Ryzen 5 3600 annihilates the 2600 in leaked benchmarks

[Puiu]

But how long is Intel going to be able to sell the defective core chips as low-end chips? I don't think they have very long since with the way things are going (soon) six-core processors are going to be the bare minimum. In other words, a Core i3 is going to be a six-core processor.

I don´t agree. Law of diminishing returns here. Dual cores are used for 15 years now and still on a lot of systems. Plenty for basic tasks. We recently made the jump to quad cores as the basic mainstream option (most mainstream laptops) and I think it will be a long time before we need 6 core as a bare minimum. Even upcoming Intel laptop offers (10nm) are 4c/8t chips, because that´s plenty, not 6 cores.

Core counts will only go up to certain value. On HEDT for really serious productivity work/servers, yes, the more the better, but it was always the case, 16 core CPUs are not new. For mainstream I doubt we will need more than 8 cores, max 12, for at least a decade. We will not see 32 core CPUs coming to mainstream as bare minimum anytime soon, and the future CPU releases (2021, 2022, 2023) will not focus on having more and more cores. It will be about IPC improvements, DDR 5, Pcie gen4, lower power consumption.

If you try to use a "simple" i5 8400 you will see that it struggles to reach 25%/30% usage on anything that isn´t game related or intensive productivity task. Even with 5 twitch streams open at 1080p 60fps, 5 youtube tabs, instagram, facebook, microsoft word, etc. Is just overkill. We use it because we are enthusiasts or gamers or content creators. Quad Core and 6 core CPUs will stay for a long long time. The next big evolutions will be litology + power consumption wich will make everything smaller. Thinner laptops with still great performance. Smaller laptops that can fit on your pocket and you can open them to a regular size. Mini Itx PCs more and more popular with small GPUs, small motherboards. Tbh in 10 years I suspect most PC users will have a PC on the go that they connect to their monitor or Home TV at home, and bring it with them outside where they want.

When you say recently do you include an entire decade? O_o

6 cores are fast becoming the norm and that's a good thing. Games already work better on 6 cores and most software can take advantage of the extra cores. For too long Intel has given mainstream users the finger with just 4 cores, thank god Ryzen was a success.

As for intel's new 10nm 4 core chips.... the only reason they made them 4 cores is because 10nm is broken and they can't make high performance or high core count CPUs. Their yields on that process node are at rock bottom. They are literally forced to continue using 14nm+++++ till late 2020 unless they magically resolve all problems.

 

[LogiGaming]

You can't compare what we have right now to what what happening the last 10 years, AMD now competes so if Intel doesn't make its i3 6 Core AMD will make its R3 6 cores plus if you look at that 8400 it does get 100% utilization in good few games already and after Next Gen drops that CPU will start to struggle

When you say recently do you include an entire decade? O_o

6 cores are fast becoming the norm and that's a good thing. Games already work better on 6 cores and most software can take advantage of the extra cores. For too long Intel has given mainstream users the finger with just 4 cores, thank god Ryzen was a success.

As for intel's new 10nm 4 core chips.... the only reason they made them 4 cores is because 10nm is broken and they can't make high performance or high core count CPUs. Their yields on that process node are at rock bottom. They are literally forced to continue using 14nm+++++ till late 2020 unless they magically resolve all problems.

What was the part where you both missed the fact that I was not talking about games? The other dude said soon 6 core will be a bare minimum so no company can use defective 8 core chips, for example, and sell them as 4 core or 6 core. I talked about basic tasks! Not gaming! And even then, right now if you play on 60hz or 144hz with a fps cap + FreeSync/Gsync you will not stress a 6 core cpu at 100% on 99% of the games, maybe except Assasins Creed or something like that. I didn´t talk about games anyway, I talked in general, quad core CPUs will still be a thing for a long time, and those CPUs are defective ones that couldn´t keep up with higher core counts.

 

[Puiu]

What was the part where you both missed the fact that I was not talking about games? The other dude said soon 6 core will be a bare minimum so no company can use defective 8 core chips, for example, and sell them as 4 core or 6 core. I talked about basic tasks! Not gaming! And even then, right now if you play on 60hz or 144hz with a fps cap + FreeSync/Gsync you will not stress a 6 core cpu at 100% on 99% of the games, maybe except Assasins Creed or something like that. I didn´t talk about games anyway, I talked in general, quad core CPUs will still be a thing for a long time, and those CPUs are defective ones that couldn´t keep up with higher core counts.

Pretty sure I said: "Games already work better on 6 cores and most software can take advantage of the extra cores."
I never limited it to only games. Software using more than 6 cores is a given nowadays for many workloads.

FYI you do stress all cores in multiplayer games and many titles require 6 cores to get high 1% results. You generally don't go for crazy high FPS if you are not a competitive gamer.

You also need to just read some benchmarks and not make weird assumptions.

There are many reasons most people don't agree with your comment, but this one takes the cake: "Even upcoming Intel laptop offers (10nm) are 4c/8t chips, because that´s plenty, not 6 cores."
It could not be further from the truth.

 

[Strawman]

Plus, pubg is a bottlenecked test like steve from GN said. They cherry picked for a reason. See you in 7th July

What does "PUBG is a bottlenecked test" even mean?

 

[Strawman]

So if Zen2 can´t reach 5ghz like Intel, I can bet my money right now that on non GPU bottleneck scenarios, 9700k and 9900k @5ghz will still have the edge in games compared to Ryzen 3000 series. That comparasion you talked about (Pubg) is a "garbo" benchmark, because it is bottlenecked by nature. There´s a reason AMD shown that one, instead of showing the others on League of Legends, Dota, Apex, etc versus Intel. They know they still can´t do it, altho they will close the gap massively.

Again, what do you mean that Pubg is bottlenecked by nature?

Anyways, I'm here sitting with my 1080ti and my 8700k on a 144 1080p monitor wondering what the fuss is about. I upgraded from the 1600 and the gaming gains were miniscule. I mean seriously, what type of gaming are you doing that you want better performance than let's say a 2600x? You have a 2080ti on 1080p? I'm really wondering.

From all the benchmarks I've seen, there are 3 types of games.
1) Lightweight games that any CPU,be it Ryzen or Intel can get 240 or 144hz. Those include fortnite, cs go, dota 2, apex legends etcetera.

2) Heavy games that certain CPU's can reach 144 fps average but not even close to a hardlock. Those are BFV for example and Pubg.

3) Even heavier games that no CPU can ever dream of a 144 lock like AC.

In the first category, most mid end cpus and higher can do the job (8400 / 9400 / 2600 etc.). In the 2nd category, sure an Intel CPU is faster, but does it really matter when you actually have to use adaptive sync anyways cause there is no lock? In the 3rd situation, again an Intel is probably better (although not in AC) but again, does it matter if again, neither one can achieve anything remotely to a 144hz?

Right now the only CPU that matters for the average user is the 2600x. It does everything great.

 

[m3tavision]

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.

That sounds to me, you know enough how to get into the bios & fiddle, but you don't know wtf you are doing. Mine OCs fine & my ram is at 3600. You will not be able to get anywhere with your Zen chip, using cheap *** memory. Don't complain about memory prices, because everyone has been angry for the last 3 years... but today, there is no excuse to have nothing but 3200, or better. (There are AMD approves stick of memory that work just fine... derp)


Also, what gamer runs their CPU without a AIO water cooler..? (fans?...lol)
I have one on my old 4790k... if you want to game at the highest levels your rig can supply & have your CPU at it most stable clock, then why beat around the bush with a cooler that came with your CPU..?

L:AUGHING my azz off!!!

 

[trparky]

Core counts will only go up to certain value. On HEDT for really serious productivity work/servers, yes, the more the better, but it was always the case, 16 core CPUs are not new. For mainstream, I doubt we will need more than 8 cores, max 12, for at least a decade. We will not see 32 core CPUs coming to the mainstream as bare minimum anytime soon, and the future CPU releases (2021, 2022, 2023) will not focus on having more and more cores. It will be about IPC improvements, DDR 5, PCIe gen4, lower power consumption.

Obviously, you've not seen Google Chrome start using a hell of a lot of processor power like I have.

 

[m3tavision]

CCX = latencies = lower 1% lows. Nothing to do about it, is like having 2 different CPUs communicating. Lets see on the 7th July. And calm down with the exageration, i9 9900kf was released today in my country for 480€ and it does 5ghz all cores with overclock, doesnt need to cost 600. i7 9700k costs 380€.

You have no warranties that 3600 will overclock as high as the others, you have no benchs or reviews. Lets wait for 7th July.

Plus, pubg is a bottlenecked test like steve from GN said. They cherry picked for a reason. See you in 7th July

You keep saying that^. Without reading into how chips work, or what was done with Zen2. Which makes your post seem disgruntles and outdated.

 

[m3tavision]

What was the part where you both missed the fact that I was not talking about games? The other dude said soon 6 core will be a bare minimum so no company can use defective 8 core chips, for example, and sell them as 4 core or 6 core. I talked about basic tasks! Not gaming! And even then, right now if you play on 60hz or 144hz with a fps cap + FreeSync/Gsync you will not stress a 6 core cpu at 100% on 99% of the games, maybe except Assasins Creed or something like that. I didn´t talk about games anyway, I talked in general, quad core CPUs will still be a thing for a long time, and those CPUs are defective ones that couldn´t keep up with higher core counts.

You are living in yester-year. Even the new consoles will have 8.

Battlefield will us 8 cores... and if you are streaming/recording/teamspeaking, etc... then more cores will help reduce the dips in your gameplay.

8 core 16thread is the new gaming standard for 2020 onward. There is no sugar coating this when you can buy an 8core CPU for $199 & 5ghz clocks for $600.

The sweet-spot for right now, is a 6 core CPU with high clocks and great memory. 4.8Ghz+ and 4,000Ghz+ memory speeds. Even though the fastest 4c/8th machines are holding on real good in gaming, they are reaching their limits. Not to mention fall behind in multitasking or streaming, etc. So essential 4 core gaming is dead.

What matters most is upgradability. Buy a 6 core now, and then 2 years from now, drop in a 16 core Zen3.

 

[144hzGamer]

Also, what gamer runs their CPU without a AIO water cooler..? (fans?...lol)

After this one, I now officially know that I should ignore you forever. Too much bait, sorry.

 

[Capaill]

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.

From my own experiences on a Ryzen 5 1600 (but I had done a LOT of research before buying components), I left the stock cooler in the box and bought my own for about $40. Also the RAM could go to 3200 but ONLY if you bought B-die RAM. It was impossible to find the Flares at the time but I eventually found that the Ripjaws 3200 CL14 was B-die so I bought that. However I couldn't get the OC higher than 3.8 GHz and I couldn't get the Ripjaws higher than 2933 after a load test. I put all that down to the fact that I bought a B-series mobo to save money.
So yes, there were a lot of unknowns about components and overclocking when Ryzen first came out. And no doubt there were more when the 2nd gen came out too. The tech is a lot newer than Intel's which have been out since forever so we need to wait to see a wider range of OC testing. I imagine the stock 2600x cooler could do 4.2 IF an unknown range of preconditions were met like having a certain mobo / firmware or high airflow or low ambient temperature. That's not your fault, some people just like to boast of how high an OC they got while providing very little useful supporting information.
I'm still happy with my OC'd 1600 but that could be because I have yet to find a new game that is worthy of a CPU upgrade. The bottleneck for me is still the GPU (1070Ti).

 

[Capaill]

"Across the four benchmarks, the 3600 outperforms it by a staggering 25%, which is higher than expected."
That's an interesting interpretation of the graph. Yes, one column shows an improvement from 75% to 100% but another column shows an improvement from 84% to 86%.
So it looks more like a 2% to 25% improvement.

 

[Ravalo]

You are living in yester-year. Even the new consoles will have 8.

Battlefield will us 8 cores... and if you are streaming/recording/teamspeaking, etc... then more cores will help reduce the dips in your gameplay.

8 core 16thread is the new gaming standard for 2020 onward. There is no sugar coating this when you can buy an 8core CPU for $199 & 5ghz clocks for $600.

The sweet-spot for right now, is a 6 core CPU with high clocks and great memory. 4.8Ghz+ and 4,000Ghz+ memory speeds. Even though the fastest 4c/8th machines are holding on real good in gaming, they are reaching their limits. Not to mention fall behind in multitasking or streaming, etc. So essential 4 core gaming is dead.

What matters most is upgradability. Buy a 6 core now, and then 2 years from now, drop in a 16 core Zen3.

I still have an amd athlon x4 845 (yes, FM2+ in 2019) and I can run SCP:SL at 40-60 fps 1080p with my overclocked RX 560 (1300 mhz core clock, 1605 memory clock), 4 core gaming is still doable since the new i3s can be paired with a gtx 1660 without bottlenecking the gpu

 

[LogiGaming]

Pretty sure I said: "Games already work better on 6 cores and most software can take advantage of the extra cores."
I never limited it to only games. Software using more than 6 cores is a given nowadays for many workloads.

FYI you do stress all cores in multiplayer games and many titles require 6 cores to get high 1% results. You generally don't go for crazy high FPS if you are not a competitive gamer.

You also need to just read some benchmarks and not make weird assumptions.

There are many reasons most people don't agree with your comment, but this one takes the cake: "Even upcoming Intel laptop offers (10nm) are 4c/8t chips, because that´s plenty, not 6 cores."
It could not be further from the truth.

You are living in yester-year. Even the new consoles will have 8.

Battlefield will us 8 cores... and if you are streaming/recording/teamspeaking, etc... then more cores will help reduce the dips in your gameplay.

8 core 16thread is the new gaming standard for 2020 onward. There is no sugar coating this when you can buy an 8core CPU for $199 & 5ghz clocks for $600.

The sweet-spot for right now, is a 6 core CPU with high clocks and great memory. 4.8Ghz+ and 4,000Ghz+ memory speeds. Even though the fastest 4c/8th machines are holding on real good in gaming, they are reaching their limits. Not to mention fall behind in multitasking or streaming, etc. So essential 4 core gaming is dead.

What matters most is upgradability. Buy a 6 core now, and then 2 years from now, drop in a 16 core Zen3.

I will repeat again. I DID NOT talk about gaming, I talked about basic tasks. A dual core and quad core CPU will still be enough for most PC users for a long time. Text processing, university work flow, web browsing, watching movies, social media.

Obviously, you've not seen Google Chrome start using a hell of a lot of processor power like I have.

That´s why I use Mozilla Firefox for a long time now. Chrome is a recource hog and there is no reason for someone to still use it. Firefox is objectively better.

Again, what do you mean that Pubg is bottlenecked by nature?

Anyways, I'm here sitting with my 1080ti and my 8700k on a 144 1080p monitor wondering what the fuss is about. I upgraded from the 1600 and the gaming gains were miniscule. I mean seriously, what type of gaming are you doing that you want better performance than let's say a 2600x? You have a 2080ti on 1080p? I'm really wondering.

From all the benchmarks I've seen, there are 3 types of games.
1) Lightweight games that any CPU,be it Ryzen or Intel can get 240 or 144hz. Those include fortnite, cs go, dota 2, apex legends etcetera.

2) Heavy games that certain CPU's can reach 144 fps average but not even close to a hardlock. Those are BFV for example and Pubg.

3) Even heavier games that no CPU can ever dream of a 144 lock like AC.

In the first category, most mid end cpus and higher can do the job (8400 / 9400 / 2600 etc.). In the 2nd category, sure an Intel CPU is faster, but does it really matter when you actually have to use adaptive sync anyways cause there is no lock? In the 3rd situation, again an Intel is probably better (although not in AC) but again, does it matter if again, neither one can achieve anything remotely to a 144hz?

Right now the only CPU that matters for the average user is the 2600x. It does everything great.

I mean that Pubg is a game where once you hit a certain fps wall, doesn´t matter how much power you throw at it, it won´t go past that framerate. Be it with a 9900k at 6ghz or 720p low settings with a 2080ti.

I have a 240hz monitor where I play online games and a 4k 60hz as secondary.

You can´t reach locked 180-240 fps on Apex Legends, Battlefield V, Escape from Tarkov, Quake Champions, Black Ops 4 or WW2 with an AMD cpu right now, only 9700k or 9900k. If you are talking about locked 138fps for Gsync/FreeSync on 144hz monitors, then again, 2700x can´t do it on every game as you mentioned. Probably Zen2 will be able to deal with any game at 144hz wich a 138fps lock (optimal zone for Gsync/FreeSync), but let´s see if it can deal with 165hz and 240hz, that´s the doubt here.

Just because you use 144hz and you are happy with it, doesn´t mean other users do not want an even smoother experience. It depends on each one preference. So by your logic no one should buy the new AMD CPUs or Intel high end CPUs because no one needs more than a 2600x for gaming? (your own words).

That sounds to me, you know enough how to get into the bios & fiddle, but you don't know wtf you are doing. Mine OCs fine & my ram is at 3600. You will not be able to get anywhere with your Zen chip, using cheap *** memory. Don't complain about memory prices, because everyone has been angry for the last 3 years... but today, there is no excuse to have nothing but 3200, or better. (There are AMD approves stick of memory that work just fine... derp)


Also, what gamer runs their CPU without a AIO water cooler..? (fans?...lol)
I have one on my old 4790k... if you want to game at the highest levels your rig can supply & have your CPU at it most stable clock, then why beat around the bush with a cooler that came with your CPU..?

L:AUGHING my azz off!!!

Are you actually "zeriouz"? I run an air cooler on my 9700k at 5ghz with 0 problems. I´m not sure wether you are trolling or.... but for your information an AIO cooler isn´t any better than an high-end air cooler, while having more noise, plus pump noise, attracting more dust to the case and being more expensive than a proper Air Cooler. I will take that as a bad attempt to troll, but I´m not surprised about it coming from you. "Zeriouzly laugh your azz off".

 

[trparky]

I run an air cooler on my 9700k at 5ghz with 0 problems.

I don't even want to know how big that hunk of metal that's hanging off your motherboard is. Most of the coolers that can keep that chip cool are stupidly big only because they have to be to able to cool the damn thing.

 

[LogiGaming]

I don't even want to know how big that hunk of metal that's hanging off your motherboard is. Most of the coolers that can keep that chip cool are stupidly big only because they have to be to able to cool the damn thing.

Wrong again:

Again, misinformation. 9900k is hot, yes, 9700k is ez pz to cool, I can even do 5,2ghz but I prefer to never go past 65º while gaming and 200mhz wouldn´t benefit me plus the voltage increase is not necessary.

People like to bash Intel with the "14nm++++++++++" thing, but in fact they improve it. 9700k needs way lower voltage than 8700k to get 5ghz, while 6700k couldn´t even reach 5ghz at all. The "+" means something.

This is your average 9700k:

Let me assure you won´t be getting even 5ghz on a 8700k with 1,27v, only a golden sample, plus it has tooth paste, is not soldered.

 

[trparky]

Dude, that's a huge heatsink! I wouldn't at all be comfortable with that hanging off the side of my motherboard.

 

[144hzGamer]

Dude, that's a huge heatsink! I wouldn't at all be comfortable with that hanging off the side of my motherboard.

Lol? Huge? So many trolls here. What you think of a Noctua DH15 then? Whats not huge for you? A 90mm fan cooler? Lel

 

[trparky]

What you think of a Noctua DH15 then?

A hideous looking piece of metal that's way too big to be hanging off the side of a motherboard. I've heard of people's motherboards bending because of the weight of some of these beefy coolers.

Whats not huge for you? A 90mm fan cooler? Lel

A water block and pump.

 

[144hzGamer]

A hideous looking piece of metal that's way too big to be hanging off the side of a motherboard. I've heard of people's motherboards bending because of the weight of some of these beefy coolers.

A water block and pump.

A noisy pump and a dust magnet that has the same chances of leaking liquid to your components as a big air cooler has of bending a motherboard, while being more expensive, got it.

 

[trparky]

Have you weighed some of these coolers? Some of them are quite heavy. Then let's factor in the fact that Intel made the CPU sub-straight (PCB like piece with all the pads on the bottom) thinner than in the past which resulted in some people actually breaking said PCBs under the weight of the coolers.

 

[144hzGamer]

Same odds as leaking water from the AIO and ruining your hardware. It's called drawbacks. Ir desnt happen all the time tho, and the cooler that isnon the image above with a single tower fan, will not make a motherboard bend to dangerous levels, cmon.

 

[LogiGaming]

Dude, that's a huge heatsink! I wouldn't at all be comfortable with that hanging off the side of my motherboard.

Can´t complain, I got it for free with my Z390 MSI motherboard. People still think Intel is very expensive, but I´m here rocking every multiplayer game at 240hz with only spending 80€ more than going Ryzen 2700x route wich would give me less performance when I got this (December 2018)

 

[Ravalo]

Have you weighed some of these coolers? Some of them are quite heavy. Then let's factor in the fact that Intel made the CPU sub-straight (PCB like piece with all the pads on the bottom) thinner than in the past which resulted in some people actually breaking said PCBs under the weight of the coolers.

Some AIOs have a H U G E fan at the end of the cooler, and if you move your pc you need to take out the AIO so it doesnt leak
You can use flex tape or flex seal but it won’t last that long

 

[LogiGaming]

I would take my motherboard bending a bit every 5 years, when I already switched mobo, compared to spending crazy money on an AIO that has a noisy pump and cleans all the dust on my room.