[SOLVED] Got "fast" ram, should I save a buck on my processor?

[Isaactes]

I got a really good deal for the ram that I'm going to use on my new system, but haven't decided yet if I'm going to get an R7 2700 or an R5 3600. I read somewhere that the Ryzen 2000 works a lot better with fast ram bc it has less cache than Ryzen 3000. I got 2x8(16gb) 3200mhz CL16 18 18 36 (far from being the best ram on the market, but rn I'm using DDR3 1600mhz on an FX series chip, so I won't be complaining about that upgrade) if I get the R7 2700, I'll be saving a buck, and something tells me that it will be using the ram much better than the R5 3600. What should I get? Will my ram choice have enough impact to compensate the advantages that a 3000 series chip has over the 2000, in this specific scenario?

 

[Dj0gany]

R5 3600 is better in gaming.
2700 being a 8 core 16thread cpu is going to perform better in workstation use,editing,etc..
3200mhz 2x8gb CL 16 is pretty normal and good ram for both the processors.

 

[SamirD]

I got a really good deal for the ram that I'm going to use on my new system, but haven't decided yet if I'm going to get an R7 2700 or an R5 3600. I read somewhere that the Ryzen 2000 works a lot better with fast ram bc it has less cache than Ryzen 3000. I got 2x8(16gb) 3200mhz CL16 18 18 36 (far from being the best ram on the market, but rn I'm using DDR3 1600mhz on an FX series chip, so I won't be complaining about that upgrade) if I get the R7 2700, I'll be saving a buck, and something tells me that it will be using the ram much better than the R5 3600. What should I get? Will my ram choice have enough impact to compensate the advantages that a 3000 series chip has over the 2000, in this specific scenario?

The 3600 has a faster single thread performance which makes it better for applications that need raw computational speed. But it also has 2 cores less, which hurts it in applications where more cores helps:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-3600-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700/3481vs3240

 

[cryoburner]

...if I get the R7 2700, I'll be saving a buck, and something tells me that it will be using the ram much better than the R5 3600.

Do you mean literally a buck? Like a one dollar difference? I would absolutely go for the Ryzen 3600, as it should be the faster processor at nearly everything, especially if you don't plan on overclocking the 2700.

Even in the less common heavily-multithreaded applications that can fully utilize the 2700's additional cores and threads, the 3600 will still tend to perform slightly faster at stock clocks, or at least roughly the same. Not only does the 3600 get around 15% more performance per clock, but it also runs at higher clock speeds under multithreaded loads, resulting in it offering equal or better performance than the 2700 at pretty much all multithreaded workloads, despite not having as many cores.

If the 2700 is overclocked to remedy its relatively low multithreaded clock rates (which might require an aftermarket cooler, or at least higher fan speeds) then there is the potential for it to perform slightly faster in those kinds of heavily-multithreaded workloads. But unless you specifically make heavy use of those kinds of applications (things like CPU-based renderers and video encoders) as your primary use for the system, the extra cores won't be getting utilized very often. Practically all of today's games and the vast majority of desktop applications are not designed to use the 2700's extra threads, but they will be able to benefit from the 3600's higher performance per thread, and even overclocked to match the 3600's multithreaded clock rates, the 2700 will be at around a 15% performance edge due to the newer processor's improved IPC.

Both are arguably fine processors, but for nearly all use cases, the 3600 will be a bit better, and at a similar price, it will likely be the better option to go with. As for the RAM, both processors will utilize fast RAM, so don't feel like your RAM will be sitting around underutilized. The 3600 might be able to cope a little better with slower RAM, but to get optimal performance out of it, you will want want to pair it with some relatively decent performing memory as well.

 

[Karadjgne]

For all intents and purposes, they are the same cpu. That slightly better single thread speed is lost in the shuffle of any game, you can't tell the difference between 157fps and 162fps. Nobody can. Only a benchmark can and that's only if you care about such things to any high degree. The 2700 gets better times in stuff like Winzip vs a 3600, but 12 seconds to extract a big file or 14 seconds with the 3600, who really cares. It's not like you'd notice unless you compared both cpus side by side with a stopwatch.

The differences are going to be in the supporting equipment. B350/X470 is older tech, B450/X570/B550 is newer and the 5 series has access to pcie4 as well as using the pcie buss more effectively, more lanes at higher pcie. Makes for more options as far as storage goes, 2x NVMe possible etc whereas the older boards are limited to maybe 1, and have to disable Sata ports as a result.

For plug and play ram speeds, the 2700 is limited at 1:1 ratio to 3200MHz. The 3600 is capable of 3600MHz.

 

[maikutech]

I got a really good deal for the ram that I'm going to use on my new system, but haven't decided yet if I'm going to get an R7 2700 or an R5 3600. I read somewhere that the Ryzen 2000 works a lot better with fast ram bc it has less cache than Ryzen 3000. I got 2x8(16gb) 3200mhz CL16 18 18 36 (far from being the best ram on the market, but rn I'm using DDR3 1600mhz on an FX series chip, so I won't be complaining about that upgrade) if I get the R7 2700, I'll be saving a buck, and something tells me that it will be using the ram much better than the R5 3600. What should I get? Will my ram choice have enough impact to compensate the advantages that a 3000 series chip has over the 2000, in this specific scenario?

If you can afford a newer cpu rather than the r7 2700, I would go that route, if you get it through amazon-prime you are saving yourself 100$ as shown in the link, the r7 2700 is abit more pricey and outdated. :/
https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-3600-12-Thread-Processor/dp/B07STGGQ18

 

[Dj0gany]

Have you thought about going the intel route?
Possibly a 10400F,which beats the 3600 by a little bit.Also it is not that behind the 5600X in gaming also.Great cpu for 200$.

 

[cryoburner]

Possibly a 10400F,which beats the 3600 by a little bit.

The i5-10400/10400F is also a decent option, but it does not really beat the 3600 in gaming, and the 3600 tends to be slightly ahead in terms of application performance. While the higher-end, unlocked 10-series chips tend to hold a small performance edge over the Ryzen 3000 series in CPU-limited games, the lower clocks of the 10400 only allow it to perform roughly on-par with the 3600. If it is paired with similar RAM and a Z-series motherboard to enable those faster RAM speeds (since Intel arbitrarily locks non-overclocking boards out of running RAM at speeds higher than DDR4-2666), it can potentially perform slightly faster in some titles provided those criteria are met, but we are talking about margin-of-error differences, and that's generally only when paired with a very high-end graphics card running at low resolutions. If the 10400 is paired with a board that can't run RAM at more than 2666 speed, then the Ryzen 3600 is often shown to perform slightly faster in games.

Again though, we are talking about margin-of-error differences, and in terms of realistic setups, the graphics card is likely to be the limiting factor for gaming performance in nearly all scenarios, making a Ryzen 3600 and an i5-10400 nearly identical in terms of gaming performance. The 10400 does hold a small price advantage currently, though a Z-series motherboard with comparable features will tend to cost a bit more than AMD's offerings, countering much of that. It is an option worth considering though.

 

[Dj0gany]

The i5-10400/10400F is also a decent option, but it does not really beat the 3600 in gaming, and the 3600 tends to be slightly ahead in terms of application performance. While the higher-end, unlocked 10-series chips tend to hold a small performance edge over the Ryzen 3000 series in CPU-limited games, the lower clocks of the 10400 only allow it to perform roughly on-par with the 3600. If it is paired with similar RAM and a Z-series motherboard to enable those faster RAM speeds (since Intel arbitrarily locks non-overclocking boards out of running RAM at speeds higher than DDR4-2666), it can potentially perform slightly faster in some titles provided those criteria are met, but we are talking about margin-of-error differences, and that's generally only when paired with a very high-end graphics card running at low resolutions. If the 10400 is paired with a board that can't run RAM at more than 2666 speed, then the Ryzen 3600 is often shown to perform slightly faster in games.

Again though, we are talking about margin-of-error differences, and in terms of realistic setups, the graphics card is likely to be the limiting factor for gaming performance in nearly all scenarios, making a Ryzen 3600 and an i5-10400 nearly identical in terms of gaming performance. The 10400 does hold a small price advantage currently, though a Z-series motherboard with comparable features will tend to cost a bit more than AMD's offerings, countering much of that. It is an option worth considering though.

Maybe a H470 motherboard will do.
Mainly because of the upgradability option to Rocket Lake.
In your opinion,is it worth keeping to Corsair ram?

 

[avatar_of_tenebrae_3]

#1 check your favorite games "suggested hardware configuration". take it seriously. you can't go below it if you want your game to play nicely.

#2 OC will damage your processor. in my life my processors last way longer than before I upgrade. don't OC more than you have cash for upgrades.

 

[avatar_of_tenebrae_3]

originally, when "OC" became popular, in the "physical jumper" days before Intel ever told anyone it was possible: people did OC on old processors to prevent having to buy one as soon. your best to buy a processor that's suggested and when you HAVE MONEY for upgrade but avoiding upgrade: then overclock the puppy

today: internal intel "internal smart thermal limiting algorithm" beats ANY external software, so don't even think about it unless your OCing the the top end speed rather than the total throughput (which would be unusual, a "top burst need")