Intel Core i5-10600K vs. AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs. Ryzen 7 3700X


Posts: 1,535   +1,115
That reddit post is lacking in any kinda of details.

There is no games posted very title details about the system being used.

One other guy says he is getting it in GTA V the next says its a bug in the game. Another guy says he turned on high performance profile and it stopped?

How do we know these users even know how to setup their systems properly.

These post aren't an indication of anything other than user error no details posted onhow to create said stutters, and none of this verified by a 3rd party.

Sorry but this is not enough to valid your point.
It’s not my point. I keep telling you this! I’m just saying that another tech publisher has demonstrated that these chips differences are hidden when using average frame rates . And they have used graphs and examples to show this. They have also demonstrated stuttering happening and the frame time drops when it happened. So it does happen. Unless you think DF have made it all up!

I’m saying I think the DF is giving a clearer picture of the differences in gaming than Techspot and the picture is actually quite different. Of course DF also say that outside of gaming the Ryzen CPUs are generally better. Looking at the results and analysis from all the reviews I’ve seen im inclined to agree.


Posts: 1,535   +1,115
its not DF word over my word its DF's word vs the whole Tech reviewing community.

Do you see the difference?
Except it isn’t. You haven’t read every review out there and there are thousands of posts on reddit complaining about stuttering on chips from both manufacturers.

But I can see what’s going on here. Someone has dared to criticise your beloved AMD.

DF are not lying mate, it only makes you look biased to claim they are. Why would they lie? Why would they make up those graphs? Come on mate.


Posts: 67   +27
TechSpot Elite
Did I miss something in the article as to why the gaming benchmarks have "lower is better" when referencing the average frame rate? If that's accurate, then my 2600X is truly holding its value much better than expected! ;-p

Editor's note: Now fixed, thanks!
Last edited by a moderator:


Posts: 2,339   +1,874
None of any of the major review sites have posted anything about stuttering on Ryzen chips for the last 3 years.

Your "thousands" of so call reddit posts when looking at the one sample you provided was mostly user error. You fight for this so hard because it lines up with your internal bias. I've been playing games on a Ryzen rig for 6 months now and I've not noticed any suttering. So ya I will take my own personal experience on my machine over your random evidence.

I came directly from an intel build to a current ryzen build I'm no fan boy.

As for you guys criticising AMD everyone is allowed to have an opinon the problem is the facts to support your arguments are all weak and when challenged they don't stand up. And it not just you its the other intel guys on the site aswell.
Last edited:


Posts: 139   +419
I watched all the vid which was rly annoying bc of the (bearable) British accent of the narrator.

The stuttering you are talking about is likely an issue of drivers. AMD releases at freuquent intervals CPU updates that increase performance.

As for the rest where it shows the Comedy Lake CPU fetching 188 FPS vs 140 FPS of the RYZEN in 1080p, it's largely academic and only interesting to 1% or so of FPS fanatics who game above 144 FPS.

In short terms, too much fuss over nothing.

I'd still buy a Ryzen over Comedy Lake anyday as I don't even game above 60 FPS like 99% of gamers out there.
Why is it that practically every review out there leaves the 3950X out. Just because it makes Intel's flagship look silly in so many benchmarks? Because Intel slashed prices and nothing matches up?... Funny how when the situation was flipped just a short time ago, all of the top mainstream Intel parts were almost always shown. Just goes to show the stranglehold Intel still somehow has over content like this.

Because 3950 won't do Jack in gaming anyway
Intel will still be ahead
I know the Core i5 is a gaming capable CPU, but if you're going to be using your computer for mostly gaming, you're better off with a Core i7 or i9. i5 is really for productivity and web browsing. The average over 7 games in 1440p looks promising compared to the i7 8700, but if you can get the 9900k , you're best going with the 9900k for future proofing.
? I thing you looking at Pentiums they are what I5's use to be "Quad cores". I5's are 6 cores now which are great for everything but just like all Intel products they don't offer the best price/performance overall when compared to AMD. As for suggesting buying a out of production $500 CPU that doesn't offer huge leaps over a $175 3600....why o why ?. All of these review only suggest the higher end Intel part for FPS snobs that want max performance. In reality most play @ 1080p and run mid ranged GPU which make dropping $500 on just the one single part pointless.


Posts: 5,464   +6,148
There seems to be quite a lot of complaints on reddit about it actually. So gamers have picked these things up and complained about it.

Anyway I’m not trying to have an argument with you I’m calling out the article for not informing users of the real difference between these chips when it comes to gaming. The article is misleading as it does not inform users of the real performance differences as highlighted in DFs video nor do they highlight any of the stuttering and bugs on Ryzen.

I watched that video and DF highlights two 3 second sections in games where the Ryzen CPUs experience a large frame drop and 1 section where both Intel and AMD experience frame drops.

You want to know why TechSpot doesn't pick and choose specific sections of a benchmark to highlight? It's misleading plain and simple. Frame drops like that show up on the 1% and 0.1% low results, there is zero reason to pick out specific sections. GamersNexus does the same thing as TechSpot with 0.1% lows added in and IMO are far better then DF. By picking out specific data instead of plotting everything out in a graph (they could have even done a scatterplot) where everyone can draw their own conclusions from the data they decide to force a conclusion based on a small section of the data. DF looses major points in my book, if they have the data to show this occurs consistently only on AMD then they should have given us the whole data set like every other review on the internet does.

DF's method isn't better, it's worse by far.
Last edited:

Alfatawi Mendel

Posts: 107   +169
#1 No they don't.

#2 I pointed out the 7 game average and then continued to say I'd buy a 9900k instead. Try reading the entire statement before replying.

#3 Does Techspot have a block button beyond the ignore button?
Given the 7 game average only benefits the 9900k by 3 fps @1440, The 10600k is functionally as good - but significantly cheaper.
The 9900k is still a brilliant gaming chip, but too expensive. The 10600k hits the sweet spot.


Posts: 365   +291
I can't for the life of me understand why literally anyone would buy a 10th gen Intel cpu unless they just arbitrarily hate AMD.
You're joking - when I get home from shooting 16k video of big booty F950 truck on on my Iphone uber pro xv with 8tb of super fast ram . I get home ( which I brought as was 500m from the game server - feels cool living in a living in a light industrial area - especially at night to make use of my 36 extra headlights ) .
I sidled into my gaming chair , hand on my black mamba spitting cobra chameleon tongue shooting mouse , knowing my 20TBps lan card , my silver cat 20 cable ( oxygen free ) is doing the business. I watch on my full HDR 8k monitor at 1080p in SDR , with my 2080 something soon to be a 3080 something.
as I play my FPS - shame I have comcast .

all wind up aside -sorry Quantum - I'm not a competitor CSO or whatever is flavour of the month - but wouldn't ping , latency be more important - would 960p be so bad to even out things - or wouldn't turning down some settings give uber high frame rates .
I have no idea of assists - but couldn't some one run an overlay using the better ryzen cores for AI assist to highlight all humans quickly and that negates the 155fps to 150fps advantage


Posts: 3,064   +784
Wow, obliterates the 9900k. 3900x. (gaming) Can't believe anyone would buy a 9900k, seeing it get beat by a $200 part at gaming and currently costing the same price as 10900k. Wait for RDNA2, 3-4 months away or buy a 10600kf. ^^


Posts: 2,738   +2,813
Staff member
I’m guessing the prices must be a bit different in Australia in the U.K. as the 10600K appears to be coming in £60/£70 cheaper than the 3700X here.

Also after reading this review you would be forgiven for thinking there is barely any difference in gaming between Ryzen and Intel. But this is misleading. The difference in real world scenarios can be a lot bigger and games display more stuttering and other bugs in Ryzen than they do Intel. Digital Foundry have documented this in their 10900K review. Give it a watch because if you are just buying for gaming you will wish reviewers made you aware.

Nonsense, you won't see stuttering with Ryzen processors.


Posts: 3,064   +784
Put's my 3700x to shame, I got it at $250 bargain from a friend who came upon 2 by accident. Still if you're gaming.... no contest. Then again I was upping from a 2600, so I didn't need a new mobo. I can all core clock at 4.3 4.325 4.35 and manage not to crash on custom water. But I don't do it much, I really have no idea if it gives me more FPS since I'm mainly GPU bound. And like a popular YT showed us, it doesn't give you much FPS "overclocking" ryzen when you're not GPU bound anyways, if any.
Last edited:


Posts: 429   +284
Any shuttering on CPU with more than 6 cores/12 threads are mostly because of RAM bottleneck anyways. Want 10% boost to your Avg FPS and 1% low FPS ? Just buy a 4x8GB 3600mhz RAM kit, and yes that is even when you already have 2x8GB 3600mhz RAM, going dual channels quad ranks memory (2x16GB or 4x8GB kit) will give you noticeable performance boost.

Glad to see Techspot update their testing rig to 4x8GB 3200mhz Cas 14 RAM instead of 2x8GB 3200mhz Cas 14 from older reviews :), that certainly boost the 1% low FPS in a lot of titles even at 1440p.
Just look at Shadow of the Tomb Raider fps from 3900x review vs 10900K review.


Posts: 229   +228
Stuttering is such an annoying issue - (on a i7 7820X with 32 GB quad channel 2666 memory - Cl19 - Dell really cheap out on RAM, I will be buying better RAM soon). Killer advanced stream detect was one cause, aggressive down-clocking by windows was another. Bad drivers, dodgy connections to external drives and google chrome alerts focus stealing have all hindered my gaming experiences (unlike Steve I don't do a clean install each time I want to play a game) so there are many things to check before I would start to blame the processor itself.


Posts: 22   +27
Basically, slightly worse performance than Ryzen 3600 at the cost of new socket. I think the only Comet Lake cpu that makes sense is 10600K. 10900K and 10700K are too damn hot, require ridiculous 3-slot AIO. 10400 and 10500 are easily beaten by Ryzen 3600. 10600K is slightly faster in games, and comparable at productivity to 3600, so has a little advantage. But again - it costs $90 more, requires beefy cooler or AIO and 1200 mobos are ridiculously overpriced, so we are talking like almost double cost compared to generic 3600 build. Well, hard to justify any single cpu from this Intel's gen.
Alleged performance leaks for the AMD Ryzen 3600XT, 3800XT and 3900XT.

Source 1:

Source 2:

Cinebench R20 1T:

AMD Ryzen 3600XT = 531
AMD Ryzen 3800XT = 531
AMD Ryzen 3900XT = 542

Intel i5-10600K = 483*

Cinebench R20 nT:

AMD Ryzen 3600XT = ?
AMD Ryzen 3800XT = 5,297
AMD Ryzen 3900XT = 7,479

Intel i5-10600K = 3,566*

* Source: Techspot.


Posts: 3,133   +3,009
It's only the most biased people that will call out everyone else to be biased with ridiculous claims. That being said, even when Ryzen performs "better" it performs worse because it has stutter between frames.