Review of Ryzen 5 3600 beforehand on the net, high single-core performance

AMD Ryzen 3000 Ryzen 9 3950X X570 Banner
(Picture: AMD)

This post is also available in: deDeutsch (German)

A review of the Ryzen 5 3600 has made it online. The CPU ran on an X470 mainboard and is even equal to the i9-9900K in some benchmarks.

Ryzen 3000 – finally equal in gaming as well

With the new Ryzen 3000 generation, AMD has placed particular emphasis on increasing the IPC, the Instructions Per Cycle. It is reported to have risen by 15 percent. Together with an increased clock rate itself, this makes processors faster, especially in tasks that require only a few cores. In the past Ryzen had its problems there – but with the new generation this has apparently changed. This could make the Ryzen 3000 processors true top performers, especially in gaming, and cost Intel some market shares. This is now supported by a review of the Ryzen 5 3600 that was previously posted on the net.


Ryzen 5 3600 review beforehand on the net

Like last year, the Spanish site Elchapuzasinformatico.com has already published a review of an upcoming Ryzen processor. This is already common practice on this site. This time it’s about a Ryzen 5 3600, with which the authors did some benchmarks. The platform used a Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi. Two G.Skill FlareX modules with DDR4-3200 clocking were installed on it. The graphics card used was a Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition. Elchapuzasinformatico stresses in the article that the BIOS version still caused problems and the overclocking did not work either – the results nevertheless look very promising.

Let’s start with synthetic system benchmarks. With the Cinebench R15, the Ryzen 5 3600 already shows its high optimization. The processor achieves 196 points in the single core score and is thus only eight points behind the Intel Core i9-9900K. The Ryzen 7 2700X with 176 points was clearly outperformed. The same picture can be seen in the newer Cinebench R20. Here the Ryzen 5 3600 reaches 478 points, only 9 points behind the i9-9900K and 54 points ahead of the Ryzen 7 2700X. The situation looks different in the multicore tests, of course. In Cinebench R15, the Ryzen 5 3600 scores 1,561 points and is thus slightly faster than the Ryzen 7 1700X with 1,550 points. Compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X, however, the missing cores are noticeable. The Ryzen 7 2700X reaches 1.778 points, the i9-9900K even 1.928 points. Similar distances result also in the Cinebench R20, where the Ryzen 5 3600 can reach 3.509 points and thus slightly reduces the distance on the Ryzen 7 2700X with 3.919 points.

wPrime shows the same picture. In the Singlecore, the Ryzen 5 3600 is better than the i7-8700K and only has to admit defeat to the i9-9900K and the i7-9700K. In the multicore test, the processor is also faster than the i7-8700K, but due to the missing cores it is slower than the Ryzen 7 2700X and the i9-9900K. In the x264 benchmark, it is also ahead of the i7-8700K with six cores and the Ryzen 7 1700X with eight cores, but lags behind more modern eight cores. The latency of 80.5 nanoseconds is significantly worse than that of the other processors. The Intel squad reaches around 50 nanoseconds here, the best Ryzen processor 66.3 nanoseconds. The AIDA64 RAM test is also weak. Both should be owed to the new architecture with central management Die for the memory administration.

Ryzen 5 3600 achieves remarkable gaming results

Let’s get to gaming and the first gaming benchmarks of the Ryzen 5 3600. El Chapuzas Informatico has tested synthetic benchmarks such as the 3DMark suite on the one hand and regular games on the other. This shows how well the six-core is actually optimized. In all tests it is equal to or significantly faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X. In the Port Royal benchmark, it even beats the i9-9900K – but the braking factor here is the graphics card, as it is a raytracing benchmark. But even in Fire Strike, the i9-9900K is only seven percent faster. In Time Spy, the processors run back to the graphics card limit again and are practically completely on the same level. In the Unigine Heaven 4.0 benchmark, the difference to the i9-9900K is only a mere two percent. The Ryzen 5 3600 is also better than the i9-9900K in the Superposition 4K benchmark, but is also defeated by the Ryzen 7 2700X – here again a GPU bottleneck might be the problem.

However, the gaming benchmarks are a bit different. In Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, the Ryzen reaches 5 3600 80 FPS, 6 FPS behind the i9-9900K. The distance in Far Cry 5 is significantly larger. Here, the 3600 only achieves 117 FPS, while the i9-9900K achieves 145 FPS – but the Ryzen 7 2700X only achieves 96 FPS. In Final Fantasy XV the gap shrinks again to seven percent. The Ryzen 5 3600 reaches 134.7 FPS, the i9-9900K 144.3 FPS. It is on a par with the Ryzen 7 2700X in Total War – Warhammer 2, but is beaten by the i9-9900K by almost five percent.


Significantly cooler and less consumption

There is also information on the consumption and temperature of the Ryzen 5 3600. El Chapuzas Informatico compares it to its predecessor. In the stress test, the processor reaches 75 degrees Celsius with the enclosed boxed cooler, which according to the page is five degrees Celsius below the Ryzen 5 2600. The consumption of the entire system has also fallen by a good 55 watts in comparison – the 7nm process seems to be paying off.

The review shows quite well what we can expect from the new Ryzen generation. The increased IPC and the higher clock rate finally ensure significantly better results in gaming. It should also be noted that the review is a Ryzen 5 3600, i.e. none of the top models. The Ryzen 7 3700X, Ryzen 7 3800X or Ryzen 9 3900X bring more cores and significantly higher clock rates – in all disciplines AMD could finally catch up with Intel. Market launch is July 7th.

About Florian Maislinger 1222 Articles
Florian Maislinger is author and founder of PC Builder's Club. As a skilled IT engineer, he is very familiar with computers and hardware and has been a technology lover since childhood. He is mainly responsible for the news and our social media channels.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*