Ryzen 5600x vs 3700x

[FoxEye]

I'm not convinced.

1. That 6-core won't fall behind in some games over the course of the next 18+ months.
2. That in the real world people won't also be either (e.g.) downloading something, streaming music, etc, at the same time as playing. Or even just leaving apps open (e.g. Chrome) when they launch a game.

The sore point of the 5800X is that is is horrifically over-priced relative to its siblings. Not that it "isn't a gaming CPU".

How many people here have already bought 5900X CPUs primarily for gaming? Quite a few most likely.

 

[RBImGuy]

I'm not convinced.

1. That 6-core won't fall behind in some games over the course of the next 18+ months.
2. That in the real world people won't also be either (e.g.) downloading something, streaming music, etc, at the same time as playing. Or even just leaving apps open (e.g. Chrome) when they launch a game.

The sore point of the 5800X is that is is horrifically over-priced relative to its siblings. Not that it "isn't a gaming CPU".

How many people here have already bought 5900X CPUs primarily for gaming? Quite a few most likely.

1. no.
2. Not an issue even with a 3600. I play games, encode, listen to a stream and youtube all at once and its not even a hick up.

5600x is the perfect gaming cpu for 99% of gamers.

 

[stooeh]

I'm not convinced.

1. That 6-core won't fall behind in some games over the course of the next 18+ months.
2. That in the real world people won't also be either (e.g.) downloading something, streaming music, etc, at the same time as playing. Or even just leaving apps open (e.g. Chrome) when they launch a game.

For either of these things to really happen you would need to be playing a game that is basically maxing out the multicore performance of a 5600X - I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

Only a couple of game comes close to doing that to my 5820K overclocked (BF5 multiplayer is probably the most CPU heavy game I have played) and the 5600X has way more in the tank in that respect.

 

[clv101]

2. That in the real world people won't also be either (e.g.) downloading something, streaming music, etc, at the same time as playing. Or even just leaving apps open (e.g. Chrome) when they launch a game.

Those 'background tasks' are pretty much irrelevant on modern processors, certainly aren't a reason to drop £hundreds on more cores.

 

[Tutan]

Where are the 1440p and 4k numbers in the video? You watched it right?

I'm not the one embarrassing myself.

HUB have done a good gaming CPU benchmark. You are clearly ignoring their advice.

You do not buy a 3700X instead of a 5600X for gaming. It is far worse.





What did HUB say about stupid comments like this?

They completely debunked it. He said it is almost definite that the 3700X will never overtake the 5600X.

I've just gone back through your posts in this thread. Your lack of knowledge is quite poor. Consoles won't be using 8 cores for gaming.

You seem to have intellectual problems,(and lots of free time digging old posts)I never claimed to be a knowhow guru or something,new information becomes available and people learn from that.
I never said 3700x is better than 5600x in gaming,I said it’s better in multi core performance and in higher resolutions than 1080P it’s very close to 5600x.(FACTS)

you said 5600x “destroys” 3700x (BS) and you have been disproven and corrected.

I won’t be wasting more time here repeating myself and facts just because you have difficulty understanding them.

PS : funny things is,I have both 3700x and 5600x in front of me

 

[FoxEye]

1. no.

You've somehow managed to benchmark all the games coming out in the next 18 months? Impressive.

 

[jigger]

I think Linus put it quite well. If you are buying a 5800X then you are doing that for non-gaming reasons, in which case the 5900X is so close in value (better perf/$) you should get that.

If you ignore the price difference, sure. Maybe Linus will pay the difference between the two.

 

[chrcoluk]

Read the OP?

Why are you answering a different question? For gaming the 3700x is destroyed by the 5600x. Unless of course you play cinebench.

Who cares if the difference is little in 1440p and 4k gaming now? With that logic you might as well buy a 3600 instead of a 3700x/5600x. Or even a 10600K.

Also even if the margins are smaller the 5600x is still better than the 3700x at those resolutions.



Completely debunked.

couldnt say it better myself, wish cinebench was retired and replaced with something like geekbench on reviews, as cinebench can mislead people, it only tests one workload (rendering) then assumptions are made that must mean everything.

I am tempted to replace my 2600X with a 5600X and upgrade its ram (ram cheap atm). But the current pricing policy makes it difficult. If I do it, I think it will be my main rig and 9900k relegated, (yes even with its 2 extra cores).

 

[daern]

I think I'd question some of the game benchmarks being quoted in many real-world cases where games simply do not effectively multi-thread. This seems to apply to many games on the market today and while people have been talking about multi-core game architectures for years now, I'm not holding my breath for wide support any time soon.

Good examples would be iRacing (IIRC, the majority of workload is on a single thread, with only certain secondary activities thrown out to parallel threads) and Microsoft Flight Simulator (the 2020) version, which has proven to be extraordinarily resource-heavy:

Clearly, the improvement between CPU generations is very apparent, but the difference between a 6 core and 16 core CPU has absolutely zero benefit in the real world. This test was run at 1080p, and you would expect higher resolution tests to probably level out further as more dependency is put on the GPU rather than CPU.

I'm sure others will produce other benchmarks that contradict this, but for the usage I make, I'll be sticking to 6 cores at this time (and will eye up an upgrade once CPU prices drop in the future)

 

[RBImGuy]

I think I'd question some of the game benchmarks being quoted in many real-world cases where games simply do not effectively multi-thread. This seems to apply to many games on the market today and while people have been talking about multi-core game architectures for years now, I'm not holding my breath for wide support any time soon.

Good examples would be iRacing (IIRC, the majority of workload is on a single thread, with only certain secondary activities thrown out to parallel threads) and Microsoft Flight Simulator (the 2020) version, which has proven to be extraordinarily resource-heavy:

Clearly, the improvement between CPU generations is very apparent, but the difference between a 6 core and 16 core CPU has absolutely zero benefit in the real world. This test was run at 1080p, and you would expect higher resolution tests to probably level out further as more dependency is put on the GPU rather than CPU.

I'm sure others will produce other benchmarks that contradict this, but for the usage I make, I'll be sticking to 6 cores at this time (and will eye up an upgrade once CPU prices drop in the future)

mhz/ipc for the workload and 1 to 2 cores is what benefit games atm.
need better game engines and programmers that learned to code for multi cores

 

[FoxEye]

need better game engines and programmers that learned to code for multi cores

Making things parallel is not a trivial problem. Developers aren't "lazy". I can't help but feel sorry for the bad rep many people give them.

 

[Shaolin Chicken]

Agreed, I have heard developers talk about how hard it is for games to use multiple cores.

 

[Vince]

So we're just going to ignore the next-gen consoles raising the performance of the lead platforms for future games.. Raising the baseline.

Yup, we'll just ignore that completely.

"A 6-core was always fine in the past therefore it must be fine in the future."

Did you say the same about quad cores? Dual cores? How did that work out for you?

You seem to be missing the point. 8 bulldozer cores is not the same as 8 zen cores, it's overall performance that matters. So if the consoles are based on 8 zen 2 cores (which they are) then 8 zen 3 cores offer more performance than the next gen consoles. 6 zen 2 cores match 8 zen cores, 6 zen 3 cores match 8 zen 2 cores so at what point do cores really matter? If a 8 core 2700x is matched or beaten by a 6 core 3600x (and it is, I have both). The only conclusion I can pull is that cores just for cores sake doesn't matter after a certain point (which right now and for the next few years a high performance 6 core), what matters is overall available performance be that via cores, cache, pure ipc, whatever it all boils down to how much overall performance is available and the 5600x has plenty.

 

[FoxEye]

You seem to be missing the point. 8 bulldozer cores is not the same as 8 zen cores, it's overall performance that matters. So if the consoles are based on 8 zen 2 cores (which they are) then 8 zen 3 cores offer more performance than the next gen consoles. 6 zen 2 cores match 8 zen cores, 6 zen 3 cores match 8 zen 2 cores so at what point do cores really matter? If a 8 core 2700x is matched or beaten by a 6 core 3600x (and it is, I have both). The only conclusion I can pull is that cores just for cores sake doesn't matter, what matters is overall available performance be that via cores, cache, pure ipc, whatever it all boils down to how much overall performance is available and the 5600x has plenty.

OTOH, PC has always needed more power to match the consoles. Just matching the console spec would probably give you worse performance/experience. (Bear also in mind that the console is likely the lead platform, and less time is often given to the PC "port").

That's been the case with the outgoing console gen so I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for the incoming gen.

 

[Vince]

OTOH, PC has always needed more power to match the consoles. Just matching the console spec would probably give you worse performance/experience.

That's been the case with the outgoing console gen so I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for the incoming gen.

But the outgoing gen are based on Jaguar cores. Literally anything is better than that! They are also based on 8 Jaguar cores.

 

[FoxEye]

But the outgoing gen are based on Jaguar cores. Literally anything is better than that!

I know. My point was the the incoming console gen is raising the bar dramatically.

 

[Vince]

I know. My point was the the incoming console gen is raising the bar dramatically.

I recon the bar being raised is majorly on the GPU side more than purely CPU. CPU wise it does up the game to be more inline with this gen PC tech but It certainly doesn't mean they exceed it. By my maths a 5600x will be enough paired with a decent gpu. At the end of the day for gaming GPU is king and that remains even when the new consoles come. I'm not changing my 16 core for a 5600x but still it's a properly impressive little cpu.

 

[ljt]

But the outgoing gen are based on Jaguar cores. Literally anything is better than that! They are also based on 8 Jaguar cores.

The new consoles are 8c/16t zen 2 cpu's running at 3.6-3.8Ghz, not jaguar like PS4/XB

 

[Vince]

The new consoles are 8c/16t zen 2 cpu's running at 3.6-3.8Ghz, not jaguar like PS4/XB

I know if you have a read back you should see I say pretty much exactly that.

 

[ljt]

I know if you have a read back you should see I say pretty much exactly that.

No worries, it was just the way you worded your reply to Foxeye (the post I quoted) read to me as you were saying the last gen consoles used Jaguar, and when you then said at the end "they are also jaguar based" I thought you were referring to the new consoles, as that was the last thing foxeye said in the post you quoted him on (hope that makes sense!)