These i5's should have HT long time ago. Ryzen 3600 still looks better option.

longest:

2.90ghz base clock for a hexacore. pathetic, intel. and i assume they have the same security flaws as the other ones before it, because intel keeps making the same cpu for 5-6 years now and only keeps changing "rules" for what motherboard you can use. artificially, of course

it never works at that clock, it's either lower (sub 2000) or or max clock when loaded (4.4ghz or 4ghz depending on load). However, you can adjust those, as they are just power states. Simply go to power saving in windows, go advanced, and go under cpu section and set whatever you would like. Security flaws, yes. If you let a "hacker" into your house and allow him to use your PC while you are not there, those security flaws are your main concern.

One would say this blue guy is late to the party, even more so when the red zen III is lurking...;)

longest:

2.90ghz base clock for a hexacore. pathetic, intel. and i assume they have the same security flaws as the other ones before it, because intel keeps making the same cpu for 5-6 years now and only keeps changing "rules" for what motherboard you can use. artificially, of course

It's funny when people make these points, because they make no sense. Zen 2 doesn't hit 5ghz, yet can compete with Intel machines running at 5ghz. Higher clocked speeds definitely are nice, but a more efficient core I would take over higher clocked speeds. Also remember, on both platforms if you have all the power states enabled, you're going to run below the base clock anyways. Base clock really doesn't have any major impact. Let's take lga1151, the 2 generations have the same pin count and array, but these pins are not wired the same. Same as it was with V1 and V2 2011. Not all AM4 boards are going to get future updates to support future AM4 cpus. Now it's nice though that in general AM4 is widely supported, but if I had an entry level b350 board at launch of original Ryzen I would most likely have to get a new board still to support a higher end zen 2 cpu. Intel is being very aggressive with their pricing and features of this cpu it seems, which is great. I really hope they urge board partners to be just as aggressive with motherboard costs.

I feel like Intel chip names are starting to become silly.

sverek:

To compete with Ryzen 3600, motherboard / socket prices should also be considered. So same price just for CPU, doesn't cut here.

Have you checked Motherboard prices? Intel is already cheaper then x570. If new Intel CPUs match AMD in prices, Intel total package will be both Cheaper and Faster.

vbetts:

Let's take lga1151, the 2 generations have the same pin count and array, but these pins are not wired the same. Same as it was with V1 and V2 2011. Not all AM4 boards are going to get future updates to support future AM4 cpus. Now it's nice though that in general AM4 is widely supported, but if I had an entry level b350 board at launch of original Ryzen I would most likely have to get a new board still to support a higher end zen 2 cpu.

It's very dishonest of you to say that if you had a B350 board you would "most likely" have to buy a new board for a Zen 2 processor. If you have a B350 motherboard, with a few exceptions, you can put a Zen 2 processor in there with a BIOS upgrade, which AMD will also provide you a CPU to do, and run it fine. The only exceptions are not technical exceptions from AMD but instead motherboard manufacturers who put too little ROM space on the motherboard for the BIOS update, which AMD provides to vendors. By and large, any AM4 CPU can go in any AM4 motherboard. Even if you prefer Intel's processors for other reasons, you have to own that Intel requires way too many motherboard upgrades. Just stating a fact like "These aren't wired the same" doesn't absolve Intel, or you in their defense, of owning why they chose to make them electrically different and if there were some way they could have planned ahead to avoid that, as AMD seems to have done. Your two options for positions are: Intel doesn't seem to value compatibility, which hurts your argument, or they aren't as capable of achieving it as AMD, which also hurts your argument.

MegaFalloutFan:

Have you checked Motherboard prices? Intel is already cheaper then x570. If new Intel CPUs match AMD in prices, Intel total package will be both Cheaper and Faster.

To be fair to AMD, there's some cracking budget boards to be had. Sure, the X570 ones are more expensive, but nothing wrong with some of the B450 boards. Still, overall, Intel have the upper hand here. EDIT: Actually, there's quite a few decent B450 boards to be had, everyone's pick seems to be the MSI Tomahawk at £99. Z390 boards cost a little more. So AMD have the upper hand here, unless you go X470 or X570.

sverek:

B450 baby. Who the hell cares about X570 and its PCI 4.0 that only 1% of consumers can utilize. Is there Intel mobos cheaper that B450?

Not Z390 ones, no. Other chipsets, are on par.

sverek:

B450 baby. Who the hell cares about X570 and its PCI 4.0 that only 1% of consumers can utilize. Is there Intel mobos cheaper that B450?

Cheaper doesn't always mean better, got to remember that. though I would say on average AMD motherbaords might be a tad cheaper its not always a fair fight as they might have different features not to mention we don't know if the intel ones might cost more to make due to how the pins are done to circuit the board (as an exmaple). (this is kinda a mute point and i hope intel doesnt do this)

sverek:

Will see, as Intel introduces yet another new socket (1200)....

I think the level of competition we are having now, it will cause it to be more level. same way intel CPU's have got cheaper (least based on core counts)

Overall, there's some great boards to be had for under £120, both AMD and Intel. I tend to go with Asus for my boards, all of my boards over the last 15 years have been Asus, other than one disastrous Gigabyte board. I guess I'm just old and am familiar with their bios and features. And more often than not I'll spend £300 ish on a board, just because I want the extra USB ports, better power phases, SATA ports etc. The way I see it, a board lasts me for some 3-4 years so it's not a problem. That being said, AMD absolutely hit the jackpot with their partner's B450 boards. Great value for money and if I was building on a stricter budget, they're the obvious choice.

metagamer:

To be fair to AMD, there's some cracking budget boards to be had. Sure, the X570 ones are more expensive, but nothing wrong with some of the B450 boards. Still, overall, Intel have the upper hand here. EDIT: Actually, there's quite a few decent B450 boards to be had, everyone's pick seems to be the MSI Tomahawk at £99. Z390 boards cost a little more. So AMD have the upper hand here, unless you go X470 or X570.

B450 is not the same league as x570 and z390, its not even comparable, Intel also has cheap options available like B365, B360, Q370, H370, not just z390/z370, and unlike AMD all Intels chipsets are PCIe Gen 3.0, not Gen 2.0 like on pre-X570 AMD chipsets. Example for late weeks: Im building an unRAID now, had an idea to go with AMD, but its impossible unless you buy x570, B450 PCIe, the ones coming from chipset are Gen 2.0, has no bifurcation and only 2-3 motherboards with 3 full sized slots I needed a slot for PCIe Gen 3.0 x8 SAS controller, Gen 3.0 x4 10G Ethernet and one Gen 3.0 x8 for Video, [if I get AMD I wont need to install GPU but it has less PCIe lanes so im screwed from this side] Because B450 has no bifurcation, the few motherboards that have 3 full sized PCIe lanes [all expensive models], the best out of all of them can do Gen 3.0 x8 + Gen 3.0 x4 + Gen 2.0 x4 Shared [ASUS ROG STRIX B450-F GAMING] all other ones do Gen 3.0 x16 + Gen 2.0 x4 Shared + Gen 2.0 x1 [GIGABYTE B450 AORUS PRO WIFI] As you see it clearly unusable for my needs, x470 btw is the same, all AMD Chipsets that came before x570 are Gen 2.0 and all modern hardware is Gen 3.0 People that want AMD build with expansion cards, have to go with x570 and then its no longer cheap, so choosing Intel z390/z370 is indeed cheaper.

sverek:

B450 baby. Who the hell cares about X570 and its PCI 4.0 that only 1% of consumers can utilize. Is there Intel mobos cheaper that B450?

All AMD Chipsets made before x570 are Gen 2.0, so if you want more then your GPU plugged in, you screwed, also B450 has no bifurcation, even thou it does Gen 3.0 x16 from the CPU, there are no boards that split it and do x8+x8 Gen 3.0, they stuck at x16 + Gen 2.0 x4 from chipset And thats most expensive boards that I checked on newegg, cheaper boards usually have single x16 slot or at best two, one from CPU and one from chipset at x1 or x4 Gen 2.0 Intel has a bunch of cheap chipsets [B365, B360, Q370, H370] and they all PCIe Gen 3.0, intel has no Gen 2.0 products at all. For example: ASRock B365M Phantom Gaming 4 = 84.99$ on NewEgg [All Gen 3.0: x16 + x4 + x1, Same on Pentium and Celeron] ASRock B450M Steel Legend AM4 = 84.99 on NewEgg [Gen 3.0 x16 + Gen 2.0 x4 + Gen 2.0 x1, if you install APU, first slot will be x8, if you install Athlon x4] You see, so say you want to build HomeNAS, unRAID, home server, PLEX server, whatever server, Intel is easy choice: iGPU Standard, PCIe Gen 3.0 Standard, you can install cheap Pentium for sub 100$ and still have Gen 3.0 x16 slot to use for any SAS card you want and Gen 3.0 x4 for 10G Ethernet Card. On AMD, if you go with Ryzen, you screwed, first slot takes GPU, and you left with Gen 2.0 x4, not enough for SAS, 10 Ethernet will run but tad slower, but its 100+ USD card for a 85$ mobo, people that want to save money on their Home Server 10G, buy used Server cards, they 10G but SFP+ and they all come with x8 slots

vbetts:

I Not all AM4 boards are going to get future updates to support future AM4 cpus. Now it's nice though that in general AM4 is widely supported, but if I had an entry level b350 board at launch of original Ryzen I would most likely have to get a new board still to support a higher end zen 2 cpu.

Big difference here though. If this were to happen to a B350 board that'd be due to the motherboard manufacturer not AMD. In fact there are B350 boards that, surprisingly, work with the 3950x, though still not recommended. This is different from say if AMD were to officially prevent motherboard manufacturers from updating their bios, just because. Which is what Intel is effectively doing, especially when they use the same exact socket and claim "electrical changes". I'd be upset with the motherboard manufacturer if i bought a board that they never updated to support newer CPUs, not AMD. I have no reason to be upset with AMD for this reason.

@vbetts armmm are there any am4 motherboards that do not support ryzen 3k ? There was the fear at the start but... I mean you can put a 3950x on a320 motherboards( i am sure about gigabyte on the 320) if you wish ......and then watch the vrm running on warm temps of 100+ c and throttling the frack out of the cpu !

Reardan:

It's very dishonest of you to say that if you had a B350 board you would "most likely" have to buy a new board for a Zen 2 processor. If you have a B350 motherboard, with a few exceptions, you can put a Zen 2 processor in there with a BIOS upgrade, which AMD will also provide you a CPU to do, and run it fine. The only exceptions are not technical exceptions from AMD but instead motherboard manufacturers who put too little ROM space on the motherboard for the BIOS update, which AMD provides to vendors. By and large, any AM4 CPU can go in any AM4 motherboard. Even if you prefer Intel's processors for other reasons, you have to own that Intel requires way too many motherboard upgrades. Just stating a fact like "These aren't wired the same" doesn't absolve Intel, or you in their defense, of owning why they chose to make them electrically different and if there were some way they could have planned ahead to avoid that, as AMD seems to have done. Your two options for positions are: Intel doesn't seem to value compatibility, which hurts your argument, or they aren't as capable of achieving it as AMD, which also hurts your argument.

Key words in my original statement is "entry level," not meaning all b350 boards. Aside from a board possibly not getting a bios update to support the cpu, you also have to think about board design and spec. For mid range chips, no problem, but an entry level b350 board will not have the VRM and power delivery to support all Zen 2 chips. Even if you wanted to go lower than that, to A320 for example AMD does not even officially support Zen 2 on A320. It's board partners discretion to add support their motherboards. If base b350 boards have the chance of not supporting the full Zen 2 line, the a320 series would be worse off. I cannot deny Intel changes their sockets, a lot. Like a lot a lot. There are things to think about though with this. Main thing to think about is we aren't computer engineers, a random person on the internet with no engineering experience can solidly say whether switching sockets is needed or just a ploy for money. Generally people do not upgrade to every new generation. Hell there are a number of folks using lga 1336 and LGA 1150. It would be one thing if it got to the point where these older generations wouldn't be usable at all, but that's far from the case. Let's also look at the AMD side, and the confusing mess that AM2 all the way up to AM3+ was. Some AM2 boards got support for AM2+ cpus, some AM2+ boards got basic support for AM3 cpus, some AM3 boards got basic support for AM3+ cpus. However, adding basic cpu support for say a Phenom II for AM2 for example, you lost the higher HT link that Phenom II boasted on the AM2+ platform, and this continued further on all the way down to Bulldozer CPUs that also were running on AM3 boards with a limited HT link. An older 760 board might have gained support through a bios update, but with how power hungry even an FX 6300 was trying to run one on a $60 motherboard not designed for the power spec at the time would not lead to being completely stable or usable. AMD basically fragmented their own line up with this. I'm not saying Intel is completely right in this situation, but I think people are too harsh on them for this. For the enthusiast that likes to keep up with the latest and greatest, it sucks. But the enthusiast belongs to a very small percentage of overall users. This is definitely not based off of any actual reports or numbers, but say if it were 1% affected versus the 99%, having these new sockets every few years doesn't hurt(and looking at how a number of people who bought Intel still upgraded anyways, it definitely shows changing sockets is not hurting them).

Aura89:

Big difference here though. If this were to happen to a B350 board that'd be due to the motherboard manufacturer not AMD. In fact there are B350 boards that, surprisingly, work with the 3950x, though still not recommended. This is different from say if AMD were to officially prevent motherboard manufacturers from updating their bios, just because. Which is what Intel is effectively doing, especially when they use the same exact socket and claim "electrical changes". I'd be upset with the motherboard manufacturer if i bought a board that they never updated to support newer CPUs, not AMD. I have no reason to be upset with AMD for this reason.

This is completely hypothetical but say Intel goes the route of AMD and doesn't change sockets. What if it winds up the same way AMD has for years supporting older and outdated features, or relying on third party support which doesn't always pan out the best(SATA III support on AM3 and AM3+ for example). Memory controllers for Bulldozer and Piledriver were pretty bad and still based on older designs because of this, and it definitely had a negative affect on performance. AM1 Jaguar and FM2 Piledriver based systems had memory controllers newer and better for DDR3, and while FM2 cpus lacked the cache and core count that AM3+ cpus had they managed to keep up still by using better memory and storage controllers in tasks that were memory sensitive, or in the case of storage sensitive better transfer speeds despite both being DDR3 and SATA III. Or say they do this, and they run into the power spec issue. A board not designed for power draw of a new generation. They protect themselves from shooting themselves in the foot with this.

Venix:

@vbetts armmm are there any am4 motherboards that do not support ryzen 3k ? There was the fear at the start but... I mean you can put a 3950x on a320 motherboards( i am sure about gigabyte on the 320) if you wish ......and then watch the vrm running on warm temps of 100+ c and throttling the frack out of the cpu !

Officially A320 boards do not, and some B350 boards had features or UI parts stripped(although this was not to AMD's design, this one is on the board partners). If Asrock adds support for A320 for example, it's not by AMD's word.

vbetts:

This is completely hypothetical but say Intel goes the route of AMD and doesn't change sockets. What if it winds up the same way AMD has for years supporting older and outdated features, or relying on third party support which doesn't always pan out the best(SATA III support on AM3 and AM3+ for example). Memory controllers for Bulldozer and Piledriver were pretty bad and still based on older designs because of this, and it definitely had a negative affect on performance. AM1 Jaguar and FM2 Piledriver based systems had memory controllers newer and better for DDR3, and while FM2 cpus lacked the cache and core count that AM3+ cpus had they managed to keep up still by using better memory and storage controllers in tasks that were memory sensitive, or in the case of storage sensitive better transfer speeds despite both being DDR3 and SATA III. Or say they do this, and they run into the power spec issue. A board not designed for power draw of a new generation. They protect themselves from shooting themselves in the foot with this. Officially A320 boards do not, and some B350 boards had features or UI parts stripped(although this was not to AMD's design, this one is on the board partners). If Asrock adds support for A320 for example, it's not by AMD's word.

I'm really not sure what you're pointing out as negatives have to do with my point. If your point is AMD could have never released anything other then a320 b350 and x370 for all of their CPUs including the next 4000 series, then yeah i agree, that'd be bad, there wouldn't be a whole lot of advancements that can be made other than relying on third parties to introduce new features that had come out. But i'm not sure where i stated i'd like it to be this way, i simply stated stated , with what i quoted here:

vbetts:

Not all AM4 boards are going to get future updates to support future AM4 cpus. Now it's nice though that in general AM4 is widely supported, but if I had an entry level b350 board at launch of original Ryzen I would most likely have to get a new board still to support a higher end zen 2 cpu.

That it's not the same situation, and it's not AMDs fault if you bought a b350 board and it didn't get support for a higher end Zen 2 CPU, which is what the difference is. One is Intels fault, the other is not AMDs fault, they are not the same situation

Aura89:

I'm really not sure what you're pointing out as negatives have to do with my point. If your point is AMD could have never released anything other then a320 b350 and x370 for all of their CPUs including the next 4000 series, then yeah i agree, that'd be bad, there wouldn't be a whole lot of advancements that can be made other than relying on third parties to introduce new features that had come out. But i'm not sure where i stated i'd like it to be this way, i simply stated stated , with what i quoted here: That it's not the same situation, and it's not AMDs fault if you bought a b350 board and it didn't get support for a higher end Zen 2 CPU, which is what the difference is. One is Intels fault, the other is not AMDs fault, they are not the same situation

The point I was trying to make was what if Intel supported the same socket for a few generations but ran into problems that AMD did? You aren't getting the most out of a new generation cpu if an older board and chipset design is going to limit it, or can even handle it. I don't see the point in some of the board partners giving full Zen 2 support for their lineup considering like you said,

In fact there are B350 boards that, surprisingly, work with the 3950x, though still not recommended.

To me, at that point it feels like bragging rights when the board might not even last with a cpu like that in it. If it's going to hamper performance or stability, I don't see it as a plus I guess.

vbetts:

The point I was trying to make was what if Intel supported the same socket for a few generations but ran into problems that AMD did? You aren't getting the most out of a new generation cpu if an older board and chipset design is going to limit it, or can even handle it. I don't see the point in some of the board partners giving full Zen 2 support for their lineup considering like you said, To me, at that point it feels like bragging rights when the board might not even last with a cpu like that in it. If it's going to hamper performance or stability, I don't see it as a plus I guess.

To a degree, i don't disagree. However, i just don't think it's that simple. I have an x370 board, i started out with an 1700x, i now have a 3800x and if i wanted to i could have gotten twice as many cores then what was available when i got the x370 motherboard with realistically zero features (at least that i care about) i'd be missing from a motherboard upgrade other than PCI-Express 4.0 and some better memory support probably. There's ofcourse drawbacks to supporting the same socket for long periods of time, doesn't mean, especially in intels case where there's very little architecturally different between CPU "generations", that there shouldn't be probably 3 or so CPU releases on average on the same socket. I don't see what would be a performance loss or "missing" from Intels 10 series CPUs if it was on the same socket.

sverek:

That's the whole point. If Intel mobos costs more due to pins, it make sense for AMD CPU to cost more due to having pins on the CPU side. So it comes down to the price of the whole package (CPU + Mobo).

I do agree it is about the whole package, but i think compared to the FX days, they have become more equal. but as mentioned its hard to compare cause one might have an extra USB header or one more have wifi built in... so isnt always apples to apples. Though i do think the top end of motherboards have got a little too crazy!