1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 CPU Benchmarks Surfaces

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jun 21, 2019.

  1. RzrTrek

    RzrTrek Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,282
    Likes Received:
    587
    GPU:
    RX 580 8GB ❤ 144hz
    I've been looking at the 3600X for quite some time, but this looks promising. Looking forward to your full review.
     
    XenthorX likes this.
  2. patteSatan

    patteSatan Active Member

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    21
    GPU:
    Sapphire R9 390
    This is what I am going to buy, or the 3600x, I can feel that the photos are photoshopped, but I actually think it's around those numbers when released, and it will be a good upgrade from my 1600x.
     
    XenthorX likes this.
  3. Dazz

    Dazz Master Guru

    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    77
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX RTX 2080
  4. Reddoguk

    Reddoguk Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,722
    Likes Received:
    130
    GPU:
    Guru3d GTX 980 G1 Gaming
    This is the none X model the 3600X will be better still because it'll have slightly better clocks.
     

  5. Astyanax

    Astyanax Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,236
    Likes Received:
    836
    GPU:
    GTX 1080ti
    *cough*bullcrap*cough*
     
  6. ladcrooks

    ladcrooks Master Guru

    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    51
    GPU:
    DECIDING
    I have got the Ryzen 5 2600 and at the same same VT I run at 4.0Ghz. So I see a gain of 200Mhz here.

    Do you see any point in anyone upgrading from the 2 to the 3 version?
     
  7. jose2016

    jose2016 Member

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    APU R3
    Have you tried the 1903 version of Windows 10?
     
  8. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,730
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    Depends on use. Gaming probably not. Anything else and one would go for more worthwhile upgrade in 3700X.
     
    ladcrooks likes this.
  9. Dazz

    Dazz Master Guru

    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    77
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX RTX 2080
    Doesn't make too much of a difference however for some reason CPU-Z is not linking to my account.
    https://valid.x86.fr/1ih7g4
     
  10. illrigger

    illrigger Member Guru

    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Ti
    That's actually what AMD is recommending for just about everyone. Unless you know you need PCIe 4 (hint: you don't yet, and PCIe 5 and 6 are already on their way, so it's not like you are future-proofing yourself), there's no reason to get an X570 board - they openly admit there will be no performance difference vs the X470/B450/X370/B350 and the X570 from the CPU side of things.

    The only reason you might want X570 is because mobo makers are finally making premium-tier boards for AMD using it, vs mid-tier on all older boards. You can get some crazy over-the-top VRM configs on the new boards, but a decent X470 likely has good enough power delivery to get the most out of these chips so it's probably overkill.
     

  11. tsunami231

    tsunami231 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,658
    Likes Received:
    359
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070Ti Black
    is there reason why people are comparing a 65w amd cpu to intel offering that are 90w + some which are more then double the wattage? and some that are OCed at that?

    wattage to wattage I think this is most impressive offering from amd. and I been on intel bandwagon for as long as i can remember. my next pc is ryzen build. STP is irrelevant at this point to me amd STP. and going foward is gonna become even less irrelevant.

    AMD has the equivalently or better in some cases MTP for lot less then intel at this point
     
  12. Fergutor

    Fergutor Active Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    12
    GPU:
    Asus GTX 970 Strix

    Of course there is, the subtle thing we are all here for: performance.
    But of course in this context: new processor vs old processor. We expect the new processor, and newer by far in terms of arquitecture (4 years now?), with the smaller process (by far too) will finally perform better than the older one...but no, it barely performs equal.
    About consumption, that's secondary to everyone here at least while it stays in some range, and it is in the range...but it can't go over the range because of the limited ZEN frequencies capabilities (while Intel's Sky Lake and derivates can), AMD said they go up to 4.6ghz (which is why we have those processors with that TDP/freq and not 140Watts ones, to put a number, CPUs at 5.5Ghz to actually have the performance crown).
    So we are seeing a CPU 4 years newer than the competition, with no improvement in performance nor TDP (8700, 9700 and 9900 non K, are 65w too and with higher frequencies) and to make things worse, can't increase frequencies like those "old" CPUs from the competition...
    So yes, it is dissapointing.
    It's not terrible, because of price, and TDP is fine, which is why we like them anyway, but still dissapointing considering the previously mentioned, at least we expected very high IPC...and no...

    I had planned to buy an used 4th gen i5, but I couldn't get one, and instead had the opportunity to buy an used R5 1600 for 25% more than what I was expecting to pay the i5. I know that this Ryzen is slower in most games that use not many threads and like frecuency and good IPC, and faster or smoother (which is very important) in the multithreaded ones, but I don't play those for now. So while I know I don't have the correct processor in gaming now, but for everything else, I'm super happy with this CPU (including it has lower TDP than a 4th gen CPU).
    So, if AMD is not lying to us about the gaming performance in their slides at E3 2019, or anythiung else, then, judging my experience so far with the 1600, the trend in games, etc, and judging price-threads-IPC-TDP ratio, Intel vulnerabilities plus all the time until their new gen, I still want one 3600.
     
  13. theoneofgod

    theoneofgod Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    49
    GPU:
    RX 580 8GB
    For some reason your post looks terrible on the dark theme, and replying to you is worse

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,616
    Likes Received:
    889
    GPU:
    -
    It's because they set their text to black......for some...reason........
     
  15. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,730
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    Oh, so when was it last time you expected intel's 65W of new generation to crush their last gen 95W chip? Can you show some?
    95W i5-9600K is weaker than 65W Ryzen 5 1600. Guess how many years are in between and what's price difference. You should know yourself.
     

  16. Quicks

    Quicks Master Guru

    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    Red Devil RX 470 / 4GB
    This benchmark do not mean crap, my old 2500K @4.5 does 454 point in single thread. Granted the TDP is most likely 130W but keep in mind this processor is 8 years old!!!

    Still thinking about getting the 3600...
     
  17. tsunami231

    tsunami231 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,658
    Likes Received:
    359
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070Ti Black
    this is what i mean. comparing a 65 watt cpu performance to a 95watt or in some cases cpu that has double wattage requirements is stupid. if the chip running the same amount of wattage and still out performed it people would still trying twisting into its still bad. it almost like people will make up what they want and say what they want to, just so things dont have accept things. which makes no sense unless people just want to be blind to anything but they want think.
     
  18. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,616
    Likes Received:
    889
    GPU:
    -
    I have yet to see any reviews that state that the 9900 non K is actually a 65 watt TDP.

    I state this since the 9900k is not a 95 watt TDP regardless of intel wants to tell us. It's more like 170 watt TDP.

    Anyone here can go 'round and 'round in circles saying why it is or isn't correct because intel decided to change the definition of TDP, but the reality is, their TDP means squat to their actual usage.

    But the only reason i'm stating this is because peoples idea that you can only "compare 65 watt to 65 watt and 95 watt to 95 watt" or etc. would only make sense if both companies were playing in the same ballpark. They aren't.

    If people want to only compare the same wattage to same wattage, then you can't compare the 9900k for example with any ryzen processor, threadripper, yes, ryzen, no.
     
    carnivore and Fox2232 like this.
  19. jbscotchman

    jbscotchman Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,026
    Likes Received:
    2,076
    GPU:
    MSI 1660 Ti XS OC
    This will more than likely be my next CPU.
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  20. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,730
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    One of reasons why AMD could cinebench their ES 8C/16T and walk out with equal performance and quite lower power draw. AMD's approach to TDP is rather strict with their 3 values.
    PPT - Total socket power [W] => That what we tend to call TDP.
    TDC - Long term current [A] => voltage of cores varies depending on clock and asic quality, but heat is bound to current flow
    EDC - peak current [A] => short term current (limits few ms long spikes)
    = = = =
    Running PBO (built in overclock which is outside of warrnaty):
    PPT = 125W => usually never reached (mostly dances around 105W under heavy load)
    TDC = 95A => usually never reached
    EDC = 140A => wall preventing highest boost clocks (maximizing clocks requires short spiking to 160A)
    = = = =
    That's one of nice things on AMD's RM, one can change power control modes on the fly and bench at different limits. To which CPU actually adheres to.
    = = = =
    Edit: Adding little table I just made:
    Code:
    PPT [W]      PPT [%]       TDC100 [%]   EDC200 [%]   CB.R15
    15           110           5            6            241
    25           100           14           17           755
    35           100           26           28           1232
    45           100           33           36           1382
    55           100           41           45           1536
    65           100           46           50           1606
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    70           100           49           52           1637
    75           100           52           55           1656
    85           100           57           61           1686
    90           100           61           63           1720
    95           100           63           66           1741
    105          100           69           70           1771
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    115          95            71           72           1773
    125          87            71           72           1777
    150          73            71           73           1780
    
    Description:
    1st part (15~65W) can be set only via BIOS as RM does not go under 70W PPT for 2700X (since 65W is area of 2700).
    PBO scalar set to Disabled = 1X = no extra boosting.
    2nd part (70~105W) is set via RM and is within CPUs basic specifications.
    3rd part (115W+) is set via RM too, but since PBO scalar in BIOS = 1X...

    Notes:
    PPT 15W could have been sustained in running OS (idle ~80-85% of PPT; clock 2.2-4.3GHz). But once all cores were loaded, clock went to 0.6GHz and PPT percentage went 10% above 15W.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
    Aura89 and HWgeek like this.

Share This Page