Another AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review/Benchmarks Leaks
Click here to post a comment for Another AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review/Benchmarks Leaks on our message forum
Astyanax
Update already Hilbert, theres a post from the same site with x570 results.
looks like the benches have been done with the ram at 2667, going by the memory latency.
cryohellinc
I think this is very impressive. Intel is in trouble.
Fox2232
I have to repeat myself 🙂
While we may fight over AMD's chips as production may not be sufficient to satisfy market, intel is one to laugh as AMD's production will make only small dent to their sales.
cryohellinc
Regardless of Intel's scale, this will hurt them. As far as I know, Intel's "answer" will come only around Q4 this year, resulting in several months of free reign for AMD.
From a consumer standpoint, I can only hope for sufficient supply.
Glottiz
How convenient that similarly priced 9600K is omitted from this "leak". I guess when they show that Ryzen 3600 is very close to 9900K makes them look good. But if they show that 3600 is trailing behind 9600K that wouldn't look so good. Just let me remind you that 9600K has almost identical gaming performance to 9900K.
Vananovion
"This is the slowest and most affordable SKU that AMD will release with six cores and twelve threads."
What a time to be alive 😎.
Kaarme
Haha, placing demands on the leaker's (or faker's) presentation of hardware? You are quite a padawan.
Glottiz
Demands? I'm just pointing out a big flaw in this "leak". But I guess you have no counter argument as you resorted to calling me silly names.
oxidized
Are you talking about x470 or x570 tests? Because x470 was tested with a 3200MHz G.Skill FlareX kit.
Exodite
I'm sure that when we get actual reviews from all the reputable actors we'll get comparisons with the 9600K as well.
That said I'm not convinced it matters, as no one actually uses those. And by "no one" I mean that the i5 line haven't made much sense to buy into since AMD released first generation Ryzen, in addition to suffering from generally low availability.
The 9900K makes sense the same way the 2080 Ti does, it's the fastest you can get for gaming - money being no object. But once you're constrained on something, be it money, refresh rates, doing productivity work as well as gaming or whatever else, I wouldn't recommend an i5.
I'm by no means trying to defend some leaked review from a site I never read here, just not sure how the lack of a 9600K comparison in particular matters much. Not that I'd mind seeing one. *shrug*
As for gaming performance I can't agree with that. Sure you'll get close to a 9900K depending on the game and settings but that could be said of most modern 6+ thread processors. The 9900K is definitely a tier above the 9600K though, all the reviews I've looked at show as much.
Kaarme
What counter argument? There's none needed. There have been leaks (or fake leaks) like this for great many years, and they typically have a totally random selection of hardware for comparison, if indeed they have anything at all. I only called you inexperienced because you said a certain model you deemed as the most relevant for comparison had been left out supposedly on purpose.
Astyanax
neither have been tested with the ram running at 3200mh.
oxidized
They state that at the beginning of the review.
https://i.imgur.com/UiGft7h.png
Also, glad to see it performs a little bit better on almost everything with x570
Alessio1989
who carse about the south bridge? It has nothing to do with the CPU or the MC... Those differences just OS and PCB noise.
oxidized
??????
Alessio1989
If the motherboard PCB and the BIOS are good enough, running a zen2 on a first, second or third generation ryzen MB should not make any difference. All minima performance differences should be simply noise. The PCH/FCH/south-bridge is not related to the CPU and RAM performance. The motherboards manufactures could sell board even without those chipsets, especially for small form factors products, since Zen2 I/O has enough bandwidth to handle the typical gamer/enthusiast I/O devices... Yes, all those mini-itx with the x570 are just gimmick, an excuse to rise the price (and I would say also the same for a micro-ATX and most common non-expensive full-ATX MBs...). Of course if you want a full ATX or an e-ATX MB really full of high demanding bandwidth I/Os (like 4 nvm-e, 4-to-8 s-ata, other PCI-e ports and other USB 3.x ports, and maybe a couple of 2.5 ethernet controllers), the x570 is an excellent piece of silicon...
oxidized
Well these tests show more than just noise, well let's wait for more tests so we can either confirm or discard this fact, besides PCH will make a difference in one way or another, and for now it's looking like so. I have no idea when NDA actually lifts, and when other tests will be available, at that point we should be able to see if it's just noise as you say.
BReal85
And it's the cheapest Zen2... pretty impressive. And the X570 change only minimally impacts performance (that's normal ofc). I will be curious to see Zen 2 reviews with different memories, as that will be compatible with highly OCd memory modules. A B450 (or X470) with a Ryzen 3600 or 3700X with OC will be a no-brainer.
Performance-wise, there is only marginal difference, which may have come from randomness.
Alessio1989
The FCH is not related to CPU and RAM overclock either. It is the BIOS and the motherboard PCB only.
Hopefully the new MBs BIOS are well calibrated for Zen2 and their PCBs are at least as good as the previous models, otherwise it would be a commercial disaster for the MB manufactures...
Fox2232
What you saw there is that board with X570 chipset had better bios which achieved better timings. That has nothing to do with chipset. But that's cause of that tiny, but consistent performance difference.
I believe that even you would be able to get adequately similar timings on X470 and at that point all scores would just dance around each other... statistical error.
