AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review: Best All-Round Value CPU

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?
 

OptimumSlinky

Posts: 248   +437
Clock speeds are only half the story. The old Athlon CPUs clocked way lower than Intel parts and delivered more performance.
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.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,594   +1,628
TechSpot Elite
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?
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.

Which results differ greatly? Until you post something specific, there's no comparison to be made.
 

CheekyP

Posts: 75   +55
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shadowboxer

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 1,999   +2,473
The saddest part to me is the dying of mid range OC parts.

It used to be, with AMD, you would buy a midrange part and OC it to about the same speed as their highly binned chips. This is what I did with ryzen 1000, bought a 1700 and OCed it to 4.0 ghz, the max boost for a 1800x at a lower voltage then boost so the chip still ran cooler and pulled less power then a stock 1800x did.

Now, if you want those extra MHz, you have no choice but to buy the highest binned model for extra $$$, no different IMO then intel locking OC to the super expensive K series chips.

Sad day IMO.
 
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.
Absolutely hilarious to see noobs like this guy can still whine about "cut and dry" great products like 3600.
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.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1730-intel-core-i9-9900k-core-i7-9700k/page4.html
Conclusion: 8700k is awesome, but mistakes were made when designing 9900k.
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.
 
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
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

Todd Sauve

Posts: 13   +30
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.

Who cares if the Intel CPU can post 105 fps in such and such a game, while the AMD CPU can "only" post 100 fps but costs $100 less. Wake up people! You will NEVER be able to tell the difference between the two CPUs in gaming, so spend your money on the less expensive one and use that $100 on more memory or a faster GPU!

I don't think TechSpot does people much of a service by benching 25 or 30 games to show there is virtually no difference between the Intel and AMD CPUs. Just cut to the chase and stop click baiting people into reading these LONG reviews. Right now the smart money is on AMD and the silly money sticks with Intel. Period.
 

NotABadSlime

Posts: 19   +24
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....
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?

The only wise conclusion from all this is that AMD's prices are still too high, especially knowing that AMD prices will drop by 50% or so in a year or less and then some more afterwards. To get bragging rights for bang for the buck, you go R5 1600 for essentially $50 (with $30 mobo discount) like this:
https://www.microcenter.com/product...-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-spire-cooler

There is no way the 3900x is 3X (much less10x for that $500) the performance of of the 1600. Nor is the 3600x at 2x the performance of a R5 1600 to even come close to justify the 5X the $250 price.

Even granting AMD a premium for new release and such, the fair price for a 3900x should be no more than $300 and the 3700x should be like $230, and 3600x be like $180.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pyro226

msroadkill612

Posts: 86   +21
Best deal you can get here, effectively $150, with $50 mobo discount.

https://www.microcenter.com/product...-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-spire-cooler

But bang for the buck, the R5 1600 is still a much better value at $50 ($30 mobo discount):
https://www.microcenter.com/product...-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-spire-cooler

At 3x the price, there is no way it can even do 2x the performance over a R5 1600.
For the majority using a far less impressive GPU that the reviewers, your arguments hold even more true.

The 1600 has certainly been a perennial classic - it still wont stop competing. Gosh they must have sold a lot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NotABadSlime
The 2600x was at $240 only 9 months ago, and now it is half that:
https://www.microcenter.com/product...-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-spire-cooler

$110 with the $30 mobo discount. Why does AMD think they can keep trying to fool people to pay more?
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 processors
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,035   +1,208
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."
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.
 
Last edited:

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,035   +1,208
"Again, you’re best off enabling the PBO + AutoOC feature in the Ryzen Master software."

Doubt it. Static clock will keep your core voltage from hitting 1.5v with PBO.