Is the Ryzen 3 3300X Better Value than the Ryzen 5 3600?

CBTex

Posts: 78   +128
What's great about both the 3300X and the 3600 (all the Ryzen processors really) is the clear upgrade path available. The ability to swap in up to 16 cores with the 3950X is amazing, with the 4000 series Ryzen's still to come. I was fortunate enough to grab a 3600X on sale for $169 at Microcenter. Knowing I can drop in a Zen 3 chip once the 3600X feels tired is very reassuring.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 255   +130
The article is interesting, as usual, but the results are meaningless. The Ryzen 5 3600 is dirty cheap today, so there is no reason to look to something else if you are in this budget range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shadowboxer

Nobina

Posts: 2,552   +2,160
3300x offers pretty much the same performance if you're pairing it with something like a RX580 which is reasonable. Still, 3600 is not expensive and it will do better in the future.
 

Irata

Posts: 644   +844
TechSpot Elite
I think the choice of CPU greatly depends on both what else is in your system (particularly the GPU) but also what your use case is (which sadly most reviews do not show as they focus on single tasks).

So if someone is not into multi tasking and primarily wants to game on the cheap (I.e. 2060 super at best), spending more on a higher end CPU is wasting money which instead would be better spent on a memory or GPU upgrade. A 3300X at msrp would be a sensible option.

If otoh multi tasking (even while gaming) is on the table, spending the extra money for more cores would be the better option.

Finally, I feel this review shows that - at least for gaming - unbalanced systems, I.e. a top of the line CPU without a high end GPU is a pointless exercise - looking at the summary above, a Ryzen 3300x with a 2080 Ti gives better results than a 9900k with a 2070 Super at 1440p ultra and they are very close at 1080p ultra.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 255   +130
I think the choice of CPU greatly depends on both what else is in your system (particularly the GPU) but also what your use case is (which sadly most reviews do not show as they focus on single tasks).

So if someone is not into multi tasking and primarily wants to game on the cheap (I.e. 2060 super at best), spending more on a higher end CPU is wasting money which instead would be better spent on a memory or GPU upgrade. A 3300X at msrp would be a sensible option.

If otoh multi tasking (even while gaming) is on the table, spending the extra money for more cores would be the better option.

Finally, I feel this review shows that - at least for gaming - unbalanced systems, I.e. a top of the line CPU without a high end GPU is a pointless exercise - looking at the summary above, a Ryzen 3300x with a 2080 Ti gives better results than a 9900k with a 2070 Super at 1440p ultra and they are very close at 1080p ultra.
I don’t know where you found those conclusions: at 1080 a 9900K with 2070 Super is better than a 3300X with 2080 Ti.
At 1440P the GPU is more relevant than CPU, but it makes absolutely no sense to buy a 3300X with an 2080 Ti.
 

Irata

Posts: 644   +844
TechSpot Elite
I don’t know where you found those conclusions: at 1080 and 1440 a 9900K with 2070 Super is better than a 3300X with 2080 Ti.
Found it in this article.
Kindly note that my claim was "better at 1440p ultra and close at 1080p ultra", so please don't twist my words

1440p Ultra (1% min / avg fps):

9900K + 2070 Super: 99 / 120
3300X + 2080 Ti:. 98 / 128

The 3300X has -1 fps min and +8 fps avg
 

Irata

Posts: 644   +844
TechSpot Elite
At 1440P the GPU is more relevant than CPU, but it makes absolutely no sense to buy a 3300X with an 2080 Ti.
Probably not, just as it makes no sense to e.g. buy a 9900k with a mid range GPU for gaming. That was kinda my point when I was referring to unbalanced systems.

So if someone is on a budget (as I assume most people are), it may make sense to save $300ish on the CPU (Ryzen 3600 instead of an i9 9900k) and instead spend that money on the GPU, going for a 2080 Super instead of a 2060 Super
 

Rjmachine

Posts: 53   +28
I'd never buy less than 6C/12T today. Next gen consoles will be having 8C/16T meaning 6C/12T will be bare minimum for PC going forward unless you're a casual gamer or play old games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lounds

MaxSmarties

Posts: 255   +130
Probably not, just as it makes no sense to e.g. buy a 9900k with a mid range GPU for gaming. That was kinda my point when I was referring to unbalanced systems.

So if someone is on a budget (as I assume most people are), it may make sense to save $300ish on the CPU (Ryzen 3600 instead of an i9 9900k) and instead spend that money on the GPU, going for a 2080 Super instead of a 2060 Super
You are completely mixing things up and I can’t understand your point.
A 2070 Super isn’t “midrange” and it is balanced even with a 9900K (even if I would suggest a 3700X or 9700K).
The Ryzen 5 3600 would be ok with a 2060 Super, for instance...
By the way I’m your post above you were speaking about 3300X ... not the 3600.
 
Last edited:

MaxSmarties

Posts: 255   +130
I'd never buy less than 6C/12T today. Next gen consoles will be having 8C/16T meaning 6C/12T will be bare minimum for PC going forward unless you're a casual gamer or play old games.
It will take years before games will become really multi threading, and I’m not even sure it will happen in this generation. Single core performance will stay very relevant for gaming in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shadowboxer

Irata

Posts: 644   +844
TechSpot Elite
You are completely mixing things up and I can’t understand your point.
A 2070 Super isn’t “midrange” and it is balanced even with a 9900K (even if I would suggest a 3700X or 9700K).
The Ryzen 5 3600 would be ok with a 2060 Super, for instance...
By the way I’m your post above you were speaking about 3300X ... not the 3600.
What am I mixing up? Mentioned the 3600 in my second reply regarding unbalanced systems as another example. That does not change my point.

I would consider the 2070 as upper mid range since it's still considerably cheaper than a 2080Ti but that's my personal point of view, your mileage may vary.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Lionvibez
It will take years before games will become really multi threading, and I’m not even sure it will happen in this generation. Single core performance will stay very relevant for gaming in my opinion.
I’ve seen Total War 3 kingdoms uses 20 threads on my 3900x ...
Wait until Cyber Punk release and you will be up for a nice surprise how well the game run on higher core count...
Devs need some push and the console core increase will get them to work fast.
 

loki1944

Posts: 391   +242
I'd never buy less than 6C/12T today. Next gen consoles will be having 8C/16T meaning 6C/12T will be bare minimum for PC going forward unless you're a casual gamer or play old games.
4C8T Still plenty for games today. Even my 2008 i7 920 can give a 1080p/60FPS experience in modern games like RDR2, KCD, GR Breakpoint, etc. @high to ultra settings with a 980Ti.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shadowboxer

Alfatawi Mendel

Posts: 47   +97
It will take years before games will become really multi threading, and I’m not even sure it will happen in this generation. Single core performance will stay very relevant for gaming in my opinion.
Single core performance is a dead-end in game development. Likewise in actual chip development.
The smaller the node...the more difficult it is to find speed.
All AAA games currently under development are being optimised for parallel, many-core performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lounds

MaxSmarties

Posts: 255   +130
I’ve seen Total War 3 kingdoms uses 20 threads on my 3900x ...
Wait until Cyber Punk release and you will be up for a nice surprise how well the game run on higher core count...
Devs need some push and the console core increase will get them to work fast.
it can even use 50 threads. That alone doesn't mean it would run better than on a 6 cores CPU.
Multithreading doesn't just mean to share the execution on the cores available.
TW3 doesn't run better on your 3900X than on a 8C/8T i7-9700K, for instance.
 

SethNW

Posts: 19   +13
I would still say that 3600 is best bang for the buck. Great performance plus it should age better than 3300X. Though on small budget, 3100 and 3300X or 2600 will all do the trick. Provided they are in stock. I personally would pass on i3, because it lacks cheap upgrade path. Intel CPUs retain value much longer than AMD. So future upgrade to 4000 series or even higher end 3000 would be much cheaper. While i5s and i7s will cost a lot more.

Though personally, if you can wait. Wait for Ryzen 4000, they are coming this year, they should have single CCX design, which helps gaming, since there is no CCX to CCX penalty. And B550 boards might become cheaper, or at least "budget" versions might become available. Putting budget in quotes, because right now they are taking X570 prices... I don't care about quality, B550 is supposed to be budget and it is anything but that. And I would almost suspect board partners are intentionally holding back budget stock, so they can sell more high end.