Ryzen 7 3700X Trades Blows with Core i7-10700, 3600X with i5-10600K: Early ES Review

erek

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
5,198
Competition is sparkin up!!

"The Ryzen 7 3700X beats the Core i7-10700 in Cinebench R15, but falls behind in Cinebench R20. The two end up performing within 2% of each other in CPU-Z bench, 3DMark Time Spy and FireStrike Extreme (physics scores). The mid-range Ryzen 5 3600X has much better luck warding off its upcoming rivals, with significant performance leads over the i5-10600K and i5-10500 in both versions of Cinebench, CPU-Z bench, as well as both 3DMark tests. The i5-10400 is within 6% of the i5-10600K. This is important, as the iGPU-devoid i5-10400F could retail at price points well under $190, two-thirds the price of the i5-10600K."

https://www.techpowerup.com/265368/...i7-10700-3600x-with-i5-10600k-early-es-review
 

cjcox

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,641
In a surprising move, AMD users across the countries ripped their CPUs out of the machines, and have gathered for a bonfire burning of CPUs and GPUs outside AMD headquarters. Signs read, "You Lied to Us!" and "Size Doesn't Matter" and "Give Us Big Navi, or Give Us Death".

We caught up with one of the protesters who only wanted to be identified as "Bob". He said, "I just want Half Life 3."
 

Retsam

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
3,607
Well, if they would end up being the same prices and perform in threaded applications the same, the question is would intel still be beating amd in gaming. If Intel had it priced the same as the 3700x and still beats it in gaming, then that could be a pretty good buy for anyone wanting to go intel.
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,333
Well, if they would end up being the same prices and perform in threaded applications the same, the question is would intel still be beating amd in gaming. If Intel had it priced the same as the 3700x and still beats it in gaming, then that could be a pretty good buy for anyone wanting to go intel.
I would assume it will as it seems the clock speeds are ever so slightly higher

big meh. If it launches at equal pricing, cool but I don't have faith in intel in dropping their price brackets.
 

fullvietFX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
1,867
How hot is the Intel though? My 9900K is so damn hot and the fans get so loud when I'm gaming.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
25,838
Well, if they would end up being the same prices and perform in threaded applications the same, the question is would intel still be beating amd in gaming. If Intel had it priced the same as the 3700x and still beats it in gaming, then that could be a pretty good buy for anyone wanting to go intel.
Similar performance in everything else and a slight boost in gaming isn't going to be worth $100 (closer to $200 by the time they are readily available) to most people outside of competitive gamers. Unless there is some other compelling reason to buy Intel (personal preference?).
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,129
"The i5-10400 is within 6% of the i5-10600K. This is important, as the iGPU-devoid i5-10400F could retail at price points well under $190, two-thirds the price of the i5-10600K." "

"The four chips were paired with a Dell-sourced OEM motherboard based on Intel's B460 chipset "

Uh-huh. Based on numbers I've seen, the all-core boost between those two is 500MHz at stock speed. Based on my experience with Dell systems (most recently, an Optiplex 5000 series with an i7-8700 which rapidly drops to the base speed under all-core load--it will NOT draw more than 65W), the 10400F, if it's used in them, will tend to run all-core at the *base* speed, not the all-core clock speed, due to small HSF and anemic power supplies. The base speed of the two chips differ by 1.2GHz, and that's before we consider overclocking.

The '400F will probalby be fine for office work and the like, but I bet that 6% difference won't hold against an overclocked '600K.
 

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,143
How hot is the Intel though? My 9900K is so damn hot and the fans get so loud when I'm gaming.

Right, this is why the Ryzen 2 APU rapes the Coffee Lake Refresh in notebooks - it's nowhere near the same performance/watt.

4.png

The new 10-core revision has obviously already maxed-out any efficiency gains they could eck out of the 14nm+++++ process, and it's the same old Skylake. Expect clocks to be up slightly (as well as power to griw significantly).

And given the current delays on release, it's probably going to have Zen 3 as it''s competitior. So it will have even worse performanc, and you'll be able to find those competitve Zen 2 chips at even more of a discount.
 
Last edited:

vegeta535

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
3,999
So they hit parity with the 3700x which can be had for $280 from microcenter and the 3800x is $299 at mc.

I'm assuming the 10700k will still launch at 399?

Yawn.
Probably closer to $500. You know Intel needs to keep up the premium product appearance.
 

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,143
Probably closer to $500. You know Intel needs to keep up the premium product appearance.

I expect prices from the 9900k generation to fall around 50 bucks (and add ht to everything). That will make room for the new 10-cores at $500. So the cut-down 9700 with HT will be $300.

Zen 2 desktop APUs will probably top-out at $250 and 8-cores, making this new Intel platform pretty pointless (that gives you Zen 2 with way more powereul APU for a lower price, and comparable performance). I expect Zen 3 to launch at the same prices as Zen 2.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
25,838
The new 10-core revision has obviously already maxed-out any efficiency gains they could eck out of the 14nm+++++ process, and it's the same old Skylake. Expect clocks to be up slightly (as well as power to griw significantly).

And given the current delays on release, it's probably going to have Zen 3 as it''s competitior. So it will have even worse performanc, and you'll be able to find those competitve Zen 2 chips at even more of a discount.
Not only will it be competing with AMD, but with the forthcoming Rocket Lake which Intel is trying to get out the door this year on another new chipset. If you're an Intel fan, you're better off sticking with what you have and waiting for Rocket Lake.
 

Dayaks

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
7,790
How hot is the Intel though? My 9900K is so damn hot and the fans get so loud when I'm gaming.
My 9900KF only uses around 120W IIRC at 5Ghz. It shouldn’t be that hard to cool... it’s only an 8 core CPU.
 

Dayaks

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
7,790
That's only until you actually load it :p.

There are plenty of reviews showing the 9900k pulling ~170W with no all core OC under a full load and near 250W with an AVX load at 5Ghz.
148W all core 5Ghz here no AVX...CPU not whole rig. He said gaming so he should be pulling well under that...
 

fullvietFX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
1,867
My 9900KF only uses around 120W IIRC at 5Ghz. It shouldn’t be that hard to cool... it’s only an 8 core CPU.
I have a 240mm AIO. The fans have to be on max when it's full load. They are quiet fans though Noctua but still loud to me.
 

legcramp

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
10,940
So pretty much Intel will at least tie the multi-threading and also provide the fastest gaming experience especially for high refresh needs for $399 price-tag. That's actually pretty good lol
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,579
I'm going to post what people say about AMD GPUs; why on earth would you bother nearly a year later to buy the same or less performance with more power use from Intel, at nearly double the price, on a platform that'll last maybe one CPU revision if you're lucky? People aren't that stupid. OEMs are for the bucks.
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,333
I'm going to post what people say about AMD GPUs; why on earth would you bother nearly a year later to buy the same or less performance with more power use from Intel, at nearly double the price, on a platform that'll last maybe one CPU revision if you're lucky? People aren't that stupid. OEMs are for the bucks.
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :cry::cry::cry::cry:

So pretty much Intel will at least tie the multi-threading and also provide the fastest gaming experience especially for high refresh needs for $399 price-tag. That's actually pretty good lol
the 3900x is $399, sorry intel.
 

fullvietFX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
1,867
I'm going to post what people say about AMD GPUs; why on earth would you bother nearly a year later to buy the same or less performance with more power use from Intel, at nearly double the price, on a platform that'll last maybe one CPU revision if you're lucky? People aren't that stupid. OEMs are for the bucks.
I was hoping I could drop in another processor in my Z390 board but that won't be happening. Definitely going AMD when DDR5 comes out.
 

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,143
So pretty much Intel will at least tie the multi-threading and also provide the fastest gaming experience especially for high refresh needs for $399 price-tag. That's actually pretty good lol
I

It's not released yet. Anyone have the date of availability?

The problem with any soon to be released part from Intel is that AMD has also been moving in the year since Zen 2 became the world changer that it is. They're ready to roll with Zen 3. Same quarter that we can actually expect this already-delayed shit from Intel be available!

The reason why Intel is releasing the same old 8-core refresh laptop parts today is because they are nowhere near ready to release this new socket with ten cores.

So the best Intel will do for the whole remainder of the year is match the 3700x, and trail the 3900x! The 4700x will make it it's bitch by Septembr - you can bet on it! Much like you can bet on these CONSTANTLY DELAYED 10-core parts eventually shipping.
 
Last edited:

Nanan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
1,226
Let me know when AMD comes out with a processor that has single core performance that beats my existing 7700k @ 5ghz by at least 10%
 

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,143
Let me know when AMD comes out with a processor that has single core performance that beats my existing 7700k @ 5ghz by at least 10%
It's been done. already.

https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-3950x-16-core-cpu-5-ghz-overclock-ddr4-5100-mhz-world-record/

I guarantee the IPC of your processors is identical. It's going to bridge this "high-end overclockers-only gap " with Zen 3.

When Intel just stops trying, you're allowed to believe in AMD. 300 mhz boost clock increase over 9900k tells me Intel has given up! Zen 2 bumped general IPC 15%, plus increased boost clocks 10% over 2700x! If you think they can't overcome the remaining 10% gaming performance gap between the stock 3950x and the 9900k, you're nuts.
 
Last edited:

Falkentyne

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
1,634
That's only until you actually load it :p.

There are plenty of reviews showing the 9900k pulling ~170W with no all core OC under a full load and near 250W with an AVX load at 5Ghz.
Why would you *NEED* to run a power virus on a 9900k to force it to pull 190 amps and 250 Watts+ (from the VRM?). A normal user who isn't doing prime number crunching isn't going to pull 250 watts from a 9900k.
Battlefield 5 at 1.3v load voltage (measured by die sense) should be around the 170 watt range at most. So yes, just because a CPU is capable of pulling 250 watts doesn't mean you should make it do it.

(also please note that CPU Package Power is NOT an accurate measurement, which 95% of people wrongly use. CPU Package Power is VID * Amps and VID is *NOT* Vcore, unless your AC and DC Loadline are synched with VRM Loadline and you're using auto/adaptive or offset modes (not that most offset modes will not add an offset to VID itself).
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,956
So pretty much Intel will at least tie the multi-threading and also provide the fastest gaming experience especially for high refresh needs for $399 price-tag. That's actually pretty good lol
So getting less cores than the 3900X, at the same price, less multi-core performance (cause less cores), is all good as long as you get barely outside of margin of error (on average) and only if you're running 1080p above 120hz (and, to a lesser extent, 1440p above 120hz)? Alternatively, you could get the cheaper 3700X and put the savings towards a GPU, which would provide a hell of a lot better performance gains than the more expensive CPU.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
25,838
You know this is r/AMD when references to microcenter and wccftech are both referenced in the same thread 😂
An Intel fan should recognize that they are recycling Coffee Lake adding two cores on the highest end, enabling hyper threading, and burning everyone for a new socket (again). You're not going to see anything worth seeing until Rocket Lake.

Why would you *NEED* to run a power virus on a 9900k to force it to pull 190 amps and 250 Watts+ (from the VRM?). A normal user who isn't doing prime number crunching isn't going to pull 250 watts from a 9900k.
Battlefield 5 at 1.3v load voltage (measured by die sense) should be around the 170 watt range at most. So yes, just because a CPU is capable of pulling 250 watts doesn't mean you should make it do it.

(also please note that CPU Package Power is NOT an accurate measurement, which 95% of people wrongly use. CPU Package Power is VID * Amps and VID is *NOT* Vcore, unless your AC and DC Loadline are synched with VRM Loadline and you're using auto/adaptive or offset modes (not that most offset modes will not add an offset to VID itself).
So you're saying that an Intel 9900k ISN'T a power hog compared to the 3700X? Because that seems to defy reality... The 10700k is just a recycled 9900k so we would expect similar behavior...
 

Falkentyne

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
1,634
An Intel fan should recognize that they are recycling Coffee Lake adding two cores on the highest end, enabling hyper threading, and burning everyone for a new socket (again). You're not going to see anything worth seeing until Rocket Lake.



So you're saying that an Intel 9900k ISN'T a power hog compared to the 3700X? Because that seems to defy reality... The 10700k is just a recycled 9900k so we would expect similar behavior...
Why does everyone put words in my mouth and claim I say stuff I didn't say?
I never claimed it's not a power hog.
 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,088
In a surprising move, AMD users across the countries ripped their CPUs out of the machines, and have gathered for a bonfire burning of CPUs and GPUs outside AMD headquarters. Signs read, "You Lied to Us!" and "Size Doesn't Matter" and "Give Us Big Navi, or Give Us Death".

We caught up with one of the protesters who only wanted to be identified as "Bob". He said, "I just want Half Life 3."
I just hope they were maintaining social distance.
 

Staples

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
7,915
I am worried about desktop chips. Took Intel way too long to get gen 10 chips to desktop and it is rumored that AMD will have their 4xxx series mobile chips out like 6 months before desktop chips.
 

Nanan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
1,226
Your 7700K at 5Ghz has less single thread performance than my 3800X at 4.5Ghz.
By what benchmarks? All that I am seeing on the various benchmark sights seem to show them about on par with one being just a few percent above the other back and forth. Maybe the next generation of AMD will be good enough to care about building a new rig, sidegrades are pointless.

I honestly don't care about multi-core bench, so few games and programs actually use more than 1 or 2 cores outside of research and professional rendering and FEA/FEM/CFD software.
 

Master_shake_

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
11,862
By what benchmarks? All that I am seeing on the various benchmark sights seem to show them about on par with one being just a few percent above the other back and forth. Maybe the next generation of AMD will be good enough to care about building a new rig, sidegrades are pointless.

I honestly don't care about multi-core bench, so few games and programs actually use more than 1 or 2 cores outside of research and professional rendering and FEA/FEM/CFD software.
the 3700x embarrasses the 7700k in every benchmark on this page including power usage.

https://forums.oculusvr.com/communi...intel-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i7-8700k-and-i7-7700k

so when are you buying one?
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,388
By what benchmarks? All that I am seeing on the various benchmark sights seem to show them about on par with one being just a few percent above the other back and forth. Maybe the next generation of AMD will be good enough to care about building a new rig, sidegrades are pointless.
Before the numerous firmware and microcode patches, perhaps they could have been similar, within 10-15% of each other (3800X being faster still).
After the numerous firmware and microcode patches, the performance of the 7700K, depending on the application, is going to drop between 10-60% from any previous performance metrics.

Sandy Bridge to Kaby Lake, in terms of performance decreases from the exploit patches, dropped the most performance and were hit the hardest by them.
Also, Hyper-threading (SMT) is dead on Intel CPUs due to it needing to be disabled to help mitigate the Foreshadow exploit; I'm actually amazed any Intel CPUs still roll with it enabled at all, considering it is one flaw that Intel has never fixed, even on the later generation CPUs.

I honestly don't care about multi-core bench, so few games and programs actually use more than 1 or 2 cores outside of research and professional rendering and FEA/FEM/CFD software.
Yes, both games and applications alike, will utilize far more than 1-2 cores - we aren't living in 2008 any more.
Far Cry: New Dawn uses 8 cores/threads in full-SMP, and even a web browser like Chrome or Firefox will utilize 8+ cores/threads depending on how much data they are loading or work they are performing.
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,956
I honestly don't care about multi-core bench, so few games and programs actually use more than 1 or 2 cores outside of research and professional rendering and FEA/FEM/CFD software.
You are VERY misinformed. Many AAA games these days require quad core+ CPUs and most of them will utilize 8 or more. This has been the case since studios switched over to coding primarily for the current generation of consoles.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,733
How hot is the Intel though? My 9900K is so damn hot and the fans get so loud when I'm gaming.
My 2700X while running HandBrake will get as hot as 65C, but then again I'm using a custom loop. I hear 9900K's typically run 90C while air cooling.
 
Top