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. tsunami231

    tsunami231 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,361
    Likes Received:
    288
    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.
     
  2. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,477
    Likes Received:
    791
    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.
  3. jbscotchman

    jbscotchman Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    1,893
    GPU:
    MSI 1660 Ti XS OC
    This will more than likely be my next CPU.
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  4. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,365
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    GPU:
    -NDA +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.

  5. jose2016

    jose2016 Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    APU R3
    This 3600 beats my fx-4100 by double in mono and almost five times in multi.
     
  6. Fergutor

    Fergutor Active Member

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    12
    GPU:
    Asus GTX 970 Strix
    No idea why.
    I didn't set anything...
     
  7. Fergutor

    Fergutor Active Member

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    12
    GPU:
    Asus GTX 970 Strix
    Fox, that whole comment is a terrible red herring.
    Never said "crush", much less "expected to crush".
    Intel vs Intel in a state of performance superiority is not the same as AMD in the state of inferiority vs Intel, plus all the hype/propaganda/publicity behind the release. How could you seriously compare a brand releasing new products when there's not competition and the inferior competition stating it has a new superior product?
    Due to all the hype one expect what AMD said: being better (not "crush"...), in what I mentioned earlier and for what I mentioned earlier too, than Sky Lake processors, and noticeable better than their own Zen 1 and Zen+.
    The "9600K being weaker than R5 1600"...that's...according to what measurement? Because in what I'm talking about, thus what matters in the conversation given you are critizicing what I said, games, frecuency, IPC, is not.
    And why you are arguing from that standpoint, as if I was biased towards Intel? Let me clarify to you: I don't care about brands, I care about products.
    I never mentioned the 9600K either...this is so strage to say the least... Why don't you ask me what I think of that processor instead (and for what reason), including comparing to a competing Zen1 or even Zen+? You should care if you ultimately assumed what is my "position". So let me tell you: simple, need better IPC? 9600K and even more if we consider how those overclock; need more threads and cool CPU? 1600 or 2600; need both? 8700, if 1600, 2600, X or not, aren't enough. I don't think I just said anything new, weird or outrageous...or offensive...I could be wrong, but that's what measurements tell me. Probably I'm just an idiot!
    "Guess how many..." that's just a following from your wrong comparison and assumption.
    "You should know yourself"...

    Everyone is so emotional lately...
    If I'm wrong, then say why. Rationaly. And that's it. No need for such a display of feelings.
     
    Noisiv likes this.
  8. Fergutor

    Fergutor Active Member

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    12
    GPU:
    Asus GTX 970 Strix
    Good post I guess, but wasn't that TDP, Total Design Power (or Thermal Design Profile), is an indicator of, as the nomenclature indicates, the heat the device can generate or the dissipation capabilities it needs from the heatsink to work as intended, and that everyone, especially here, knew the difference between that and power consumption? (not that you said that last thing yourself, but I read it so many times here and other forums, and there are sooo many videos about it and articles, etc...). Do many people still say strictly that TDP is the same as power consumption? (I really thought that was something already clarified, but...maybe not...don't know...). I know it's related, as heat has to come from the energy that is consumed, but there's efficiency, frequency, etc...but to say "what we tend to call"...no.
     
  9. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,365
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    There was clear expectation that AMD's product must do leap which is not required from intel. You again reiterated that.
    It is same as saying that AMD has to release equal product, but has to sell it for lower price.
    9600K is weaker that R5 1600 in MT workloads for example. And as for power draw. I have good reason to not trust intel. While I have good reason to trust AMD.

    And I think I was rather nice towards you as I did ignore those nonsensical blabbering 5.5GHz statements. Power draw numbers made out of thin air. And then ignoring actual performance of core and going for GHz argument... go see your FX 5GHz CPUs.

    As for your gaming experience. I am sorry, but that CPU does not hold back your old GPU. That again means "Your KNOWING is just BELIEVING."
    And you clearly ignore things that are out of AMD's hand. 7nm has certain electrical properties and require certain voltage at certain clock while drawing certain current.
    (Few posts above you can look at properties of transistors used to make 2700X, their optimal clock is around 3.45GHz / power draw around 55W, going to 4.0GHz on all cores results in practically double power draw for meager 15% additional performance. Forcing all cores to 4.3GHz and chip easily eats 220W.
    Not AMD's fault, simply property of those awesome transistors.

    7nm is no different, it will have some optimal power draw to clock point and beyond that it will go exponentially to hell.
    I actually already know approximate location and how it moved in comparison to Zen+ (since I know AMD does not cheat their power limits) as they released base clocks with number of cores and power limits.
    = = = =
    Now to rest of your comment which I quote now. AMD does not hype anything, they did show few benchmarks which justify pricing. And all the rest are likely FAKE leaks and people on internet.
    (Same way as nVidia SUPER which were 1st 10% faster than regular and came at discounts... Or intel's alleged price reductions. Someone somewhere wants clicks to their website.)
    Actually 9600K has worse IPC in comparison to R5 1600. (And I mean our real IPC in tech crowd, not intel's marketing spin IPC.)
     
  10. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,365
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    1st Law of Thermodynamics says that PPT =~ TDP.
    If PPT says that chip produces 80W of heat that cooling solution with 80W TDP has to keep it reasonably cool to continue operation. TDP itself does not state what will achieve some specific delta T, neither do cooling solutions.
    That's why there are tests which show how good coolers are.
    You would have to go to thermal conductivity, material shape, temperature differences in between chip, TIM, heatsink's base, heatsink's fins, air. And then deal with time. That itself means a lot of integrals and cooler manufacturers rather go with practical tests.
    (Have you ever seen that poop of a thing intel bundles with their 95W CPUs which result in thermal throttling? And yet those poor things may be rated with same TDP as CPU power draw.)
     
    Noisiv, Aura89 and carnivore like this.

  11. Fergutor

    Fergutor Active Member

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    12
    GPU:
    Asus GTX 970 Strix
    ..."must"..."has to"...
    According to...?
    Doesn't matter.



    In some tests in some benchs, but the main question, already asked, that you are ignoring is: so? Did I talked about that? Did I mentioned the 9600K even tacitly, in any its characteristics? No, I didn't. It is instead an unrelated issue you created to distract and or missrepresent...I wonder why you do that...?

    You are not "nice" at all. In any way. Absolutely. Actually you are the complete opposite and worse too. Applying those sort of logical fallacies is an extreme low form of attack, and again: why? (well as I said, emotions, the only possibility, as if you were an AMD fanboy, you could be offended by what I said...but also an Intel fanboy should too then!)
    That "blabbering" as you so nicely and totally not arrogantly and contemptuously you put it, were numbers I indeed out of thin air as I said in the same sentence (!!!), denoting you don't understand or you don't want too understand what I said, was to make another point...that you evidently didn't undesrtand either as you make the IPC argument...I also made in that same sentence!!!
    So you just took as "nonesensical babbler" what you simply didn't understand...


    According to afterburner, and benchmarks, it totally does. And if it doesn't, cool (but does). But why, again, you are saying this when I said before that I'm happy with this anyway.
    Oh, you like quotes? There's one that says "arrogance is not fitti..."


    So? You know that other people can understand excuses, right? Is not a concept I just invented you know...


    Ok, get it. That means "limitations". Another concept.



    ...
    What do you take from, for example, this?: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-9600k/16.html

    Are you sure you want to be that absolute? Are you that sure to be that invested (or the other way around...)?
    But, well, I saw big part of the E3 AMD show and, if that wasn't hyping...haha...then it was just a circus...




    Sure there is a lot of that. But I was talking about AMD's words.

    But listen, doesn't matter. This was just some few benchmarks including or rather especially for me the CPU-Z one that AMD didn't actually talked about. Next month we have the real thing and we will know. My words were with the perspective of this leak being true. So IF this was true -> what I said. But I don't know if it is, so lets just wait.

    What do you mean? Do you mean all threads and total work with all threads working plus power consumption, instead of work per thread?
     
  12. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,365
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    ^ @Fergutor , you are not able to hold one thought and messing things into a soup. Therefore I'll reply only to part where you managed to form a coherent thought.
    You came with claim that given chip is worse in following categories: games, frecuency, IPC

    I kindly corrected you as you was mistaken with IPC. You bring into IPC discussion underlined parts of your quote above. Is that how you want to explain it? Or as some kind of reverse counter?
    What did you not get from mine: (And I mean our real IPC in tech crowd, not intel's marketing spin IPC.)
    That was meant to warn people with less knowledge to take step back and think about what IPC is. So why would I mean those underlined things?

    Or did you made that post just to waste my time? Thinking that I will do separate quote to each of your incoherent thoughts? Are those half thoughts even thoughts? By some measure: "Half thought is not thought at all."
     
  13. ToxicTaZ

    ToxicTaZ Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Nvidia
    Once all the real world PC Gaming performance benchmarks are coming this July will show the truth ...

    The fastest 6 cores and the fastest 8 cores stock vs stock CPUs for 2019 are the 8086K and 9900KS.

    AMD is going after 21 months old 8700K performance with the 3600X.

    As AMD is going after 9 months old 9700K & 9900K performance with the 3700X & 3800X.

    So far blow for blow dual channel benchmarks.

    8086K and 9900KS will remain top fastest 6 cores and 8 cores PC Gaming crown CPUs for 2019 ..
    AMD takes the crow for the fastest dual channel CPUs with the 3900X & 3950X but that's a different cores story ..

    8086K will outperform 3600X stock vs stock

    3600X, 3700X, 3800X all win with better power efficiency and prices !!
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
  14. Dazz

    Dazz Master Guru

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    68
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX RTX 2080
    and Yet the 8086K is still going for £350 the 8700K goes for around £330, while the 3600X is will be going for around £220. So after 21 months the 8700K is still at RRP. Although from the looks of it in multi core performance the 3600X will win but the 8086K will win in single core performance with it's significant 19% clock speed advantage but not by much and is 1/3rd cheaper.
     
    ToxicTaZ, HitokiriX and Aura89 like this.
  15. mohiuddin

    mohiuddin Master Guru

    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    41
    GPU:
    GTX670 4gb ll RX480 8gb
    Dazz likes this.

  16. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,477
    Likes Received:
    791
    GPU:
    -
  17. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,365
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    It always had trouble detecting OC. Sometimes some results have proper clock shown. But mostly not.
     
  18. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,477
    Likes Received:
    791
    GPU:
    -
    Well i've been looking around and it seems like, if 6440 is true, that's getting close to Ryzen 1700x @ 5Ghz scores. An AMD Ryzen 5 2600X @ 5.1Ghz appears to get a 6473 single-core score.

    So this may be (if it's a 15% IPC increase in geekbench) a 3600 OC'd to 4.4-4.5Ghz?

    The multi-core performance seems a bit better though

    2600x @ 5.1Ghz Single 6473 Multi 29996

    3600 OC Single 6448 Multi 32869

    There's actually a lot of listings in there for the 3600, so whoever it is, is definitely testing out different OC settings.

    https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&q=ryzen+3600&sort=score
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
    Fox2232 likes this.
  19. Fergutor

    Fergutor Active Member

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    12
    GPU:
    Asus GTX 970 Strix
    Say the guy whose only arguments come from dishonesty, misundertanding (if theres any understanding) and unlimited arrogance: replaying to specific things I never said, create unrelated arguments that he think (unsuccessfully) he can then counter to somehow make me look bad (?), misrepresent my position, project bias to make things an issue, talk from a high horse position without any justification...etc, etc, etc...

    Sure buddy, I'm seeing right now in another thread how you threat others in the exact same way, condescending, full of fallacies, lying, aggressive to defend your clear bias, I mean seriously losing your head when you see your preference geting probably barely criticized, which is what happened here: nothing I said in my original comment was in anyway "controversial" (you that are of the thin skinned kind) or biased, or terribly wrong, etc. I was just providing my opinion to another guy's question, if anything, there were some "IF" that were presented as that, and even clarifying (FFS!!!!!), and you still came all offended vomiting red herrings, etc.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
    I made you an honest question on what do you exactly mean with your statement, that clearly is contrary to what we all know by benchmarks including the ones in this webpage...
    Your statement.
    Honest question.
    And you respond with artificial suspicion, paranoid thoughts and projective accusations of dishonest argumentative resources and no real response or clarification of your statements!!

    HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    And by the way "I kindly corrected you", "real ipc in tech crowd", "Are those half thoughts even thoughts"...Your horse is hiiiighhhhh. There's not a shred of humility left in you, right? (Nor self awareness)
    Well, given how you conveniently igonred my previous comment (and all the dishonesty and lies you vomit), is clear why you have to resort to fallacies: your pride is entirely synthetic. Shame (or funny).
    So now I wonder if you said that the 1600 have better IPC than the 9600K (out of thin air again haha) because you have a real reason (totally probable, that's why I asked) or you didn't respond because you just invented that out of emotions to come with another lie that you "thought" was necessary to agrandize and justify your preference to somehow feel you are right (?)...

    Forget it dude. No point in talking with such dishonest and arrogant person.



    (To the mods: before you delete this comment, please bother to see if my "aggressiveness" is justified or even such, and made out of ad hominems or not. Lately, lazy mods from other sites are punishing people for daring to respond to old ill-manered and all around sneaky toxic user as Fox2232, and letting the latter get away with their bull. This dude, as I'm seeing in other threads seem to always create problems and what you would call "toxic environments" with his attitude toward others.)
     
  20. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,447
    Likes Received:
    994
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    Hey let's make this simple.

    If you don't have anything nice to say to anyone, don't say it.

    Stop being children. This isn't directed at one person either, you can have a conversation like fully functioning adults. I believe in you.

    So, just do it.
     

Share This Page