We put the Ryzen 5 3600X up against the Core i5-9600K in a seven-round faceoff.
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X vs Intel Core i5-9600K: Mid-Range Rumble : Read more
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X vs Intel Core i5-9600K: Mid-Range Rumble : Read more
However, opting for a 3600X often equates to a savings if you aren't interested in that last bit of overclocking performance with the Ryzen 5 3600X, so keep that in mind at checkout.
Thanks for the heads up, will fixIs that one supposed to be 3600 (non-X)? The wording here is a bit strange.
That said, I'll admit that being better overall in gaming and productivity, well, I did NOT see that coming. I suspect there will be protests from the Intel side about overclocking about this.
They do have 1% (listed as 99%) FPS results.Gaming benchmarks without 0.1% % 1.0% are only half the picture especially when comparing these 2 cpu's
I got 118.3 fps (118.2613) for the 9600K geomean average FPS. You probably just made a typo during your calculations.In the overall average, AMD is reported at 119.4 (actual is 119.4588) but Intel is reported at 118.3 (actual is 120.0273, meaning Intel wins, completely changing the result)
If the 3600(X) performs a bit better than it did when it first came out that's not really surprising. There have a been a bunch of BIOS updates with performance/boost tweaks that have come out since then.Looking at the individual test results, the article claims AMD wins 6/10 test suites (again, differing from previous results)
AMD has made a fantastic set of processors for a great value , but from a purely gaming perspective this article seems a little off.
Most of the reviews from Toms itself and other sites have put the i5-9600k clearly above AMD's set of offerings when you just look at gaming.
The article seems to try and skew some of those results incorrectly in favor of AMD.
The biggest issue, running a straight up average, or even a geometric average (as used by the article) Intel wins in the overall test suite. AMD's numbers are properly reported, but for some reason the Intel ones are lower than they should be. In the overall average, AMD is reported at 119.4 (actual is 119.4588) but Intel is reported at 118.3 (actual is 120.0273, meaning Intel wins, completely changing the result)
Looking at the individual test results, the article claims AMD wins 6/10 test suites (again, differing from previous results) but in reality, AMD wins 4 tests, and ties in 3 more where the results between the 99th and average are mixed.
Additionally, because the AoTS run is a CPU test, not a real-world gaming result, taking out that result lands Intel even higher on the overall test suite averages and makes it an even tie on individual game wins.
Again, AMD is great, but from a gaming perspective, something is wrong with your results.
In the case of RDR2 there's clearly some issue affecting non-multithreaded CPUs, that goes beyond simply not having enough cores/threads. In Gamernexus' benchmarks the 7700K has massively better 1% and 0.1% FPS than a 9700K. That makes no sense, a 4C/8T CPU should obviously not be outperforming a 8C/8T CPU.But once you take a close look to the 1% and 0.1%low in games like RDR 2, you understand why a R5 3600 (the non-X one) is a better idea than a i5 9600K or 9700K even when you overclock them.
Completely missed thatThey do have 1% (listed as 99%) FPS results.
AMD does pull off the slightest of wins here, so we have to call that out lest we be accused of not calling out a win. I will say it is a bit refreshing that someone thinks we're skewing in favor of AMD, as most of the time people suspect we do that for Intel
In the case of RDR2 there's clearly some issue affecting non-multithreaded CPUs, that goes beyond simply not having enough cores/threads. In Gamernexus' benchmarks the 7700K has massively better 1% and 0.1% FPS than a 9700K. That makes no sense, a 4C/8T CPU should obviously not be outperforming a 8C/8T CPU.
I guess you could still argue that it's a 'win' for AMD as all their (non-APU) chips are multithreaded, but I don't know if I'd use it as evidence that 6 threads are no longer enough for gaming.
View: https://youtu.be/z_ty-gajwoA?t=422
Thanks for the feedback. I went back and double-checked, and it appears our numbers are accurate. The problem partially stems from the fact that we have more detailed data that we round off for the charts for each title. For instance, the 3600X's average frame rate for Hitman 2 is 98.40134 (we calculate this from measurements of every single frame presented), but for obvious reasons we don't include the full number in the chart, instead rounding off. However, we calculate our overall geometric mean based off of the more granular data. In either case, I'm not able to replicate your math for the 9600k based off the data presented, so might be a miskey there.
We put the Ryzen 5 3600X up against the Core i5-9600K in a seven-round faceoff.
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X vs Intel Core i5-9600K: Mid-Range Rumble : Read more
Well, it's more like a $25 difference now, at least going by current US pricing. The 3600X is now around $200 at most major online retailers, while the 3600 is around $175. That's still about 14% more for a marginal performance difference of just a couple percent or so, but you do get a better stock cooler out of it, along with slightly better-binned silicon. And if you consider the full cost of a $1000 system, the higher price becomes nearly in-line with the level of CPU performance gained, so either could be considered reasonable options.Seems like the real winner is the 3600 non-X. Basically same performance for $50 less.
I guess an apology is in order. The truth is that i thought that you are biased toward Intel because of the athlon 200ge review....
But maybe I came to a quick conclusion. There were some articles that I did not like but I guess that could happen from time to time.
Anyway I usually enjoy the articles on this site so I wanted to apologize if I came out to harsh in the comments on the Intel new vulnerability.
Yeah they're both good options. If you use the stock cooler, that might tip things in favor of the 3600X. I personally would favor the vanilla 3600, since I always use aftermarket cooling.Well, it's more like a $25 difference now, at least going by current US pricing. The 3600X is now around $200 at most major online retailers, while the 3600 is around $175. That's still about 14% more for a marginal performance difference of just a couple percent or so, but you do get a better stock cooler out of it, along with slightly better-binned silicon. And if you consider the full cost of a $1000 system, the higher price becomes nearly in-line with the level of CPU performance gained, so either could be considered reasonable options.
Depends on the games though, if they prefer core count vs raw frequency then Intel gets demolished. Plus AMD actually has higher IPC now it think? Just into has the like 0.6GHz advantage, though for that you need to by the already more expensive intel chip, a more expensive Z370/90 board and a beefy cooler. vs a B450 Max and just running stock AMDthought every1 knew for straight gaming intel has higher OC potential but if u do anythign other than gaming amd is hands down winner?
only thing intel has going for it is gaming (and only for those diehard who want that extra few fps)
oh and 3600 w/ proper cooler will basically beat x version. (as some channels have said .....ur paying more just for x when performence is miniscule in differences)
Gaming benchmarks without 0.1% % 1.0% are only half the picture especially when comparing these 2 cpu's
Who said anything about a $1000 cpu, what’s the point you are making?So is benchmarking $200 CPUs with a $1000 GPU.
Well, depending on how close the prices are, sometimes paying a little extra for the X version is worth it even to just get the Wraith Spire over the Wraith Stealth.oh and 3600 w/ proper cooler will basically beat x version. (as some channels have said .....ur paying more just for x when performence is miniscule in differences)