AMD Ryzen 5 3600X vs Intel Core i5-9600K: Mid-Range Rumble

(Image credit: Shutterstock)
Zhiye Liu
News Editor, RAM Reviewer & SSD Technician

Zhiye Liu is a news editor, memory reviewer, and SSD tester at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.

  • King_V
    However, opting for a 3600X often equates to a savings if you aren't interested in that last bit of overclocking performance with the Ryzen 5 3600X, so keep that in mind at checkout.

    Is that one supposed to be 3600 (non-X)? The wording here is a bit strange.


    That said, I'll admit that being better overall in gaming and productivity, well, I did NOT see that coming. I suspect there will be protests from the Intel side about overclocking about this.
    Reply
  • Paul Alcorn
    King_V said:
    Is that one supposed to be 3600 (non-X)? The wording here is a bit strange.


    That said, I'll admit that being better overall in gaming and productivity, well, I did NOT see that coming. I suspect there will be protests from the Intel side about overclocking about this.
    Thanks for the heads up, will fix :)
    Reply
  • sizzling
    Gaming benchmarks without 0.1% % 1.0% are only half the picture especially when comparing these 2 cpu's
    Reply
  • philged
    AMD has made a fantastic set of processors for a great value , but from a purely gaming perspective this article seems a little off.

    Most of the reviews from Toms itself and other sites have put the i5-9600k clearly above AMD's set of offerings when you just look at gaming.

    The article seems to try and skew some of those results incorrectly in favor of AMD.

    The biggest issue, running a straight up average, or even a geometric average (as used by the article) Intel wins in the overall test suite. AMD's numbers are properly reported, but for some reason the Intel ones are lower than they should be. In the overall average, AMD is reported at 119.4 (actual is 119.4588) but Intel is reported at 118.3 (actual is 120.0273, meaning Intel wins, completely changing the result)

    Looking at the individual test results, the article claims AMD wins 6/10 test suites (again, differing from previous results) but in reality, AMD wins 4 tests, and ties in 3 more where the results between the 99th and average are mixed.

    Additionally, because the AoTS run is a CPU test, not a real-world gaming result, taking out that result lands Intel even higher on the overall test suite averages and makes it an even tie on individual game wins.

    Again, AMD is great, but from a gaming perspective, something is wrong with your results.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    sizzling said:
    Gaming benchmarks without 0.1% % 1.0% are only half the picture especially when comparing these 2 cpu's
    They do have 1% (listed as 99%) FPS results.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    philged said:
    In the overall average, AMD is reported at 119.4 (actual is 119.4588) but Intel is reported at 118.3 (actual is 120.0273, meaning Intel wins, completely changing the result)
    I got 118.3 fps (118.2613) for the 9600K geomean average FPS. You probably just made a typo during your calculations.
    philged said:
    Looking at the individual test results, the article claims AMD wins 6/10 test suites (again, differing from previous results)
    If the 3600(X) performs a bit better than it did when it first came out that's not really surprising. There have a been a bunch of BIOS updates with performance/boost tweaks that have come out since then.
    Reply
  • iam2thecrowe
    Seems like the real winner is the 3600 non-X. Basically same performance for $50 less.
    Reply
  • Paul Alcorn
    philged said:
    AMD has made a fantastic set of processors for a great value , but from a purely gaming perspective this article seems a little off.

    Most of the reviews from Toms itself and other sites have put the i5-9600k clearly above AMD's set of offerings when you just look at gaming.

    The article seems to try and skew some of those results incorrectly in favor of AMD.

    The biggest issue, running a straight up average, or even a geometric average (as used by the article) Intel wins in the overall test suite. AMD's numbers are properly reported, but for some reason the Intel ones are lower than they should be. In the overall average, AMD is reported at 119.4 (actual is 119.4588) but Intel is reported at 118.3 (actual is 120.0273, meaning Intel wins, completely changing the result)

    Looking at the individual test results, the article claims AMD wins 6/10 test suites (again, differing from previous results) but in reality, AMD wins 4 tests, and ties in 3 more where the results between the 99th and average are mixed.

    Additionally, because the AoTS run is a CPU test, not a real-world gaming result, taking out that result lands Intel even higher on the overall test suite averages and makes it an even tie on individual game wins.

    Again, AMD is great, but from a gaming perspective, something is wrong with your results.

    Thanks for the feedback. I went back and double-checked, and it appears our numbers are accurate. The problem partially stems from the fact that we have more detailed data that we round off for the charts for each title. For instance, the 3600X's average frame rate for Hitman 2 is 98.40134 (we calculate this from measurements of every single frame presented), but for obvious reasons we don't include the full number in the chart, instead rounding off. However, we calculate our overall geometric mean based off of the more granular data. In either case, I'm not able to replicate your math for the 9600k based off the data presented, so might be a miskey there.

    We use a geometric mean to reduce the impact of any massive deltas in a given title that aren't represented elsewhere. That smoothing effect is widely used for these types of cumulative measurements, and it does reduce the impact of the Ashes test you mention. Removing ashes from the test roster takes the 9600K from a -1.1834 fps loss to a 0.7856 fps lead, an overall swing of 1.969 fps. However, replacing that test with another would cause a comparable swing based upon title chosen. At the end of the day, it is all about the mix, and merely swapping one out for another impacts cumulative results as well. The Ashes test is CPU-centric, but this is a CPU review, after all, and we're measuring the CPUs ability to issue draw calls while under heavy load.

    Please remember that we're dealing with small variances here when discussing 3600X to 9600K, and the overall impression we have is that there is little differentiation between the two, especially with lesser cards/higher resolutions. Cumulative results make the overall picture easier to digest for casual readers, but they certainly aren't the end-all-be-all for performance. We provide the detailed per-game charts to allow readers to get a gauge of performance in games that best represent what they're playing, so keep that in mind.

    AMD does pull off the slightest of wins here, so we have to call that out lest we be accused of not calling out a win. I will say it is a bit refreshing that someone thinks we're skewing in favor of AMD, as most of the time people suspect we do that for Intel :p
    Reply
  • RodroX
    At 1080p Intel core i5 9600K still give you higher AVG FPS in some older games and even in some newer ones when OC. But once you take a close look to the 1% and 0.1%low in games like RDR 2, you understand why a R5 3600 (the non-X one) is a better idea than a i5 9600K or 9700K even when you overclock them.

    At 1440p, the story change a bit, but in a way that wont help intel too much either, since the numbers tend to be more close to each other cause of the bigger GPU load.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    RodroX said:
    But once you take a close look to the 1% and 0.1%low in games like RDR 2, you understand why a R5 3600 (the non-X one) is a better idea than a i5 9600K or 9700K even when you overclock them.
    In the case of RDR2 there's clearly some issue affecting non-multithreaded CPUs, that goes beyond simply not having enough cores/threads. In Gamernexus' benchmarks the 7700K has massively better 1% and 0.1% FPS than a 9700K. That makes no sense, a 4C/8T CPU should obviously not be outperforming a 8C/8T CPU.

    I guess you could still argue that it's a 'win' for AMD as all their (non-APU) chips are multithreaded, but I don't know if I'd use it as evidence that 6 threads are no longer enough for gaming.

    z_ty-gajwoA:422View: https://youtu.be/z_ty-gajwoA?t=422
    Reply