AMD recently launched their new 6 core Ryzen 5 CPUs, the 3600 and 3600X, but what are the
differences between them and is it worth paying more for the X? In this detailed comparison
we’ll look at the differences in games and applications, both at stock and while overclocked
to help you decide which to get.
Let’s start out with the specs. Both CPUs have 6 cores and 12 threads, are unlocked,
and have the same amount of cache. As for the differences the 3600X has higher base
and boost clock speeds, and is listed with a higher TDP.
Both CPUs were tested in the exact same system, so the only difference was the CPUs and their
coolers. Both CPUs were tested with the Asrock Taichi X570 motherboard with 16gb of DDR4-3200
memory running in dual channel at CL14 with an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti. I’ve tested both
CPUs with the stock coolers that they come with in the box as well as the thermal paste
that comes pre applied, as I figure most people will probably end up using these. The 3600
comes with the Wraith Stealth, and the 3600X comes with the larger Wraith Spire. This difference
in cooling capacity also seems to be why the X model is listed with a higher TDP, as we’ll
see it’s not actually that much more powerful.
Testing was completed with the same version of Windows, Nvidia drivers, and BIOS for each
CPU, all of which were the latest available version at the time of testing.
I’ve tested both CPUs at stock, and overclocked. I managed to get my 3600 to 4.1GHz and the
3600X to 4.2GHz, but this was a limitation of the coolers. I’ve been able to get my
3600 to 4.2GHz with an AIO in the past, but as you’ll see later the temperatures get
quite high with the smaller cooler which is why the max overclock was 100MHz less.
With that in mind we’ll first check out the differences in various applications, as
well as power draw and thermals, followed by gaming tests at 1080p and 1440p resolutions
afterwards, then finish up by comparing some performance per dollar metrics.
Let’s start out with Cinebench R20. I’ve got the overclocked results on the upper half
of the graph while the stock results are on the lower half. As expected the 3600X is coming
out ahead due to those higher clock speeds. As both CPUs have the same core count though
there’s not too big of a difference. At stock the 3600X was around 5% faster than
the 3600, both in single and multicore performance. Once both are overclocked though this lowers
to just a 2% lead. It’s worth noting that the single core results are lower with the
overclocks applied on both CPUs, this is because manually overclocking all 6 cores to the same
speed is actually lower than what both can boost to out of the box in single core workloads.
Although Cinebench R15 has been replaced by the newer R20 just covered, I wanted to also
include the results of this one too, as many other people are still using it and that may
allow you to compare my results. At stock there’s a similar 5% gain to single core
performance, just like in R20, though multicore was only 3% ahead with the 3600X. Once both
are overclocked the gap closes in, with both single and multicore scores on the 3600X no
more than 2% ahead of the 3600. Again we’ve got lower single core performance when manually
overclocked as this prevents the higher boosts speeds that can be hit in single core workloads.
I’ve tested Blender with the BMW and Classroom benchmarks, and this is a test that works
better with more cores. As we’ve got the same core count there’s only a small difference
due to the clock speed changes. At default stock speeds the 3600X was completing both
tasks 4.5% faster than the 3600, however once both are overclocked the 3600X is only around
2% ahead.
Handbrake was used to convert a 4K file to 1080p, and then a different 1080p file to
720p. This is another workload that benefits from more threads, so the results are pretty
close together as both CPUs have the same 6 cores 12 threads. At stock the 4K task completed
just 3.7% faster on the 3600X, and 2.6% faster for the 1080p task. When overclocked the difference
dropped to 2.1% and 1.6% respectively, so hardly any real difference between these two
chips.
Adobe Premiere was used to export one of my laptop review videos at 1080p, and the results
between the two CPUs were again very close here. The 3600X was completing the export
3.6% faster than the 3600 at stock speeds, lowering to a 2.2% faster export time with
both processors overclocked.
I’ve also tested the warp stabilizer effect in Adobe Premiere, basically this processes
a video file to smooth it out. This is a single core workload, and as my manual all core overclocks
technically lower the single core boost speed, as we saw in the Cinebench results earlier,
I haven’t bothered testing the manual overclocks as they’d just be worse. In this test the
3600X was 3.7% faster than the 3600.
This is the first time I’ve attempted to test Photoshop using the Puget Systems benchmark
tool. The 3600 was seeing no major difference once overclocked, and the 3600X actually got
worse performance with the overclock applied, so not sure if some components of this test
may favour single core performance, which my manual overclock will lower.
I’ve used 7-Zip to test compression and decompression speeds. As another test that
favours additional cores, we’re again seeing close results, just small differences due
to the clock speeds. At stock the 3600X is around 2% faster than the 3600, then when
overclocked compression is only 0.3% faster, but decompression actually saw an increase
to 3.2%.
VeraCrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds. At stock both were
very close in encryption speeds, margin of error difference realistically, while decryption
saw a 5% higher speed with the 3600X. This was another test where I didn’t bother with
overclocking, as in the past I’ve found overclocking to produce strange results with
this test such as worse speeds.
The V-Ray benchmark is another multicore test that relies on thread count to boost performance,
and as a result of both having the same core count and close clock speeds, the 3600X was
2.7% faster than the 3600, both at stock and when overclocked.
The Corona benchmark uses the CPU to render out a scene, and like most of these other
applications is a multicore test, so there were no major differences. The 3600X completed
the render task 2.8% faster than the 3600 at stock, and 2.2% faster with both CPUs overclocked,
or in other words from just 4 seconds faster to 3 seconds.
These are the differences between the 3600 and 3600X CPUs in all of these applications,
as we can see results depend on the specific workload. At stock in almost all of these
tests the 3600X was coming out ahead, as expected due to its higher clock speeds. Single core
performance tended to do better, due to the different single core boost speeds of each
chip.
Once we overclock both CPUs on all cores the difference between the two CPUs narrows in
a bit, putting the 3600X just 2% faster than the 3600 on average, so a pretty small difference
and not really a good start for the X version.
I’ve also measured total system power draw from the wall while running the Blender benchmark.
At stock the 3600X was using 4.9% more power than the 3600, which almost scales with the
4.5% faster speed that it scored in this test. With both overclocked the 3600X was now using
3.3% more power, but the difference in actual blender performance was closer to 2% now.
These are the CPU temperatures with the same blender tests running. Both at stock and while
overclocked the 3600X was significantly cooler. My 4.1GHz overclock on the 3600 on the stock
cooler was probably a bit optimistic, though it was perfectly stable under all of these
tests.
The main reason the 3600X is running cooler despite performing better is down to the coolers,
the Wraith Spire that it comes with is just physically larger than the Wraith Stealth
that comes with the 3600.
As mentioned earlier, I couldn’t push the 3600 any higher in blender due to thermal
limitations with the stock cooler, but I could reach 4.2GHz with an AIO. So with a better
cooler and both CPUs running at the same speed, I’d expect no difference in performance.
These are the average clock speeds during the blender stress test, so overclocking the
3600 could get it to hit the same speeds as the stock 3600X, though due to the better
cooling the 3600X did occasionally boost up a little more.
Anyway at stock the 3600 was on the warmer side but still usable, if you want to overclock
an aftermarket cooler might be worth looking into, though the results from the 3600X already
show that there’s not too much extra to gain. This testing was with the stock thermal
paste that came pre applied to both coolers, different paste could likely further improve
performance.
Let’s get into the gaming results next, I’ve tested these games at max settings
at both 1080p and 1440p resolutions. We’ll start off with stock results, then look at
precision boost overdrive results afterwards.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with the built in benchmark at highest settings.
In all upcoming gaming graphs I’ve got the 1440p results shown on the upper half and
1080p results below. In this test there was basically no practical difference, just 1
FPS either way.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was also tested with the built in benchmark at max settings.
Again the difference between the two was extremely small, within 1 FPS in terms of average FPS,
and slightly higher differences for 1% low.
Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode at ultra settings with the same test done
on both CPUs. The results are even closer here, they’re essentially the same, it’s
too close to definitively say one’s better than the other.
Borderlands 3 was tested with the built in benchmark at ultra settings. Again just a
1 FPS or so difference between these two CPUs, nothing amazing going on here.
Fortnite was tested with the replay feature, and the same replay was used on each CPU.
Although it appears there’s a bigger difference, it’s just because the frame rate numbers
are higher than the ones previously seen, in terms of percentage change there’s basically
no difference.
CS:GO was tested with the ulletical FPS benchmark, and I thought this one would be interesting
given single threaded CPU performance seems to matter more here compared to many other
titles. Sure enough there was an 11% improvement to average FPS at 1080p with the 3600X, but
as we’ve seen this is the only game so far to see any sort of difference.
I’ve also tested out Rainbow Six Siege with the built in benchmark. Like most of the other
games, we’re back to seeing no noteworthy differences between the two CPUs.
We’ve also got the option of enabling PBO through the Ryzen Master software with both
CPUs. I’ve retested Battlefield 5 and we can see just a tiny improvement over stock
settings at 1080p with both CPUs, and due to this insignificant change I haven’t bothered
retesting all of the other games as it’s hardly making a meaningful difference here.
I also haven’t tested with manual overclocks like I did with the multicore applications
earlier, as I’ve found many games benefit more from PBO with Ryzen as they still get
to keep their higher single core boost speeds.
Basically to summarize the gaming differences, there are no real differences, either CPU
will perform essentially the same in games, so that just leaves us with the final difference,
the price.
Prices will change over time, you can find updated prices linked in the description.
At the time of recording, the Ryzen 5 3600 is going for $200 USD, while getting that
extra letter X and better cooler is going to cost an extra $35 or 17.5% more money,
at least with the current sale, if you’re paying the full MSRP of $250 it’s 25% more
money.
These are the dollar per frame values at 1080p averaged out over all games tested. Basically
this just shows that the 3600 is better in terms of value, it’s $35 to $50 cheaper
and as we saw it performed essentially the same as the 3600X for the most part, so this
makes sense.
It’s not all about gaming though, I’ve also chosen Handbrake performance to compare,
as this is a real world workload that scored about right on average out of all applications
tested. In terms of value the 3600 is again winning. The 3600X was performing 3.7% better
in this test, but if you buy it at the sale price it’s still 13% less value, or over
20% more in terms of dollar per frame at the full MSRP.
With both CPUs overclocked the difference between them doesn’t really change, as the
overclocks didn’t make too much difference. The 3600 is still ahead in terms of value
here, without sacrificing much performance at all.
That last sentence is basically the conclusion. Although the 3600X does perform slightly better
out of the box, in particular in terms of single core speeds, the extra price makes
it difficult to justify compared to the 3600. You’re also getting the better stock cooler
with the 3600X, but I don’t think that’s worth $35 to $50 USD when you could instead
put that budget into an even better aftermarket option.
So to summarise based on the current prices, I wouldn’t consider buying the 3600X unless
the prices were much closer together, the small improvement in performance just doesn’t
seem to be worth it, both when we look at it in terms of gaming or other productivity
workloads.
Let me know which CPU you’d pick and why down in the comments, the 3600, or 3600X,
and if the 3600X I’m really keen to hear why it’s worth the extra money, or maybe
it was just on a great sale? I’ve got more CPU comparisons on the way, so if you’re
new to the channel you’ll definitely want to get subscribed for those as well as future
tech videos like this one.