3600 to 5600x or 5800x

IdentityCrisis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
215
Hi guys,

I need some help with a CPU Decision. I had a 9700k system where the motherboard failed during Bios Update. I ended up picking up a Ryzen 5 3600 and a Strix B550-F board with intentions to upgrade to a 5000 series cpu. everything else being the same, I really didn't see any difference performance wise, all I do on my PC is game, and very rarely run a movie through a transcode.

Well over the last week, I've been able to acquire a 5600x and then the next day a 5800x, and I need to know which one is worth keeping. I see a lot of comments that the 5800x is sort of a bad value and runs hot, but would definitely be an upgrade from any of the other CPUs mentioned.

I can certainly return/sell these, look at selling or repurposing my current Ryzen stuff and return to my 9700k, but the benchmarks certainly do show performance gains, and its likely that any of the CPUs I have will work well with the RTX 3080 I have on hand. It just doesn't seem like the Ryzen CPUs are the value they once were.

Is the 5800x that bad of a CPU all around that I shouldn't keep it at a cost of $450?

Thanks!
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
13,902
Upgrading to the same core count Zen 1 to Zen 2 was a decent value, but Zen 2 to 3 is so much more expensive, you would be stupid to do it without a core-count upgrade.

That 5800x is pricey, buy your only real upgrade here is to get more cores plus Zen 3's IPC bump- you will be able to game on it for the next decade.

The new consoles use the Zen 2 8c/16th CPU, so going 8-core zen 3 would be the highest you should ever need to go this console generation,
 
Last edited:

freeagentt

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
204
Sounds like you'd probably be ok with the 5600x, but if you are like me you'd probably want something... more. So in that case I would keep the 5800x and sell the rest.

And no, they are not the value they were before, but you are getting the performance.. for now. I think the low price was to sway older Intel users away. Now they have you.. :D

I wanted a 5000 series CPU but could not get one, still cant.. I got my XT for the price of the vanilla, its a solid upgrade from my 3770K for sure. But, I will be getting a higher core count 5000 series when I can.
 

IdentityCrisis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
215
Thanks for the information, I bought too much stuff figuring i could pass it on to forum members at cost, but im confused.

I was running on a 9700k, gtx 1080, 32gb ram and 1080p 144hz monitor.

I bought the ryzen 5 3600 and b550, then transferred the remainder of my parts. I really only play warzone right now, I'd like to checkout Cyberpunk but haven't picked it up, and there a few others i'd like to get around to.

I like to upgrade hardware, and can afford to do so in a reasonable manner, and realize the gains are not what they once were between generations. I had settled on the 5600x because I scored one on AMDs site, and these days you can't even think about it or its gone. Then I got the 5800x on the best buy queue system the next day, so, yeah.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
13,902
well, there is nothing stopping you from installing the 5800x, and selling the 3600 + 5600. The 105w is perfectly fine on any B550 motherboard.

You might see some gains in a few games now by upgrading to 8 cores, but I guarantee you will see a 15% bump upgrading to Zen 3. As the add more cores to newer titles, that improvement could reach 50%!

A demanding gamer will eventually need this 8-core Zen 3 upgrade, so it's simply a question of how long you want to wait for the prices to get more reasonable?
 
Last edited:

IdentityCrisis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
215
Combined with a 3080, that could make a cpu upgrade worth it (more likely that if you had a lower refresh rate monitor or slower video card, because a 9700K is already quite the cpu for games).

I'll likely pass my monitor on to my son for his rig, hes using a 13 or so year old LG monitor and buy myself at least a 1440p monitor, My old eyes I think could use a 27" haha.

That said I got the 5800x, Bestbuy Shipped it USPS, in a padded envelope, luckily it appears to be intact. now to wait for the 5600x from AMD. I gotta figure this out and return/sell the stuff I don't need before prices sink or people won't pay MSRP for this new hardware.

Im seriously leaning towards reverting back to my 9700k since I bought an Aorus Ultra board. But then ill probably take a beating trying to sell my B550-F and 3600. I am really annoyed at paying MSRP for these CPUs. I paid that for my 9700k on launch and swore I wouldn't do it again, but here I am.

I appreciate the input guys!
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
If you're just gaming, the 3600 is perfectly fine at 1440p or higher. No particular reason to upgrade.
 

IdentityCrisis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
215
If you're just gaming, the 3600 is perfectly fine at 1440p or higher. No particular reason to upgrade.

You're definitely right, I certainly don't notice much different between the 9700k and the 3600. But I also don't want to have to keep upgrading my CPU. I did that when I was younger and couldn't necessarily afford the i7 variants, i'd buy the i5 and overclock., then I ran a first gen i7/6 core xeon for like 3 years overclocked. I couldn't believe how much better things were when I jumped to the 9700k. Now I just want the stuff to work.

I'm running 1080p for now, and will probably jump to 1440 or 4k sometime soon, I realize this lowers the CPU load, but I'd still like to have the power when necessary.

thanks again for the input!
 

Geforcepat

Gawd
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
954
Keep the 5800x it will last longer in the long run. Sell the 5600. I've a 3600 and was considering a 5600. But now i'm just going to wait on a 8 core 5800. The update from a 3600 to a 5600 just isn't worth the hassle.
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
I certainly don't notice much different between the 9700k and the 3600.
I didn't notice any difference between my old 6700K and my new 5950X!

It did impact minimum framerates in CP2077, was getting like 45 before and 65 now with everything turned up to max and DLSS quality, but with a G-sync monitor that was not a perceptible difference.
 

Burner27

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 23, 2000
Messages
6,484
Hi guys,

I need some help with a CPU Decision. I had a 9700k system where the motherboard failed during Bios Update. I ended up picking up a Ryzen 5 3600 and a Strix B550-F board with intentions to upgrade to a 5000 series cpu. everything else being the same, I really didn't see any difference performance wise, all I do on my PC is game, and very rarely run a movie through a transcode.

Well over the last week, I've been able to acquire a 5600x and then the next day a 5800x, and I need to know which one is worth keeping. I see a lot of comments that the 5800x is sort of a bad value and runs hot, but would definitely be an upgrade from any of the other CPUs mentioned.

I can certainly return/sell these, look at selling or repurposing my current Ryzen stuff and return to my 9700k, but the benchmarks certainly do show performance gains, and its likely that any of the CPUs I have will work well with the RTX 3080 I have on hand. It just doesn't seem like the Ryzen CPUs are the value they once were.

Is the 5800x that bad of a CPU all around that I shouldn't keep it at a cost of $450?

Thanks!
Would you be interested in trading your 3600 or 5600 for a 2TB m.2 SSD?
 

TheSlySyl

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,047
I didn't notice any difference between my old 6700K and my new 5950X!
I noticed a *huge* difference for my workload between my R7 1700 and my 3900X, and I'm pretty sure that an upgrade to a 5950X would be another worthwhile increase.... Enough that I'm probably gonna try to get one... eventually...

In general, I feel like more cores/threads are gonna be more future proof than faster cores.
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
"Workload", yes. If you're doing work that scales to multiple cores, compiling code, rendering video, etc, you'll see a monstrous improvement. For gaming not so much.
 

crazycrave

Gawd
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
996
I have my 3700x set up for gaming with the shock cooler and some Ryzen Master tweaks .. still in 65 watt package it can match a 3950X in single tread work loads and is faster then most review sites show it to be for gaming which means it can keep up with a 5600x a little better then you thought as it leaves the 3800x in the dust for this benchmark .
https://valid.x86.fr/bench/l6m86w/1
 

Toconator

Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
733
Once you move up to 1440p the 5600X and 5800X will perform virtually the same in most current games as they don't utilize alot of threads. That said, SoTR spreads work out fairly evenly and does show improvement with more than 6 cores and seeing as how the new consoles have 8 cores/16 threads I think we'll begin to see upcoming titles taking better advantage of more cores. The 5800X is not a bad CPU, it's just not accepted as being as good a value as the price jump is a bit hefty for only 2 more cores (only $70 less than a 3900X where I live). It does run a little hotter but that should be no problem with a decent cooler. It's also a full CCX so no latency penalty across the IF unlike its predecessors 3700X,3800X. For future proofing you can still opt for more cores without a complete motherboard change unlike Intel. Rumored Zen3+ refresh might make it even more feasible if it is another (and probably last) AM4 chip. I bought a 3600 as a hold over until Zen3 but they sold out quickly and are too high priced for my liking right now, especially since I seem to have scored a 'golden sample' late cycle 3600. When availability improves and prices come down a little the 5800X will be my pick.
 

aldamon

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 24, 2000
Messages
6,592
seeing as how the new consoles have 8 cores/16 threads I think we'll begin to see upcoming titles taking better advantage of more cores.

This has no basis in reality. The consoles don't have anywhere near the IPC of the 5600x.
 

Toconator

Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
733
This has no basis in reality. The consoles don't have anywhere near the IPC of the 5600x.
I disagree. With less IPC of the Zen+ in the consoles it's likely to be MORE important for devs to leverage the extra cores for performance when needed. This likely won't be for awhile yet until they figure out how to utilize the extra resources but previous limits are gone so now it's available. Having more IPC on newer Zens just means we'll be able to run future titles better or at very least brute force our way past any console specific cache or direct access optimizations that the PC lacks.
 

Slade

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
2,734
Making games more "multi threaded" or basically to say it will use more cores is not as cut and dry as adding more ipc and more clockspeed. Not everything in games can be multithreaded correctly and still be done in a linear fashion. We've had access to 8 core/8 thread for awhile yet you will see little advantage of a 8 core over a 6 core cpu, let alone 12 or 16 or 32 in games. Any wonder why this console gen is still 8 core just like previous gen?

Take a look at games that hammer on cpu a lot: a lot of them only do so because they add in a ton of "ai" basically tons of enemies doing limited random things (more npc etc) yet the core of the game minus those npc run on few cores. Outside of those extra ai running extraneous functions, the core of the game is kept to a few cores to keep in sync. The most parallel code ie graphics, physics etc have been offloaded to GPU already.
 

aldamon

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 24, 2000
Messages
6,592
I disagree. With less IPC of the Zen+ in the consoles it's likely to be MORE important for devs to leverage the extra cores for performance when needed. This likely won't be for awhile yet until they figure out how to utilize the extra resources but previous limits are gone so now it's available. Having more IPC on newer Zens just means we'll be able to run future titles better or at very least brute force our way past any console specific cache or direct access optimizations that the PC lacks.
It's fine to have an opinion and buy what you want (it's a free market), but this "consoles are going to push PC gaming narrative" just has no legs. It's 100% geek insecurity and group think and it happens every single console gen. The consoles are not only way under powered compared to the 5600X at stock, they don't boost at all because of severe power constraints. Their GPUs are not anywhere near as powerful as current gen on PC (availability aside). They're never going to push gaming forward but I'm glad the masses will have a better gaming experience on their TVs. It's good for all and will improve the baseline for all.

Also, as you said, if the best case scenario is "won't be for a while" then it's already a losing argument. Because of all the market strain, this is quite possibly the worst time to buy more than you need in PC history. Future proofing is a fool's errand in the best of times, let alone now.
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
They do push the baseline forward. If your PC doesn't compare to current-gen consoles you won't get an equivalent experience. That baseline is now a 3.6Ghz Zen2 CPU, NVMe storage, and a roughly RTX2080 GPU with RT support.

Current-gen consoles do have 8 core CPUs so you're certainly safer going with 8 on your PC, but I don't see a 6 core 3600X or 5600X holding you back at 1440p or higher for the next 5 years.
 

Choopyplz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
160
Don't consoles also have the advantage of less latency between components, so they can be more optimized for the hardware that they have? It isn't an apples to apples comparison between raw horsepower PC components and console. It'll be really interesting to see what consoles do in the coming years with how they are equipped now.
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
Not really. That's the bullshit every console manufacturer spouts, their special advantages really don't exist. The only real console advantage is they're static optimization targets.
 

Choopyplz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
160
Yeah that's true, and that is a huge bonus. I think there is something to it though, at least in the way that so much performance can be squeezed out of hardware at such a comparatively low cost.
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
Yep, optimizing for a static hardware target is a huge advantage. But at the same time, the hardware is what it is, and PC hardware marches on. Even when consoles are pretty good at release, like the current generation, they quickly fall behind. When they suck at release like Xbone/PS4, the gap is huge right away.
 

Toconator

Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
733
Slade: you're absolutely correct and the extra NPC hit is exactly what i was alluding to. If we look at say Cyberpunk benchmark comparisons, reducing settings also reduces NPC's in the scenes improving performance so extra cores might come in handy in future titles if devs decide to take advantage of it. With more current and capable hardware in these new consoles they might be more willing to attempt this.
aldamon: I wasn't insisting consoles are going to push PC's, more like raising the baseline as schizo suggests.
schizo: Yup I don't see a 3600 or 5600 holding back at 1440p either. Right now we're mostly GPU bound at that resolution. Not sure about the 5 year mark tho.

- Also as games are starting to show improvement with >4 cores more often recently and 6 being sufficient in virtually all cases, it's still handy to have an extra core or 2 for Discord or Skype, etc. which comes in very handy in multiplayer titles.
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
Yes if you run stuff in the background or stream you definitely want at least 8 cores. For gaming only, not necessary for now or the next couple of years, assuming you don't play huge strategy games.
 

Rev. Night

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
509
Hey OP:

I saw your post and had to chuckle, TechSpot recently did two very extensive gaming reviews specifically about your question. In summary, it depends. If you play at only 1080, then the 5600X offers a decent amount of improvement over the 3600. However once you move to 1440p, there practically isn't a difference. Now how does the 5600x compare to its bigger brothers, for gaming? The only way to see improvement is 1) at 1080p and 2) You have a 3090. All other resolutions, or graphic cards, will offer identical performance.

Review 1: Ryzen 3600 vs Ryzen 5600x
Average.png


Review 2: Ryzen 5600x vs 5800X vs 5900X
Average_1080p_Ultra.png

Average_1440p_Ultra.png

Average_4K_Medium.png
 

Retsam

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
3,729
The only thing I will say is, at this current time, AMD cpus are pretty overpriced. Now Intel are the best bang 4 buck budget picks which is weird. AMD is now the overpriced guys.

The 5800X is not at all worth $450. I went with the 5600X myself and am happy. I upgraded from a 3700X which was hard, but the 5600X is definitely faster in gaming(unfortunately).

I dont need to future proof anything with Zen4 and DDR5 coming next year or so.
 

kensiko

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
124
6 cores is plenty enough for most of the games and other applications. You can only use 8 and more cores for specific workstation tasks as video encoding or similar.

I have 16 cores just because of Handbrake. Otherwise I would still like my 2500K.
 

TheSlySyl

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,047
6 cores is plenty enough for most of the games and other applications. You can only use 8 and more cores for specific workstation tasks as video encoding or similar.

I have 16 cores just because of Handbrake. Otherwise I would still like my 2500K.
Depends on the games.
My 1700 was absolutely a bottleneck in the strategy/simulation games I enjoy. I upgraded to a 3900X so I could hit *30* FPS in the planet coaster/zoo titles.

I actually cannot hit 30fps with my biggest cities in cities skylines, probably an engine limitation, but the 3900x *still* performs better than my 1700 did, which, in itself, was an improvement over my older Phenom II (which was basically unplayable.)

I have multiple other games that absolutely utilize all 24 threads in my system, even if they don't saturate every thread at 100%, spreading the load around makes for huge performance gains when multitasking.

And I'm always multitasking.

Frankly I probably should have gone with a 16-core chip, but it was outside of my price range when I bought the 3900X (and there were concerns of getting a 3950x to work in my x370 board, which were pretty unfounded, it likely would have been just as precariously stable as the 3900x was.)

More threads are useful for more than just framerates. Frankly I don't give a fuck if a game runs at 180fps or 200fps. I do give a fuck if I can watch youtube while gaming or keep 100 tabs going simultaneously so I can get back to the internet the second the game shuts down, and that's further ignoring streaming requirements and the servers that I have running in the background 24/7, which are far from unlikely.

That said, the zen 3 cpus below 12 cores are ridiculously priced IMO.
 

coynatha

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
424
I went from 3600X to 5800X because why not, I got the cash and the upgrade path on my B450, and the 5800X is readily available on the market. The $150 premium sucks yeah, but the upgrade became even less and less worth it waiting longer, knowing AM4 is a dead socket.
 

crazycrave

Gawd
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
996
The 5600x match's my 3700x in the physics score for Fire Strike which was 24,000 + at default with 3200Mhz memory speed .. I thought to self (WOW) for a 6 core / 12 thread cpu ..
 

Retsam

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
3,729
The 5600x match's my 3700x in the physics score for Fire Strike which was 24,000 + at default with 3200Mhz memory speed .. I thought to self (WOW) for a 6 core / 12 thread cpu ..

Ya but its slower in any production/multi-tasking/multi-threaded non-gaming workloads.
 

LukeTbk

Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,014
Depends on the games.
My 1700 was absolutely a bottleneck in the strategy/simulation games I enjoy. I upgraded to a 3900X so I could hit *30* FPS in the planet coaster/zoo titles.
The difference from a 1700 to a 3900x is significantly more than core count, a 3600x would have probably did most if not all of that jump you saw:

https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Citi...56/Specials/CPU-Benchmark-Core-Ryzen-1255238/

6 thread 8600K doing better than a 12 thread 8700K, 12 thread 2600x doing better than a 16 thread 1800x, 8 thread 7700k doing better than 16 thread 7820x, etc.... Maybe game update change the situation since then too.
 

LukeTbk

Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,014
Ya but its slower in any production/multi-tasking/multi-threaded non-gaming workloads.
Not necessarily, compilation for example has some part like the linking part that gain mostly from the single thread performance while other part of the process gain from the multithread that will make a 5600x faster than a 3700x for many productivity task that are not fully parallel all the way through:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/8.html

Even some form of rendering one:
unreal-engine-lighting.png

Like mentioned compilation:
compiler.png

AI:
unreal-engine-lighting.png

Physic simulation:
https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/images/physics-simulation.png

I imagine there is many productivity task where they would trade blows depending of the workload.
 

Retsam

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
3,729
Yeah I mean its not completely accurate to say that for everything. I had a 3700x and upgraded to a 5600x. I only ran a bunch of synthetic benchmarks on the 3700x before upgrading so I can only say the 5600x was slightly slower than the 3700x in pretty much all synthetic benchmarks I ran, so I figured that has to mean something. I didnt get into real-world encoding or programs because quite honestly, just didnt care.
 
Top