AMD Ryzen 5 3600X vs Intel Core i5-9600K: Mid-Range Rumble

[cwolf78]

thought 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 performance is miniscule in differences)

Aye, and cooling is SO important with Ryzen. One bonus is the ease of overclocking as well. I paired my 3600 (non-X) with a Noctua NH-D15, tuned the fans to keep it at 60C or under, and enabled PBO. Bam! Done. Didn't have to tweak anything and I match a stock 3700X in most single thread benchmarks and in multi-thread it beats a 3600X. All cores can hold over 4 GHz indefinitely under max load. Sure, you can tweak it further, but the gains are minimal. It's amazing how easy AMD made it to get 99% of the potential maximum performance of a given CPU with practically no effort.

 

[Gurg]

"The Ryzen 5 3600X delivered more performance than the Core i5-9600K in six of the 10 games that we tested, but some of the margins were slim."

Misleading statement by TH. The correct analysis from the data in the charts TH provided is:

The NON-OVERCLOCKED Ryzen 5 3600X delivered more performance than the NON-OVERCLOCKED Core i5-9600K in six of the 10 games that we tested, but some of the margins were slim. The OVERCLOCKED Ryzen 5 3600X delivered more performance than the OVERCLOCKED Core i5-9600K in ONE of the 10 games that we tested.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I think the commentary should mention that when both CPUs are overclocked, the 9600k does perform better in games when looking at average FPS.

At stock, the 3600x is better.

The main reason I would still buy the 3600x is SMT/HT. Although the 9600k may have good average FPS, especially when overclocked, the 9600k already exhibits stutter and frame time inconsistency issues in demanding games. This will only get worse over time, and no amount over overclocking can make up for lacking thread count.

 

[King_V]

I suspect there will be protests from the Intel side about overclocking about this.

Misleading statement by TH. The correct analysis from the data in the charts TH provided is:

The NON-OVERCLOCKED Ryzen 5 3600X delivered more performance than the NON-OVERCLOCKED Core i5-9600K in six of the 10 games that we tested, but some of the margins were slim. The OVERCLOCKED Ryzen 5 3600X delivered more performance than the OVERCLOCKED Core i5-9600K in ONE of the 10 games that we tested.

Called it. If only I could predict winning lottery numbers this accurately....

 

[Reclusive Eagle]

Tomshardware: "AMD 3600X beats i5 9600k in gaming."

Meanwhile the ONLY test that they showed that the 3600x beat the i5 9600k is AotS Escalation by 1fps average...
Everyone of the 11 other examples i5 9600k has a 4fps - 35 fps higher average so in whaaaaaat world does the 3600x beat the i5 9600k in gaming? Am I missing something or did your reviewer get mixed up?

Nevermind the fact that when it comes to motherboard options the review states
"X570 are more expensive and you lose out on PCIE gen 4" but then goes on to say
"Its not worth the LGA 1151 socket who's boards are cheaper because Intel is abandoning the socket it has used for 5+ years"

Then goes on to say "AMD has promised to support X570 till 2020" giving them the win when AMD has already stated that you WILL NEED a new motherboard for the 2020 chipsets. Wtf is going with this review.

 

[boju]

Tomshardware: "AMD 3600X beats i5 9600k in gaming."

Meanwhile the ONLY test that they showed that the 3600x beat the i5 9600k is AotS Escalation by 1fps average...
Everyone of the 11 other examples i5 9600k has a 4fps - 35 fps higher average so in whaaaaaat world does the 3600x beat the i5 9600k in gaming? Am I missing something or did your reviewer get mixed up?

Nevermind the fact that when it comes to motherboard options the review states
"X570 are more expensive and you lose out on PCIE gen 4" but then goes on to say
"Its not worth the LGA 1151 socket who's boards are cheaper because Intel is abandoning the socket it has used for 5+ years"

Then goes on to say "AMD has promised to support X570 till 2020" giving them the win when AMD has already stated that you WILL NEED a new motherboard for the 2020 chipsets. Wtf is going with this review.

It's not all about maximum fps numbers. 9600k will hit a potential stutter fest usage wall long before 3600x does.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

"Its not worth the LGA 1151 socket who's boards are cheaper because Intel is abandoning the socket it has used for 5+ years"

You do realise that they have not used the same lga 1151 socket for years?

The lga 1151 used for 6th/7th generation CPUs is not the same lga 1151 used for 8th/9th generation cpus. It is the same pin count but there are some differences.

For example, try to put a 7700k in a new z390 board. It wont boot. Try to put a 9900k in a z170 board, it wont boot.

Really, intel abandoned the first lga 1151 after 2 years from 2015 to 2017.

Then they changed the socket and updated lga 1151 has been used from late 2017 to 2020 where it will get replaced soon.

Meanwhile amd has used am4 since late 2016 to 2020.

That is longer than intel has supported either one of their lga 1151 versions.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Tomshardware: "AMD 3600X beats i5 9600k in gaming."
Meanwhile the ONLY test that they showed that the 3600x beat the i5 9600k is AotS Escalation by 1fps average...
Everyone of the 11 other examples i5 9600k has a 4fps - 35 fps higher average so in whaaaaaat world does the 3600x beat the i5 9600k in gaming? Am I missing something or did your reviewer get mixed up?

That statement is based on the comparison of the stock gaming performance of the 3600X vs 9600K.

Then goes on to say "AMD has promised to support X570 till 2020" giving them the win when AMD has already stated that you WILL NEED a new motherboard for the 2020 chipsets.

I am almost positive they've said nothing of the sort. Do you have a source?

 

[TJ Hooker]

You do realise that they have not used the same lga 1151 socket for years?

The lga 1155 used for 6th/7th generation CPUs is not the same lga 1151 used for 8th/9th generation cpus.

For example, try to put a 7700k in a new z390 board. It wont boot. Try to put a 9900k in a z170 board, it wont boot.

Really, intel abandoned the first lga 1151 after 2 years from 2015 to 2017.

Then they cha ged the socket and updated lga 1151 has been used from late 2017 to 2020 where it will get replaced soon.

Meanwhile amd has used am4 since late 2016 to 2020.

That is longer than intel has supported either one of their lga 1151 versions.

You're a bit mixed up. LGA 1155 was 2nd/3rd gen, 1150 was 4th/5th gen, 1151 (v1) was 6/7th gen, 1151 (v2) was 8th/9th gen. 10th gen is to be LGA 1200.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Its a typo, i meant LGA 1151 for 6th and 7th gen. The rest should be correct

 

[Gurg]

It's not all about maximum fps numbers. 9600k will hit a potential stutter fest usage wall long before 3600x does.

So what! In a couple of years Intel will be closing in on a 6ghz processor equivalent with higher performance PCIe and memory. At that point I'll purchase it and a new motherboard. I've generally built or upgraded to a new system roughly every couple years. The next build may be an 8 core rather than a six core.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

So what! In a couple of years Intel will be closing in on a 6ghz processor equivalent with higher performance PCIe and memory. At that point I'll purchase it and a new motherboard. I've generally built or upgraded to a new system roughly every couple years. The next build may be an 8 core rather than a six core.

The fact is, buying cpu that will be obsolete in a couple years and rather wastefull.

Also, not everyone can afford to upgrade every year.

Also, i doubt your getting 6ghz. Their current architecture cannot do 6ghz and even if it could thermals would be like a nuclear meltdown.

Their next 10nm node is having clock speed issue so it will not be hitting 6ghz either.

And we may get more cores for same price by intel in the next couple of years, but why wait when you can get the extra cores for the same price now with amd?

 

[boju]

So what! In a couple of years Intel will be closing in on a 6ghz processor equivalent with higher performance PCIe and memory. At that point I'll purchase it and a new motherboard. I've generally built or upgraded to a new system roughly every couple years. The next build may be an 8 core rather than a six core.

Point was 8600k/9600k were pretty much obsolete as soon as it was released, no HT to help it prolong.

Intel will be doing the same as Amd with it's Comet Lake lineup, putting HT on all it's i3/5/7 CPUs.

 

[King_V]

So what! In a couple of years Intel will be closing in on a 6ghz processor equivalent with higher performance PCIe and memory. At that point I'll purchase it and a new motherboard. I've generally built or upgraded to a new system roughly every couple years. The next build may be an 8 core rather than a six core.

We get it, you LOVE Intel. But your post has contributed nothing to the discussion.

 

[Gurg]

The fact is, buying cpu that will be obsolete in a couple years and rather wastefull.

Also, not everyone can afford to upgrade every year.

Also, i doubt your getting 6ghz. Their current architecture cannot do 6ghz and even if it could thermals would be like a nuclear meltdown.

Their next 10nm node is having clock speed issue so it will not be hitting 6ghz either.

And we may get more cores for same price by intel in the next couple of years, but why wait when you can get the extra cores for the same price now with amd?

The extra cores that AMD offers are slow and provide no help to gaming, office applications, internet or anything else for which I use my computer, thus an absolute waste of money. In December TH had an interview with an AMD exec who admitted that there would be very limited CPU speed increases in their future. In contrast the January TH article on the Intel overclocking lab indicated that significant overclocking and higher speed CPUs were still in the works.

The 9600k overclocked to 5ghz all cores ranks at the top of the gaming, spreadsheet and office applications benchmarks in this article. Initial leaks are that the new 10000 series overclocks to at least 5.3ghz and maybe higher.

If you are an AMD fanboy, you might as well buy now because the future doesn't seem bright for upcoming improvements except for more slow cores and you can have PCIe4 now for what that is worth to performance. But if you want faster frequencies and performance in gaming and office applications then the upcoming Intel CPUs will provide it and there is the promise of still more in the coming couple of years. I'll wait.

 

[King_V]

Initial leaks are that the new 10000 series overclocks to at least 5.3ghz and maybe higher.

So, it's not just that you're relying on leaks to make the 5.3 claim, but you're putting in your own speculation/wishful-thinking of "and maybe higher," right?

No problem with waiting - but leaks and speculation are just that. And maybe these number are true, so, plenty of GHz, and plenty of heat, for a little bit of an edge in gaming when using a top-of-the-line video card at 1080p.

Am I correct in assuming that you were as big of an enthusiast for the AMD FX-9000 series CPUs as you are for Intel's current same-process, higher-clocks, higher-heat strategy?

 

[Gurg]

So, it's not just that you're relying on leaks to make the 5.3 claim, but you're putting in your own speculation/wishful-thinking of "and maybe higher," right?

Intel states 9600k has: Operating Frequency of 3.7GHz and Turbo Speed of 4.6GHz. But in the wild almost every 9600k will overclock to 5ghz all core. Yes I would expect that Intel would have left additional overclocking room over its stated or leaked clock rates in its upcoming products. That is what Intel has done in the past as well as what they indicated in TH January article on their overclocking lab they would continue to do.

AMD is the one whose products have trouble just reaching their stated frequencies.

 

[King_V]

Intel states 9600k has: Operating Frequency of 3.7GHz and Turbo Speed of 4.6GHz. But in the wild almost every 9600k will overclock to 5ghz all core. Yes I would expect that Intel would have left additional overclocking room over its stated or leaked clock rates in its upcoming products. That is what Intel has done in the past as well as what they indicated in TH January article on their overclocking lab they would continue to do.

AMD is the one whose products have trouble just reaching their stated frequencies.

Is that hope and wishful thinking why you are trying to compare future Intel products with current AMD products, rather than one current product vs another current product in the same tier?

Perhaps you should, I dunno, maybe keep your complaints to being within the scope of this comparison, and on top of that, if you're going to make claims, back them with evidence - such as, "almost every 9600k will overclock to 5ghz on all core" . . and I suppose if you use the exact same equipment that TH did, yeah, you can, and hit 179W of power draw.


Please try to stick to useful information, rather than cheerleading.