Ryzen 5 3600 annihilates the 2600 in leaked benchmarks

How can the best gaming CPU right now on the market be "outdated"?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.
Alot of CPU's are great gamers, it don't take much.
And as far as all out performance its not the best, the 9900k is better, albeit by not much, and lets exclude pricing here, the obvious detractor.

The i7 9700k clocks easily at 5ghz .
I'd hope so, its only an 8 core chip without HT....or in other words, it's an i5.
Not saying its not impressive, but 8/16's will become the new high end norm.
 
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.
I don't think so.
Intel's platform is subpar now and has ZERO upgradability. And it is stupid to think that in a few years time, PCIe4.0/5.0 video cards won't be a thing. Hence, you may suffer 200mhz (on all cores) penalty with Zen2, but does 200Mhz matter on all cores, when Zen2 is more efficient and offers better multi-tasking..
You may ONLY gain a few hundred MHz, but you loose overall system performance.
 
Last edited:
It's like someone doesn't understand that 8/8 is really no different than 6/16 at 4.8Ghz...

Secondly, most of these "naysayers" speculation on Zen2 doesn't jive with the massive output of X570 Zen2 boards..!


So you really want to spend $549 bucks to have the VERY BEST gaming CPU, or would you rather spend $290 bucks and have a CPU that is within 5% at the top levels....? Knowing that in just one year's time, you can buy Zen3, or a used 8core and drop into you mobo…

While Intel abandons their "Best gaming chip", for another socket. Because PCIe 4 and 5, etc..


How derp are these Intel sh!illz here..? Not to be able to reason. What if Zen2 really does out perform Intel's platform..?
There will always be people who buy the best, even if it’s bad value. You can call them stupid, unreasonable or “derp” etc but that demographic exists and they don’t care if they could have saved $150 or so and only suffer a slight performance penalty. There were shortages of the 2080ti when it released despite being one of the worst value cards ever made and costing over $1200.

I imagine if Zen 2 does outperform Intel in overall gaming progress then these “derps” will probably buy AMD.
 
snip

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.

You last paragraph is utter hyperbole!!
You didn't watch the keynote or you would've picked up on what Microsoft said about learning from AMD and their chips design (in the Server environment), etc. The OS kernel now makes better use of AMD's design. Not only that, the CCX has double the bandwidth because of Infinity Fabric 2.0. Which ALSO allows for really good Memory clocks.

And even more I/O... (SSD's with 10k + transfer rates?)


Dr Su wasn't getting serenaded by those CEOs for Her good looks, it was because they all know what Zen2 and Navi are packing..! That is why they went crazy with so many MOBO with BEEF designes.

Certainly not because a new 65w chip can't overclock...
 
Last edited:
There will always be people who buy the best, even if it’s bad value. You can call them stupid, unreasonable or “derp” etc but that demographic exists and they don’t care if they could have saved $150 or so and only suffer a slight performance penalty. There were shortages of the 2080ti when it released despite being one of the worst value cards ever made and costing over $1200.

I imagine if Zen 2 does outperform Intel in overall gaming progress then these “derps” will probably buy AMD.

But it may only be best in one metric, not overall ..! You can't say 200Mhz is better, if the memory subsystem is less, etc. So before anyone goes crazy, assume the two chips are equal in IPC. (Because realistically 1% or 2% really won't matter.)

But then, if you do treat them equally in IPC, doing so doesn't seem fair to Intel. And that is why diehards are complaining.
 
What kind of problems did you have?

Where do I start? I "hate" AMD and AMD fanboys right now.

I wanted to upgrade and on the internet I read that ryzen 5 2600x was only 10% slower than Intel at 4,2ghz. I read that the stock cooler was enough for the 4,2ghz. And I read the current agesa allowed 3200mhz ram easily.

How wrong was it. Again, fanboys ruin the internet so do biased reviewers.

The wraith cooler was

not enough to overclock the cpu past 3,9ghz, or mine wasnt,and I had to buy a cryorig h7 to have decent temps and noise, because it was hot and noisy, altho everyone on the internet said otherwise when on intel vs amd arguments (while intel would require to buy a cooler).

After I finally get my overclock NO WAY to usey corsair vengeance 3000mhz kit higher than 2666 and I traded it with gskill ripjaws and couldnt get past 2993. Finally the guy on the store tells me I needed a b die like gskill flare or teamgroup elite for only 180€. No thanks.

Then the final bs. My fav franchise of all time is Battlefield, I love it. I got a 144hz monitor when I bought my new cpu and surprise surprise. Freaking cpu could not lock any battlefield apart from the old ones at 141fps on my freesync monitor. I get atrocious 1% lows on battlefield, escape from tarkov, squad and arma.

While every dude on the internet said ryzen was plenty for high refresh and only 10% slower than Intel. Yeah right!!! Never again

Now I saved up some money and will try to buy an used 9700k or 8700k when ryzen 3000 is out. I am done with AMD and with biased internet information.

Also ryzen 3000 has 2 ccx, I AM SURE it will still lag behind Intel in games, I am so done with that, I want performance and steady fps without compromises.
 
Last edited:
And your motherboard was?
Personally, I had issues at the start with my MSi B350 Gaming Pro Carbon but a couple of bios updates later it was sweet at 3200 and rock solid ever since.

Maybe your board is more the issue with Ram speed and overclocks and not the chip/cooler at all?
 
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....,:laughing:

BNTW, "Welcome to Techspot"...

Haha. Serious stuff.
But I had to reply myself because it does not let me edit my comment...I'm not THAT crazy you know...!
...who said crazy?
WHO'S THAT?!!??!?

Haha. Hey, thanks for the welcome.
 
Truth be told, the memory controller of first generation Ryzen was rather weak (when compared to Intel) and required special memory modules. Apparently this issue is solved with Zen 2 but of course I'll believe it when I see it.
 
Where do I start? I "hate" AMD and AMD fanboys right now.

I wanted to upgrade and on the internet I read that ryzen 5 2600x was only 10% slower than Intel at 4,2ghz. I read that the stock cooler was enough for the 4,2ghz. And I read the current agesa allowed 3200mhz ram easily.

How wrong was it. Again, fanboys ruin the internet so do biased reviewers.

The wraith cooler was

not enough to overclock the cpu past 3,9ghz, or mine wasnt,and I had to buy a cryorig h7 to have decent temps and noise, because it was hot and noisy, altho everyone on the internet said otherwise when on intel vs amd arguments (while intel would require to buy a cooler).

After I finally get my overclock NO WAY to usey corsair vengeance 3000mhz kit higher than 2666 and I traded it with gskill ripjaws and couldnt get past 2993. Finally the guy on the store tells me I needed a b die like gskill flare or teamgroup elite for only 180€. No thanks.

Then the final bs. My fav franchise of all time is Battlefield, I love it. I got a 144hz monitor when I bought my new cpu and surprise surprise. Freaking cpu could not lock any battlefield apart from the old ones at 141fps on my freesync monitor. I get atrocious 1% lows on battlefield, escape from tarkov, squad and arma.

While every dude on the internet said ryzen was plenty for high refresh and only 10% slower than Intel. Yeah right!!! Never again

Now I saved up some money and will try to buy an used 9700k or 8700k when ryzen 3000 is out. I am done with AMD and with biased internet information.

Also ryzen 3000 has 2 ccx, I AM SURE it will still lag behind Intel in games, I am so done with that, I want performance and steady fps without compromises.

You had a bad experience with Ryzen, no argument there. Defective MoBo, I assume. But that's just one anecdote. Here's another anecdote:

I'm a cheap bastard and built my kid a bargain basement but decent PC with the very cheapest B350 available at the time (MSI Pro-VD+) and an R3 1200. Initial 8GB 2933 MHz GSkill Trident V (cheapest RAM available) ran great, no issues. Replaced a year later with 16GB GSkill 3200 Tri V (still cheapest RAM available), zero problems. Yes, RAM is running at specified timings, set manually. OC'd CPU to 3.7GHz to play it safe as I want to do zero troubleshooting on this rig.

My kid's not 144Hz Gamer and only has a 60Hz monitor, so isn't pushing performance limits but this cheapass gaming setup has given me zero problems for a year and a half. Maybe I got lucky but I don't see many people complaining about stability when compared to total sales.
 
Nuff said... And if we are still on the "AMD offers better price vs performance" nothing changed then, it was already like that. While Intel still delivers more raw performance. The "are you rich?" is not an argument. Some people have a job and wants to spend on hardware and have the best, instead of spending on cigarettes or alcohol, for example. Saving extra 150€-200€ to have the best doesnt seem that hard. Like I said thats not an argument.

Plus, AMD confirmed the 8 core CPUs will have 2 CCX of 4 cores, so good luck with latencies in games. And this is why AMD only shown gaming graphs compared to 2700x :)

Yes people have jobs and like to have the best but sometimes having the best is just stupid, if the 3800X will give you 95% of 9900K performance for $100 less then while being easier to cool having lower power draw and not requiring beefy motherboard then why bother with 9900K? You can have almost the best and that $200 in your pocket :)
 
Nuff said... And if we are still on the "AMD offers better price vs performance" nothing changed then, it was already like that. While Intel still delivers more raw performance. The "are you rich?" is not an argument. Some people have a job and wants to spend on hardware and have the best, instead of spending on cigarettes or alcohol, for example. Saving extra 150€-200€ to have the best doesnt seem that hard. Like I said thats not an argument.

Plus, AMD confirmed the 8 core CPUs will have 2 CCX of 4 cores, so good luck with latencies in games. And this is why AMD only shown gaming graphs compared to 2700x :)

Yes people have jobs and like to have the best but sometimes having the best is just stupid, if the 3800X will give you 95% of 9900K performance for $100 less then while being easier to cool having lower power draw and not requiring beefy motherboard then why bother with 9900K? You can have almost the best and that $200 in your pocket :)

As I said several times here, 3800x to me is the most interesting chip, because it has 12c and a 8 core CCX + 4core CCX (4 cores disabled). That CPU could be the real winner, not impressed with the other offers compared to Intel. Can´t wait for 7th July
 
Haha. Serious stuff.
But I had to reply myself because it does not let me edit my comment...I'm not THAT crazy you know...!
...who said crazy?
WHO'S THAT?!!??!?

Haha. Hey, thanks for the welcome.
You have to switch from the news page to the "forum mode" , to have full access to editing and all other forum software functions.

Scroll all the way down the article's page, and click, "jump to forum mode", which will bring you to the forum, with the rest of us riff-raff.....

And BTW, "crazy" is when you start denying it.... :rolleyes:
 
You had a bad experience with Ryzen, no argument there. Defective MoBo, I assume. But that's just one anecdote. Here's another anecdote:

I'm a cheap bastard and built my kid a bargain basement but decent PC with the very cheapest B350 available at the time (MSI Pro-VD+) and an R3 1200. Initial 8GB 2933 MHz GSkill Trident V (cheapest RAM available) ran great, no issues. Replaced a year later with 16GB GSkill 3200 Tri V (still cheapest RAM available), zero problems. Yes, RAM is running at specified timings, set manually. OC'd CPU to 3.7GHz to play it safe as I want to do zero troubleshooting on this rig.

My kid's not 144Hz Gamer and only has a 60Hz monitor, so isn't pushing performance limits but this cheapass gaming setup has given me zero problems for a year and a half. Maybe I got lucky but I don't see many people complaining about stability when compared to total sales.

I don't understand his problem, why do you need 144fps minimum when you have freeshynch? I have the 2700X running with 4 x 8GB of cheapest Team Group RGB 3200Mhz memory running at 3333Mhz on Aorus Gaming 7 no problem and with Radeon VII I could easily get 144fps on none overclocked CPU I get about 80fps in 4K in BF V at Ultra settings :) maybe next time look at reviews at Hardware unboxed before buying :)
 
As I said several times here, 3800x to me is the most interesting chip, because it has 12c and a 8 core CCX + 4core CCX (4 cores disabled). That CPU could be the real winner, not impressed with the other offers compared to Intel. Can´t wait for 7th July

Are you referring to 3900X? that will have 6 cores active per CCX not 8+4 :)
 
Correction: the single core results were at 4,2ghz, not 3,9ghz. And still only 1% higher than i5 9400f wich was at 4ghz, wich means it still wont beat Intel in gaming, because Intel clocks higher and it seems the IPC is basically the same. Plus adding to that there are CCX latencies.

9400 boosts to 4.1GHz. The Ryzen 5 3600 was slightly faster in the benches and it has a max boost of 4.2GHz. As the article points out, it wasn't boosting that high.

As the article observes, these were tested on the older chipsets. There is another small uptick in performance on an X570 board. This goes for these tests and other leaks.

Secondly the Ryzen tests were run with just 2666MHz DDR4, whereas this article doesn't state the exact source of the 9400 bench. Only presumably averaged from user tests on the databases. I would say that is likely to mean that score is created using on average faster than 2666MHz memory.....

Everything here points to Zen 2's IPC for single threading being at least as fast as Coffee Lake. From everything that I have pored over, from all the leaks and benches I have seen, it's at least on par with Coffee Lake. Dare I say it the latest tests on an X570 have suggested that it may actually -whisper it- have slightly better single threaded IPC than Intel's best. To the tune of 5 percent.

We'll soon know for certain. But in any case, the gap will be so small it won't matter. It'll be smaller than it has ever been, to the point it'll be irrelevant if the AMD part destroys that much on multithreading.

You say 'the intel clocks higher' but it doesn't does it? The 9400 can't overclock. That is all you get from it.

Whereas the Ryzen 5 3600 will be unlocked, and potentially I think we're looking at 4.5GHz all core if we go by what the boost speeds are on the higher end parts.

You're talking 8700k performance across the board for $200 when overclocked, at a power draw of maybe 100 watts. That would be....fantastic. This is the reality coming to roost. The vast majority of people would be extremely satisfied with 8700k level performance. For half the price.
and that's not even the top dog processor from them and considering there's no gaming advantages with the i9s over the 8 series besides a couple of frames.....pretty sure intel is screwed for a while. good. get their non vulnerability fixing, finger pointing childlike asses the hell out of here. yesterday.
 
I don't understand his problem, why do you need 144fps minimum when you have freeshynch? I have the 2700X running with 4 x 8GB of cheapest Team Group RGB 3200Mhz memory running at 3333Mhz on Aorus Gaming 7 no problem and with Radeon VII I could easily get 144fps on none overclocked CPU I get about 80fps in 4K in BF V at Ultra settings :) maybe next time look at reviews at Hardware unboxed before buying :)

Maybe next time you also read that steady locked fps are a must for good aim. I dont wanr my fps to be all over the place as that changes mouse sens. Also even with freesync I easily notice drops from 138 to 90. And it isnt gpu bottleneck, it is cpu.
 
and that's not even the top dog processor from them and considering there's no gaming advantages with the i9s over the 8 series besides a couple of frames.....pretty sure intel is screwed for a while. good. get their non vulnerability fixing, finger pointing childlike asses the hell out of here. yesterday.

So why didnt AND shown gaming graphs vs Intel and only vs 2700x? I know why, they wont still beat Intel in games due to ccx, otherwise they would have shown it. And before yoy say pubg, that game is bottlenecked itself, thats why it was the only game they shown.
 
So why didnt AND shown gaming graphs vs Intel and only vs 2700x? I know why, they wont still beat Intel in games due to ccx, otherwise they would have shown it. And before yoy say pubg, that game is bottlenecked itself, thats why it was the only game they shown.

It could also be because PUBG prefers current Intel CPU's vs Ryzen 1xxx and 2xxx as to the refresh rate and your current problem it is well known that Ryzen isn't the best for constant 144Hz but to be fair it does depends on your gpu as well I only have 60Hz 4K monitor but I will drop my resolution to 2560 x 1440 and unlock my fps to see what I get, I run my 2700X stock and my Radeon VII at 1975Mhz, maybe you got a bit unlucky with your memory but there is no point being mad at AMD for the rest of your days, I know 4 other people who have Ryzen CPU's and 4 out 5 of us are running our memory at 3200Mhz :)
 
So why didnt AND shown gaming graphs vs Intel and only vs 2700x? I know why, they wont still beat Intel in games due to ccx, otherwise they would have shown it. And before yoy say pubg, that game is bottlenecked itself, thats why it was the only game they shown.
Intel will have to adopt a multi chip package just like AMD because making chips with ever more cores will become cost prohibitive due to cores that don't make it due to manufacturing flaws. As you try and pack more cores onto a die the more chances you're going to have manufacturing flaws due to complexity.

Have you ever wondered why the 9900K costs so much? Because they're binned like hell to be able to function. If you could take off your Intel rose colored glasses you'd know this too. Multi-chip packages are the future.
 
Intel will have to adopt a multi chip package just like AMD because making chips with ever more cores will become cost prohibitive due to cores that don't make it due to manufacturing flaws. As you try and pack more cores onto a die the more chances you're going to have manufacturing flaws due to complexity.

Have you ever wondered why the 9900K costs so much? Because they're binned like hell to be able to function. If you could take off your Intel rose colored glasses you'd know this too. Multi-chip packages are the future.

When some cores malfunction they put those chips on lower end/lower cores models, thats what Intel does. And Im not saying Intel wont use that methodology too, but right now they dont. By the time they do, prolly IPC gains are already at a level that it will obliterate any current offer on the market gaming wise. Yeah Im using Intel glassed according to you, but my cpu is a R5 2600. Makes sense.

When will people understand everyone has different neers. Go tell shroud or summ1t to get AMD and check their reaction. Some people want the highest possible frames, deal with it. 120€ difference is not a lot for some people that prefer to have the faster CPU.

If AMD Ryzen 3000 were superior to Intel gaming wise, then it would be total win for AMD. No compromises, no excuses, no "is only 10% slower on this game" bs. This is what AMD has to achieve and then the debate is over. Otherwise they will still be the price vs performance solution to get. But thats not enough for every user.
 
When some cores malfunction they put those chips on lower end/lower cores models, thats what Intel does.
But what happens when you have too many bad chips?

If AMD Ryzen 3000 were superior to Intel gaming wise, then it would be total win for AMD. No compromises, no excuses, no "is only 10% slower on this game" bs. This is what AMD has to achieve and then the debate is over. Otherwise they will still be the price vs performance solution to get. But thats not enough for every user.
True.
 
Are you referring to 3900X? that will have 6 cores active per CCX not 8+4 :)

Yes the 3900x. it was a typo! I read Robert saying it will be 8 core CCX + 4 core CCX (with 4 defective cores disabled). If it is 6 ccx + 6 ccx I lose interest immediatly lol. CCX latencies are impossible to completly avoid. As certain as we never being able to travel at the speed of light. Is basically science and maths.
 
Back