Yea at 1080p, and in games not wanting to use more than 6c/6t. At a proper resolution, that a 2080ti should be used at, the difference is basically 0. In games that want more resources than a 9600k can provide, the 3600/x pulls ahead, in the 0.1%/1% lows. Max and average mean nothing if it is a stuttering mess. The 9600k was simply never a really good CPU, unless you are only playing lightly threaded, or older titles. Intel was smart to add HT to the 10th gen i5. The 10600k is a superb gaming chip.The price of a 9600K at Microcenter has been $169.99 for at least a month. When paired with a 2080ti the 9600K at 5.0 OC beats every AMD CPU in TH gaming suite according to your reviews.
AMD 3600x is $199.88
If you're exclusively a gamer, there is no reason to pick any AMD CPU over even a 9600k, let alone anything higher.Yea at 1080p, and in games not wanting to use more than 6c/6t. At a proper resolution, that a 2080ti should be used at, the difference is basically 0. In games that want more resources than a 9600k can provide, the 3600/x pulls ahead, in the 0.1%/1% lows. Max and average mean nothing if it is a stuttering mess. The 9600k was simply never a really good CPU, unless you are only playing lightly threaded, or older titles. Intel was smart to add HT to the 10th gen i5. The 10600k is a superb gaming chip.
Cars 3 at 1440PWhat part of running a 2080ti at the proper resolution, for such a card did you not get? A 2080ti should not be run at anything below 1440p, period. The CPU becomes a bottleneck, even with Intel, at 1080p, with a 2080ti. MS flight sim is a horribly optimized title, that is not well threaded, as well.
If intel would do that AMD would not be able to sell one single chip and it would be back to debt for AMD.If the leaks are true with the Zen3.. Intel should do the world a favor and give their chips out for free.
I never recommended a 3900x. I said 3600. Also see my edit above. It is a better all around CPU, with more consistent performance, vs a 9600k. The 9600k can have frametime variance issues, the 3600 does not experience. That is why the 10600k is such a great CPU. Intel finally added HT to their 6c cpu.Cars 3 at 1440P
Why would you recommend a 3900x, when it is losing by about 10% to a 9600k that cost half as much? You can sit in denial all you want, the benchmarks don't lie. If your primary focus is gaming, don't buy AMD. That may change this month, but as of now, Intel is the choice.
3900x is AMD's fastest mainstream gaming CPU, with only the $700 3950 faster, and it still wouldn't have caught the 9600k. My point was, if AMD's fastest can't beat a 9600k, why would you recommend any AMD CPU for gaming? If you drop to your 3600 recommendation, the 9600k is now over 17% faster in Project Cars 3, and they both cost $200 at Newegg. There has not been any market shift to games having any meaningful benefit from more than 6 cores recently. Project Cars 3 and Flight Simulator are both brand new titles.I never recommended a 3900x. I said 3600. Also see my edit above. It is a better all around CPU, with more consistent performance, vs a 9600k. The 9600k can have frametime variance issues, the 3600 does not experience. That is why the 10600k is such a great CPU. Intel finally added HT to their 6c cpu.
You'd be hard pressed to find a 9600k that didn't OC to 5GHz all core. At stock speeds as in your chart, it's only running at 4.3Ghz all core. At 5GHz, the 9600k is going to be faster than the 9900k (4.7Ghz all core) in your chart which is at stock clocks. After OC'ing both CPU's, the 9600k is going to be on average 10% or more faster than the 3600, and it will be way ahead in any single threaded applications which are still plentiful, and make up most of the gap in multi-threaded.Sadly AMD markets Ryzen 9 for gaming, which it's not a great value for.
For the money, the 9600k is very good for gaming in most titles. However, at the same time, it has issues with frame time consistency in some demanding games, and I predict this will get worse in the future. A higher framerate is nice, but if it's not stable, it will feel far worse than a lower but stable framerate.
While the 9600k only has frame time issues in SOME games, the 9600k is only significantly better than a Ryzen 5 3600 in SOME games, as well.
9600k isn't here, but with a 2080ti at 1080p, the 9900k is like 9% faster than an R5 3600 OVERALL. I'd imagine the difference between a Ryzen 5 3600 and 9600k would be maybe 5-6% overall.
I'd take 5-6% lower overall framerate in most games in exchange for being able to have a smooth experience in games like battlefield 5, a far better experience in tasks that can leverage many cores, and a CPU that will probably be relevant far longer than the 9600k. You have to realize, both Intel and AMD are pushing for more and more cores on mainstream, and heck consoles even have 16 threads now. 6 threads is a limit now, and this will only get worse with time.
What cooler and voltage are you using?If you get luck with the new 3600 4.4ghz all core boost is possible. At least with my chip.
Picked it up for $159 at Newegg.
Some numbers for you with a GTX 1070 a 2ghz.
Time Spy 6625 CPU 7837 GPU 6450
Real bench 166871
Cinebench R20 3991
CPUZ s 541.6 m 4481 8.27 core equivalent.
I have AMD and Intel systems and prefer AMD for multitasking responsiveness.
Because most sites recommend you don't overclock Ryzen since you often end up with worse performance since you lose the higher boosting for lower threaded workloads from PBO.Let's look here:
Stock for stock, the difference is within the margin of error. Near as makes no difference.
There are no proper overclocked results there for the R5 3600. PBO isn't a true overclock.
Highly unlikely.With a 9600k you get nearly identical stock performance and maybe 5% better when both are overclocked.
Actually I think its the opposite. The 9900k is $50 more but you get 8 core/16 threads vs 9700K 8c/8t. If I personally used applications requiring more than six core/threads the 9900k would probably be the better choice for only $50.Too little, too late?
The 9700K, I can see - somewhat.
The 9900K is still terrible though. It will force users with cheapo motherboards and crap coolers to replace them, making it far more expensive than they bargained for.