We already know from benchmarks that the Ryzen 3000 lineup is going to kick Coffee Lake’s butt, but there’s still a dearth of real-world tests. So, we compared the Ryzen 5 3600 with Intel’s Core i5-9600K on UserBench, one of the few synthetic tests that give a fairly clear picture of a product’s real-world performance relative to their competitors. And here are the results:
And would you look at that? The 3600 is actually a bit faster than the Core i5-9600K in the gaming test, with an effective “real world” advantage of 2%. Now, this may not sound like much but we’re mainly talking about sequential, linear threaded tasks here. If we shift to multi-threaded workloads, the Zen 2 chips gain a massive lead:
As you can see, the single-core performance is more or less the same, mainly due to the i5 being clocked higher, but I suppose overclocked 3600s should take care of that. Keep in mind that all of AMD’s processors are unlocked for overclocking, unlike Intel’s where only the K variants can be properly OC’d. The multi-core speed is 30-40% higher in case of the Ryzen 3 3600. The Core i5 shows slightly higher overclocked performance as there aren’t many OC’d Zen 2 chips in the Userbench database.
Now let’s have a look at the price, shall we? The Ryzen 5 3600 will cost $199 at the time of launch, while the Core i5-9600K retails for $229, with a possible price-cut on the way. It’s highly likely that by the time AMD’s new
AMD Radeon RX 5700XT only 3FPS faster than NVIDIA RTX 2070 in World War Z
Whats new here? Sure Ryzen has improved a bit, but still doesn’t match the i5. Its catching up but nothing to be surprised about. i5 8600k and r5 2600 has a similar story. Just the difference is smaller by around 10%