Comparing AMD first, second, and third generation CPUs highlights their evolution in performance and features over time.
Comparing AMD first, second, and third generation CPUs highlights their evolution in performance and features over time.
The 3600 exceeds the 2700x. The 2600 falls short compared to the 1800x.
I'm sorry, userbenchmark isn't trustworthy enough for this comparison. It mainly checks if your system functions properly. How much and within the same budget matters most. (Mind the subject and note I've considered this for a long time—2700x offers the best value right now, similar to 3600 but likely cheaper, especially with a good deal.)
2700x stood out as the top purchase in BF 2019. At $159 it was a great deal. The 2700 priced at $139 still offered value, even though it shares similarities with the 1390 and has inferior cooling and weaker stock configurations. The 3600 doesn’t seem much different from a 2600/2700 at 1440p resolution, and at 1080p you’d likely need a very strong GPU—something that doesn’t match your typical setup given these CPUs. With an average 1660 Super running the RX 5700 XT, the choice of chip won’t be a big factor. If you’re aiming for 1080p with high refresh rates, neither option is ideal. Even the 3900x tends to fall short compared to faster chips. I also concur with @LienusLateTips that the performance gap between these models isn’t significant enough to justify a major price jump. Personally, I’d opt for a 2700 and boost it to around 3.8-4ghz. It gives you solid single-threaded performance without noticeable differences from the third generation, plus extra resources for multitasking when needed. If multitasking isn’t your priority, the 2600x at $119 is still a solid choice. For just $20 more, the additional two cores add value. That’s my take.
Also think about how a $20 gap between the 2600x and 2700 isn’t sufficient to move your GPU budget into another tier, yet the $60 difference between a 2600x and a 3600 can lift you from a 5700 to a 5700xt or a 2060 super.