How is Intel Beating AMD Zen 3 Ryzen in Gaming?

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,786
"After a lot of testing, even I can confirm what other reviewers have reported during the Zen 3 launch: AMD has beaten Intel in gaming performance. But only in a best-case scenario, using fast memory, and with the latest graphics architecture. Now of course that is a reasonable requirement. People building a new next-gen machine or who upgrade to a new processor will probably buy a new graphics card, too. Memory speeds have been an open debate on Ryzen since 1st gen, so I'm hoping that people are aware enough that they won't pair their new shiny Zen 3 CPU with a single-channel DDR4-2400 memory kit, just because that's what fit their budget, or because they thought they found a good deal on memory.

On the other hand, AMD's wonderful AM4 platform makes upgrades very easy, because of the wide compatibility with previous generations. This makes it likely that gamers upgrade their processor independent from the rest of the hardware—possibly upgrading just the CPU, while keeping slower memory and an older graphics card. In these cases the gains will still be substantial, especially in application performance, but don't expect that you're 100% guaranteed to beat a Core i9-10900K. But does beating Intel even matter, in this scenario? You're still gaining a lot, with a relatively small investment. Any performance differences vs Intel's top CPU will be impossible to spot even in a blind side-by-side test, and you've saved a lot of money in the process—don't worry about that last one percent!

I could also imagine some gamers hoping that plopping in a Zen 3 processor will magically give them more FPS in their AAA gaming experiences. That might be true for cases where a very strong GPU is paired with light titles, like CS:GO or other MOBA style games. But in that case you have effectively wasted money on the graphics card—a weaker GPU would have achieved nearly the same performance, at much better cost. In what we typically call "GPU limited", even though it actually is "highly or mostly GPU limited", you will see much smaller gains, that vary wildly between titles, depending on how much of a bottleneck the GPU is—don't expect more than a few percent.

I'm also relieved that I found out what was "wrong" with my Zen 3 gaming performance results—nothing. I simply tested in a scenario that's not the most favorable for AMD. I have been using these exact same settings, methodology, games etc for quite a while, in over 30 CPU reviews for both AMD and Intel, so claiming that I deliberately cherry picked to make AMD look bad are far fetched. I'm more than happy that we now have a situation where both players have to innovate, or keep innovating to stay competitive—this is the best scenario for us consumers—companies fighting neck-to-neck means better products at better prices for the customer.

Are the other reviews wrong then? Nope, they are perfectly fine. Especially in the context of a CPU review it makes perfect sense to test in a more CPU limited scenario and skip resolutions like 1440p and 4K, or use lower settings to put more stress on the CPU. If everyone tested the same thing, results would be identical and you wouldn't have to look at multiple sources for your buying decision. Now, if at that point, companies manage to influence how we conduct our reviews, then they would have won—being able to hide what you should know about the product, before spending your hard earned cash on it.

For my future processor reviews I'll definitely upgrade to Ampere, or RDNA2 if that turns out to be the more popular choice on the market. I'm also thinking about upping the memory speeds a bit, DDR4-3600 seems like a good balance between cost and performance. I doubt I'll pick DDR4-3800 or 4000 just because AMD runs faster with it—guess I'll still get flak from the AMD fanboys. I also have many ideas for new tests, in the realm of applications, gaming and beyond. I expect this new CPU test bench will be ready in early 2021—I have a lot of processors to retest, stay tuned. Zen 3 for VGA reviews? I'm tempted and considering it, but not decided yet.

I'm definitely not finished with gaming performance on Zen 3. My next steps will be to investigate why there is a significant performance difference between AMD and Intel in certain cases, and how to overcome it. I feel like beating Intel in these cases is possible with Zen 3, with small tweaks or fixes.

If you have ideas, suggestions or requests, do let me know in the comments please."


https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-10900k-vs-amd-5900x-gaming-performance/
 
I'm actually kind of curious how much longer Ryzen 5000-series supply will be a problem. Right now, you need to do Nintendo-Wii like 'wait outside at 6am' to even have a chance at buying one at Microcenter. Despite AMD's insistence that it isn't a paper launch, the extremly limited supply suggests otherwise.

Maybe things are better in 2021, but I don't see things improving in holiday season.
 
What kind of a moron doesn't utilize all the memory channels of every system they build?
My company ordered me a new laptop earlier this year with a single 16GB ram module. It's highly annoyed me, but the only reason I think of is to expand the memory up to 32GB if needed.
 
I likely do. I'm considering dropping the spare 2x8gb set I have in the company laptop after upgrading my personal laptop's memory.

I did this a a decade ago - made a huge difference in my ability to get work done on my company laptop. Luckily, upgrading memory isn't something easily blocked, nor does it interfere with corporate IT security.
 
He mentioned his test was with 2x8gb sticks or ram, were those single rank or dual rank 8 gig sticks? If they were single rank, he would likely get a boost with 4 of those installed, or 2x8gb dual rank chips based on previous reports.
 
Good information to have if buying a new cpu/mobo.

Good information to have if planning an AMD cpu only upgrade.

Good information if like me, you are still running an i7-6850k. Still no rush to run out and build a new system (other than for the fun of it :)

Word of advice on either intel or amd platforms and high speed DDR: make sure the ram you buy is on the QVL for the motherboard you choose. Seen it multiple times where ram will not run at the rated speed when not in the QVL for the mobo, which sucks and is disappointing.
 
Interesting!

One thing that I might have missed, or maybe it wasn't covered in this article, is why the 1% and .1% lows are, well, lower on the AMD system even when not overclocked. It struck me as odd that Zen 3 was a bit faster on average even at higher resolutions, but that the FPS dips were much deeper than the Intel.
 
Can confirm....they will use 1 stick of single channel memory whenever possible...and the slowest shit they can find.

To be fair as far as work pc's go they are very reliable and biz support is easy to deal with. HP on the other hand...
If you're ordering via the site - it assumes you'll click the "dell recommended" configuration. If buying from a rep/engineer combo - you'll pretty much always get a system designed properly, costs will vary, and you have to be big enough to have an actual assigned rep.

Same for Lenovo, HP, etc. Minus the botiques.
 
you have to be big enough to have an actual assigned rep.
My company's about 50 people and we have a Dell rep, although who it is has changed over the years. But I'll give the last guy I dealt with credit for warning about pitfalls like single-channel RAM. It's too bad home users don't get that kind of help.
 
If you're ordering via the site - it assumes you'll click the "dell recommended" configuration. If buying from a rep/engineer combo - you'll pretty much always get a system designed properly, costs will vary, and you have to be big enough to have an actual assigned rep.

Same for Lenovo, HP, etc. Minus the botiques.

Yes I have an assigned rep for Dell and HP. Same with Supermicro, Cisco, etc...
 
You know what is complete BS is that Intel reviews have been making the claim for years that they are a better gaming processor and then show them at completely CPU limited situations when that's not the case. Now that AMD wins in completely CPU limited situations, it's suddenly "no big deal" because people play at 1440p and 4K now.
 
Interesting!

One thing that I might have missed, or maybe it wasn't covered in this article, is why the 1% and .1% lows are, well, lower on the AMD system even when not overclocked. It struck me as odd that Zen 3 was a bit faster on average even at higher resolutions, but that the FPS dips were much deeper than the Intel.

That doesn't actually surprise me. The design layout of Zen3 is vastly improved over its predecessors, but the basic layout creates potential latency issues that Intel CPU's simply won't have. For the most part AMD overcomes this with more L3 cache, but it doesn't work in every case.
 
Can't tell if serious...you should be using triple channel on LGA1366.

No, he is likely serious.

Early game tests showed no noticeable difference between dual-channel and triple-channel memory.

https://bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/cpus/intel-core-i7-memory-performance-review/1/

Also, those systems are notorious for not detecting the third channel reliably (first-gen triple-channel system from Intel had a lot of bugs)

https://hardforum.com/threads/ram-issues-on-x58-boards.1546247/

While today's games may have finally caught-up with the dual-channel bandwidth, we are still talking less than 10% average performance improvement - most people still nursing these systems don't tend to be that demanding!


And he would have to pay double the price to get a matched set of 2x dual-channel memory (triple-channel has been replaced with quad, so they don't sell the x3 sets anymore)
 
Last edited:
No, he is likely serious.

Early game tests showed no noticeable difference between dual-channel and triple-channel memory.

Also, those systems are notorious for not detecting the third channel reliably (first-gen triple-channel system from Intel had a lot of bugs)

https://hardforum.com/threads/ram-issues-on-x58-boards.1546247/

While today's games may have finally caught-up with the dual-channel bandwidth, we are still talking less than 10% average performance improvement - most people still nursing these systems don't tend to be that demanding!


And he would have to pay double the price to get a mayched set of 2x dual-chhannel memory (triiple-channel has bbeen replaced weith quuad, so they don't sell the sets abnymore)

I never had an issue with ram detection inder any LGA1366 system I've ever owned and I've always seen an improvement in performance running memory intensive applications. I still run a dual X5675 system with 48GB of ram and perfromance is great for a 10yo system. I have faster machines here, I have no need to use them, and even with C states disabled relying on the Linux performance scheduler power consumption hovers at around 150 watts normal usage and 400 watts full load 12C/24T.
 
I never had an issue with ram detection inder any LGA1366 system I've ever owned and I've always seen an improvement in performance running memory intensive applications. I still run a dual X5675 system with 48GB of ram and perfromance is great for a 10yo system. I have faster machines here, I have no need to use them, and even with C states disabled relying on the Linux performance scheduler power consumption hovers at around 150 watts normal usage and 400 watts full load 12C/24T.


And obviously you are the only user of x58 who maagically never had a problem populating all 6 slots?

Remember when Kyle said the following:

Something is rotten in Denmark and I am not sure it is not the DIMM slots. I boot my system today, it shows 8GB of 12GB. Take the door off, move the DIIMs around, get 12GB on my second boot. I have a BRAND NEW Rampage III Formula showing me the same thing......I have seen this on MSI, GBT, and ASUS with X58 boards..

https://hardforum.com/threads/ram-issues-on-x58-boards.1546247/#post-1036211888

Quit pretending like this platform wasn't a fucking beast to deal-with, you can read the rest of the fucking thread I conveniently linked you!
 
My company ordered me a new laptop earlier this year with a single 16GB ram module. It's highly annoyed me, but the only reason I think of is to expand the memory up to 32GB if needed.
You overestimate corporate purchasing intelligence by a wide margin.

Our IT manager ordered me a non-enterprise Dell laptop (XPS instead of Latitude) in 2018, with 8GB of RAM and a 1TB laptop hard drive in it. No SSD. Can you imagine? A machine without an SSD in 2018?

I lived with that for about 4 months before I started tearing my hair out and replaced the drive on the DL with 16GB of RAM and m.2 NVMe SSD when they started getting cheaper.

Highly prohibited by our IT policy, but I just didn't care anymore. They can fire me if they want to. I can easily find another job in any economy. I just couldn't live like that anymore.
 
How IS intel beating AMD?

Let's check the score fanbois..

Reality Check
Phoronix
"Of the 217 tests run, the Core i9 10900K managed to lead in just 11 tests, or about 5% of the time. AMD CPUs led in the remainder of the benchmarks."
AnandTech
"AMD set a goal to beat the average ~7% IPC year-on-year gain. With +19% IPC on Zen3, Intel has no equal right now - not even Tiger Lake at 4.8 GHz - and has lost that single-threaded crown."
Guru3d
"tackling that last bit of uncertainty, gaming performance. Which was a bit of am Achilles heel on Rzyen in CPU limited game performance. There's no doubt that AMD is now offering the fastest processor series in the consumer market,"
 
Last edited:
How IS intel beating AMD?

Let's check the score fanbois..

Reality Check
Phoronix
"Of the 217 tests run, the Core i9 10900K managed to lead in just 11 tests, or about 5% of the time. AMD CPUs led in the remainder of the benchmarks."
AnandTech
"AMD set a goal to beat the average ~7% IPC year-on-year gain. With +19% IPC on Zen3, Intel has no equal right now - not even Tiger Lake at 4.8 GHz - and has lost that single-threaded crown."

I just checked your Anandtech post and for 1440p min it basically goes back and forth.

Honestly for gaming we’re pretty hard core GPU constrained. Only place I care about CPU is VR. Which is why I had intel for VR and amd for the other two rigs in my house. Now it’s whatever is a better deal.

I guess you could say AMD does win since it crushes Intel in productivity. All I look at is gaming, but I should have noted that.

I still wonder how Intel would be doing on an equal node.
 
And obviously you are the only user of x58 who maagically never had a problem populating all 6 slots?

Remember when Kyle said the following:



https://hardforum.com/threads/ram-issues-on-x58-boards.1546247/#post-1036211888

Quit pretending like this platform wasn't a fucking beast to deal-with, you can read the rest of the fucking thread I conveniently linked you!

Relax.

I've seen DIMM slot issues on dual channel mobo's. LGA1366 is no exception here, and I see few people complaining of triple channel DIMM slot issues in the x58 thread in the Intel forums. I never had a problem with LGA1366. Discuss the topic, don't attack the individual.
 
Our IT manager ordered me a non-enterprise Dell laptop (XPS instead of Latitude) in 2018, with 8GB of RAM and a 1TB laptop hard drive in it. No SSD. Can you imagine? A machine without an SSD in 2018?

I lived with that for about 4 months before I started tearing my hair out and replaced the drive on the DL with 16GB of RAM and m.2 NVMe SSD when they started getting cheaper.

Highly prohibited by our IT policy, but I just didn't care anymore. They can fire me if they want to. I can easily find another job in any economy. I just couldn't live like that anymore.

For reasons that aren't really worth going into, I got delegated years ago to ordering the computers for my office. I made sure to put SSDs in them as soon as they stopped being too expensive. For myself I put the cheapest one available and then replaced it with a bigger one at significantly lower prices. Same thing with RAM. My company's not big enough to check that kind of stuff.
 
Take a 10900k and OC it to all core 5.2 ghz (e.g. doable OC) and compare it to a max OC 5900x/5950x (which I hear gets slower in gaming w/an OC), who would win? That's all any hardcore gamer/enthusiast should care about. Very few spend that much money to run these at stock frequency. FWIW I have a 9900k@5 ghz all core and a 5950x on the way, I'll be directly comparing both once I get the second Ryzen system built. BTW I've been hard pressed to find an OC vs OC review out there, especially from the big name reviewers, it's like they're afraid to show the 10900k will end up on top (I suspect even my 9900k@5 ghz will best my 5950x in most games).

In case anyone thinks I'm gunning for AMD, I own AMD stock and none in Intel, but I do like to see enthusiast level tests since these are enthusiast CPUs. It seems most reviewers often leave that element out which is a shame. IMO the new Ryzens are fantastic but at 7nm they're just now approaching parity with Intel at 14nm in gaming and I'm curious to see how Intel responds w/Alder Lake 10nm in 2021.
 
Last edited:
Take a 10900k and OC it to all core 5.2 ghz (e.g. doable OC) and compare it to a max OC 5900x/5950x (which I hear gets slower in gaming w/an OC), who would win? That's all any hardcore gamer/enthusiast should care about. Very few spend that much money to run these at stock frequency. FWIW I have a 9900k@5 ghz all core and a 5950x on the way, I'll be directly comparing both once I get the second Ryzen system built. BTW I've been hard pressed to find an OC vs OC review out there, especially from the big name reviewers, it's like they're afraid to show the 10900k will end up on top (I suspect even my 9900k@5 ghz will best my 5950x in most games).

In case anyone thinks I'm gunning for AMD, I own AMD stock and none in Intel, but I do like to see enthusiast level tests since these are enthusiast CPUs. It seems most reviewers often leave that element out which is a shame. IMO the new Ryzens are fantastic but at 7nm they're just now approaching parity with Intel at 14nm in gaming and I'm curious to see how Intel responds w/Alder Lake 10nm in 2021.

I don't think anyone has done exactly what you're proposing, I'm not a big fan of tech tubers, but I get suggestions based on some of my subs and I decided to check them out. Neither one shows anything that would be described as parity, but you should watch yourself.


Hardware unboxed did ipc on the 8 core variants (5800/10700)



GN did 6 core variants oc'd and memory tuned.

 
The real comparison isn't the 5950x vs. the 10900k in gaming, but more the 5800x vs. the 10900k. Intel doesn't have an answer for the 5950x, and if you're buying a 5950x just for gaming, you're wasting money (I'd probably say the same about the 10900k vs. the 10850k or 10700k also). The HUB video isn't really helpful because obviously the Intel CPUs clock higher. Nobody is going to run them clocked lower just for kicks. I don't think it was really a question that the 5XXX series had faster IPC since the 3XXX series was faster but they just couldn't clock as high as Intel.

GN's video clearly shows that a tuned 5XXX part is significantly faster in CPU limited situations than a tuned Intel 10th gen part that is comparable in price and has the same number of cores/threads, etc. These are the same tests that Intel used for YEARS to show that they are the better "gaming" processor.
 
What kind of a moron doesn't utilize all the memory channels of every system they build?
Multiple laptop manufacturers only use a single 8GB DIMM. Asus, for example, does this on many of their "high-end" gaming laptops even though doing so has been proven time and time again to cripple performance. Luckily, this is easily resolved by getting another 8GB DIMM.
 
Back
Top