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

10thDmenxn

TS Member
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.
Wow! I've heard of people really missing the point, but your head is so far down in the sand that you don't know if it's day or night!!! This is a 3600!!!!!! A $200 dollar processor right on the a$$ of a chip that cost three times as much. And it has a much lower clock speed. Yet there it was test after test right behind the 9900K. What $200 chip does Intel have that isn't blown away by this processor??? And you are talking smack about that???? What a joke...
 

10thDmenxn

TS Member
Almost for sure next year with Zen 3. Intel has nothing new for the next years in desktop and, take this with a grain of salt, Zen 3 would supposedly introduce 4 threads per core. Also, TSMC's 7nm+ would be a 30% higher density than 7nm, so see it as a 6nm.
Yeah, I agree completely. It's hilarious to me, all these Intel fanboys jumping on these forums and spouting off about how the 9900k still inks out an advantage by four fps over a much lower freq and priced chip, and how they have to stay with those chips because they need every single fps... Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAH!!! You can't even tell the difference in any game between a few frames higher/lower. Yet, they are willing to sacrifice the MOST important thing, SECURITY, to get three more frames in a game... Wow! To be that hard up about "gaming" and so clueless of real world problems is a shameful way to go.
 

crazypostalbob

TS Rookie
You dont have to be the best if you price your product right :)
Agreed. Ryzen is at an excellent price point. I bought a 1700 and overclocked it to 4.1, but I couldn't get past a few items.

Item 1: I had a 144hz monitor. If I bought a video card to do 144hz gaming it just wasn't up to the task compared to the intel parts.

Item 2: I wanted to grab the amd processor which finally fixed the issue (as at the time it was pretty widely thought the latency between cores was the primary driving factor for gaming performance having issues which AMD has been working on)

I think it's pretty clear when they solve the latency issue entirely and work out some kinks, and the new consoles come out and games are better programmed for the zen architecture, we will see AMD come out on top. Google already shunned the next gen intel processors too, which is a sign that some tech giants may well push for and or optimize for amd parts.

Intel could well have a problem on their hands. It's very clear Zen optimizations have not taken hold yet, and that the architecture is extremely strong.

There is a reason intel stayed on the core path they were on. Optimization. They wanted strong performance and an entirely new core design would make it a problem for the programmers to keep up and would cost a ton.

I think in the next 3 to 5 years you will see most gaming and creation software get optimized for AMD and we will have a flip. Get ready to see some mad intel fan boys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HardReset

10thDmenxn

TS Member
Lol... You are aware that the 3600 is their mid ranged CPU right? They have faster.....
It's not even the mid range. That's the 3700X, and even the 3800X. The 3600X is the low range of Zen 2. And it's nipping at the heels of Intel's TOP DOG 9900k!!!! And that guy missed the entire point, and embarrassed himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

10thDmenxn

TS Member
Let's wait for the information embargo to lift and everyone else chimes in. This seems like it might be iffy based on timing.
You've seen the history of these guys, and you still doubt...? Holy smokes, what does it take for an Intel guy to LEARN anything???????????????????????????????????
 

treetops

TS Evangelist
Were they at stock? the 9900k probably over clocks way better. why only test 5 games and show the worst one amd scored at. 3200 ddr4 ram? amd benefits quite a bit more with higher ram. show us some gaming benchmarks against the 9400f, at 150$ it's quite a competitor. Yes the new amd line up looks pretty great but this early line of testing seems half arsed for both cpus.

p.s. if I had some extra cash Id buy a bunch of ram right now, the prices are crazzzy low. When these new cpu\gpu hit and people start building new systems, my uneducated guess is within 2 months the prices are going to fly up and then go almost back down to what we saw a few months ago.
 
Last edited:

10thDmenxn

TS Member
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.
Don't show your excitement in front of the Intel fanboys, it drives them CRAZY!!! Lol. Yeah, imagine when they are on a tuned 570x board, with an optimized bios, and paired with 3800mhz ram, optimized for Zen 2! Unless the 3900X just blows the 3700X away, it looks like the 3700X is the sweet spot on price and performance. Can't wait for early July.
 

10thDmenxn

TS Member
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.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LOVE IT!!!!! The funny thing is, guys who brag on spending 2k on a processor, most probably didn't. But for arguments sake, let's just say that he was dumb enough to spend the money, he thinks it makes him look like high society. When in reality most people, as you quoted above, think of him as a fool for spending a ton of money on something that will be outdated in no time flat. And as you said, NO RESALE VALUE AT ALL...
 

10thDmenxn

TS Member
3700X FTW ;)
That's what I'm thinking. It appears to be the sweet spot in the price range, and the performance marker. Unless the 3900X just beats the crap out of it. Which we'll know in just over a week.
One other thing that the intel fanboys continually forget to mention, besides all of the security vulnerabilities of Intel chips, is the fact that they are always out of them. Intel has been running shortages on their chips for years. So many people were forced over to AMD since they couldn't get the chip they originally thought they wanted. Then were pleasantly surprised when they spent less, and got more. Gotta love that.
 
Last edited:
Were they at stock? the 9900k probably over clocks way better. why only test 5 games and show the worst one amd scored at. 3200 ddr4 ram? amd benefits quite a bit more with higher ram. show us some gaming benchmarks against the 9400f, at 150$ it's quite a competitor. Yes the new amd line up looks pretty great but this early line of testing seems half arsed for both cpus.
I get why you'd want to initially compare any new chip to the 9900K as it's the top dog for gaming. BTW, who runs a 9900K at stock clocks? If I spent $500 for the best, I'd want to run it at max OC. Same for the R5 3600 when comparing it of course.

I agree with you though, since the 3600 will be AMD's value performance gaming chip, I want to see it pitted against Intel's closest equivalent: the i5 9400. The 8400 was touted as the value gaming chip when it was benched so a clear win for the 3600 against the 9400 should transfer that title AMD's way, even with the somewhat higher price for the 3600. As a midrange gamer (with an 8400), that's the comparo I want to see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

crazypostalbob

TS Rookie
I get why you'd want to initially compare any new chip to the 9900K as it's the top dog for gaming. BTW, who runs a 9900K at stock clocks? If I spent $500 for the best, I'd want to run it at max OC. Same for the R5 3600 when comparing it of course.

I agree with you though, since the 3600 will be AMD's value performance gaming chip, I want to see it pitted against Intel's closest equivalent: the i5 9400. The 8400 was touted as the value gaming chip when it was benched so a clear win for the 3600 against the 9400 should transfer that title AMD's way, even with the somewhat higher price for the 3600. As a midrange gamer (with an 8400), that's the comparo I want to see.
Same here. If the 3600 can overclock well, and has higher memory speed compatibility, this would be a win in that build range.

It might even be enough to persuade me to buy it, if it can get to say 4.8ghz, which I'm dreaming a bit high on that one. Otherwise I'm probably still going to wait. I'm in no rush.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lew Zealand

pyro226

TS Member
Lol... You are aware that the 3600 is their mid ranged CPU right? They have faster.....
It's not even the mid range. That's the 3700X, and even the 3800X. The 3600X is the low range of Zen 2. And it's nipping at the heels of Intel's TOP DOG 9900k!!!! And that guy missed the entire point, and embarrassed himself.
Umm... No. The R3 are low-end, even if not available at launch. R5 is mid-range.
 

Jroc187

TS Enthusiast
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?
He'd buy i9 for $1000 if it was 1% faster because it's still faster. That's how modern people think.
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.
LOL so true, and if they can't hit 5gz they will be called garbage even if at 4.5gz it will be right behind intel at 5GZ
 
:joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy: It's almost like watching a bird fly into a glass door, over and over and over and over again...
Almost like watching Intel and Nvidia continue to dominate the first 15 spots on Steam hardware surveys.

The Intel i5/i7 and the GTX 1060 is the way, the truth and the light.

But my 2080Ti makes me a God among men online.

I can trace rayz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amghwk

urbanman2004

TS Booster
The
That's what I'm thinking. It appears to be the sweet spot in the price range, and the performance marker. Unless the 3900X just beats the crap out of it. Which we'll know in just over a week.
One other thing that the intel fanboys continually forget to mention, besides all of the security vulnerabilities of Intel chips, is the fact that they are always out of them. Intel has been running shortages on their chips for years. So many people were forced over to AMD since they couldn't get the chip they originally thought they wanted. Then were pleasantly surprised when they spent less, and got more. Gotta love that.
Out of the list of specs announced for the 3700X, the TDP is what really stood out that caught my attn
 

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
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.
When they get a round to it.

By the way, round to its look something like this:
 

Jo3yization

TS Member
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.
What do you mean? Ryzen 3000 launches July 7 less than 2 week away. This is one of the lower/mid models with only 6 cores showing insane value/performance vs the 9900k@ only $200. The $330 3700x has 8c16t, the $500 3950x(same price bracket as 9900k) has an insane 12c24t.

Hardly 'woefully behind' Intel are the ones falling behind at the moment.
 

Cooe14

TS Booster
You've seen the history of these guys, and you still doubt...?
No, I've no idea who they are, I don't speak/read spanish. However, it is clear they've broken the information embargo so how trustworthy can they be?

Holy smokes, what does it take for an Intel guy to LEARN anything???????????????????????????????????
You know nothing about me and therefore have no right to make such assumptions. Calm the hell down.
They didn't break any embargos. They don't sign NDA's/get review parts from AMD, which is how they're able to consistently gets parts to test early (from actually sampled reviewers). No laws or anything of that nature were broken here. That's also why they had to blur out the CPU itself in the pics, because it's serial number is specifically identifiable to whatever legit reviewer loaned these guys their 3600 sample.

Go read their pre-release reviews of the Ryzen 5 1600/X (can't remember which) & Ryzen 7 2700X, and you should be pretty convinced (I specifically remember when the 2700X one went up too).
 

kpppp12

TS Rookie
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.
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.
haha AMD is winning big time intel 9900k $535 LOL amd 3600 250$ comon now
 

erickmendes

TS Evangelist
Man, I just got a Ryzen 1600 + motherboard for 235 dollars. In my country that was fairly priced, as there's already a lot of tax on it. then I got an case, 8gb DDR4, an NVMe drive and a PSU, that all set me back 500 US dollars (I'm brazillian, taxes are high here). Before that I was rocking an i7 4790k. For gaming I got 90% the performance, while all the rest is better (NVMe file writes/reads speed, memory, power consuption), and when Zen 3 (Ryzen 4000?) comes out, I will be able to get a Ryzen 2000 for an excellent price or just wait till Ryzen 3000 fall in price. With Intel, I would have to spend at least more 200 dollars to get the same performance level.

If you want the best of the best, sure, Intel is the way. But if you are budget conscious (at any budget level), AMD is the go for CPU.