Ryzen 5 2600 vs 3500 vs 3300X

[JustHunterM8]

I have already discussed this question is a separate thread but it wasnt completely focused on that discussion so i wanna take the time to delve into it.
In the previous thread i was talking about this a lot of people were saying that the 3300X is far superior to the 3500 and its almost on par with the 2600. So I started researching about these CPU's and all I found was that the 3500 was quite a bit better than the 2600 mainly because of the architecture. And when compared to the 3300X it was neck and neck only losing in the more single threaded games and workloads. It also seemed that the 3500 had better streaming quality than both these CPU's. But the thing is, I cant find any reputable youtube channels taking about the 3500 maybe because its completely overshadowed by the 3600 for its price.

Honestly I only asked this question was because I found a 3500 in my area on sale for $131 and it was the cheapest out of the 3300X and the 2600, it was even cheaper than some of the 3100 i saw for sale.

So I wanna know if the people saying these two CPU's were better than the 3500 were actually right or they were estimating the performance it would deliver thinking that because it didnt have SMT it was the worse pick of all of these chips

[Haro]

If the 3500 is the cheapest go for that 

SMT won't beat two physical cores 

And the 2600x isn't even worth it 

When the 3300x and the 1600af ( basically a lower binned 2600 ) Is a thing.

[dizmo]

It's probably more because it's a pretty niche CPU, and only available in select markets whereas the others are available everywhere.

If it's cheaper than the 3300x, you might as well go for it. The differences between that and the other chips aren't likely to be worth the added cost.

[JustHunterM8]

5 minutes ago, TofuHaroto said:

If the 3500 is the cheapest go for that 

SMT won't beat two physical cores 

And the 2600x isn't even worth it 

When the 3300x and the 1600af ( basically a lower binned 2600 ) Is a thing.

 

4 minutes ago, dizmo said:

It's probably more because it's a pretty niche CPU, and only available in select markets whereas the others are available everywhere.

If it's cheaper than the 3300x, you might as well go for it. The differences between that and the other chips aren't likely to be worth the added cost.

Thx for the confirmation right to the point. I've asked this question multiple times cause I kept getting conflicting responses, but I think ill just go for it now before the chips go out of stock.

Thx for the responses

[dizmo]

3 minutes ago, GuyRyzen said:

 

Thx for the confirmation right to the point. I've asked this question multiple times cause I kept getting conflicting responses, but I think ill just go for it now before the chips go out of stock.

Thx for the responses

There's many, many different ways to build a computer, so you'll always get different responses.

The 2600 might, for instance, be slightly better at multithreaded workloads than the other two. So people think it's "better."

Just like how a lot of people think Ryzen is better in general because it's better at said workloads, and it's cheaper...disregarding the fact that price to performance isn't something everyone cares about.