Intel has launched their new i5-10600K CPU,but how does it compare against AMD’s cheaper Ryzen 5 3600?
Let’s see what the differences are in gamesand applications both at stock and while overclocked.
Starting out with the specs,
both are 6 core12 thread parts.
The 3600 has far more cache, however the 10600Khas a higher TDP and higher clock speeds.
The price difference is unfortunately a bestguess. At the moment, the Ryzen 5 3600 goes for $172USD, however the 10600K hasn’t hit shelves at the time of recording.
Intel lists the 1000 unit sale price as $262,but the actual price will probably be more like $280.
There is also the 10600KF though, which isbasically the same processor but without integrated graphics for less money, so you could definitelysave some money if you don’t need the iGPU.
Due to this, I’ve split the difference andlisted the 10600K at $260 USD, but check the links in the description for updated pricingonce that’s available. I’m mainly comparing these two processorsbecause they’ve got the same core and thread counts, yet the 3600 is a fair bit cheaper.
Sure, the 3600X might make more sense froma price difference perspective as it’s around $230 USD, however in my 3600 vs 3600X comparisonI found extremely minor differences between the two, and based on this it’s my opinionthat in most cases it’s not worth getting the more expensive 3600X unless it’s ona great sale.
Both processors were tested in the same system,but I’ve had to change motherboards.
For the Intel i5-10600K I’m testing withthe MSI Z490 ACE motherboard.
And for the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 I’m using the ASRock X570Taichi.
When testing stock I’m also not cappingthe 10600K to its 125w limit, as many motherboards aren’t going to limit this by default anyway,and in my opinion it’s just leaving performance on the table if you have a good cooler. That said I have disabled enhanced turbo inthe BIOS, which is MSI’s version of MCE, as that would boost the all core speed from4.5 to 4.8GHz.
The rest of the components were otherwisethe same, I’ve tested with 16gb of DDR4-3200 memory running in dual channel at CL14 andwith an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti.
I’ve used the same Fractal S36 AIO withNoctua NT-H2 paste for both CPUs so we can get an apples to apples temperature comparison.
Testing was completed with the latest versionof Windows and Nvidia drivers along with all BIOS updates available installed.
With that in mind we’ll first check outthe differences in various applications at stock, followed by overclocked results, powerdraw, thermals, then gaming tests at 1080p and 1440p resolutions afterwards, before finishingup by comparing some performance per dollar metrics.
Starting with Cinebench R20, I’ve got theIntel i5-10600K up the top, and the Ryzen 5 3600 below.
The i5 had a small 2% lead when it came tothe single core score, however interestingly the 3600 was 2.5% faster when it came to multicore,which may indicate that the extra cache with the 3600 is giving it an edge there, as itsclocked lower.
I’ve also tested the older Cinebench R15as a lot of people still use it, and again single core was better with the i5 with a5% higher score this time, but multicore was ahead with the 3600, now with a 9% higherscore.
I’ve tested the Blender BMW and Classroombenchmarks. This is a core heavy test, but we’re notseeing that big of a difference here. The BMW test was just a few seconds fasteron the i5, however the 3600 was faster when it came to the Classroom test, either wayvery close results. Handbrake was used to convert one of my 4Klaptop review videos to 1080p with the HQ 1080p30 preset, and the i5 was about 9% slowerin this test, so another win for the 3600 in multicore.
Adobe Premiere was used to export one of mylaptop review videos at 4K, and I’ve used VBR 2 pass so both were running for over 50minutes.
The 3600 had an edge again, but it’s notthat big, the i5 was around 4% slower, but yeah not great when it costs around 50% moremoney. Premiere was also tested using the Puget systemsbenchmark tool, and the 3600 was in front once more.
The Puget systems Premiere test also givesus a score for live playback in particular, and the 3600 had a similar narrow lead. I’ve also tested the warp stabilizer effectin Adobe Premiere which is a less threaded workload and is used to smooth out a videoclip. Generally I see clock speed being quite importantfor this test, however these results kind of turn that around, perhaps the cache differenceis important here as the i5 was 10% slower in this one.
Adobe Photoshop was also tested with the benchmarkfrom Puget systems, and this is definitely a test that favours clock speed and singlecore performance, so the i5 was now scoring 3% above the 3600, but again it’s not reallyworth paying 50% more money for that.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompressionspeeds and is typically a workload where Ryzen gets an edge.
The compression speed was a little ahead onthe 3600, however there was a much larger difference when it came to decompression,where the i5 was 13% slower.
VeraCrypt was used to test AES encryptionand decryption speeds, and again there was an edge to the 3600 as the i5 was 7 to 8%slower.
The V-Ray benchmark uses the CPU to renderout a scene, and the results were extremely close together in this test.
This is a heavily threaded workload, and itseems that both processors perform about the same due to having 6 cores 12 threads. That said, the Corona benchmark also usesthe processor to render out a scene, however the i5 was 5.5% faster in this multicore test,so it may favour those higher clock speeds more.
In the Hardware Unboxed Microsoft Excel testthe 3600 was in front again. This was the largest difference out of alltests, the 3600 was completing the task 15% faster.
Like most other single core tests, the 10600Kwas ahead for single core in Geekbench, but also as per most other tests, the 3600 hadthe edge when it came to the multicore score.
Here’s how the Intel i5-10600K stacks upagainst the Ryzen 5 3600 in these tests at stock. In most cases, the i5 is slower which I foundextremely interesting. Honestly I didn’t expect it given that bothprocessors have the same core and thread count, yet the 3600 is winning in the majority ofcore heavy workloads despite having lower clock speeds.
The i5 is doing better in single core performancein typical Intel fashion though. I’m thinking that this difference is perhapsdue to the Ryzen processor having more than double the cache, and when you consider thatthe 3600 is around $90 cheaper, it’s clearly got the edge in these sorts of productivityworkloads - don’t worry we’ll get to gaming shortly.
I’ve also done some tests with both processorsoverclocked. I was able to get my 3600 to 4.2GHz on allcores at 1.325v and the 10600K to 5GHz on all cores at the same 1.325v. I tried 100MHzhigher on both with higher voltage, but this wasn’t stable in blender. When we look at the total system power drawfrom the wall with the blender test running, the 3600 is using less power. The gap widens considerably once both processorsare overclocked, the power draw on the i5 blows out completely in this scenario.
the 3600 actually used lesspower when overclocked, and I found this was because at stock the motherboard was automaticallyapplying higher voltage than the 1.325v I manually set for the overclock. Higher power draw typically results in moreheat, and that was the case here where the 10600K was running hotter too, and like thepower draw, once overclocked the i5 is far worse off.
Again the 3600 was actually a little coolerwith my overclock applied, as it was now using slightly less voltage. Although not exactly directly comparable,the 10600K was running at higher clock speeds during this same test, though as we just sawit was drawing more power and creating more heat to sustain this while offering comparableperformance.
To be fair though, the i5 does have much moreoverclock headroom, as I was only boosting the 3600 by 89MHz. The extra overclock headroom with the i5 allowsit to start outperforming the 3600 in multicore workloads, as seen here in Cinebench.
At stock the 3600 was ahead, but now the 10600Ktakes the lead once both are overclocked.
The i5 also saw bigger gains to single coreperformance, as the 4.2GHz all core overclock to the 3600 is basically the same as whatit boosts up to in one to two core workloads anyway at stock.
The same result is also seen in Blender, thei5 is now completing the task faster than the 3600, however as we just saw earlier,it’s using significantly more power and running quite a bit hotter even with a 360all in one liquid cooler to achieve this. It’s worth noting that the 3600 does atleast come with a stock cooler, while the 10600K does not, so if you do want to do somegood overclocking like this to boost the multicore performance of the i5, you’ll need to spendeven more money on the Intel option.
Let’s get into the gaming results
I’ve tested 15 games at both 1080p and 1440p resolutions, we’ll start with stock resultsand look at overclocked, average differences and cost per frame afterwards.
Battlefield V
was tested running through thesame section of the game in campaign mode.
I’ve got the 1080p results down the bottom,and the 1440p results above that. In this game the 10600K was able to hit 10%higher average FPS at 1080p, lowering to a 5% gain at 1440p.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey
was tested withthe games benchmark tool, and at 1080p the results were similar with the 10600K reaching11% higher average FPS, then at 1440p this increases to a 13% lead over the 3600.
Call of Duty modern warfare
was testedampaign mode, and the differences were very interesting here.
The 1% lows really seemed to favour the 3600in this test. Given the i5 was only around 3% faster interms of average FPS, the 3600 would likely do better overall in this title due to thosebig 1% low gains.
Borderlands 3
was tested using the games builtin benchmark, and the i5 was reaching 10% higher average FPS at 1080p, then just 3%at 1440p as we’re presumably more GPU bound there so the CPU difference matters less. That said the 1% low at 1440p was still 10%higher on the 10600K.
Control was tested by performing the sametest pass through the game on both machines, and this seemingly GPU heavy game, or at leastwith these settings, saw one of the smallest differences out of all 15 games tested.
Red Dead Redemption 2
was tested using thegames benchmark tool, and this game saw one of the biggest improvements with the 10600Kout of all titles tested with a 17% higher average FPS at 1080p, and 10% at 1440p.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
was also testedwith the games benchmark tool, so no 1% low data here unfortunately. There was an above average 14% higher averageFPS at 1080p with the i5, lowering down to a below average 6% lead at 1440p, which makessense as realistically this is more of a GPU heavy test.
Rainbow Six Siege
was tested using the builtin benchmark with Vulkan. This was another game where the differenceto 1% low was larger than the average frame rate. The i5 was just 3 to 4% ahead in average FPS,however there was a much larger 15% boost to 1% lows.
CS:GO
was tested using the Ulletical FPS benchmark,and as a game that typically favours CPU clock speed with core count not being a major factor,the 10600K saw fair gains to the average frame rate, however the 1% low difference was farmore minor comparatively.
Dota 2 seems
to be similar in that it prefersCPU clock speeds, but honestly realistically we’re basically near the engine frame capanyway, the i5 is around 7% faster at 1080p but given the 3600 is near 200 FPS alreadyyou’re probably going to need to be a pro to notice the difference.
The Division 2
was tested using the gamesbenchmark tool, and while the i5 was once more in front, the gains were below averagewith just a 6% higher average FPS at 1080p, lowering down to a 2% lead at 1440p, thoughthere was a higher 13% boost to 1% low performance on the i5 at 1080p.
Overwatch was tested in the practice range,and while this runs better than actual gameplay, it more easily allows me to perform the exactsame test run, which is ideal for a comparison like this.
Both processors were close to the 300 FPSframe cap at 1080p, however the 10600K had a 9% higher 1% low which could be importantif you’re a competitive eSports player.
The Witcher 3
had some interesting results,although the difference in average FPS is well below most other games tested, the 1%low at 1440p had a massive 38% higher result with the i5.
Ghost Recon Breakpoint
was tested with thegames built in benchmark, there was less of a difference to 1% low performance here comparedto average FPS now. The i5 was 12% faster in average frame rateat 1080p and 10% ahead at 1440p.
Far Cry New Dawn
was also tested with thegames built in benchmark, and this test saw the biggest improvement with the i5 processorout of all 15 titles tested.
At 1080p it was reaching 24% higher averageFPS, and still 20% higher even at 1440p. On average over these 15 games tested, theIntel i5-10600K was around 9% faster at 1080p on average when compared to the Ryzen 5 3600.
As you can see, the results really vary bygame, Far Cry New Dawn at the top for instance saw big gains with the Intel processor, whileothers like Overwatch and Control saw basically no change, though the i5 was always aheadin average FPS.
When we step up to 1440p the 10600K now hasan average 6% lead over the 3600 in average frame rate. We’re more GPU bound here, so the CPU startsto matter less making the difference between the two processors narrow in, and the differencewould be even less pronounced at 4K. I’ve also got the differences in 1% lowperformance too, as these results are typically more sensitive to CPU changes when comparedto the average frame rates we just looked at.
Interestingly at 1080p the i5 was also around9% higher here, however it’s being dragged down by Call of Duty, which was the only gamethat seemed to love the 3600 in terms of 1% low. At 1440p the i5 is now around 10% faster onaverage when it comes to the 1% low as that call of duty outlier isn’t as bad as whatwe saw at 1080p.
In most games, better 1% low on the i5 wouldtranslate into a smoother experience with fewer dips. Now for some overclocked gaming results, inFar Cry New Dawn it was possible to get a few extra FPS in all instances, but nothingtoo crazy.
The i5 sees a larger boost from the overclock,which makes sense given it has better overclock headroom.
In Call of Duty Modern Warfare the overclockscaused mixed results. For the i5 there was actually slightly loweraverages, however the 1% low improved.
The 3600 saw minimal change to average FPS,but gained a nice boost to the 1% low.
In Assassin’s Creed Odyssey the 3600 seemedto gain a bigger improvement, particularly to the 1% low performance which was now around10 FPS higher compared to the 2 gain to the i5.
The gaming results aren’t too surprisingwhen we consider that Intel’s last gen i5-9600K was also beating the 3600 when it came togaming for the most part, and that was without hyperthreading, granted the difference wasless than what we’re seeing here.
If your focus is gaming, the 10600K is thebetter option out of the two in terms of raw performance, however once we take price intoconsideration the 3600 is offering better value. At the time of recording, the i5 is approximately50% more money than the 3600, whether or not it’s worth paying that much extra for anaverage 10% performance improvement or so in games is up to you and how much you valuehigher FPS.
The 3600 is definitely still capable of offeringa good gaming experience, it just depends on your budget and priorities. Although the 3600 had an edge in most of ourproductivity workloads, in most cases it’s not that big of a difference.
If you’re primarily performing these sortsof tasks and not gaming, then the 3600 is an easy choice when combined with its cheaperprice.
In terms of future upgradability, AMD recentlyannounced that it will be possible for existing B450 and X470 motherboards to support upcomingZen3 processors, though support will depend on which boards companies pick to update,and that’s not currently clear. Even if you aren't looking for next gen, ifyou already have a decent motherboard you’ll probably be able to find cheaper options withinthe same generation in future, say a 3700X, 3900X or 3950X for example. Intel 10th gen processors on the other handlaunched with the new Z490 and B460 chipsets and new motherboards, so if you’ve got anythingolder you definitely need a new motherboard anyway.
It’s likely the motherboards will also support11th gen in future, but in typical Intel fashion nothing has been stated there, perhaps forgood reason after the mess AMD recently got itself into with AM4 support.
Either platform should hopefully give yousome options though. The main difference is that AMD have confirmednext gen support while with Intel we’re just kind of assuming based on past behaviour.
So to conclude, at the end of the day it onlyseems worth paying around 50% more money for the i5-10600K if you’re gaming and reallywant that extra around 10% on average performance boost, though of course results will varybetween specific games.
The 3600 is still a capable gaming processorand offers much better value in terms of dollar per frame, while also outperforming the 10600Kin most multicore workloads at a lower price point. Let me know which CPU you’d pick and whydown in the comments, Intel’s new i5-10600K or AMD’s Ryzen 5 3600?
And if you’re new to the channel then getsubscribed for the rest of my upcoming 10th gen processor comparisons, there’s a lotmore to come.
Ryzen 5 3600 BEST BUY LINK:-
Intel i5-10600K:- The Puget systems Premiere test also givesus a score for live playback in particular, and the 3600 had a similar narrow lead. I’ve also tested the warp stabilizer effectin Adobe Premiere which is a less threaded workload and is used to smooth out a videoclip. Generally I see clock speed being quite importantfor this test, however these results kind of turn that around, perhaps the cache differenceis important here as the i5 was 10% slower in this one.
Adobe Photoshop was also tested with the benchmarkfrom Puget systems, and this is definitely a test that favours clock speed and singlecore performance, so the i5 was now scoring 3% above the 3600, but again it’s not reallyworth paying 50% more money for that.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompressionspeeds and is typically a workload where Ryzen gets an edge.
The compression speed was a little ahead onthe 3600, however there was a much larger difference when it came to decompression,where the i5 was 13% slower.
VeraCrypt was used to test AES encryptionand decryption speeds, and again there was an edge to the 3600 as the i5 was 7 to 8%slower.
The V-Ray benchmark uses the CPU to renderout a scene, and the results were extremely close together in this test.
This is a heavily threaded workload, and itseems that both processors perform about the same due to having 6 cores 12 threads. That said, the Corona benchmark also usesthe processor to render out a scene, however the i5 was 5.5% faster in this multicore test,so it may favour those higher clock speeds more.
In the Hardware Unboxed Microsoft Excel testthe 3600 was in front again. This was the largest difference out of alltests, the 3600 was completing the task 15% faster.
Like most other single core tests, the 10600Kwas ahead for single core in Geekbench, but also as per most other tests, the 3600 hadthe edge when it came to the multicore score.
Here’s how the Intel i5-10600K stacks upagainst the Ryzen 5 3600 in these tests at stock. In most cases, the i5 is slower which I foundextremely interesting. Honestly I didn’t expect it given that bothprocessors have the same core and thread count, yet the 3600 is winning in the majority ofcore heavy workloads despite having lower clock speeds.
The i5 is doing better in single core performancein typical Intel fashion though. I’m thinking that this difference is perhapsdue to the Ryzen processor having more than double the cache, and when you consider thatthe 3600 is around $90 cheaper, it’s clearly got the edge in these sorts of productivityworkloads - don’t worry we’ll get to gaming shortly.
I’ve also done some tests with both processorsoverclocked. I was able to get my 3600 to 4.2GHz on allcores at 1.325v and the 10600K to 5GHz on all cores at the same 1.325v. I tried 100MHzhigher on both with higher voltage, but this wasn’t stable in blender. When we look at the total system power drawfrom the wall with the blender test running, the 3600 is using less power. The gap widens considerably once both processorsare overclocked, the power draw on the i5 blows out completely in this scenario.
the 3600 actually used lesspower when overclocked, and I found this was because at stock the motherboard was automaticallyapplying higher voltage than the 1.325v I manually set for the overclock. Higher power draw typically results in moreheat, and that was the case here where the 10600K was running hotter too, and like thepower draw, once overclocked the i5 is far worse off.
Again the 3600 was actually a little coolerwith my overclock applied, as it was now using slightly less voltage. Although not exactly directly comparable,the 10600K was running at higher clock speeds during this same test, though as we just sawit was drawing more power and creating more heat to sustain this while offering comparableperformance.
To be fair though, the i5 does have much moreoverclock headroom, as I was only boosting the 3600 by 89MHz. The extra overclock headroom with the i5 allowsit to start outperforming the 3600 in multicore workloads, as seen here in Cinebench.
At stock the 3600 was ahead, but now the 10600Ktakes the lead once both are overclocked.
The i5 also saw bigger gains to single coreperformance, as the 4.2GHz all core overclock to the 3600 is basically the same as whatit boosts up to in one to two core workloads anyway at stock.
The same result is also seen in Blender, thei5 is now completing the task faster than the 3600, however as we just saw earlier,it’s using significantly more power and running quite a bit hotter even with a 360all in one liquid cooler to achieve this. It’s worth noting that the 3600 does atleast come with a stock cooler, while the 10600K does not, so if you do want to do somegood overclocking like this to boost the multicore performance of the i5, you’ll need to spendeven more money on the Intel option.
Let’s get into the gaming results
I’ve tested 15 games at both 1080p and 1440p resolutions, we’ll start with stock resultsand look at overclocked, average differences and cost per frame afterwards.
Battlefield V
was tested running through thesame section of the game in campaign mode.
I’ve got the 1080p results down the bottom,and the 1440p results above that. In this game the 10600K was able to hit 10%higher average FPS at 1080p, lowering to a 5% gain at 1440p.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey
was tested withthe games benchmark tool, and at 1080p the results were similar with the 10600K reaching11% higher average FPS, then at 1440p this increases to a 13% lead over the 3600.
Call of Duty modern warfare
was testedampaign mode, and the differences were very interesting here.
The 1% lows really seemed to favour the 3600in this test. Given the i5 was only around 3% faster interms of average FPS, the 3600 would likely do better overall in this title due to thosebig 1% low gains.
Borderlands 3
was tested using the games builtin benchmark, and the i5 was reaching 10% higher average FPS at 1080p, then just 3%at 1440p as we’re presumably more GPU bound there so the CPU difference matters less. That said the 1% low at 1440p was still 10%higher on the 10600K.
Control was tested by performing the sametest pass through the game on both machines, and this seemingly GPU heavy game, or at leastwith these settings, saw one of the smallest differences out of all 15 games tested.
Red Dead Redemption 2
was tested using thegames benchmark tool, and this game saw one of the biggest improvements with the 10600Kout of all titles tested with a 17% higher average FPS at 1080p, and 10% at 1440p.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
was also testedwith the games benchmark tool, so no 1% low data here unfortunately. There was an above average 14% higher averageFPS at 1080p with the i5, lowering down to a below average 6% lead at 1440p, which makessense as realistically this is more of a GPU heavy test.
Rainbow Six Siege
was tested using the builtin benchmark with Vulkan. This was another game where the differenceto 1% low was larger than the average frame rate. The i5 was just 3 to 4% ahead in average FPS,however there was a much larger 15% boost to 1% lows.
CS:GO
was tested using the Ulletical FPS benchmark,and as a game that typically favours CPU clock speed with core count not being a major factor,the 10600K saw fair gains to the average frame rate, however the 1% low difference was farmore minor comparatively.
Dota 2 seems
to be similar in that it prefersCPU clock speeds, but honestly realistically we’re basically near the engine frame capanyway, the i5 is around 7% faster at 1080p but given the 3600 is near 200 FPS alreadyyou’re probably going to need to be a pro to notice the difference.
The Division 2
was tested using the gamesbenchmark tool, and while the i5 was once more in front, the gains were below averagewith just a 6% higher average FPS at 1080p, lowering down to a 2% lead at 1440p, thoughthere was a higher 13% boost to 1% low performance on the i5 at 1080p.
Overwatch was tested in the practice range,and while this runs better than actual gameplay, it more easily allows me to perform the exactsame test run, which is ideal for a comparison like this.
Both processors were close to the 300 FPSframe cap at 1080p, however the 10600K had a 9% higher 1% low which could be importantif you’re a competitive eSports player.
The Witcher 3
had some interesting results,although the difference in average FPS is well below most other games tested, the 1%low at 1440p had a massive 38% higher result with the i5.
Ghost Recon Breakpoint
was tested with thegames built in benchmark, there was less of a difference to 1% low performance here comparedto average FPS now. The i5 was 12% faster in average frame rateat 1080p and 10% ahead at 1440p.
Far Cry New Dawn
was also tested with thegames built in benchmark, and this test saw the biggest improvement with the i5 processorout of all 15 titles tested.
At 1080p it was reaching 24% higher averageFPS, and still 20% higher even at 1440p. On average over these 15 games tested, theIntel i5-10600K was around 9% faster at 1080p on average when compared to the Ryzen 5 3600.
As you can see, the results really vary bygame, Far Cry New Dawn at the top for instance saw big gains with the Intel processor, whileothers like Overwatch and Control saw basically no change, though the i5 was always aheadin average FPS.
When we step up to 1440p the 10600K now hasan average 6% lead over the 3600 in average frame rate. We’re more GPU bound here, so the CPU startsto matter less making the difference between the two processors narrow in, and the differencewould be even less pronounced at 4K. I’ve also got the differences in 1% lowperformance too, as these results are typically more sensitive to CPU changes when comparedto the average frame rates we just looked at.
Interestingly at 1080p the i5 was also around9% higher here, however it’s being dragged down by Call of Duty, which was the only gamethat seemed to love the 3600 in terms of 1% low. At 1440p the i5 is now around 10% faster onaverage when it comes to the 1% low as that call of duty outlier isn’t as bad as whatwe saw at 1080p.
In most games, better 1% low on the i5 wouldtranslate into a smoother experience with fewer dips. Now for some overclocked gaming results, inFar Cry New Dawn it was possible to get a few extra FPS in all instances, but nothingtoo crazy.
The i5 sees a larger boost from the overclock,which makes sense given it has better overclock headroom.
In Call of Duty Modern Warfare the overclockscaused mixed results. For the i5 there was actually slightly loweraverages, however the 1% low improved.
The 3600 saw minimal change to average FPS,but gained a nice boost to the 1% low.
In Assassin’s Creed Odyssey the 3600 seemedto gain a bigger improvement, particularly to the 1% low performance which was now around10 FPS higher compared to the 2 gain to the i5.
The gaming results aren’t too surprisingwhen we consider that Intel’s last gen i5-9600K was also beating the 3600 when it came togaming for the most part, and that was without hyperthreading, granted the difference wasless than what we’re seeing here.
If your focus is gaming, the 10600K is thebetter option out of the two in terms of raw performance, however once we take price intoconsideration the 3600 is offering better value. At the time of recording, the i5 is approximately50% more money than the 3600, whether or not it’s worth paying that much extra for anaverage 10% performance improvement or so in games is up to you and how much you valuehigher FPS.
The 3600 is definitely still capable of offeringa good gaming experience, it just depends on your budget and priorities. Although the 3600 had an edge in most of ourproductivity workloads, in most cases it’s not that big of a difference.
If you’re primarily performing these sortsof tasks and not gaming, then the 3600 is an easy choice when combined with its cheaperprice.
In terms of future upgradability, AMD recentlyannounced that it will be possible for existing B450 and X470 motherboards to support upcomingZen3 processors, though support will depend on which boards companies pick to update,and that’s not currently clear. Even if you aren't looking for next gen, ifyou already have a decent motherboard you’ll probably be able to find cheaper options withinthe same generation in future, say a 3700X, 3900X or 3950X for example. Intel 10th gen processors on the other handlaunched with the new Z490 and B460 chipsets and new motherboards, so if you’ve got anythingolder you definitely need a new motherboard anyway.
It’s likely the motherboards will also support11th gen in future, but in typical Intel fashion nothing has been stated there, perhaps forgood reason after the mess AMD recently got itself into with AM4 support.
Either platform should hopefully give yousome options though. The main difference is that AMD have confirmednext gen support while with Intel we’re just kind of assuming based on past behaviour.
So to conclude, at the end of the day it onlyseems worth paying around 50% more money for the i5-10600K if you’re gaming and reallywant that extra around 10% on average performance boost, though of course results will varybetween specific games.
The 3600 is still a capable gaming processorand offers much better value in terms of dollar per frame, while also outperforming the 10600Kin most multicore workloads at a lower price point. Let me know which CPU you’d pick and whydown in the comments, Intel’s new i5-10600K or AMD’s Ryzen 5 3600?
And if you’re new to the channel then getsubscribed for the rest of my upcoming 10th gen processor comparisons, there’s a lotmore to come.
Ryzen 5 3600 BEST BUY LINK:-
Post a Comment
If you have any doubts let me know