AMD Ryzen 5 3600 benchmarked early, shows performance barely slower than Intel i9-9900K

[Shadowboxer]

I work in cyber security for a very high reputation company in the U.K. And yet Intel based systems are still regarded as the most secure on the planet. AMD probably aswell I don’t know, none of the FTSE100 companies we contract to use AMD products.

The security vulnerabilities that Intel announced to the community themselves are nothing to be worried about. There has been zero confirmed attacks and the resources required to mount one is vast and out of the realm of possibility to all but a select few on the planet.

Android devices on the other hand are rated as our most vulnerable system that we support and there are thousands of cases of attempts to steal data recorded by our company all the time. Don’t get me wrong, Android is fine but I do hope those commenting on here, slamming Intel for security flaws aren’t using an Android device as that would be very hypocritical.

Oh and I think users should buy Ryzen if buying a new system these days but not because of security reasons!

Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest as it’s painful to read some of the comments. At the company I work for (which I most certainly won’t name) we view Intel publishing these flaws as a very good thing for the industry. All silicon has vulnerabilities, we just need to find them. I’m personally glad Intel is spending the money to do so.

 

[Aaron Fox]

I work in cyber security for a very high reputation company in the U.K. And yet Intel based systems are still regarded as the most secure on the planet.

Since all of the security vulnerabilities that are intentionally baked-in are disclosed by law to the insiders, along with mitigations? Otherwise, this reputation seems to be baseless.

Unfortunately for consumers, there are at least three conflicts of interest that work against our interests:

1) Planned obsolescence. Buy the latest hardware to fix the old vulnerabilities. Don't worry, we'll sell you even newer hardware when the more recent vulnerabilities are disclosed later.

2) Duopoly. There is hardly adequate competition in the x86 CPU space, and little competition beyond it. It's laughable, for example, that the US government is purchasing an AMD-powered system and an Intel-powered system to fulfill a mandate for "platform diversity". That is pretty minimal diversity. If a consumer wants to buy a contemporary x86 CPU that doesn't have a black box inside, like AMD's PSP, they're out of luck unless they go to China, where it is stripped out. They'll get the Chinese equivalent, though.

3) Social stratification. It is in the interest of the powerful to maintain their privileged lifestyles. This means curtailing the ability of the general public to have security. Convincing them that doing this enhances their lives is the trickiest way to go about that. Comfortable cages.

 

[firestinger]

So when exactly is AMD going to release something that blows everyone away and isn't woefully behind Intel and Nvidia because from what I can tell, it ain't easy catching up to the lead.

Ryzen 5 3600 is not even the best CPU in the lineup....

 

[Eldritch]

I work in cyber security for a very high reputation company in the U.K. And yet Intel based systems are still regarded as the most secure on the planet. AMD probably aswell I don’t know, none of the FTSE100 companies we contract to use AMD products.

The security vulnerabilities that Intel announced to the community themselves are nothing to be worried about. There has been zero confirmed attacks and the resources required to mount one is vast and out of the realm of possibility to all but a select few on the planet.

Android devices on the other hand are rated as our most vulnerable system that we support and there are thousands of cases of attempts to steal data recorded by our company all the time. Don’t get me wrong, Android is fine but I do hope those commenting on here, slamming Intel for security flaws aren’t using an Android device as that would be very hypocritical.

Oh and I think users should buy Ryzen if buying a new system these days but not because of security reasons!

Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest as it’s painful to read some of the comments. At the company I work for (which I most certainly won’t name) we view Intel publishing these flaws as a very good thing for the industry. All silicon has vulnerabilities, we just need to find them. I’m personally glad Intel is spending the money to do so.

Sorry, but considering the Intel management engine saga and the numerous exposed backboors which may very well have been knowingly put in Intel chips for decades or at the very least ignored to improve performance and the hidden micro codes, I would say that Intel does not deserves any benefit of doubt here.

 

[gamerk2]

I work in cyber security for a very high reputation company in the U.K. And yet Intel based systems are still regarded as the most secure on the planet. AMD probably aswell I don’t know, none of the FTSE100 companies we contract to use AMD products.

The security vulnerabilities that Intel announced to the community themselves are nothing to be worried about. There has been zero confirmed attacks and the resources required to mount one is vast and out of the realm of possibility to all but a select few on the planet.

Android devices on the other hand are rated as our most vulnerable system that we support and there are thousands of cases of attempts to steal data recorded by our company all the time. Don’t get me wrong, Android is fine but I do hope those commenting on here, slamming Intel for security flaws aren’t using an Android device as that would be very hypocritical.

Oh and I think users should buy Ryzen if buying a new system these days but not because of security reasons!

Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest as it’s painful to read some of the comments. At the company I work for (which I most certainly won’t name) we view Intel publishing these flaws as a very good thing for the industry. All silicon has vulnerabilities, we just need to find them. I’m personally glad Intel is spending the money to do so.

Sorry, but considering the Intel management engine saga and the numerous exposed backboors which may very well have been knowingly put in Intel chips for decades or at the very least ignored to improve performance and the hidden micro codes, I would say that Intel does not deserves any benefit of doubt here.

Intel is getting bit on all those cute optimizations they put in to try and squeeze everything they can out of x86.

Ironically, if you want a massively parallel 64-bit CPU architecture that is immune to all these security problems, we already have one: Itanium. Funny how it keeps looking better in hindsight; the architecture was a decade too early.

 

[gamerk2]

I work in cyber security for a very high reputation company in the U.K. And yet Intel based systems are still regarded as the most secure on the planet.

2) Duopoly. There is hardly adequate competition in the x86 CPU space, and little competition beyond it. It's laughable, for example, that the US government is purchasing an AMD-powered system and an Intel-powered system to fulfill a mandate for "platform diversity". That is pretty minimal diversity. If a consumer wants to buy a contemporary x86 CPU that doesn't have a black box inside, like AMD's PSP, they're out of luck unless they go to China, where it is stripped out. They'll get the Chinese equivalent, though.

The problem is the long-history of Windows as the consumer platform of choice and the fact it only supports x86/x86-64. As a result, Windows/x86 is basically locked-in as far as consumer level products go.

To get an alternative CPU architecture in the consumer space, you'd need to both outperform what Intel/AMD can produce while at the same time fully emulating x86/x86-64, which is a tall order to say the least.

 

[RaXoR]

So when exactly is AMD going to release something that blows everyone away and isn't woefully behind Intel and Nvidia because from what I can tell, it ain't easy catching up to the lead.

Given the fact that this CPU costs $200 while the i9-9900k costs $500 tells a different story. The 3700x should perform on par with the 9900k given that the 3800x and the 3700x are the same exact die just one is binned higher than the other... much like a 2600 vs a 2600x or a 1700 vs a 1700x.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Ryzen 5 3600 MSRP $200
Intel i9-9900K Street Price of ~$500

Which one would you buy?

The i9 9900K.

I paid $2000 for a Core i9 Extreme. I'm not hurting.

 

[RaXoR]

The i9 9900K.

I paid $2000 for a Core i9 Extreme. I'm not hurting.

Or you know, buy a 3700x and get the same performance while still saving money.

 

[jbc029]

Or you know, buy a 3700x and get the same performance while still saving money.

I think the point here is that, whether it's actually true or not, he will always play the part of the "money-to-burn" troll. Don't attempt to address or even acknowledge him without at least taking that into account.

He's the same guy who will tell you that a Nissan GTR is **** because it isn't the fastest or absolutely best handling car for sale.

 

[Nobina]

So, you are comparing effectively an i5 AMD style, to an i9 and saying "the i9 is still faster, though not in everything"

hmm, so, 2700x "top end" for Ryzen+
3600 is "nearly keeping up" and is basically at the 1/2 point (core count, clock speed, using far slower memory than are capable of etc etc etc.

IMO if they are "as good" as leak suggest, and near matching Intel's current "best they can do" which is core i9/i7 PERIOD.

point is...unlikes other generations, is cool to see them take one notch lower product which is more or less "parity" (not to mention....WATTAGE.....3600 likely cost less than 2700x and WAY LESS than i9 yada yada....TDP 65w vs 105 vs 125-180 (depend on which 9xxx chip)

IMO...that is like giving you that race inspired V6 that keeps up with most V8 though only using power of and cost of ~V4 with turbos....

How can anyone NOT see this as "DUDE that is a good deal IF they release at least as good as appears"

AMD is likely sandbagging results to keep Nv/Intel in dark as much as possible till the 7th (all it take is them to have a master driver they give to OEM etc, day of launch)

AMD not stupid (or dead long ago) and Dr Lisa Su is A HELL of a CEO let alone doctorate at very very high level....smart as a whip I bet...she took AMD out of a double digit billions in the hole to not 3 years later very profitable, higher ASP per product, much less cost to produce them than Nv or Intel is doing current.

Ryzen 3xxx and Navi are going to make many "shut up and listen" (if they got a brain between their ears and not just green/blue colored slime in there ^.^

Delete this post please.

 

[Cooe14]

the chip is probably running on an engineering board, and the chip itself may be an engineering sample.

Or probably not. I mean, read the article, it's an X470 board and a final product they used. No need to exagerate...

Yeah, but the BIOS is DEFINITELY a pre-release beta with all sorts of issues. Not only would it crash if any manual overclocking was attempted (to both the CPU & RAM [outside merely enabling XMP]), but merely moving from X470 to X570 (and it's likely newer, more 3rd Gen optimized BIOS) already dropped memory latency by about 5ns! (Likely thanks to tighter memory subtimings). And word through the grapevine from the board makers themselves is that they're really struggling to get X570 BIOS' up to par in time for launch, meaning the ≈80ns (X470) & ≈75ns (X570) latencies we see here are almost surely a worst case scenario.

And AMD's own numbers suggested we'll see at least ≈67ns with 3600MHz RAM clocks (vs the 3200MHz used here), which would tremendously help out with things like the gaming results. That plus the up to 500MHz higher boost clocks & doubled cache means that the top end Ryzen 9 parts should beat out Intel's i9-9900K in single-threaded synthetic benches like Cinebench as well as less latency sensitive single-threaded workloads (even if gaming remains much more of a wash, or just as possible, leans slightly Intel's way [but by enough to really matter? I highly doubt it]).

 

[FMERN]

The same "reviewers" here managed to get a x570 board and redid these benches. The got lower latencies and the 3600 gained a few fps in all but Far Cry. This put the 3600 less than 1% behind in one game and 3% behind in another game and Far Cry stayed the same (I think there is some issue with far cry).
These results beat all expectations for the lowest/budget Ryzen 3000 SKU. It is the cheapest and weakest of the chips being released and it trails the 9900k in multiple games by about 2%. This is a $200 unlocked chip. Overclock a little and boom, 9900k gaming performance. Damn.

 

[Cooe14]

The i9 9900K.

I paid $2000 for a Core i9 Extreme. I'm not hurting.

As showcased by their recently leaked internal memo showing just how much AMD's resurgence has gotten to them, Intel's desperately glad to know there are still fools like you that like lighting their money on fire simply for arbitrary brand loyalty lol. And good luck getting a good resale price on that i9-9980XE in a post Ryzen 9 3950X world, rofl.

 

[donrafa7]

July 7th. this is their entry level vs intel top of the line consumer.

 

[urbanman2004]

3700X FTW

 

[Cooe14]

So effectively, a mid tier 6core CPU is closely competing with a top tier 8 core CPU running almost 1ghz faster. I wonder if these numbers are real and if so, what will the 3700x and 3800x bring to the table?


AMD has seemingly delivered the goods and is on top once again.

I highly, HIGHLY doubt that these numbers are totally false/faked. These same guys are not only a well respected Spanish language PC tech site in general, but managed to get both OG Ryzen 5 (1600X iirc), and Ryzen 2nd Gen (2700X) CPU's early as well, and posted similar "pre-release" reviews, which both ended up being right on the money for what you'd expect from being done using pre-release BIOS/AGESA versions & whatnot (I.e. performance tended to be slightly worse & more erratic than what was actually seen at launch, but by & large, everything shown was completely legit).

 

[BitcoinSHA256]

So when exactly is AMD going to release something that blows everyone away and isn't woefully behind Intel and Nvidia because from what I can tell, it ain't easy catching up to the lead.

July 7, 2019 is the launch of Ryzen 3000.

What lead are you looking at? Because they are leading Intel right now in the Gaming and HEDT market right now.

 

[GreyFoxx]

So when exactly is AMD going to release something that blows everyone away and isn't woefully behind Intel and Nvidia because from what I can tell, it ain't easy catching up to the lead.

I mean the ryzen 5 (i5 equiv.) will be a fraction of the cost of the i9 flagship and almost perform very close? how are you complaining lol

 

[crypticGator]

So when exactly is AMD going to release something that blows everyone away and isn't woefully behind Intel and Nvidia because from what I can tell, it ain't easy catching up to the lead.

Dude, what are you talking about? This ain't even the Ryzen 3950x. Which is $749. The CPU this article's about is only$199

 

[HugsNotDrugs]

Are we going to play the game of "let's pretend there aren't any serious Intel-only security vulnerabilities and therefore ignore the performance regressions required to fully deal with them?"

Apple isn't the only company to say that hyperthreading has to be DISABLED for full security on Intel processors. I just read an article yesterday lamenting the way Intel rolled out a lot of CPUs, with not very many having hyperthreading. Hmm... I wonder why. The writer said "Intel is using it as a premium feature". Or, maybe Intel was doing some damage control.

The tech press seems to be falling down in its responsibility to hold companies like Intel adequately accountable for their bad design decisions. Everyone is expected to pretend that security doesn't matter and that if it does everyone has free money to replace their chips with defective design. Does Intel even have a CPU out right now that fixes its hyperthreading breach? I don't think so.

And yet, here we are, again and again, with articles talking about performance that don't even mention "security", "hyperthreading", or anything of the sort — as if none of any of it exists. Get real please.

And, before anyone chimes in to try to downplay the problem... it, at the very least, deserves to be mentioned in EVERY performance head-to-head with AMD, so the uniformed can, at least, know that there are potentially serious performance deficits should they choose to care about security. Hyperthreading is just one of the most egregious.

No dude it's a constantly changing landscape. Next week you might hear about a devastating AMD security flaw. Security mitigations have been happening for decades.

 

[Dimitrios]

Wow I'm shocked with the comments here! Some people you just can't satisfy. Looking at the INTEL faboy's I bet if INTEL ever went bankrupt they still wouldn't move over to AMD and still would rock out their Pentium 4's and still bash AMD.

Wake up people! AMD was living on peanuts and being almost bankrupt and end up side by side with INTEL shows you how strong AMD is for their size. I find it embarrassing with the size of INTEL how their lagging behind. Just a bloated greedy lazy company.

 

[HardReset]

No dude it's a constantly changing landscape. Next week you might hear about a devastating AMD security flaw. Security mitigations have been happening for decades.

Probably not. AMD CPU's have much better protections for side channel attacks than Intel CPU's have. So it's not surprise most of current security flaws concern Intel and future ones will too.

 

[FaQYouBitcH]

A test between Ryzen 5 and core i9 is not fair, put a f*cking test of Ryzen 9 and core i9.

 

[Sergey Novikov]

So when exactly is AMD going to release something that blows everyone away and isn't woefully behind Intel and Nvidia because from what I can tell, it ain't easy catching up to the lead.

Ryzen 5 3600 MSRP $200
Intel i9-9900K Street Price of ~$500

Which one would you buy?

Intel! Because managers of Intel should get the bonus this year :-D

 

[Klldarkness]

So when exactly is AMD going to release something that blows everyone away and isn't woefully behind Intel and Nvidia because from what I can tell, it ain't easy catching up to the lead.

Did...did you read the same article as we all did?

Let's double check, shall we?

I9-9900k: $489.99, 5ghz turbo, 95w TDP

Ryzen 5 3600: $200, 4.2ghz, 65w TDP

Less than half the price, 30% lower TDP, and a chip that almost certainly can be OC'd higher?

If that doesn't blow you away then you're impossible to please.

I'm absolutely certain the Ryzen 9 3900X, at $499, will blow the I9-9900k out of the water performance wise, if the 3600 is less than 5% off.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

Ryzen 5 3600 MSRP $200
Intel i9-9900K Street Price of ~$500

Which one would you buy?

The i9 9900K.

I paid $2000 for a Core i9 Extreme. I'm not hurting.

Cool story.
For those of us who can't afford a $2,000 CPU, the idea of a $200 CPU trading blows with a $500 CPU is exciting stuff.