AMD Ryzen 5 3600X Versus Intel Core i5-9600K: What's The Best 6-Core Processor?

When I reviewed AMD's 2nd generation six-core Ryzen CPUs last year (see Ryzen 5 2600 and 2600X), it was fairly clear that AMD was on to a winner. Building on the already great value Ryzen 5 1600X, they offered better performance across the board and the Ryzen 5 2600 went on to Outsell Every Other Desktop CPU according to online retailers.

It had particularly good multi-threaded performance for the cash, making it a superb allrounder, although for the game-obsessed, Intel still outstripped it in a few titles. As we saw in my 3rd Gen Ryzen reviews of the Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3700X, though, AMD has closed this gap further still and in most games there's now little to no difference, meaning that even for a gaming PC, things are now a close call.

If you don't need a monster 8-core or 12-core system, though, AMD has several cheaper options when it comes to 3rd Gen Ryzen and today I'll be taking a look at the Ryzen 5 3600X - a $239 6-core CPU that retails for similar cash to Intel's Core i5-9600K and directly comparing the two. Both CPUs are overclockable, however the AMD chip also offers Simultaneous Multi-Threading, so it has 12 threads to the Intel CPU's 6 threads, while it can boost up to 4.4GHz on a single core and I observed all-core boosts in multi-threaded workloads of up to 4.1GHz.

Target audience

With a significantly lower price tag compared to the Ryzen 7 3700X, the Ryzen 5 3600X is aimed at gamers as well as those that might dabble in multi-threaded content creation workloads. The 8 and 12-core Ryzen CPUs will offer much more grunt in the latter, but you'll be paying $80-100 for the privilege. The Ryzen 5 3600X sits in the same territory as its predecessors, though, offering good value and great all-round performance - at least that's what we hope. Let's take a look a the performance numbers.

Test system

I've rebuilt my test systems so they use cutting-edge components and also fully up to date versions of Windows 10 with the May 1903 update along with all the various security patches - both from motherboard manufacturers and Microsoft as these are known to have impacted on performance making any data obtained prior to these updates incomparable and unrepresentative.

I should also point out that I've used 3466MHz memory with all my systems now as this was guaranteed to work with older AMD CPUs allowing my results to be directly comparable with the new ones. You may see slightly better performance using faster memory, but you'll be unlikely to get that working on 1st Gen Ryzen CPUs.

Overclocking: I managed to overclock the Ryzen 5 3600X to 4.25GHz despite pushing the vcore to 1.425V - the maximum I use with AMD CPUs. Other CPU overclocks include: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X: 4.3GHz, AMD Ryzen 7 3700X: 4.3GHz, AMD Ryzen 7 1800X: 4GHz, AMD Ryzen 7 2700X: 4.2GHz, AMD Threadripper 2920X: 4.2GHz, Intel Core i9-9900K: 5GHz, Intel Core i7-9700K: 5.1GHz, Intel Core i5-9600K: 5GHz, Intel Core i7-8700K: 5GHz.

Common components: Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 3466MHz memory, Nvidia RTX 2070 Super, Samsung 970 Evo 2TB M.2 SSD, EK Waterblocks EK-MLC Phoenix liquid cooler, Corsair RM850i PSU

AMD systems

Socket AM4: MSI X470 Gaming Pro Carbon AC (Ryzen 7 1800X), Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master (2nd and 3rd Gen Ryzen)

Socket TR4: MSI MEG X399 Creation (Threadripper 2920X)

Intel systems:

LGA1151: MSI MEG Z390 Ace

LGA2066: Asus ROG Strix X299-E Gaming

Gaming Benchmarks

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

I use the built-in benchmark here as it provides an in-depth look at performance, but it does use a 95th percentile rather than the 99th percentile I use in my other game tests so bare that in mind. As with its more expensive siblings, we're looking at huge gains for the Ryzen 5 3600X compared to the Ryzen 5 2600X, with the 95th percentile hitting 101fps compared to just 79fps for the older CPU. As the overclocked frequency is lower than the single-core boost (4.25GHz compared to 4.4GHz), the overclocked result is actually slightly slower and you'll see that in a number of other tests too.

Compared to the Core i5-9600K, the two CPUs were a match for one another at stock speed despite this game offering a fairly wide range of results - great news for AMD. However, you can add much more substantial overclock to the Intel CPU, which saw that 95th percentile hit 115fps.

Far Cry 5

Far Cry 5 also saw a wide range of results and it was no surprise to see the older AMD CPUs at the bottom of the graph. This is a game that loves high frequencies so AMD is maybe at a disadvantage here, but the Ryzen 5 3600X still managed to hit a decent 91fps minimum percentile - again roughly equal to the Core i5-9600K and massive 22fps higher than the Ryzen 5 2600X with the same memory. It's a similar result to Tomb Raider, where you'll need to overclock your Intel CPU to see any advantage and that advantage will be smaller at lower frame rates with something less potent than the RTX 2070 Super I used here, or indeed at higher resolutions where the CPU is generally under less load.

Dota 2

We're dabbling in high frame rate territory here with Dota 2 and this is still one area that AMD is a little behind the competition, at least in this title, settings and with this hardware. The Ryzen 5 3600X was still a huge amount faster than the Ryzen 5 3600X with a 99th percentile of 93fps versus 80fps, but the Intel Core i5-9600K managed 100fps.

Content creation benchmarks

Adobe Premiere Pro

With my 4K project export in Premiere Pro, the AMD CPU starts to edge into its forte - multi-threaded workloads. It's stock speed time of 231 seconds even managed to outstrip the Intel Core i7-9700K and came withing a couple of seconds of matching the Ryzen 7 1800X, despite the latter sporting 2 more cores and 4 more threads. The Core i5-9600K, meanwhile took 50 seconds longer to complete this relatively short export and couldn't get near the AMD CPU once overclocked either. If you need a $200 CPU for Premiere work, AMD is extremely strong.

Cinebench R20

Cinebench is both a real-world application and a great indicator of single and multi-threaded performance. The former has traditionally been an issue for Ryzen CPUs, but no longer, with the Ryzen 5 3600X hitting a score of 501 - faster than the stock speed Core i5-9600K and a massive 76 points higher than the Ryzen 5 2600X.

The multi-threaded test revealed yet more AMD dominance, with the Ryzen 5 3600X again offering similar performance to the Core i7-9700K and even when overclocked the latter wasn't much faster. Incredibly this $240 CPU was faster than the Ryzen 7 1800X, Core i7-8700K and also offers a huge benefit over the Core i5-9600K.

HandBrake

The multi-threaded prowess continued in HandBrake with the 4K video encode second only to the faster 8-core CPUs on test with the Ryzen 5 3600X oustripping the Core i5-9600K by a massive margin as well as bettering the more expensive Core i7-9700K until I overclocked it. Only the Core i9-9900K offered significantly more performance while in the AMD camp, the Ryzen 7 3700X is potentially worth the extra cash if you spend a lot of time doing these kinds of workloads.

PC Mark 10 Image Editing

The multi-threaded Image editing test likes lots of cores and threads so it wasn't a surprise to see AMD do well here and perform similarly to other tests where all its cores and threads are put to good use. It was a match for a number of older 8-core CPUs and offered a massive 1100-point lead over the Core i5-9600K.

Power Consumption

The final test is power consumption, specifically load power draw of the system as a whole from the wall. AMD's prowess here thanks to its 7nm manufacturing process is very evident with the Ryzen 5 3600X drawing less power than the Core i5-9600K despite it offering 6 extra threads and battering it in multi-threaded workloads. Meanwhile, the new CPU drew 50W less from the wall than its predecessor in an identical system - good job AMD.

Conclusion

It's got to the point now that we're essentially seeing parity between Intel and AMD in games. Sure there are one or two titles at specific settings - most notably at lower resolutions and high frame rates - where Intel does have a lead, but this is often only if you overclock comparable CPUs - in this case, the Core i5-9600K. If you're aiming at stock speed, then even at 1080p and with a powerful GPU, the two were matched in two out of the three game tests here and only as we approach 100fps is there a noticeable difference where there was a 7fps drop in the 99th percentile in Dota 2. The only exceptions would be in titles such as this and if you're overclocking your CPU, in which case Intel can be a better bet in some titles so long as you're reaching for 5GHz.

The problem for Intel is that as soon as you touch on multi-threaded workloads, AMD sends a devastating uppercut its way. The Ryzen 5 3600X was utterly dominant in every single multi-threaded test and reaffirms the dominance of its predecessors as one of the best all-rounders out there. As such, if you dabble in the odd bit of rendering or content creation when you're not gaming, there's now a very clear choice, which is, of course, AMD. For those that dabble more regularly, it's even more clear cut, and only a few very specific scenarios warrant opting for Intel. In the fight of the Ryzen 5 3600X and Core i5-9600K, the AMD CPU wins and by a big margin overall.