AMD Ryzen 5 3600 + Radeon RX 6800: Tested at 1080p, 1440p and 4K

yeeeeman

Posts: 394   +346
I wanna see an rtx 3070/3080 with these cpus. please add also 5600x/5800x. your results look to me like shitty amd drivers bottleneck.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,446   +3,596
TLDR in games where you are GPU bound, it doesnt matter which chip you have, and in games where you are CPU bound, while the 10900k is faster, the 3600 regularly pushed well north of 60 FPS and is still in a similar ballpark. So if you are aiming for 60 FPS at your given resolution, whatever it may be, dont spend over $250 on the CPU, put that cash into the GPU.
I wanna see an rtx 3070/3080 with these cpus. please add also 5600x/5800x. your results look to me like shitty amd drivers bottleneck.
What on earth are you smoking to come to THAT conclusion?
 

Julio Franco

Posts: 8,776   +1,677
Staff member

Dsirius

Posts: 20   +25
TechSpot Elite
I am amazed that you recommend to buy an Intel processor in 2021 even if i5-10400F is "cheaper". Your arguments don't stand in front of facts. That Intel platform is dead on arrival now, no upgrade option path. And don t try to wrong argue that you can upgrade to I9 10900K because Ryzen 9 3950 X is the better option and you can upgrade to Ryzen 5600X - 5900X or 5950X later on AM4 platform. This is the WORST article which I read from you. Not a good start for the new year 2021. It is better to not publish a bad article even if you worked hard to write it. I really feel compassion for you.
 
Last edited:

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,249   +1,384
TechSpot Elite
"As we mentioned earlier, the Core i5-10400F is a pretty great deal at the moment"

Well sure, except that it has a locked multiplier so overclocking it to increase its useful life isn't a possibility. That's something that Intel unfortunately still does on a wide scale.

Also, as Dsirius correctly pointed out, it's a dead platform at this point while it appears that the Ryzen 6000-series will STILL be AM4. Long-term, Intel makes no real sense.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,249   +1,384
TechSpot Elite
TLDR in games where you are GPU bound, it doesnt matter which chip you have, and in games where you are CPU bound, while the 10900k is faster, the 3600 regularly pushed well north of 60 FPS and is still in a similar ballpark. So if you are aiming for 60 FPS at your given resolution, whatever it may be, dont spend over $250 on the CPU, put that cash into the GPU.

What on earth are you smoking to come to THAT conclusion?
Read yeeeeman's post history. No matter what, he/she has never had anything good to say about AMD and nothing bad to say about Intel or nVidia. The level of actual tech knowledge is about as limited as the top speed of a Gen 1 VW Beetle that isn't named "Herbie".
šŸ„“

Another home run courtesy of Julio Franco! :D
I am amazed that you recommend to buy an Intel processor in 2021 even if i5-10400F is "cheaper". Your arguments don't stand in front of facts. That Intel platform is dead on arrival now, no upgrade option path. And don t try to wrong argue that you can upgrade to I9 10900K because Ryzen 9 3950 X is the better option and you can upgrade to Ryzen 5600X - 5900X or 5950X later on AM4 platform. This is the WORST article which I read from you. Not a good start for the new year 2021. It is better to not publish a bad article even if you worked hard to write it. I really feel compassion for you.

While I agree with the sentiment about the Intel CPU, accusing Steve of bad tech journalism is pretty over the line. Steve Walton is one of the all-time greats for a reason. AMD pricing is pretty out of whack and while I agree that the Intel i5-10400F would be a bad choice long-term, Steve is compromised in his position that ethics dictate that he must make recommendations based on conditions that exist now, not recommendations based on conditions that may or may not exist later.

I've been watching "Harbour On Box" for years and he's not only second-to-none when it comes to impartial benchmarking and recommendations, he's also second-to-none when it comes to being a class act.

To date, Steve is still the only person who hasn't cracked up when looking at Tim's "Shiesser Video" mustache. Steve deserves a lot of credit for that. Steve is so diplomatic that he makes Picard look like a Klingon in comparison.

To Tim: I poke fun, but there's nothing behind it. You look good pardner! (y) (Y)
 
Last edited:

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,446   +3,596
"As we mentioned earlier, the Core i5-10400F is a pretty great deal at the moment"

Well sure, except that it has a locked multiplier so overclocking it to increase its useful life isn't a possibility. That's something that Intel unfortunately still does on a wide scale.

Also, as Dsirius correctly pointed out, it's a dead platform at this point while it appears that the Ryzen 6000-series will STILL be AM4. Long-term, Intel makes no real sense.
There is absolutely no indication that ryzen 6000 will be on socket AM4. AMD only guaranteed support on AM4 through 2020. Ryzen 6000 is, according to leaks, set to launch in early 2022. You really think AMD will still be using socket AM4 in 2022? Really? Every leak on the first 5 pages of google talks of socket AM5.

And given the prices of AMD's newest series, with the 5600x hitting $300, the $160~ i5-10400/f are a fantastic deal by comparison and offer 98% the performance in games. And neither the 3600 nor 5600 have much OC headroom, they already boost pretty close out of the box.
I am amazed that you recommend to buy an Intel processor in 2021 even if i5-10400F is "cheaper". Your arguments don't stand in front of facts. That Intel platform is dead on arrival now, no upgrade option path. And don t try to wrong argue that you can upgrade to I9 10900K because Ryzen 9 3950 X is the better option and you can upgrade to Ryzen 5600X - 5900X or 5950X later on AM4 platform. This is the WORST article which I read from you. Not a good start for the new year 2021. It is better to not publish a bad article even if you worked hard to write it. I really feel compassion for you.
I'd say this is the dumbest thing I've ever read, but that would be an insult to the utter retardation that inhabits twitter. Still pretty close. The 10400/f is cheaper and performs near as makes no difference. Both platforms are dead, there is 0 evidence that socket AM4 will be used for ryzen 6000.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,107   +685
I'd say this is the dumbest thing I've ever read, but that would be an insult to the utter retardation that inhabits twitter. Still pretty close. The 10400/f is cheaper and performs near as makes no difference. Both platforms are dead, there is 0 evidence that socket AM4 will be used for ryzen 6000.

10400 performs almost identically NOW. I also remember that not so many years ago quad core i7-7700K was "future proof CPU" :joy:

Both platforms are pretty much dead end when it comes to CPU upgrade. However AM4 platform CPU's have 24 PCIe lanes while 10400 platform have only 20. Before you even start to say that doesn't matter, Rocket Lake will also have 24 lanes, so even Intel thinks there has to be some uses for them. It took 4 years from Intel to get parity with AMD.

I also agree that Zen4 (Ryzen 6000?) will probably use something else than AM4. However AMD may still release AM4 compatible version like it did with Phenom II.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,249   +1,384
TechSpot Elite
There is absolutely no indication that ryzen 6000 will be on socket AM4. AMD only guaranteed support on AM4 through 2020. Ryzen 6000 is, according to leaks, set to launch in early 2022. You really think AMD will still be using socket AM4 in 2022? Really? Every leak on the first 5 pages of google talks of socket AM5.
I said that "it appears" and it does. Even if DDR5 comes out next year, the way things have been going, it will be expensive and extremely limited in supply. Unless it offers some dramatic advantage over DDR4 it would be in the best interest of both Intel and AMD to continue using DDR4. Since I've never seen anything that I would call "dramatic" when it comes to DDR generations (or GDDR for that matter), sticking with DDR4 for one final generation would probably be a smart move. I could be wrong but silicon production has been extremely volatile and unpredictable as of late so I really don't think that I am.

Time, and ONLY time, will tell.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,433   +2,314
I said that "it appears" and it does. Even if DDR5 comes out next year, the way things have been going, it will be expensive and extremely limited in supply. Unless it offers some dramatic advantage over DDR4 it would be in the best interest of both Intel and AMD to continue using DDR4. Since I've never seen anything that I would call "dramatic" when it comes to DDR generations (or GDDR for that matter), sticking with DDR4 for one final generation would probably be a smart move. I could be wrong but silicon production has been extremely volatile and unpredictable as of late so I really don't think that I am.

Time, and ONLY time, will tell.
There has always been the rumored Zen 3 + / refresh.

Notice how AMD stressed that Zen 3 would be the last gen supported by the 400 series chipsets. They did not mention AM4.

Imho, it would make sense for both AMD and Intel to keep AM4 / S1200 around even after their DDR plaforms launch as a budget option (or backup plan).
And if I were to bet who of the two would release a refresh on their respective platform....
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,446   +3,596
10400 performs almost identically NOW. I also remember that not so many years ago quad core i7-7700K was "future proof CPU" :joy:

Both platforms are pretty much dead end when it comes to CPU upgrade. However AM4 platform CPU's have 24 PCIe lanes while 10400 platform have only 20. Before you even start to say that doesn't matter, Rocket Lake will also have 24 lanes, so even Intel thinks there has to be some uses for them. It took 4 years from Intel to get parity with AMD.

I also agree that Zen4 (Ryzen 6000?) will probably use something else than AM4. However AMD may still release AM4 compatible version like it did with Phenom II.
The 7700k was never called "future proof". Intel was being derided with the 6700k for only giving quad cores, the 7700k was dunked on by pretty much everyone for being haswell +++.

What do those lanes mean to you? Both platforms have enough lanes for a GPU and a PCIe boot drive in your example. I WILL say "it doesnt matter" because you cannot provide any examples of this mattering to a gaming build, which was the point of the article. It REALLY DOESNT MATTER.

AMD had to be hogtied into supporting its own AM4 chipsets for ryzen 5000, remember how they were not going to support the 400 series at all before massive consumer backlash? You really think, now that they have more money, an even more competitive product, and no longer have any obligation, that they would make two different CPUs? They know people will just buy the new platform. They have no reason to split their resources between two sockets and, god, how many chipsets at that point?
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,107   +685
The 7700k was never called "future proof". Intel was being derided with the 6700k for only giving quad cores, the 7700k was dunked on by pretty much everyone for being haswell +++.

What do those lanes mean to you? Both platforms have enough lanes for a GPU and a PCIe boot drive in your example. I WILL say "it doesnt matter" because you cannot provide any examples of this mattering to a gaming build, which was the point of the article. It REALLY DOESNT MATTER.

AMD had to be hogtied into supporting its own AM4 chipsets for ryzen 5000, remember how they were not going to support the 400 series at all before massive consumer backlash? You really think, now that they have more money, an even more competitive product, and no longer have any obligation, that they would make two different CPUs? They know people will just buy the new platform. They have no reason to split their resources between two sockets and, god, how many chipsets at that point?

Of course 7700K "was future proof". It was Intel's fastest desktop chip at that time. Simple as that.

Intel platform does not have enough lanes. Remember that Intel platform has pathetic DMI bus between CPU and chipset. All traffic from SATA, M.2 drives, USB, LAN, audio etc goes between it. Even single M.2 drive is enough to fully use that bus. It will create more lag during gaming vs AMD's solution. Considering AMD CPU even has USB ports, AMD is much better there. Saying it doesn't matter, why Intel finally added 4 more lanes to CPU that is clearly meant for gaming? Even Intel thinks it DOES matter. So think again.

Consumer backlash? It was not about consumers, it was about motherboard manufacturers. There were no absolute reasons why AMD couldn't support Zen3 for 400 series (or even 300 series, exactly same chipset) but it requires more work motherboard manufacturers to create BIOS's for free. Well, manufacturers agreed that's OK and AMD decided to give limited support.

Why they do Need to make two different CPU's? Just keep DDR4 memory controller and add DDR5 memory controller into Zen4. Just like they did on Phenom II (DDR2 and DDR3 support on same CPU). It may be that socket needs more pins or some other reason but that remains to be seen.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,249   +1,384
TechSpot Elite
There has always been the rumored Zen 3 + / refresh.

Notice how AMD stressed that Zen 3 would be the last gen supported by the 400 series chipsets. They did not mention AM4.

Imho, it would make sense for both AMD and Intel to keep AM4 / S1200 around even after their DDR platforms launch as a budget option (or backup plan).
And if I were to bet who of the two would release a refresh on their respective platform....
Absolutely. It's not like DDR5 will bring some monumental performance increase and I really doubt that there will be enough supply for next year. Hell, the industry is trying to claim that a few hours of lost manufacturing time will reduce supply by 10% (yeah, I don't buy it either). Also, there's that shortage of DDR6X that was talked about from Micron and RAM prices just went up (I bought 16GB just before it happened..lol).

It seems that there's a glut of NAND but a shortage of DDR so I would really be shocked if DDR5 wasn't delayed or at least called into serious question. Sticking with DDR4 is just the safer bet as you say. (y) (Y)
 
Thanks for the review. The 3600 still looks good. I thought about buying one last summer but I got a 3100 instead. My needs/wants are very low compared to many here.

I thought Steve's mention of the 10400 was good. If I had to buy a motherboard to upgrade or build a new computer, I'd probably buy a Intel 10*00 at this time. I find it amusing that the 10100 is the bargain cpu to me. Who would have thought that Intel could be considered the best bargain for a decent inexpensive computer?
 

Tantor

Posts: 126   +168
Very good article. For the vast majority of people, games will not benefit much from the top tier cpus. They can't even see the extra frames.

Like most, I peruse the reviews, wondering if it's upgrade time. But why bother? My system is an 1800x, AB350 mobo, Radeon VII and 4k/60Hz monitor. It easily runs all my games at 60 frames/sec at ultra settings. With a Morpheus II it runs cool and quiet.

Nah, I'll wait for Ryzen 6000. Just... one... more... year...
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,249   +1,384
TechSpot Elite
Thanks for the review. The 3600 still looks good. I thought about buying one last summer but I got a 3100 instead. My needs/wants are very low compared to many here.

I thought Steve's mention of the 10400 was good. If I had to buy a motherboard to upgrade or build a new computer, I'd probably buy a Intel 10*00 at this time. I find it amusing that the 10100 is the bargain cpu to me. Who would have thought that Intel could be considered the best bargain for a decent inexpensive computer?
Honestly, if your needs are modest, perhaps the R3-3200G would have sufficed because it's an APU which saves you money on a video card and a (small) savings on your hydro bill.
Very good article. For the vast majority of people, games will not benefit much from the top tier cpus. They can't even see the extra frames.

Like most, I peruse the reviews, wondering if it's upgrade time. But why bother? My system is an 1800x, AB350 mobo, Radeon VII and 4k/60Hz monitor. It easily runs all my games at 60 frames/sec at ultra settings. With a Morpheus II it runs cool and quiet.

Nah, I'll wait for Ryzen 6000. Just... one... more... year...
Yeah, I just upgraded to an R5-3600X and RX 5700 XT in the summertime and I'm not going to be upgrading again for a long time (like when prices fall like rain). :D
 

Wrinkle

Posts: 52   +42
I am amazed that you recommend to buy an Intel processor in 2021 even if i5-10400F is "cheaper". Your arguments don't stand in front of facts. That Intel platform is dead on arrival now, no upgrade option path. And don t try to wrong argue that you can upgrade to I9 10900K because Ryzen 9 3950 X is the better option and you can upgrade to Ryzen 5600X - 5900X or 5950X later on AM4 platform. This is the WORST article which I read from you. Not a good start for the new year 2021. It is better to not publish a bad article even if you worked hard to write it. I really feel compassion for you.

An upgrade path can be pretty irrelevant if you want to build a bang for your buck gaming system. About 2 years ago I built a 9400f gaming system - cpu, motherboard and RAM cost less that ā‚¬300 in total. That combination will do fine for another year of 1440p gaming and probably longer if I upgrade the 2060 that's in it. In the end I'll probably just replace it with another ā‚¬300 build.
 

Steve

Posts: 2,727   +2,801
Staff member
I am amazed that you recommend to buy an Intel processor in 2021 even if i5-10400F is "cheaper". Your arguments don't stand in front of facts. That Intel platform is dead on arrival now, no upgrade option path. And don t try to wrong argue that you can upgrade to I9 10900K because Ryzen 9 3950 X is the better option and you can upgrade to Ryzen 5600X - 5900X or 5950X later on AM4 platform. This is the WORST article which I read from you. Not a good start for the new year 2021. It is better to not publish a bad article even if you worked hard to write it. I really feel compassion for you.

Classic dummy spit mate. Calm down, we still think AMD processors are good, there there it's going to be okay.
 
Hi Steve!

Two of my latest build requests were for MS Flight Simulator 2020, and this tremendously popular game for client builds is not a part of your benchmark suite. MSFS can be far more CPU-bound than the other games you've tested. Linus found that the 5600X boosted 1080p Ultra performance by about 15 fps over the 3600XT. Crucially, that's enough to lift a client from sub-60FPS to about 75FPS.

For a client who cares about MSFS, that's a significant boost, and for me it's well worth recommending that the client spend the additional $100. This is hugely important - I wouldn't want to build a new PC based on a 3600 and have the client find that if they had only paid an extra $100 they could be running MSFS at 60FPS+ instead of 45-50.
 

Dsirius

Posts: 20   +25
TechSpot Elite
Read yeeeeman's post history. No matter what, he/she has never had anything good to say about AMD and nothing bad to say about Intel or nVidia. The level of actual tech knowledge is about as limited as the top speed of a Gen 1 VW Beetle that isn't named "Herbie".

Another home run courtesy of Julio Franco! :D


While I agree with the sentiment about the Intel CPU, accusing Steve of bad tech journalism is pretty over the line. Steve Walton is one of the all-time greats for a reason. AMD pricing is pretty out of whack and while I agree that the Intel i5-10400F would be a bad choice long-term, Steve is compromised in his position that ethics dictate that he must make recommendations based on conditions that exist now, not recommendations based on conditions that may or may not exist later.

I've been watching "Harbour On Box" for years and he's not only second-to-none when it comes to impartial benchmarking and recommendations, he's also second-to-none when it comes to being a class act.

To date, Steve is still the only person who hasn't cracked up when looking at Tim's "Shiesser Video" mustache. Steve deserves a lot of credit for that. Steve is so diplomatic that he makes Picard look like a Klingon in comparison.

To Tim: I poke fun, but there's nothing behind it. You look good pardner! (y) (Y)

Even a good tech journalist may write a bad article with arguments that don't stand. If you think that Intel is a good platform, buy it dude. Just that the price for the oven called Core i5-10400F is around 180$ now and you have to pay another 20$ for cooler. Ryzen 5 3600x has. So suddenly Core i5-10400F recommendation does not sound good at all. Steve should mention this and also that no overclocking, no upgrade path and Intel Z3-4xx Motherboard platform is inferior to Am4 platform. Even Steve Walton is a very good tech journalist he is not perfect all the time and this article proves it. So as I said I feel compassion for him.
 

fadingfool

Posts: 225   +225
Problem is prices are very volatile and region specific that recommendations at the low end are pretty meaningless. In the UK you are hard pressed to get any decent GPU (for a reasonable price) from the usual suspects so a self build becomes a "what can you get" rather than what is best value. Intel pre-built systems with 10400 and even 10600 chips seem to be offering the most bang for buck if you are desperate for a new system that can game a bit and AMD pre-builds are still few and far between from the likes of HP and Dell. Situation is similar to the height of the mining craze at the tail end of 2017 (just when I was looking to upgrade my i7 3770, nVidia 970 combination) - ended up getting a good deal from Dell outlet on an Alienware Area 51 R4 with my old system going to a nephew.