add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

First 3600 review?

Comments

  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

Hope that the locked clock speeds on X470 are a bug or there is going to be some rather unhappy people.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

hopefully XD

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Not going to take anything too seriously until launch reviews hit the streets, but this is still encouraging.

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

It seems fine to me.

It's faster on single core performance vs the 2700X. Very impressive.

And it stacks very well with the R2700X on other benchmarks as well, considering that's not an 8 core processor. It's only a 6 core one. What you expect? lol

It destroys completely the R2600.

As the latency concerns, the memory benchmark could be related to an not well optimized X470 BIOS of that particular board and a T-topology trace layout of the memory.

Ryzen 3000 CPUs are running better on a Fly by trace memory layout that thus it works way better on a dual kit configuration.

[comment deleted]
  • 8 months ago
  • 3 points

I have to wonder how many programs will take advantage of those two more cores. Certainly embarrassingly parallel jobs (like cinebench) will favor a 3700, but will much else? Will games (note that the 3600 allegedly beat a 3700 in games. In things like cinebench you get the power of AVX256, which should significantly help cinebench but not games) need/use the last 2 cores (and 4 more threads)?

I wouldn't be too surprised if AMD really pulls of a "no reason to buy a [pre-Sunny Cove, i.e. 2020] Intel CPU". They were close last chip, but the per-core performance of Intel was often more important than the AMD throughput. With the 3000 chips, you might just get both.

  • at least until the supply of really low end 12nm and 14nm chips dry up and leave the Pentium/Celeron with little competition.
  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

I have to wonder how many programs will take advantage of those two more cores. Certainly embarrassingly parallel jobs (like Cinebench) will favor a 3700, but will much else?

Well editing and rendering applications that favors a higher core count for sure.

Last but not least, don't forget streaming.

So, gaming isn't everything. :-P

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

No, and things like office work and even CAD tend to be single core. Gaming probably uses more core (and requires more cycles) than most things. The more "pure graphics" something is, the more likely it can use all the cores (and probably should be on the GPU, not the CPU).

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube