News Leaked Ryzen 5 3600 Benchmark Claims Better Single-Threaded Performance Than the Core i9-9900K

You guys missed the point. R5 3600(if the leaked benchmarks are to be considered accurate) is having single core core performance nearly as good as i9-9900K and we are not talking about multi core performance as it is obvious that $200 chip cannot be compared to $450+ chip.

Knowing that out of the box R5 3600 base stats are no where as good as higher tier CPUs top up the line. Still when compared base performance to base performance(if that is what it is being tested in a legit manner) R5 3600 is very close to i9-9900K even in Cinebench R15(pic below). Ryzen R5 3600(196) vs Intel i9-9900K(204) crazy knowing that 3600 is lowest clocked CPU from Ryzen 7nm lineup.

 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Zen 2's cores have two more execution units per core than Coffee Lake's cores, which is bound to bump IPC by a considerable amount when the instruction mix allows the scheduler execute up to two more uOps per cycle. Intel's Sunny Cove is also ~25% wider, too bad it or Willow Cove (its successor) isn't happening for desktop in the foreseeable future, can't both make the core wider and maintain clock frequencies without a process shrink. (And Icelake couldn't simultaneously achieve both on 10nm either, will need 10nm++ or better to reclaim the clock regression from CFL on 14nm+++ to ICL on 10nm+.)
 
Considering there should be proper reviews available for these processors within the next week, there probably isn't much point in putting much thought into the legitimacy of these benchmarks. To me, it seems a bit unlikely that the 3600 will offer better single-threaded performance than a 9900K, at least without significant overclocking involved. I do suspect the Ryzen 3600 and 3600X will be strong i7 competitors though.

We expected a 18% boost in IPC, not 33%
It is worth noting that IPC can vary depending on the workload. AMD is citing 15% as an average, but the exact difference could be higher in some workloads and lower in others, depending on what operations are getting used.
 
Lol. Take it with a grain of salt or maybe a bunch of grains

I really don’t even care because I would only ever buy AMD anyway I don’t even care I won’t even consider an Intel purchase ever. I am an extremely happy AMD customer for life and I just pick the part that’s right for me
 

gdmaclew

Distinguished
May 20, 2008
1,389
7
19,465
96
I am in the same camp as Mandark.

As a side bar, does anyone know why the last icon under my Username does not show a description when I hover over it?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Mandark

Olle P

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2010
601
30
19,040
23
If it beat the 9900K in single core scores, i doubt very seriously it did so at it's standard Boost frequency...
We expected a 18% boost in IPC, not 33% :)
1. I'm not familiar with Passmark so I don't know if the "@ 3.60GHz" means base frequency or the frequency actually used during the test.
2. The relative IPC gain comes from a variety of factors and vary with application. It's possible that Passmark happen to provide a near ideal case for maximum benefit of the changes.

Looking at the chart that use all cores the numbers are also close, but in favour of the Core i9. Ryzen 5 @3.8 GHz (assuming base clock) vs Core i9 @3.6 GHz means that the Ryzen has ~25% better IPC.
 
Last edited:

Jennifer W

Honorable
Jul 24, 2014
16
2
10,525
2
Yeah um, no...
The 3600 might beat the 9900 STOCK 3.6ghz, but the 9900k can be OC’d to 5ghz+ (something the 3600 just can’t do).
If you are an overclocker then the 9900 is still the way to go.
If all you do is run stock, go AMD every time and save some money.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
The 3600 might beat the 9900 STOCK 3.6ghz, but the 9900k can be OC’d to 5ghz+ (something the 3600 just can’t do).
For $300-400 less between the CPU and motherboard, I'd say the 9900KFC isn't worth the money over the 3600/3600X unless your livelihood depends on something an OC'd 9900K[a-zA-Z]* is untouchable by anything AMD has to offer under $400. (Then again, if my livelihood depended on my PC, I wouldn't be overclocking my cash-generating PC to reduce the likelihood of costly unexpected downtime and additional maintenance.)
 
Yeah um, no...
The 3600 might beat the 9900 STOCK 3.6ghz, but the 9900k can be OC’d to 5ghz+ (something the 3600 just can’t do).
If you are an overclocker then the 9900 is still the way to go.
The 9900K doesn't run at 3.6GHz stock, at least as long as it isn't overheating. The 9900K's stock clocks have it boosting to 5GHz on single-threaded workloads, and even with all cores fully loaded it can boost to 4.7GHz. So, a 5GHz overclock should only have a small effect on its performance.

However, this article is old news at this point, and these processors are now available and have been reviewed, so there's no need to rely on pre-release rumors and results from a single benchmark. The new Ryzen processors can perform more instructions per clock than Intel's, and that largely makes up for their lower clock rates. But while the 3600 can in some cases outperform a 9900K, in most applications the 9900K will be a bit faster, and that processor's two extra cores will of course give it an advantage in most heavily-multithreaded applications. The 8-core, 16-thread 3700X is a closer performer to it in terms of performance while still costing substantially less, and the 3900X offers 50% more cores for more multithreaded performance, along with a reasonably capable stock cooler at a similar price. The 3600 is more an i7 competitor in terms of performance, while being priced like an i5.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS