Choose between 2600, 2700X or 3500X (available in stores). What would you prefer?

F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Choose between 2600, 2700X or 3500X (available in stores). What would you prefer?

Choose between 2600, 2700X or 3500X (available in stores). What would you prefer?

Choose between 2600, 2700X or 3500X (available in stores). What would you prefer?

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next

H

HealthUp
Junior Member

7

05-30-2019, 11:44 AM

#11

Everyone seems to be using the same specs, but the 2700x works just fine. It matches the Ryzen 5 3600 in terms of performance. If you need more power, go for a Fujkin 2700x.

H

HealthUp

05-30-2019, 11:44 AM #11

Everyone seems to be using the same specs, but the 2700x works just fine. It matches the Ryzen 5 3600 in terms of performance. If you need more power, go for a Fujkin 2700x.

N

NerdTrooper
Member

82

05-30-2019, 01:21 PM

#12

I could review the used market if something appears, as most people now focus on first and second generation parts. I’d check whether the 3600 price drops or if there’s a good offer for 2700/2700X. The cheapest option is 2600, but it doesn’t seem to offer much more than my 1700.

N

NerdTrooper

05-30-2019, 01:21 PM #12

I could review the used market if something appears, as most people now focus on first and second generation parts. I’d check whether the 3600 price drops or if there’s a good offer for 2700/2700X. The cheapest option is 2600, but it doesn’t seem to offer much more than my 1700.

T

TMayes136
Member

142

06-01-2019, 12:46 PM

#13

The testing appears similar to what we observed from the 8600k and 9600k models. It doesn’t seem necessary to focus on this. In reality, I’d likely support a 3300x over the 3500x as that’s the direction I’d take.

T

TMayes136

06-01-2019, 12:46 PM #13

The testing appears similar to what we observed from the 8600k and 9600k models. It doesn’t seem necessary to focus on this. In reality, I’d likely support a 3300x over the 3500x as that’s the direction I’d take.

R

RizeAbove
Member

228

06-01-2019, 01:15 PM

#14

3300X was a solid deal and I’m aware it’s a great player, though it’s out of stock right now. Still, I think it’s worth holding off for a while longer—I don’t feel like jumping to a bigger upgrade. It really makes sense to wait.

R

RizeAbove

06-01-2019, 01:15 PM #14

3300X was a solid deal and I’m aware it’s a great player, though it’s out of stock right now. Still, I think it’s worth holding off for a while longer—I don’t feel like jumping to a bigger upgrade. It really makes sense to wait.

T

tinodz
Member

218

06-01-2019, 02:29 PM

#15

We need to think carefully about what we're comparing. A 6c6t should usually outperform a similar 4c8t, though not as much as a 6c12t. This raises questions about existing tests. I anticipate a 3500X would generally surpass a 3300X in most situations. The scenarios where 3300X could lead ahead are when the load is lightly threaded and depends more on boost clock, the software has very strong thread scaling (it should match or exceed Cinebench), or the software is negatively impacted by multiple CCX.

T

tinodz

06-01-2019, 02:29 PM #15

We need to think carefully about what we're comparing. A 6c6t should usually outperform a similar 4c8t, though not as much as a 6c12t. This raises questions about existing tests. I anticipate a 3500X would generally surpass a 3300X in most situations. The scenarios where 3300X could lead ahead are when the load is lightly threaded and depends more on boost clock, the software has very strong thread scaling (it should match or exceed Cinebench), or the software is negatively impacted by multiple CCX.

M

Melerezs
Member

51

06-01-2019, 09:44 PM

#16

it's a relatively uncommon situation with a clear impact, likely noticeable rather than just a standard lower frame rate. those instances where the game engine avoids having fewer than 7 threads usually stand out. i wouldn't compare a 3300X to a 3500X at the same cost, but it involves purchasing something known for threading problems and possibly paying extra. if you can wait, it's better to hold off, since investing in something with decent specs is better than jumping into less reliable options.

M

Melerezs

06-01-2019, 09:44 PM #16

it's a relatively uncommon situation with a clear impact, likely noticeable rather than just a standard lower frame rate. those instances where the game engine avoids having fewer than 7 threads usually stand out. i wouldn't compare a 3300X to a 3500X at the same cost, but it involves purchasing something known for threading problems and possibly paying extra. if you can wait, it's better to hold off, since investing in something with decent specs is better than jumping into less reliable options.

T

Tewerbay
Junior Member

6

06-08-2019, 10:58 PM

#17

Such as? Unless there is some real reason for 7+ threads that absolutely have to run at the same time, it is more a throughput question and 6c6t will get through the work typically faster than a 4c8t would.

T

Tewerbay

06-08-2019, 10:58 PM #17

Such as? Unless there is some real reason for 7+ threads that absolutely have to run at the same time, it is more a throughput question and 6c6t will get through the work typically faster than a 4c8t would.

O

OrangePotatos
Member

52

06-12-2019, 11:20 PM

#18

I cast my vote at 2700x. To skip the thread and core count regret, I’m noting a 3500x versus 2700x gap that’s just a few digits.

O

OrangePotatos

06-12-2019, 11:20 PM #18

I cast my vote at 2700x. To skip the thread and core count regret, I’m noting a 3500x versus 2700x gap that’s just a few digits.

G

GotApple
Member

79

06-13-2019, 02:37 PM

#19

Battlefield 5 displayed a few issues, though I don’t remember the exact details. It seems more noticeable on 4-core/8-thread CPUs. I found references in Hardware Unboxed and the 3600 review—spoiler: it wasn’t a major problem. A few other games show similar behavior too. These examples suggest 4-core/8-thread setups aren’t handling it well, but it’s not clear why some titles struggle with thread counts.

G

GotApple

06-13-2019, 02:37 PM #19

Battlefield 5 displayed a few issues, though I don’t remember the exact details. It seems more noticeable on 4-core/8-thread CPUs. I found references in Hardware Unboxed and the 3600 review—spoiler: it wasn’t a major problem. A few other games show similar behavior too. These examples suggest 4-core/8-thread setups aren’t handling it well, but it’s not clear why some titles struggle with thread counts.

A

ArrogantDemon
Junior Member

8

06-19-2019, 11:22 PM

#20

They also evaluated the 3500X, but the 2700X consistently outperformed it. My earlier thoughts seemed focused more on previous models rather than the ones being tested.

A

ArrogantDemon

06-19-2019, 11:22 PM #20

They also evaluated the 3500X, but the 2700X consistently outperformed it. My earlier thoughts seemed focused more on previous models rather than the ones being tested.

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next