Wednesday, June 26th 2019

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review Leaks, Shows Impressive Performance

El Chapuzas Informático has posted an early review of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 which was tested on a Gigabyte Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi motherboard, G.Skill FlareX DDR4 @ 3200 MHz and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti FE graphics card. Looking at the data presented, it becomes clear the performance on offer if real looks to be quite impressive. The site compared AMD's latest offering to the Intel Core i9-9900K and the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X with the Ryzen 5 3600 typically slotting in between the two and in some cases beating both. This is interesting to note as the Ryzen 7 2700X offers similar clock speeds to the Ryzen 5 3600 but the former has a 2C/4T advantage. Even so, the newer AMD CPU tends to outpace the Zen+ based Ryzen 7 2700X in multiple tests. In Cinebench R15, for example, the Ryzen 5 3600 had the lead in single-core performance while multi-core was held by the Ryzen 7 2700X. Cinebench R20 roughly mimics these results as well.

While memory latency was quite high 80.5 ns, it didn't seem to impact performance to any serious degree. In fact, in wPrime 2.10 32M running on a single core showed the Ryzen 5 3600 coming in just behind the Intel Core i9-9900K while being faster than the previous generation Intel Core i7-8700K, i7-8600K, and AMD Ryzen 7 2700X and 1700X. That said, the previous generation Ryzen processors were far slower here were as the Intel chips were still competitive. In the multi-core test, the Ryzen 7 2700X took a slight lead while the Ryzen 7 1700X was a bit slower than the Ryzen 5 3600. One interesting quirk of note was the lack of write speed on the memory with the Ryzen 5 3600 only hitting 25.6 GB/s which is quite a drop from the 47 GB/s seen on the Ryzen 7 1700X and Ryzen 7 2700X. However this could be due to the X470 motherboard being used or maybe an issue with sub timings on the memory, something that will need to be verified in future reviews.
Other than that, the Ryzen 5 3600 proves to be a capable processor. While not quite on par with the Intel Core i9-9900K in gaming tests, it does get quite close and typically beats the Ryzen 7 2700X. While the margins of victory are not staggering, it's still good to see as it does show an improvement since the Ryzen 5 3600 does have a lower clock speed and fewer cores and threads compared to the previous generation. If these chips are decent overclockers, they may prove quite interesting for mid-range gaming builds since they Ryzen 5 3600 has an MSRP of $199. Considering other AMD processors in the lineup can boost up to 4.6 GHz, these mid-range Ryzen chips could be quite the gaming CPUs as a potential 400 MHz overclock would likely let them close the gap with Intel's far more expensive unlocked processors.
You can check the full review at the source below, and while the results appear plausible, we suggest taking them with a grain of salt.

Update Jun 26th: El Chapuzas Informático has posted a follow up review, using a motherboard with X570 chipset. Looks like the differences are only minor. Source: El Chapuzas Informático
Add your own comment

80 Comments on AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review Leaks, Shows Impressive Performance

#1
ZoneDymo
we suggest taking them with a grain of salt.
we suggest taking them with a grain of salt.
we suggest taking them with a grain of salt.

^ that
Posted on Reply
#3
Vayra86
Gaming perf seems to be pretty stagnant but then this is only a very limited view.

Still. Not bad. I think the more interesting bit here is the actual power draw for this performance, and the gap with the X models.
Posted on Reply
#4
biffzinker
Time to move on from DDR4-3200? Wonder if DDR4-3600/3700 would improve write bandwidth, and latency?
Posted on Reply
#5
dirtyferret
Vayra86, post: 4069967, member: 152404"
Gaming perf seems to be pretty stagnant but then this is only a very limited view.

Still. Not bad. I think the more interesting bit here is the actual power draw for this performance, and the gap with the X models.
Someone posted a chinese gaming benchmark on the forum which had the 3600 performing similar to the 8700k at stock although you can take that leak with a grain or mound of salt depending on allegiance.
Posted on Reply
#6
Vayra86
dirtyferret, post: 4069990, member: 95839"
Someone posted a chinese gaming benchmark on the forum which had the 3600 performing similar to the 8700k at stock although you can take that leak with a grain or mound of salt depending on allegiance.
Gaming is a fickle beast. Needs a very large amount of benches and especially OC results.
Posted on Reply
#7
Xzibit
Interesting 75c with stock cooler in stress test.
Posted on Reply
#8
Midland Dog
impressive no way, i want better ST than intel, no point upgrading from haswell still
Posted on Reply
#10
Imsochobo
Xzibit, post: 4069993, member: 105152"
Interesting 75c with stock cooler in stress test.
With the stealth...
It's absolutely tiny!
Posted on Reply
#12
bug
The site compared AMD's latest offering to the Intel Core i9-9900K and the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X with the Ryzen 5 3600 typically slotting in between the two and in some cases beating both. This is interesting to note as the Ryzen 7 2700X offers similar clock speeds to the Ryzen 5 3600 but the former has a 2C/4T advantage.
Which just goes to show additional cores can be a waste if you don't match them carefully to your workflow (e.g. I don't edit videos or transcode).
An impressive show, nonetheless.
Posted on Reply
#13
ShurikN
Quite impressive if you consider it only boosts to 4.2, and 3200MHz ram was used. Does the review mention all core boost values during gaming and heavy load?
Posted on Reply
#14
mstenholm
Unless this review is a poor copy&paste of the one with the same chip on the x470 board we most hope that the board manufactures get their act together and releases a BIOS that actually allows overclocking. It is not because I'm disappointed about the performance but part of the fun with a new chip is the OC. Did I miss that the 3600 isn't supposed to be able to be OC'ed?
Posted on Reply
#15
Casecutter
Nice, let's hope this is what competition looks like! For a non-X not OC'd it seems.. too good?

Xzibit, post: 4069993, member: 105152"
Interesting 75c with stock cooler in stress test.
I only see that they saying in the X570 review ; they indicate a Corsair H110i RGB Platinum Liquid Cooling used in the comparison with Intel Core i9-9900K... Am I missing something? Or they've the AIO for the i9, while the R5 3600 with a Wraith Stealth... that's a super fair fight?
Posted on Reply
#16
mstenholm
Casecutter, post: 4070068, member: 94772"
Nice, let's hop this is what competition looks like! for a non-X not OC'd it seems to good


I only see that they say for the X570 review they say a Corsair H110i RGB Platinum Liquid Cooling used in the comparison with Intel Core i9-9900K... Am I missing something? Or they've the AIO for the i9 and the R5 3600 with a Wraith Stealth... that's a super fair fight?
I read it as the Intel has the AIO. In the x470 review the Wraith was mentioned but I didn't see it mentioned in the x570 review.

Edit: I have two 2700Xs and they don't start to lose all core boost before start/mid 70 C so if the same is the case here then the stock cooler is sufficient/fair for a review.
Posted on Reply
#17
Xzibit
Casecutter, post: 4070068, member: 94772"
Nice, let's hope this is what competition looks like! For a non-X not OC'd it seems.. too good?


I only see that they saying in the X570 review ; they indicate a Corsair H110i RGB Platinum Liquid Cooling used in the comparison with Intel Core i9-9900K... Am I missing something? Or they've the AIO for the i9, while the R5 3600 with a Wraith Stealth... that's a super fair fight?
The bold. The AIO adds $130+ to the I9-9900K. With the difference one can go from a R5 3600 to a R7 3700X or stick to the R5 3600 and buy a 16gb 3600 C16 memory kit.

Also hes running 3200 Ram (Stock 2666) on the 9900K. I doubt hes running it at stock, Not OC but MCE might be on by default given the board hes using and the mem.
Posted on Reply
#18
Steevo
Looks like they still have 20ns latency to get another IPC bump. I wonder what implementing all the security fixes on Intel will do to their latency though....

Also 7nm must be amazing to handle that voltage and still run cool with that much cache.
Posted on Reply
#19
Manu_PT
Still not there in gaming. 6700k performance. 30fps less on far cry 5, ouch. I know 3800x is superior + oc but dont think it can beat Intel in games, so no upgrade to me. Change my mind AMD.
Posted on Reply
#20
Crackong
Grain of salt indeed.

Just 10 more days and we'll have the truth.
Posted on Reply
#21
Makaveli
Midland Dog, post: 4069999, member: 168254"
impressive no way, i want better ST than intel, no point upgrading from haswell still
lol this is either a joke or your delusional.

Zen 2 has better ST than Haswell.
Posted on Reply
#22
Steevo
Makaveli, post: 4070090, member: 23753"
lol this is either a joke or your delusional.

Zen 2 has better ST than Haswell.
According to AMD.
Posted on Reply
#23
Manu_PT
Makaveli, post: 4070090, member: 23753"
lol this is either a joke or your delusional.

Zen 2 has better ST than Haswell.
IPC/ST only matters so much on AMD, because their latencies are higher. So in fact they would need like 20% better IPC than Intel to have same framerates on non GPU bound scenarios. This is why on Far Cry 5 you see the Ryzen chip doing the same as an old 6700k. It won´t still reach Intel numbers for high refresh gaming, but it´s getting better. By the time they catch Intel or even surprass, that´s when I will change to AMD. Until then, Intel it is to me.
Posted on Reply
#24
Jism
Good to see the 2700x still holding up very well against a newer generation of AMD cpu's.
Posted on Reply
#25
Hotobu
Manu_PT, post: 4070086, member: 168799"
Still not there in gaming. 6700k performance. 30fps less on far cry 5, ouch. I know 3800x is superior + oc but dont think it can beat Intel in games, so no upgrade to me. Change my mind AMD.
Isn't FC5 known to be a disproportionately poor performer on AMD platforms?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment