10 ms·
It is absolutely on top of the Performance/$ chart on PassMark: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_ava
by soygul 6y ago
It is absolutely on top of the Performance/$ chart on PassMark: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html
It offers exceptional value. Pair that with a GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER which is at the top of Performance/$ chart for GPUs: https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_value.html https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_value.html
And you have a champion of a workstation right there.
- rcthompson 6y agoWow, looking at the XY scatter graph there shows a pretty stark contrast.
- willis936 6y agoIt's neat to see that the 3900X is on the zen 2 threadripper price/performance line, but is available at mortal consumer prices and on the low end platform (B450). The numbering scheme makes sense in the context of this plot, even though the 3900X is not threadripper while all other 39X0X parts are.
- alpha64 6y agoThe 3950X is also an AM4 part (non-threadripper).
- blattimwind 6y agoThat's roughly equivalent to Cinebench points per dollar, which is unrelated to gaming performance, if you want that. Doesn't mean the 3600 is bad, but it does mean that these kinds of synthetic benchmarks tell you very little about gaming performance, which is less about the speed of the cores themselves but rather memory latency, something all current Ryzen CPUs are architecturally very bad at (20-50 % slower than Intel).
- Uehreka 6y agoThis is true, I’d say the build GP describes would probably be good for someone who is short on cash and wants to build a machine that is OK/Good for gaming and Good for things like programming or photo/audio/video editing. It’s true that that build won’t knock anyone’s socks off and isn’t optimized for anything in particular, but the fact that you can make a build like that with such good parts at that price is a net positive for consumers.
- mywittyname 6y agoI was just reading through the Tom's Hardware review of the Ryzen 3600 and I can't see what you're talking about. The gaming performance is within 3% or so of the i5-9600K in basically every game. Granted, these tests were conducted at only 1920x1080, but still, if there were such a dramatic performance difference, it should be noticeable at lower resolutions too. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-3600-review,6287-7.html https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-3600-review...
- blattimwind 6y agoMemory latency is 20-50 % worse, but that doesn't mean 20-50 % lower FPS. What it does mean is in CPU limited scenarios Ryzen CPUs currently cannot touch Intel's CPUs. Even several year old high end Intel parts outperform Ryzens there, even if the Ryzen part in question has better single threaded throughput (i.e. Cinebench). At the 3600 price point this is largely irrelevant though, since you will be GPU limited by way of budget anyway.
- ben-schaaf 6y agoA 3600 may have much worse memory latency, but it's also got more than twice the cache of a 9900k. At least according to the linus tech tips review, the 3700x beats the 9900k in CSGO, a horrendously single-threaded, cpu limited game.
- blattimwind 6y ago
- agilebyte 6y agoYes, 1080p at 60fps which is still the most popular resolution out there according to the Steam Hardware Survey. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...
- MasterScrat 6y agoAnd this is hardware you can order today and have running under your desk by the end of the week. This is such a welcome change from the crypto days with GPUs in short supplies and at very high prices, and stagnant Intel CPU performance!
- duxup 6y agoThe whole crypto thing is such a fascinating experiment of human behavior and side effects and so on.
- wishinghand 6y agoI’ve been trying to upgrade my desktop since the motherboard is dying and I’ve found that small factor pc (SFFPC) components are rarer and at even more of a premium than usual. Most commenters in various forums chalk it up to the plague, so now I’m hoping once the next generation of CPU, motherboard, and GPUs come out things won’t be as scarce.
- winter_blue 6y ago> I’m hoping once the next generation of CPU, motherboard, and GPUs come out things won’t be as scarce New desktop Intel 10th Gen CPU are actually coming out pretty soon. It's got a new socket (LGA 1200), so new motherboards are coming out for it as well. It's only marginally faster on single thread benchmarks than the Ryzen 3000s (ie Zen 2) chips, and consumes a lot energy. Also, Intel is still using their circa-2104/ancient 14 nm process for these desktop 10th Gen chips, which is quite disappointing. No Ice Lake 10 nm desktop chips yet.
- wishinghand 6y agoI was most likely going to stick with and AMD CPU, the intel power consumption and price per performance is a bit high for me. I’m mostly developing javascript and gaming so ultra high cpu performance isn’t as necessary.
- 6y ago
- Havoc 6y agoWith the proviso that the perf/$ approach works less well on GPUs cause you need to match that with what type of screen res & refresh you want to drive (if gaming I guess). ..which might easily land you in 2060/2070 territory.
- willis936 6y agoI wonder why the GTX 1080 isn't in the videobenchmark all-time value chart.
- Macha 6y agoBecause their chart is determined by benchmark score / current sale price. The 1080 wasn't heavily discounted when the 2xxx series was launched, and high end GPUs are rarely value for money winners anyway as cost scales more than linearly with performance. Double the $ might get you 25% more frames. For context, their page on the 1080 (https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+1080&id=3502 https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+1...) gives it a score / $ ratio of 20, while the lowest item on that page has a score of 30. You could argue they should have some minimum threshold for performance before including them on the chart, certainly no one should be considering a r7 260 or gtx 770 for their new system, however cheap they've gotten, but they don't.
- metalliqaz 6y agoprobably has more to do with their price scraping system than it does with the card's performance
- leeoniya 6y agoi wish there was also a column for Watts/CPU Mark, this matters to me and i'm sure AMD kills it here, too.
- intrepidhero 6y agoIt matters to me too. Sorta here: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html Unfortunately it's hard to tell which are embedded versus traditional sockets.
- fulafel 6y agoAnd limited to x86.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y agoI've heard that Intels idle at lower power. Ryzens do not go below 18W, but Intels, even ancient Sandy Bridges idle at 5W. Not sure if it is true though.
- setgree 6y agoI'm surprised the 1650 super is ~ 30% cheaper than the 1660 super but it looks like current prices pretty accurately reflect original MSRPs * https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/evga-nvidia-geforce-gtx_1660_super-sc-ultra https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/evga-nvidia-geforce-gtx... vs. * https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-gtx_1650-super-turing https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-gtx_1650-super-t...
- thdrdt 6y agoSome days ago I checked https://opendata.blender.org/ https://opendata.blender.org/ and noticed that the RTX 2060, RTX 2060 Super and RTX 2070 are all equal when it comes to performance in the Blender benchmark. Also the RTX 2070 Super might be the cheapest performance card at the moment. Charts like these can save you a lot of money. But it will depend on the usage of course.
- zrm 6y ago> Charts like these can save you a lot of money. But it will depend on the usage of course. You have to be careful though. For example, the Radeon RX 570 is right next to the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER at the top of the chart, but the GeForce costs almost 40% more. If the GPU isn't your bottleneck you may be better off with the less expensive one and save money to buy a faster CPU or more memory. Whereas if it is, you may be better off spending more for a faster GPU than either of those. What these charts are great for is to look at the top fifteen or so as the set of candidates, which will all have good performance/$, and then if you prioritize better performance look at the fastest ones and if not then look at the least expensive ones. But even then you have to be careful. For example, on the CPU chart the Core i3-9100F is one of the best values. The Ryzen 3 3200G is only slightly faster for $17 more (i.e. almost 25% more). But the 3200G has an iGPU, which is worth a lot more than $17 if it means you don't have to buy a discrete GPU.
- swinglock 6y agoIn addition the most cost efficient alternative may not be good enough for your particular use-case and expectations, and then it wasn't a saving at all.
- DesiLurker 6y agothis is why I favor looking at the XY scatter charts rather than a made up heuristic like G3D/$. for instance those 2 gpus in you post will almost lie on a straight line through 0 without anything else on lower slope side. but we dont actually have to get the absolute lowest perf/$ & looking at the scatter chart we can bring in those other factors into play too.
- 6y ago
- GaryNumanVevo 6y agoWhen I was building a workstation in late 2018, it was a close match for price to performance, even after getting a 50% discount on Intel HDET processors from a friend! I'm happy to see AMD killing it in the CPU space.
- SubiculumCode 6y agoI've had a 2600 for a year or two. I was looking to see what I'd gain from an upgrade to the 3600..Interesting to see the new 2600s still compete in the value department...now that their prices has been reduced by about $50.
- shakezula 6y agoInteresting. AMD dominates the entire top 10 of that list.
- LeifCarrotson 6y agoIndeed! I knew that AMD was thoroughly on top, but that list really shows by how much. The first Intel in that list which I'd consider for a mid-range workstation (the i5-9600FK) is way down at #22.
- chx 6y agoIt's remarkable how not only the first but also #3, #5, #6 positions are some Ryzen 5 ?600? CPU. The 2600X is the only that is currently lower at #12. Also remarkable how utterly absent Intel is from this chart. The i3 9100F managed to break into #2 and then a Pentium Gold G5400 at #15 but both of these are sub-$75 parts while most AMD parts are significantly more expensive likely bringing more profit to AMD. Usually price per performance goes sharply down with performance, it doesn't scale linearly but remarkably a $405 processor from AMD is in the top 10, the 3900X. Power-performance wise also AMD is the killer, https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html the new 15W TDP AMD 5/7 4xxxU CPUs are the first four while most Intel chips at the top of the chart are in 4.5-7W territory. If you look for ordinary socketed chips, you will find the Ryzen 3900, the Intel 9900T (which is a special 35W part), the 3950X and astonishingly the EPYC 7702 at 200W beating the Intel Core i3-1005G1 which is a 15W part on the latest Intel node at 10nm ... that's just embarassing.
- justQandA 6y agoDoes anyone know if the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, combined with a 3600x, is able to power a 4k monitor at 60hz? Note: this is NOT for gaming. Just everyday workflow and dev environments in 4k, 60hz.
- zitterbewegung 6y agoIf you go on NVIDIA's website you can find the specifications of the card where it states the maximum resolution and refresh rate is as follows: 7680x4320@120Hz [1] [1] https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/gtx-1650-super/ https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/gtx-1650...
- Macha 6y agoYes, easily. Laptop 1050s could render your desktop in 4k60.
- deergomoo 6y agoWithout a doubt. For comparison a 13” MacBook Pro can drive two 4K displays plus the internal display at 2880x1800, all at 60Hz, from an integrated GPU. You can probably run as many 4K monitors as the 1650 has video ports.
- Narishma 6y agoYou don't even need a discrete GPU for that.