Discussion Ryzen 3600(X) VS 3700X

[Phaaze88]

[Focus is gaming + streaming.]

For the typical - whatever is considered so, anyways - gaming + streaming platform, is the Ryzen 3600(X) really so bad against the 3700X?

This isn't about the folks with deep pockets, but those working with a limited budget, or perhaps wants to get something without overspending.

All the 3700X really offers over the 3600(X) is an extra 2 cores and 4 threads.
-They're practically identical in single core speed.
-Save for Ashes of the Singularity, games don't use more than 8 threads currently. That leaves between 4-6 threads for other things.
-The stream doesn't have to be cpu only; the gpu can also do it.

The 3700X is 59-81%(at the time of this post) more expensive than the 3600(X). Do those extra 2 cores and 4 threads really make up for that price difference?
Is it really going to be that big of a loss to be missing those 4 extra threads when someone streams games:
-every day(5 days), from 20mins to an hour or more?
-a few, to maybe, several hours a week, but they split the video into sections to post every day?


Perhaps I overlooked something, so I wanted to see what others thought about the 2 cpus.

 

[Zizo007]

If you will stream get the 3700X.
What do you mean by 59-81% more?
The 3700X is 59-81% more expensive?

 

[Zizo007]

Also future games will make use of thos extra cores if you plan to keep it for a couple years. BFV online already maxes out a 6 core especially with 64 players.

 

[Phaaze88]

What do you mean by 59-81% more?

Yea, I meant price, I will edit that part.

 

[Phaaze88]

Also future games will make use of thos extra cores if you plan to keep it for a couple years. BFV online already maxes out a 6 core especially with 64 players.

But that's second guessing.
We know games will eventually move up in resource use, but we don't know by how much, or by how long that will take. Look at how long it took for pure 4 cores to become obsolete; we're just getting started with 8.
Pure six cores practically got skipped over because hyperthreaded quad cores.

But BFV doesn't know how to use more than 6(?) threads, so that still leaves 6(3600/X) or 10(3700X) for the stream - or you could use the gpu.

 

[Zizo007]

At that price I would get the 3600X and upgrade to Ryzen 4000 in the future.
You can always sell the 3600X before upgrading to Ryzen 4000.
The 3600X will work for gaming and streaming if you don't plan to stream games heavy on the CPU like BFV online 64 player.

 

[Phaaze88]

The 3600X will work for gaming and streaming if you don't plan to stream games heavy on the CPU like BFV online 64 player.

?
BFV online only uses 6, right? So that leaves 6 for the stream... how is that bad?

If you stream a game like Fortnite(uses 8 I think), you still have 4 to stream with on the 3600(X). Or you can use the gpu if it's not getting much attention.

 

[Zizo007]

I had a 4 core 8 thread cpu Ryzen 1400 and BFV 64 player was a slideshow 100% CPU usage. I upgraded to 1800X and everything is fluid now.

 

[Phaaze88]

Oh.
BFV is actually an 8 thread game, that's why that happened.

 

[Zizo007]

Threads are not the same as cores. They do offer an advantage over no hyperthreading but you can't compare them to actual cores as actual cores are better. I don't know the exact percentage how threads compare to actual cores but actual cores are better.

I would take a higher actual core count with no HT over more threads. e.g. 6 core 6 threads over 4 core 8 threads.

 

[Phaaze88]

I would take a higher actual core count with no HT over more threads. e.g. 6 core 6 threads over 4 core 8 threads.

9700K VS 3600?

 

[Zizo007]

9700K VS 3600?

The 9700K will be faster especially in games.

 

[Phaaze88]

Wouldn't it choke in a game like BFV online VS the 3600?

 

[Nemesia]

Wouldn't it choke in a game like BFV online VS the 3600?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXSLavbQimQ


The 9700K boost up to 4.9 but the 9700K is double the price of the 3600 where I live.

 

[Zizo007]

Wouldn't it choke in a game like BFV online VS the 3600?

I am sure it doesn't. Also reviews show a slight advantage in games when disabling HT.

 

[Zizo007]

They recommended to turn off SMT.
I am not sure if SMT is hyperthreading though.

Edit: Yes, I double checked google, SMT is hyperthreading.

 

[Nemesia]

They recommended to turn off SMT.
I am not sure if SMT is hyperthreading though.

Edit: Yes, I double checked google, SMT is hyperthreading.

Yeah it's the same. Hyper-threading is the name used by Intel while Simultaneous Multi-Threading is the more general term.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

3600 is going to be good performance today. However, in say 3 years or so the 3700x may still be holding on while 3600 systems are being swapped out. That said, I've got a 1700x and wouldn't mind getting a 3600 and overclocking.

 

[Phaaze88]

Oh, I thought SMT was AMD's terminology for it instead of it being a general term.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXSLavbQimQ


The 9700K boost up to 4.9 but the 9700K is double the price of the 3600 where I live.

I'm also taking pricing into account, but yeah... 9700K is a big ouch on the bank, plus you have to buy a high end cooler for it, so that just makes it even more expensive. That really makes it's 'faster in games' advantage pretty moot when the 9700K is over 80% more expensive, by itself...

 

[Phaaze88]

3600 is going to be good performance today. However, in say 3 years or so the 3700x may still be holding on while 3600 systems are being swapped out.

But do you really think it's going to become irrelevant that quickly(3 years)?
I mean, look at how long in the teeth the 4770K, 4790K, and 6700K are. Those have recently been shown to still be somewhat capable in games, and they're 5years or more old at this point:
https://www.youtube(dot)com/watch?v=LCV9yyD8X6M
https://www.youtube(dot)com/watch?v=D6RsDyMn2gY

You've gotta admit, they've had a good run.

 

[sizzling]

I’d say the other point with the 9700k vs 3600 is will you actually be able to utilities the extra performance the 9700k can offer? Yes the 9700k can push out more FPS if running a strong gpu at 1080p but even then when running adaptive sync monitors you will likely put an FPS cap in place in real world usage. At higher resolutions it’s harder to utilise the extra cpu potential due to gpu limitations.

As for the 3700X vs 3600(X). I personally went 3700X over the 3600(X) and 9700k. I felt it’s a better long term investment. My last system used a quad core i5 4670k at a time when people said the i5 was more than enough for gaming which when new was true. However the i5 aged terribly while the i7 aged significantly better and I regretted not investing in the next level up in cpu with more threads. With the 3700X I also find my gaming pc more useful, I can have it doing other workloads while I game with virtually no impact on gaming.

Finally the 3700X over a 3600 to me is not a big price difference in % terms when building a new pc. The difference to the overall cost of the whole system is minimal in my view. I might feel differently if doing an upgrade but I built a entirely new system.

 

[Phaaze88]

My last system used a quad core i5 4670k at a time when people said the i5 was more than enough for gaming which when new was true. However the i5 aged terribly while the i7 aged significantly better and I regretted not investing in the next level up in cpu.

I fell into that same trap - started with a 3570K; I wish I had gotten a 3770K instead.

Yes the 9700k can push out more FPS if running a strong gpu at 1080p but even then when running adaptive sync monitors you will likely put an FPS cap in place in real world usage.

You do have a point there. There are more people running PCs with RX 580/GTX 1650 Super level gpus than than those with something like a 2070/2080 Super.


Welp, you may as well upgrade to a 4700X when it comes out and sell off the 3700X, since AMD will move to a new socket after that.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

You always want to buy the best you can afford. Think this way though. Next gen consoles I think are going to be 8 cores. How long do you think before devs start taking advantage of that? Sure the hyperthreading will help a bit. I'd guess maybe 4 or 5. But the previous poster has a valid point. Buy the best you can. You could theoretically take an i7 3770 and pair it up with a mid range card and still do some gaming. Those are from 2013 or so.

So 7 years. When bf1 came out, a lot of quads were struggling. So guess 5 years that those i5 CPUs had.

The 3600 is still good. But tech is advancing so fast. I think they will release ryzen 4000. Maybe we get lucky and get a 5000 series on socket am4. But within the next 2 or 3 years, they'll probably be talking new CPU sockets, then ddr5. As that happens you'll see age in the lower and mid range ryzen CPUs quicker. The higher end ones like the Intel i7s I think will hold out longer.

So basically you'll get good performance let's say for 3-5 years. But for long term, the higher end.

Now a smart play might be pick up a ryzen 5 1600af for about 80 bucks, or a ryzen 5 2600. Overclock. Then when the 4000 series release upgrade then, or snag a high end 3000 series cpu cheap.

I'm running a 1700x and it's a good CPU. I tell myself I'd like a 3600. But I know in my mind that the 4000 probably releases later this year and I can probably get one of those CPUs, or that I can pick up something like a 3700x for under 200 kind of like how the 2700x is selling for 150.