AMD Ryzen 5 3600X vs 9 5900X (2024)

60,132 User Benchmarks

Best Bench: 108% Base clock 3.7 GHz, turbo 4.6 GHz (avg)
Worst Bench: 87% Base clock 3.7 GHz, turbo 4.35 GHz (avg)

Poor: 87%Great: 108%

SPEED RANK: 199th / 1452

The Ryzen 9 5900X is second in AMD’s line-up of new Zen 3 CPUs. The 12-core hyper-threaded processor has base/boost clock speeds of 3.7/4.8 GHz, a 70 MB cache and a TDP of 105W. The 5900X took center stage in the 5000 series launch presentation where AMD gunned for Intel’s “best gaming CPU” crown. They showed the 5900X as being 26% better for gaming than the previous generation’s Ryzen 9 3900XT, attributing this to the new architecture’s faster single core speeds and lower latency. AMD also stated that the 5900X achieves, on average, 6.8% faster gaming performance than Intel’s 10-core i9-10900K. The details around AMD’s testing were not disclosed but it is safe to assume that 6.8% is the highest average lead that AMD are willing to stand by. Our benchmarks show that the 5900X’s slightly faster cores and the 10900K’s slightly lower memory latency balance out to yield similar performance. Whilst presenting their figures, AMD admitted that their 3000 series CPUs were far from “best for gaming” and conceded that the 10900K is approximately 19% faster than the 3900XT (our effective speed marks the gap at just 14%). Despite this clear performance deficiency, AMD supported 3000 series sales with an aggressive and successful marketing campaign to easily outsell Intel over the last 12 months. Given the real performance uplift observed in the 5000 series, and the absence of any meaningful marketing from Intel, we expect CPU sales to shift even further in AMD’s favour. Gamers that do not wish to pay “marketing fees” should investigate Intel’s $175 USD 11400F, the $660 USD savings would be far better spent on a higher tier GPU.^{[Nov '20CPUPro]}

MORE DETAILS

Early Q3 of 2019 sees the release of the new Ryzen 5 3600X: a hex-core, 12-thread processor. AMD are releasing five new CPUs based on their latest Zen 2 microarchitecture which delivers approximately 13% better IPC than the previous 12nm Zen+. For workstation builds the 3600X is viable, however, the $200 USD Ryzen 5 3600 represents a far better value proposition. The additional $40 USD for the 3600X basically buys a better cooler (Spire vs Stealth). This allows for an extra 200 MHz of extra base and boost clock: 3.8 / 4.4 GHz on the 3600X vs 3.6 / 4.2 GHz on the 3600, this translates to approximately 2% higher overclocked performance for 20% more money. Neither of the stock coolers on the 3600 or 3600X are as effective as a $20 USD aftermarket cooler such as the Gammaxx 400. The 3600 with a Gammaxx 400 outperforms the 3600X with a Spire cooler and when both use a Gammaxx 400 they are more or less identical. The 3600X SKU is basically a marketing gimmick designed to milk unsuspecting consumers. Comparing the 3600X to Intel’s overclocked flagship i5-9600K shows that although the 3600X has 29% faster 64-core speed, it is around 11% worse for gaming (sub eight core performance). Additionally, the 3600X's memory controller, although significantly improved over previous Ryzen iterations, still has limited bandwidth and high latency which can also impact gaming. The arrival of Zen 2 marks the end of the "Sandy Bridge (i5-2500K)" era, Intel can no longer rely exclusively on their single-core advantage to dominate the market, they must also compete on price.^{[Jul '19CPUPro]}

MORE DETAILS