AMD Ryzen 5 3600X review

Posted on: 07/19/2019 06:31 PM

---

I'll take bacon discussion over Intel/AMD fanboys at each other's throats any day.

I recently got a big 'ol slab of salt pork. Cut it thick and fry it up like bacon, so good. I think they use more sugar in the brine than with bacon.

Couldn't agree more

Posted on: 07/19/2019 06:38 PM

---

I'm thinking hard about upgrading from my 3930k to Zen2.
I'm ... just stuck on which one to choose. Thus old CPU of mine lasted me frigging 7 years. Was very futureproof altough ad tad expensive at the start to use it just for gaming.

Now, with this experience I can't choose between the 3600 and the 3700x. Both a yummy 65w after my 135w chip.
Problem is... apart from the IPC upgrade I don't really future proof myself with just another 6C/12T , so that 3700x looks good. Memory wise even the old quad channel hold its own somewhat.
Then again, no real use in gaming right now and is about €150 more expensive...
I really want a comparison with performance charts shoved under my nose to convice me... but I guess Hilbert doesn't do requests eh?


Waaaaah, I dunnoooo! gnnn!

EDIT: I wasn't aware Ryzen 3000 wad 36mb of cache... hmz.. might be the arguement.
I also see a few comparisons and it seems a 1600x is more or less the 3930k equivalent?

Posted on: 07/19/2019 06:40 PM

---

Another great review Hilbert, cheers.
AMD are certainly ticking all the boxes accross their lineup and with unbelievable value accross that same board too. I'm stunned by just how much my ageing 5960x is so resoundly beaten on all fronts by this, AMD's second lowest processor in this lineup. A move to AMD is guaranteed though I'm waiting for the 3950x reviews before I choose between that or the 3900x, the new base lasting me another 4-5yrs.

As already mentioned, Zen2 is clearly doing a much, much better job of automatically allocating extra juice when needed to the extent that it's able to ramp up reduced cores higher than any manual all-core overclock. That's impressive stuff. Of course, Windows improvements helps too!

Posted on: 07/19/2019 07:09 PM

---

I'm thinking hard about upgrading from my 3930k to Zen2.
I'm ... just stuck on which one to choose. Thus old CPU of mine lasted me frigging 7 years. Was very futureproof altough ad tad expensive at the start to use it just for gaming.


I had a 3930k. Now on a 1600. Its alot faster, even without going past 3.85ghz. And uses alot less power. Im gonna snag a 3600x soon.

Now, with this experience I can't choose between the 3600 and the 3700x. Both a yummy 65w after my 135w chip.
Problem is... apart from the IPC upgrade I don't really future proof myself with just another 6C/12T , so that 3700x looks good. Memory wise even the old quad channel hold its own somewhat.
Then again, no real use in gaming right now and is about €150 more expensive...
I really want a comparison with performance charts shoved under my nose to convice me... but I guess Hilbert doesn't do requests eh?


Waaaaah, I dunnoooo! gnnn!

EDIT: I wasn't aware Ryzen 3000 wad 36mb of cache... hmz.. might be the arguement.
I also see a few comparisons and it seems a 1600x is more or less the 3930k equivalent?

Posted on: 07/19/2019 07:24 PM

---

I am confused by the test in browsers
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-5-3600x-review,13.html
If I understood correctly, the tests were conducted on the latest version of the browser chrome.
8700k 5GHz + 16Gb RAM 4266MHz (16-17-17-30 2t)
https://krakenbenchmark.mozilla.org/kraken-1.1/results.html?{"v": "kraken-1.1", "ai-astar":,"audio-beat-detection":,"audio-dft":,"audio-fft":,"audio-oscillator":,"imaging-gaussian-blur":,"imaging-darkroom":,"imaging-desaturate":,"json-parse-financial":,"json-stringify-tinderbox":,"stanford-crypto-aes":,"stanford-crypto-ccm":,"stanford-crypto-pbkdf2":,"stanford-crypto-sha256-iterative":}
I have 686ms, and in article 964ms for not overclocked 8700k
in another test, everything is different: I have 181, and in article 185
https://funkyimg.com/i/2VB3Z.jpg
I get 750ms in Kraken benchmark for my overclocked 6700K (4.65Ghz, 3233Mhz RAM 14-15-15-32-240-1T): https://krakenbenchmark.mozilla.org/kraken-1.1/results.html?{"v": "kraken-1.1", "ai-astar":,"audio-beat-detection":,"audio-dft":,"audio-fft":,"audio-oscillator":,"imaging-gaussian-blur":,"imaging-darkroom":,"imaging-desaturate":,"json-parse-financial":,"json-stringify-tinderbox":,"stanford-crypto-aes":,"stanford-crypto-ccm":,"stanford-crypto-pbkdf2":,"stanford-crypto-sha256-iterative":}
I think a lot of it will come down to clock speed, but also maybe the latencies within the chip and RAM - I think the simple 4 core high clocked Intel CPUs do the best in this test. For instance my result would be 4th in that list of CPUs, yet the 9900K is way down the list with 990 points in 10th position even though it can run 1 thread at 5Ghz - I think RAM latencies are higher with a big chip like that. Test results probably in turn also influenced by your RAM speed and RAM latency - you've got really fast RAM at low latencies, so I'm guessing that gives a massive boost to your 8700K in this test. Likewise, my RAM is not too shabby from a latency perspective either, and I'm getting good results here too. It makes you think doesn't it...it makes you think that maybe some of these latest massive CPUs (8 core plus), maybe aren't the best CPUs for light workloads like web browsing & light desktop use - maybe the smaller, simpler, and also high clocked Intel CPUs could be the better CPUs for snappiness in web browsing, etc - as seen in this test.

EDIT: although this latest 3xxx series of Ryzen is really bucking the trend and showing good scores in Kraken (top of the table) even though they're big chips, they've made a massive improvement here in comparison to their previous generation, and faster even than Intel's large CPUs (9900K). I bet though if you tested a 7700K @5Ghz+ and paired with fast low latency RAM, then I bet that would top the tables in this test.