• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Review on Ryzen 3600 and 3600x

jay13bry said:
I actually have a 3600X

Ill be honest ive hardly used it since building as im waiting on my AM4 adaptor bracket so I can mount my 360mm fractal AIO. Ive also decided to ditch my 1080 and go for a 5700XT and watercool it and expand my loop.

TLDR - Most ive seen is 4.3Ghz out of it on a single core.

I did get a 4.2Ghz all core overclock but that was

Me and my buddy built it up and we did a run on Tomb Raider with his 2080Ti by colorful and we got 108 fps at 1080p - not this 120+ fps this reviewer is seeing - and it must be said only he is seeing it. His 9900k got 127fps.

The value for money is outstanding at 1440p where I reside, but for those super high 1080p rates intel is still the way to go - anyone saying otherwise needs to have a word.
Click to expand...

Could be your temp if you are using the stock cooler. Here is a 3600 with PBO +125.

https://imgur.com/hhhK05f
 
brand new tech vs 2 year old tech. if the 8700k was new today it would be the same price. this is why AMD always launch new tech on the end of intel old tech. makes them look close impressive.
 
get
 
So if you heavily overclock a 3600X it gets about level with a stock 8700K? What happens to the graphs when the 8700K is running overclocked as well? The argument turns to "value".

I don't hate Ryzen, a large part of me wanted to get a 3700X, but I am noticing a common thing is for people to get them, clock the knackers off them and then compare with Intel stock chips and then use "value" as an argument that they're "as good as" the Intel chip they're comparing to when that's wrong because who buys a"K" chip and doesn't overclock it?
 
3600 is about a 8700k. its a great chip with a decent price. the thing is thats two year old speed. so thats why you get it now for £180.which is still great. many people are still saying its so superior to a 2 year old chip which costs £400. no one in there right mind will buy now a two year old chip for £400. thats a stupid arguement. a 8700k overclocked to max is still going to be quicker than the 3600 in games overclocked or not simply because the 8700k will overclock to close to 5ghz more often than not.

the good deal for people is that on a budget you can get good performance.infact great gaming performance for not that much money.

you buy a 3700x if you into media creation with games and such thats where it will be better also in two years time when six cores are struggling in new battlefield games and the like. the only problem is the 9700k from intel is far faster ingames than the 3700x and isnt much more. so you way up what you do with your pc. do you just game 90 percent of the time. or do you do editing recording and the like and game. then you choose. also budget is a big thing.

the AMD x570 boards have got to come down. they are too expensive and whoever comes up with a way to stop the fan or even remove it will clean up on x570 boards. no one wants a stupid whiny fan spinning round. or a dead one full of fluff. imagine even a tiny build dirt fluff gets in tiny fans easy. if that goes your screwed or you ghetto modding it. a better solution needs to happen.
 
jay13bry said:
Didnt realise the 9700k and 9900k were two years old?
Click to expand...


8700k is basically two years old. or will be the time people get these processors in stock. i mentioned the 9700k as its basically nigh on the same price as the 3700x and probably the fastest cpu for games on the market. as silly people keep comparing the 3600 to buying a 8700k brand new. well no one will buy a 8700k brand new now. they did 2 years ago. not now.

Orange Nexus said:
Why do you make statements like that in a Ryzen thread? Are you a kid or something?
Click to expand...

its true look at when AMD release cpus and what they compare them to when they do release them. its always intel last processor on the end of its life. here we have a amd cpu that has similar ipc to a 8 series intel. yes thats previous gen not even today intel cpu. by releasing them at the end of the intel cycle it makes amd look better. imagine if they released these gen chips with intels new chips come christmas time. exactly. they would look less impressive. if you dont like a opinion you dont have to agree thats why we all debate or comment on here. you dont need to try and be derogatory because you dont agree thats weak minded. also childish.
 
so why not compare it to the 9700k or 9900k ? you already know the answer. what is the last released product from intel to compare against ? it isnt the 8700k. as said we know why they are comparing them to older intel cpus. it makes them look better than they are. AMD cpus are just out already slower than last gen intels. no goal post moving thats why they compare it to a 2 year old cpu. so your reply is intel are stagnant ? so intel are stagnant because amd cant match a two year old tech lol. they have faster cpus out than a brand new amd tech yet intel are stagnant ? so what does that make AMD ? if it takes them all this time to compete with a stagnant company but still slower ? comedy gold these forums. reallly are. how can you back a team so loyally even when slower then call the other team stagnant when they are faster with older tech. its genius. really is.
 
Because the architecture has not changed, all they did was add two cores to it and rename it the 9900K.

Which was not enough, not by a long way, now AMD are out performing Intel's £1300 HEDT with a £500 mainstream CPU, that's stagnant.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
so why not compare it to the 9700k or 9900k ? you already know the answer. what is the last released product from intel to compare against ? it isnt the 8700k. as said we know why they are comparing them to older intel cpus. it makes them look better than they are. AMD cpus are just out already slower than last gen intels. no goal post moving thats why they compare it to a 2 year old cpu. so your reply is intel are stagnant ? so intel are stagnant because amd cant match a two year old tech lol. they have faster cpus out than a brand new amd tech yet intel are stagnant ? so what does that make AMD ? if it takes them all this time to compete with a stagnant company but still slower ? comedy gold these forums. reallly are. how can you back a team so loyally even when slower then call the other team stagnant when they are faster with older tech. its genius. really is.
Click to expand...

Well you can certainly compare the 9900k to the say, 3600x and the 9900k would beat it, but when you factor in cost against performance the 9900k is over twice as expensive, but the performance gains aren't twice as fast/more productive. To me it seems better to look at a closer price point and then compare performance and the 8700k is still about £200 more expensive, with the 3600x basically equalling the 8700k.
The best price comparison is is the i5 9600k at £200 but it'd be totally unfair 'cos thats comparing a 6/12 cpu to a 4/8 cpu. Just goes to show how overpriced Intel cpus are
 
pieman109 said:
Well you can certainly compare the 9900k to the say, 3600x and the 9900k would beat it, but when you factor in cost against performance the 9900k is over twice as expensive, but the performance gains aren't twice as fast/more productive. To me it seems better to look at a closer price point and then compare performance and the 8700k is still about £200 more expensive, with the 3600x basically equalling the 8700k.
The best price comparison is is the i5 9600k at £200 but it'd be totally unfair 'cos thats comparing a 6/12 cpu to a 4/8 cpu. Just goes to show how overpriced Intel cpus are
Click to expand...

Which proves my point that when a discussion on AMD gets to the sharp end, that they're nearly there in performance but not quite the go to response is "ooooh but it's so much cheaper". Some don't mind paying more for better performance.
 
I totally agree, theres always people that want the best no matter what. It just seems to me that Intel have stagnated a lot and "allowed" AMD to catch up. Its taken them two years to get where they are now, when Intel were still offering 4cores/8threads up to two years ago. Thats stagnation. It also shows how how far Intel have charged well over the odds for their products so of course, people will always say "ooooo but its so much cheaper" and damn right too
 
Steveocee said:
Which proves my point that when a discussion on AMD gets to the sharp end, that they're nearly there in performance but not quite the go to response is "ooooh but it's so much cheaper". Some don't mind paying more for better performance.
Click to expand...

Clearly for people in this forum gaming is the only thing that matter's, in a world outside this forum AMD absolutely crushes Intel for performance.

It's all relative.
 
humbug said:
£400 vs £200 CPU's.... how can you argue with this....

fwbjCRU.png
Click to expand...

3600X is not £200! It is £239.99

My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £239.99 (includes shipping: £0.00)
​

8700K is not £400 anymore for a 2 years old CPU, you can get second hand 8700K for £200 but I cant give you competitor links.

3600X has very poor OC with voltage too high while 8700K has plenty OC headroom.

Overall 8700K still has better value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom