Amd Ryzen 5 3600 3 6ghz 6
I recall way back in the Athlon days that Via’s chipsets — specifically the KT133A and later KT266 had the best memory performance, and that’s why people stuck with them despite being considerably more flakey than AMD’s own 760 chipset. I also recall on the early Athlon chipsets that hacking them to enable interleaving gave a massive performance boost on games of the day that were bottlenecked by main memory bandwidth (e.g. Q3A.) Ahh, nostalgia. At 3200MT/s it looks like AMD has pretty much addressed the issue of having generally weaker memory controller performance. Sure there’s still a bit more latency but it’s nice to know you’re not getting something much less than what you’d get from the other company that has bajillions more to throw at R&D. I have to think it’ll have some form of L3, and it also seems like the path of least resistance is to just plug a single quad-core CCX into the design. So my guess is that it’ll have 8MB of L3 and talk to the integrated graphics over the infinity fabric.
I know TR doesn’t normally do overclocking tests as part of CPU reviews — but it would be very interesting to see how overclocked RyZen parts compare to overclocked Intel CPUs. highly unlikely that a core 2 duo or phenom could not handle facebook, gmail, google docs etc. People spend much more time in their browsers and MS Office than in highly-threaded applications like Cinebench or picCOLOR. …except it is being used here exactly how essentially all consumers use it, and faster CPUs translate to faster decode/encode performance. Or, you know, they could just use Handbrake since it’s a comparison of a video encoding workload that doesn’t change significantly whether you use ffmpeg or Handbrake.
The fact of the matter is that my testing facilities don’t have the sophisticated power-measurement equipment that we’ve enjoyed access to in the past. Still, we’ve found a way to estimate our classic task energy measurement by using a trusty Watts Up power meter and the Blender “bmw27” standard benchmark. Our observations indicate that Blender is a very steady-state workload, meaning that power consumption varies little over time. Using this knowledge and the fact that one watt correlates to one joule per second of energy expended, we can estimate the entire amount of energy expended over the course of our benchmark run.
This makes this processor range ideal for gaming at 4K, VR, and all next-generation games. The first specification we’re going to be taking a look at its architecture. All the Ryzen 5 processors gtx 1080 8gb are built using the same Zen microarchitecture, which is a type of architecture that was specifically designed in order to reduce overall power consumption, as well as to improve clock speeds.
Core i7 processors have larger amounts of cache that are able to help the processor handle large amounts of data and instructions without becoming overburdened. In contrast, the Ryzen 5 range is slightly slower than the Intel i7 processor. Thanks to the Zen architecture we mentioned above, the Ryzen 5 processors include clock frequency improvements, and enjoy speeds from 3.8MHz to 4.4MHz, depending on the model. As each Ryzen 5 processor is Zen-based, they are each made via a 14nm FinFET process, which helps to make the chip more efficient at carrying out instructions per cycle, as well as using less energy. SMT is also enabled, which is a process that allows for each core to run two threads at once, as well as featuring an innovative SoC design that allows for each chip to have greater overall bandwidth.
This is a really handy feature, as it means that the processors are able to be more efficient at multitasking. When we first looked at the performance of AMD’s Ryzen 5 processors, I had a feeling that big changes were on the horizon for the midrange CPU market. The $250 Ryzen X is actually a hair faster than Intel’s $340 Core i7-7700K in most of our real-world testing, and it walks all over the $240 Core i5-7600K in all but a few gigabyte gtx 1060 3gb lightly-threaded tests and synthetic benchmarks. The i5-7600K boasts much higher single-threaded performance than the Ryzen part, but that advantage only gives the Intel chip an edge in some games and for general desktop usage. Even so, one can hardly call the 1600X a pokey processor in those tasks thanks to its high clocks and XFR boost. Given its all-around competence, I think the Ryzen X is the chip to get for $250 right now.
Compared with Intel, though, AMD’s track record for socket compatibility is more favorable toward gamers who are trying to watch their budget and still get the most power out of their build as possible. As of this writing, prospective Ryzen X owners can use an X570 or B550 AMD board with the Zen 3 chips with a BIOS update, and many X470 and B450 motherboards should get BIOS updates to work with Zen 3 CPUs in early 2021. AMD’s cheaper Ryzen X remains a stellar value among gaming CPUs, but the Ryzen X is enough of a brute at its midrange price to make it the best pure gaming CPU of the year.