AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT CPU Review – 4.6GHz OC!

1. Ryzen 5 3600XT - Enhanced Silicon2. All-Core and Boost Operating Frequencies3. Manual Overclocking - 4.6GHz On All Cores!4. Testing Methodology5. CPU Tests: Cinebench R20 & Blender6. CPU Tests: 7-Zip Decompression & Compression7. CPU Tests: Handbrake H264 & H2658. Memory Tests: Memory Bandwidth and Latency9. Gaming: Red Dead Redemption 210. Gaming: Shadow of the Tomb Raider11. Gaming: The Division 212. Technical: Power Draw, Efficiency, Temperatures13. Value: Cinebench Performance per £14. Closing Thoughts15. View All Pages

We have examined the Ryzen 7 3800XT and Ryzen 9 3900XT and now is the turn of the Ryzen 5 3600XT. Built around AMD’s incredibly popular six core, twelve thread design, the 3600XT also uses enhanced silicon like its other XT siblings and is touted to offer better clock speeds than the standard 3600X. We will be keen to see if the Ryzen 5 3600XT can hit the same lofty 4.6GHz overclock of our 3800XT sample.

If you want the more detailed examination of AMD’s Ryzen 3000XT logic, make sure you check out our original launch review HERE.

Put simply, the Ryzen 5 3600XT is a Ryzen 5 3600X with enhanced TSMC 7nm silicon that allows it to deliver higher operating frequencies and better boost clock residency, according to AMD. That translates into a 100MHz increase to the out-of-the-box rated boost speed of up to 4.5GHz compared to the 3600X’s up to 4.4GHz. The base frequency is maintained at the same 3.8GHz, however.

Everything else is the same between the 3600XT and 3600X. You still get the 95W TDP, the 35MB of total cache, and the AM4 platform capabilities. The 3600 RPM version of the Wraith Spire CPU cooler is included as AMD says that Ryzen 5 users tend to value its additional unlike many Ryzen 7 or Ryzen 9 buyers. I would argue that an upgrade to the Wraith Prism RGB cooler would have been justifiable and welcomed for the 3600XT.

Even the MSRP is kept identical at $249 USD, though actual retail prices for currently make the 3600XT more expensive by around £30 in the UK.

Prime competitors for the Ryzen 5 3600XT are AMD’s own cheaper Ryzen 5 3600X that currently sells for around £210. By extension, the even cheaper Ryzen 5 3600 that is often available for around £175 is an even tougher contender. Plus, above the 3600XT’s current £240 availability price are the £290 Ryzen 7 3700X eight-core chip and Intel six-core, twelve-thread Comet Lake Core i5-10600K at around £270. Clearly, there is stiff competition to the 3600XT from all angles.

At £240-250 in the UK, AMD has clearly carved a price point for the 3600XT that the company believes will allow the chip to deliver better performance than other offerings whilst undercutting the more powerful Zen 2 eight core parts. Let’s see how this exercise in AMD enhancing its product margins translates into real world performance.

Stock-Clocked Operating Frequencies:

We use a combination of ASUS X570 and MSI B550 motherboard for checking frequencies and overclocking capabilities. The chips were cooled by a 280mm AIO.

Ryzen 5 3600XT versus Ryzen 5 3600X All-Core Loaded Frequency:

Our Ryzen 5 3600XT sample runs at 4250MHz all-core frequency in the Blender Classroom test.

This is around 150MHz higher than we recorded from our early-batch Ryzen 5 3600X that would tend to run at 4100MHz all-core frequency. The Precision Boost 2 algorithm had plenty of capacity available from a PPT and current perspective with these 95W TDP six-core chips. That is what helped allow the better silicon of the 3600XT to stretch its clocks by an additional 150MHz.

An extra 150MHz without any other differences is a promising early sign for the 3600XT versus our 3600X sample.

Ryzen 5 3600XT versus Ryzen 5 3600X Maximum Boost and Cinebench 1T Loaded Frequency:

Our mid-2019 manufactured Ryzen 5 3600X ran the Cinebench 1T workload with a real averaged operating frequency of around 4325-4350MHz based on the actual preferential cores loaded during the test.

By comparison, the Ryzen 5 3600XT and its higher rated maximum boost clock showed a sizable improvement. The new 6-core XT chip operated at a real averaged frequency of 4550MHz on the cores loaded during the workload, which is actually higher than AMD’s rated maximum boost clock of 4.5GHz. Motherboard shenanigans were not to blame for this better than expected boost clock behaviour, but we will point the finger towards our significantly enhanced 280mm AIO cooling solution.

I would argue that a 200-225MHz increase in the real operating frequencies during our monitored Cinebench 1T run is an impressive improvement from X to XT chip.

We also saw the actual core boost frequency regularly operating as high as 4.6GHz and frequently above 4.5GHz based on our HWiNFO data readings. In fact, all of the cores on our 3600XT sample were able to boost beyond 4.5GHz, even if just for a small period of time, as indicated by the ‘maximum’ readings in HWiNFO.

Wraith Spire Cooling:

It is important to note that our clock speed behaviour noted above is with the CPUs cooled by a strong 280mm Fractal AIO.

Using the bundled Wraith Spire cooler from the 3600XT, we recoded an operating clock speed of 4.125GHz for the Ryzen 5 3600XT compared to 4.25GHz with the AIO cooler. The operating temperature under the Wraith Spire cooler was also a little more than 10°C higher, despite operating with lower clocks and less system wide power draw.

The Wraith Spire is clearly a reasonable cooler for a six-core processor such as the Ryzen 5 3600XT, and we think AMD’s decision to continue its inclusion is correct. However, there is no denying that the budget top-down air cooler leaves performance on the table, operates loud at full 3600 RPM fan speed, and pushes temperatures higher than we would like to see given the chip’s power usage.

In other words, the upgrade to a better CPU cooler, even if it is simply a budget tower heatsink, is a justifiable move in our opinion. That is especially valid if you want any chance of enjoying the enhanced silicon quality of the Ryzen 5 3600XT via manual overclocking.

Our Ryzen 5 3600XT sample managed 4.6GHz all-core frequency using 1.35V and Mode 3 LLC on our MSI B550 Tomahawk motherboard. We increased the voltage as high as 1.375V but could not muster stability beyond 4.6GHz.

Equally so, we tried to decrease the voltage whilst maintaining 4.6GHz on all cores but the Blender and Handbrake H264 tests specifically were not happy at 1.325V. Other tests such as games and even Cinebench were happy at 1.325V but we ran 1.35V throughout testing simply for extra stability and because temperatures were fine.

We were very impressed to see 4.6GHz with reasonable thermals on all six cores for our Ryzen 5 3600XT sample. This is a superb overclocking result for Zen 2 and is around 200MHz higher than we typically see from Ryzen 5 3600 or 3600X manual overclocks. 4.6GHz also highlights that our six-core XT sample’s silicon quality is comparable to 8-core 3800XT chip that also ran at 4.6GHz for our testing.

Temperatures were manageable with a 280mm AIO, though the AIDA stress test did push to the 90°C mark within seconds of loading.

Importantly, there is no downside to this manual overclock of 4.6GHz. That is because both the all-core and typical 1T boost clock speeds were less than 4.6GHz for the stock frequency testing.

Provided you can maintain stability and reasonable temperatures, the 4.6GHz all-core overclock will deliver clock speed improvements in multi-threaded, lightly threaded, and single-threaded workloads. That’s a key benefit over the Ryzen 5 3600X whereby a user would typically have to pick between elevated single-threaded clock speeds of Precision Boost 2/Overdrive OR better all-core frequencies from a manual overclock.

We also had a look at pushing the Infinity Fabric clock speed and managed to hit 1900MHz using 1.1V. This was stable in Cinebench R20 all-core rendering and delivered a small improvement to our memory bandwidth numbers.

We will be outlining the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT CPU's performance while using the ASUS ROG STRIX X570-E Gaming motherboard and with additional test data and validation from the MSI B550 Tomahawk. A 32GB (2x16GB) kit of 3600MHz CL16 DDR4 memory serves our test system.

Today's comparison processors come in the form of:

• Comet Lake Core i5-10600K (6C12T), Core i7-10700K (8C16T) and Core i9-10900K (10C20T).
• Matisse ‘Zen 2' Ryzen 5 3600X (6C12T), Ryzen 7 3700X (8C16T), Ryzen 7 3800X (8C16T), Ryzen 7 3800XT (8C16T), Ryzen 9 3900X (12C24T), Ryzen 9 3900XT (12C24T), and Ryzen 9 3950X (16C32T).

Each processor is tested at its default out-of-the-box settings. For the Intel CPUs, unlimited turbo duration as set by the motherboard with XMP enabled is the operating mode. All-core load frequencies for the tested chips are as follows:

• Core i5-10600K = 4.5GHz.
• Core i7-10700K = 4.7GHz.
• Core i9-10900K = 4.9GHz.
• Ryzen 5 3600X = around 4.10GHz.
• Ryzen 7 3700X = around 4.05GHz.
• Ryzen 7 3800X = around 4.125GHz.
• Ryzen 7 3800XT = around 4.225GHz.
• Ryzen 9 3900X = around 4.05GHz.
• Ryzen 9 3900XT = around 4.05GHz.
• Ryzen 9 3950X = around 3.875GHz.
• Ryzen 5 3600XT = around 4.25GHz.

CPU Test System Components:

• Graphics Card: Gigabyte Aorus RTX 2080 Ti XTREME (custom fan curve to minimise thermal throttling).
• Memory: 32GB (2x16GB) Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600MHz 16-18-18-36 DDR4 @ 1.35V.
• CPU Cooler: Fractal Celsius+ S28 Prisma 280mm AIO at full pump and fan speed
• OS SSD: WD_Black SN750 NVMe SSD.
• Games SSD: Aorus 2TB PCIe Gen 4 M.2 SSD.
• Power Supply: Seasonic Prime TX-1000.
• Chassis: Lian Li T60 Open Air Test Bench.
• Operating System: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.

• AM4 Motherboards: ASUS ROG STRIX X570-E Gaming & MSI B550 Tomahawk.
• Z490 Motherboard: MSI MEG Z490 ACE.

Tests:

Productivity-related:

• Cinebench R20 – All-core & single-core CPU benchmark (CPU)
• Blender 2.82a – All-core rendering of the Classroom benchmark (CPU)
• HandBrake H264 – Convert 1440p60 H264 video to 1080p60 H264 using the YouTube HQ 1080p60 preset (CPU)
• HandBrake H265 – Convert 4K30 100Mbps H264 video to 1080p30 40Mbps H265 using the H.265 MKV 1080p30 preset (CPU & Memory)
• 7-Zip – Built-in 7-Zip benchmark test (CPU & Memory)
• SiSoft Sandra – Memory bandwidth and Cache & Memory Latency Test (Memory)
• AIDA64 – Memory bandwidth & memory latency (Memory)

Gaming-related:

• Red Dead Redemption 2 – 1920×1080 & 2560×1440, High settings manually applied, DX12 (Gaming)
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider – 1920×1080 & 2560 x 1440, Highest quality preset, no AA, DX12 version (Gaming)
• The Division 2 – 1920×1080 & 2560×1440, Ultra quality preset, no AA, DX12 version (Gaming)

Cinebench R20

Cinebench R20 all-core testing sees the higher boost clocks for the 3600XT deliver a performance gain of 4% over the 3600X. The new XT chip is also 9% quicker than the stock-clocked and more expensive Core i5-10600K.

Overclocking the 3600XT to 4.6GHz delivers an 8% performance uplift over its stock result. However, the 20% more expensive stock clocked Ryzen 7 3700X still delivers a 17% performance improvement over even the heavily overclocked Ryzen 5 3600XT.

Excellent boost clock behaviour with averaged actual core clocks of around 4.55GHz allows the stock 3600XT to deliver strong Cinebench 1T performance. This is a sizeable improvement over our early sample 3600X that is not particularly strong in terms of boost behaviour.

A manual overclock to 4.6GHz delivers a strong gain thanks to this tuning configuration’s higher operating frequency than stock boost clocks. Only the stock clocked Ryzen 7 3800XT and its real averaged boost clocks just above 4.6GHz offer higher Cinebench 1T performance.

Blender Classroom Benchmark

Stock versus stock, the 3600XT delivers a 31 second render time reduction versus our 3600X. That is a solid performance improvement on the circa-700 second render time of these Zen 2 six cores. The performance improvement for the 3600XT versus Intel’s six-core hyper-threaded i5-10600K is even stronger at 85 seconds time reduction.

Overclocking the 3600XT to 4.6GHz delivers a strong performance improvement but the render time is a still a chart gap away from the Zen 2 8-core 3700X that is albeit around £50 more expensive.

7-Zip Decompressing

7-Zip decompressing delivers another small but meaningful performance improvement of 4.5% as measured for the 3600XT over its 3600X sibling. Of course, this is also well out of line with the current increase in actual cost of more than 10%. Versus the i5-10600K, the 3600XT delivers an even stronger performance lead of 21%, albeit in this test that is favourable for Zen 2.

Overclocking the 3600XT to 4.6GHz increases performance by 8.5% which closes the gap to Intel’s vastly more expensive stock clocked 10700K but does little to challenge the strong Ryzen 7 3700X.

7-Zip Compressing

The same 4.5% performance gain for the 3600XT over the 3600X is observed in 7-Zip’s compressing test. Intel’s competing Core i5-10600K fairs a little better in this compressing test but the Ryzen 5 3600XT is still 7% higher performance.

Overclocking to 4.6GHz this time delivers a small gain for the Ryzen 5 3600XT processor. The roughly 20% more expensive eight-core Ryzen 7 3700X is a little over 20% higher performance. Seems fair in this instance.

Handbrake H264

The new 3600XT delivers a performance increase of 1.4 FPS or just under 3% versus the 3600X in our Handbrake H264 test. Versus the Core i5-10600K, AMD’s Ryzen 5 3600XT is 4.3 FPS or 9% faster.

Overclocking the Ryzen 5 3600XT to 4.6GHz delivers a strong performance increase of 8% over stock. Yet again, though, the extra cores of the more expensive Ryzen 7 3700X prove their value in this workload.

Handbrake H265

Margins are narrowed in our unique Handbrake H265 test but the 3600XT still outperforms the 3600X by a slim 2% or so. This time, the Core i5-10600K is able to leverage Intel’s preference for this workload to deliver 3.5% higher performance than the 3600XT.

Overclocking the 3600XT to 4.6GHz allows it to leapfrog the stock clocked 10600K and significantly close the gap to the Ryzen 7 3700X. Frequency, balanced somewhat with core count, is clearly highly influential in this workload and perhaps makes the superb overclocking capability of the 3600XT of notable value versus the cheaper Zen 2 six-cores.

Sandra Memory Bandwidth

AIDA64 Memory Performance

Memory bandwidth falls right in line with what we expect from Zen 2. The single-CCD topology for the six-core 3600XT gets the half-speed write bandwidth, as is common for other single-CCD Zen 2 chips.

Memory latency is also the same as what we expect from Zen 2 and Intel remains notably better in this scenario.

Red Dead Redemption 2

We run the game with image settings manually set to High and the DirectX 12 mode enabled.

Red Dead Redemption 2 at 1080P shows the stock clocked Ryzen 5 3600XT to be just as fast as other Zen 2 chips when accounting for margins of error. Overclocking technically delivers a gain in average and 1% low FPS numbers, but the difference is realistically minimal.

Intel’s stock clocked Core i5-10600K is better able to leverage the GPU horsepower and delivers numbers closer to its Comet Lake siblings at around 10-15 FPS higher than the 3600XT. If you are a high refresh rate 1080P gamer, that frame rate improvement from the 10600K versus the 3600XT may be important to you.

With the resolution increased to 1440P, the Ryzen 5 3600XT continues to show strong performance that is comparable to even the higher core count Zen 2 chips. Overclocking to the lofty 4.6GHz frequency also delivers a small but repeatable gain in performance.

Once again, the Core i5-10600K is faster, but this time the margin of improvement is closer to around 6 FPS and may therefore be of slightly less importance even to high refresh rate gamers.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

We use the DirectX 12 mode, anti-aliasing disabled, and the Highest quality preset.

We consistently see Shadow of the Tomb Raider rewarding higher core count chips and that point stands true based on our Ryzen 5 data. The 3600XT is a little faster than its cheaper 3600X sibling, but the higher core count Zen 2 parts show consistently higher average and 1% low FPS numbers. The Core i5-10600K is also faster than the 3600XT to the tune of a little more than 10% on average.

With that said, the Ryzen 5 3600XT averaged more than 130 FPS and rarely dropped below 90 FPS. Even high refresh rate gamers will be happy with that level of performance, despite the Core i5-10600K being measurably quicker.

Increasing the resolution to 1440P compresses the performance differences as GPU horsepower is more stretched. This time, the performance differences between all Zen 2 chips are reduced, and the 3600XT is barely any slower than the eight core parts.

Intel’s Core i5-10600K is still quicker than the 3600XT, but the performance difference is very much reduced in terms of average frame rates. 1% low FPS numbers do, however, maintain their strong lead for the 10600K versus the 3600XT.

The Division 2

We run the game with quality set to Ultra, VSync disabled, and DX12 mode.

The Ryzen 5 3600XT performs well in the Division 2 at 1080P and realistically offers identical performance to the other Zen 2 chips. Intel’s Core i5-10600K is once again faster than the 3600XT, but 153 FPS versus 147 FPS is not that important of a frame rate differential; high refresh rate gamers will be very happy either way.

We see very similar behaviour at 1440P where the graphics card is stressed more heavily. There is no real performance difference between the Ryzen 5 3600XT and any of its competitors in this configuration – AMD’s new six-core Zen 2 part happily runs at above 100 FPS on average.

We leave the system to idle on the Windows 10 desktop before taking a power draw reading. For CPU load results, we read the power draw while producing five minutes' worth of loading in the Blender Classroom rendering test.

The power consumption of our entire test system (at the wall) is shown in the chart. The same test parameters are used for temperature readings.

Power Consumption

Power draw readings are accurate to around +/-5W under heavy load due to instantaneous fluctuations in the value. We use a Titanium-rated Seasonic 1000W Prime PSU.

All-core load power draw for the Ryzen 5 3600XT is just over 10W higher than that of the Ryzen 5 3600X and Ryzen 7 3700X. This highlights the bias for ‘multi-threadedness', as opposed to aggressive voltages to deliver higher frequencies, when examining the superb efficiency of AMD’s Zen 2 architecture built on the TSMC 7nm process node.

Put simply, the Ryzen 5 3600XT may be better silicon than the 3600X with better frequency capability, but it still needs higher voltage and power draw levels to drive those enhanced clock speeds. The new XT six-core demanded less power than Intel’s Core i5-10600K in its power duration unlimited mode, despite the AMD chip rendering higher performance.

Interestingly, our manual overclock to 4.6GHz delivered consistently lower wall power draw numbers under an all-core load. This is through a combination of the adjusted CPU core voltage and CPU current settings. Six cores at 4.6GHz for 171W of system-wide power draw is a good result that will have many small form factor users interested.

As a note, small fluctuations in the idle power measurements are driven by the switch between ASUS and MSI motherboards for stock and overclocked testing.

Performance per Watt

Despite Cinebench performance per Watt data being biased towards higher core count processors, the Ryzen 5 3600XT shows reasonable energy efficiency, especially when overclocked. AMD is able to deliver solid all-core rendering performance from six cores and does so without using an unnecessary amount of power.

Compared to the Core i5-10600K, the Ryzen 5 3600XT is more efficient at both stock and overclocked frequencies. But stock versus stock, the standard 3600X is marginally more efficient than the 3600XT thanks to the former’s reduced operating voltage through lower clock speeds.

Temperatures

Temperature recordings were taken using the Fractal Celsius+ S28 Prisma 280mm AIO CPU cooler at full fan and pump speed. Ambient temperatures were around 24-25°C.

Even with a 280mm AIO doing the cooling work, the Ryzen 5 3600XT runs pretty hot at stock clock speeds. Yet again, we see AMD’s drive for enhanced frequencies on the XT chip deliver the downside of higher operating temperatures than the slower non-XT comparison.

With that said, less than 75C on a strong CPU cooler under heavy load with 4.25GHz all-core frequency is manageable, even if Intel’s 10^th Gen cooling configuration appears to be superior.

Overclocking with higher CPU core voltage delivers an increase in the running temperature, but the levels are still manageable with a dual fan AIO cooler. Running AIDA stress test when overclocked will, however, push temperatures to the region of 90C quickly. But this is an unrealistic synthetic stress test scenario.

Performance per £ Value

Performance per pound results for the Ryzen 5 3600XT are good, with the six-core chip closely competing against AMD’s eight-core Ryzen 7 3700X. Stock versus stock, the 3600XT cannot come anywhere near the value of the standard 3600X, though, and the cheaper 3600 non-X is even better value again.

Overclocking the 3600XT to 4.6GHz delivers a strong value bump and puts it at the top of the chart alongside the stock 3600X. Of course, the cheaper 3600X could also be overclocked to extract more value from its result, though.

The new Ryzen 5 3600XT brings small but measurable improvements over the Ryzen 5 3600X thanks to improved silicon quality, increased maximum clock speed, and better boost clock residency. Coupled with the identical MSRP of $249 USD, those improvements are positive.

Overclocking is the key area where the Ryzen 5 3600XT had us impressed. We managed a comfortable 4.6GHz on all six cores with tolerable thermals. This gives users a guaranteed performance upgrade as 4.6GHz is higher than maximum boost frequency and the all-core operation speed of the stock part. The gains were notable and worthwhile.

Versus the Core i5-10600K, AMD’s Ryzen 5 3600XT is the faster CPU in general compute and lightly threaded tasks. The Core i5 is better at gaming and that will be important to high refresh rate gamers with a high-end graphics card. For a balance between gaming and general compute work, the Ryzen six core is arguably the better overall buy, bolstered by its superior and lower cost AM4 platform and bundled CPU cooler.

Clearly, the £240-250 Ryzen 5 3600XT is AMD’s attempt to plug the product gap between the £210 3600X and the £290 3700X in its current line-up. But that does not mean that a buyer with £250 should automatically gravitate towards AMD’s Ryzen 5 3600XT.

Value is where the Ryzen 5 3600XT struggles to deliver. The new enhanced processor is £30 or 14% more expensive than the Ryzen 5 3600X but never delivers performance improvements near 14%. Equally so, the £70 cheaper Ryzen 5 3600 is a truly challenging contender to the 3600XT as that budget six core part is only a little slower than the Ryzen 5 3600X when used with comparable cooling.

If a user has already made the decision to spend an extra £70 to go from the Ryzen 5 3600 to the 3600XT, we would argue that another £50-60 to get 33% more cores and a better cooler from the Ryzen 7 3700X are justifiable. This puts the Ryzen 5 3600XT in a difficult position from a value perspective – the cheaper six cores are not far off its performance levels and the more expensive eight core delivers better productivity performance.

Where I see some reasonable value for the Ryzen 5 3600XT is to upgraders already running the AM4 platform. Spending more money to upgrade to the 3600XT versus the 3600X may make sense if you can extend the life of your current AM4 system even a little further.

The other key area of value is through pure silicon quality. If you are a user who will overclock the Ryzen 5 3600XT to its maximum and run it at those levels 24/7, the 200-300MHz improvement over the 3600 and 3600X can perhaps be justified. There’s also an element of enjoyment in overclocking the 3600XT and seeing frequency numbers north of four-and-a-half GHz.

The Ryzen 5 3600XT is £249 USD MSRP and is currently available from Overclockers UK for £248.99.

Put simply, the Ryzen 5 3600XT is difficult to justify from a purely cost and value perspective when the cheaper Ryzen 5 six core chips exist. However, the improved silicon quality, better boost frequencies, and excellent overclocking capability are all key positives that may justify the cost increase to some users. Plus, you maintain all the Zen 2 and AM4 platform goodness that makes the Ryzen 5 3600XT highly competitive against Intel’s 10^th Gen Core i5-10600K.

Discuss on our Facebook page HERE.

Pros:

• Better boost clock residency than the 3600X.
• Improved all-core and heavily loaded clock speeds.
• Maximum and averaged single-threaded boost clocks beyond AMD’s rated 4.5GHz.
• Excellent overclocking capability to 4.6GHz with simplicity.
• 1900MHz Infinity Fabric overclock worked well.
• Highly competitive versus the more expensive Core i5-10600K.
• Bundled Wraith Spire cooler is of some value.

Cons:

• More expensive than the 3600X but does not deliver proportionally higher performance.
• Significantly more expensive than the Ryzen 5 3600.
• Would have liked an upgrade to Wraith Prism RGB over Wraith Spire.
• Slightly more expensive Core i5-10600K is the better gaming CPU for high refresh rate gamers.

KitGuru says: The improvements in maximum operating frequencies and boost clock residency are highly impressive for the Ryzen 5 3600XT. Equally impressive is the ease at which we overclocked to 4.6GHz. The value perspective makes for difficult justification, but those who are impressed by the clock speed may see the 3600XT’s worth.

Become a Patron!