Ryzen 5 3600 annihilates the 2600 in leaked benchmarks

[trparky]

I can just smell the Intel fanboyism in this thread, the stench of it is quite thick in the air. I personally have bought nothing but Intel for years, I have an 8700K right now. Unfortunately with all of the various exploits that have been coming out that is only affecting Intel my next system isn't going to be an Intel-based system; it's going to be an AMD system.

OK sure, Intel does indeed have faster processors but with all of the various exploits the IPC (Instructions Per Clock) differences between AMD and Intel is closing up simply because patching the exploits have contributed to a loss in said performance. 5% performance loss here, another 5% performance loss there, and sprinkle some more performance loss and what do you have? Oh yeah... the performance difference between AMD and Intel is closing up.

 

[144hzGamer]

This actually means they are slower than non HT Intel with cripled cache in single core whlist having higher clock /AMD/ and having significant perfomance hit due to the new design introducing higher I/O latencies when running multicore tasks. Ryzen 1xxx,2xxx was doing better in multicore, this one is actually worse and underperfoming lol.

Hype is over. Amd is still bad.

Even on single core in geekbench someone compared i7 7700k with 3600 at same clocks and the AMD chip still lost:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13330826

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13342120

Plus the fact the 6 core and 8 core CPUs will still have 2x CCX design, so latencies will still happen in gaming.

 

[144hzGamer]

I can just smell the Intel fanboyism in this thread, the stench of it is quite thick in the air. I personally have bought nothing but Intel for years, I have an 8700K right now. Unfortunately with all of the various exploits that have been coming out that is only affecting Intel my next system isn't going to be an Intel-based system; it's going to be an AMD system.

OK sure, Intel does indeed have faster processors but with all of the various exploits the IPC (Instructions Per Clock) differences between AMD and Intel is closing up simply because patching the exploits have contributed to a loss in said performance. 5% performance loss here, another 5% performance loss there, and sprinkle some more performance loss and what do you have? Oh yeah... the performance difference between AMD and Intel is closing up.

As I said I have an AMD cpu (2600) and it was the worst decision ever. A lot of things are hidden by reviewers and people overall. Then you buy the products and see for yourself. Never again, I wont bother to save a bit of money in exchange for an inferior product.

 

[wiyosaya]

Even on single core in geekbench someone compared i7 7700k with 3600 at same clocks and the AMD chip still lost:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13330826

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13342120

Plus the fact the 6 core and 8 core CPUs will still have 2x CCX design, so latencies will still happen in gaming.

As I see it, this would be meaningful if the product were released and these were results from a trusted site.

When TS, Anand, Tom's, and others review, I'll listen.

As I said I have an AMD cpu (2600) and it was the worst decision ever. A lot of things are hidden by reviewers and people overall. Then you buy the products and see for yourself. Never again, I wont bother to save a bit of money in exchange for an inferior product.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[trparky]

As I said I have an AMD cpu (2600) and it was the worst decision ever. A lot of things are hidden by reviewers and people overall. Then you buy the products and see for yourself. Never again, I wont bother to save a bit of money in exchange for an inferior product.

What kind of problems did you have?

 

[amstech]

The 9700K is already outdated.
An 8/8 in 2019? I don't care how good it games, thats an i5 with an i7 nameplate.

 

[penn919]

The 9700K is already outdated.
An 8/8 in 2019? I don't care how good it games, thats an i5 with an i7 nameplate.

To be fair, there's nothing wrong with an 8/8 in 2019, but they should've kept the HT-less CPUs in the i5 tier. No one would complain about an octa-core i5.

 

[Toju Mikie]

This actually means they are slower than non HT Intel with cripled cache in single core whlist having higher clock /AMD/ and having significant perfomance hit due to the new design introducing higher I/O latencies when running multicore tasks. Ryzen 1xxx,2xxx were doing better in multicore, this one is actually worse and underperfoming.

Hype is over. Amd is still bad.

Can you tell me where Ryzen 1xxx and 2xxx were doing better in multicore compared to the 3600? The 3600 definitely has a better multicore capability from what I've seen.

 

[jaryn211]

Intel's new 9900ks will be the gamers choice, guaranteed. AMD will only be chosen over intel by individuals who make purchasing choices largely/primarily based on price.

So pretty much the vast majority of gamers wont be touching the 9900k

 

[LogiGaming]

The 9700K is already outdated.
An 8/8 in 2019? I don't care how good it games, thats an i5 with an i7 nameplate.

How can the best gaming CPU right now on the market be "outdated"? Just because it has 8 threads? I seriously don´t understand some things people say, specially lately.

The i7 9700k clocks easily at 5ghz well under 1.35 voltages, is soldered, accepts pretty much any 4000mhz ram you throw at it and blasts through any game at high refresh, paired with the right GPU (RTX 2070/2080/2080ti or GTX 1080/1080ti or AMD Vega VII) + 1080p 240hz or 1440p 144hz experiences.

Plus! a lot of applications, including games, prefer physical cores instead of SMT, and what happens usually is that the game will use a logical thread as if it was a physical one, and you end up losing performance. This is the reason why the 9700k beats 9900k on most games. This is the reason Battlefield V has way higher framerate with no Hyper Threading/SMT, as you can see here:

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/battlefield-v-pc-performance-benchmarks,4.html

https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=46163

It is also a beast at enconding, handbrake, whatever you throw at it because it clocks really high and it has 8 physical cores.

You can argue it should have been called i5, I can accept that, but that´s just nomenclature and means next to nothing. But I will be here waiting for you to point me a 360€ CPU that performs better than i7 9700k overall, and not in one task only. Sure, the 2700x wins on some tasks like rendering, because it has 8 threads more, but even so, it completes a 10 min render 45 seconds faster than the 9700k. I would rather wait 45 seconds any day but still have the best CPU for other tasks; and if you make a living from renders you shouldn´t be looking at mainstream chips anyway, you should look at TR or intel HEDT platforms and get more money, faster. So that argument is a bit meh.

 

[Fergutor]

Performance parity at half the price and more threads is nothing important to you but seeing 200 FPS is the most important thing in the world, no wonder why Intel has been laughing at us for over a decade.

IT WAS MY FAULT!! I'm that important!! HAHA!!
Dude...the only Intel processors I ever bought were an C2D 7300 and then an C2Q 9400 to replace it which I had for A DECADE, yeah, that decade you're talking about. And now I have...guess what...GUESS WHAT?! Yeaaah an R5 1600, because I got it dirty cheap, I was actually looking for an i5 but got this one.
Then: you are happy for performance parity...4 years too late (!!) and when Intel is about to release a new arquitecture that is even better!!

Simply brillant...
Your boogeyman Intel did what it did because it didn't have competition dude. Tell me how happy you were with your FX toaster, I assume you had that if you werent buying Intel...
And by the way, most important of all actually because it's the reason you write that terribly fallacious comment, completely misrepresenting my words: learn to read when someone is joking, did you really thought that "the most important thing in the world: games" was serious, even after I put "haha" after it...?...Damn...Must be a blast being near you...
(Hope the smileys helped you to not misunderstand my comment again. I only use them in extreme cases like this one. Oh, and sorry for english not my language...)

 

[imdarkbreeze]

Intel's new 9900ks will be the gamers choice, guaranteed. AMD will only be chosen over intel by individuals who make purchasing choices largely/primarily based on price.

Which is about 90% of the purchasing community.

 

[imdarkbreeze]

when Intel is about to release a new arquitecture that is even better!!

What, exactly, is it that you THINK Intel is about to release....that is "even better"?

Because no matter what it is you "think", you're wrong. There are no significant releases slated for Intel that amount to anything more than what AMD did when it released it's FX-9590, which is take an existing product at the end of it's cycle and do some binning for samples that will allow a factory increase in all core clock speed. That's it.

Those 10nm parts you keep hearing about? Those are for mobile devices. None of them are desktop parts. The next generation of Intel desktop SKUs is a significant ways off right now. And if it's anything like the last time, and the time before that, it will probably be even six months longer than we THINK it's going to be. Consider, there were supposed to be 10nm desktop parts ready to go, two years ago. THAT, still hasn't happened. So good luck with the whole "new arquitecture [sic] that is even better!!" happening soon enough or in high enough supply numbers to even matter.

Truthfully, it's not looking good for Intel, and it's ENTIRELY their own fault for sitting on their laurels when they had a chokehold on the market due to superior performance. This will be very good for everybody, including Intel. A lesson in humility now and then never hurt anybody, at least, not long term.

 

[treetops]

Edit: Some CPU heavy games will bottle neck a bit on the 2080 or higher with a 2700x.

Gaming wise, Considering the 2080 isn't even bottle necked by the 2700x.(not even oced) Which is now 180$. The majority of people who don't spend 1k+(2080ti+) on a graphics card(s) really have no reason to buy anything better on a gaming rig. The link below is on par with other graphs iv seen. You can even input OCing in the calculator below.

https://pc-builds.com/calculator/Ryzen_7_2700X/GeForce_RTX_2080/0Qe12l8A/

Which begs to question..... Why don't GPU reviews contain a graph of CPU bottle necks for gamers? And vice versa for CPU reviews?

 

[Evernessince]

Intel's new 9900ks will be the gamers choice, guaranteed. AMD will only be chosen over intel by individuals who make purchasing choices largely/primarily based on price.

That depends. If the Ryzen 3000 CPUs can OC, Intel is screwed. Heck, faster RAM alone may be enough, both Ryzen and Ryzen+ both saw nice gains with faster RAM.

In any case it's going to be really really close single thread wise. For the same price as the 9900KS you could be buying the 12 core 3900X with much lower power consumption, PCIe 4.0 support, much higher multi-thread, and a CPU without a dozen speculative execution holes.

If the difference between two CPUs in single thread is so small that it's within margin or error of a triple pass benchmark, then it is impossible to say one is better then the other. Being within margin of error means that the test methodology does not have the resolution to say one is better then the other due to variance.

 

[R00sT3R]

If the 8 & 12 core Ryzens can maintain a 4.4 to 4.5Ghz, all core overclock, then the difference in performance between them and a 5Ghz, all core overclock, 9900K, will be margin of error stuff in single core mode but the 12 core parts will have a clear lead of 10-15% when it comes to multicore performance, if the rumoured IPC figures are true.

All Intel has to do to keep the 9700K & 9900K competitive is to drop the prices by $50 & $100 respectively, but unfortunately Intel simply doesn't do price cuts.

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]...See that I replied to myself about the single thread numbers which are not impressive at all given that the 3600 isn't at 3.9 as you are saying (3.9 is the 2600 clock) but at 4.05 according to the article (maybe bad soft reading as it should be 4.2?). WIth "not impressive at all" I mean precisely that is comparable to Coffe Lake (which I also mention in my reply to myself) ...[ ]....

So, you've not even been here long enough to register a post count, and already Techspot has you talking to yourself? That's not good there rookie, not good at all....,

BNTW, "Welcome to Techspot"...

 

[LogiGaming]

Gaming wise, Considering the 2080 isn't even bottle necked by the 2700x.(not even oced) Which is now 180$. The majority of people who don't spend 1k+(2080ti+) on a graphics card(s) really have no reason to buy anything better on a gaming rig. The link below is on par with other graphs iv seen. You can even input OCing in the calculator below.

https://pc-builds.com/calculator/Ryzen_7_2700X/GeForce_RTX_2080/0Qe12l8A/

Which begs to question..... Why don't GPU reviews contain a graph of CPU bottle necks for gamers? And vice versa for CPU reviews?

This is not true at all. If you try to play Battlefield V at 1080p 144hz/240hz at high settings with a RTX 2080 + 2700x I assure you will hit a wall of around 120 to 130fps on Conquest 64 players, Narvik and Devastation for example. And the GPU usage will drop massively. While on the 9700k at 5ghz you hit anything from 160fps to 200fps, so you can lock it to 138 (Gsync 144hz) and be assured you will never drop from that framerate, or you can leave it unlocked for 240hz.

Same thing happens on Blackout, where the 2700x struggles to lock it for 144hz, with constant drops to 100, while 9700k once again flies on that game.

On Quake Champions on Blood Convenant and Corrupted Keep with a 2700x you will drop hard to 130/150fps while on 9700k you will never drop from 200fps.

This is not IPC related only, in fact Zen+ IPC is very good. The problem are latencies, specially the CCX ones. And AMD confirmed yesterday that the 8 Core chips will still have 2x CCX of 4 cores, and the 6 core too (with 2 cores disabled). Only the 3900x will have an 8 core CCX + 4 core CCX.

As long as you have two separate CCX and a game uses more than 4 cores, you will have worse performance, no matter how much they improved latencies. So let´s wait for 7th July and check the reviews. The IPC increase will help for sure, so will the memory speeds, altho a 4000mhz Ram kit is not cheap.

 

[Shadowboxer]

What I took away from these results is that AMD still may not be able to outdo Intel’s single core performance on their higher clocking chips. If this is true then I’m very disappointed. I understand that these are amazing multi threaded numbers and that for most people is very important and that these chips are clearly in general probably going to be better than Intel and everything else before it. But a small number of us gamers do like to spend a bit on their CPUs and right now locking to 144hz is quite difficult to do because of CPU limitations in some games.

I look forward to seeing the benchmarks come in, right now, I do hope they can offer a bit more than Intel does for those of us who run super high refresh rate monitors.

 

[treetops]

This is not true at all. If you try to play Battlefield V at 1080p 144hz/240hz at high settings with a RTX 2080 + 2700x I assure you will hit a wall of around 120 to 130fps on Conquest 64 players, Narvik and Devastation for example. And the GPU usage will drop massively. While on the 9700k at 5ghz you hit anything from 160fps to 200fps, so you can lock it to 138 (Gsync 144hz) and be assured you will never drop from that framerate, or you can leave it unlocked for 240hz.

Same thing happens on Blackout, where the 2700x struggles to lock it for 144hz, with constant drops to 100, while 9700k once again flies on that game.

On Quake Champions on Blood Convenant and Corrupted Keep with a 2700x you will drop hard to 130/150fps while on 9700k you will never drop from 200fps.

This is not IPC related only, in fact Zen+ IPC is very good. The problem are latencies, specially the CCX ones. And AMD confirmed yesterday that the 8 Core chips will still have 2x CCX of 4 cores, and the 6 core too (with 2 cores disabled). Only the 3900x will have an 8 core CCX + 4 core CCX.

As long as you have two separate CCX and a game uses more than 4 cores, you will have worse performance, no matter how much they improved latencies. So let´s wait for 7th July and check the reviews. The IPC increase will help for sure, so will the memory speeds, altho a 4000mhz Ram kit is not cheap.

Yeah it looks like it does better with the 2080 on some cpu intensive games.

4:19

In case anyone is wondering to lower cpu bottle necking you can lower settings including but are not limited to lowering draw distance, vegetation, population density, shadows etc.

 

[godrilla]

Intel's new 9900ks will be the gamers choice, guaranteed. AMD will only be chosen over intel by individuals who make purchasing choices largely/primarily based on price.

Rich guy, eh?

Most people make purchasing choices primarily based on price. Even Intel owners.

But thats 3900x territory even at 4.5 ghz to 4.6 ghz oc on all cores equals previous gen Ryzen at 5.175 to 5.29 ghz on all cores, as well as anyone that wants to run nvme drives at 5 gigs per sec support before raid. It seems that Intel became the budget performer overnight without the budget price tag. Oh yeah also Intel's CPU warranty is only 3 years now imagine running a cpu hot long term!

 

[OptimumSlinky]

What I took away from these results is that AMD still may not be able to outdo Intel’s single core performance on their higher clocking chips. If this is true then I’m very disappointed. I understand that these are amazing multi threaded numbers and that for most people is very important and that these chips are clearly in general probably going to be better than Intel and everything else before it. But a small number of us gamers do like to spend a bit on their CPUs and right now locking to 144hz is quite difficult to do because of CPU limitations in some games.

I look forward to seeing the benchmarks come in, right now, I do hope they can offer a bit more than Intel does for those of us who run super high refresh rate monitors.

I get where you're coming from, but people often look at Intel and AMD as being equivalent sized companies, and they're not.

Intel has over 100,000 employees and a net revenue of over $70 billion.
AMD has 10,000 employees and a net revenue of $6.4 billion.

The fact that AMD is EVEN COMING CLOSE to Intel is just embarrassing for Intel, and great for consumers. Considering a decade ago AMD was basically on the verge of death with the failure of Bulldozer, every Intel fanboy on the planet should be thanking Lisa Su for lighting a fire under Intel's *** and getting them to drop their prices.

 

[Shadowboxer]

I get where you're coming from, but people often look at Intel and AMD as being equivalent sized companies, and they're not.

Intel has over 100,000 employees and a net revenue of over $70 billion.
AMD has 10,000 employees and a net revenue of $6.4 billion.

The fact that AMD is EVEN COMING CLOSE to Intel is just embarrassing for Intel, and great for consumers. Considering a decade ago AMD was basically on the verge of death with the failure of Bulldozer, every Intel fanboy on the planet should be thanking Lisa Su for lighting a fire under Intel's *** and getting them to drop their prices.

I couldn’t care less about how big these companies are or how many people they employ, il leave thatto the fanboys. You might think it’s embarrassing for Intel for AMD to be so close. Fine, but if the better performing part is being sold by Intel I’m still going to buy that part. (Or not rather in my case as I was hoping to get something that improves upon what Intel currently offer).

 

[godrilla]

I couldn’t care less about how big these companies are or how many people they employ, il leave thatto the fanboys. You might think it’s embarrassing for Intel for AMD to be so close. Fine, but if the better performing part is being sold by Intel I’m still going to buy that part. (Or not rather in my case as I was hoping to get something that improves upon what Intel currently offer).

Lol by the time Intel catches up AMD will be further down its roadmap!

 

[trparky]

This is not IPC related only, in fact Zen+ IPC is very good. The problem are latencies, specially the CCX ones. And AMD confirmed yesterday that the 8 Core chips will still have 2x CCX of 4 cores, and the 6 core too (with 2 cores disabled). Only the 3900x will have an 8 core CCX + 4 core CCX.

The bad part is that there's no way to go any further with more cores than to go with a multi-chip package as AMD has done with Ryzen. Putting more than eight cores onto a single die is both very expensive and very complex simply because of the very real fact that as you increase the core counts you increase the complexity of the manufacturing. The more complex you make the chip the more chances that you're going to have chips (or dies) that don't make it due to whatever kind of issue that comes up during the manufacturing phase.

I personally don't even want to think about how many dies (or chips) don't make it to be a 9900K (or even a 9700K) and have to have cores turned off simply because they don't work properly. And this is going to be an even bigger problem as you add more cores, there's no getting around this. You can see this in the fact that both the 9900K and the 9700K are expensive, they probably have to bin like crazy to get good enough dies for them.

So yes, even Intel is going to have to adopt a multi-chip manufacturing strategy as AMD has; it's inevitable.