-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[DF] Intel Core i5 10600K Review vs Ryzen 5 3600X / Ryzen 7 3700X - Gaming Benchmarks + Stress Tests
- Thread starter Bullet Club
- Start date
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Like what?
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
Nice video, Rich does good work.
Watching it now.
A week ago, I was convinced I wanted the 3900x. A couple days ago, I was convinced the 3700x was the best deal for me. Now I gotta compare the prices to these i5's. Google is telling me the 10600k is 260 bucks, give or take?
I'm struggling to decide which route to go for my next cpu. I probably will just end waiting to hear more about the AMD refresh in a few weeks
edit
just saw there is EG article for the video with helpful tidbits
www.eurogamer.net
www.eurogamer.net
www.eurogamer.net
www.eurogamer.net
Watching it now.
A week ago, I was convinced I wanted the 3900x. A couple days ago, I was convinced the 3700x was the best deal for me. Now I gotta compare the prices to these i5's. Google is telling me the 10600k is 260 bucks, give or take?
I'm struggling to decide which route to go for my next cpu. I probably will just end waiting to hear more about the AMD refresh in a few weeks
edit
just saw there is EG article for the video with helpful tidbits
Intel Core i9 10900K and Core i5 10600K review: hot to trot
The official Digital Foundry review of the Intel Core i9 10900K and Core i5 10600K, hosted by Eurogamer, including synthetic and gaming performance tests.
www.eurogamer.net
Core i5 10600K and i9 10900K: performance analysis
The official Digital Foundry review of the Intel Core i9 10900K and Core i5 10600K, hosted by Eurogamer, including synthetic and gaming performance tests.
www.eurogamer.net
Core i5 10600K and i9 10900K: performance analysis
The official Digital Foundry review of the Intel Core i9 10900K and Core i5 10600K, hosted by Eurogamer, including synthetic and gaming performance tests.
www.eurogamer.net
Core i5 10600K and i9 10900K: the Digital Foundry verdict
The official Digital Foundry review of the Intel Core i9 10900K and Core i5 10600K, hosted by Eurogamer, including synthetic and gaming performance tests.
www.eurogamer.net
Last edited:
Persian buttercup
Member
Just waiting for 4600x
Armorian
Banned
8/16 CPUs will be recommended in 1 year or 2 thanks to new consoles (and once Ubi ports their engines to Vulcan/DX12 LOL), I have 3600 as s stop gap before 8/16 (or 12/24) Zen 3 (and maybe 3800+ RAM).
Last edited:
Rikkori
Member
What a lot of people don't understand is how hard it is to properly utilise multiple cores. Next-gen is not gonna change that significantly, because we can already see a best practices example of CPU threading: Doom Eternal. Plus, CPU requirements would have to sky-rocket so much in order for 60 fps targets to be hard to achieve on <8c/16t CPUs, it would be unbelievable.
This 'next-gen's gonna have 8c/16t zen 2 so non-8c/16t are gonna struggle' narrative is mostly based on ignorance. For a 60 fps target it will be meaningless, and even 4c/8t CPUs like 3300x will rock it easily. The real differentiator for CPUs is vis-a-vis >120 fps gaming and for those kind of games they focus on reducing the CPU requirements as much as possible in order to enlarge the possible playerbase & the scaling for extra cores isn't good anyway. That's why you see new esports titles like Valorant come out and try to push the PC reqs as low as possible rather than to go crazy on game design based on extra CPU. And for AAA it's a non-starter anyway, because they're so GPU bound they'll be lucky to have even 60 fps to play with - but really, it applies for PCs too.
The mythical game where an 8c/16t Zen 2 CPU is gonna get pushed to its limits @ 60 fps is just that - a myth. Just like with SSDs people don't understand CPUs either - it's about thresholds aka how much do you need, and the extra is wasted. There's no easy solution like for GPUs where you can just increase resolution and make use of more grunt.
For games anyway, if you want to run Blender on the other hand, well... sure.
This 'next-gen's gonna have 8c/16t zen 2 so non-8c/16t are gonna struggle' narrative is mostly based on ignorance. For a 60 fps target it will be meaningless, and even 4c/8t CPUs like 3300x will rock it easily. The real differentiator for CPUs is vis-a-vis >120 fps gaming and for those kind of games they focus on reducing the CPU requirements as much as possible in order to enlarge the possible playerbase & the scaling for extra cores isn't good anyway. That's why you see new esports titles like Valorant come out and try to push the PC reqs as low as possible rather than to go crazy on game design based on extra CPU. And for AAA it's a non-starter anyway, because they're so GPU bound they'll be lucky to have even 60 fps to play with - but really, it applies for PCs too.
The mythical game where an 8c/16t Zen 2 CPU is gonna get pushed to its limits @ 60 fps is just that - a myth. Just like with SSDs people don't understand CPUs either - it's about thresholds aka how much do you need, and the extra is wasted. There's no easy solution like for GPUs where you can just increase resolution and make use of more grunt.
For games anyway, if you want to run Blender on the other hand, well... sure.
01011001
Banned
they use games they know will be CPU intensive, so testing newer games that aren't usually CPU bound is not a great test.
Senua
Member
Hitman 2, Total War 3 Kingdoms?
The previous two console generations have lasted at least 7 years. It's possible to have huge increases in requirements over that timeframe. On the CPU side, console developers only need to target 30 FPS and take full advantage of the Zen 2 CPU, and suddenly an 8 core Zen 2 CPU on the PC isn't going to cut it for 60 FPS. If game developers also can't scale properly to large number of cores then that makes the situation even worse on PC, since we will be waiting for advances in single core performance, which are typically incremental.
Rikkori
Member
You misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the whole power of the CPU won't be used, not that the CPU won't get used in order to reach the 30/60 fps target.
What I'm saying is that from the total theoretical power of an 8c/16t Zen 2 CPU only a small BIT of it will be needed in order for developers to achieve their design targets, and that will mostly still revolve around few cores handling the main work with the others being only lightly used. And that's IF you aren't GPU bottlenecked before then, which of course you will be. So the chance to showcase better scaling is even lower.
Hell, look at non-console titles SPECIFICALLY designed around multi-core usage, like AotS, Total War, etc. You DON'T see that huge multi-core scaling even there, and that's best case scenarios!
Multi-core scaling is a VERY DIFFICULT thing to achieve, and if you don't believe me then go ask your favourite game programmers how that really is.
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
9900k out performs a 10900k???
DemonCleaner
Member
great review by Rich.
that said, every review i watched missed the point, that you maybe really shouldn't buy a 12 thread CPU right before 16 thread consoles launch. at least not if you want to have fun with your PC 2 years from now.
and in the case you go for a budget or esports pc you shouldn't buy such an expensive CPU+cooler+mainboard package anyways.
that said, every review i watched missed the point, that you maybe really shouldn't buy a 12 thread CPU right before 16 thread consoles launch. at least not if you want to have fun with your PC 2 years from now.
and in the case you go for a budget or esports pc you shouldn't buy such an expensive CPU+cooler+mainboard package anyways.
Last edited:
kittoo
Cretinously credulous
So basically if you play at 4k, which I do, no need to spend big bucks on CPU. Get a 3600x or 10600k or upcoming Zen 3 of same price range, and rather spend more money on GPU.
Am I right? Looking more from the perspective of upcoming consoles. Will these CPUs remain solid after 3-4 years too?
Am I right? Looking more from the perspective of upcoming consoles. Will these CPUs remain solid after 3-4 years too?
Last edited:
b0uncyfr0
Member
There is almost no reason to buy the Intel chip, unless you're playing at 1080p and aiming for 144 hz +. Even then, the benefits aren't there: a 3600 will get the job done, at a cheaper price overall (including the system) + there is an upgrade path with the 4xxx line. Intel's platform is frankly not worth it.
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Jay also goes into some insightful analysis for the on the fence consumer after the benchmarks here
Last edited:
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
It does describe your current situation fairly closely. Aside from the part where you already have a motherboard that may or may not be returnable.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
I feel pretty happy with the x570 mobo, maybe I am just biased trying to avoid "buyers remorse." I think my best bet is to wait for the refresh announcement in a couple weeks and go from there. I can wait until July to get an XT AMD chip if they are worth waiting for.
I always do do this shit stuff with electronics. I tried out 6 different TVs from Best Buy before I settled on the Sony X900F. Always second guessing any purchase
MightySquirrel
Banned
MadchesterManc
Member
I understand the buyers remorse when it comes to an upgrade, I had the same when purchasing an R5 1600 at launch. 3 years later the CPU is still in my system happily plugging away for Ultrawide & 4K gaming. Wouldn't mind a Zen 2 upgrade at least this year, but it's certainly been a champ this CPU once I got over the early worries over the choice made. Buyers remorse only ever seems temporary for me.
shame there's been nothing from this comet lake launch for me to entice me to do a full switch back to Intel. Maybe next time in a few years.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Yup. It's weird hearing some people discuss CPU purchases without any budgetary context and without regard to opportunity cost or diminishing returns. Sure, product X is better than product Y in scenario A, but this analysis has next to zero relevance to a consumer on a budget if you have to assume that the default GPU in scenario A is worth $1500 lol
MightySquirrel
Banned
Why not wait a little longer for zen3 4000 series when you already have 570 mobo. If 17% rumored ipc improvement is anywhere close to being true with add better clocks from improved node and you will be able to get cheaper cpu that will outperform intels 10 series across the board or at very least matches.
Last edited:
Trogdor1123
Gold Member
Wish there was more info on the igpu on the Intel stuff.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
Well....shit
ColonialRaptor
Member
Has anyone seen any benches comparing these with the amd Zen 2 chips running overclocked at similar GHz? I want to see an apples to apples comparison 5.0ghz vs 5.0ghz
yeah the x570 boards (Even the cheaper ones) are really sick motherboards when the 4000 series releases I think youll be in for a treat and I mean intel doesn’t have PCI-E 4 yet that is a big ‘uh-uh’ to me. I like team blue and kinda can’t wait to see what they come back punching with in a few years but I absolutely love that AMD has the crown at the moment.
yeah the x570 boards (Even the cheaper ones) are really sick motherboards when the 4000 series releases I think youll be in for a treat and I mean intel doesn’t have PCI-E 4 yet that is a big ‘uh-uh’ to me. I like team blue and kinda can’t wait to see what they come back punching with in a few years but I absolutely love that AMD has the crown at the moment.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
He can't just let the motherboard rot in a box for 9 months... That thing either needs to get used or be taken back.
Nydus
Gold Member
Yep. If he waits that long he can buy x670. And then people will say "wait for AM5! It has DDR5!!".
If you want the most fps for little money get the 10600k. If you want to save money get b450 or b550 with an r5 3600.
IF pci4 or 8 cores are ever needed, just buy another CPU/Mobo and flip your old shit.
I have a 7700k @ 4.8Ghz and it games fine. So either CPU willl serve you well.
PS: what GPU do you want to use? If 2080 super and above I would go for Intel if you game at 1080 or 1440p. 4k exclusive or lesser GPU you can go AMD no problem.
Last edited:
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
Looks like the igpu is exact same as the 9900k.
Anki
Banned
I see a lot of people are mentioning pci e 4 but i have no idea what is it used for. Why is it so important?
Armorian
Banned
For GPUs and SSDs. For GPUs it's useless right now (3.0 will be enough for Ampere for sure, maybe even next series), but fast SSDs can be bottlenecked by 3.0 speeds, for example PS5 SSD requires 4.0 and drives like that will show up for PC.
ColonialRaptor
Member
the incredible bandwidth of the new amd cpus and mobos also allows forma high number of high speed USB ports both front and back compatible all together the choice for amd makes a lot more sense to me at the moment and I’ve been an Intel man for a very long time.
Possible Ryzen refresh leak:
www.tomshardware.com
If true I think they should be able to get close to the 10600K.
AMD Ryzen 3000 XT Refresh Reportedly Pushes Boost Clocks Up To 4.8 GHz
Fast just got faster.
If true I think they should be able to get close to the 10600K.
Kenpachii
Member
3600 or 10600k are useless, don't bother specially the 10600k is useless. if you got a x570 board either return it and get a intel board with 10700k ( if you can't wait ) and if that's to expensive for you, wait on AMD's 4700 and call it a day. When 4000 series launches nobody cares about the 3000 series anymore specially if it finally pushes around 9900k/10700k performance.
Basically 10700k/9900k = 4700 ryzen i assume. If AMD doesn't fuck it up.
8/16 cores are the minimum for next gen don't let anybody else tell you otherwise. INtel / AMD has entire series now on the market with just those core amounts. Its a mid gen chip for AMD and its a Mid gen chip for intel now. Next series it will be low end.
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
If he can't wait and needs a new CPU right now, I'm not sure I see why getting a 10700K is a better option over the 3900X, especially since he has the motherboard now, the 3900X went down in price, and the 10700K is sold out almost everywhere.
Kenpachii
Member
All next gen games are going to be builded around 4000 / 10000 and 5000/11000 series of cpu's. 3000 series has a big chance to end up in the same situation as the 2000 or 1000 series. where optimisatoins won't be done and the chips will outdate itself pretty severely.
Also 4000 series 8 cores will probably be cheaper and a lot more faster with far more stable performance across the board, i would not be shocked if amd and intel are equal leveled then and the entire market will be riddled with 8 core 9900k's for cheap basically everywhere. And if that's not the case just yet, then 5000 + 11000 series will which probably launches when new games are going to appear based around console tech. 3000 series will basically be what 1000 series is right now.
Also why not the 3900x? well if you can get it dirt cheap sure, but the performance of 3900x vs 3600/3700 is non existent for games, why waste that cash unless u specifically need those cores. Also a reason i didn't advice 10900k as the last 2 cores are completely useless. Want to future proof on cores better wait on the 4000 series 16 core cpu then and pay the money for it.
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I'm talking about his specific situation as of today, along with the realities of what he already has in his possession and what is available in stores. Specifically why the 10700K?
?
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yep, total system cost for these new Intel CPUs is actually insane if you consider real prices online right now, super expensive motherboards in comparison (Ryzen gives you super cheap options across B450, X470, X370 etc) and lack of cooler in the box, and you'll need a beefy one to tame the 10900K and co.
In the end, the actual difference in gaming is really small considering the caveats of 1080p with a 2080 Ti to see less than 10% difference, all while drawing more power and lower multithreaded performance.
ColonialRaptor
Member
ill be going the 4800 or 4900 depending on the cost for the next upgrade. I’ll be upgrading from i7-3930k so it’s time for an upgrade.
Armorian
Banned
It goes to 4.4GHz but with voltage ~1.36. Fun fact that it's cooler and perform better with this 4.3 OC compared to stock. Yeah OC on 10600 would widen the gap but compared to for example 10400 that is locked (or 10600), you can OC 3600 and make it closer to performance in gaming ( better if Core is memory speed limited) on most AMD chipsets.
Last edited:
Well, even with the 8 core CPU in the current consoles, games don't see much benefit scaling beyond 4 physical cores on the PC. And I haven't been able to find any dedicated PC games that scale well to more cores either.
So it remains to be seen how well developers will be able to take advantage of the extra cores/threads.
Rikkori
Member
The 8/16 is MINIMUM fantasy is just that - a fantasy.
Anyone that wants to claim that should go find some game dev programmers to back them up & ideally at least a game or two that shows that kind of scaling requirements. Until then, already existing data proves the opposite. And in fact I'd have no issue betting any amount of money that a 3300x will have no problem holding steady 60 fps in 99% of next-gen games.
Anyone that wants to claim that should go find some game dev programmers to back them up & ideally at least a game or two that shows that kind of scaling requirements. Until then, already existing data proves the opposite. And in fact I'd have no issue betting any amount of money that a 3300x will have no problem holding steady 60 fps in 99% of next-gen games.
theclaw135
Banned
To the dismay of uber-rig owners everywhere, lower end PCs are too lucrative to shut out. I don't even know the last game to bump up MINIMUM requirements in a big way.
When a game does try to force upgrades, people are likely to mod it not to. I still remember the efforts to play Doom 3 and Halo 2 on older systems.
When a game does try to force upgrades, people are likely to mod it not to. I still remember the efforts to play Doom 3 and Halo 2 on older systems.
onunnuno
Neo Member
This is genius from Intel, the reviewers will review this chip with a Z motherboard and everyone that watches this "omg this is so much better for gaming" -> Goes out and buys the CPU with a mainstream MB and some 3000 DDR4
"My computer is so much better at gaming than AMD" while it's slower because it's using a 2666 DDR4
"My computer is so much better at gaming than AMD" while it's slower because it's using a 2666 DDR4
Virex
Banned
Shut the fuck up @Infinitron
GHG
Member
Game developers don't typically optimise for specific CPU's. Either the program is better suited to one manufacturer's instruction set implementation or it's not.
The only time something like this happens is if there is a completely new line of chips that doesn't build on the architecture of previous chips (see bulldozer to Zen). Zen 2 -> zen 3 doesn't represent a step like this. The underlying socket, architecture and instruction set implementation will remain the same - so the same code will run better on Zen 3 compared to Zen 2 without any changes being made.
As for everything else, time will tell. But I've never seen anyone who intends to keep their PC for a long time say they wish they bought less cores when it was an option at the time of buying.
I'm of the opinion that you should get the best you can at the time of buying then run it into the ground.
Last edited: