Ryzen 5 3600 vs. Ryzen 9 3900X vs. Core i9-9900K: GPU Scaling Benchmark

[Julio Franco]

Having tested 3rd-gen Ryzen processors with the RTX 2080 Ti extensively, our idea behind this new feature is to add mainstream and budget GPUs to the mix in a benchmark run that reflects more settings and resolutions gamers will likely use when tuning their PCs for gaming: we've picked the RTX 2070 Super, RX 5700 and Radeon RX 580.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1897-ryzen-5-ryzen-9-core-i9-gaming-scaling/

 

[Raytrace3D]

Great article and work, Steve. Love your channel on YouTube as well. Nice work!

 

[DarkMike]

Just missing how much I would gain going from a Ryzen 1700 & RTX 2070 to the 3600 @1440P.

Can't find this anywhere.

 

[amstech]

The 8/16 9900K (and 8700K/9700K), even without being overclocked, is still besting AMD's 6/12 3600 and 8/16 3700X by a good amount. Your talking 10-20FPS across the board. Will this be something gamers truly notice? Probably not most the time, but if gaming at 1440/1600p @ 120Hz/144Hz/165Hz, the difference between running 100FPS and 120FPS could matter.
Even with the IPC increase the clock speeds still hold AMD back in some regards, gaming being one of them.That being said its hard to argue the incredible value and performance of the 3600, 3700X and 3900X.
The 3900X is a $500 flagship CPU that's now $50+ more expensive then the 9900K, so from a gaming only build its still #3 or #4 IMO but with how well it performs everywhere else, if not building just a dedicated gamer its a great choice.

 

[ltkAlpha]

Just missing how much I would gain going from a Ryzen 1700 & RTX 2070 to the 3600 @1440P.

Can't find this anywhere.

Hi, have you checked techpowerup's recent CPU reviews? They have summary Game Tests sections for the more popular resolutions using a 2080 Ti. Then you can use Steve's data to draw your own conclusions depending on your GPU.

 

[LeroN]

The 8/16 9900K (and 8700K/9700K), even without being overclocked, is still besting AMD's 8/16 3600 and 3700X by a good amount. Your talking 10-20FPS across the board. Will this be something gamers truly notice? Probably not most the time, but if gaming at 1440/1600p @ 120Hz/144Hz/165Hz, the difference between running 100FPS and 120FPS could matter.
Even with the IPC increase the clock speeds still hold AMD back in some regards, gaming being one of them.That being said its hard to argue the incredible value and performance of the 3600, 3700X and 3900X.
The 3900X is a $500 flagship CPU that's now $50+ more expensive then the 9900K, so from a gaming only build its still #3 or #4 IMO but with how well it performs everywhere else, if not building just a dedicated gamer its a great choice.

R5 3600 is 6/12 and as we can see it beats 9400 and is head-to-head with non-OC 9600K. However 9600K OC can be up to 10% faster. So it's incorrect to compare 3600 and 9900.
3700x has pretty high avg, 1% and 0.1% fps and lags behind 9900k OC not so far.

But I agree that 3600 and 3700x are overpriced. However stupid Intel helped AMD to overprice their CPU as Intel overpiced own ones at first. Also it helps to AMD leveraging prices for 3800x and 3900x relative to hight prices of 9900s. This is a "secret sauce" why AMD have a good sale profit today.

Once Intel move 8/8(-k) to the budget segment on next year then AMD start loosing in their money's battle. But now the Intel's marketing sucks.

 

[redgarl]

Fantastic analysis, beside Anandtech doing this once in a while, I didn't see much other sites doing this. This is a real usecase. I can take those numbers to the store and having a clear understanding on what to expect from my purchase.

This analysis should be done in any CPU review. A part testing the CPU bottleneck, and the other part with real world application.

This article just prove how incredible the 3600 really is.

 

[amstech]

R5 3600 is 6/12 .

Correct, when I mentioned the 3600 and 3700X I forget to label them independently, as I mentioned an Intel 8/8, 6/12 and 8/16 for comparison. Updated now, thank you.

 

[Jeffrey2009]

Splendid tests and summary. Thumb up!

We 99% need a flagship GPU than a flagship CPU to play games except only one condition-- 9900K+2070Super is even more powerful than R5-3600+2080Ti.

 

[hapkikb]

I appreciate all that AMD has done (they have come a long - long way), but I got to say I am so glad I went with a i9 9900K/2080Ti combo for my last build.

 

[Irata]

The 8/16 9900K (and 8700K/9700K), even without being overclocked, is still besting AMD's 6/12 3600 and 8/16 3700X by a good amount. Your talking 10-20FPS across the board. Will this be something gamers truly notice? Probably not most the time, but if gaming at 1440/1600p @ 120Hz/144Hz/165Hz, the difference between running 100FPS and 120FPS could matter.
Even with the IPC increase the clock speeds still hold AMD back in some regards, gaming being one of them.That being said its hard to argue the incredible value and performance of the 3600, 3700X and 3900X.
The 3900X is a $500 flagship CPU that's now $50+ more expensive then the 9900K, so from a gaming only build its still #3 or #4 IMO but with how well it performs everywhere else, if not building just a dedicated gamer its a great choice.

If you look at buying a PC on a budget, this presents some interesting choices:

a) Core I-9-9900k + RTX 2070 super = $ 495 (CPU) + $ 85 (HSF) + $620 (GPU) = $ 1,200
b) Ryzen 3600 +RTX 2080 TI = $199 (CPU + HSF) + $1,099 (GPU) =) $1,300

(using Newegg prices, GPU prices are for the highest selling ones)

In this case the Ryzen combination is $100 (roughly 8%) more expensive than the core i9 combination.
On 1080p Medium quality the Intel combination is faster, at ultra quality both are about equal.

Going up in terms of quality + resolution though (1440p), the Ryzen 3600 + 2080 ti combo is often considerably faster, so I guess it depends which resolution and quality you play at and if e.g. ray tracing is your thing, or not.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

Just missing how much I would gain going from a Ryzen 1700 & RTX 2070 to the 3600 @1440P.

Can't find this anywhere.

Probably not much, as with a 2070 you're still going to be GPU-limited in most new games at 1440p.

 

[ZackL04]

Just missing how much I would gain going from a Ryzen 1700 & RTX 2070 to the 3600 @1440P.

Can't find this anywhere.

Im sure the gamernexus review of the 3600 has the 1700 on the charts

 

[ZackL04]

So, I totally understand the idea behind this data.

But wouldnt it be best to purchase the most powerful cpu now in anticipation of the idea that gpu performance jumps significantly per generation vs cpu?

Like, buy the fastest cpu now cause it will last you much longer top teir performance wise vs buying a 2080ti now only to see it become just as fast as a 3080 or 4070 in 2-3 years?

 

[neeyik]

Im sure the gamernexus review of the 3600 has the 1700 on the charts

The TechSpot review has an 1800X and a 1600X, so you could interpolate between the two; however, the testing was done with a 2080 Ti to remove any possibility of GPU interference with the test results. At 1440p, a 2070 Super is going to be more GPU limited than a 2080 Ti is, but a 3600 is clearly better than an 1800X; the difference varies a lot from test to test (e.g. Far Cry New Dawn is a much larger gap than in Assassin's Creed: Odyssey) though.

 

[gamerk2]

So, I totally understand the idea behind this data.

But wouldnt it be best to purchase the most powerful cpu now in anticipation of the idea that gpu performance jumps significantly per generation vs cpu?

Like, buy the fastest cpu now cause it will last you much longer top teie performance wise vs buying a 2080ti now only to see it become just as fast as a 3080 or 4070 in 2-3 years?

That's what I do; only recently moved from my trusty 2600k. I *always* get the best CPU I can get at the time, and expect it to last me 4-5 years before I toss the build and start over. At minimum, it needs to support a GPU refresh two years down the line.

During the same timespan, I know AMD users who've gone through 3-4 CPUs (Phenom II->FX4x00-FX8x00->Ryzen).

 

[JaredTheDragon]

So, I totally understand the idea behind this data.

But wouldnt it be best to purchase the most powerful cpu now in anticipation of the idea that gpu performance jumps significantly per generation vs cpu?

Like, buy the fastest cpu now cause it will last you much longer top teie performance wise vs buying a 2080ti now only to see it become just as fast as a 3080 or 4070 in 2-3 years?

That's what I do; only recently moved from my trusty 2600k. I *always* get the best CPU I can get at the time, and expect it to last me 4-5 years before I toss the build and start over. At minimum, it needs to support a GPU refresh two years down the line.

During the same timespan, I know AMD users who've gone through 3-4 CPUs (Phenom II->FX4x00-FX8x00->Ryzen).

True, but then some of us went from Phenom II -> FX8350 and then stopped. While my three workstations are slow by today's standards, that's still 24 threads tearing through Vray every day and it's still monetarily viable. But it's that Ryzen 3600 that looks just soooo appealing now, the first two gens not so much.

But for gaming, I'm hurtin' a bit with a GTX660 and the 8-core Piledriver, on a 720p Plasma. So while these rigs are fine for work, an update is definitely in order and a Ryzen 6/12 would be just perfect! Alas, AMD cards don't work well with Maya traditionally so I'll end up on the green team there, but I can't imagine getting anything beyond a 1600 series myself.

 

[Evernessince]

The 8/16 9900K (and 8700K/9700K), even without being overclocked, is still besting AMD's 6/12 3600 and 8/16 3700X by a good amount. Your talking 10-20FPS across the board. Will this be something gamers truly notice? Probably not most the time, but if gaming at 1440/1600p @ 120Hz/144Hz/165Hz, the difference between running 100FPS and 120FPS could matter.
Even with the IPC increase the clock speeds still hold AMD back in some regards, gaming being one of them.That being said its hard to argue the incredible value and performance of the 3600, 3700X and 3900X.
The 3900X is a $500 flagship CPU that's now $50+ more expensive then the 9900K, so from a gaming only build its still #3 or #4 IMO but with how well it performs everywhere else, if not building just a dedicated gamer its a great choice.

1. Overclock to Overclock the 3900X actually gains 1% over the 9900K

https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/

We've been over this before, the 9900K can't be OC'd much higher then it's stock 5.0 GHz to begin with and it doesn't provide much of a boost anyways.

2. It is not "15-20 FPS across the board". It's 5 games out of 36. https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/. AMD leads is CSGO by that same criteria and in every other game tested the margin in smaller then your claim. In any case a statement like this is simply misleading because it makes a blanket statement and takes information out of context. 5/5 of the games the 9900K did win by "15-20 FPS" in were already 100+ FPS situations, 2/5 of them were 140+ FPS situations, and 1/5 240+ FPS. This is why averages and mins are important, as they provide context as to the whole picture.

You've made both of these claims before and they have been disproven in techspot's own articles on two occasions now. Fact: The 9900K does not gain performance over the 3900X overclock to overclock on average (TechSpot's own numbers show the opposite). Fact: The 9900K DOES NOT win by "15-20 FPS" across the board.

 

[amstech]

1. Overclock to Overclock the 3900X actually gains 1% over the 9900K.

5.0GHz isn't an overclock.
They commonly hit 5.2-5.3.
It will only make a 5FPS difference at most, but it adds up.
And again you always reach for the 3900X to bail you out, the most expensive chip discussed here. My comment specifically stated the 9900K/8700K and 9700K versus the 3600 and 3700X, and the numbers/benchmarks are inarguable, so not sure who or what your arguing with.

The 9900K DOES NOT win by "15-20 FPS" across the board.

Compared to the 3600 and 3700X it does, (and you can throw in the 8700K/9700K here too.)
242 compared to 230.
200 compared to 185.
152 compared to 138.
223 compared to 190.
286 compared to 241.
206 compared to 190.
119 compared to 108.
150 compared to 133.

To name a few from the article.
Again, this article shows the 9900K besting the 3600 from 5-30FPS across the board, usually atleast 15-20.
Also, here's some of the results from the 3700X and 9900K review.


Hitman 2
9900K = 89/119
3700X = 83/111

World War Z
9900K = 123/151
3700X = 111/135

Far Cry New Dawn
9900K = 96/123
3700X = 88/112

The Division
9900K = 108/172
3700X = 107/158

Shadows Of The Tomb Raider
9900K = 89/123
3700X = 72/102

Battlefield 5
9900K = 125/168
3700X = 107/155

Total War: Three Kingdoms
9900K = 107/128
3700X = 106/123

Only the 3900X keeps up and the 9700K is a better gamer for $150 less, and that's before its overclocked. If your specifically building a gaming rig, and want more then a budget build Intel is still the way to go. For all other intents and purposes, Ryzen is great.

 

[Evernessince]

5.0GHz isn't an overclock.
They commonly hit 5.2-5.3.
It will only make a 5FPS difference at most, but it adds up.
And again you always reach for the 3900X to bail you out, the most expensive chip discussed here. My comment specifically stated the 9900K/8700K and 9700K versus the 3600 and 3700X, and the numbers/benchmarks are inarguable, so not sure who or what your arguing with or about?


Compared to the 3600 and 3700X it does, and you can throw in the 8700K/9700K here too. This article shows the 9900K besting the 3600 from 5-25FPS across the board.
Also, here's some of the results from the 3700X and 9900K review.


Hitman 2
9900K = 89/119
3700X = 83/111

World War Z
9900K = 123/151
3700X = 111/135

Far Cry New Dawn
9900K = 96/123
3700X = 88/112

The Division
9900K = 108/172
3700X = 107/158

Shadows Of The Tomb Raider
9900K = 89/123
3700X = 72/102

Battlefield 5
9900K = 125/168
3700X = 107/155

Total War: Three Kingdoms
9900K = 107/128
3700X = 106/123

Your comment stated the following

"The 8/16 9900K (and 8700K/9700K), even without being overclocked"

Enough said.

My comment specifically stated the 9900K/8700K and 9700K versus the 3600 and 3700X, and the numbers/benchmarks are inarguable, so not sure who or what your arguing with or about?

Your original comment was the following

"The 8/16 9900K (and 8700K/9700K), even without being overclocked, is still besting AMD's 6/12 3600 and 8/16 3700X by a good amount. Your talking 10-20FPS across the board. Will this be something gamers truly notice? Probably not most the time, but if gaming at 1440/1600p @ 120Hz/144Hz/165Hz, the difference between running 100FPS and 120FPS could matter.
Even with the IPC increase the clock speeds still hold AMD back in some regards, gaming being one of them.That being said its hard to argue the incredible value and performance of the 3600, 3700X and 3900X.
The 3900X is a $500 flagship CPU that's now $50+ more expensive then the 9900K, so from a gaming only build its still #3 or #4 IMO but with how well it performs everywhere else, if not building just a dedicated gamer its a great choice."

You clearly talk about both

Also, comparing the $500 9900K to a $200 3600X (which comes with a $30 cooler for free)? Really? Is that your defense? That's disappointing.

Compared to the 3600 and 3700X it does

I thought that was a joke. I don't need to debate a person who thinks they should compare a $500 CPU to a $200 one. If you need to argue that the 9900K has a marginal lead over a CPU that's less then half the cost (especially considering the cooling and mobo requirements of the 9900K), go ahead and do so.

 

[GreenNova343]

The 8/16 9900K (and 8700K/9700K), even without being overclocked, is still besting AMD's 6/12 3600 and 8/16 3700X by a good amount. Your talking 10-20FPS across the board. Will this be something gamers truly notice? Probably not most the time, but if gaming at 1440/1600p @ 120Hz/144Hz/165Hz, the difference between running 100FPS and 120FPS could matter.
Even with the IPC increase the clock speeds still hold AMD back in some regards, gaming being one of them.That being said its hard to argue the incredible value and performance of the 3600, 3700X and 3900X.
The 3900X is a $500 flagship CPU that's now $50+ more expensive then the 9900K, so from a gaming only build its still #3 or #4 IMO but with how well it performs everywhere else, if not building just a dedicated gamer its a great choice.

Not...exactly. I'll give you 15-20FPS margins for the i9-9900K over the 3600 at 1080p/Ultra, but the margin over the 3900X is only 10FPS; to get the 20FPS over the 3900X, you have to dip down to Medium quality...& in both bases, you have to at least have the RTX 2070 Super or the 2080TI, as the gaps drop to half that with the RX 5700 & are virtually gone with an RX 580.

More importantly, though, if you're gaming at 1080p resolutions with those high-end cards (which they are, given that the 2070/2080 are marketed for 4K gaming, not 1080p), you're going to pair them with a 144Hz gaming monitor to take full advantage of the FPS...& yet, if you want Ultra-level gaming, you get that with the 3900X paired with the 2070 Super; if you "settle" for the RX 5700, you not only can get that with the 3900X, you can almost get the full performance with the 3600 (141 average in the testing).

But if you're like the majority of people playing at 1080p -- I.e. not using a 144Hz monitor, & currently rocking the RX 580 (or equivalent, or even a lower-level GPU), getting the i9 gives you no performance boost over even the 3600, let alone the 390)X.

And if you would rather play at 1440p, the news gets even worse for Intel. Based on the charts above, the 4-game averages are:
-- RTX 2080TI, Ultra: 144 FPS with 9900K, 137 FPS with 3900X, 134 FPS with 3600
-- RTX 2070 Super, Ultra: 120 FPS with 9900K, 114 FPS with 3900X, 113 FPS with 3600
-- RX 5700, Ultra: 105 FPS with 9900K, 104 FPS with 3900X, 100 FPS with 3600
-- RX 580, Ultra: 67.25 FPS with 9900K, 67.5 FPS with 3900X, 67 FPS with 3600

At 1440p, the 9900K is barely able to hit 144FPS even with the 2080TI, with only a 7 FPS margin over the 3900X & a 10 FPS margin over the 3600 (5% & 7% margins), much lower than the 1080p margins. Margins with the 2070 Super are also slimmer, with the margin between the 9900K & 3900X pretty much disappearing with the RX 5700 & all 3 CPUs having identical performance with an RX 580 (understandable, since the 580 isn't really meant for good, let alone great, 1440p performance).

Dropping down to Medium doesn't help a whole lot either:
-- RTX 2080 TI: 167 FPS with 9900K, 157 FPS with 3900X, 150 FPS with 3600
-- RTX 2070 Superr: 146 FPS with 9900K, 138 FPS with 3900X, 136 FPS with 3600
-- RX 5700: 128 FPS with 9900K, 125 FPS with 3900X, 120 FPS with 3600
-- RX 580: 81 FPS with 9900K and 390)X, 80 FPS with 3600

The bad news for Intel? You don't need the 9900K to get 144+ FPS with a 2080 TI...the R5 3600 is more than sufficient. And if you only sprung for the 2070 Super, you not only barely get above 144FPS, you only have an 8-10 FPS margin (5-7%) advantage over the Ryzens. Again, the gap really narrows with the RX 5700 (& even the 9900K no longer can get to 144FPS), while you again get identical (I.e. GPU-limited) performance with an RX 580.

Speaking as someone that, since I use my PC for more than just gaming, will not be pairing any future system with a high-refresh monitor, & would be upgrading from an R9 380, I see no reason to even get the 3900X, let alone the 9900K. That 3600 is going to provide more than enough performance...& since my current system is nearly spot on with the most common Steam configurations, a lot of other gamers will be in the same situation.

 

[amstech]

Not...exactly. I'll give you 15-20FPS margins for the i9-9900K over the 3600 at 1080p/Ultra

You don't need to give me anything, those are the results.
Sometimes its over 20FPS.

I am not trying to pick on the stellar $200 3600 (or even the 3700X) its probably one of the best bang for your buck CPU's ever created. But the 8700K, 9700K and 9900K are 10-25 FPS faster across the board when it comes to gaming, whether its a difference you will notice or not. I agree with Techspot the difference is negligible in many cases as your not gonna notice a difference from 160 to 185, but that doesn't change the results.
You'll need the flagship $500 3900X to compete, but if doing a gaming build, the 9700K for $350 is faster, and that's before its overclocked.

3600 is going to provide more than enough performance...& since my current system is nearly spot on with the most common Steam configurations, a lot of other gamers will be in the same situation.

That's what a lot of users said about their $200 Core i5 and then poof, its much slower in games 2 years later. I know someone who went from an i5, to Bulldozer, back to an i7 in the span of 7 years. I am still on my i7 from 2010.

I don't need to debate a person who thinks they should compare a $500 CPU to a $200 one.

I am not the one comparing a $500 CPU to a $350 CPU either, lol.
Comparing the 3700X to a 9700K is a $350 comparison and the 9700K is 10-20FPS faster across the board in games, just like the 9900K and 8700K, before overclocking.
I am not debating the 3600 at all, its a beast for the money and really all the CPU most people need.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

So the i9 is a beast and your "choice" comes down to how much you can afford.

Awesome!

 

[Badelhas]

Excellent article, TechSpot, thanks!
I am still holding on to my good old i5 2500k @4.7GHz with 8gb DDR3 1600mhz ram and the nvidia 1070 but this AMD Ryzen 3600 is making me want to finally upgrade my 9 years old overclocking champion CPU.
Will I see much difference when gaming (since I had 2 kids I don't have much time to game, to be honest) and PARTICULARLY doing everything else? I'll have to spend more 400 euros since I'll have to get 16gb of Ddr4 3600 ram and a MSI B450 Tomahawk Max motherboard.
Cheers

 

[AMHoke]

Literally just made an account to say this...

Wow, this is some seriously GOOD content. Bravo and thank you for all the work, I can imagine this was quite the chore

This article is a great tool to help choose what level of hardware I'll need for my next build and exactly what kind of results I can expect. It's truly helpful to have such a wide range of testing.

Personally I think a 3700x and 5700xt should do it for me as I'm staying with 1080 high refresh monitors but it's really cool to see how a big GPU really suffers on a lower mid-tier chip like the R5. While it's a fantastic CPU for the price it cant keep up and this proves why getting a high end CPU for your $1k GPU is a must.

I look forward to more great content from you guys and girls take care