Review AMD Ryzen 5 3600X Review: the New Mid-Range CPU King

[King_V]

You are really trying way too hard in your AMD sales pitch. Seriously how many gaming enthusiasts buy their CPUs at Walmart especially when its prices are $17 higher than Amazon? Amazon 3600x costs a McDonald's double quarter pounder more than the the 9600k. As for competitive pricing, my local Microcenter sells the 9600k for $219.99.

Not everyone has a conveniently close MicroCenter.

But, if we're going to be honest in comparing apples to apples, according to MicroCenter's site, the 9600k is on sale off the regular price of $299.99, whereas the $249.99 price of the 3600X is their regular price.

Note as well, that if you get a MB/CPU combo, the 9600k will get you a $30 discount, whereas the 3600x will get you a $50 discount, which would close the gap from $30 to $10.

Also, did you account for a cooler for the Intel chip? Suddenly, the 9600k is more expensive, isn't it? EDIT: And that's based off of the MicroCenter-specific sale price.

 

[TJ Hooker]

If you are starting off with a new build after having had your computer a long time the 3600x looks like a strong contender.

My question is why test a 3600x on an UBER expensive mb?

Why not on a mainline x570 that most people would buy?

The performance is going to pretty much be the same regardless of which motherboard you use.

 

[Gurg]

If you are trying to justify upgrading your system by "future proofing it", you are probably chasing unicorns. AMD was first with the new die shrink and that is to be congratulated. However due to design difficulties those chips don't seem to be able to match the speed of the Intel and Nvidia GPUs. AMD tried to cover that deficiency by including more cores to process large complex data, but that doesn't transfer into gaming performance.

AMD has the next 2-4 years to improve the speed factor, as by then Intel, Nvidia and memory manufacturers will also be producing on smaller shrinks but with yet far higher speeds. The next 2-4 years will also see the implementation of improved PCI and system throughput.

The cost of the 9600k, z390 mb and 3600 RAM for my recent upgrade totaled $500. I fully expect to be ditching those in 3-4 years when the new tech level appears.

 

[King_V]

Who's trying to justify what now?

Seems you've been on a pretty consistent AMD-bashing kick here. And, seems like a couple of lies are sneaking in as well, such as your using a MicroCenter sale price for the Intel comparison while NOT including a cooler, and "AMD tried to cover that deficiency by including more cores to process large complex data, but that doesn't transfer into gaming performance" which is a lie of omission - as their gaming performance improved dramatically with the Ryzen 3000 series.

Or did you just mean to try to draw some kind of false analogy between clock speed being the sole determinant of gaming performance?

Or are you one of valeman2012's clones, and trying to say that being the top performer specifically in gaming, by no matter how small a margin, and regardless of all other use cases, is what makes a processor worthwhile, and thus if you're not at the top of THAT standard, you're crap?

Is that what's going on here?

There are brand loyalists, which you've proved in your Intel-is-king posts. Then there's the rest of us, looking for the best overall performance per dollar. You know, those of us that are sane.

 

[Gurg]

Who's trying to justify what now?

Seems you've been on a pretty consistent AMD-bashing kick here. And, seems like a couple of lies are sneaking in as well, such as your using a MicroCenter sale price for the Intel comparison while NOT including a cooler, and "AMD tried to cover that deficiency by including more cores to process large complex data, but that doesn't transfer into gaming performance" which is a lie of omission - as their gaming performance improved dramatically with the Ryzen 3000 series.

Or did you just mean to try to draw some kind of false analogy between clock speed being the sole determinant of gaming performance?

Or are you one of valeman2012's clones, and trying to say that being the top performer specifically in gaming, by no matter how small a margin, and regardless of all other use cases, is what makes a processor worthwhile, and thus if you're not at the top of THAT standard, you're crap?

Is that what's going on here?

There are brand loyalists, which you've proved in your Intel-is-king posts. Then there's the rest of us, looking for the best overall performance per dollar. You know, those of us that are sane.

Due to further price decreases, I could now replace the 9600k ($199), z390 mb ($89) and 3600 RAM ( $93) for a total of $381 before taxes at Microcenter right now before it closes no matter what Amazon or Walmart or Newegg prices show.

As for my new Corsair H115i Pro, I used my last H100i for around seven years on four different CPUs and plan on using the new H115i on future builds for many years forward. To say I have to include the price of a new closed loop cooler ($164) every time I price a new build is ridiculous. The fact that AMD included a cheap ($35-40) cooler in the price is a detriment rather than a selling point. If I was buying a AMD 3000 series CPU I would rather have that money back to apply toward a decent cooler.

In TH review conducted at 1080p the 9600K OC to 5ghz all cores outperformed the PBO OC 3600x at gaming 99th percentile FPS by 8.9% (92.8 FPS vs 85.2) both with the same H115i cooler. Now today we find out that some of the cores on the AMD 3000 series CPUs are gimped.

That isn't Intel fan, those are the facts. I will readily admit to being a Microcenter fan. I like great service, knowledgeable staff and competitive pricing.

 

[King_V]

Due to further price decreases, I could now replace the 9600k ($199), z390 mb ($89) and 3600 RAM ( $93) for a total of $381 before taxes at Microcenter right now before it closes no matter what Amazon or Walmart or Newegg prices show.

And your point is? Should Tom's Hardware get involved in time travel before writing articles now?

And should assume that EVERYONE has access to MicroCenter's "IN STORE ONLY" deals? You're stacking the deck.

Oh, and look, if you put a Ryzen 3600x in your cart, then follow it by an ASRock B450 PRO AM4 ATX motherboard, it comes out to, lo and behold, $289.98. that seems to be the only $1 more than your 9600k + z390, which is the cheapest combo available. I could bring the AMD combo down to $273 if I go with the cheapest available B450 MB, then both the Intel and AMD would be using Gigabyte boards.

Or are you going to insist that a mid-level processor MUST use the highest-end motherboard with AMD, because the PCIe 4.0 feature is only available there currently, and they've just come out. You know, much like when Intel came out with their chips, the high end boards came out first. But, are you creating more artificial barriers here?

You went with high-speed RAM, so that's going to be a wash, and thus superfluous for the comparison.

As for my new Corsair H115i Pro, I used my last H100i for around seven years on four different CPUs and plan on using the new H115i on future builds for many years forward. To say I have to include the price of a new closed loop cooler ($164) every time I price a new build is ridiculous. The fact that AMD included a cheap ($35-40) cooler in the price is a detriment rather than a selling point. If I was buying a AMD 3000 series CPU I would rather have that money back to apply toward a decent cooler.

Who said every time? The typical buyer likely has to get a cooler, though, if they're insisting on a K processor. You'd make a better argument with a non-K Intel CPU perhaps.

The Wraith Spire is hardly what one would call a "cheap" cooler - a cheap cooler is what you get with the non-K Intel CPUs, no?

So, stacking the deck even further by saying "cooler doesn't count, for ANYONE because EVERYONE clearly has used an aftermarket cooler for generations" is part of this, now?

In TH review conducted at 1080p the 9600K OC to 5ghz all cores outperformed the PBO OC 3600x at gaming 99th percentile FPS by 8.9% (92.8 FPS vs 85.2) both with the same H115i cooler. Now today we find out that some of the cores on the AMD 3000 series CPUs are gimped.

That isn't Intel fan, those are the facts. I will readily admit to being a Microcenter fan. I like great service, knowledgeable staff and competitive pricing.

And everyone is going to be an overclocker, and everyone is going to push the system as hard as they can to chase those last few percent?

Yes, I'm a fan of MicroCenter as well - but I am realistic enough to accept that most people are NOT within a reasonable driving distance.


You keep moving the goalposts, to a very narrow case, then demand Tom's Hardware run things based on that case, just to support your cause?


That is what they call fanboyism. You're not contributing anything useful here, just trying "to win" some contest whose rules you keep re-writing on the fly.

 

[Gurg]

And your point is? Should Tom's Hardware get involved in time travel before writing articles now?

And should assume that EVERYONE has access to MicroCenter's "IN STORE ONLY" deals? You're stacking the deck.

Oh, and look, if you put a Ryzen 3600x in your cart, then follow it by an ASRock B450 PRO AM4 ATX motherboard, it comes out to, lo and behold, $289.98. that seems to be the only $1 more than your 9600k + z390, which is the cheapest combo available. I could bring the AMD combo down to $273 if I go with the cheapest available B450 MB, then both the Intel and AMD would be using Gigabyte boards.

Or are you going to insist that a mid-level processor MUST use the highest-end motherboard with AMD, because the PCIe 4.0 feature is only available there currently, and they've just come out. You know, much like when Intel came out with their chips, the high end boards came out first. But, are you creating more artificial barriers here?

You went with high-speed RAM, so that's going to be a wash, and thus superfluous for the comparison.



Who said every time? The typical buyer likely has to get a cooler, though, if they're insisting on a K processor. You'd make a better argument with a non-K Intel CPU perhaps.

The Wraith Spire is hardly what one would call a "cheap" cooler - a cheap cooler is what you get with the non-K Intel CPUs, no?

So, stacking the deck even further by saying "cooler doesn't count, for ANYONE because EVERYONE clearly has used an aftermarket cooler for generations" is part of this, now?



And everyone is going to be an overclocker, and everyone is going to push the system as hard as they can to chase those last few percent?

Yes, I'm a fan of MicroCenter as well - but I am realistic enough to accept that most people are NOT within a reasonable driving distance.


You keep moving the goalposts, to a very narrow case, then demand Tom's Hardware run things based on that case, just to support your cause?


That is what they call fanboyism. You're not contributing anything useful here, just trying "to win" some contest whose rules you keep re-writing on the fly.

So it only took 5 posts and now we agree that the 9600k only costs $199 now at Microcenter which is far lower than the $262 listed in TH value comparison and 20% lower than a 3600x which costs $249. Also that we both like Microcenter. I guess that is progress.

 

[King_V]

No it isn't. You can't insist on a price, AFTER an article is posted, and AFTER you claimed the 'better' price is $219, then later when it goes down hold it to the $199 standard, for a location that only a small percentage of people can realistically get the item from.

So, if the price goes down to $159 tomorrow, will you insist that the article should've had a crystal ball to see that, and accounted for it in the article?

That's insane. MicroCenter's offer is only available to a small percentage of consumers, and you're taking advantage of an offer that didn't exist when the article was written. You're creating an unrealistic comparison.

Are you really THAT desperate to claim that Intel is awesome and AMD sucks?

Your criticism of the article and it's conclusions is utterly without merit.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Due to further price decreases, I could now replace the 9600k ($199), z390 mb ($89) and 3600 RAM ( $93) for a total of $381 before taxes at Microcenter right now before it closes no matter what Amazon or Walmart or Newegg prices show.
As for my new Corsair H115i Pro, I used my last H100i for around seven years on four different CPUs and plan on using the new H115i on future builds for many years forward. To say I have to include the price of a new closed loop cooler ($164) every time I price a new build is ridiculous.

Sure, we could start making a bunch of assumptions about the hypothetical buyer considering a 9600K vs a 3600X (they live near a Microcenter, they already have a beefy cooler, etc.), but what's the point of that? I very much doubt @King_V is here to talk about which of the CPUs is the better buy for Gurg, based on a specific individual's situation. This article, and the value proposition it presents, isn't aimed at you personally...

 

[Gurg]

Sure, we could start making a bunch of assumptions about the hypothetical buyer considering a 9600K vs a 3600X (they live near a Microcenter, they already have a beefy cooler, etc.), but what's the point of that? I very much doubt @King_V is here to talk about which of the CPUs is the better buy for Gurg, based on a specific individual's situation. This article, and the value proposition it presents, isn't aimed at you personally...

No my original point was that it was a red herring to use high Walmart price of $262 in the article for value comparisons when the Amazon price was $245 and at the same time the Microcenter price was $219. The Amazon price of $245 was available to anyone with a smartphone and a mailing address in the entire USA. The Microcenter $219 price wasn't a "sale" price as now a week later it is $20 cheaper.

Now as to the cooler, yes the 9600k doesn't have a cheap cooler ($35-40) included in the price like AMD . But the 9600k igpu will still run the games and applications TH used in the test at 720 or 1080p, albeit slowly on low settings, without buying a discrete GPU whereas the 3000 series CPU computer without a GPU just sits there like a brick. You will need to either already have a discrete GPU to use or buy one for the 3000 series to function just like a 9600k buyer has to either already have a CPU cooler or buy one.

TH ran the performance tests with a 2080ti, H115i cooler on the CPUs, comparable high end MBs and memory which was a fair comparison to isolate CPU performance. The value analysis was faulty.

 

[King_V]

No my original point was that it was a red herring to use high Walmart price of $262 in the article for value comparisons when the Amazon price was $245 and at the same time the Microcenter price was $219. The Amazon price of $245 was available to anyone with a smartphone and a mailing address in the entire USA.

That's your gripe? The $17 price overstatement for the 9600K? I doubt anyone uses Walmart as their first go-to in general, and, honestly, do you think THAT is what threw the calculations off so "unfairly"?

Get over yourself.

The Microcenter $219 price wasn't a "sale" price as now a week later it is $20 cheaper.

This is outright false. It was a sale price. If you looked at the listing, it showed $299.99 crossed out, and next to it in red it said "SAVE $80.00" then showed the final price in larger font at $219.99.

Today, the listing still shows $299.99 crossed out, but next to it it says "SAVE $100" and shows the final price in larger font at $199.99.

The Ryzen 3600X simply says $249.99 in larger font. No "SAVE $XX" or crossed-out original price.

Which is great if you can get to MicroCenter. Again, not available to most people. You're whining about the $17 excess for the value calculation, and then turn around and insist on defending your own analysis with a price that most people can't take advantage of?

That's hypocrisy.

And now talking about gaming performance and attempting to use the fact that the 3600X doesn't have an IGP, whereas the 9600K does gives the 9600K some kind of advantage? What? Now you're trying to say it's better for productivity?


AGAIN - Your double-standard and complaint about the article is without merit, no matter how many logical contortions you try to twist yourself with.



But go ahead - create your own site with your own set of rules, conclude that Intel's the better value in this segment based on whatever metrics you feel like arbitrarily applying, declare victory, and go home.