This. People are making a big deal out of Intel hitting 5.0 GHz, but if a Ryzen is matching real-world performance at 4.3 GHz, who seriously cares about the clock speed?Clock speeds are only half the story. The old Athlon CPUs clocked way lower than Intel parts and delivered more performance.
Go ahead and read the review, your last question is right there in the text. If you follow TS, you'll find that Steve mentions how often he revalidates his results. Hint: it's often. Again, go ahead and read some reviews on this website.These results differ greatly from the results on gamernexus. Did you retest all the intel cpu's or did you use old results? Are you also using an 2080 Ti or a slower gpu?
Mostly true, Ryzen application IPC is now on par with Skylake, but gaming is slightly behind because AMD still can't match the latencies Intel achieves with the ringbus. Gaming is generally very latency sensitive, so until AMD fixes this I think Intel will always be slightly ahead in gaming, especially with a clockspeed advantage. The larger cache helps Zen 2 bridge the gap, but you can't fit everything in cache and the lower memory latencies is half the reason why the Intel chips generally remain ahead in gaming, as well as the frequency advantage.This. People are making a big deal out of Intel hitting 5.0 GHz, but if a Ryzen is matching real-world performance at 4.3 GHz, who seriously cares about the clock speed?
Intel was hitting absurd clock speeds back with the Pentium 4s, but the real world performance was still pathetic because IPC was so low. IPC is king, and now that Ryzen is back within striking distance in that, Zen 3 and Zen 4 should be REALLY interesting.
exactly, how many articles and you tube videos say the 9900k is pointless for gaming, hell some say i7 is pointless since the 9600k has similar gaming outcomes. So I guess mistakes were made with 9900k and 9700k ...... since we are on this, what about the kaby lakes? mistakes all around intel, for years now.Absolutely hilarious to see noobs like this guy can still whine about "cut and dry" great products like 3600.When I kept seeing the 3600 within 10fps of the 3900X, I cringed, because that's not how it's supposed to work. Flagships are supposed to be the far better performer. 3900X is $500 ffs! The only conclusion is 12 cores are too much for gaming. The 3900X should be an HEDT part. If the 9700K was within 10fps of the 9900K there would be pitchforks, but it's AMD so they get a pass? Um, okay.
Example: If the $200 3600 is doing 60fps and the $500 3900X is doing 70fps, what does that say about every chip in between? Why should anyone buy anything but he 3600 and 3900X for the foreseeable future? How is this going to help AMD dominate if they only have two chips for consumers worth buying?
Yes, the 3600 is awesome, but mistakes were made when designing Ryzen 2.
There is ALWAYS a premium to be paid for the flagship products. Do I have to remind you that you beloved Intel 9900k is within 10fps of 8700k.
Conclusion: 8700k is awesome, but mistakes were made when designing 9900k.
Finally, someone who gets it! I also have an intel 6700k, (I know its not the 8700k but same point) and love the performance I got out of overclocking. Also spent stupid money on cooler and MOBO. Now as im looking to get into the 6/8 core world of cpu's this 3600 comes out and completely changes the game. Sure those with thick wallets will still go intel and overclock the piss out of it but to everyone else it seems like throwing money away. I was about to get the 9600k after researching the i7 and i9 variant but now it just doesnt make sense. Infact, im going to start of with 3600 and cheap asrock b450 ( 219.99 for bundle at microcenter) so that I can use the money I saved on a better GPU. Thats where the value starts to shine.The 3600 is an insane CPU, comparable to how good the 1600 was 2 years ago. The 8700k (who I am an owner of) is a completely different beast and I don't think the 2 are comparable. The 8700k, and all high end k chips are for the enthusiast market that's going to pay 200+ for a mobo, 150+ for a good cooler and a delid on top, and take it to the extreme max. Mine is currently running at 5.1 / 4.7ghz cache with 4000c16 ram.
The 3600 competes in a different market. It's about people that want to pay half the price, get 90% of the performance with no hassle about coolers / delidding / ocing etc.I would blindly suggest it to everyone basically, it gets the job done as fast as anyone else no matter whta the job actually is, be it gaming or other productivity applications. Kudos AMD
People should spend money wisely. However when people want bragging rights and they drop $500 on a CPU, they want those 2 to 5 fps wins. Just how wise is it to drop $500 on a 3900x and fail to even get bragging rights?What I find a little bit silly is people buying a much more expensive CPU just to get a 2 to 5 fps "advantage." That is meaningless and I must say I do wish people were a bit more savvy about this and spend their money more wisely....
For the majority using a far less impressive GPU that the reviewers, your arguments hold even more true.Best deal you can get here, effectively $150, with $50 mobo discount.
But bang for the buck, the R5 1600 is still a much better value at $50 ($30 mobo discount):
At 3x the price, there is no way it can even do 2x the performance over a R5 1600.
um because they released new processors? and the mobo discount is not dictated by amd but by whatever store you are buying from and probably the cpu price also since the store is trying to clear out their stock for the new processorsThe 2600x was at $240 only 9 months ago, and now it is half that:
$110 with the $30 mobo discount. Why does AMD think they can keep trying to fool people to pay more?
The thing for me is, it's always the K chips being compared, and it's always about not coming with a cooler as if everyone on the planet is buying K chips when they are buying pre-builts.Have you read the second paragraph?
"Direct competition for the R5 3600 should come from Intel's Core i5-9600 which is listed at $213, but we don’t have that part on hand and it doesn’t appear to be on sale either, so the more expensive 9600K will have to do. It costs $255 and doesn’t include a box cooler, so it's not the exact match we were going for, but it will be interesting to see how they stack in terms of raw power."