Aida64 cache memory benchmark ryzen 3600: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X vs Ryzen 5 3600X Performance Review — Page 5 of 9

Aorus RGB Memory DDR4 3600 MHz Review | Page 3 Of 5

PC Memory

Style and Performance

System Installation & Testing

For this and other reviews, we use our standard I9 9900k test bench for testing hardware. As of the time of this review, here is the hardware not the testbench used to test the Aorus RGB memory.

• Processor: Intel I9 9900k
• Graphics Card: MSI Gaming X 1080 ti with Phantex Waterblock
• Motherboard: ASUS ROG Maximus XI Apex With Bitspower Monoblock
• Cooling:  Swiftech h420 X2 Prestige with Bitspower monoblock
• Memory: Aorus RGB Memory DDR4 3600 MHz
• Storage: 1 TB Crucial P1 NVMe M.2
• Power Supply: 1600 Watt EVGA SuperNova P2 80+ Platinum
• Case: Lian Li PC T70 Test Bench

• CPU-Z
• AIDA64 Extreme Edition
• Passmark Performance Test
• SiSoft Sandra
• 7-Zip
• Super Pi Modded 1. 5

7-Zip

The 7-zip benchmark shows a rating in MIPS (million instructions per second). The rating value is calculated from the measured speed, and it is normalized with the results of Intel Core 2 CPU with the multi-threading option switched off. So, if you have a modern CPU from Intel or AMD, rating values in single-thread mode must be close to real CPU frequency. There are two tests, compression with the LZMA method and decompression with the LZMA method. Once the total passes reach 100, the score is taken. 7-Zip gives the resulting score for decompressing, compressing, and an overall score.

7-Zip was one of the few benchmarks we ran that the Aorus RGB Memory didn’t do all that well when compared to the other kits of memory in the charts. In fact, our Aorus RGB memory came in dead last with an overall rating of 62357 when compared to seven other kits of memory. However, this is not the norm for the Aorus RGB memory.

AIDA64 ENGINEER

AIDA64 has a set of several 64-bit benchmarks to measure how fast the computer performs various data processing tasks and mathematical calculations. Multi-threaded memory and cache benchmarks are available to analyze system RAM bandwidth and latency. Benchmark pages of AIDA64 Extreme provide several methods to measure system performance. These benchmarks are synthetic, so their results show only the theoretical maximum performance of the system. The AIDA64 suite has various benchmarks for CPU, FPU, GPU, storage, and memory testing.

 

Performance Test 10

Performance Test 9 is a complete system benchmark that tests every main component of your system. The areas tested are the Disk, Memory, 2D Graphics, 3D Graphics, and CPU. There is also an overall PassMark Rating. However, for the Aorus RGB Memory, we’ll mainly be focusing on the memory mark test, specifically the threaded results.

For the memory mark score in Performace Test 10, the Aorus RGB Memory achieved an overall score of 3734 which is in the 97 percentile. The result we’ll be focusing on is the memory threaded score. Our Aorus RGB Memory kit achieved a threaded score of 43849. This put the Aorus RGB memory at the top of our chart, out of eight kits of memory in total.

SiSoft Sandra

“SiSoftware Sandra provides a robust package of diagnostic tools for testing your system and teasing out its problems–or potential headaches.”

The Si Soft Sandra memory bandwidth tests give three results. These results are The Floating Point score, the Integer score, and the Aggregate score. The results are recorded in GB/s. In testing, the Aorus RGB memory came in third overall out of eight kits of memory. For the Floating-point score, our kit of Aorus RGB Memory averaged 32.62 GB/s. The Integer score was 32.47 GB/s and the Aggregate score was 32.54 GB/s.

Super Pi Modded 1.5

“On August 1995, the calculation of pi up to 4,294,960,000 decimal digits was succeeded by using a supercomputer at the University of Tokyo. The program was written by D.Takahashi in collaboration with Dr. Y.Kanada at the computer center. This record should be the current world record. (Details are shown in the windows help.) This record-breaking program was ported to personal computer environments such as Windows NT and Windows 95. In order to calculate 33.55 million digits, it takes 3 days with a Pentium 90 MHz, 40 MB main memory, and 340 MB available storage.”

Super Pi Modded measured how long it takes your computer to calculate PI to a specific number of decimal points. For the review, we recorded the time it took our 9900k test bench to calculate Pi to 32 million decimal points. Overall, our 9900k test bench had the second-best time when the Aorus RGB Memory was on the bench. It took our test system 6 minutes and 59 seconds to calculate Pi to 32 million decimal points.

Previous page 1 2 3 4 5Next page

Related Articles

The DELTA RGB DDR5 6400MHz Review

Benchmark Performance — Synthetic & Real World

Individual chart results are always listed in order: 1) DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5, 2) Vulcan 5200MHz DDR5, and 3) DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4.

Synthetic and Real World Benches

SiSoft Sandra 2020/21

To see where memory performance results differ, and there is no better tool than SiSoft’s Sandra 2020/21.  SiSoftware Sandra (the System ANalyser, Diagnostic and Reporting Assistant) is an complete information & diagnostic utility in a complete package. It is able to provide all the information about your hardware, software and other devices for diagnosis and for benchmarking.  Sandra is derived from a Greek name that implies “defender” or “helper”.

There are several versions of Sandra, including a free version of Sandra Lite that anyone can download and use.  It is highly recommended! We are using the full engineer suite courtesy of SiSoft.  The latest version features multiple improvements over earlier versions of Sandra.  It will benchmark and analyze all of the important PC subsystems and even rank your PC and give recommendations for improvement.

We run Sandra memory intensive benchmark tests focusing first on the CPU.  Here is the chart summarizing the results.

The higher speeds and bandwidth generally gives DDR5 6400MHz a solid boost over DDR5 5200MHz, which in turn is faster than DDR4 3600MHz in many of Sandra’s synthetic benches.

Here are the memory controller tests.

In every memory controller test, the DDR5 6400MHz shows a solid performance improvement over DDR5 5200MHz.

We next feature AIDA64.

AIDA64 v6.60.5900

AIDA64 is the successor to Everest and remains an important industry tool for benchmarkers.   Its memory bandwidth benchmarks (Memory Read, Memory Write, and Memory Copy) measure the maximum available memory data transfer bandwidth. AIDA64’s benchmark code methods are written in Assembly language, and they are extremely optimized for every popular AMD, Intel and VIA processor core variants by utilizing the appropriate instruction set extensions.   We use the Engineer’s full version of AIDA64 courtesy of FinalWire.  AIDA64 is free to to try and use for 30 days.

The AIDA64 Memory Latency benchmark measures the typical delay from when the CPU reads data from system memory. Memory latency time means the time is accurately measured from the issuing of the read command until the data arrives to the integer registers of the CPU.  It also tests Memory Read, Write, and Copy speeds besides Cache.

Here are the DELTA RGB DDR5 AIDA64 Cache & Memory Benchmark results.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 results are next.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 results are next.

Here are the summary charts.

AIDA64 memory benchmarks that depend on fast memory show that DELTA DDR5 leads over the other memory tested with an exception that the DDR4 has lower latency.  Next we test the AIDA64 CPU benchmarks.

The CPU benchmarks show variable results.  The AIDA64 FPU benchmarks summary chart is next.

The AIDA64 FPU benchmarks results are less dependant on memory than the CPU benches and these results are all about the same.  However, faster memory generally scores higher in memory benches. For AIDA64 synthetic memory benches, the DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5 memory scores higher than the VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 which in turn are generally higher than DDR4.

Let’s look at PCMark 10 next to see if its benchmarks can reflect memory speed increases.

PCMark 10 Professional Edition

PCMark 10 has multiple tests which use real world timed benchmarks including web browsing, video group chat, photo, batch, and video editing, music and video tests, and even mainstream gaming. The PCMark 10 test offers three primary tests and we chose the Extended and also the Express version.  We use the Professional Edition courtesy of UL.

First up are the Express version results which include the online results that show individual test results starting with the DELTA 6400MHz DDR5 with a score of 7082.

Now the online results.

Next are the Express version results including the online results that show individual test results with the Vulcan 5200MHz DDR5 with a score of 7025.

Here are the Vulcan DDR5 Express benchmark results validated online.

The DARKZ 3600MHz DDR4 scores highest – 7188 – on the Express test.

Here is the online validation

EXTENDED

Next are the Extended version results including the online results that show individual test results starting with the DELTA 6400MHz DDR5 with a score of 13292.

Now the online validated results.

Next is the Extended test and the DDR5 5200 scores 12829.

Here is the online validation

 

Again, the DDR4 results give a higher score of 13384.

Here is the online validation.

Here is the summary.

Using PCMark 10, the DDR4 equipped PC scores higher than either DDR5-equipped PC.  Considering that in one case the slower DDR5 memory scores higher than the DELTA RGB memory, we may believe that memory speeds don’t make a significance difference in PCMark 10 benchmarks.  We will look at memory latency in an upcoming review to see if that makes any difference.

SPECworkstation3 Benchmarks

All of the SPECworkstation3 benchmarks are based on professional applications, most of which are in the CAD/CAM or media and entertainment fields. All of these benchmarks are free except for vendors of computer-related products and/or services.

The most comprehensive workstation benchmark is SPECworkstation3.  It’s a free-standing benchmark which does not require ancillary software. It measures GPU, CPU, storage and all other major aspects of workstation performance based on actual applications and representative workloads.  We only tested the CPU-related workstation performance.

Here are our SPECworkstation 3.1.0 summary and raw scores for the DELTA DDR5 RGB 6400MHz equipped PC.

Here are our SPECworkstation 3.1.0 summary and raw scores for Vulcan DDR5 5200.

Next, the DDR4 3600MHz-equipped PC summary and raw scores.

Here is the summary of the DDR5-equipped PCs compared side-by-side with the DDR4 PC.

In most benchmarks, the DELTA RGB DDR5 equipped PC leads and sometimes by a significant margin.  This is not the case where the 3600MHz DDR4 PC is sometimes faster than the DDR5 5200MHz equipped PC.

Let’s take a look at Blender.

Blender 2.93 Benchmark

We generally see the performance increasing with faster CPU and memory speeds, so we used Blender 2.93 benchmark which primarily measure CPU performance for rendering production files.  Lower is better as the benchmark automatically renders a scene multiple times and gives the results in minutes and seconds.  It may be downloaded from here.

The T-FORCE DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5 PC is first.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 PC is next

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 PC is up last.

Here is the Summary.

Our conclusion from Blender benchmarking is that there is little performance difference, but the 6400MHz DDR5 equipped PC has a slight advantage – It’s always faster than the 5200MHz DDR5 PC, and it ties or beats the DDR4-equipped PC in Blender’s rendering tests.

Next we benchmark using Cinebench.

Cinebench

CINEBENCH is based on MAXON’s professional 3D content creation suite, CINEMA 4D. This latest R20.0 version of CINEBENCH can test up to 64 processor threads accurately and automatically.  It is an excellent tool to compare CPU/memory performance and higher is always better.

The T-FORCE DELTA 6400MHz DDR5 is first and scores 27605 Multi Core and 2021 Single Core.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 is tested next and it scores 27312 Multi Core and 2008 Single Core.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 PC scores 27585 Multi Core and 2012 Single Core.

There is very little difference between the scores as shown by the chart summarizing the Cinebench runs, but the DELTA RGB DDR5 PC is the fastest using Cinebench followed by the DDR4 3600MHz equipped PC, and then by the slower DDR5 5200MHz PC.

Let’s look at Frybench next.

Frybench

Frybench uses Fryrender in a similar manner as Cinebench uses the Cinema Rendering engine.  The objective is to render as quickly as possible.

The T-FORCE DeLTA 6400MHz DDR5 PC is first and it completes the render in 56 seconds.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 PC is next and it completes the render in 58 seconds.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 completes the render in 57 seconds.

Here is the summary chart.

Again, the DELTA RGB 6400MHz PC is fastest, followed by the DDR4 3600MHz PC, and then by the DDR4 5200MHz PC.   Do a couple of seconds matter?  It depends on how much a PC is used for rendering.

Next up, GeekBench.

GeekBench

GeekBench is an excellent CPU benchmarking program which runs a series of tests and times how long the processor takes to complete the tasks.  Faster memory means the CPU may be able to complete tasks faster than with slower memory.

The T-FORCE DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5 PC is up first and here are the overall results.

Next the DELTA PC single-core results

DELTA’s multi-core results follow.

The T-FORCE Vulcan 5200MHz DDR5 PC is up next and here are the overall results.

Here are the detailed single-core test results.

Multi-core results are presented below.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 is tested next and the overall results are below.

Here are the single-core test results.

Multi-core DDR4 results follow.

Here is the Geekbench summary chart.

This time, the DDR5 6400MHz equipped PC scores highest followed by the DDR4 5200 PC and then the DDR4 PC.

Next we check out Real Bench.

RealBench v2.56

RealBench is a benchmarking utility by ASUS Republic of Gamers which benchmarks image editing, encoding, OpenCL, Heavy Multitasking, and gives an overall score.  Some of these tests are affected by CPU and memory speeds.

The T-FORCE DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5 PC is first and it scores 368,818.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 PC is next and scores 343,096.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 PC scores 365,051.

Here are the individual tests summarized.

RealBench results favor the DELTA RGB 6400MHz PC over the Dark Z 3600MHz PC which is in turn faster than the Vulcan DDR5 5200MHz equipped PC.

Next up, Novabench.

Novabench 

Novabench is a very quick benching utility that also gives a memory score which shows the overall bandwidth speeds.

The T-FORCE DELTA 6400MHz DDR5 is first and the RAM scores 370.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 is next and the RAM scores 353.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 RAM scores 365.

Here are the Novabench memory scores summarized in a chart.

The Novabench results show the DELTA RGB DDR5 PC is fastest followed by the DDR4-equipped PC which is faster than the 5200MHz DDR5 equipped PC.

Next is the CPU-Z benchmark

CPU-Z bench

The CPU-Z benchmark can show differences in IPC between CPUs to generate a score to compare both CPU single-core and multi-core performance.

The DELTA 6200MHz DDR5-equipped PC is first and it scores 827.4 single-core and 11451.5 multi-core.

The Vulcan 5200MHz DDR5-equipped PC is first and it scores 818.9 single-core and 11386.0 multi-core.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4-equipped PC scores 822.0 single-core and 11463 multi-core. .

Here is the summary

This time, the DDR4-equipped PC scores highest in the multi-core test, but the DELTA PC is higher in the single core test.   The 5200MHz equipped DDR5 PC is again in last place.

The Z-Zip benchmark is next.

7-Zip benchmark

The 7-Zip benchmark tests LZMA compression/decompression and gives a rating in MIPS (million instructions per second) which is calculated from the measured speed.  It is dependent on RAM speeds and a good test to compare DDR4 against DDR5.

The T-FORCE DELTA 6400MHz DDR5 PC is first.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 PC is next.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 PC follows.

Here is the summary showing the DELTA DDR5 equipped PC is the fastest.

On to Wprime and number crunching.

WPrime v2.10

WPrime is a multi-threaded benchmark which can show the differences in IPC between CPUs, and faster memory may also make a difference.  Here are the tests using 24 threads, and we choose to calculate 1024 million digits and 32 million digits using multiple runs.

The DELTA 6200MHz DDR5 PC is presented first.

The Vulcan 5200MHz DDR5 PC is next.

The DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 PC follows.

Here is the Wprime comparison chart with the fastest numbers from each set of runs compared.

If you increase the memory speed, the CPU may crunch numbers a little faster and DDR4 is significantly faster in the 32M tests, and slightly faster in the 1025M tests.  The slower DDR5-equipped PC is in last place.

Next, the Kraken JavaScript benchmark.

Kraken JavaScript Benchmark

The Kraken JavaScript benchmark was created by Mozilla to measures the speed of several different tests based on the SunSpider benchmark. The results are reported in milliseconds and lower (quicker) is better.

The T-FORCE DELTA RGB 6400MHz DDR5 PC is up first.

The T-FORCE VULCAN 5200MHz DDR5 is next.

The T-FORCE DARK Z 3600MHz DDR4 PC results follow.

Here is the summary:

Again, the DELTA RGB DDR5-equipped PC is fastest by a significant margin, followed by the DDR4 PC and then the slower DDR5 PC.

Next, the gaming benchmarks, the summary charts, and then followed by the conclusion.

Contents

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 View All

The first full-fledged tests of the basic «six-core» AMD Ryzen 5 3600 (Zen 2) on the old X470 chipset and the new X570 — they please

A week and a half is left before the start of sales of the first 7nm AMD Ryzen 3000 series (Zen 2) processors, but the Spanish resource El Chapuzas Informatico, despite the bans, decided to publish the results of testing the base and, potentially, the most popular model of the new family » desktops» — AMD Ryzen 5 3600 — before anyone else. Note that we previously published the first tests of the Ryzen 5 3600 in several benchmarks (1 and 2), which, by the way, looked very promising, but the source made a full review with testing the upcoming new product not only in “synthetics”, but also in real applications and games. That is, this is precisely a big test that allows you to better evaluate the performance of the base six-core «stone» in comparison with its predecessors and competitors.

Recall that the Ryzen 5 3600 operates with 6 multi-threaded Zen 2 cores, 32 MB L3 cache, operates at a frequency of 3.6 to 4.2 GHz with a nominal TDP of 65 watts.

In fact, El Chapuzas Informatico published not one, but two reviews of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600. The first test bench was based on the Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 WiFi motherboard (UEFI firmware updated to the latest F40 version), supplemented with a set of G RAM .Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Founders Edition; The system was running 64-bit Windows 10 with all security updates. In the second case, an unnamed motherboard based on the new X570 chipset was used — the source jokingly calls it the ECI X570 Monster VIII Turbo Fan Plus Ultra RGB. You can find both reviews at the links at the end of this post, and here we will publish summary charts with AMD Ryzen 5 3600 test results on both platforms. Looking ahead, on the old X470 chipset and the new X570, the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 shows the same performance, except for a few games. Thus, the purchase of a new board seems reasonable only together with a new SSD equipped with a PCI-Express 4.0 interface.

So, for starters, the results of AMD Ryzen 5 3600 in synthetic and semi-synthetic tests:

As you can see, AMD Ryzen 5 3600 shows very encouraging results in synthetic benchmarks compared to 8-core Ryzen chips of past generations. Compared to its predecessor, the Ryzen 5 2600 (6 cores / 12 threads, 3.4 / 3.9 GHz), the new product provides about 20% more computing power, which is impressive. As for the confrontation with competing Intel models, the Ryzen 5 3600 for $200 (yes, a little more expensive in Europe, but not the essence) even in multi-threaded mode outperforms Intel CPUs with a large number of cores, except for the flagship Core i9-9900K. Right now AMD Ryzen 5 3600 has some problems in the memory subsystem (this can be clearly seen in the corresponding diagrams in the gallery), but let’s hope that they will be fixed in upcoming microcode updates.

Of course, I would like to know the performance of AMD Ryzen 5 3600 in real tasks, but the source only gives measurements in wPrime and x264 Benchmark. And in the test for video encoding speed using the x264 codec, the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 is inferior to the 8-core model of the previous generation Ryzen 7 2700X, as well as the flagship Intel models.

The next test is to test the Ryzen 5 3600 in games. This is something everyone understands. But again, it will not be possible to fully evaluate the performance of the new CPU, since testing was carried out with a very limited list of games. However, in these few games, the upcoming novelty shows very decent results: In Far Cry 5 and Final Fantasy XV, the Ryzen 5 3600 is ahead of the Ryzen 7 2700X, and the lag behind the flagship Intel Core i9-9900K, which is more than twice as expensive, is not very big.

Finally, temperature and power consumption. At idle, using the supplied cooler at an ambient temperature of 20ºC, the CPU heated up to 35 ºC, and under load — up to 70 ºC. Interestingly, on the X470 chipset, the processor heated up a little more — up to 40 and 75 ºC, respectively. This is likely due to the different frequency profiles and voltages, although the performance is the same in both cases.

Alas, the source does not single out the CPU power consumption separately, stating the total system power consumption: 130 W in the AIDA64 stress test (without storage subsystem and GPU) and 350 W in the test with an active GPU. This is about 5-10W lower than the X470 board. If we compare with the test results of the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 5 2600, the difference is 65 W and 10 W, respectively, in favor of the new chip.

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600, along with other 6-, 8- and 12-core members of the Zen 2 family, will be available on July 7th.

Source: El Chapuzas Informatico (1 and 2)

AMD, AMD Ryzen 3000, Computex 2019, EPYC, NAVI, Ryzen, Ryzen 3000, Ryzen 5 3600, Ryzen 9 3900X, Graphics cards, Components, Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 3500/3500X review.

Characteristics and tests. Everything you need to know before buying!

Author Anatoly Vorontsov Reading 6 min Views 131 Published 03/19/2021
Updated 03/21/2021

Hello again. Today in the review we will look at a pair of «regional» Ryzen 5 processors from AMD: 3500 and 3500X, and also test their performance in modern games.

Content

1. General
2. Capacity 65 W

   AMD Ryzen 5 3500 and 3500X processors released worldwide exclusively for China, Russia and some Eastern European countries as a counter to the Intel Core i5-9400 and i5-9400F, which many users willingly chose as the basis relatively inexpensive game assemblies. On the one hand, the models were priced at $150, which allows them to compete with the Core i5-9400 and i5-9400F in the same market segment, and on the other hand, they have six Zen 2 cores, providing a very competitive level of performance.

   The lack of clear differences between the Ryzen 5 3500X and the Ryzen 5 3500 is no surprise. These processors are based on the same silicon basis, the same for all AMD desktop offerings with Zen 2 microarchitecture and no more than eight cores. Blocking for the considered Ryzen 5 models of two “extra” cores and SMT technology, as well as truncation of the Ryzen 5 3500 cache memory, is performed logically at the production stage. And you need to understand that processors like these models are convenient for the manufacturer in that rejection can be widely used in them — partially inoperative semiconductor crystals with defects in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bsingle cores or cache memory.

   In the past generation of processors under the Ryzen 5 brand, AMD offered both six-core and quad-core processors at the same time. Now, the number of cores of different Ryzen 5s has remained the same, but in the younger representatives of the series, SMT (SimultaneousMultithreading) technology is disabled, which was previously blocked by the manufacturer exclusively in Ryzen 3 class processors. any other mainstream AMD processors based on the Zen 2 microarchitecture are also compatible with faster memory, up to DDR4-3600. Moreover, thanks to the improvement in the third generation of the memory controller in Ryzen, high-speed DDR4 SDRAM can be used with them in any motherboards, including those based on the old X470, B450 and even B350 logic sets.

   Both the Ryzen 5 3500X and Ryzen 5 3500 run at 3.95 GHz when all cores are loaded. And this is about 100-150 MHz below the frequency at which AMD’s higher-end six-cores, Ryzen 5 3600X and Ryzen 5 3600, operate at full load, although the lower six-cores are claimed to have exactly the same base frequency as the Ryzen 5 3600.

   The speed of the L3 cache and memory subsystem in the younger six-core Ryzen does not present any surprises. Even though the Ryzen 5 3500X and Ryzen 5 3500 drastically differ in L3 cache size, it is the capacity of the L3 cache, and not the bandwidth or latency, that becomes the main reason for the difference in their performance. That is, both the full-sized 32 MB and the cut-down 16 MB L3 cache in the processors under consideration offer approximately the same performance.

   Overclocking third-generation Ryzen processors makes no practical sense: the manufacturer has already squeezed all the juice out of them with its autonomous dynamic overclocking technology PrecisionBoost 2.0. Moreover, the possibility and success of overclocking depends on a specific sample of these models. In such processors, AMD can use semiconductor crystals that vary greatly in quality. They can include both the second grade, which could not find application in processors with higher clock frequencies, or chips that are very good in terms of frequency potential. It’s up to luck here, and therefore it’s better not to rely on the fact that an inexpensive six-core processor can somehow be noticeably overclocked.

   Testing

   The assembly for the tests will be as follows: an inexpensive ASUS PRIME B550M-A motherboard, 2 16 GB G.SKILL TridentZ NEO DDR4-3600 RAM sticks, an MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GAMING X TRIO video card, an ADATAXPGSX8200 Pro1TB SSD and a block power supply Seasonic FOCUS GX-650.

   In synthetic tests, the processors perform excellently:0066

   48120 48208 CineBenchR15,CPU 1028 1068 GeekBench, multicore 5728 5964 PCMark 10, Essentials 9026 9138 CPU-Z, multithread 2818 2849.4

   The closeness of the results of Ryzen 5 3500X and Ryzen 5 3500 in synthetic tests suggests that halving the L3 cache on carriers of the Zen 2 microarchitecture does not lead to any catastrophic consequences.

   In terms of performance in general office and Internet applications, the new Ryzen 5 3500X and Ryzen 5 3500 will look very good. Their six single-threaded cores are enough to work with such a load, and a large amount of cache memory allows them to often be even faster than Intel processors of the same class. In other words, AMD’s junior six-core processors can be used in office and home computers aimed at solving typical tasks.

   Let’s see how processors behave in games.

   Ultra, FullHD	Ryzen 5 3500	Ryzen 5 3500X
   Dirt 5, Ultra settings	75	76
   The Division 2, Max settings	85	95
   Total War Saga: Troy, Max settings	84	87
   Gears 5, Ultra settings	85	95
   Watch Dogs Legion, Ultra settings	67	71

   The gap between 3500X and 3500 is 5-14%. Overall, the AMD Ryzen 5 3500 and 3500X are a good option for those who decide to upgrade their old system, but are not ready to overpay for the more expensive models of the Ryzen 5000 line.