I told my brother that I'm going for a Ryzen 3600 and he told me this... Is it true?

[JoeCoke]

Okay, fire your brother.

[kla3]

1 hour ago, s3ns3 said:

you dont get quad channel memory not even on i9.

Sure you do, i9 has chips with quad channel ram, but the 9900k does not

[iKingRPG]

If you are building a PC for gaming you would have to buy a GPU anyway because intels integrated graphics arent good for much other than browser games or Roblox or something.

 

The real question is if you aren't gaming, why is the PC $1000?

 

Tell us what you will use the PC for

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, Ergroilnin said:

 

R5 3600 is overclocable just like all other AMD CPUs, AMD is not doing the same locked shit the Intel does. All the X at the end means is just that it's slightly better binned CPU factory pre-overclocked a bit.

I would say that while either one is technically overclockable neither does it well.  Intels do overclock better than ryzen 2.  You need to upgrade the cooler though, so more money.  There are a few features that Intel has that ryzen doesn’t.  The problem is they’re not very useful features.  Especially for gaming. There’s some security stuff, some of which might have made the difference if it worked right.  The iGPU can be handy, but it’s not worth the difference.  A low end intel can be better than a low end AMD apu as an office machine ironically because the iGPU is worse.

[Worstcaster]

This review off the R5 3600 also had benchmark data for the 9600K.  The 3600 beats it pretty easily.

 

 

[Xiee]

3 hours ago, Celfon said:

I first went with Intel as he suggested and picked an i5-9600k. I agreed at first since I don't know much about PC building.  But after some extensive research I've decided to go the AMD route with their Ryzen 5 3600. (Mind you I'm in a budget. 1000$), when he heard about my decision he told me this:

Translation and currency converted (PHP to USD)

"You'll only save 95$ when you switch to AMD"

"Then you'll have to buy a GPU"

"AMD is cheaper because it has less features than Intel"

So should I just stick with Intel? 

Also he told me that I should only ever go with using 1 RAM stick and never use dual/quad-channelling. 

(Is this even true? Just to make sure because I've checked all around and they said to utilize dual channelling.)

Hello fellow Filipino. This triggered me much. (Sorry pre pero puro hangin sinasabi ng kapatid mo).

AMD has less features? LOL, It has PCI 4.0, Intel has only 3.0. How is that less?

Anyway I digress. DUAL channel memory is superior to single channel on most systems like this. Especially on AMD which works better with faster/reliable RAM.

If you need more advise, PM me. I usually help out fellow Filipinos in their builds and meet with them locally.

 

Cheers.

[Retro_R]

Your brother is lying. The 3600 is better than the Intel chip. It is cheaper and offers more for the price than Intel. Yes, you may have to buy a gpu, but you probably shouldn't be gaming on Intel integrated graphics anyway. You can use the money you save by going with AMD to use to a better gpu, or more storage, etc. Another nice bonus that AMD has over Intel is that AMD comes with a cooler out of the box. Also, you don't have to worry which type of motherboard you get since almost all am4 motherboard supports overclocking (except a320). You also should use dual channel. It provides better performance compared to single channel.

[WkdPaul]

* MODERATOR HAT ON *

 

Thread cleaned, lets keep this focused on helping the OP, there's no need to argue semantics and details between ourselves.

 

 

 

* RTX OFF *

* MODERATOR HAT OFF*

 

This ;

4 hours ago, Tristerin said:

A lot of bad information overall in this thread.  

 

1.) You cant go Quad Channel with Ryzen 3000 (or Intel consumer products afaik)

2.) Single Channel (1 stick) is performance degradation on both platforms

3.) Almost all of AMD product line-ups are overclockable, highly recommended from me

4.) Your brother has no idea what he is talking about

5.) A iGPU (integrated GPU) will only work for doing Netflix and stuff.  Some games like Pinball will work fine with it but overall its not a GPU (built in graphics display on intel).  If you are not building a gaming rig, then go with AMD APU's, still a much better offering than Intel atm.

and this

1 hour ago, Xiee said:

[...]

AMD has less features? LOL, It has PCI 4.0, Intel has only 3.0. How is that less?

[...]

 

 

Not to be mean to your brother, but he doesn't know much about computers and it's core components, if you're interested in tips and tricks, take some time to read about it yourself (while people on this forum mean well, some have no clue either ; AMD Ryzen CPUs are all overclockable, if you have the motherboard that allows it).

[Anomnomnomaly]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

I would say that while either one is technically overclockable neither does it well.  Intels do overclock better than ryzen 2.  You need to upgrade the cooler though, so more money.  There are a few features that Intel has that ryzen doesn’t.  The problem is they’re not very useful features.  Especially for gaming. There’s some security stuff, some of which might have made the difference if it worked right.  The iGPU can be handy, but it’s not worth the difference.  A low end intel can be better than a low end AMD apu as an office machine ironically because the iGPU is worse.

I have to respond to this because of the hypocrisy... You suggest that you'll need a new cooler with the AMD CPU as the stock one isn't enough... and I do agree that if overclocking.

 

But... how many intel CPU's even COME with a cooler at all?  It's a lot fewer than AMD does.

 

Not trying to disparage what you say... just that you can't cherry pick a negative for one, when the other is actually worse.

 

As for the whole integrated graphics side of things... I'd say that the 3400G offers a much better graphics experience than anything that intel currently has on offer... It's capable of doing 720p gaming just fine... Intels isn't good for gaming at all.

[Tonberry]

5 hours ago, Tristerin said:

5.) A iGPU (integrated GPU) will only work for doing Netflix and stuff.  Some games like Pinball will work fine with it but overall its not a GPU (built in graphics display on intel).  If you are not building a gaming rig, then go with AMD APU's, still a much better offering than Intel atm.

I tested a 8700K which has UHD 630 to play World of Tanks without dedicated GPU, it can play low setting 1080p at 90-120 fps depends on the map floral density, and can do 50-70 fps in 1080p medium setting. It's not that graphically pleasing but it still can run that game smoothly with those setting without dedicated GPU.

 

What iGPU 9600K has?

[Xiee]

1 minute ago, Sakaki_Makio said:

I tested a 8700K which has UHD 630 to play World of Tanks without dedicated GPU

 

o7

[Tonberry]

1 minute ago, Xiee said:

o7

Dont get me wrong, I have 8700K and 3700X systems.

[Tristerin]

10 minutes ago, Sakaki_Makio said:

I tested a 8700K which has UHD 630 to play World of Tanks without dedicated GPU, it can play low setting 1080p at 90-120 fps depends on the map floral density, and can do 50-70 fps in 1080p medium setting. It's not that graphically pleasing but it still can run that game smoothly with those setting without dedicated GPU.

 

What iGPU 9600K has?

10 years later it can run decently on the latest iGPU's on lowest setting.  If a Gaming Rig is being built, I doubt the intent is to only play low settings with old games.  I know PinBall will run just fine and you can do things with an iGPU but its not "gaming" by my personal definition.

[Tonberry]

13 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

10 years later it can run decently on the latest iGPU's on lowest setting.  If a Gaming Rig is being built, I doubt the intent is to only play low settings with old games.  I know PinBall will run just fine and you can do things with an iGPU but its not "gaming" by my personal definition.

Yes, but it's not at the lowest setting, I got that FPS range in low to medium settings, not lowest. I did that only for testing purposes to know how much 8700K iGPU can do for gaming, and I did that test like more than 6 months ago. Anyone want to get good performance in relatively high settings ofcourse, but then I remember there is someone posted a youtube link contains about graphical setting with that chicken thumbnails on it, so I tested my 8700K to see the difference. Graphical wise, it's different between low vs medium settings in my test, but high vs ultra we need real GPU and then there is not much difference between the later settings.

 

Wargaming omtimized WoT to be able run in low end system, then I tried to prove what they claim, but I did that with high end CPU with its iGPU so...

[Bombastinator]

40 minutes ago, Anomnomnomaly said:

I have to respond to this because of the hypocrisy... You suggest that you'll need a new cooler with the AMD CPU as the stock one isn't enough... and I do agree that if overclocking.

 

But... how many intel CPU's even COME with a cooler at all?  It's a lot fewer than AMD does.

 

Not trying to disparage what you say... just that you can't cherry pick a negative for one, when the other is actually worse.

 

As for the whole integrated graphics side of things... I'd say that the 3400G offers a much better graphics experience than anything that intel currently has on offer... It's capable of doing 720p gaming just fine... Intels isn't good for gaming at all.

Lolwut?  Not seeing hypocracy on my part.  It sounds like you’re trying to make hay.  Go ahead be a fanboy for red or blue.  I don’t care.  I’m not a fanboy for either one.

 I don’t know which intel CPUs come with coolers.  Most of em I would assume.  The “enthusiast” intel heavy overclocking ones usually don’t because people just throw them away anyway.  Most intel chips do though, because most intel chips aren’t enthusiast chips.  The AMD stuff comes with a choice of coolers, largely, as I understand, because stock coolers don’t allow much overclock period, and the Ryzen 2 stuff doesn’t hand overclock particularly well at all to begin with.  Because it does it all by itself.  I have suggested some AMD buyers to get an X chip instead on a non x chip and a cooler specifically for the cooler not because I think it is worthwhile for overclocking but because neither an intel nor AMD stock cooler hold up well under a high base ambient.  For either company.  The AMD wraith is about as powerful as a small 3 or 4 pipe tower cooler.  Depending on price difference it’s sometimes a better deal. A ryzen2 chip will run a hair faster on a bigger cooler all by itself.  It doesn’t need involvement by humans.

 

The AMD CPUs have a weird self overclocking feature that makes them more or less pre overclocked, so hand overclocks are nearly worthless on ryzen2 whereas the were more useful on ryzen plus and more useful yet on ryzen.  If one takes overclocking into account there isn’t a gigantic speed boost between ryzen 1 and ryzen 2. Some, but nothing amazing.  A somewhat similar thing has been happening with intel for some years.  Base clocks have been going up, and instruction tricks have improved matters some, but if max standard overclock is taken into account the rise in actual capacity between a 4/8 3770k and  a 4/8 series 9 i7 just hasn’t been wildly dramatic. Better, yes. A lot of that is improved memory speeds and things not having to do with the CPU itself though.  There’s a lot of similarity between ryzen and i7 this way.

[Letgomyleghoe]

11 minutes ago, Sakaki_Makio said:

Yes, but it's not at the lowest setting, I got that FPS range in low to medium settings, not lowest. I did that only for testing purposes to know how much 8700K iGPU can do for gaming, and I did that test like more than 6 months ago. Anyone want to get good performance in relatively high settings ofcourse, but then I remember there is someone posted a youtube link contains about graphical setting with that chicken thumbnails on it, so I tested my 8700K to see the difference. Graphical wise, it's different between low vs medium settings in my test, but high vs ultra we need real GPU and then there is not much difference between the later settings.

Wargaming omtimized WoT to be able run in low end system, then I tried to prove what they claim, but I did that with high end CPU with its iGPU so...

i wouldnt consider an 8700k a "high end" cpu.

i can play WoT on my laptop from 2010 at 50-70 fps so your not saying much 

maybe try warthunder, thats about the highest requirment game that will run on an 8700k iGPU without seriously bogging down.

[Tonberry]

4 minutes ago, scuff gang said:

i wouldnt consider an 8700k a "high end" cpu.

i can play WoT on my laptop from 2005 at 50-70 fps so your not saying much 

Not a high end CPU by now, but it was in its time, because WoT can get performance bumps from CPU as it was CPU intensive game than GPU. So maybe I got that 90-120 low and 50-70 medium were helped by 8700K alot. While UHD 630 cant do much. That's my point.