Intel Core i5-10400 vs. AMD Ryzen 5 3600

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,492   +1,466
TechSpot Elite
Your 6700K is only 100MHz slower when run at single core Turbo (4.3 vs 4.2 GHz). Maybe TS' MoBo didn't keep the 10400 at top Turbo bin the whole time? My i5-8400 gets 396 at 4.0 GHz single core Turbo so TS' numbers seem consistent with mine.
 

krizby

Posts: 407   +264
TechSpot Elite
You test with an AIO to ensure the cooler isn't a bottleneck and you test with the stock cooler to see out of the box performance. At this price point it's reasonable to assume a significant portion of people will be using the stock cooler. You don't have to prove anything, this is about giving customers a full picture of the performance they should expect, both out of the box and will an aftermarket cooler.

Nothing is stopping a publication from doing a test or two from their suite with both the stock and after-market coolers. As noted, the omission is likely due to time constraints rather then simply thinking it won't be beneficial.
HUB test the box cooler separately and it's not inclusive in any CPU review



Jup, 90C at 44dBa for the Wraith Stealth that the R5 3600 come with. It's not really recommended by any reviewer to use the box cooler R5 3600 come with, even HUB.

20 extra dollars is a cheap price to pay for a cool and quiet PC, also with Ryzen you can extract a little bit more performance going with a better cooler even at stock settings...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lew Zealand

Evernessince

Posts: 5,202   +5,572
HUB test the box cooler separately and it's not inclusive in any CPU review



Jup, 90C at 44dBa for the Wraith Stealth that the R5 3600 come with. It's not really recommended by any reviewer to use the box cooler R5 3600 come with, even HUB.
From that very review:

"Although AMD's Wraith coolers don't get a ton of love from everyone -- and evidently you can do better by spending as little as $20 - $30 on an aftermarket tower style cooler -- the convenience of a decent box cooler means upgrading is not a must and ultimately many people don’t. "


I can't tell you how many PC's I've repaired with a 3570K or other K class CPU at completely stock settings, no overclock.

Ultimately, stock is what's going to get used the vast majority of the time, save for a few select enthusiasts parts.

You have to remember the graph above is a worst case scenario with TechSpot likely putting the PC under full utilization for an extended period of time to saturate the sinks. Actual operating temps when using the PC will be much lower, depending on what's being done. If you are encoding then the aftermarket cooler might be worth it. Otherwise you'll likely be looking at 65 - 78c during gaming, which is perfectly acceptable.

If you look at the graph, the difference between a beefy cooler and the wraith stealth is 50 MHz. Not really worth it. The only stock cooler that is a problem on that list is Intel's current aluminum stock cooler (they no longer offer the cooper one), which is both thermal throttling and exceeding long term safe operating temperatures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR01 and meric
Yep, it's not like AMD will be idling until Intel can launch 7nm. It's pretty remarkable how much pressure AMD has been able to apply to Intel on desktop, mobile and server. Too bad AMD's Radeon group hasn't been able to push Nvidia as hard.
Well, I think Radeon is actually pushing Nvidia. It's just that Nvidia is not Intel. Instead of sleeping (and milking users) Nvidia hasn't stopped doing the homework and so they keep the lead. We'll see what happens fall 2020 though.
 

grumblguts

Posts: 313   +273
If that it indeed the case and not a typo on the level I think (because 3700k doesn't exist, but I thought maybe you meant 3600/X), than good for you, fantastic buy, and enjoy! However, that is an very-very rare and extreme bargain...the 3700x is currently at the 280-ish bar here, with the occassional "box damaged' sample going for 250. To find one at 150, that must have been a one-in-a-million chance (and probably someone made a clerical error somewhere).

Still, at current prices here int he UK, the 3600 at Ł165 (with a cosmetic damage sample sitting at 140, but even new ones can be ordered for 151, included with prime) offers very good value, while the 10400 costs...oh wait, it is not even available yet. So while it is good to see some competition finally, and Intel getting down from the high horse (was about damn time), it will take some more time till the actual fight begins, and I reckon it will be a tough one.
X
typo is a typo
my other pc is a 2700k last 8 years I been typing K so forgive the typo

Do you want to see the invoice I will happy share.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR01

krizby

Posts: 407   +264
TechSpot Elite
From that very review:

"Although AMD's Wraith coolers don't get a ton of love from everyone -- and evidently you can do better by spending as little as $20 - $30 on an aftermarket tower style cooler -- the convenience of a decent box cooler means upgrading is not a must and ultimately many people don’t. "


I can't tell you how many PC's I've repaired with a 3570K or other K class CPU at completely stock settings, no overclock.

Ultimately, stock is what's going to get used the vast majority of the time, save for a few select enthusiasts parts.

You have to remember the graph above is a worst case scenario with TechSpot likely putting the PC under full utilization for an extended period of time to saturate the sinks. Actual operating temps when using the PC will be much lower, depending on what's being done. If you are encoding then the aftermarket cooler might be worth it. Otherwise you'll likely be looking at 65 - 78c during gaming, which is perfectly acceptable.

If you look at the graph, the difference between a beefy cooler and the wraith stealth is 50 MHz. Not really worth it. The only stock cooler that is a problem on that list is Intel's current aluminum stock cooler (they no longer offer the cooper one), which is both thermal throttling and exceeding long term safe operating temperatures.
Nah Intel changed the boxed cooler on the 10th gen non K series CPU already but no one really care

I do have the R5 3600 myself and with a Kraken x62 cooler, the CPU use around 80-90w in gaming, boosting to 4150mhz (PBO enabled, can't get the CPU to boost to 4200mhz ever, probably just bad silicon lottery), the boxed cooler would definitely throttle the CPU even in gaming. Even 50-100mhz is worth it when you only have to spend 20usd more, or even that is too much lol.

Anyways using the boxed cooler would make the R5 3600 looks worse in comparison here because the i5-10400 come with a better cooler this time and its frequency is not thermally dependence (doesn't have velocity boost). It would also be unfair to R5 3600 too since people can spend less with a B450 motherboard and spend a little more on aftermarket cooler to get some more performance...
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,202   +5,572
Nah Intel changed the boxed cooler on the 10th gen non K series CPU already but no one really care
Looks like they went with a cooper base. The only problem is, it still looks like they kept the reduced sink size. The older Intel coolers had a slightly larger heatsink on them. That's a big part of why they were able to get reduced temps over the aluminum models.

the boxed cooler would definitely throttle the CPU even in gaming. Even 50-100mhz is worth it when you only have to spend 20usd more, or even that is too much lol.

You are looking at a 3.59% difference stock vs liquid cooling which equates 1-3 frames in most games. Given that's with a pricey cooler, I'm not the least bit impressed with the performance advantage you are getting. For most people this is just introducing unneeded work. As an enthusiast understand the simplicity of just using the stock cooler for regular customers who aren't super savvy.

Anyways using the boxed cooler would make the R5 3600 looks worse in comparison here because the i5-10400 come with a better cooler this time and its frequency is not thermally dependence (doesn't have velocity boost). It would also be unfair to R5 3600 too since people can spend less with a B450 motherboard and spend a little more on aftermarket cooler to get some more performance...
It's likely not as good as Intel's old cooper sinks, which lost to the wraith stealth anyways. I would read an article on the topic though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR01

krizby

Posts: 407   +264
TechSpot Elite
Looks like they went with a cooper base. The only problem is, it still looks like they kept the reduced sink size. The older Intel coolers had a slightly larger heatsink on them. That's a big part of why they were able to get reduced temps over the aluminum models.

You are looking at a 3.59% difference stock vs liquid cooling which equates 1-3 frames in most games. Given that's with a pricey cooler, I'm not the least bit impressed with the performance advantage you are getting. For most people this is just introducing unneeded work. As an enthusiast understand the simplicity of just using the stock cooler for regular customers who aren't super savvy.

It's likely not as good as Intel's old cooper sinks, which lost to the wraith stealth anyways. I would read an article on the topic though.
That clip use the CM Masterliquid Lite 120 AIO which is 40usd, and it's already getting 100mhz higher boost than with the boxed cooler.

People would eventually get annoyed by the stock cooler (when it gets dusty or the fans speed change too quickly) and would swap out the cooler anyways, might as well put an aftermarket in there when you build the PC, it's much less work when the motherboard in still outside the case. It's like you save a penny then lose a dime situation...

There are plenty of complains about the R5 3600 boxed cooler online already, idk why you would insist on using it...unless you hate the people you are building PC for...
 
Last edited:

Evernessince

Posts: 5,202   +5,572
That clip use the CM Masterliquid Lite 120 AIO which is 40usd, and it's already getting 100mhz higher boost than with the boxed cooler.
+$22.25 shipping

Saying it's $40 USD is just plain misleading.

People would eventually get annoyed by the stock cooler (when it gets dusty or the fans change speed too quickly) and would swap out the cooler anyways, might as well put an aftermarket in there when you build the PC, it's much less work when the motherboard in still outside the case. It's like you save a penny then lose a dime situation...
Now you are reaching for straws. You are going to have to clean the PC regardless. Stock or otherwise. There are no such fan speed issues with the AMD stock cooler.

There are plenty of complains about the R5 3600 boxed cooler online already, idk why you would insist on using it...unless you hate the people you are building PC for...
Once again, you are not providing any evidence. Let me guess: random reddit and forums posts said so? If you believe that then I guess Nvidia has rampant black screen issues according to the forum posts I can find. Suffice it to say, first back up your posts with evidence. Second, make sure they are credible. All that and take into consideration the number of those having issues and the total number of products on the market. Some random, potentially completely novice user experiencing issues out of millions of sold CPUs doesn't say to me "This is an issue".

I just tested and sold 3 VR PCs 4 weeks ago. You want to know the temps I was getting while gaming on the 1600AF (all of them had the same CPU) for testing purposes with the stock cooler? 68c. That's in the witcher 3. Ambient temp was 72 F.
 

krizby

Posts: 407   +264
TechSpot Elite
+$22.25 shipping

Saying it's $40 USD is just plain misleading.



Now you are reaching for straws. You are going to have to clean the PC regardless. Stock or otherwise. There are no such fan speed issues with the AMD stock cooler.



Once again, you are not providing any evidence. Let me guess: random reddit and forums posts said so? If you believe that then I guess Nvidia has rampant black screen issues according to the forum posts I can find. Suffice it to say, first back up your posts with evidence. Second, make sure they are credible. All that and take into consideration the number of those having issues and the total number of products on the market. Some random, potentially completely novice user experiencing issues out of millions of sold CPUs doesn't say to me "This is an issue".

I just tested and sold 3 VR PCs 4 weeks ago. You want to know the temps I was getting while gaming on the 1600AF (all of them had the same CPU) for testing purposes with the stock cooler? 68c. That's in the witcher 3. Ambient temp was 72 F.
Yeah sure, guessing the 3600 stock cooling with the 1600AF lol, did you know that they are entirely different chip ? 3600 is easily hotter than 2600 stock vs stock


It even said the ryzen 3rd gen is hot in the clip that you posted, did you even look ?

Here is a test between Wraith Stealth vs Wraith Spire with the 3600

Now look at the Gears 5 scene


82C for the Stealth cooler, now that is just pathetic. Sure it works but why penny wise, pound foolish here. Spend the extra 20usd and get an aftermarket cooler, it takes 5 minutes to put it on when you first build the PC
And when you buy the cooler with the PC parts, the shipping fee is all included no ?

To the mod here: if you are not happy, just delete my account please. Doesn't really bother me as much as deleting my post.
Or do you prefer I just list all the search results straight from google for the sake of arguments
 
Last edited:

Lounds

Posts: 489   +369
Clearly the 10400 i5 is designed for OEM PC manufacturers in mind, DELL for example would pick the 10400 over the Ryzen 3600 for their mid range optiplexs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SeekerJBP
I love my new 3300X!
However, I am concerned what will happen when Intel introduces their 7nm or 5nm chips. Currently AMD and Intel are kind of even in gaming in my opinion though AMD is doing it a better price and overall value.
Don't you guys find it weird that 7nm AMD equals 14nm Intel? I would be concerned if I were Lisa Su.

Any thoughts?
I've read somewhere in reddit that AMD 7nm is equals to the latest or 10nm side of intel, this is because.

1. Intel Fabricates its own technology and specialized in it
2. AMD is freefab, uses TSMC and other companies for fabricating their units, which doesn't specialized in any.

Therefore. the transistor die size doesn't count much in battle here. the 10nm of intel isn't as powerful as their 14nm+++++ yet as well even if they get the breakthrough. which in sense should be, but according to the reddit post it isn't. because Intel was very late in their roadmap
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Farkas

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,802
I've enjoyed watching this chip go against the 8700K since its debut, AMD has definitely improved its gaming performance since its release. Hard to argue against the 3600 for most budget builds.
Nice review Steve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR01
This chip doesn't go against i7-8700K, it goes against i7-8700, which is also 6/12 65W, but have 300MHz higher base and boost clocks (i5-10400 @ 2.9-4.3 GHz vs i7-8700 @ 3.2-4.6 GHz).
Why not test i5-10400 in Intel-spec power limits? Where i7-8700 test results?
 

total

Posts: 23   +3
DirectX 12 utilizes multicored CPUs better than DirectX 11.
Not sure why you're keeping testing Battlefield V on DirectX 11, such tests prove and indicate nothing but DirectX 11's inability to fully utilize your multicored CPU and your GPU.

Please STOP testing BF V on DirectX 11, test it on DirectX 12 instead for the sake of finally reliable results.
 
I love my new 3300X!
However, I am concerned what will happen when Intel introduces their 7nm or 5nm chips. Currently AMD and Intel are kind of even in gaming in my opinion though AMD is doing it a better price and overall value.
Don't you guys find it weird that 7nm AMD equals 14nm Intel? I would be concerned if I were Lisa Su.

Any thoughts?
I don't think they have a reason to be worried for many reasons.
First, Intel is pushing their very old and very well known architecture to the absolute limits, while Ryzen is still pretty new and there are huge leaps between every generation, it still has lot of room for improvement.
Even if Intel were to introduce a brand new architecture, it would probably set them back for a few years and they would have to catch up.
Second, by the time Intel goes 7nm, AMD will be probably on the next one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Farkas

Laurie McKinlay

Posts: 8   +6
I love my new 3300X!
However, I am concerned what will happen when Intel introduces their 7nm or 5nm chips. Currently AMD and Intel are kind of even in gaming in my opinion though AMD is doing it a better price and overall value.
Don't you guys find it weird that 7nm AMD equals 14nm Intel? I would be concerned if I were Lisa Su.

Any thoughts?
Yeah - if your 3300X does everything you want it to, forget about your concern and be happy with great performance at a bargain price.

As long as AMD boards offer great feature sets like overclocking being available by default, adjustable memory timings and excellent compatibility with future CPUs, then they will keep selling strongly. And we're at the point where most people won't need the improvement in performance from future generations. When you have 8 core CPUs like the 2700X and 3600 that will last at least 10 years, people just stop needing to upgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Farkas
Hi sorry for my bad english, you have see high temperature in 3600. It's because many Motherboard set high voltage to cpu. Stock cooler is perfect with this cpu and non need exotic cooler. My experience is that asrock & asus set high vcore, but if you see datasheet of cpu can set this cpu core under 1.20/1.22V and reduce temperature from 80/85 C to 40/45 C celsius. I hope Motherboard constructor change bios to set vcore in adeguate manner.
 

krizby

Posts: 407   +264
TechSpot Elite
Hi sorry for my bad english, you have see high temperature in 3600. It's because many Motherboard set high voltage to cpu. Stock cooler is perfect with this cpu and non need exotic cooler. My experience is that asrock & asus set high vcore, but if you see datasheet of cpu can set this cpu core under 1.20/1.22V and reduce temperature from 80/85 C to 40/45 C celsius. I hope Motherboard constructor change bios to set vcore in adeguate manner.
Default voltage is 1.4V for single core boost, when you undervolt you actually reduce the single core boost that the chip can reach, not an optimal solution.
Steve from GamersNexus mentioned that the clocked reported when you undervolt is false, you can get lower performance even though the clock is reportedly higher, it must be crosschecked with benchmark (at the 11:00 minute mark)

Ryzen 3rd gen's performance is affected by temperature, by using a better cooler you can gain some performance already without tinkering with Bios.


Here is the chart


Reducing the operating temperature from 80C to 60C can net you 4% Cinebench score, which is a tangible difference.

There is no need for an exotic cooler for 3600, even a 20usd Deepcool Gammaxx 400 or 30usd Hyper Evo 212 can lower the temperature by 20C compare to the Wraith stealth, bringing out the best of 3600 and still be whisper quiet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ExtenZ

smartroad

Posts: 6   +1
The article is about comparing the i5 ro the R5 yet on your charts you only highlight the i5 meaning the reader had to hunt for the R5 results. Could you also highlight the CPU you are comparing to?

My inner consipirasy theorist wants to say Intel paid you to not highlight the competition and loose it in the see of blue LOL ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ExtenZ
Nice post. Think my i5-9500F is last intel CPU who I buy (I mean new cpu), from my old evolution (p1-166mmx, pII-400, p4, e2200, e5800, e8400, i3-3220)
now look to optimal game rig 6c/12th or only 8c/8th for fullHD or 2K resolution