Ryzen 3600 or i5 9600K?

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, Shahnewaz said:

You really need to get off your high horse. If you think we're biased go find your own reviews.

 

It's funny because I'm perceived often as an Intel fanboy telling him to skip the 9600k and he still doesn't want to believe 

[Mister Woof]

If you are only gaming and never dream of doing anything on the side like watching twitch or whatever, get at LEAST the 9700k.....but even then, that's a compromise and I hate Intel for releasing am "i7" without hyperthreading.

[cesh me inside b0z]

4 minutes ago, Shahnewaz said:

Literally no outlet has recommended a 9600K over a 3600 or anything else for the matter. I don't know what argument you're bringing here, the 3600 is the overall better option now and in the future.

 

The only note worthy thing mentioned was frame times and stuttering, but no evidence was shown, however overall the 3600 is better, if you are not only gaming. Browsing the  web on occasion is not going to make any performance difference whichever CPU i buy, i don't game and browse teh web at the same time either, mostly i am at work, working, i just want a fast PC to come home to and rock on with some times when bored.

[Otto_iii]

33 minutes ago, F77 said:

Card is MSI EVOKE-OC 5700-XT.

 

From what i can see, the 9600K is faster...

Do you run low detail high FPS, or high detail low FPS settings in your games?  In low detail, competitive type style, the 9600k does pull ahead in most games, in more GPU bound situations they aren't different at all.  I'd say if you got mobo that can overclock 9600k, its not horrible idea.  The only cheaper z390 board i know that is good for that task is the 100$ Gigabyte Z390 UD.  With Ryzen and mobos you are likely looking at MSI MAX boards, the B450 series Tomahawk MAX, Gaming Plus MAX, of A-Pro MAX all at similar price range.
 

The reason everybody would urge you to get Ryzen is because there aren't any future upgrades you could get for Z390 that aren't already out now, with the Intel you could eventually swap a 9990k or 9700k into it, but with Ryzen the next generation of CPUs, Zen 3/Ryzen 4000 Desktop processors will still work with same said motherboards.  Ontop of this Intel keeps losing performance due to security flaws in their designs, with patches correcting it hurting performance.  You can fix this by disabling the security updates via regedits in cmd, and its perfectly fine to do so with a personal computer as the security updates are only really a big deal for office PCs and Servers connected via a network, but it still kinda stinky. 

The final factor is although none-hyperthreaded CPUs (same threads as there are cores) can be good for gaming, with the next gen consoles coming out with 8 core/16 thread CPUs, games are already starting to, and going to continue to be developed for more cores and more threads, likely atleast 8-16 threads, not 6 threads like the 9600k is.  When that happens you'll see stuttering in games which are poorly optimized for >8 threads, In this regard the 8700k will likely age better then the 9600k. 

[cesh me inside b0z]

3 minutes ago, Shahnewaz said:

You really need to get off your high horse. If you think we're biased go find your own reviews.

Biased? the 9600K is objectively faster in gaming, i don't need a CPU for anything else.

[cesh me inside b0z]

Just now, Otto_iii said:

Do you run low detail high FPS, or high detail low FPS settings in your games?  In low detail, competitive type style, the 9600k does pull ahead in most games, in more GPU bound situations they aren't different at all.  I'd say if you got mobo that can overclock 9600k, its not horrible idea.  The only cheaper z390 board i know that is good for that task is the 100$ Gigabyte Z390 UD.  With Ryzen and mobos you are likely looking at MSI MAX boards, the B450 series Tomahawk MAX, Gaming Plus MAX, of A-Pro MAX all at similar price range.
 

The reason everybody would urge you to get Ryzen is because there aren't any future upgrades you could get for Z390 that aren't already out now, with the Intel you could eventually swap a 9990k or 9700k into it, but with Ryzen the next generation of CPUs, Zen 3/Ryzen 4000 Desktop processors will still work with same said motherboards. 

At 1080P 144hz, in CSGO at least, the CPU is redundant, i think the 9600K does deliver around 600 whilst the 3600 delivers around 450, but it's overkill. Both deliver 300FPS which is CSGO's usual frame limit unless you uncap it.

 

As for other games, reports do come back with higher frames for the 9600K plus superior overclockability, this is not fanboying orr anything of which i am being accused of, just hard facts,

[GoldenLag]

Just now, F77 said:

Browsing the  web on occasion is not going to make any performance difference whichever CPU i buy, i don't game and browse teh web at the same time either, mostly i am at work, working, i just want a fast PC to come home to and rock on with some times when bored.

You probably dont want to deal with the occasional hickups when apps in the background decide to compress or decompress some files causing stuttering in games

 

And performance is not the only reason why you would want to avoid the 9600k. Its also because 10th gen is around the corner with a cheaper 8700. While more compelling than the 9600k. Still not as good of a choice as the 3600 is. 

 

Buying a 9600k would not only be a bad buy against the 3600, but you will also get the extra benefit of buyers remorse when the 10600 comes out not too long in the future (samples spotted, meaning they are 1-3 mobths away)

[Mister Woof]

4 minutes ago, F77 said:

Biased? the 9600K is objectively faster in gaming, i don't need a CPU for anything else.

It's helpful to look at trends.

 

People said for years 4/4 was enough, and that was when tech was stalled. It's unplayable in many scenarios today with new games.

 

There has been a MASSIVE boost to core counts on the mainstream market, and we went from 4/4 being the commomplace configuration to 6/12.

 

That's massive, and it's thanks to the Ryzen 5 1600, which is already two years+ old.

 

Its not hard to look at the fate of 4/4 and see it happening to 6/6 as well, at even a faster rate due to growth.

 

Keep in mind mainstream chips TODAY are 6/12.

 

[Shahnewaz]

Just now, F77 said:

The only note worthy thing mentioned was frame times and stuttering, but no evidence was shown, however overall the 3600 is better, if you are not only gaming. Browsing the  web on occasion is not going to make any performance difference whichever CPU i buy, i don't game and browse teh web at the same time either, mostly i am at work, working, i just want a fast PC to come home to and rock on with some times when bored.

Selective bias? What will annoy you more? 140 vs. 160FPS? Or 160FPS with occasional stuttering or 140 with no stuttering?

This will only get worse in the future as you play games with more demanding CPU requirements. The 3600 will handle it fine whereas the 9600K will choke.

CPU upgrades aren't a drop-in option with Intel.

[cesh me inside b0z]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

You probably dont want to deal with the occasional hickups when apps in the background decide to compress or decompress some files causing stuttering in games

 

And performance is not the only reason why you would want to avoid the 9600k. Its also because 10th gen is around the corner with a cheaper 8700. While more compelling than the 9600k. Still not as good of a choice as the 3600 is. 

 

Buying a 9600k would not only be a bad buy against the 3600, but you will also get the extra benefit of buyers remorse when the 10600 comes out not too long in the future (samples spotted, meaning they are 1-3 mobths away)

Call me stupid, different, whatever, but i don't usually get buyers remorse for anything, i settle and am happy most of the time.

 

The 3600 for me right now is only offering better multi-tasking performance, which i don't do any multi tasking, i usually do singular activities on my PC, this is why i don't see any benefit of such a thing.

 

Stuttering yes i see that as a downfall, as of yet however, not much information has been given on "stuttering" what games and in what scenario's. Just that i should buy the 3600 because Z390 has no more CPU's coming to it, well if i buy the 3600 regardless, it is the CPU i will use for a long time.. like 4-5 years minimum just like i did with Ivy.

 

If anyone can reliably predict CPU performance, FX would not have stunk for what it was, however Ryzen is not FX, it is a very good architecture. Right now the intel chip is offering more at the same price, if anyone can produce mor einformation on said stuttering, that would be great.

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, F77 said:

9600K plus superior overclockability

This isnt a feature unless you like tinkering. I. Which case the 3600 has a whole lot more to tinker with. And the gains can be substancial.

 

4 minutes ago, F77 said:

As for other games, reports do come back with higher frames for the 9600K

Kinda. Depends on which games you are looking at. And what metric you are looking at. The important delta between frametimes or the average framerate. Keeping in mind that these are run with a windows install with not idle tasks are being done in the background

[cesh me inside b0z]

5 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

This isnt a feature unless you like tinkering. I. Which case the 3600 has a whole lot more to tinker with. And the gains can be substancial.

 

Kinda. Depends on which games you are looking at. And what metric you are looking at. The important delta between frametimes or the average framerate. Keeping in mind that these are run with a windows install with not idle tasks are being done in the background

This is the maximum extent o fme multitasking, about 6 tabs open in Firefox.

 

The Ivy i5 only has 4% usage doing this at 3.4ghz

 

[GoldenLag]

Just now, F77 said:

Stuttering yes i see that as a downfall, as of yet however, not much information has been given on "stuttering" what games and in what scenario's.

Current games i know have issues with 6c/6y CPUs to some degree.

 

Assasins creed, battlefield, believe F1 amomg a few others i cant recall from the top of my head. 

 

And that is on a clean install with windows doing absolutely nothing. In which case compression and decompression which happens with windows update prepping. Downloads through steam or any other clients, discord updating, browser updates or compression, decompression or decoding when the GPU cant handle it. 

 

Among other reasons. Its why complaints have starter to surface to some degree with 6c/6t CPUs.same way they do and did with 4c/4t. 

 

A lot of games like esports are unaffected, but i dont see why you would buy the worse CPU at this point in time.

 

 

[Shahnewaz]

2 minutes ago, F77 said:

Stuttering yes i see that as a downfall, as of yet however, not much information has been given on "stuttering" what games and in what scenario's. Just that i should buy the 3600 because Z390 has no more CPU's coming to it, well if i buy the 3600 regardless, it is the CPU i will use for a long time.. like 4-5 years minimum just like i did with Ivy.

We're recommending the CPU that will last longer. Not just now, but give you great performance well into the future.

3 minutes ago, F77 said:

If anyone can reliably predict CPU performance, FX would not have stunk for what it was, however Ryzen is not FX, it is a very good architecture. Right now the intel chip is offering more at the same price, if anyone can produce mor einformation on said stuttering, that would be great.

No one, not even AMD claimed Bulldozer was a great architecture. I don't know where you're getting these arguments from.

 

Here's a look-back at what happened to Skylake/Kaby Lake i5 buyers when Ryzen came out:

 

[cesh me inside b0z]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

Current games i know have issues with 6c/6y CPUs to some degree.

 

Assasins creed, battlefield, believe F1 amomg a few others i cant recall from the top of my head. 

 

And that is on a clean install with windows doing absolutely nothing. In which case compression and decompression which happens with windows update prepping. Downloads through steam or any other clients, discord updating, browser updates or compression, decompression or decoding when the GPU cant handle it. 

 

Among other reasons. Its why complaints have starter to surface to some degree with 6c/6t CPUs.same way they do and did with 4c/4t. 

 

A lot of games like esports are unaffected, but i dont see why you would buy the worse CPU at this point in time.

 

 

I don't play either 3 of them though and no it is not choosing, i don't play them.

 

Games i play. CSGO, Resident Evil series, Elder Scrolls (whenever 6 comes out possibly also) Far Cry Primal.

Assassin's Creed games are on the bottom of my want to play games, they subjectively suck in my opinion. Not for me.

Battlefield died at 3.

F1, i play Forza... completely content with it and Gran Turismo on the Playstation.

[SpookyCitrus]

32 minutes ago, F77 said:

I only want to play games. AMD had and may have in future progress security flaws also, still not negating superior FPS in gaming.

The performance difference between the 3600 and 9600k are negligible, 6 cores and 12 threads will be better for even gaming in the long run. The games that come out may even be better optimized for AMD as most of the new games coming out are.

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, F77 said:

This is the maximum extent o fme multitasking, about 6 tabs open in Firefox.

 

The Ivy i5 only has 4% usage doing this at 3.4ghz

 

 

These arent idle tasks. And even that 4% is taking up threadtime. And its the exact stuff that in heavy load scenarios lead to stuttering. 

 

File manager is known to draw 20% when looking at the helpful, tho usually "eh" accuracy of tasksmanger metrics. 

 

Loads that take up threadtime.

 

But hey, if you want the worse CPU choice, go ahead. It will be a good experience. We are only here to inform about other oppertunities and really cant decide what people spend their money on.

 

Its 2AM and i really just jumped in to inform. Im going to sleep. 

[Otto_iii]

19 minutes ago, F77 said:

Stuttering yes i see that as a downfall, as of yet however, not much information has been given on "stuttering" what games and in what scenario's. Just that i should buy the 3600 because Z390 has no more CPU's coming to it, well if i buy the 3600 regardless, it is the CPU i will use for a long time.. like 4-5 years minimum just like i did with Ivy.

You would be fine for now, but the fact games are ALL moving towards using more then 6 threads, on account of next gen consoles thus game development all moving in that direction, its wise to look elsewhere, not the 9600k if you are trying to keep the system for 3-5 years.  Unless you expect to just stay with those games for the next 5 years, its kind of a stinky choice. 

If you could throw another 80$ onto the processor, live near a Microcenter (or buy used on ebay), then getting a 280-300$ 8700k and same Gigabyte z390 UD motherboard i mentioned earlier will likely do you well for next 4-5 years, but the 6t 9600k is probably gonna have a lot of hitching/stuttering in the most recent, and upcoming few years worth of titles.   

Increases in clockspeed died off a few years ago, knowing this developers are finally starting to actually make use of more cores+threads in their game engines, its the only way forward for further optimization. 

[cesh me inside b0z]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

These arent idle tasks. And even that 4% is taking up threadtime. And its the exact stuff that in heavy load scenarios lead to stuttering. 

 

File manager is known to draw 20% when looking at the helpful, tho usually "eh" accuracy of tasksmanger metrics. 

 

Loads that take up threadtime.

 

But hey, if you want the worse CPU choice, go ahead. It will be a good experience. We are only here to inform about other oppertunities and really cant decide what people spend their money on.

 

Its 2AM and i really just jumped in to inform. Im going to sleep. 

The point was, stuttering won't exist because i don't load up task manager or Firefox whilst playing a video game.

 

Nothing happens, just play a video game, i don't understand how people cannot fathom this part.

 

I asked for more information on the stuttering problem on the 9600K, but i have not yet gotten anything in return.

 

At the moment i still want the intel chip but i am open to going 3600, i just make for a strong opinion and i use solid logic, not choice words, i am not sorry for how i am, just want evidence of everything.

[cesh me inside b0z]

Just now, Otto_iii said:

You would be fine for now, but the fact games are ALL moving towards using more then 6 threads, on account of next gen consoles thus game development all moving in that direction, its wise to look elsewhere, not the 9600k if you are trying to keep the system for 3-5 years.  Unless you expect to just stay with those games for the next 5 years, its kind of a stinky choice. 

If you could throw another 80$ onto the processor, live near a Microcenter, then getting a 280$ 8700k and same Gigabyte z390 UD motherboard i mentioned earlier will likely do you well for next 4-5 years, but the 6t 9600k is probably gonna have a lot of hitching/stuttering in next few years worth of titles.   
 

I live in the UK, i could buy used, but if i did that i could also buy AMD used.

[Coachdude]

Why ask the question in the first place if you seem to have already made up your mind? The 3600 is an objectively superior product to the 9600K. The 9600K is already struggling in demanding games, and this will only get worse as future consoles are released and games use more and more resources. In 2019, NO ONE should be buying anything that has less than 8 physical cores or 6 cores with 12 threads. The i5s of today are going to be equivalent to the i3s of tomorrow. If you don't want to take people's advice seriously when they say you will suffer with frame times with only 6 threads go right ahead and get the 9600K. But to me, I'd rather get a processor that competes more favorably with the 8700K in overall performance now and in the future with its 12 threads than one that is artificially segmented and gimped like the current gen i5s. And this is all without mention of AM4's superior platform overall. 

 

Imo, if you want Intel, at the minimum get the 9700K. I still don't like it because it's still an artificially gimped product, but I can at least understand it for gaming. The 8 true cores will let it last throughout the next console generation at least, the 9600K just doesn't have that chance. And this is further proven by the fact that Intel's next generation road map is rumored to include hyperthreading on all Skus, proving just how important it actually is, and they know it. 

 

TLDR: The 3600 will last throughout the next generation of consoles, the 9600K won't because it lacks the resources. It won't be unplayable, but when an objectively better alternative exists, why settle for less in the 9600K? =P

 

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

You could get away with being core starved in the PS4/XB1 gen because their 8C/8T Jaguar cpus are such crap while an i5 even from Sandy Bridge had much better IPC and much better clockspeed. That's just not likely to be the case for the PS5/XBoxSeriesX generation when they'll be using 8C/16T Ryzen chips. If you play AAA stuff all that shit is going to be written for PS5/XBox first and then given lazy ports to PC. If you don't think hyperthreading is going to matter for gaming you should look back to 2014 when Intel released a 2C/2T cpu called the Pentium G3258 that could routinely be overclocked to around 4.8 GHz, and which would routinely get its teeth kicked in for gaming by the 2C/4T 3.4GHz i3-4130. We're at a very corner case of the market right now where AAA games are still designed for terrible 8C/8T Jaguar chips in the PS4/XB1 and a 6C/6T i5 is still a very good gaming cpu, but this generation is over in November.

[cesh me inside b0z]

Just now, Coachdude said:

Why ask the question in the first place if you seem to have already made up your mind? The 3600 is an objectively superior product to the 9600K. The 9600K is already struggling in demanding games, and this will only get worse as future consoles are released and games use more and more resources. In 2019, NO ONE should be buying anything that has less than 8 physical cores or 6 cores with 12 threads. The i5s of today are going to be equivalent to the i3s of tomorrow. If you don't want to take people's advice seriously when they say you will suffer with frame times with only 6 threads go right ahead and get the 9600K. But to me, I'd rather get a processor that competes more favorably with the 8700K in overall performance now and in the future with its 12 threads than one that is artificially segmented and gimped like the current gen i5s. And this is all without mention of AM4's superior platform overall. 

 

Imo, if you want Intel, at the minimum get the 9700K. I still don't like it because it's still an artificially gimped product, but I can at least understand it for gaming. The 8 true cores will let it last throughout the next console generation at least, the 9600K just doesn't have that chance. And this is further proven by the fact that Intel's next generation road map is rumored to include hyperthreading on all Skus, proving just how important it actually is, and they know it. 

 

TLDR: The 3600 will last throughout the next generation of consoles, the 9600K won't because it lacks the resources. It won't be unplayable, but when an objectively better alternative exists, why settle for less in the 9600K? =P

 

 

What games are this CPU struggling with other than Assassins Creed, apparently Battlefield & F1? 3 series of titles i never play, i long left Battlefield after 4 since it's just an atrocious mess, Assassin's creed is just a walk and jump simulator from memory and have no interest in it whatsoever, F1, i just had other racing games to play.

[cesh me inside b0z]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

You could get away with being core starved in the PS4/XB1 gen because their 8C/8T Jaguar cpus are such crap while an i5 even from Sandy Bridge had much better IPC and much better clockspeed. That's just not likely to be the case for the PS5/XBoxSeriesX generation when they'll be using 8C/16T Ryzen chips. If you play AAA stuff all that shit is going to be written for PS5/XBox first and then given lazy ports to PC. If you don't think hyperthreading is going to matter for gaming you should look back to 2014 when Intel released a 2C/2T cpu called the Pentium G3258 that could routinely be overclocked to around 4.8 GHz, and which would routinely get its teeth kicked in for gaming by the 2C/4T 3.4GHz i3-4130. We're at a very corner case of the market right now where AAA games are still designed for terrible 8C/8T Jaguar chips in the PS4/XB1 and a 6C/6T i5 is still a very good gaming cpu, but this generation is over in November.

I remember Battlefield Bad Company 2 in the 360/PS3 generation of consoles, that game still performed way better on 4 cores than 2 before those Pentiums released. I had a Phenom II then, was a great time.

[Coachdude]

1 minute ago, F77 said:

What games are this CPU struggling with other than Assassins Creed, apparently Battlefield & F1? 3 series of titles i never play, i long left Battlefield after 4 since it's just an atrocious mess, Assassin's creed is just a walk and jump simulator from memory and have no interest in it whatsoever, F1, i just had other racing games to play.

By all means get the 9600K. I simply stated what I would get if it were my money. I'm sure you'll be happy with whatever you end up getting. Happy Holidays and Happy New Year.