Ryzen 5 3600 + RTX 3080: Killer Combo or Not?

Irata

Posts: 876   +1,245
TechSpot Elite
Interesting test, thanks.

What would be interesting to see is how a fixed budget combination would perform once the 3070 and 3060Ti are released.

So if a given budget allows you to either buy a 3600+ RTX 3080 or a 10900k + RTX 3060Ti, which combo performs better at 1080p, 1440p and 4k.
 

Endymio

Posts: 651   +524
Steve, is there any chance you'd post power draw figures for this system? There was some debate earlier over whether or not just this 3600&3080 combination would draw less than 500w under load.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,240   +2,057
Same as anything, if you're at 4K which with this GPU you probably should be then the CPU choice is not so important.

At 1440p which is the next most common resolution that an RTX3080 owner might be at then Intel's top end 10900k advantage shows, but it isn't going to ruin your experience with a CPU significantly less than half the cost.

The final note has to be if this is your existing system and you planned well, you should be able to drop in a Zen 3 part in the near future. It's not even worth worrying when a 5800X is awaiting you, be it next month or in a year from now when prices drop. You'll have ample CPU upgrade headroom.
 

Eldritch

Posts: 256   +346
Very interesting article. Basically, 3600 trails noticeably only at 1080p and that too with perfectly good and butter smooth frame rates.
The 4k tests were surprise and while it is understood that games are gpu bound at that resolution but still seeing a 3600 stand at parity with something that cost over three times more was just hilarious.
 

sorten

Posts: 52   +81
TechSpot Elite
The only numbers that surprised me were the 1440p framerates. The 3080 is the first graphics card fast enough at that resolution to make the CPU choice matter even a little.

It'll be interesting to see how the 5600X performs in this same test. AMD claims they've taken the IPC crown from Intel, so that $300 option may be a faster gaming CPU than Intel's best.
 

mistyrain

Posts: 10   +7
Same as anything, if you're at 4K which with this GPU you probably should be then the CPU choice is not so important.

At 1440p which is the next most common resolution that an RTX3080 owner might be at then Intel's top end 10900k advantage shows, but it isn't going to ruin your experience with a CPU significantly less than half the cost.

The final note has to be if this is your existing system and you planned well, you should be able to drop in a Zen 3 part in the near future. It's not even worth worrying when a 5800X is awaiting you, be it next month or in a year from now when prices drop. You'll have ample CPU upgrade headroom.
Yes, point 3 is exactly my case. Currently with X470 chipset with R5 2600 and wating to see if R5 5600 will be good jump. R5 3600 did not worth it but now to pair it with some Big Navi will be good. Although, I will be intertested to see with new GPU how much I can squeeze out of the R5 2600 :)
 

Pastuch

Posts: 51   +58
I have a 3600x and a 3080 on order. No one should be surprised by the results here, CPUs just aren't that important, even at 1080P. I'll be selling my 3600x and getting a 5600x because paying literally 3 times more money for a CPU that will give you 5% more performance at 1080P is insane IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bamda and meric

Ludak021

Posts: 279   +209
Looks like a mid-range CPU is enough for 1440p gaming regardless of the graphics card.
where is AMD Epyc on your scale if 3600 is middle-range? :p
edit: I'd say, 3950 is middle-range, everything bellow is low range, lower range and lowest range. :)

I have a 3600x and a 3080 on order. No one should be surprised by the results here, CPUs just aren't that important, even at 1080P. I'll be selling my 3600x and getting a 5600x because paying literally 3 times more money for a CPU that will give you 5% more performance at 1080P is insane IMHO.
it's $50 more
 
Last edited:
So basically you should only buy the RTX 3080 for 4k, and in 4k, there's no difference between the CPUs compared, so, yes, unless you plan to do some workstation stuff that requires the 10900k lots of cores and single core speed go for the cheaper (AMD).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bamda

Nobina

Posts: 2,668   +2,294
where is AMD Epyc on your scale if 3600 is middle-range? :p
edit: I'd say, 3950 is middle-range, everything bellow is low range, lower range and lowest range. :)


it's $50 more
i3 and R3 is entry level, enough for most people who don't game, 5 is mid-range, 7 is high-end and 9 is "enthusiast level" basically overkill even for most gamers. The fact that R5 or i5 can game at any resolution without issues shows that it cannot be "low-end", you can make a case that it's actually high mid-range since you don't really need better. Epyc is not for regular consumers, it's for servers. Pentiums and Athlons are the true "low-end".
 

Pastuch

Posts: 51   +58
where is AMD Epyc on your scale if 3600 is middle-range? :p
edit: I'd say, 3950 is middle-range, everything bellow is low range, lower range and lowest range. :)


it's $50 more
I was talking about buying a 5900x, it's so much more money than a 5600x for 5% more performance.
 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 125   +89
Hopefully this kind of think should be common knowledge now - unless you are that extreme competitive gamer - but you could drop to 1440 or 1260 just for those games. plus the money ( poss $300 ) could be spent on better KB & M and/or monitor .

Plus I assume most of us have a 1440p screens - I won't go 4K screen until real HDR etc - why spend upto $1000 when your monitor will be obsolete in a few years for streaming and some games
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bamda

Edster

Posts: 57   +43
i3 and R3 is entry level, enough for most people who don't game, 5 is mid-range, 7 is high-end and 9 is "enthusiast level" basically overkill even for most gamers. The fact that R5 or i5 can game at any resolution without issues shows that it cannot be "low-end", you can make a case that it's actually high mid-range since you don't really need better. Epyc is not for regular consumers, it's for servers. Pentiums and Athlons are the true "low-end".
Indeed.

I have big issues with PC enthusiast who always quote like i5/R5 with 2060 as "low end". Find me a game outside of flight simulator that can't play games at 1080P with stable FPS on at least medium settings. Because these are the same people that go "console sucks".

People overrate what is needed for PC gaming, mainly because they probably wildly overspent already. I remember I was arguing with someone on Steam forum for Hitman 2, they say you need minimum 1060 to play the game smoothly and will not accept any argument. And here I am sitting with my old 1050Ti laptop and running the game quite fine on medium settings with no framerate jutter. For futureproofing, maybe. But when if you buy at least mid-tier, you probably can go through 3 generations of GPU before you start to suffer.
 

Nobina

Posts: 2,668   +2,294
Indeed.

I have big issues with PC enthusiast who always quote like i5/R5 with 2060 as "low end". Find me a game outside of flight simulator that can't play games at 1080P with stable FPS on at least medium settings. Because these are the same people that go "console sucks".

People overrate what is needed for PC gaming, mainly because they probably wildly overspent already. I remember I was arguing with someone on Steam forum for Hitman 2, they say you need minimum 1060 to play the game smoothly and will not accept any argument. And here I am sitting with my old 1050Ti laptop and running the game quite fine on medium settings with no framerate jutter. For futureproofing, maybe. But when if you buy at least mid-tier, you probably can go through 3 generations of GPU before you start to suffer.
They haven't even used hardware they are talking about. They just assume if their fps dips in a game on an i9 it must be horrible on anything else.

Just throwing money on PC hardware doesn't make you an enthusiast, just a mindless consumer. Big difference.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 1,995   +2,460
It's fascinating that in any game outside of AC:O, the 3600 can maintain over 60 FPS average and 60 1% lows, except for situations where none of the processors could maintain 1% above 60, in which case they are all within margin of error.

Given the sheer number of people that play at 60 FPS cap, it really does show how little you really need. A 3600 is the best choice for gaming perf/$, especially when you consider the cheaper B450/550 chipsets can OC memory while anything lower then a Z series on intel cannot.
Indeed.

I have big issues with PC enthusiast who always quote like i5/R5 with 2060 as "low end". Find me a game outside of flight simulator that can't play games at 1080P with stable FPS on at least medium settings. Because these are the same people that go "console sucks".

People overrate what is needed for PC gaming, mainly because they probably wildly overspent already. I remember I was arguing with someone on Steam forum for Hitman 2, they say you need minimum 1060 to play the game smoothly and will not accept any argument. And here I am sitting with my old 1050Ti laptop and running the game quite fine on medium settings with no framerate jutter. For futureproofing, maybe. But when if you buy at least mid-tier, you probably can go through 3 generations of GPU before you start to suffer.
Enthusiasts would consider a 2060 "low end" because if you are looking at 1080 medium, well, that's console quality. A lot of PC game enthusiasts are aiming for bare minimum 1080p ultra, usually 1440p/4k ultra with 75+ Hz refresh rates.

The 2060 definitely isn't low end (well, maybe with the 3090/3080 and the 3070/3060 coming out it is considered low end now performance wise) but it is also not high end, especially if you want RT for some reason.
 

Edster

Posts: 57   +43
It's fascinating that in any game outside of AC:O, the 3600 can maintain over 60 FPS average and 60 1% lows, except for situations where none of the processors could maintain 1% above 60, in which case they are all within margin of error.

Given the sheer number of people that play at 60 FPS cap, it really does show how little you really need. A 3600 is the best choice for gaming perf/$, especially when you consider the cheaper B450/550 chipsets can OC memory while anything lower then a Z series on intel cannot.
Enthusiasts would consider a 2060 "low end" because if you are looking at 1080 medium, well, that's console quality. A lot of PC game enthusiasts are aiming for bare minimum 1080p ultra, usually 1440p/4k ultra with 75+ Hz refresh rates.

The 2060 definitely isn't low end (well, maybe with the 3090/3080 and the 3070/3060 coming out it is considered low end now performance wise) but it is also not high end, especially if you want RT for some reason.
Maybe I should qualify the statement as the elitist PC enthusiast, rather than the community as a whole.

But here lies the problem, PC enthusiasts often aren't really giving the right kind of advice but they are ones people go to because they are the computer expert. Just as a race car driver probably is not the best kind of people to select your family sedan. If we are going to 2060, I mean, that can easily get you playing 1440p at 60 Hz at high settings for probably most games too, I went low ball on 1080p in case there is some crazy game that exist. No one is claiming is high end, but long as it can play basically every game, is good enough GPU. A gamer expects games to run just as well as their console, if not a lot better. An enthusiast expects smooth performance at 4K. Mismatch of expectation is fine, but when you see statements like 2070 minimum, and you look at the price, it scares away people away.

The way a lot of people scoff at anything below 2070, makes me wonder, if they actually want console players around so they can continue to sprout the toxic PC master race rhetoric.