cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,911
El Chapuzas Informatico has released its review of the AMD Ryzen 3600. Seems that they used a X470 board with the processor.

Remember this is a rumor until the 7th when reviews come out.

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 might seem to only mean a revision of frequencies on the Ryzen 5 2600 , but with an improvement in performance of around 20% in calculation tasks , there is something else. Its IPC has increased remarkably, improving in addition the performance in games , where it surpasses even the 2700X of previous generation and approaches the i9-9900K . We do not have an improvement in terms of efficiency compared to the previous generation if we compare consumption, but we do have it if we compare that it gives us more performance at the same consumption .
 
Last edited:
Odd selection of comparison CPUs in this review.
It has the $250 6core/12thread 3600 vs the $480 8 core/16 thread 9900K

Looking forward to some 1440P gaming benchmarks at playable settings (75-130 fps)
 
AMD-Ryzen-5-3600-X470-Tests-2.jpg

AMD-Ryzen-5-3600-X470-Tests-5.jpg

Dayum son
 
I want to believe! Very respectable performance. Curious how an OCed 3950X would compare on the single threaded test.

I would be amazed if Zen 2 could touch 220 in the R15 1T test. A 9900K at ~5.3ghz can graze 240 tops.
 
Looks promising. Latency is a bit high and memory write speed is strangely low, but beyond that, it looks to be an 8700k-like CPU.
 
I know, I am only half kidding. If this chip is as good as the review claims though, I think my next build will include the base 6 core chip, and in a few years when I want a little more oomph, pick up the 16 core (no way I can afford a $750 chip). In all honesty though, just based on what I do, and how satisfied I've been with my previous CPUs (8750h, ryzen 1700x, 3930k), I can't see how the 16 core would need to be replaced for a decade. What is it, like 140% faster than a 1700x theoretically? Come on!
 
Looks promising. Latency is a bit high and memory write speed is strangely low, but beyond that, it looks to be an 8700k-like CPU.


The review was vague on memory timings and speeds, but said it was using a very early beta bios. Make of that what you will, but if they paired it with slow ddr4 21-2600 then that would explain a lot.
 
The review was vague on memory timings and speeds, but said it was using a very early beta bios. Make of that what you will, but if they paired it with slow ddr4 21-2600 then that would explain a lot.
It clearly says DDR4-3200 right there in the graph.
 
Looks promising. Latency is a bit high and memory write speed is strangely low, but beyond that, it looks to be an 8700k-like CPU.

These results showing through are a good thing- we're seeing the basic configuration decisions AMD made show through to benchmarks.

Now we just need more detailed reviews. Some of the basic benchmarks make sense, but the R5 3600 shouldn't be faster than an 8700k at stock, and overclocked, the 8700k should lead consistently (if not by a large margin).

I really hate seeing all of these 'leaks' that cannot be shown to not be halfassed in one way or another and generally not be up to snuff with what an enthusiast reviewer would do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeo
like this
These results showing through are a good thing- we're seeing the basic configuration decisions AMD made show through to benchmarks.

Now we just need more detailed reviews. Some of the basic benchmarks make sense, but the R5 3600 shouldn't be faster than an 8700k at stock, and overclocked, the 8700k should lead consistently (if not by a large margin).

I really hate seeing all of these 'leaks' that cannot be shown to not be halfassed in one way or another and generally not be up to snuff with what an enthusiast reviewer would do.
This review could be complete B.S. also. We will find out on the 7th though.
 
These results showing through are a good thing- we're seeing the basic configuration decisions AMD made show through to benchmarks.

Now we just need more detailed reviews. Some of the basic benchmarks make sense, but the R5 3600 shouldn't be faster than an 8700k at stock, and overclocked, the 8700k should lead consistently (if not by a large margin).

I really hate seeing all of these 'leaks' that cannot be shown to not be halfassed in one way or another and generally not be up to snuff with what an enthusiast reviewer would do.

The 3600 will trail by a bit bit the 3600x looks like it will match it for sure. If those Far Cry numbers are correct, these chips are getting a huge boost over the 2nd gen Ryzen parts in all types of gaming.

Over 20% boost over the 2700x in a FC5, a lightly thread game, with lower boost clocks. Looks like a beast.

Can anyone translate what they said about power consumption?
 
Great times for AMD indeed and I have to say it's nice to see Intel under the cosh. It seems like ages since I built an Athlon64 3400+ system and after years of Intel cpus in my machines, it's going to be a very warm, fuzzy feeling slotting in a Ryzen 3700X into my next system.
 
The 3600 will trail by a bit bit the 3600x looks like it will match it for sure. If those Far Cry numbers are correct, these chips are getting a huge boost over the 2nd gen Ryzen parts in all types of gaming.

Over 20% boost over the 2700x in a FC5, a lightly thread game, with lower boost clocks. Looks like a beast.

Can anyone translate what they said about power consumption?


it's about 55w less under full CPU load and about 65w less when under gaming load(includes gpu, etc) both figures are power usage at the wall.

at least that's what they wrote, what it actually means i dunno without knowing what their efficiencies are and so on.
 
Last edited:
The 3600 will trail by a bit bit the 3600x looks like it will match it for sure. If those Far Cry numbers are correct, these chips are getting a huge boost over the 2nd gen Ryzen parts in all types of gaming.

Over 20% boost over the 2700x in a FC5, a lightly thread game, with lower boost clocks. Looks like a beast.

Can anyone translate what they said about power consumption?

According to their reviews of the 2700X, 2600X and 3600X...

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 210W for the complete equipment in the stress test of Aida64 (without discs or GPU).
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 155W for the complete equipment in the stress test of Aida64 (without discs or GPU).
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 125W for the complete equipment in the stress test of Aida64 (without disks or GPU).

I don't know if that helps :)
 
I'll be getting rid of my 7700K if this holds true, meaning my kids will get a 7700K.
 
Good news all around if true, but if it is, guess who's not getting a review sample ahead of NDA next time!
 
Good news all around if true, but if it is, guess who's not getting a review sample ahead of NDA next time!

AFAIK they bought an ES just like they did for the Ryzen 1000 and 2000 early reviews. I don't think AMD review samples them anyway.
 
It clearly says DDR4-3200 right there in the graph.


I never clicked the link. I read a Google News Feed article about it but that said they didn't report memory speed or timings. Sorry I didn't follow through to read a random review in Spainish which I do not speak.


On topic, Super pumped for the 8 core part....I just have to decide if I want to gamble on the silicon lottery of the $329 part vs the $399 part.

Given that I am staying on x470 for this year, I think manually OC under water is going to be about the same. I run my CPUs at AC OC 24/7 so boosting speeds do not matter much.
 
AFAIK they bought an ES just like they did for the Ryzen 1000 and 2000 early reviews. I don't think AMD review samples them anyway.
Well, that'd be cool. I guess if you have the right connections, those sort of things are available to you.

I never clicked the link. I read a Google News Feed article about it but that said they didn't report memory speed or timings. Sorry I didn't follow through to read a random review in Spainish which I do not speak.

Google Translate really helps out. You can load the article in Chrome, and it will automatically translate for you. Some things don't always come across accurately, but you'll definitely get the gist of the story.
 
This is really fucking exciting. THIS is the series of chips that have me wanting to go AMD!

AS the first responder said. DAYUM SON!
 
Odd selection of comparison CPUs in this review.
It has the $250 6core/12thread 3600 vs the $480 8 core/16 thread 9900K

Looking forward to some 1440P gaming benchmarks at playable settings (75-130 fps)

It is called "rubbing it in". the comparison goes limp but the difference when buying makes a good argument to go for AMD especially if you have some headroom in overclocking with the 6 core part...
 
Would love a new 3000 chip to play with, but my 1700X @3.8 is not my bottleneck for VR with my Odyssey+ on my 2080 OC'ed.
My now lowly 1000 series is chugging away just fine at extreme rez's it appears.
Does anyone think a CPU upgrade might have some sort of impact I'm not understanding? I love sim's and understand that most love single core performance. I am always showing the GPU bottle-necking first, but maybe a faster CPU could feed the GPU better giving an uplift? Or is it how I understand it to be where the GPU rules.
 
Would love a new 3000 chip to play with, but my 1700X @3.8 is not my bottleneck for VR with my Odyssey+ on my 2080 OC'ed.
My now lowly 1000 series is chugging away just fine at extreme rez's it appears.
Does anyone think a CPU upgrade might have some sort of impact I'm not understanding? I love sim's and understand that most love single core performance. I am always showing the GPU bottle-necking first, but maybe a faster CPU could feed the GPU better giving an uplift? Or is it how I understand it to be where the GPU rules.
Your cpu is even slower than my old 4770k at 4.3 in games that only care about 4 cores or less which is still quite a bit of them.
 
Would love a new 3000 chip to play with, but my 1700X @3.8 is not my bottleneck for VR with my Odyssey+ on my 2080 OC'ed.
My now lowly 1000 series is chugging away just fine at extreme rez's it appears.
Does anyone think a CPU upgrade might have some sort of impact I'm not understanding? I love sim's and understand that most love single core performance. I am always showing the GPU bottle-necking first, but maybe a faster CPU could feed the GPU better giving an uplift? Or is it how I understand it to be where the GPU rules.

Your cpu is even slower than my old 4770k at 4.3 in games that only care about 4 cores or less which is still quite a bit of them.

My i7 4c8t is at 100% CPU usage across all cores at 4k60 on Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Looking straight up into the sky puts my GPU usage down considerably but my CPU can only eek out around 70 fps. Lowering resolution does nothing in that regard.

I'd much rather have the 1700 in that game. But yeah, not all games are like that.
 
My i7 4c8t is at 100% CPU usage across all cores at 4k60 on Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Looking straight up into the sky puts my GPU usage down considerably but my CPU can only eek out around 70 fps. Lowering resolution does nothing in that regard.

I'd much rather have the 1700 in that game. But yeah, not all games are like that.
Yeah nearly every modern Ubisoft game will eat my oced 4770k for lunch and even dip into the 40s in spots. It is upgrade time for sure so just waiting to see the real reviews on July 7th before deciding what to get.
 
Would love a new 3000 chip to play with, but my 1700X @3.8 is not my bottleneck for VR with my Odyssey+ on my 2080 OC'ed.
My now lowly 1000 series is chugging away just fine at extreme rez's it appears.
Does anyone think a CPU upgrade might have some sort of impact I'm not understanding? I love sim's and understand that most love single core performance. I am always showing the GPU bottle-necking first, but maybe a faster CPU could feed the GPU better giving an uplift? Or is it how I understand it to be where the GPU rules.

I think it would help most with your minimum framerate.
 
My i7 4c8t is at 100% CPU usage across all cores at 4k60 on Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Looking straight up into the sky puts my GPU usage down considerably but my CPU can only eek out around 70 fps. Lowering resolution does nothing in that regard.

I'd much rather have the 1700 in that game. But yeah, not all games are like that.

Ubi's modern games are very CPU hungry. Even at high resolutions where CPU usage should be down it can peg cores like mad. I'm really interested in seeing what the 3900x and 3950x do with modern Ubi titles.
 
Back
Top