AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs Intel i5-9600K – CPU Comparison

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs Intel i5-9600K – CPU Comparison

AMD has launched their new 6 core Ryzen 5
3600 CPU, but how does it compare against the i5-9600K from Intel? Let’s see what the
differences are and find out how they perform in games and applications, both at stock and
when overclocked. Let’s start out with the specs. While both
have 6 cores, one of the major differences is that the AMD 3600 has SMT, so it’s got
12 threads, while Intel’s 9600K has no hyperthreading, so just 6 threads. Based on this we’re expecting
the 3600 to come out ahead in multicore performance due to the higher thread count. Otherwise
the Intel CPU has higher base and boost clock speeds, however these aren’t directly comparable
due to architecture differences anyway. Both CPUs are unlocked and support overclocking,
while the 3600 has a fair amount more cache and also comes with a cooler in the box. I’m comparing these two CPUs because they’ve
both got 6 cores and while the price points are roughly the same, the Intel chip costs
more. To be fair the 3600X seems to be closer in price to the 9600K at the moment, but this
is what I’ve got. The 3600 launched at $199 USD, while the 9600K is going for $250 USD
at the time of recording, but you can check updated prices in the description as this
will change. Both CPUs were tested in the same system,
however I’ve obviously had to change motherboards. For the AMD 3600 I’ve tested with the MSI
X570 ACE motherboard and for the Intel 9600K I’ve used the MSI Z390 ACE motherboard.
The rest of the components were otherwise the same, I’ve tested with 16gb of DDR4-3200
memory running in dual channel at CL14 and with an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti to reduce GPU bottlenecks.
Although the 3600 comes with a cooler included in the box I haven’t tested with it. I’ve
used the same Fractal S36 AIO with Noctua NT-H1 paste for both CPUs so we can get an
apples to apples comparison, especially for thermals. Testing was completed with the latest
version of Windows and same Nvidia drivers along with all BIOS updates available installed. I’ve tested both CPUs at stock, and with
the 9600K overclocked to 5.1GHz and 3600 overclocked to 4.2GHz, so we can see how overclocking
helps improve performance with both. With that in mind we’ll first check out
the differences in various applications, as well as power draw and thermals, followed
by gaming tests at 1080p and 1440p resolutions afterwards, then finish up by comparing some
performance per dollar metrics. Let’s start out with Cinebench R20. I’ve
got the overclocked results on the upper half of the graph while the stock results are on
the lower half. As expected the 3600 is coming out ahead in the multicore workload due to
the higher thread count, as the 9600K has no hyperthreading. At stock the 3600 was actually
ahead when it came to single core, however the 9600K pulled out ahead in single core
performance once overclocked as we’re able to push it much further. Compared to Intel,
the Ryzen CPUs are generally quite tapped out out of the box. In terms of multicore
performance, at stock the 3600 was scoring 41% higher than the 9600K, but then once both
are overclocked the gap narrows with the 3600 now with a 28% lead, again due to the better
overclock that was possible on the i5. While Cinebench R15 has been replaced by the
newer R20 just covered, I wanted to also include the results of this one too. Again the 3600
is beating the 9600K in the multicore score, with a 51% lead at stock which again lowers
down with both overclocked to a 35% lead. The 3600 also got the lead in single core
prior to overclocking. After the overclocks though, the 9600K is 11% ahead in single core
compared to being behind at stock. I’ve tested the Blender BMW and Classroom
benchmarks, and as a test that works better with more threads it’s another clear win
for the 3600 which was completing these rendering tasks faster. At stock the 3600 is completing
the BMW test 44% faster than the 9600K and 49% faster in the Classroom test. This gap
closes again once we overclock both CPUs, with the 3600 reduced to a 28% lead in the
BMW test, while coming out 32% ahead for the Classroom test. Handbrake was used to convert a 4K file to
1080p, and then a different 1080p file to 720p. This is another workload that benefits
from more threads, so at stock settings we’re seeing the 3600 complete both tasks 36% faster
than the 9600K. Again once overclocked the gap narrows, with the 3600 now 20% ahead of
the 9600K. Adobe Premiere was used to export one of my
laptop review videos at 1080p, and is another where the 3600 was ahead, again due to the
higher thread count. At stock the 3600 completed both tasks about 30% faster, but this drops
in half once both are overclocked, with the 3600 only maintaining a 15% lead now. I’ve also tested the warp stabilizer effect
in Adobe Premiere, basically this processes a video file to smooth it out, and in this
test the 3600 was 13% faster than the 9600K. There was no change to the 3600 once overclocked
in this test, which makes sense, this seems to be a single threaded workload and the 4.2GHz
all core overclock is the same as if we’d not overclocked it and allowed an active core
to boost up to this. The 9600K on the other hand saw a nice improvement once overclocked,
as we’ve raised single core speeds by 500MHz. I’ve used 7-Zip to test compression and
decompression speeds. Once more the 3600 was ahead in all instances here, and quite substantially
for decompression, where it had a 60% lead over the 9600K at stock, but then lowering
a fair bit to a 40% lead once both are overclocked. Compression was closer together, at stock
the 3600 was 39% ahead of the 9600K, lowering to a 25% lead with overclocks applied. VeraCrypt was used to test AES encryption
and decryption speeds, and in this test the 3600 saw the largest improvement over the
9600K out of everything I’ve tested. At stock the 3600 was around 80% faster at both
encryption and decryption, but once both are overclocked this changes to around a 57% lead,
and we can see the larger change that happens to the 9600K once overclocked, the 3600 hardly
rises at all in comparison. The V-Ray benchmark is another that relies
on thread count to boost performance, and as a result the 3600 is 40% faster than the
9600K at stock, and then with both CPUs overclocked this lowers to a 28% lead, so still substantially
faster but even with fewer threads the higher overclock potential from the 9600K can go
a long way in closing the gap. The Corona benchmark uses the CPU to render
out a scene, and as another test that scales well over multiple threads it’s giving us
one of the highest improvements with the 3600, with a 50% lead over the 9600K at stock. With
both overclocked though the 9600K narrows the gap, and the 3600 is 33% ahead now. We
can see the overclock on the 3600 only sped the task up by 3 seconds, while the overclocked
9600K saw a much more impressive 29 second improvement. These are the differences between the 3600
and 9600K CPUs in all of these applications, as we can see it really varies depending on
the specific workload. At stock in all instances the 3600 was faster than the 9600K, and as
most of these tests are multicore based the 3600 sees large improvements. On average over
all of these tests, the 3600 was 40% faster than the 9600K. Once overclocked things change quite a bit,
these are the differences between both CPUs with the 3600 overclocked to 4.2GHz on all
cores and 9600K overclocked to 5.1GHz on all cores, the best I was able to get each to.
We can see the two single core Cinebench results are now faster on the 9600K, while the multicore
results narrow in, now putting the 3600 24% ahead on average in these tests over the 9600K.
While the 3600 is the clear winner in these sorts of multicore workloads, the amount of
improvement we’re able to get from the overclock on the 9600K is quite impressive. I’ve also measured total system power draw
from the wall while running the Blender benchmark. At stock the 3600 was using 15% more power,
however consider that it’s also completing this task 44% faster than the 9600K, so by
the time the 9600K actually finishes the task it would have ended up using more power to
do so. Once overclocked the 9600K is using 22% more power than the 3600, and while the
9600K does close the performance gap in the overclocked state, the 3600 was still completing
the task 29% faster while using less power, so a pretty nice result from AMD’s 7nm architecture. These are the CPU temperatures with the same
blender tests running. Both at stock and while overclocked the AMD chip was running a warmer,
but this doesn’t seem too unexpected considering how much more work it’s doing. The Intel
chip rises 17 degrees with the 5.1GHz overclock, while there’s little change to the 3600
as it doesn’t overclock anywhere near as far. Let’s get into the gaming results next,
I’ve tested these games at all setting levels at both 1080p and 1440p resolutions, and just
as a reminder I’m also using a 2080 Ti to reduce GPU bottlenecks as much as I can. We’ll
start off with stock results, then look at overclocked and precision boost overdrive
results afterwards. Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with
the built in benchmark. In all upcoming gaming graphs I’ve got Intel’s 9600K shown by
the blue bars and AMD’s 3600 shown by the red bars. I’ve also tested all setting levels,
which are shown on the left hand side of the graph. In this game the 9600K was ahead at
all setting levels, though the gap narrows in at higher settings, where the 9600K was
just 1.5% ahead at 1080p max settings. At 1440p as we become more GPU bound there’s
less of a difference between the two, until finally at highest settings at the top both
CPUs were scoring the same in this test. Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was also tested
with the built in benchmark, and at 1080p the 3600 was ahead in terms of average FPS
at all setting levels. At ultra high settings it was just 2.2% ahead, so not really a big
deal, while at low settings though the 3600 scored 18% higher average FPS. The 9600K was
ahead when it came to 1% lows at all levels except low and medium, at least at this resolution.
When we step up to 1440p though things start to change. The 3600 is only ahead at low and
medium settings in average FPS, while the 9600K is otherwise faster and also winning
in terms of 1% low. At ultra high settings the 9600K is 6% faster than the 3600, but
it really comes down to what setting level you’re running at as to which wins, it’s
quite close. Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode,
I prefer testing this as I can more precisely perform the same test run with less variance,
however multiplayer does seem to be more CPU intensive. At 1080p the 9600K was winning
in all results, though at ultra settings the gap in 1% lows narrows quite a bit when compared
to other setting levels. At ultra the 9600K was scoring 10% higher average FPS over the
3600, a fair difference. At 1440p the differences in 1% low get closer together, and are virtually
the same at ultra. Average FPS is also much closer together now at the higher setting
levels, again presumably as we get more GPU bound, and the 9600K had just under a 5% lead
at ultra settings now. Far Cry New Dawn was tested with the built
in benchmark, and at 1080p we’re seeing the biggest win for the 9600K out of all games
that I’ve tested here, with a 13% higher average frame rate at ultra settings, and
similar was seen regardless of setting level, both for average FPS and 1% low. At 1440p
although the results get closer together the 9600K is still clearly in the lead, with a
7.5% higher average frame rate at ultra settings now. Watch Dogs 2 is a game that loves CPU power,
yet is a game that I can personally play just fine with a stable 30 FPS, so from a practicality
perspective either CPU is giving insane performance and I honestly couldn’t notice a difference
when actually playing the game. In terms of the differences though, at ultra the 3600
was getting 5% faster average FPS with a larger 10% improvement to 1% low when compared against
the 9600K. At 1440p the results are much closer together. The 3600 is still in the lead in
terms of 1% low regardless of setting level, however for averages it’s almost always
just behind now, though realistically it’s within margin of error between ultra and medium
with just a single frame or so one way or the other. CS:GO is a game that’s well known for performing
better on Intel CPUs due to the typical higher single core performance, so I just had to
try it out. In terms of average FPS the 3600 was ahead at all setting levels, well at least
at 1080p. With all settings maxed out, the 3600 was 8% ahead in terms of average FPS,
while the 1% lows were very close to each other comparatively. At 1440p things get a
bit strange. At low the 3600 is still ahead, and then slightly ahead at medium settings,
but once everything is at maximum the Intel 9600K takes back the lead, now scoring 9%
higher average FPS over the 3600. I’ve also tested out Rainbow Six Siege with
the built in benchmark, and in this test it was a clear win for the Intel chip regardless
of the setting preset in use despite not really being a CPU heavy test. At ultra settings
the 9600K was getting 6% higher average FPS over the 3600 and a 9% higher 1% low. At 1440p
the Intel CPU actually gets a little farther ahead, now with a 6.2% higher average frame
rate at ultra settings, and again clearly in the lead at all setting levels. Out of all 7 games tested once we average
things out we’re looking at a 2.3% higher average frame rate with the 9600K at highest
setting levels at 1080p. As we can see though, it really depends on the game. Titles like
Assassin’s Creed, Watch Dogs, and even CS:GO seemed to favour the 3600 at 1080p, so based
on this if there’s a specific game you plan on playing you might need to see how it behaves
on both platforms. At 1440p things swing in favour of the 9600K,
which now had a 5% lead over the 3600 at highest setting levels. Again it depends on the game,
but in terms of average with these games it’s not that big of a deal, as we step up resolution
and become more GPU bound the CPU generally matters less and less, which is why I haven’t
tested 4K. That’s stock settings, so what about with
both CPUs overclocked? As testing every single setting level takes a long time I’ve just
picked one setting to test overclocked results at 1080p. I’ve also tested the 3600 with
Precision boost overdrive enabled, noted as PBO onwards, which essentially boosts power
limits. Speeds of each core are also controlled for us here, which is different when compared
to my static 4.2GHz all core overclock. In Assassin’s Creed Odyssey both CPUs saw
a nice performance improvement once overclocked, interestingly I had worse results with PBO
enabled compared to my manual overclocks. I think this is because we’re overclocked
to 4.2GHz on all cores, which is the boost speed of the 3600. When I tested other CPUs
like the 3700X in the past I found PBO to do better in games compared to a manual overclock
because the best manual overclock I could get was lower than the boost speed. As that’s
not the case here, perhaps we’ll see less improvement with PBO. Battlefield 5 saw basically no change in terms
of average FPS on the 9600K once overclocked, however there was a massive 28% improvement
to 1% low. With the 3600 on the other hand, while it did see an 11% improvement to average
FPS once overclocked, there was very little difference between the manual overclock and
PBO. It’s also worth noting the larger improvement to 1% low on the 3600 once overclocked too,
which saw a huge 36% increase. Far Cry New Dawn is another example of there
being minimal difference between the 3600 when looking at the overclocked and PBO results,
then again neither are really very different when compared to the stock speed anyway. Interestingly
I actually had worse results with the 9600K, so a bit of a weird test where increasing
clock speed doesn’t really help in either instance. Shadow of the Tomb Raider saw a 1.5% higher
average FPS on the 3600 by enabling PBO compared to stock, however our manual overclock gave
a larger 3% boost. The Intel CPU in comparison saw a larger improvement once overclocked
this time, where average FPS increased by 5.7% compared to the stock result. Watch Dogs 2 was another instance where PBO
on the 3600 wasn’t as good as simply overclocking all cores to 4.2GHz, in fact the PBO result
was slightly lower, though it’s just 1 FPS, kind of margin of error stuff despite these
being averages of multiple runs. The overclocked 3600 got 2.3% higher average FPS compared
to stock, while the overclocked 9600K beat its stock score by a much larger 16%. In CS:GO again there’s no major differences
between PBO and the manual overclock on the 3600, though both were scoring lower FPS compared
to stock, showing how strange of a game this is, and why I’ll probably not include it
in future CPU comparisons, I was just personally interested in testing the classic CS:GO does
better on Intel thing. Rainbow Six Siege didn’t really see a change
with the 3600 regardless of using PBO or overclocking manually compared to stock, while the 9600K
saw a larger difference, though only 2.7% higher average FPS once overclocking it. When it comes down to it I don’t think we’re
seeing that big of a difference in gaming performance by overclocking, though it does
vary by game, and as we’ve already established the 9600K performs better out of the two once
overclocked. To be fair I have only tested 7 games here, however from what I’m seeing
you can get decent gaming performance with both, I honestly can’t say I personally
was able to notice the extra FPS from either. At 1080p the 3600 was coming out ahead in
some games, then at 1440p the 9600K was doing better, and in terms of averages regardless
of resolution the 9600K seems to be the winner in terms of raw gaming performance. If you only care about gaming then at first
glance it appears that the 9600K may the better choice, however we need to factor in overall
costs. These are the dollar per frame values at 1080p averaged out over all 7 games tested
at maximum settings. I’ve got the 3600 shown up the top in red, with a couple of different
options for the 9600K in blue. The bottom bar represents the CPU only, however it doesn’t
come with a cooler so is essentially useless like this until we buy one. The 3600 comes
with a decent stock cooler which is a great advantage here. Even without the cooler though,
in terms of dollar per frame value the 3600 is ahead, but the 9600K falls further behind
once we add on even a cheaper cooling option. I haven’t added the 9600KF here, while that’s
meant to be a cheaper solution on paper, at the time of recording it’s available for
exactly the same price. Here are the results with both CPUs overclocked.
In general we saw the overclock from the 9600K give us better performance compared to the
3600, so we’re seeing the dollar per frame values from it close in. Again the 9600K is
still more money per frame in games even without a cooler, while the additional cooler cost
again makes it cost more. Just to be absolutely clear, while the 9600K was ahead in the majority
of games from an FPS perspective, you’re paying more money to get this experience. It is worth noting that I am using the stock
cooler for my dollar per frame graphs but not actually testing with it. From what I
have seen in other tests, the stock cooler is just fine and works good enough in most
cases. Basically it’s not really worth paying more for a third party cooler, as you’ll
only be looking at around a 1% improvement, and while this would alter the graphs slightly
it would not be anywhere near enough to change the conclusion, which is that overall in terms
of value AMD appears to be the winner. It’s not all about gaming though, as we
saw earlier, many applications benefit more from the extra threads with the 3600 compared
to gaming. These are the cost per frame values while exporting a 4K video file to 1080p with
Handbrake. I’ve chosen this particular test as it completed 36% faster on the 3600, which
was quite close to the 40% average improvement that we got from all applications tested,
plus it’s a very real and common workload. The 3600 is giving us far better value here
due to those 12 threads, while this would have made less of a difference in most games
it matters a lot here. Not only is the 3600 cheaper, but it’s also completing this task
significantly faster. Once both CPUs are overclocked the 9600K lowers
a fair bit, much more so compared to the 3600 in any case. This is due to the much higher
overclock that it’s able to hit, resulting in more performance. To be fair though, to
maintain such a high overclock will require higher end cooling, something I haven’t
factored in here as I’ve just picked a somewhat average $40 budget. It’s also worth considering the future upgrade
options on offer from each platform. At the moment, the AM4 platform has the 8 core 3700X
and 12 core 3900X, with the 16 core 3950X coming later in the year, however to be fair
for these higher end CPUs you’d ideally be looking at a more expensive motherboard.
The Intel 9600K on the other hand could be upgraded to a 9700, 9700K, 9900 or 9900K,
so 8 cores 8 threads or 8 cores 16 threads. In terms of core count AMD’s platform has
definitely got you covered, however at the moment in the games I’ve tested the Intel
lineup will give you better performance, though these chips also do cost more and require
additional cooling. AMD should be supporting the AM4 socket next year, which possibly means
another future generation of CPU will be a drop in replacement, while at the time it’s
not clear what Intel will be doing in this regard. Additionally AM4 has been around for
a bit now, if you’ve already got a system with a B350 board upgrading to the 3600 is
a simple process. If you only care about gaming and want the
best performance in terms of raw FPS, then the 9600K may give you what you’re after.
I say may, because as we’ve seen it really depends on the game. The 3600 is keeping up
in many cases, and performing better in others when it comes to gaming. For anything that
actually requires multicore performance such as the applications covered earlier, the higher
thread count on offer from the 3600 will give it a big advantage, which will also likely
mean it will age better as more games start to utilize more threads, it will be interesting
to revisit the comparison in a year or two. For me personally, I use my machine for more
than gaming so I’d pick the 3600, and the future possibility of picking up a cheaper
3700X or 3900X down the road is a tempting upgrade path. While the 9600K was doing better
in some games, the 3600 did better in others, and I don’t think the performance difference
really justifies spending more money on the 9600K, even before factoring in additional
cooling, but that’s just me. Let me know which CPU you’d pick and why
down in the comments, Intel’s i5-9600K or AMD’s Ryzen 5 3600? I’m really interested
to hear which you’d go for. I’ve got more CPU comparisons on the way, so if you’re
new to the channel you’ll definitely want to get subscribed for those.

100 thoughts to “AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs Intel i5-9600K – CPU Comparison”

  1. Please note in the graphs at 19:37 the total price is listed as $240 for a 9600K with cooler, this is a mistake and should be $290 like the graphs before it, the dollar per frame value is correct however.

  2. Dang amd is killing it. Too bad game industries are bought out by intel. I don’t understand how Ryzen is better in every way then it’s “close” when it comes to games.

  3. Intel uses much less power during gaming and idle. Did you add this into your calculations of cost per frame? Depending on where you live you can save up to $80 in 3 years of gaming. And 9600K literally destroys 3600 in gaming (see other tests) and is not really a comparison, you need to take the 9400 or 9500 to compare to ryzen, in which case Intel will be at the same level of performance as ryzen while being both cheaper and having lower power consumption.

    Intel literally DESTROYS amd in cost per frame because you can substract electricity costs from your overall costs.

  4. bro r5 3600 is totally beast
    even it is better than i7 r7 2nd gen
    it is close to r9 and i9
    look at the l3 cache of r5 3600
    32 mb🧐

  5. So the 3rd gen Ryzens have more IPC than Intels 9th gen then…that's awesome

    Edit: How tf did the 3600 outdo the 9600k clocked at 5.1 for a single threaded workload at all? That's bananas

  6. this fellas accent is getting to me haha. it's cool i mean.
    he says to and two, in the same sentence and they sound so much different.
    cheers Jarrod

  7. Hi @jarrod'stech I'm curious as to what software did you use to make such aesthetically pleasing graphs? Very clear and concise

  8. A good review, but you need to drop that odd voice cadence. It makes it extremely hard to follow the video. Just speak in a normal voice.

  9. Asrock phantom gaming 6 z390
    Rtx 2070 super
    i5 9600k
    I went with intel because the motherboard that had all the features that I want was cheaper than the x570 counterpart and I really don’t do anything other than gaming and homework

  10. Amd 3600 are a great value now that you can find some b450 boards for good deals, that are ryzen 3000 ready out of the box. I just built one for myself and it's a beast.

  11. For strictly gaming, there is no point to the higher tier chips. 3600(X) nets the same frames as 3700X, and yields similar results against intels i7. This puts the 3600(X) as not only the best gaming value, but the best choice for future upgrading. "future proofing" no longer is a concept in PC building. Save the $200 from the i7, or $400 from the i9, and spend it in 3 years on the next $250 gaming value chip.

  12. Thank you for the video but the drop in your tone at the end of every sentence drives me nuts. I don't know why but it's all I can hear. Thank you very much for the info though, gonna give a big thumbs up.

  13. i build my first gaming rig in april with the i5 8600k and an rtx 2060. i kinda regret not building it a few months later with an 3600 and an 5700, eventually 5700 XT

  14. I got 9600k and i am impressed how fast It is tbh . Pair It with a 2070rtx and your good to go . People say no no 6c and 6c no future proof , meanwhile i AM asking where the fuck are all the impressive games? Farcry 5 plz fuck off .every demanding game runs fine on ultra stock .

  15. looks like intel still hold the crown for the best gaming cpu …

    however, AMD CPU is really ideal for someone who need a cpu a powerfull cpu for gaming and productivity load.

  16. AMD made decent progression with Ryzen! R5-3600 definetely 1st "people's best-buy CPU of 2019"! Myse;f next month planning to upgrade PC with it. Now I'm stuck with FX-8350 (still not so bad stone for gaming) + RX570 (never has AMD card, change it to mine old MI Max = worth it) + 16GB DDR3 on 2010 motherboard. So next month will order Ryzen 5-3600 + MSI B450M m/b (with Flash BIOS button!) + 16GB DDR4-3200 + 1ms FHD FreeSync monitor. And after couple of months will replace RX570 with RX5700! Oh, yeah, mine PC will rock, ultra settings in full HD in all games/

    Autor also not correct in prices! In Russia Ryzen 3600 costs 200-225$, while i5-9600K costs 240-275$ (!) + it need another fee for decent cooler (approx. +50$)! And also motherboards for Intel costs more.

    So, in my case (approximately):
    1st config:
    *Ryzen 5 3600 = 200$
    *MSI B450M motherboard = 100$ (not cheapest one, just mb with good VRM radiators, 4+2 & flash BIOS button, because I doesn't have 1xxx/2xxx Ryzen to update BIOS for it; while if I has it, I may spent something around 75$ for it)
    *DDR4 Kingston HyperX Fury 16GB 3200MHz = 95$. If we summarize, will be smt. around 400$.

    2nd config:
    *Intel i5-9600K = 240$ + cooler 50-60$ (in mine case I don't need it becase use cheap watercooling system, just for CPU)
    *MSI H370 (OK, its much cheaper compared to Z370/390) = 100$ (in this case its cheap ine, good one for this CPU cost around 150$!)
    *DDR4 – OK, same price, 95$. So in sum I has smt. around 500$.

    So OK, I better use Ryzen. When I've sell mine old HW, I've add 100$ (that I've already saved on Ryzen compared to Intel), and voila – I has new and powerful RX5700 (that is between GF 2060 & GF 2070 Super). Profil. I've saved 100$, and has better PC. I've never again spend addinional money to Intel (and nVIDIA also!), burn them! Only AMD forever!!!

  17. What voltage did you set for overclocking the Ryzen to 4.2ghz?
    As far as I know 1.325v is the maximum safe voltage for 3rd Gen Ryzen. What if I set the voltage to 1.4v will it degrade my cpu?

  18. Hey man good video i just wanna do gameplay videos so which cpu will be better for me plz suggest im in a great confusion ryzen 5 3600 or i5 9600k
    I dont have any problem with money so suggest me the better one (sorry for bad english)


  20. i got the 3600 on a b450 motherboard (asus prime b450-plus) because it was the cheaper choice and i don't want to overclock… will it be ok to run a 3700x or 3900x on this motherboard when i decide to upgrade in the future?

  21. As of 10/12/19

    AMD Ryzen 5 3600 $194.89 Amazon

    Intel i5-9600k $253.98 NewEgg + $20 for a cooler (decent)

    I'll save $80 myself since i play 1440p.

  22. with are better if Ryzen 5 3600 and rtx 2060 super against intel 9600k and rtx 2060 super?All of them were overclocked

  23. Nice cost per frame on the AMD… But how about considering the mainboard in this calculation (x570 ace is around 100 bucks on top of a z390 ace)?
    As of now, the Intel setup would come cheaper than a ryzen+x570 (even with the extra cost of an aftermarket cooler), and grant a (slightly) better 2k gaming performance.

    As of now, ryzen+x570 is far from being a bargain if we're talking gaming. That may change with the b550, though… Depending on pricing and performance, of course.

  24. I am all for games. Not stream, only games. Should I go with i5 9600k + Rtx 2060 or Ryzen 3600 + rtx 2060?
    Budget is not an issue. I want a future proof pc which can run games released in 2019 atleast. Please help!

  25. yo amd ryzen 5 3600 have Laptop computer?
    i wanna buy laptop but what i found that even ryzen 7 is 4 cores same like Intel i5

  26. 3600x and PBO non manual overclock, or 3600 with manual overclock.

    Reasoning is the 3600x cooler is just good enough to get nice PBO boost, and I run several apps on my systray.

    Discord, steam, nvidia panel, one drive, mbam anti virus, windows notification, logitec software, usually have a web browser or windows store ap open in background, rhythm bot on discord…

    It adds up and takes it's tole on Intel processors, while Windows does a pretty good job of keeping all that shit off your game threads.

  27. I’m Getting A R5 3600X and 144 hz gaming monitor I plan to OC r5 to 4.4ghz and need a X570 For good oc and gaming under 200$ should I get this board used in test or msi mpg X570 gaming plus

  28. I need help. My motherboard is gigabyte arose b360 WiFi. My CPU is i5 9500. My CPU boost clock suppose to be 4.40 but it only shows and uses 4.1 (hw monitor). and pc properties says 3.0 and 3.0. please help.

  29. Great test. There is difficult to find hardware comparison in aps, not only games!

    I'm working with vector graphic aps, like Adobe illustrator, or CAD's. The aps uses single thread for 95% operations. But it is hard to find single thread CPU tests.
    On cpubenchmark . net I found also single thread scores. But I'm not sure about they testing method. R5-3600 and other R have very high rating. 3600 has 2813 points and i5-9600K has 2680 points.

    You should use 3600X, to compare overclocked CPUs. Now the comparison of overclocked 9600K to 3600 has no sense.

  30. Intel – Gaming
    Amd – Literally each and every other thing perfectly balanced hmm.. this makes me so confused but I’m going with the ryzen 5 3600 because of multitasking, better streaming experience but ofc with a nvidia gpu ( rtx 2060 super oc 8gb)

  31. I can get a i5 9600k with the msi z390 gaming pro carbon and a aftermarket cooler vs a amd ryzen 5 3600 with the gigabyte aorus elite x570 and stock cooler for the same price, so wich is the better combination?

  32. Why is the 9600k so much better at gaming when the 3600 is a good bit more powerful lol. Sometimes the relatively large gap in gaming like BFV makes no sense.. makes me regret getting a 3600 and not a 9600kf

  33. I'm able to achieve 5ghz on 1.33 everything runs fine like with gaming for example but I have this one weird problem with opening chrome or internet explorer sometimes the page won't load as if I lost connection. I tried using the command prompt to ping say and connection never drops when pages don't load in chrome or IE. I tried using XMP and manually setting ram in Bios but I get the same problem. When I set clocks back to defaults I have no issue with webpages loading. But when I OC to 5ghz that's when browser pages sometimes won't load. Any ideas? I have i5 9600k, Corsair rgb pro 3000mhz 16gb, Gigabyte Z390 Gaming X, RTX 2080 and EVGA G3 1000w psu

  34. I always love performance/price charts where the 3600s performance is achieved with a good cooler but only Intel has to pay for it in the comparison.

    Anyway, the Ryzen 5 is a great choice overall and especially if you do more than gaming+office. But when you just want the FPS the i5 is just more specialised for it, its actually cheaper (9600kf) than the Ryzen 5 now.

  35. U cannot forget to mention the BIOS hell for many people. I do not mean to say there wasn't any bios issues ever on intel. But cannot deny ryzen 3600 are super shaky for many people. And those who manage to make it work has boost issues and post times. I have 6 years old pc. But my boot times are 4-8 sec at most compare to 20+ on ryzen bios. No sleep issues etc.

  36. I don’t unterstand why everybody says the 3600x is better than the i5. The Fps are better on the i5. If you want to game buy a i5 if you want to do rendering and stuff go for a 3600x i guess. In my County they cost the same so I will go for i5 9600k + 5700xt even though I do appreciate Amd‘s work and thought long about buying an amd processor

  37. The Ryzen 3600 costs Rs.40, 000 it's kinda cheap so i was thinking about getting Ryzen 3600 although i have the option to buy an i5 9600k also it's like Rs.48,500 but it has only 6c/6t and but it's overclockable the thing with that is i saw on some games the i5 9600k has like 90% usage and the Ryzen has like much less usage on it and makes me wonder if the i5 9600k gonna be enough for future games i mean if i buy the ryzen i will be future proof cause it has 6c/12t but idk with the 9600k so idk what to get now i need some help deciding what to get

  38. I edit Short films on premiere pro… Which processor should I buy? Ryzen 5 3600 or Intel cpu? I need smooth timeline performance as well as Less render time…

  39. IT depends on the games. But I have to admit that R5 3600 will destroy i5 9600K in the newest and most demanding games. Never forget that guys.

  40. so for video editing and 3dDesign considering my low budget should i go for AMD ?
    because i heard that the stuff you have to combine with AMD will cost you more then intel
    motherboard prices for example i dont know ..

  41. very helpful in helping me make a decision on a CPU. Black Friday 2019 has the 3600 for 199 and the 9600K for 179.99. going for the intel for gaming! and my laptop for grad school work

  42. For me I’ll go for AMD for more competition that will make Intel products lesser on price. I chose Ryzen 5 2600 since it’s mid end and Tomahawk Max B450M
    (I chose AMD for its price and performance not just for competition)

  43. I am in so much doubt to choose which one i want to upgrade to. Have to get a new motherboard aswell for the upgrade.
    I mainly browse and game, sometimes at the same time.
    Would the 9600k be a whise choice? I am a FPS lover, gotta get as many as possible.
    Or should i go for the 3600x even, to be future proof with more cores/threads and loose the small amount of FPS.
    Im getting stressed as i need to decide for Black friday rofl.

  44. The reason for the I5 being MUCH better in 1% loads when OCed is:

    The Boost clock has a time limit @ stock. Ryzen does not have that.
    But if you OC it, it doesn't "boost" technically. This is a workaround for the Boost limit into has put on their i3, i5, i7 and i9 parts.

  45. so should i still stick with intel for my sff case with minimal airflow. i thought the amd would be a cooler cpu but seeing this benches i might aswell stick an intel cpu since i cant use a big cooler.

  46. There is no way that i would EVER switch to AMD,…ever. I have seen all the hype about Ryzen and i'm not impressed and also unsubbed from a few of these tech channels because all they do is bash Intel and glorify Ryzen like schoolchildren, nope, i will stick with my Intel 9600K thank you very much.

  47. Best thing about ryzen is that their price go down with the next gen release. After Intel revived their 22nm processor… I think it's a safe bet to go ryzen for now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *