Intel Core i5-10400 vs. AMD Ryzen 5 3600

[highwind]

The conclusion in terms of price-performance is kinda flawed...

1. The competitor of the R5 3600 is the i5 10400F (not the i5 10400 without F), because we want to compare CPUs without iGPU instead of adding a ~20$ price premium on Intels side for a feature the AMD CPU doesnt even offer

2. The match -in terms of features and connectivity- for mid- to upper-level B450 boards are entry level Z490 boards (and not mid- to upper-level Z490 boards) which are quite cheaper than what is stated in the article

So, atleast in the EU, the difference between an i5 10400F and a good entry level Z490 board (like Gigabyte Z490M) is marginal in comparison to a R5 3600 and a compareable B450 board (like the MSI B450M Mortar Max)... somewhere between 10-20€.

 

[shady28]

Virtually everything considered "productivity" here is rendering.

How about testing performance of things people actually do a lot of?

Like OCR - convert scanned document into a text document? (Google Tesseract)
MS Excel ?
SQL performance?

You've got like 10 encoding benchmarks here. You've got 7-zip but how many people use that compared to how many use Windows built-in compress/decompress, which is also used for the massively common task of patch installs? It's also already known that WinRAR typically Intel wins and AMD loses, but you use 7-zip alone, even though WinRAR performance is usually 40-250% faster compress/decompress to .RAR than 7-Zip to .7z format

Also on MP3 encoding, the most common encoding format on the planet, nothing here to reflect that. This is another one where Intel typically wins.

Not sure what to think when the only concept of 'productivity' is a bunch of video rendering engines and AMD slanted encoding benchmarks.

 

[Mohankumar20]

Comparing technical specifications between the two processors is a difficult task, with the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 on one side and the Intel Core i5-10400 on the other. The first is dedicated to the desktop sector, it has 6 cores, 12 threads, a maximum frequency of 4.2GHz. The same is used on the second desktop segment, it has a total of 6 cores, 12 threads, with its turbo frequency set to 4.3 GHz.
Both are impressively done good job.

 

[Lutis]

Was something changed for the far cry and tomb raider tests? 9400 vs 3600 review intel won 3600 in far cry and in tomb raider it was clear victory for 8700k against 3600.

Is it game updates or driver updates or something?

 

[HardReset]

Was something changed for the far cry and tomb raider tests? 9400 vs 3600 review intel won 3600 in far cry and in tomb raider it was clear victory for 8700k against 3600.

Is it game updates or driver updates or something?

8700K has Hyper Threading, i5-9400 does not.

 

[Lutis]

8700K has Hyper Threading, i5-9400 does not.

Yes. But even than the 9400 was ahead in far cry compared to 3600. But in this review in far cry 3600 is same or slightly better than 9400. In the 3600 vs 9400 review the min fps on far cry was 14fps better for 9400 if I remember right.

And in tomb raider 8700k was fastest in the 3600 vs 9400 review with 10 fps better min fps. But in this review 3600 is for some reason faster.

Im just tying to find out what made the 3600 faster.

 

[HardReset]

Yes. But even than the 9400 was ahead in far cry compared to 3600. But in this review in far cry 3600 is same or slightly better than 9400. In the 3600 vs 9400 review the min fps on far cry was 14fps better for 9400 if I remember right.

And in tomb raider 8700k was fastest in the 3600 vs 9400 review with 10 fps better min fps. But in this review 3600 is for some reason faster.

Im just tying to find out what made the 3600 faster.

They tested both games with different settings. Far Cry1440p vs 1080p and Tomb Raider 1440p ultra vs 1080p highest. That explains a lot.

 

[neeyik]

Steve and Tim use in-game testing as much as possible, when reviewing CPUs and GPUs, and sometimes better sections of a game are found to stress a particular aspect of the hardware being reviewed - so it's possible they retested all of the CPUs in new areas.

But the 3600 vs 9400F review came out in August 2019, almost a year ago, and platforms, drivers, operating systems, even the games themselves, may well have changed in that time (due to updates, bug fixes, etc).

@HardReset - well spotted. Far Cry New Dawn was done at the same quality settings (DX11, Ultra) in both reviews, but in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, the older review used the stock 'Highest' settings, whereas this review used the custom 'Ultra' one, where the texture and shadow quality, and level of detail are set to Ultra.

 

[Lutis]

Ok, thanks.

 

[pcnthuziast]

Nice to see my aging 6700k have better single core performance than at least the weakest current i5. lol

 

[BigBrainyStuff]

Just use a b460 board lmao, boom better gaming performance and cheaper... also you can find the 10400 for 150 bucks any day so its way cheaper, this post was really biast considering your using b540 on amd and a z490 on intel not balanced at all ofc a z490 is going to cost more.

 

[Irata]

Just use a b460 board lmao, boom better gaming performance and cheaper... also you can find the 10400 for 150 bucks any day so its way cheaper, this post was really biast considering your using b540 on amd and a z490 on intel not balanced at all ofc a z490 is going to cost more.

That price is in store @ Microcenter, so if you live near one you can get it at that price, if not it‘s more like $179.

Of course you can run the 10400 on a cheaper b460 board, but with the lower memory speed you will also get lower performance, I.e. it‘s at best on par in gaming, slower at everything else and that‘s not even considering less IO (everything except the x16 GPU lanes go via the chipset).

Still, either is not a bad buy.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Well given the insane prices of today, the 10400f at $159 is a much better deal then the ryzen 3600 at $199/209. Even without memory oc, for a basic gaming build the i5 is in a good position.

 

[HardReset]

Well given the insane prices of today, the 10400f at $159 is a much better deal then the ryzen 3600 at $199/209. Even without memory oc, for a basic gaming build the i5 is in a good position.

No. Intel platform has no valid upgrade paths available ever (Rocket Lake will be only 8 core, so not worth it) and AMD platforms are much more future proof ones, because AMD platform offer PCIe x4 for SSD from CPU, Intel does not. Something Intel will probably offer 2022, 5 years after AMD. DirectStorage is coming, there is no reason to get Intel.