I'm interested to see what your 9900k @ 4.2scores in cinebench
The Ryzen 5 3600 single core performance is 6.49% faster than Skylake in Cinebench R15 at the same clock speed.
 

Attachments

·
PC Enthusiast
Joined
·
975 Posts
The 3700X/3800X aren't going to be much faster than the 3600 in single core/gaming is my point. I paid $288 for my 6700K 4 years ago, while it was initially slightly more expensive than the 3600 that was also 4 years ago and my CPU is considered ancient tech at this point.
While I want AMD to dethrone Intel to break up their monopoly it doesn't look like they're going to do so in gaming performance quite yet and hopefully AMD can gain the lead until Intel can produce 7nm.

If I were to build an entirely new system I would go for AMD, hands down. However if you have a 2700X or 6700K it seems it would be a waste of money to upgrade to a 3700X/3800X for gaming.
Thanks to intel is isn't :p

It's very sketchy review, don't base any opinions yet.

With proper motherboard, bios, ram speed, I expect the 3600 to perform much better(than what this review suggests) than the 6700k. Especially with modern games the gap should continue to increase.
Perhaps similar to the 8700k.
I'm not saying it'd be a solid upgrade, but an upgrade nonetheless.

For the core count & perf. could be a very impressive $200 CPU.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
675 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,040 Posts
looking good the mem latency looks fishy in that review but in good hands and a good kit should make a huge difference..

i took a 2700x all way down to 57ns so i would not worry about that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
X570 motherboard + DDR4-3600 CL16 kit .. the AMD upgrade path isn't going to be cheap.

.. can't wait to see 3700X/3800X Gaming performance. I want to upgrade that 6700k.
 

·
OG AMD
Joined
·
8,801 Posts
Seems like it's still not faster than Intel when it comes to gaming. Guess Intel will keep their fastest gaming CPU title.
:rolleyes: You do realize this review shows a stock,6 core Ryzen 3 3600 MATCHING an 8 core I9-9900K in gaming on a non-overclocking bios with bad memory timings, and that is your conclusion? :buttkick: :lachen:
 

·
sudo apt install sl
Joined
·
7,323 Posts
/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif You do realize this review shows a stock,6 core Ryzen 3 3600 MATCHING an 8 core I9-9900K in gaming on a non-overclocking bios with bad memory timings, and that is your conclusion? /forum/images/smilies/buttkick.gif /forum/images/smilies/lachen.gif
Am I missing something or are you ignoring the 6700k on those results?
 

·
Newsfiend
Joined
·
2,404 Posts
Elchap's ryzen 2nd gen review early wasn't too hot iirc several of the scores were lower than more reputable sites. Probably from non release drivers etc and this one has leaked even earlier than last time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
365 Posts
The Ryzen 5 3600 single core performance is 6.49% faster than Skylake in Cinebench R15 at the same clock speed.
Cinebench R15 is old software, so only "Cinebench R20 is version" that should be used for good comparison.

"Singlethread Cinebench R20"

Intel Skylake CPU 4.2ghz, 445

AMD Ryzen 3000 4.2ghz, 487


https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/c561zt/r5_3600_r20/

https://www.computerbase.de/thema/prozessor/rangliste/#diagramm-cinebench-r20-single-thread-ergebnisse
 

·
Turtle Rig Fan
Joined
·
2,432 Posts
:rolleyes: You do realize this review shows a stock,6 core Ryzen 3 3600 MATCHING an 8 core I9-9900K in gaming on a non-overclocking bios with bad memory timings, and that is your conclusion? :buttkick: :lachen:
What benchmarks are you looking at? :lachen:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,040 Posts
What benchmarks are you looking at? :lachen:
idk but that 3600 is pretty close on those benchmarks against the 9900K which dont follow tdp to begin with and boost to 50x
mind you 42x $199 cpu is not even the x cpu

you going to show fps on 1080P and 720P show me as well gpu usage graphs as i want to see how far they are between both in that department..

dont see no point of seeing fps with 60-70% load on a gpu uncapped fps.. we need gpu load graphs on cpu bottlenecks

even a ram tweak match that

btw 42x on skylakeish cpu in cb15 is 180
amd have the ipc advantage big time this time..
 

·
⤷ αC
Joined
·
11,240 Posts
It's a good thing PC gaming isn't where the money is being made with Ryzen (they're using salvages from EPYC and probably keeping some for Threadripper). There's so many people that are simply too young to remember a time when AMD was on top (Athlon 64). Those same people tend to be the techtubers and such. I don't know how AMD can shake the "value brand" stigma after being close but not faster for so many years along with the epic failure of the Bulldozer line.

Anyone with an impartial view can see that Intel is in deep trouble because people that actually use their PCs for more than just gaming at 720p/1080p will benefit from higher efficiency , higher IPC, and automatic boosting to max clock on all cores even on stock cooler (Wraith Spire was used for R7 1700 as well). That is not even counting the Intel security patches that haven't been finalized. If you have a 65W part on stock cooler at out of the box clocks even close to the performance of an i7-9700K/i9-9900K how is that not a win for AMD? It's $200 versus a $400-500 part which requires more cooling, a Z390 motherboard that isn't garbage (~$100 MSI Tomahawk or ~$130 B450 Pro Carbon is likely to run the Ryzen 5s), and also z390 has zero upgrade path whereas any half decent AM4 board is going to be able to go up to 12 cores and 16 if you have x570.

Before Ryzen 3rd gen Intel still had an AVX2 advantage, with Ryzen 3rd gen the AVX2 performance is double wide. The only thing that remains for Intel is AVX-512 which is very rarely used.

If you recall Athlon64 was to Pentium 4 what this Ryzen 3rd gen chip generation will likely be to the 14nm+++ Intel chips. Athlon XP/MP was already competitive with Pentium 4 as it largely improved FPU, also was first CPU to 1GHz. Guess who led K8 (Athlon64)? Jim Keller. Who had a large hand in the Zen architecture? Jim Keller.

Even before that the K6-III led in frequency versus the Pentium III although pricing was not a strong suit. K6 is credited with bringing computing to the masses , clock for clock matching Pentium II except when FPU was used.

It wasn't until Intel Core that Intel really was ahead.

Anyhow consoles are bought by people that don't care about the brand of CPU. Zen 2 is also going into consoles. For the first time in a very long time AMD CPUs are also being used in mainstream laptops and even the iconic Thinkpad rather than low-end budget models. Every laptop / ultrabook / all-in-one worth buying that doesn't have strong Nvidia GPU or an 8th gen Intel CPU with 6+ cores is an AMD Ryzen product more or less.


It was definitely a smart business decision by Lisa Su and all others involved not to market to DIY. Breaking into the cloud space with Google Stadia (people don't care if they don't even own the GPU), breaking into the Apple ecosystem with radeon GPUs (guess what people don't care about the GPU if it's Apple products), breaking into mobile with Samsung partnerships, going for cloud compute with Amazon AWS + Baidu + Alibaba and Microsoft Azure as well is going to help AMD generate funds for R&D. Anything that needs x86 still isn't run on ARM yet without work done compiling , which isn't always feasible for closed source.
 

·
Turtle Rig Fan
Joined
·
2,432 Posts
I want to see what the 3800x can clock to. 4.7 all core should match a ~5ghz 9900k hypothetically
 

·
Madonion.com
Joined
·
129 Posts
It's a good thing PC gaming isn't where the money is being made with Ryzen (they're using salvages from EPYC and probably keeping some for Threadripper). There's so many people that are simply too young to remember a time when AMD was on top (Athlon 64). Those same people tend to be the techtubers and such. I don't know how AMD can shake the "value brand" stigma after being close but not faster for so many years along with the epic failure of the Bulldozer line.

Anyone with an impartial view can see that Intel is in deep trouble because people that actually use their PCs for more than just gaming at 720p/1080p will benefit from higher efficiency , higher IPC, and automatic boosting to max clock on all cores even on stock cooler (Wraith Spire was used for R7 1700 as well). That is not even counting the Intel security patches that haven't been finalized. If you have a 65W part on stock cooler at out of the box clocks even close to the performance of an i7-9700K/i9-9900K how is that not a win for AMD? It's $200 versus a $400-500 part which requires more cooling, a Z390 motherboard that isn't garbage (~$100 MSI Tomahawk or ~$130 B450 Pro Carbon is likely to run the Ryzen 5s), and also z390 has zero upgrade path whereas any half decent AM4 board is going to be able to go up to 12 cores and 16 if you have x570.

Before Ryzen 3rd gen Intel still had an AVX2 advantage, with Ryzen 3rd gen the AVX2 performance is double wide. The only thing that remains for Intel is AVX-512 which is very rarely used.

If you recall Athlon64 was to Pentium 4 what this Ryzen 3rd gen chip generation will likely be to the 14nm+++ Intel chips. Athlon XP/MP was already competitive with Pentium 4 as it largely improved FPU, also was first CPU to 1GHz. Guess who led K8 (Athlon64)? Jim Keller. Who had a large hand in the Zen architecture? Jim Keller.

Even before that the K6-III led in frequency versus the Pentium III although pricing was not a strong suit. K6 is credited with bringing computing to the masses , clock for clock matching Pentium II except when FPU was used.

It wasn't until Intel Core that Intel really was ahead.

Anyhow consoles are bought by people that don't care about the brand of CPU. Zen 2 is also going into consoles. For the first time in a very long time AMD CPUs are also being used in mainstream laptops and even the iconic Thinkpad rather than low-end budget models. Every laptop / ultrabook / all-in-one worth buying that doesn't have strong Nvidia GPU or an 8th gen Intel CPU with 6+ cores is an AMD Ryzen product more or less.


It was definitely a smart business decision by Lisa Su and all others involved not to market to DIY. Breaking into the cloud space with Google Stadia (people don't care if they don't even own the GPU), breaking into the Apple ecosystem with radeon GPUs (guess what people don't care about the GPU if it's Apple products), breaking into mobile with Samsung partnerships, going for cloud compute with Amazon AWS + Baidu + Alibaba and Microsoft Azure as well is going to help AMD generate funds for R&D. Anything that needs x86 still isn't run on ARM yet without work done compiling , which isn't always feasible for closed source.
I leaked AMD64 numbers a month before its official release. Put a 3200+ on top of the ORB too. Back then, no o/ced P4 could touch an average 3200+ unless cooled with LN2. I sure hope you're right and I want AMD to beat Intel, but that vcore at 4.2Ghz worries me unless AMD use the worse silicon on the entry level chips.

Some people do remember. I'm the guy who leaked the 3200+ scores back in 2004 if I remember correctly, put one on top of the ORB twice after years of Intel's 3D dominance. I think me and JCViggen were the first people to post the FX-51 numbers too.
 

·
⤷ αC
Joined
·
11,240 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
The 3700X/3800X aren't going to be much faster than the 3600 in single core/gaming is my point. I paid $288 for my 6700K 4 years ago, while it was initially slightly more expensive than the 3600 that was also 4 years ago and my CPU is considered ancient tech at this point.
While I want AMD to dethrone Intel to break up their monopoly it doesn't look like they're going to do so in gaming performance quite yet and hopefully AMD can gain the lead until Intel can produce 7nm.

Your CPU isn't considered ancient tech. The days of CPUs becoming obsolete rapidly are over, for good or ill, and will probably never come back. GPUs are probably hitting that point now.

With silicon chip design hitting hard physical limits in what can be done, we may be looking at much longer development times for improved processors.

Lots of efforts will now be spent in optimizing chip layouts (by hand even) and software, to give us those last bits of IPC increases without ballooning die sizes, while software cuts out the cruft to run more efficently. Thats the future of computing technology over the next decade or two.
 
41 - 60 of 112 Posts
Top