My Ryzen 5 3600 is somehow underutilized, at Pubg on Very high it is only 40% busy, Minecraft 5% Rainbow 30% and eg Csgo 15%, have paired the processor with the RX580 saphire Nitro +. RAM runs at 2866 MHz. Is this normal that this CPU is hardly used? Or is it simply because she is so strong that she is generally underutilized?
Be happy and he is not that strong, but as you can see, that's enough.
Apparently she is as strong as an i7 8700k and comes to the i9 ran
The 3600 is a fine processor with decent performance. In your case more than enough power
I did not talk bad. ^^
I'm reassured.
None of that is really right.
Most software simply does not use the cores.
An example - if you had 10 cores - but program only uses 2 cores - you would have 20% utilization - even though the 2 cores are 100% full. That's why it's a bit misleading.
If you actually play the 3 games there, I think the 3600 is a bad buy anyway. 3200mhz Ram would be useful for the CPU - more power should not only be measurable.
Since the RX580 is not a very strong GPU, it can also be limited to the cpu depending on the game. So even the used cores are not busy.
All right, just wanted to say that 😂
In your mentioned application areas this is not correct at all. Even with several i5s, you would have more power in all the games mentioned, in 2 of them with some i3 cpu's.
The 3600 is only comparable to 8700k or i9 etc. In its pure computing power - but not in the speed of the individual cores, which is what matters in these cases.
My next will also be an AMD.
They just dressed the worst.
Currently I have NEN old i7 with 4 cores (just do not know exactly which 😅) and even there I come only to 40-45% maximum. Depending on what I'm playing.
At the moment I see no reason to buy something better.
Play other games, jz were just examples. The GPU will easily reach me for another 3 years.
This is daring - but claims are different from person to person.
Have btw the dual channel verkackt, tomorrow I build the ram properly so I can use the specified 3000MHz.
I think they have not dressed nearly enough. More cores are nice, but especially in the gaming area my 3 years old i7 4kerner performs better than the Zen2 models in almost all cases. What a pity, I would have had a desire to upgrade - it is currently not worth gambling at the moment.
Well, if you compare the prices, then I find that you can quietly buy an AMD for minimal losses, but my old i7, which is even older than yours, still delivers more than enough power, so I consider upgrading to be unnecessary, ^^
If I compare the prices wins just my older I7 - I have already. They have to release something which justifies the surcharge.
I mean, you have to keep that in mind, I paid 300 euro 3 years ago, and if I put down 500 euro today I have a slight fps loss in 95% of the games and a slight fps win in 5% of the games. If I buy the current I9 now, it does not look much better - though here I would at least have a minimal fps away through the bank. For that is also more expensive. But if I get on average 5-15% more power for a price of 550 euro + mainboard still on it. I really can't justify that to myself.
In the end, that's what I mean.
I'm only referring to it, if you have to get something new, that then the price better AMD accesses.
If I get the latest AMD and the latest Intel, then I will hardly notice any differences except in terms of price.
These are in the end only things that you can see from the data, but not with the eye.
So much I'm not there in the matter in it, but as far as the gambling you will notice in my opinion, no noticeable difference.
Of course that does not mean that you are fundamentally wrong with the essence of your statement.
Sounds normal, but I have in MC about 10% utilization with a R7. But as long as you have no problems with the FPS everything is fine.
If you have enough power (= FPS) ingame, then that's no problem. Not every game requires the same processor.
