• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Ryzen 5 3500 6c/6t possibly coming

Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
9,797 (1.96/day)
System Name Desktop / Laptop
Processor Intel i7 6700K @ 4.3GHz (1.180 V) / Intel i3 7100U
Motherboard Asus Z170 Pro Gaming / HP 83A3 (U3E1)
Cooling Noctua NH-U12A 2 fans + Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut + 5 case fans / Fan
Memory 16GB DDR4 Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000MHz CL15 / 6GB DDR4 Samsung 2400MHz CL15
Video Card(s) MSI RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio / Intel HD620
Storage Samsung 970 Evo 500GB + Samsung 850 Pro 512GB + Samsung 860 Evo 1TB / Samsung 256GB M.2 SSD
Display(s) 23.8" Dell S2417DG 165Hz G-Sync 1440p + 21.5" LG 22MP67VQ IPS 60Hz 1080p / 14" 1080p IPS Glossy
Case Be quiet! Silent Base 600 - Window / HP Pavilion
Audio Device(s) SupremeFX Onboard / Realtek onboard + B&O speaker system
Power Supply Seasonic Focus Plus Gold 750W / Powerbrick
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 2 Laser wireless / Logitech M330 wireless
Keyboard RAPOO E9270P Black 5GHz wireless / HP backlit
Software Windows 10 / Windows 10
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
110 (2.08/day)
Processor R7 1700 non-X @ 4.0 GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte AORUS Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua
Memory 32 GB 3200 MT/s CL16
Video Card(s) Sapphire Vega 64
Storage 2x 500 GB SSD, 2x 3 TB HDD
Case Silverstone FT02
Software Manjaro Linux, W10 if I have to
Interesting. I wonder how it will compare to the 3600 non X in price to perf.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
5,723 (1.19/day)
Location
Nebraska, USA
System Name Brightworks Systems BWS-6 E-IV
Processor Intel Core i5-6600 @ 3.9GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-Z170-HD3 Rev 1.0
Cooling Quality case, 2 x Fractal Design 140mm fans, stock CPU HSF
Memory 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 3000 Corsair Vengeance
Video Card(s) EVGA GEForce GTX 1050Ti 4Gb GDDR5
Storage Samsung 850 Pro 256GB SSD, Samsung 860 Evo 500GB SSD
Display(s) Samsung S24E650BW LED x 2
Case Fractal Design Define R4
Power Supply EVGA Supernova 550W G2 Gold
Mouse Microsoft Wireless 5000
Keyboard Microsoft Wireless Comfort 5050
Software W10 Pro 64-bit
Those clocks for a 6c/6t part though...
IDK. Compared to its [supposedly] direct competition, the i5-9400, the Ryzen 5 3500 has:
  • An anticipated competitive price somewhere between $150 - $185,
  • Faster DDR4 support,
  • PCIe 4.0 support vs PCIe 3.0 for the i5,
  • 3.6 times larger cache,
  • And a faster base of 3.6GHz vs only 2.9GHz for the i5.
So I don't have a problem with the Ryzen 5 3500's clocks, even if the boost is the same - assuming those "unconfirmed" specs hold.
 
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
134 (1.01/day)
System Name MrGRiMv25 MkIV
Processor Xeon W3680 @ 3.73Ghz (133x28)
Motherboard HP Z400 Rev 2
Cooling Alpenfohn Brocken v1
Memory 3 x 4GB DDR3-1600
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX570 Nitro+
Storage 240GB WD SSD, 6 x 2TB HDD
Display(s) 27" iiyama XB2783HSU AMVA+
Case AeroCool Aero 500 RGB
Power Supply HP 600w Bronze (Delta)
Keyboard Gots keys
Software W10 x64
Interesting move from AMD considering pretty much all their parts have SMT enabled. Should give the 9400 a good fight if price is decent, if I were to get a Ryzen I'd still get the SMT enabled version but still seems like a decent product nonetheless.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
4,268 (1.11/day)
Location
Ohio
System Name Fractured puke.
Processor Intel I7-8700k/G4400/AMD 2200g/Ryzen 5 1600
Motherboard MSI z370 Gaming M5/h110/ AMD a320/ AMD B450-ASRock pro 4 atx
Cooling Corsair H110i/Intel/AMD/H60
Memory 16GB G.Skill TridentZ 3200MHZ/8gb 2133mhz/8gb 2400mhz/8gb Viper 3000mhz
Video Card(s) Nvidia GTX 1070ti/integrated/apu/rx570
Storage 960 EVO 500gb/256gb WD Black 2280 M2/Patriot Ignite 480gb SSD/ Inland Pro 256gb SSD/Patriot Scorch-&
Display(s) AOC 32" QHD/Acer 32" QHD/ ViewSonic 24" FHD/ TV
Case Fractal Design Meshify-C/ Rosewill FBM-01/ Rosewill FBM-01/Sigma eclipse
Audio Device(s) creative audigy/nboard/ onboard/inboard
Power Supply Seasonic/TT/TT/Cooler Master white80+ 500w
Mouse Red Dragon/red dragon/Razer/Razer
Keyboard Razer Deatstalker/red dragon RGB/Red Dragon 502/Razer
Software Windows 10Pro x64///
The 3500 would have to be $130 or less to be competitive with the 9400f.
They might do a 3500x but I bet everything lower will be for HP and Dell.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
5,723 (1.19/day)
Location
Nebraska, USA
System Name Brightworks Systems BWS-6 E-IV
Processor Intel Core i5-6600 @ 3.9GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-Z170-HD3 Rev 1.0
Cooling Quality case, 2 x Fractal Design 140mm fans, stock CPU HSF
Memory 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 3000 Corsair Vengeance
Video Card(s) EVGA GEForce GTX 1050Ti 4Gb GDDR5
Storage Samsung 850 Pro 256GB SSD, Samsung 860 Evo 500GB SSD
Display(s) Samsung S24E650BW LED x 2
Case Fractal Design Define R4
Power Supply EVGA Supernova 550W G2 Gold
Mouse Microsoft Wireless 5000
Keyboard Microsoft Wireless Comfort 5050
Software W10 Pro 64-bit
The 3500 would have to be $130 or less to be competitive with the 9400f.
No one is comparing the 3500 to a 9400F. It was comparing it to the 9400. They are not the same processor.
 
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
389 (0.16/day)
Location
Technical Tittery....
System Name "IBT 10x Maximum Stable"
Processor Intel i5 4690K @ 4.6GHz -> 100xx46 - 1.296v
Motherboard MSI MPower Z97
Cooling Corsair H100i + 2x Corsair "HP Edition" SP120's
Memory 4x4GB Corsair Vengence Pro 2400mhz @ 2400MHz 10-12-12-30-1T - 1.66v
Video Card(s) MSI Gaming GTX970 4GB @ 1314 Core/1973 Mem/1515 Boost
Storage Kingston 3K 120GB SSD + Western Digital 'Green' 2TB + Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB
Display(s) Iiyama Prolite X2377HDS 23" IPS
Case Corsair Carbide 300R
Audio Device(s) Rotel RA-04/Cambridge Audio Azur 540R + B&W DM302/Cerwin Vega AT12 / Sony MDR-XB700 & FiiO E5
Power Supply EVGA NEX650G + Silverstone Extensions
Mouse Always failing me....
Keyboard Endlessly broken.....
Software Windoze 7 Professional 64-bit
Benchmark Scores I had some of these once upon a time? Old age has seen me misplace them....
No one is comparing the 3500 to a 9400F. It was comparing it to the 9400. They are not the same processor.
The 9400F is just lacking iGPU as you probably already know; however the 9400F - at least in my area of the world - is being sold for significantly less than the 9400.


But, I still would take the 3500. I also agree with the points made in an earlier @Bill_Bright post - the AM4 platform offers more value for money in this segment either which way you look at things.:toast:
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
4,268 (1.11/day)
Location
Ohio
System Name Fractured puke.
Processor Intel I7-8700k/G4400/AMD 2200g/Ryzen 5 1600
Motherboard MSI z370 Gaming M5/h110/ AMD a320/ AMD B450-ASRock pro 4 atx
Cooling Corsair H110i/Intel/AMD/H60
Memory 16GB G.Skill TridentZ 3200MHZ/8gb 2133mhz/8gb 2400mhz/8gb Viper 3000mhz
Video Card(s) Nvidia GTX 1070ti/integrated/apu/rx570
Storage 960 EVO 500gb/256gb WD Black 2280 M2/Patriot Ignite 480gb SSD/ Inland Pro 256gb SSD/Patriot Scorch-&
Display(s) AOC 32" QHD/Acer 32" QHD/ ViewSonic 24" FHD/ TV
Case Fractal Design Meshify-C/ Rosewill FBM-01/ Rosewill FBM-01/Sigma eclipse
Audio Device(s) creative audigy/nboard/ onboard/inboard
Power Supply Seasonic/TT/TT/Cooler Master white80+ 500w
Mouse Red Dragon/red dragon/Razer/Razer
Keyboard Razer Deatstalker/red dragon RGB/Red Dragon 502/Razer
Software Windows 10Pro x64///
No one is comparing the 3500 to a 9400F. It was comparing it to the 9400. They are not the same processor.
I know but since the -f is without an Igpu it compares better than the regular 9400 against the 3500...
I would probably take the 3500 as well simply for the features you pointed out in your first post... And because it's on a live platform

I could see these going for $130-$150.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
15,361 (4.33/day)
IDK. Compared to its [supposedly] direct competition, the i5-9400, the Ryzen 5 3500 has:
  • An anticipated competitive price somewhere between $150 - $185,
  • Faster DDR4 support,
  • PCIe 4.0 support vs PCIe 3.0 for the i5,
  • 3.6 times larger cache,
  • And a faster base of 3.6GHz vs only 2.9GHz for the i5.
So I don't have a problem with the Ryzen 5 3500's clocks, even if the boost is the same - assuming those "unconfirmed" specs hold.
pcie 4.0... useless.
Faster ddr4 base spec...useless...all part of its end performance value.
Cache...yippee...already included with performance...useless metric here.
Clocks... the Intel chips will boost similarly on all c/t and have dual cores and single faster.

Regarding clocks, the 9400/9400f has an all core boost to 3.9ghz. 2/4= 4.0 ghz, and one core is 4.1 ghz. AMD doesnt even hit its listed boost clocks for many people...Intel always will.

Price is about all it may have... if you're buying budget parts like this pcie bandwidth wont be an issue...you can still run 2 m.2 drives and have plenty of sata left over.

9400/9400f... same thing, one doesnt have an igpu... like the ryzen. So you could say that if one doesnt need a discrete gpu, the Intel is indeed a better buy.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
2,508 (2.13/day)
No one is comparing the 3500 to a 9400F. It was comparing it to the 9400. They are not the same processor.
But you should. That's the whole point of F processors.
9400F will likely be cheaper, easier to get and already an established product.
Performance should be more or less identical.

All the technical details you've mentioned are irrelevant. This is a mainstream gaming / office CPU. No one will care about PCIe 4.0 and cache size. Target group looks at performance, not shiny specs.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
9,869 (5.40/day)
Location
Too Long to fit in a single line here.
Processor i7 8700k 4.7Ghz @ 1.26v
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Eizo Foris FG2421
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Power Supply EVGA G2 750w
Mouse Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum
Keyboard Sharkoon MK80 (Brown)
Software W10 x64
This is probably a very poor bin, they need the voltage for 6 cores and can't reliably enable SMT, and the clocks are low.

For gaming I would avoid this one (just as I would the 9400(F)...). It will feel old fast. Better off upping the game just a little bit to get SMT and a few hundred more mhz.

The 'cheap i5' route doesn't work like it used to back in Sandy/Ivy/Haswell days. Progress is on now, and core counts increase faster than they ever did. Thread count headroom is something you'll want.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
4,367 (1.05/day)
Location
Multidimensional
System Name Jill-Sandwich
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 1.225v @ 4.2Ghz All Core/PBO Off
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 I Aorus Pro Wifi
Cooling Bequiet Shadow Rock LP 120mm / 2x 120mm Slim Silverstone fans
Memory 32GB Corsair Vengeance LP DDR4 3200Mhz
Video Card(s) Gigabyte Windforce RTX 2080 8GB
Storage 512GB Adata XPG SX8200 Pro M.2 NVMe / 2TB Samsung 2.5in HDD
Display(s) Hisense 1080p Smart LED HDTV 40inch
Case Silverstone Raven RVZ03 RGB Case
Audio Device(s) Realtek HD Audio / HDMI Audio Via GPU
Power Supply Corsair SFX 600W Gold Rated PSU
Mouse Cheap Wireless Microsoft Mouse
Keyboard Cheap Wireless Microsoft Keyboard
Software Windows 10 Home 64bit
Benchmark Scores Don't do em anymore. :(
pcie 4.0... useless.
Faster ddr4 base spec...useless...all part of its end performance value.
Cache...yippee...already included with performance...useless metric here.
Clocks... the Intel chips will boost similarly on all c/t and have dual cores and single faster.

Regarding clocks, the 9400/9400f has an all core boost to 3.9ghz. 2/4= 4.0 ghz, and one core is 4.1 ghz. AMD doesnt even hit its listed boost clocks for many people...Intel always will.

Price is about all it may have... if you're buying budget parts like this pcie bandwidth wont be an issue...you can still run 2 m.2 drives and have plenty of sata left over.

9400/9400f... same thing, one doesnt have an igpu... like the ryzen. So you could say that if one doesnt need a discrete gpu, the Intel is indeed a better buy.
Umm no you don't know the pricing or the performance of the 3500 so how is Intel's 9400/9400F a better buy? :wtf:
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
2,508 (2.13/day)
Umm no you don't know the pricing or the performance of the 3500 so how is Intel's 9400/9400F a better buy? :wtf:
Performance of Zen is very easy to estimate. It's a unified architecture.

Price... well, surely cheaper than 3600 ($200), but by how much?
Zen2 is likely expensive to manufacture. They can't go too low.

It's almost certain they won't go below $150 - the current price of 9400F.
So 2 CPUs with same performance and price => no reason to buy AMD.

It's easy to notice that AMD asks a bit too much for these CPUs and they're trying to widen the target group.
Not so long ago AMD's fans praised them for not holding tech back - often specifically for giving all Ryzens SMT. No locking of features like the bad Intel does. ;-)
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
110 (2.08/day)
Processor R7 1700 non-X @ 4.0 GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte AORUS Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua
Memory 32 GB 3200 MT/s CL16
Video Card(s) Sapphire Vega 64
Storage 2x 500 GB SSD, 2x 3 TB HDD
Case Silverstone FT02
Software Manjaro Linux, W10 if I have to
So 2 CPUs with same performance and price => no reason to buy AMD.
What silliness. You don't know their performance or price. And furthermore, you could as well say no reason to buy Intel.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
15,361 (4.33/day)
Umm no you don't know the pricing or the performance of the 3500 so how is Intel's 9400/9400F a better buy? :wtf:
as was said, its performance is going to be just as every other ryzen cpu is comparatively to the intel counterpart. So, slightly behind in gaming and similar in all c/t behavior. This time though, amd's smt efficiency advantage is gone. If it's priced $30-50 less and dont need a discrete GPU, that cost difference goes to getting a discrete GPU to throw an image on the screen. ;)

That said if they are priced similarly at 150 and it's a gaming rig, I'd go intel. You can also lock all cores to the boost value, and perhaps get another 100mhz with bclk. I'm guessing these are potato overclockers like the rest of ryzen 3 and wont reach its boost clocks with all cores.

Either system will perform well, but if it's a gamer, intel will have the advantage at 1080p however slight.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
5,473 (1.08/day)
Location
USA
System Name Small ATX Desktop
Processor Intel i5 8600K @ 4.6 GHz Core & 4.3 GHz Cache @ 1.168V
Motherboard Asrock Z370 Taichi
Cooling Phanteks PH-TC14PE, MonoPlus, Fans: 2xThermalright TY143 / 2xCorsair SP-120L / 2xYate Loon D14BH-12
Memory G-Skill TridentZ 2X8GB DDR4 3200 CL14 F4-3200C14D-16GTZ @ 3200 14-14-14-34 2T @ 1.35V
Video Card(s) Zotac 1060 6GB Mini ZT-P10600A-10L with Arctic MonoPlus and Yate Loon D14BH-12 Fan
Storage OS Samsung 970 Pro 512GB NVMe, Games Phison E12 NVMe 1TB, Data WD10EZEX HDD 1TB
Display(s) 2x Asus PB258Q 2560x1440 25" IPS
Case Lian Li PC A05NB (Inverted Mobo)
Audio Device(s) Audiotechnica ATH M50X, Antlion Mod Mic 4, SYBA SD-CM-UAUD, Acoustic Research 2Ch Speakers
Power Supply Seasonic SS-660XP2 660 Watt Platinum
Mouse Zowie EC2A Mouse, Razer Naga Chroma '14, Corsair MM600, Inateck 900x300 XL pad, Tiger Gaming Skates.
Keyboard Filco Majestouch II Ninja TKL, Goldtouch GTC 0033 Ten Key, PS3 Controller
Software Win7 Pro 64 (Installed on Coffee Lake using AsRock's handy PS/2 Simulator in Bios)
Thats just not all that interesting a CPU unless they sell it for cheap, around $130 would suffice.

I've actually seen an i5 8400 on local classifieds for $100 and they routinely sell for around $120 used or open box. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a used i5 8400 because theres very little that can go wrong with a locked Intel processor.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
7,251 (3.20/day)
Location
USA
This CPU sku was not a far stretch to predict. However upon release it would indeed become the new budget build sweet-spot.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
2,508 (2.13/day)
What silliness. You don't know their performance or price.
I don't know the price, true. But we know that the CPU above this one costs $199 and that AMD will be unwilling to go very low. 7nm is expensive and shareholders expect AMD to finally make money.
Some people here hope for ~$130. IMO that's unlikely. I expect $149 or $159 - to compete with 9400F ($150), which - obviously - will be replaced fairly soon.

However, performance is easy to estimate. We know how other Zen2 CPUs perform - also with SMT turned off. It should match 9400F very well.
And furthermore, you could as well say no reason to buy Intel.
Well, not exactly. Intel is the default choice. It has better brand, better availability, better OEM support and better marketing.
AMD has to offer something extra to gain traction: price, performance, better stock cooler, bundled games etc.

That said, 9400(F) is a CPU made for home desktops, which makes it a very niche product - not that important for Intel.
Much like with earlier generations, the _500 (9500, 9500T) is the i5 that Intel wants to sell in large quantities.
So if AMD decides to go for very aggressive pricing in this segment, Intel might let them have it.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
5,723 (1.19/day)
Location
Nebraska, USA
System Name Brightworks Systems BWS-6 E-IV
Processor Intel Core i5-6600 @ 3.9GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-Z170-HD3 Rev 1.0
Cooling Quality case, 2 x Fractal Design 140mm fans, stock CPU HSF
Memory 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 3000 Corsair Vengeance
Video Card(s) EVGA GEForce GTX 1050Ti 4Gb GDDR5
Storage Samsung 850 Pro 256GB SSD, Samsung 860 Evo 500GB SSD
Display(s) Samsung S24E650BW LED x 2
Case Fractal Design Define R4
Power Supply EVGA Supernova 550W G2 Gold
Mouse Microsoft Wireless 5000
Keyboard Microsoft Wireless Comfort 5050
Software W10 Pro 64-bit
But you should. That's the whole point of F processors.
What I should or should not do is immaterial and not the point. The point is about the article/comparison the OP linked to and it used the 9400, not the 9400F. If you feel Tom's Hardware should have used the F processors instead, your argument should be with them, not me.

As far as the other specs being "useless" well all I can say there is "yeah right". :rolleyes:

When comparing any two similar, nearly identically matched products, it is about all of the minute specification details that differentiate (or compare similarly) the two. Not just one.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
110 (2.08/day)
Processor R7 1700 non-X @ 4.0 GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte AORUS Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua
Memory 32 GB 3200 MT/s CL16
Video Card(s) Sapphire Vega 64
Storage 2x 500 GB SSD, 2x 3 TB HDD
Case Silverstone FT02
Software Manjaro Linux, W10 if I have to
I don't know the price, true. But we know that the CPU above this one costs $199 and that AMD will be unwilling to go very low. 7nm is expensive and shareholders expect AMD to finally make money.
Some people here hope for ~$130. IMO that's unlikely. I expect $149 or $159 - to compete with 9400F ($150), which - obviously - will be replaced fairly soon.

However, performance is easy to estimate. We know how other Zen2 CPUs perform - also with SMT turned off. It should match 9400F very well.

Well, not exactly. Intel is the default choice. It has better brand, better availability, better OEM support and better marketing.
AMD has to offer something extra to gain traction: price, performance, better stock cooler, bundled games etc.

That said, 9400(F) is a CPU made for home desktops, which makes it a very niche product - not that important for Intel.
Much like with earlier generations, the _500 (9500, 9500T) is the i5 that Intel wants to sell in large quantities.
So if AMD decides to go for very aggressive pricing in this segment, Intel might let them have it.
That's just your bias, not matter-of-fact.

FYI, Ryzen 3000 is faster clock-for-clock, so a 4.1 GHz 3500 beats a 4.1 GHz 9400.

 
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
1,383 (0.45/day)
Location
Greece
Processor AMD FX-8350 4GHz@1.3V
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-970A UD3 Rev3.0
Cooling Zalman CNPS5X Performa
Memory 2*4GB Patriot Venom RED DDR3 1600MHz CL9
Video Card(s) XFX RX580 GTS 4GB
Storage Sandisk SSD 120GB, 2 Samsung F1 & F3 (1TB)
Display(s) LG IPS235
Case Zalman Neo Z9 Black
Audio Device(s) Via 7.1 onboard
Power Supply OCZ Z550
Mouse Zalman ZM-M401R
Keyboard Trust GXT280
Software Win 7 sp1 64bit
Benchmark Scores CB R15 64bit: single core 99p, multicore 647p WPrime 1.55 (8 cores): 9.0 secs
Since the AM4 chipset will get even the Ryzen 4000 next year and will get the 16-core monster CPU in September, why anyone to buy any Intel CPU being close in both performance and price to a Ryzen 3000 one (apart from the top ones and those only for gaming at 240Hz and on +$1000 GPUs)? In VFM AMD wins easily both at APUs and CPUs on desktop especially since Ryzen launched. And now, servers, data centers and cloud is a Rome's field. Intel is clearly 2nd now in computing PCs anywhere (performace and efficiency wise) apart from mobile CPU market until Zen2 gets there too. Do your reality check people. Denial doesn't help to face reality eh?
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
2,508 (2.13/day)
FYI, Ryzen 3000 is faster clock-for-clock, so a 4.1 GHz 3500 beats a 4.1 GHz 9400.

These clock-for-clock comparisons are pointless for real-life choices, but if it makes you happy...

1) All CPUs on this graph have HT/SMT, while the CPUs discussed here don't. This is important, because different software will show different utilization of SMT vs HT.
Check this: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X-SMT-Perf
So if anything, I'd rather go for the single-thread Cinebench (which Ryzen also wins, so you're still happy)

2) Cinebench is a rendering benchmark, so is it a very good choice in case of 3500 vs 9400?
Will these CPUs be used for rendering? For any "workstation-type load" for that matter?
Maybe yes, but it's more likely that they'll be used for gaming. And in gaming, also clock-for-clock Intel still has the advantage.
Gaming comparisons are available in the same review:
but you've decided to use Cinebench... and you call me biased...

3) Cinebench is known to give very high marks to Ryzen CPUs. I'm by no means suggesting that this engine is optimized for AMD or that AMD optimizes CPUs to perform well in a particular benchmark (this sounds unrealistic, right? => Volkswagen ;-) )
It's just a very lucky (for AMD) coincidence that the most popular benchmark works well on AMD's latest CPUs. Surely helps the sales.
But I'd not suggest buying a CPU based on that.

TechSpot also tested V-Ray, which is a lot more popular rendering engine. In this test 3700X beat 9900K by 4%. In Cinebench it's 13%.
What I should or should not do is immaterial and not the point. The point is about the article/comparison the OP linked to and it used the 9400, not the 9400F. If you feel Tom's Hardware should have used the F processors instead, your argument should be with them, not me.
You've followed their comparison and concluded that as a result you "don't have a problem with the Ryzen 5 3500's clocks". That's why I'm addressing you, not TPU.
So yes, you're comparing 3500 to 9400. And you're making the same mistake TH did.
As far as the other specs being "useless" well all I can say there is "yeah right". :rolleyes:

When comparing any two similar, nearly identically matched products, it is about all of the minute specification details that differentiate (or compare similarly) the two. Not just one.
No, it's not. We should look at specs that are important for the target audience. Do you want to tell me that entry/mid-level desktop users care about cache size? Seriously?
At this point you should have mentioned that 3500 can be overclocked and it may even work with ECC RAM from time to time. ;-)
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
1,166 (0.75/day)
Location
Western Canada
System Name Ol' Beastie
Processor Ryzen 7 3700X
Motherboard Gigabyte B450 I Aorus
Cooling Noctua NH-U9S
Memory 16GB Trident Z 3200C16
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1070 SC ACX 3.0
Storage 3.25TB of SSDs
Display(s) BenQ GW2765HT
Case NCASE M1v5 + Pelican 1514
Audio Device(s) DT 770 80Ω / Blue Snowball iCE
Power Supply Corsair SF600 Gold + Cablemod cables
Mouse Logitech G602 / Logitech MX Master
Keyboard X60 R (260, SS, Tealio) / FMJ (NerD60, brass, Silent Red) / Klippe (Instant60, brass, Gat Yellow)
Software Windows 10 1903
These clock-for-clock comparisons are pointless for real-life choices, but if it makes you happy...

1) All CPUs on this graph have HT/SMT, while the CPUs discussed here don't. This is important, because different software will show different utilization of SMT vs HT.
Check this: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X-SMT-Perf
So if anything, I'd rather go for the single-thread Cinebench (which Ryzen also wins, so you're still happy)

2) Cinebench is a rendering benchmark, so is it a very good choice in case of 3500 vs 9400?
Will these CPUs be used for rendering? For any "workstation-type load" for that matter?
Maybe yes, but it's more likely that they'll be used for gaming. And in gaming, also clock-for-clock Intel still has the advantage.
Gaming comparisons are available in the same review:
but you've decided to use Cinebench... and you call me biased...

3) Cinebench is known to give very high marks to Ryzen CPUs. I'm by no means suggesting that this engine is optimized for AMD or that AMD optimizes CPUs to perform well in a particular benchmark (this sounds unrealistic, right? => Volkswagen ;-) )
It's just a very lucky (for AMD) coincidence that the most popular benchmark works well on AMD's latest CPUs. Surely helps the sales.
But I'd not suggest buying a CPU based on that.

TechSpot also tested V-Ray, which is a lot more popular rendering engine. In this test 3700X beat 9900K by 4%. In Cinebench it's 13%.

You've followed their comparison and concluded that as a result you "don't have a problem with the Ryzen 5 3500's clocks". That's why I'm addressing you, not TPU.
So yes, you're comparing 3500 to 9400. And you're making the same mistake TH did.

No, it's not. We should look at specs that are important for the target audience. Do you want to tell me that entry/mid-level desktop users care about cache size? Seriously?
At this point you should have mentioned that 3500 can be overclocked and it may even work with ECC RAM from time to time. ;-)
What are you on about? Clock for clock is pointless?

9400F is 4.1 boost and 2.9 sustained. 3500 should be 4.1 boost and 3.6 sustained. Ryzen has slightly higher IPC. Do I need to state the obvious here?

This is not a 3900X and 9900KF we're talking about.
 
Top