gx-x:

Ridiculous, your own benchmarks prove you wrong. :S

With the next game consoles coming around the corner and those housing 8c/16t zen2 based CPU’s this recommendation is understandable.

ladcrooks:

MSI B450M MORTAR not the cheapest nor the dearest, £89.99 - look out for fan headers .... before you buy too cheap. The mortar has good reviews

We need to check that a AB bios is available before recommending motherboards, as far as i know the B450M Mortar is on AB (as indicated by their support page)

Loophole35:

With the next game consoles coming around the corner and those housing 8c/16t zen2 based CPU’s this recommendation is understandable.

I am sure that any prediction has a chance to become true at some point, given enough time. Also, consoles. Different animal. PS. Not all consoles will be housing Zen 2. Just one. Sony will not be housing Zen 2.

gx-x:

I am sure that any prediction has a chance to become true at some point, given enough time. Also, consoles. Different animal. PS. Not all consoles will be housing Zen 2. Just one. Sony will not be housing Zen 2.

Sony is using Zen2.

Loophole35:

Sony is using Zen2.

Ok. I heard they will use their new in-house chip+navi.

Loophole35:

With the next game consoles coming around the corner and those housing 8c/16t zen2 based CPU’s this recommendation is understandable.

It's not quite that simple. Just look at the current generation of consoles, using AMD gpus. How did that pan out? Nvidia is still on top. Not that many games are better optimised on AMD, really. But yeah, 6/12 should be minimum for someone building now, ideally 8/16.

While I intend to pickup one of these, I'm holding off for a little bit. Waiting to see what happens with UEFI/BIOS support... Not really fond of my MSI B350 Tomahawk at this point due to some minor issues, but it make stick around anyway as there is a beta UEFI/BIOS available for it that adds support for Zen2...

metagamer:

It's not quite that simple. Just look at the current generation of consoles, using AMD gpus. How did that pan out? Nvidia is still on top. Not that many games are better optimised on AMD, really. But yeah, 6/12 should be minimum for someone building now, ideally 8/16.

I don’t know. GCN GPU’s have been holding up really well.

Loophole35:

With the next game consoles coming around the corner and those housing 8c/16t zen2 based CPU’s this recommendation is understandable.

This is a bit of a stretch, as we all know what we're graced with when it comes to console ports. More often than not they're unoptimized garbage ports more than anything else. As far as I'm concerned I'm giving the 3600 the uncontested crown of this iteration, alongside the 3900X. The 3700X and 3800X feel gougy in their price tags, particularly the 3800X. The lineup is very reminiscent of that of gen 1. Should the segmentation change with the 4000 refresh or 3000s drop a reasonable amount in price I'd take the cores over any actual real life performance gain but as it stands it's more a wash than anything else on a gaming playing field. The ~10% uplift in performance comes with an at least 50% price hike, which seems unreasonable, unless of course one has actual use for the additional threads/cores.

schmidtbag:

Hilbert's recommendations tend to be focused around the all-around performance of the product's performance tier. The 9900K is objectively an all-around better CPU than most, when you ignore price. As for the 9700K, that was reviewed before Zen2. I'm sure if he'd review it today, he might not retain that recommendation. Another thing to consider is all the target markets. Guru3D is primarily focused around gamers, and although the 3600 is hands-down the best option for the average gamer and easily the best value (for new CPUs), it isn't the best choice for anything beyond that. It's not the best choice for each of the following categories: * Budget builds * A PC for work and play * Competitive gamers * VR gamers * Streamers Meanwhile, the 9900K is all of those except the first one.

How is a 9900K objectively an all-around better CPU than most, when it's only 4-5% faster in games than the samely priced 3900X but loses in single threaded applications and is massively defeated by 40-50% in multi-threaded applications? I love Hilbert's work, but this reward system is not correct in my opinion.

Loophole35:

It’s simply because the Intel CPU’s won at gaming. Don’t read to far into it. This site is mostly PC gamers focused so Intel for now is more recommended for that load. However I don’t think there is a $200 Intel cpu that can beat this CPU in any capacity.

Yes, just made me curious.

The 3600 is probably the best CPU of this gen. The 3600X is 25% more expensive and like 1-5% more powerful on average. Both clock to the same non-high clocks when forced... Both clock almost the same when given cooling. I don't see any point in the 3600X at all, tbf.

BReal85:

How is a 9900K objectively an all-around better CPU than most, when it's only 4-5% faster in games than the samely priced 3900X but loses in single threaded applications and is massively defeated by 40-50% in multi-threaded applications?

Uh... the 3900X isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, and wasn't brought up until now. You can't just move the goalpost like that. I understand the 3900X is closer to the 9900K in price point, but, price is not a good metric for performance level (which is probably why Hilbert doesn't account for it in his recommendations). Intel has been shamelessly price-gouging us for years and they're too stubborn to admit it or back down. Besides, I said better than most, not all. The 9900K arguably isn't even the best in Intel's own lineup. So, compare the 9900K to something more its size (like the 3700X) and the multithreaded benefits aren't quite as drastic. Also, 4-5% is a higher number than 0%. Overclock both CPUs and the 9900K will widen that gap even further. Such numbers don't lie, therefore, they are objective. Frankly, none of the above CPUs are really worth it for gamers IMO. For pretty much everyone except VR or competitive gamers, I'd hand-down recommend the 3600. In fact, I'm in the process of organizing a new gaming PC for someone with the 3600. Anyone who knows they need more doesn't need my recommendation.

I love Hilbert's work, but this reward system is not correct in my opinion.

I don't disagree, I'm just describing to you how it works.

gx-x:

Ok. I heard they will use their new in-house chip+navi.

Sony confirmed Zen 2.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

We again review a six-core model Ryzen 5 3600 processor, you know, the one without an X. It's 200 MHz slower on the base and turbo clocks, but a whopping 50 bucks cheaper. Worth it? Yeah, we think so... Review: AMD Ryzen 5 3600

Got my hands on one to play with. Updated my old MSI X370 BIOS and dropped it in there. Paired with 16GB CL16 DDR4 3200 RAM. Difference is I have an H100i v2 AIO cooler which I have had for a few years or I would use the Stealth that comes with it in the box. But with the H100i my scores are about 2% better in Cinebench tests vs the review here so I guess it clocks up slightly better when cooler. When I play Division 2 the clock is 4175Mhz to 4200MHz the entire time with temps around the mid 60's. Great chip! Scores below... Cinebench R15 Multi - 1610 Cinebench R15 Single - 197 Cinebench R20 Multi - 3677 Cinebench R20 Single - 489 CPU-Z Multi - 4189 CPU-Z Single - 518

Best value indeed... Also since AMD RYZEN 9 3900X is now much more expensive than i9900k and also out of stock almost everywhere - intel story all over again but different competitor - this cpu is good value.

Whats the best value B450 motherboard to go with the 3600? I´ve read about the MSI B450 Tomahawk but the bios rom chip only has 16Mb and is giving users many issues to the point that MSI will be releasing updated versions of their B450 mobos with 32Mb chips MAX on the end, stating that they will be fully compatible. Any suggestions? Cheers

vbetts:

Sony confirmed Zen 2.

i mean, amd confirmed it before sony did XD