The 5 1600 edges ahead compared to the 3 1200 in speed, but you should weigh if the extra cost matches your needs.
The 5 1600 edges ahead compared to the 3 1200 in speed, but you should weigh if the extra cost matches your needs.
Hey, I bought my PC with an Athlon 200GE during a sale. Back then I didn’t notice anything special, but now that I’ve been playing more games and diving deeper into hardware, I see it’s a big performance gap compared to my GTX 1650 SUPER—about 26% according to PCBuild. Games like Minecraft and Roblox aren’t challenging enough, while titles such as DOOM Eternal, Subnautica, and Forza Horizon 4 are much more demanding. My GPU struggles to handle higher resolutions beyond 720p because the CPU can’t keep up with the graphics. I’m trying to decide what’s best for my budget. Would spending double the price of the 5 model really make a difference? Or could the 3 deliver solid results on demanding games at 1080p with some tweaks, or should I go for the 5 which costs twice as much? I’m aiming for around 60fps to 144fps in medium to high settings and up to Ultra High for less demanding games. Could the 3 get me close to 100 frames or 120 on some titles, or should I jump straight to the 5?
Higher resolutions tend to be better for CPU usage, not worse. Aiming for six cores would be ideal if you can secure one of those R5 1600 AF models. Many titles now require more than four threads, and FH4 is essentially a ported console version that likely needs even more threads, similar to how consoles have moved to eight or more cores since 2013. I don’t think Zen or Zen+ chips are capable of smooth 144fps for demanding games—their single-core performance isn’t great, which is usually a bigger concern at higher refresh rates. Still, 60+ frames is achievable, and on less CPU-heavy titles you should easily hit 100+ frames. When I ran a 2700X with Zen+, I got 110-120fps in Destiny 2, but an 8600K would push it to solid 144fps. How much does the 1600 cost you? Which platform are you using? Make sure it’s not too close to today’s generation chips—you should be able to run even the newest boards on a B or X series motherboard with the right BIOS update. The new architectures really boost single-core performance and improve memory compatibility.
Currently, the Ryzen 3 1200 with fan costs around $97, while the Ryzen 5 1600 without a fan is about $207. That’s more than double the price difference. It doesn’t even run Windows 11, and the motherboard is an Asus Prime A320M-K with 8GB of 2400mHz RAM.
I haven’t found great deals on Ryzen 3 CPUs from that era, but a Ryzen 5 1400 or 1500X could be a better fit. Having 4 cores and 8 threads instead of 4 cores and 4 threads would be more ideal. I don’t consider Windows 11 essential when building a gaming PC.
As someone who enjoys staying informed, I view this as feature XD. At the moment, I haven’t found any Ryzens models cheaper in my country. I’ve seen a Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G for around $213, which is a bit more than the $1600 I was expecting.
It's really clear why a 6-core, 12-thread CPU like the 1600 is superior to a 4-core, 4-thread model such as the R3. The main advantage lies in frame time consistency, which enhances the gaming experience even if the frame rates aren't drastically higher. I'd recommend the R5 if you're willing to invest, as it promises a much better gaming setup.
Your motherboard supports the latest BIOS, making the 3600 a much better choice*, especially if you can still afford it. It appears on AMD’s CPU compatibility list, so with a BIOS update you can install it: https://www.asus.com/Motherboards-Compon...pDesk_CPU/. According to Passmark ratings, it’s roughly 44% quicker than the 1600 model: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD...-PRO-3200G. That’s a significant boost for just $30 more.
Really, that sounds like the better choice. I’ll try to negotiate the prices, just in case they rise again. Overall, it’s the Ryzen 5 3600—no need to grumble about the performance. Thanks!
Consider the second-hand market as well, with many 3600 and 3600x listings available.