Question Upgraded to 3600XT from 1600AF...it doesn't feel any different, "better", or faster.

Aug 20, 2020
33
1
35
0
I upgraded my build from a 5 1600AF to a 5 3600XT. (went for the XT since it was actually cheaper than the X)

At first I had some issues, from compatibility. But I fixed them now, even re installed windows.
However, everything I do on the computer does not feel that much better than before.

For gaming benchmarks, for instance, I was getting 28fps on Dark Souls 3, @ 4k with MAX settings.
With the 3600XT, I got maybe 32ish fps with the same settings. The biggest different I saw was at 1440, it was pretty stable holding 60fps at Max settings, which the 1600AF could not do at all.

Now, I know this game in particular, and gaming in general, deal more with the GPU. But I still expected to see something different in something else that was more CPU demanding. But not really.

In fact, even the Windows experience feels kinda flaky and sluggish at times. The computer won't really restart (it'll get stuck at the Restarting screen) unless it's right after a fresh start, with no programs having been opened at all.

The experience overall, after I installed the new CPU does not feel better. It certainly doesn't feel $150 better, from what I paid for the 1600AF.

Am I missing something?
Did I do something wrong?
Do I need to install some drivers, or updates to get the full power of the 3600XT?
Or am I just not going to see a huge difference unless I'm working on excel spreadsheets or video editing (I don't do either of these).

At least, I was expecting the Windows experience to be seamless...and actually, at times, it feels worse.

Any ideas?

System is:
b450M Aorus w/ F50 BIOS
16G DDR4 3200
RX 5500XT
SSD 2.5 Drives.
Windows 10 Pro.

P.S. I did all the Windows Updates.

Thanks.

Ron
 
Last edited:
You are using the wrong BIOS.
Try BIOS F51.


[TH]Ryzen 5 3600XT[/TH]
[TH]6‎C/12T[/TH]
[TH]3‎.8GHz / 4.5GHz[/TH]
[TH]3‎MB[/TH]
[TH]3‎2MB[/TH]
[TH]N/A[/TH]
[TH]Matisse[/TH]
[TH]7‎nm[/TH]
[TH]B0[/TH]
[TH]9‎5W[/TH]
[TH]F51[/TH]​
 
Aug 20, 2020
33
1
35
0
You are using the wrong BIOS.
Try BIOS F51.


[TH]Ryzen 5 3600XT[/TH]
[TH]6‎C/12T[/TH]
[TH]3‎.8GHz / 4.5GHz[/TH]
[TH]3‎MB[/TH]
[TH]3‎2MB[/TH]
[TH]N/A[/TH]
[TH]Matisse[/TH]
[TH]7‎nm[/TH]
[TH]B0[/TH]
[TH]9‎5W[/TH]
[TH]F51[/TH]​
Well, not to contradict your help.
But, I DID try F51, and I actually had more instability with it, than with the previous BIOS I had on it, which was the F50.

I just finished updating and downloading all drivers and all, and got it pretty stable. So, I don't know if I want to mess with it more.

Or is that just non-debatable - I HAVE to use F51?
 
Aug 20, 2020
33
1
35
0
I upgraded my build from a 5 1600AF to a 5 3600XT. (went for the XT since it was actually cheaper than the X)

At first I had some issues, from compatibility. But I fixed them now, even re installed windows.
However, everything I do on the computer does not feel that much better than before.

For gaming benchmarks, for instance, I was getting 28fps on Dark Souls 3, @ 4k with MAX settings.

Now, I know this game in particular, and gaming in general, deal more with the GPU. But I still expected to see something different in something else that was more CPU demanding. But not really.

In fact, even the Windows experience feels kinda flaky and sluggish at times. The computer won't really restart (it'll get stuck at the Restarting screen) unless it's right after a fresh start, with no programs having been opened at all.

The experience overall, after I installed the new CPU does not feel better. It certainly doesn't feel $150 better, from what I paid for the 1600AF.

Am I missing something?
Did I do something wrong?
Do I need to install some drivers, or updates to get the full power of the 3600XT?
Or am I just not going to see a huge difference unless I'm working on excel spreadsheets or video editing (I don't do either of these).

At least, I was expecting the Windows experience to be seamless...and actually, at times, it feels worse.

Any ideas?

System is:
b450M Aorus w/ F50 BIOS
16G DDR4 3200
RX 5500XT
SSD 2.5 Drives.
Windows 10 Pro.

P.S. I did all the Windows Updates.

Thanks.

Ron
Gigabyte B450 AORUS - CPU Support List

Note that the 3600XT is not supported unless BIOS version F51 is installed. That it boots is one thing. Whether you get full performance is another. You should be using BIOS version F51.

-Wolf sends
Ok. Someone else told me that "if the BIOS version wasn't compatible with the chip, it wouldn't boot up at all. It wouldn't even post."

Ok. I'll go back and reinstall F51.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
For gaming benchmarks, for instance, I was getting 28fps on Dark Souls 3, @ 4k with MAX settings.
With the 3600XT, I got maybe 32ish fps with the same settings. The biggest different I saw was at 1440, it was pretty stable holding 60fps at Max settings, which the 1600AF could not do at all.

[...]

System is:
RX 5500XT
Upgrading the CPU won't help much when you have a substantial GPU bottleneck. An RX5500 can only do so much. If you want higher frame rates, lower details and resolution until you get the best compromise that yields still acceptable frame rates until you can get around to upgrading the GPU.
 
Aug 20, 2020
33
1
35
0
Upgrading the CPU won't help much when you have a substantial GPU bottleneck. An RX5500 can only do so much. If you want higher frame rates, lower details and resolution until you get the best compromise that yields still acceptable frame rates until you can get around to upgrading the GPU.
Oh sure, of course. I just tried to give some simple examples, like Video Gaming. This build wasn't supposed to be a big gaming rig. I was using it mostly for Emulators, for which it's already overkill. I just wanted to see what the best upgrade path was without breaking the bank with this build.
I'm building a whole separate Rig strictly for modern gaming, with a 5600x Ryzen, and a 3070 (or 3080), for Mid-Range Gaming.
And I might build a 3rd Rig for High End gaming, with a 5900x and a 6800XT, or maybe better.

But for this rig, I don't care whether I can play 4k at max settings, at 60fps. I just wanted to squeeze the most performance out of what I bought for it.
 

GarrettL

Respectable
When the resolution is 4k, the gpu is THE bottleneck. That's why you don't see a difference at 4k and why you do at 1440p. Go to 1080p and the 3600x will provide even more FPS than the 1600.
 
Aug 20, 2020
33
1
35
0
If you need more FPS at 4k you need the a 3080/3090 or 6800xt/6900xt.
Yes, thank you. I am FULLY aware of what I need to achieve 4k at high frame rates. The point of my original post was how to achieve the best performance WITH the setup - not how to achieve 4k or higher frame rates.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
But for this rig, I don't care whether I can play 4k at max settings, at 60fps. I just wanted to squeeze the most performance out of what I bought for it.
Trading details and resolution for higher fps is the same GPU performance, merely applied differently depending on preferences and priorities. I prioritize 60fps, then resolution, then details on my GTX1050, which translates to 4k60/low (may need resolution scaling for the most GPU-intensive games I play) if I play on my TV or medium-ish on my 1200p60 main monitor.
 
Aug 20, 2020
33
1
35
0
Trading details and resolution for higher fps is the same GPU performance, merely applied differently depending on preferences and priorities. I prioritize 60fps, then resolution, then details on my GTX1050, which translates to 4k60/low (may need resolution scaling for the most GPU-intensive games I play) if I play on my TV or medium-ish on my 1200p60 main monitor.
Ok. I typically prioritize Resolution, then Detail, then FPS, because I don't really play fast-paced games at all. Dark Souls is the fastest game I play. So, I'd rather it look pretty and slightly sluggish than SUPER fast, but crappy-looking. At least for my personal taste, for the games I play.
 

hang-the-9

Titan
Moderator
Run PassMark or some other CPU benchmark on the old CPU and on the new CPU, will show you the benchmark speed difference. For how it actually feels like to you during use, there is not likely to be much difference you can feel aside form major work-loads like video encoding that will be faster.

With a middle range video card you won't see much if any increase in gaming speeds. For gaming the upgrade should have been done for the video card not the CPU first.

What made you upgrade the CPU instead of the video card for gaming anyway? If you read about the benefits you should have seen in many places that the video card you have was the issue not the CPU, did you get advice to change the CPU from somewhere?
 
I upgraded my build from a 5 1600AF to a 5 3600XT. (went for the XT since it was actually
...
Ron
Silly question: DID you also do a CMOS reset after the latest BIOS update, to the verision that's 3600XT-aware?

You did all the Windows updates...but did you also update the chipset drivers? using one you DL'd from AMD's support web site so it's the latest?

As others note, you might not notice any improvement in gaming if your GPU is at it's limit even if your system is well optimized. But don't let that stop you getting it right for the processor you have.
 
Last edited:
Aug 20, 2020
33
1
35
0
Run PassMark or some other CPU benchmark on the old CPU and on the new CPU, will show you the benchmark speed difference. For how it actually feels like to you during use, there is not likely to be much difference you can feel aside form major work-loads like video encoding that will be faster.

With a middle range video card you won't see much if any increase in gaming speeds. For gaming the upgrade should have been done for the video card not the CPU first.

What made you upgrade the CPU instead of the video card for gaming anyway? If you read about the benefits you should have seen in many places that the video card you have was the issue not the CPU, did you get advice to change the CPU from somewhere?
No, The build started as a 1600af/rx 570. I built it for like $300. It was always meant to be an ultra budget build. I only use it to play Pacman and Street Fighter II, on emulator. But recently, I got curious to see what I could actually use it for, aside from just 80's and early 90's games. Turns out I could play games as modern as Dark Souls 3, no problem. Those two - the 1600af and the RX 570 were a killer combo. But I saw the 5500xt on sale, for about as much as I got the 570, so I upgraded there. And then I thought about what's the most cost effective upgrade to the CPU, without going into a whole nother realm of cost, and there was a sale on the 3600xt. So, I got that (it was the same price as the 3600.)

So, this was more about squeezing the most juice out of the same amount of money.

Money is not an issue for me- so I'm just playing around with what I can get away with upgrading and whatnot. At the time, upgrading to the 5500xt was the most sensible, and upgrading to the 3600xt was the best bang for the buck without crossing the threshold into the next tier of PC ranges. As I Said before, I'm well aware what it is I NEED to get a good gaming experience. I was just trying to get the most mileage out of the current build.

I have no issue forking out some cash to build a 3090 Build, but I have no interest, and have little use for it (I don't really play AAA titles, or do anything intensive with my PCs).
 
Aug 20, 2020
33
1
35
0
Silly question: DID you also do a CMOS reset after the latest BIOS update, to the verision that's 3600XT-aware?

You did all the Windows updates...but did you also update the chipset drivers? using one you DL'd from AMD's support web site so it's the latest?

As others note, you might not notice any improvement in gaming if your GPU is at it's limit even if your system is well optimized. But don't let that stop you getting it right for the processor you have.
Yes, I did. I forgot to mention that.
Gaming is just one example though. I don't want this convo to get hung up on that. I'm talking even menial tasks, within Windows, that I thought I'd some improvements in - even transferring large Files, etc. I just didn't see much improvement. But I guess some of you are right - video processing and such, are the areas where I Would see the definite difference in.
 
Aug 20, 2020
33
1
35
0
5500XT is an entry level card for even 1080P; it's no wonder there is no real difference at 4K, frankly....
Entry-level for 1080? I would have to disagree with that. I see what you mean, but coming from the 570, I would say with the right ram and the right cpu, 5500xt can be a pretty comfortable 1440 build. Especially if you OC correctly.
 

hang-the-9

Titan
Moderator
No, The build started as a 1600af/rx 570. I built it for like $300. It was always meant to be an ultra budget build. I only use it to play Pacman and Street Fighter II, on emulator. But recently, I got curious to see what I could actually use it for, aside from just 80's and early 90's games. Turns out I could play games as modern as Dark Souls 3, no problem. Those two - the 1600af and the RX 570 were a killer combo. But I saw the 5500xt on sale, for about as much as I got the 570, so I upgraded there. And then I thought about what's the most cost effective upgrade to the CPU, without going into a whole nother realm of cost, and there was a sale on the 3600xt. So, I got that (it was the same price as the 3600.)

So, this was more about squeezing the most juice out of the same amount of money.

Money is not an issue for me- so I'm just playing around with what I can get away with upgrading and whatnot. At the time, upgrading to the 5500xt was the most sensible, and upgrading to the 3600xt was the best bang for the buck without crossing the threshold into the next tier of PC ranges. As I Said before, I'm well aware what it is I NEED to get a good gaming experience. I was just trying to get the most mileage out of the current build.

I have no issue forking out some cash to build a 3090 Build, but I have no interest, and have little use for it (I don't really play AAA titles, or do anything intensive with my PCs).
570 to 5500 xt is a very small upgrade to be worth doing, you really did not need to touch anything in the system past the video card for more demanding games. For what you use the computer for neither of the changes you made were worth spending money on, I would have left the system as is or gone up to a higher end card than the 5500 xt to run more demanding games. 5600 would have been over a 50% boost in video card speeds or a 1660 super. Going to a 5500 from a 570 is too small of an upgrade (10-20%).

With what you changed compared to what you do with the system, the fact you did not notice any difference is normal. If you get a car with more power but you never actually use it, the extra power is simply wasted.
 
Aug 20, 2020
33
1
35
0
570 to 5500 xt is a very small upgrade to be worth doing, you really did not need to touch anything in the system past the video card for more demanding games. For what you use the computer for neither of the changes you made were worth spending money on, I would have left the system as is or gone up to a higher end card than the 5500 xt to run more demanding games. 5600 would have been over a 50% boost in video card speeds or a 1660 super. Going to a 5500 from a 570 is too small of an upgrade (10-20%).

With what you changed compared to what you do with the system, the fact you did not notice any difference is normal. If you get a car with more power but you never actually use it, the extra power is simply wasted.
I think you missed the part where I didn't pay anything extra to upgrade. Monetarily, it was virtually a 1-1 trade. I sold the 570 and the 1600af for exactly (actually for a little bit more) as what I paid for them.

If you get a car, and you pay 20,000 for it, and there's a sale, with which you get the Turbo upgrade for LITERALLY the same price...I'd be hard pressed to think you wouldn't do it, just because the upgrade is only 10-20% improvement.
 

Mr.Spock

Prominent
Dec 8, 2019
834
97
790
88
For file transfer you're limited by SATA not the CPU so unless you're running a stress test in CPU-Z or recalculating a pivot table you're not gonna notice a difference. running Prime95 or something compute intensive would be a better gauge

Yes, I did. I forgot to mention that.
Gaming is just one example though. I don't want this convo to get hung up on that. I'm talking even menial tasks, within Windows, that I thought I'd some improvements in - even transferring large Files, etc. I just didn't see much improvement. But I guess some of you are right - video processing and such, are the areas where I Would see the definite difference in.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY