But how does it compare against the i5 9600K from Intel Let's see what the differences are and find out how they perform in games and applications both at stock and when overclocked. Lets start out with the specs., While both have 6 cores? One of the major differences is that the AMD 3600 has SMT, so its got 12 threads, while Intels 9600K has no hyperthreading, so just 6 threads. Based on this were expecting the 3600 to come out ahead in multicore performance due to the higher thread count.. Otherwise, the Intel CPU has higher base and boost clock speeds. However, these arent directly comparable due to architecture differences anyway., Both CPUs, are unlocked and support overclocking, while the 3600 has a fair amount, more cache and also comes with a cooler in the box. Im. Comparing these two CPUs, because theyve both got 6 cores and while the price points are roughly the same, the Intel chip costs more. To be fair. The 3600X seems to be closer in price to the 9600K at the moment, but this is what Ive got. The 3600 launched at 199 USD while the 9600K is going for 250 USD at the time of recording, but you can check updated prices in the description as This will change. Both CPUs were tested in the same system. However, Ive obviously had to change motherboards. For the AMD 3600 Ive tested with the MSI X570 ACE motherboard and for the Intel 9600K Ive used the MSI Z'0 ACE motherboard.

, The rest of the components were otherwise the same. Ive tested with 16gb of DDR4 3200 memory running in dual channel at CL14 and with an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti to reduce GPU bottlenecks.. Although the 3600 comes with a cooler included in the box, I havent tested with it. Ive, used the same Fractal S36 AIO with Noctua NT H1 paste for both CPUs. So we can get an apples to apples comparison, especially for thermals. Testing was completed with the latest version of Windows and same Nvidia drivers, along with all BIOS updates, available, installed. Ive tested both CPUs at stock and with the 9600K overclocked to 5.1GHz and 3600 overclocked to 4.2Ghz, so we can see how overclocking helps improve performance with both.. With that in mind, well, 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. Lets start out with Cinebench R20. Ive got the overclocked results on the upper half of the graph, while the stock results are on the lower half.. As expected, the 3600 is coming out ahead in the multicore workload due to the higher thread count as the 9600K has no hyperthreading. At stock. The 3600 was actually ahead when it came to single core. However, the 9600K pulled out ahead in single core performance once overclocked. As were able to push it much further. Compared to Intel, the Ryzen CPUs are generally quite tapped out out of the box.

In terms of multicore performance at stock. The 3600 was scoring 41 higher than the 9600K, but then once both are overclocked, the gap narrows with the 3600 now, with a 28 lead again due to the better overclock that was possible on the i5., While Cinebench R15 has been replaced by the newer R20 just Covered I wanted to also include the results of this one too. Again. The 3600 is beating the 9600K in the multicore score with a 51 lead at stock, which again lowers down with both overclocked to a 35 lead.. The 3600 also got the lead in single core prior to overclocking.. After the overclocks, though, the 9600K is 11 ahead in single core compared to being behind at stock., Ive tested the Blender, BMW and Classroom benchmarks and as a test that works better with more threads, its another clear win for the 3600, which was completing these rendering tasks. Faster. At stock, the 3600 is completing the BMW test 44 faster than the 9600K and 49 faster in the Classroom. Test., This gap closes again once we overclock, both CPUs with the 3600 reduced to a 28 lead in the BMW test, while coming out 32 ahead. For the Classroom, test. 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 at stock settings were seeing the 3600 complete both tasks 36 faster than the 9600K.

Again once overclocked. The gap narrows with the 3600 now 20 ahead of the 9600K. Adobe Premiere was used to export. One of my laptop review videos at 1080p and is another where the 3600 was ahead again, due to the higher thread count. At stock. The 3600 completed both tasks about 30 faster, but this drops in half once both are overclocked with the 3600. Only maintaining a 15 lead, now. Ive also tested the warp stabilizer effect in Adobe Premiere. Basically, this processes a video file to smooth it out and in this test the 3600 was 13 faster than the 9600K.. There was no change to the 3600 once overclocked in this test, which makes sense. This seems to be a single threaded workload and the 4.2GHz all core overclock is the same as if wed not overclocked it and allowed an active core to boost up to this.. The 9600K, on the other hand, saw a nice improvement once overclocked as weve raised single core speeds by 500MHz. Ive used 7 Zip to test compression and decompression speeds. Once more. The 3600 was ahead in all instances here and quite substantially for decompression, where it had a 60 lead over the 9600K at stock, but then lowering a fair bit to a 40 lead once both are overclocked. Compression was closer together at stock. The 3600 was ' ahead of the 9600K lowering to a 25 lead with overclocks applied. VeraCrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds, and in this test the 3600 saw the largest improvement over the 9600K out of everything Ive tested.

At stock. The 3600 was around 80 faster at both encryption and decryption, but once both are overclocked, this changes to around a 57 lead and we can see the larger change that happens to the 9600K once overclocked. The 3600 hardly rises at all in comparison.. The V Ray benchmark is another that relies on thread count to boost performance and, as a result, the 3600 is 40 faster than the 9600K at stock and then with both CPUs overclocked. This lowers to a 28 lead so still substantially faster, but even with fewer threads. The higher overclock potential from the 9600K can go a long way in closing the gap.. The Corona benchmark uses the CPU to render out a scene and as another test that scales well over multiple threads, its giving us one of the highest improvements with the 3600. With a 50 lead over the 9600K at stock., With both overclocked, though the 9600K narrows the gap, and the 3600 is 33 ahead. Now. We can see the overclock on the 3600 only sped the task up by 3 seconds, while the overclocked 9600K saw a much more impressive, 29. Second improvement.. These are the differences between the 3600 and 9600K CPUs in all of these applications. As we can see, it really varies depending on the specific workload. At stock. In all instances, the 3600 was faster than the 9600K and, as most of these tests are multicore based, the 3600 sees large improvements. On average.

Over all of these tests, the 3600 was 40 faster than the 9600K.. Once overclocked things change quite a bit. These are the differences between both CPUs with the 3600 overclocked to 4.2GHz on all cores and 9600K overclocked to 5.1GHz on all cores the best I was able to get each to.. We can see the two single core Cinebench results are now faster on the 9600K, while the multicore results narrow in now putting the 3600 24 ahead on average in these tests over the 9600K.. While the 3600 is the clear winner in these sorts of multicore workloads, the amount of improvement were able to get from the overclock on the 9600K is quite impressive.. Ive. Also measured total system power draw from the wall while running the Blender benchmark. At stock. The 3600 was using 15 more power, however, consider that its also completing this task 44 faster than the 9600K. So by the time the 9600K actually finishes the task, it would have ended up using more power to do so. Once overclocked. The 9600K is using 22 more power than the 3600, and while the 9600K does close the performance gap in the overclocked state, the 3600 was still completing the task 29 faster, while using less power. So a pretty nice result from AMDs 7nm architecture.. These are the CPU temperatures with the same blender tests running., Both at stock and while overclocked the AMD chip was running a warmer, but this doesnt seem too unexpected, considering how much more work its doing.

, The Intel chip rises, 17 degrees with the 5.1GHz overclock, while theres Little change to the 3600 as it doesnt overclock, anywhere near as far. Lets get into the gaming results. Next Ive tested these games at all setting levels at both 1080p and 1440p resolutions and just as a reminder, Im also using a 2080 Ti to reduce GPU bottlenecks. As much as I can. Well start off with stock results, then look at overclocked and precision boost overdrive results. Afterwards. Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with the built in benchmark.. In all upcoming gaming graphs, Ive got Intels 9600K shown by the blue bars and AMDs 3600 shown by the red. Bars. Ive also tested all setting levels which are shown on the left hand, side of the graph. In this game. The 9600K was ahead at all setting levels, though the gap narrows in at higher settings where the 9600K was just 1.5 ahead at 1080p, max settings. At 1440p, as we become more GPU, bound theres less of a difference between the two until finally at highest settings. At the top, both CPUs were scoring the same in this test. Assassins. Creed Odyssey was also tested, with the built in benchmark and at 1080p. The 3600 was ahead in terms of average FPS at all, setting levels. At ultra high settings. It was just 2.2 ahead, so not really a big deal while at low settings, though the 3600 scored 18 higher average FPS.. The 9600K was ahead when it came to 1 lows at all levels except low and medium, at least at this resolution.

. When we step up to 1440p, though things start to change., The 3600 is only ahead at low and medium settings in average FPS, while the 9600K is otherwise faster and also winning in terms of 1 low. At ultra high settings. The 9600K is 6 faster than the 3600, but it really comes down to what setting level youre running at as to which wins its quite close.. Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode. I prefer testing this, as I can more precisely perform the same test run with less variance. However, multiplayer does seem to be more CPU intensive. At 1080p. The 9600K was winning in all results, though at ultra settings the gap in 1 lows narrows quite a bit when compared to other setting levels. At ultra, the 9600K was scoring 10 higher average FPS over the 3600, a fair difference. At 1440p. The differences in 1 low get closer together and are virtually the same at ultra. Average FPS is also much closer together now at the higher setting levels again, presumably, as we get more GPU bound and the 9600K had just under a 5 lead at ultra settings, now. Far Cry New Dawn was tested with the built in benchmark and at 1080p were seeing the biggest win for the 9600K out of all games. That Ive tested here with a 13 higher average frame rate at ultra settings and similar was seen regardless of setting level both for average FPS and 1 low.

At 1440p. Although the results get closer together, the 9600K is still clearly in the lead, with a 7.5 higher average frame rate at ultra settings. Now. Watch Dogs 2 is a game that loves CPU power. Yet is a game that I can personally play just fine with a stable, 30 FPS, so from a practicality perspective, either CPU is giving insane performance and I honestly couldnt notice a difference when actually playing the game. In terms of the differences, though at ultra the 3600 Was getting 5 faster, average FPS with a larger 10 improvement to 1 low when compared against the 9600K. At 1440p? The results are much closer together.. The 3600 is still in the lead in terms of 1 low, regardless of setting level. However, for averages its almost always just behind now, though, realistically its within margin of error between ultra and medium with just a single frame, or so one way or the other. CSGO, is a game. Thats well known for performing better on Intel CPUs due to the typical higher single core performance, so I just had to try it out. In terms of average FPS. The 3600 was ahead at all setting levels well, at least at 1080p., With all settings maxed out. The 3600 was 8 ahead in terms of average FPS, while the 1 lows were very close to each other comparatively. At 1440p, things get a bit strange. At low. The 3600 is still ahead and then slightly ahead at medium settings, but once everything is at maximum, the Intel 9600K takes back the lead now scoring 9 higher average FPS over the 3600.

Ive also tested out Rainbow Six Siege with the built in benchmark and in this Test it was a clear win for the Intel chip, regardless of the setting preset in use, despite not really being a CPU heavy test. At ultra settings. The 9600K was getting 6 higher average FPS over the 3600 and a 9 higher 1 low. At 1440p. The Intel CPU actually gets a little farther ahead now, with a 6.2 higher average frame rate at ultra settings and again clearly in the lead at all, setting levels. Out of all 7 games tested. Once we average things out were looking at a 2.3 higher average frame rate with the 9600K at highest setting levels at 1080p.. As we can see, though, it really depends on the game. Titles, like Assassins, Creed, Watch Dogs and even CSGO seemed to favour the 3600 at 1080p. So, based on this, if theres a specific game you plan on playing, you might need to see how it behaves on both platforms. At 1440p, things swing in favour of the 9600K, which now had a 5 lead over the 3600 at highest setting. Levels. Again, it depends on the game, but in terms of average, with these games its not that big of a deal as we step up resolution and become more GPU bound, the CPU generally matters less and less, which is why I havent tested 4K. Thats stock settings. So what about with both CPUs overclocked As testing every single setting level takes a long time? Ive just picked one setting to test overclocked results at 1080p.

, Ive also tested the 3600 with Precision boost overdrive, enabled noted as PBO onwards, which essentially boosts power. Limits. Speeds of each core are also controlled for us here, which is different when compared to my static 4.2GHz, all core overclock. In Assassins Creed Odyssey. Both CPUs saw a nice performance improvement once overclocked. Interestingly, I had worse results with PBO enabled compared to my manual overclocks.. I think this is because were overclocked to 4.2GHz on all cores, which is the boost speed of the 3600.. When I tested other CPUs like the 3700X in the past, I found PBO to do better in games compared to a manual overclock, because the best manual overclock I could get was lower than the boost speed. As thats. Not the case here perhaps well see less improvement with PBO. Battlefield 5 saw basically no change in terms of average FPS. On the 9600K once overclocked, however, there was a massive 28 improvement to 1 low. With the 3600. On the other hand, while it did see an 11 improvement to average FPS once overclocked, there was very little difference between the manual overclock and PBO.. Its also worth noting the larger improvement to 1 low on the 3600, once overclocked too, which saw a huge 36 increase.. Far Cry New Dawn is another example of there being minimal difference between the 3600 when looking at the overclocked and PBO results, then again neither are really very different when compared to the stock speed anyway.

. Interestingly, I actually had worse results with the 9600K. So a bit of a weird test where increasing clock, speed doesnt really help in either instance. Shadow of the Tomb Raider saw a 1.5 higher average FPS on the 3600 by enabling PBO compared to stock. However, our manual overclock gave a larger 3 boost.. The Intel CPU in comparison saw a larger improvement once overclocked this time, where average FPS increased by 5.7 compared to the stock result. Watch. Dogs 2 was another instance where PBO on the 3600 wasnt as good as simply overclocking all cores to 4.2GHz. In fact, the PBO result was slightly lower, though its just 1 FPS kind of margin of error stuff. Despite these being averages of multiple runs., The overclocked 3600 got 2.3 higher average FPS compared to stock, while the overclocked 9600K beat its stock score by a much larger 16. In CSGO, again theres, no major differences between PBO and the manual overclock. On the 3600, though, both were scoring lower FPS compared to stock, showing how strange of a game this is and why Ill, probably not include it in future CPU comparisons. I was just personally interested in testing the classic CSGO does better on Intel thing. Rainbow Six Siege. Didnt really see a change with the 3600, regardless of using PBO or overclocking manually compared to stock. While the 9600K saw a larger difference, though only 2.7 higher average FPS once overclocking it.. When it comes down to it, I dont think were seeing that big of a difference in gaming performance by overclocking, though it does vary by game and as weve already established, the 9600K performs better out of the two once overclocked.

. To be fair, I have only tested 7 games here, however, from what Im seeing you can get decent gaming performance with both, I honestly cant say I personally was able to notice the extra FPS from either. At 1080p. The 3600 was coming out ahead in some games. Then, at 1440p the 9600K was doing better and in terms of averages, regardless of resolution, the 9600K seems to be the winner in terms of raw gaming performance.. If you only care about gaming, then at first glance it appears that the 9600K may the better choice. However, we need to factor in overall costs.. These are the dollar per frame values at 1080p averaged out over all 7 games tested at maximum settings. Ive got the 3600 shown up the top in red, with a couple of different options for the 9600K in blue.. The bottom bar represents the CPU. Only, however, it doesnt come with a cooler, so is essentially useless like this. Until we buy one., The 3600 comes with a decent stock cooler, which is a great advantage here., Even without the cooler, though, in terms of dollar per frame value, the 3600 is ahead, but the 9600K falls further behind once we add on even a cheaper cooling option.. I havent added the 9600KF here, while thats meant to be a cheaper solution on paper at the time of recording its available for exactly the same price.. Here are the results with both CPUs overclocked.. In general, we saw the overclock from the 9600K.

Give us better performance compared to the 3600, so were seeing the dollar per frame values from it close in. Again. The 9600K is still more money per frame in games, even without a cooler, while the additional cooler cost again makes it cost more. Just to be absolutely clear, while the 9600K was ahead in the majority of games from an FPS perspective, youre paying more money to get This experience., It is worth noting that I am using the stock cooler for my dollar per frame graphs, but not actually testing with it. From what I have seen in other tests. The stock cooler is just fine and works good enough in most cases., Basically, its not really worth paying more for a third party cooler as youll only be looking at around a 1 improvement, and while this would alter the graphs slightly, it would not be anywhere near Enough to change the conclusion, which is that overall, in terms of value AMD, appears to be the winner. Its not all about gaming, though, as we saw earlier, many applications benefit more from the extra threads with the 3600 compared to gaming.. These are the cost per frame values while exporting a 4K video file to 1080p, with Handbrake. Ive chosen. This particular test, as it completed 36 faster on the 3600, which was quite close to the 40 average improvement that we got from all applications tested, plus its a very real and common workload.. The 3600 is giving us far better value here due to those 12 threads.

While this would have made less of a difference in most games, it matters a lot here.. Not only is the 3600 cheaper but its also completing this task significantly faster., Once both CPUs are overclocked, the 9600K lowers a fair bit, much more so compared to the 3600 in any case.. This is due to the much higher overclock that its able to hit resulting in more performance., To be fair, though, to maintain such a high overclock will require higher end cooling, something I havent factored in here, as Ive just picked a somewhat average 40 budget.. Its also worth considering the future upgrade options on offer from each platform.. At the moment, the AM4 platform has the 8 core 3700X and 12 core '00X, with the 16 core '50X coming later in the year. However, to be fair for these higher end, CPUs youd ideally be looking at a more expensive motherboard.. The Intel 9600K, on the other hand, could be upgraded to a 9700, 9700K, 9900 or 9900K, so 8, cores 8 threads or 8 cores 16 threads. In terms of core count. Amds platform has definitely got you covered. However, at the moment in the games Ive tested, the Intel lineup will give you better performance, though these chips also do cost more and require additional cooling. AMD should be supporting the AM4 socket next year, which possibly means another future generation of CPU will be a drop In replacement, while at the time its not clear what Intel will be doing in this regard.

, Additionally, AM4 has been around for a bit now, if youve already got a system with a B350 board. Upgrading to the 3600 is a simple process.. If you only care about gaming and want the best performance in terms of raw FPS, then the 9600K may give you what youre after. I say may because, as weve seen, it really depends on the game.. The 3600 is keeping up in many cases and performing better in others when it comes to gaming. For anything that actually requires multicore performance, such as the applications covered earlier. The higher thread count on offer from the 3600 will give it a big advantage, which will also likely mean it will age better, as more games start to utilize more threads, it will be interesting to revisit the comparison in a year or two.. For me personally, I use my machine for more than gaming, so Id pick the 3600 and the future possibility of picking up a cheaper, 3700X or '00X down the road is a tempting upgrade path., While the 9600K was doing better in some games, the 3600 did better. In others – and I dont think the performance difference really justifies spending more money on the 9600K even before factoring in additional cooling but thats just me.. Let me know which CPU youd pick and why? Down in the comments Intels i5, 9600K or AMDs Ryzen, 5, 3600. Im really interested to hear which youd go: for. Ive got more CPU comparisons on the way.