Ryzen 5 3600 annihilates the 2600 in leaked benchmarks

trparky

TS Evangelist
I've built three machines each with liquid cooling, two of which are older than three years old and they've not had one issue with their all-in-one liquid coolers. They've been solid performers.
 

144hzGamer

TS Addict
I've built three machines each with liquid cooling, two of which are older than three years old and they've not had one issue with their all-in-one liquid coolers. They've been solid performers.
I have used PCs with tower air coolers for 15 years and I never had a motherboard bend problem.
 

Strawman

TS Maniac
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).
Thats wrong, there is no wall in PUBG anymore. I get anything from 100 to 350 on my 8700k.

According to the benchmarks from this very site you cant get a locked 144 on 8700 9700 or 9900k in BF V. That's what I'm basically saying. No CPU can lock (literally lock) 144 on most games. I have 4000c16 ram and I can't lock it in PUBG. Sure Intel does better than AMD, but I really don't think the experience is that much different.

By my logic I'm saying we are splitting hairs here. Of course we I assume are enthusiasts (I mean I "upgraded" from an r5 1600 to 8700k), but for the average gamer an R5 1600 is already an insane overkill imo.
 

Strawman

TS Maniac
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.
If your pump is noisy then it's probably damaged, return it :)

My 6 year old H100i is whisper quiet. It gets pretty noisy once I hit 80C, but that's because of my fan curve.
 

LogiGaming

TS Addict
Thats wrong, there is no wall in PUBG anymore. I get anything from 100 to 350 on my 8700k.

According to the benchmarks from this very site you cant get a locked 144 on 8700 9700 or 9900k in BF V. That's what I'm basically saying. No CPU can lock (literally lock) 144 on most games. I have 4000c16 ram and I can't lock it in PUBG. Sure Intel does better than AMD, but I really don't think the experience is that much different.

By my logic I'm saying we are splitting hairs here. Of course we I assume are enthusiasts (I mean I "upgraded" from an r5 1600 to 8700k), but for the average gamer an R5 1600 is already an insane overkill imo.
Battlefield V? I have a 9700k @ 5ghz and I NEVER drop from 190fps on Battlefield V Conquest Large 64 players on Narvik or Devastation (the most intensive maps). This website benchmarks have a GPU bottleneck in place. Ryzen 2700x can´t even sustain constant 138fps on the same game.

Here you have videos with a 9900k @ 5ghz on BF V at 1080p Low settings + RTX 2080ti, look at the upper right corner and see the fps for yourself, you will be lucky to see a drop under 200:

https://www.twitch.tv/unph4zed/videos

And if we talk about the "average gamer" as you said, then even an i3 9100f 80€ quad core will do, or a Ryzen 1500x. High refresh gaming is a thing in 2019, people want more frames, specially on multiplayer games like Apex, Fortnite, CoD, Battalion etc, wich are some of the most played games right now on PC.
 

Jugoslav

TS Rookie
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.
That is comparison between overclocked Intel 4.2ghz vs AMD 3.6ghz base clock and 4.2ghz boost clock.

This you should look at, same clocks, same speed.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13391861

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

LogiGaming

TS Addict
That is comparison between overclocked Intel 4.2ghz vs AMD 3.6ghz base clock and 4.2ghz boost clock.

This you should look at, same clocks, same speed.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13391861

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13330826
Sure because I will rather believe on a bench where it isn´t even a 7700k, but a 7700 on a poor low budget plastic VRM H110 motherboard that can´t even sustain max clocks without throttling and to make it even worse, paired with 2400mhz RAM (and I wonder its timings), while the AMD chip is on a x470 motherboard with 2666mhz, lol. Less bias please, at least check the info before posting, gosh.

And the multi threaded test is not relevant here, we all know 3600 runs circles around 7700k on multi threaded situations, even the 1600 or 2600 does, nothing new. I was just comparing the IPC, that´s why I only metioned Single Core as relevant on that test.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shadowboxer

Strawman

TS Maniac
Battlefield V? I have a 9700k @ 5ghz and I NEVER drop from 190fps on Battlefield V Conquest Large 64 players on Narvik or Devastation (the most intensive maps). This website benchmarks have a GPU bottleneck in place. Ryzen 2700x can´t even sustain constant 138fps on the same game.


And if we talk about the "average gamer" as you said, then even an i3 9100f 80€ quad core will do, or a Ryzen 1500x. High refresh gaming is a thing in 2019, people want more frames, specially on multiplayer games like Apex, Fortnite, CoD, Battalion etc, wich are some of the most played games right now on PC.
According to the benchmarks from this very site, neither can sustain anywhere near close to a 144fps lock. And no, they are not gpu bottlenecked, have you actually seen teh bench? They get the exact same fps in 1080p and 1440p.

Granted, if you lower the settings you'll get more fps, but so will the Ryzen. So, have you actually seen an R7 2700x with a 2080ti on low settings in BFV and it couldn't sustain 144 frames as you claimed? Please, send me the link.

Also, since its 2019, im assuming besides high refresh gaming people want their games not to crash.

And I'm quoting the apex legend's developers, BY FAR THE MOST COMMONLY REPORTED PC CRASH
https://www.ea.com/games/apex-legends/news/performance-update-may-2019
[PC ONLY] CRASHES SPECIFIC TO INTEL CPUs

We investigated the crash reports from many people who were crashing frequently and found that Intel CPUs sometimes were not executing the instructions properly in one particular function. A common example was an instruction that only reads a register crashed on writing to invalid memory. With the help of many forum users, we found that lowering the clock speed always fixed the crashes, even if the CPU wasn't overclocked or overheating. Thanks everyone, with a big shout out to Falkentyne, TEZZ0FIN0, JorPorCorTTV, and MrDakk!

This has been by far the most commonly reported PC crash over the last month or so and we’ve notified Intel about the issue. In the meantime, we’ve put a workaround in this patch to avoid the crashing at your original clock speeds just by changing the instructions used by that one function.
 

Shadowboxer

TS Addict
What I love about PC’s is that it’s all based on logic and we can measure the speeds of that logic. Take games, If chip A performs faster at games than chip B then chip A is better for gaming. And this actually is the same for any workload. Great isn’t it.

So what I would say is to wait for the benchmarks come out. We can then see which chip is better for gaming by seeing how fast each chip can run games.

I sit at a desk with a massive 8 core Xeon workstation with a Quadro to support all the monitors I need and I find It’s not fast enough for what I do. However if someone tried to sell me a faster CPU (like Threadripper) I’d tell them to jog on and that I’m not spending my own money on a boring work machine, actually I’d tell them to ask my boss! Get me home though and I will happily fire up my £2000 gaming PC that I spent all that money I earned at work so I can play for an hour or two of whatever game I’m playing at the time. I can tell you now, personally I don’t care how great a CPU is at anything but gaming, even if I use them for a non gaming application, I don’t care enough to spend my own money on it. If either AMD or Intel is faster than the other by even 5% at gaming il choose the CPU that’s faster at gaming. I think there are members here who don’t understand this concept, who keep telling me that a certain CPU is better because whilst being slower for gaming it’s better at compressing audio files or something I don’t care about. Currently I’d choose Intel, even if it’s slower for rendering videos and anything else someone might use a computer for. If it’s faster at gaming I want that CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LogiGaming

Capaill

TS Evangelist
Dude, that's a huge heatsink! I wouldn't at all be comfortable with that hanging off the side of my motherboard.
It doesn't look that big. Assuming the fan is a 120 or 140mm then the heatsink is a fairly standard size, probably up to 165mm tall. The MB shouldn't be under any stress - that's the job of the retention bracket to take the weight. Plus that heatsink looks fairly slim - I've seen much bigger blocks from beQuiet or Noctua. MUCH bigger.
 

LogiGaming

TS Addict
According to the benchmarks from this very site, neither can sustain anywhere near close to a 144fps lock. And no, they are not gpu bottlenecked, have you actually seen teh bench? They get the exact same fps in 1080p and 1440p.

Granted, if you lower the settings you'll get more fps, but so will the Ryzen. So, have you actually seen an R7 2700x with a 2080ti on low settings in BFV and it couldn't sustain 144 frames as you claimed? Please, send me the link.

Also, since its 2019, im assuming besides high refresh gaming people want their games not to crash.

And I'm quoting the apex legend's developers, BY FAR THE MOST COMMONLY REPORTED PC CRASH
https://www.ea.com/games/apex-legends/news/performance-update-may-2019
That is bad programming, about Apex as it doesn´t happen with any other game. Didn´t happen with me on Apex anyway.

As for Ryzen 2700x non GPU bottlenecked tests in BF V, there you go, and this is on the light map of the game, Hamada. As you can see GPU is being used at 60% (low 1080p) and Ryzen can´t push anything near 180fps and not even sustain locked 144. Have fun bud. Now compare with the 9900k videos I posted on my other post, make your conclusions. Cheers

:

ALso you are talking about this review from techspot about BF V right? Then yes, it was GPU bottlenecked as you can see from the GPU usage, and STILL Ryzen couldn´t let the GPU be utilized at more than 90% a LOT of times. Look at those atrocious 1% lows caused by lack of CPU juice :)

 

Capaill

TS Evangelist
Also, what gamer runs their CPU without a AIO water cooler..? (fans?...lol)
I would say most gamers run their CPU on air. Even narrowing it down to just enthusiasts, there are plenty of comparison studies showing that a good air cooler is just as effective as using water cooling and can be just as quiet. After that, it's mostly down to looks versus cost versus maintenance.
 

LogiGaming

TS Addict
I would say most gamers run their CPU on air. Even narrowing it down to just enthusiasts, there are plenty of comparison studies showing that a good air cooler is just as effective as using water cooling and can be just as quiet. After that, it's mostly down to looks versus cost versus maintenance.
He was just baiting I´m sure, is the only explanation for saying such a thing :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capaill

Strawman

TS Maniac
[QUOTE="LogiGaming, post: 1751299, member: 404517"
ALso you are talking about this review from techspot about BF V right? Then yes, it was GPU bottlenecked as you can see from the GPU usage, and STILL Ryzen couldn´t let the GPU be utilized at more than 90% a LOT of times. Look at those atrocious 1% lows caused by lack of CPU juice :)

[/QUOTE]

Νο it wasn't GPU bottlenecked. It's blatantly obvious by the fact that he got the same fps in 2 different resolutions...he even said so in the freaking video that even a 9900k bottlenecks the 2080ti. Those atrocious 1% lows are atrocious on both Ryzen and i9. I mean, it's 82 on the one and 94 on the other, nothing you can actually see by, you know, playing the game.

PS1. Funny thing, I remember when 1st gen Ryzen released, I was suggesting to everyone to buy the R5 1600 over the i5 7600k, since it was cheaper and with much more headroom. And you know, 144hz and the rest of the Intel squad (im assuming you were one of them) were saying how wrong I was. Fast forward to today, and look at the 7600k at the very bench you posted....
 

LogiGaming

TS Addict
[QUOTE="LogiGaming, post: 1751299, member: 404517"
ALso you are talking about this review from techspot about BF V right? Then yes, it was GPU bottlenecked as you can see from the GPU usage, and STILL Ryzen couldn´t let the GPU be utilized at more than 90% a LOT of times. Look at those atrocious 1% lows caused by lack of CPU juice :)

Νο it wasn't GPU bottlenecked. It's blatantly obvious by the fact that he got the same fps in 2 different resolutions...he even said so in the freaking video that even a 9900k bottlenecks the 2080ti. Those atrocious 1% lows are atrocious on both Ryzen and i9. I mean, it's 82 on the one and 94 on the other, nothing you can actually see by, you know, playing the game.

PS1. Funny thing, I remember when 1st gen Ryzen released, I was suggesting to everyone to buy the R5 1600 over the i5 7600k, since it was cheaper and with much more headroom. And you know, 144hz and the rest of the Intel squad (im assuming you were one of them) were saying how wrong I was. Fast forward to today, and look at the 7600k at the very bench you posted....[/QUOTE]

Did you actually watch the MSI Afterburner/RTSS graphs? Look at GPU usage and then tell me is not a bottlenecked GPU test. Then look at the other video I shown you with the GPU at 50%/60%. That´s a proper non bottlenecked GPU test. If you are running your gpu at 85% to 100% usage you are already on bottlebeck territory, is not how you analyze how much a CPU can handle as far as average fps is concerned. Convenient that you ignored the other video I shown you and also the older one with the 9900k with 220-250fps across every map on the same RTX 2080ti at low settings.

Now it´s your turn to show me a Battlefield V test at low settings with GPU usage on the 50%/60% with a 2700x vs Intel cpu. Go on, I will here be waiting for that.
 

Strawman

TS Maniac
Did you actually watch the MSI Afterburner/RTSS graphs? Look at GPU usage and then tell me is not a bottlenecked GPU test. Then look at the other video I shown you with the GPU at 50%/60%. That´s a proper non bottlenecked GPU test. If you are running your gpu at 85% to 100% usage you are already on bottlebeck territory, is not how you analyze how much a CPU can handle as far as average fps is concerned. Convenient that you ignored the other video I shown you and also the older one with the 9900k with 220-250fps across every map on the same RTX 2080ti at low settings.

Now it´s your turn to show me a Battlefield V test at low settings with GPU usage on the 50%/60% with a 2700x vs Intel cpu. Go on, I will here be waiting for that.
If you done any benchmarking yourself you would realize that ~90% GPU usage is not a gpu bottleneck. If it's not hitting 99%, its your CPU. It's OBVIOUS in that particular bench, since he is getting 151 avg on 1080p and 142 on 1440p!! Apparently, you aren't an expert in benchmarking.

Take a look at the 2070 numbers. It gets 131 fps on 1080p and 90 on 1440p. THAT's a gpu bottleneck, on both resolutions. The other one isn't
 

144hzGamer

TS Addict
If you done any benchmarking yourself you would realize that ~90% GPU usage is not a gpu bottleneck. If it's not hitting 99%, its your CPU. It's OBVIOUS in that particular bench, since he is getting 151 avg on 1080p and 142 on 1440p!! Apparently, you aren't an expert in benchmarking.

Take a look at the 2070 numbers. It gets 131 fps on 1080p and 90 on 1440p. THAT's a gpu bottleneck, on both resolutions. The other one isn't
Sorry to interrupt between you both, but a gpu at 90% will for sure have spikes to 100% usage. For a real non gpu limited test,1080p low or 720p are way to go. I seen that hardware unboxed benchmark when it came out but I already had my r5 2600, too late.

Battlefield is my fav franchise ever,big fan here. Unphazed, shroud, AimonPoint, stevieBF, marthDoom are fairly well known streamers that play a lot of battlefield V (I am mod on stevies and marth). They all use i7/i9 at 5ghz and if you check their framerates on stream they dont drop from 200. That is with really good GPUs, gtx 1080ti rtx 2080 etc at low settings and lower resolution scales. Go check them. On my r5 2600 4,2ghz I even trier stretched 1024x768 on battlefield V and Im always hovering around 110 to 140fps with the ocasional dip to 80 on heavy physics maps like Rotterdam. And my gpu at that resolution has 30% usage only, so it is cpu problem.

Sorry but you are wrong here, I am big battlefield fan and I know ryzen cant lock this game at high framerate. Intel can, go check the streamers I told you.
 

pit1209

TS Booster
This is beyond ridiculous now. 768p, 720p resolutions? 180-200fps? what is this? whats the point? even Ryzen+ can have almost same performance at 1440p and 4k than Intel, I'm tired of hearing every PC elitist screaming 4k or bust but now we are discussing who gets to 500 fps at 360p?
 
This is beyond ridiculous now. 768p, 720p resolutions? 180-200fps? what is this? whats the point? even Ryzen+ can have almost same performance at 1440p and 4k than Intel, I'm tired of hearing every PC elitist screaming 4k or bust but now we are discussing who gets to 500 fps at 360p?
Don't let's be silly.

350fps at a nice clean VGA 480p will do just fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capaill

144hzGamer

TS Addict
This is beyond ridiculous now. 768p, 720p resolutions? 180-200fps? what is this? whats the point? even Ryzen+ can have almost same performance at 1440p and 4k than Intel, I'm tired of hearing every PC elitist screaming 4k or bust but now we are discussing who gets to 500 fps at 360p?
You are being silly here. Did you read it all? What a gtx 1060 does at 720p low settings, a RTX 2080 does at 1080p low settings. If you dont have an high end gpu, the only way to know how much fps your cpu can handle on a certain game is reducing graphics, no one said I play at 720p. Stop being silly and read.
 

pit1209

TS Booster
You are being silly here. Did you read it all? What a gtx 1060 does at 720p low settings, a RTX 2080 does at 1080p low settings. If you dont have an high end gpu, the only way to know how much fps your cpu can handle on a certain game is reducing graphics, no one said I play at 720p. Stop being silly and read.
I've read and I'm not being silly, who cares what my CPU can handle if at 1440/4k it can give me 60+ fps, what's the point a 9900k@5Ghz can give you 140fps at 1440p and a 2700x can give you 110 fps but consuming half the energy and less hot, it can be the other way around. The thing is we need to stop justifying our decisions and start being real, objectively speaking Ryzen is good enough for almost everything, now if you want to go beyond what's necessary to justify that Intel can give you more fps or whatever, I'll tell you you're the one being silly here but based in your username 60 fps is not enough probably 200 fps will be in more time and so on.
 

144hzGamer

TS Addict
I've read and I'm not being silly, who cares what my CPU can handle if at 1440/4k it can give me 60+ fps, what's the point a 9900k@5Ghz can give you 140fps at 1440p and a 2700x can give you 110 fps but consuming half the energy and less hot, it can be the other way around. The thing is we need to stop justifying our decisions and start being real, objectively speaking Ryzen is good enough for almost everything, now if you want to go beyond what's necessary to justify that Intel can give you more fps or whatever, I'll tell you you're the one being silly here but based in your username 60 fps is not enough probably 200 fps will be in more time and so on.
So just because 60fps is enough for you it must be enough for everyone? no! I mostly play online shooters, I want locked framerate at high fps because I dont want graphics, I want frags. Simple as that. The higher the fps the lower the input lag, and steady fps is very important for a good aim too! And nl, 60fps or 100fps are not enough to me.

If you are a casual gamer and accept 60fps, Single player games etc, thats fine! But dont act like thats all everyone needs. Everyone wants different experiences. I would never play 4k 60hz if I had the chance to play 1080p 240hz, for example. Only if I played tomb raider or something.
 

LogiGaming

TS Addict
I've read and I'm not being silly, who cares what my CPU can handle if at 1440/4k it can give me 60+ fps, what's the point a 9900k@5Ghz can give you 140fps at 1440p and a 2700x can give you 110 fps but consuming half the energy and less hot, it can be the other way around. The thing is we need to stop justifying our decisions and start being real, objectively speaking Ryzen is good enough for almost everything, now if you want to go beyond what's necessary to justify that Intel can give you more fps or whatever, I'll tell you you're the one being silly here but based in your username 60 fps is not enough probably 200 fps will be in more time and so on.
You want 60fps buddy? Don´t waste your time and money, go and grab a Ryzen 1300x or an i3 9400f for 70€-80€. Done! 60fps on every game if you have the GPU power for it.

As for the rest of your comment.... 0 sense. For you that´s enough, it isn´t for me, I use a 240hz monitor and it delivers the best gaming experience I ever had. If you like to play Watch Dogs or Witcher 3, power to you! I don´t play that kind of games, I want performance and aim in online shooters. 90fps won´t cut it, sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 144hzGamer

pit1209

TS Booster
So just because 60fps is enough for you it must be enough for everyone? no! I mostly play online shooters, I want locked framerate at high fps because I dont want graphics, I want frags. Simple as that. The higher the fps the lower the input lag, and steady fps is very important for a good aim too! And nl, 60fps or 100fps are not enough to me.

If you are a casual gamer and accept 60fps, Single player games etc, thats fine! But dont act like thats all everyone needs. Everyone wants different experiences. I would never play 4k 60hz if I had the chance to play 1080p 240hz, for example. Only if I played tomb raider or something.
Now I'm a casual because I see 200fps redundant. LOL, first it was " not HD? you're a casual", " not 1080p? go away casual", "4k or bust casual", " 60 fps minimum or you're a casual", " 140 fps is not enough, below that is for casuals" and in the future 500fps and 10k. SMH