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

Steve

Posts: 2,638   +2,537
Staff member
Sure, they are truly the best. That explains why the 3700x beats the 3900x in some of their tests and the 3600 beats the 3700x in some of their 10600k tests. Those words came out of Richards own mouth.

DF's Ryzen tests are a train wreck. and no doubt it is because of their MSI X570 carbon MB that they have been using since Ryzen 3rd gen launch. Every publication has slammed MSI for that MB being terrible.

And if that is not the case, then DF is just plain incompetent. You choose.
It they're using the MSI X570 Pro Carbon (I'm not sure as I don't have time to watch their content) then yes, there is a good chance it's throttling the higher end parts as the board is basically broken.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
Her
It they're using the MSI X570 Pro Carbon (I'm not sure as I don't have time to watch their content) then yes, there is a good chance it's throttling the higher end parts as the board is basically broken.
Here you go Steve. A direct quote from their Ryzen 3700x page one review

" The new Ryzen 7 3700X was tested on a board as close to the Gaming Pro Carbon as we could manage, with MSI supplying an X570 MPG Gaming Plus board. "

And they are still using it, as shown in their latest videos.
Here is the link to the article as well.

So an X570 Gaming Plus, just as bad.Everyone knows how bad all of MSI X570 low/mid range end were with VRMs. Only MSI newer X570 and older upper range models were decent. It would explain the inconsistent Ryzen CPU tests.

Awfully strange for the 3900x to be beaten by the 3700x in some tests. And for the 3700x to be beaten by the 3600 in some tests. I truly think something is a miss. Nothing malicious, but an issue has manifested. And an terrible MSI MB would explain those exact issues in my mind. At least some of them.
 
Last edited:

Steve

Posts: 2,638   +2,537
Staff member
Her

Here you go Steve. A direct quote from their Ryzen 3700x page one review

" The new Ryzen 7 3700X was tested on a board as close to the Gaming Pro Carbon as we could manage, with MSI supplying an X570 MPG Gaming Plus board. "

And they are still using it, as shown in their latest videos.
Here is the link to the article as well.

So an X570 Gaming Plus, just as bad.
Yeah okay, the X570 Gaming Plus is still a trash board, not quite as broken as the Pro Carbon, but it certainly shouldn't be used for testing (or anything really).
 
  • Like
Reactions: mAdmAnDingo

Strawman

Posts: 290   +177
Her

Here you go Steve. A direct quote from their Ryzen 3700x page one review

" The new Ryzen 7 3700X was tested on a board as close to the Gaming Pro Carbon as we could manage, with MSI supplying an X570 MPG Gaming Plus board. "

And they are still using it, as shown in their latest videos.
Here is the link to the article as well.

So an X570 Gaming Plus, just as bad.Everyone knows how bad all of MSI X570 low/mid range end were with VRMs. Only MSI newer X570 and older upper range models were decent. It would explain the inconsistent Ryzen CPU tests.

Awfully strange for the 3900x to be beaten by the 3700x in some tests. And for the 3700x to be beaten by the 3600 in some tests. I truly think something is a miss. Nothing malicious, but an issue has manifested. And an terrible MSI MB would explain those exact issues in my mind. At least some of them.
What are you talking about? DF has higher cbr20 1t scores than let's say, guru 3d on their 3700x. So what flaws are you talking about??
 

Steve

Posts: 2,638   +2,537
Staff member
What are you talking about? DF has higher cbr20 1t scores than let's say, guru 3d on their 3700x. So what flaws are you talking about??
Have you run CB20 before? It takes seconds with a 3900X, VRM throttling won't be an issue. Anyway I'm certainly not saying that is the issue. Ryzen doesn't stutter though, I don't believe just a single source has uncovered the issue ;)
 

Strawman

Posts: 290   +177
Have you run CB20 before? It takes seconds with a 3900X, VRM throttling won't be an issue. Anyway I'm certainly not saying that is the issue. Ryzen doesn't stutter though, I don't believe just a single source has uncovered the issue ;)
I'm talking about the 3700x.

Ofc ryzen isn't stuttering, it's just less consistent in frametimes. Makes sense given the higher latency.
 

Steve

Posts: 2,638   +2,537
Staff member
I'm talking about the 3700x.

Ofc ryzen isn't stuttering, it's just less consistent in frametimes. Makes sense given the higher latency.
We've seen smoother more consistent frametimes with Ryzen, as have others. Most attribute this to the extra cores (in match ups where Ryzen has more cores) and the significantly larger L3 cache. The 3rd gen Threadripper CPUs are amazing in that regard (though they make for pretty stupid gaming CPUs).
 

Strawman

Posts: 290   +177
We've seen smoother more consistent frametimes with Ryzen, as have others. Most attribute this to the extra cores (in match ups where Ryzen has more cores) and the significantly larger L3 cache. The 3rd gen Threadripper CPUs are amazing in that regard (though they make for pretty stupid gaming CPUs).
Then you could go ahead and test the same areas as DF in Crysis 3 and KCD.


Personally I've tested ashes which supposedly scales well with Ryzen and I cal tell you that a 3900x is nowhere near my 10900k. I almost hit 80 fps in the ingame bench with 24/7 OC settings.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
Then you could go ahead and test the same areas as DF in Crysis 3 and KCD.


Personally I've tested ashes which supposedly scales well with Ryzen and I cal tell you that a 3900x is nowhere near my 10900k. I almost hit 80 fps in the ingame bench with 24/7 OC settings.
I've already replied to this one. My Ryzen 3700x does not stutter, and I am not interested in Crysis 3 and KCD. I don't play either game or find them representative of future games. Both are DX 11 games and I I honestly don't believe either are truly an representation of future performance.

If those games make you believe that future DX12/Vulkan game engines (that the next gen consoles usher in) are the benchmark for future performance, good for you.

I don't believe that at all, both are older engines. Even future Cryengine games will be on an new engine. So, if they make you believe that those are better for future potential game performance, good for you. I absolutely don't.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
Then you could go ahead and test the same areas as DF in Crysis 3 and KCD.


Personally I've tested ashes which supposedly scales well with Ryzen and I cal tell you that a 3900x is nowhere near my 10900k. I almost hit 80 fps in the ingame bench with 24/7 OC settings.
And I have no doubt in my mind that if DF optimized their Ryzen systems (followed Steves RAM Timings tweaking guide) that they would raise their lows in all tested games with that 2080ti tremendously.

Just look at Steves Ryzen 3000 RAM tweaking article with an 2080ti, you will see how much Ryzens mins raise when that is done with an 2080ti specifically.

DF has done plenty of overclocking for their Intel content, but no tweaking whatsoever for their Ryzen content. Seems very biased and or incompetent to me, Steve does optimization tests for both Intel and Ryzen.

DF does jack squat for Ryzen. Biased much. DF could get a lot more out of their Ryzen setup, no doubt about it. They only care for Intel CPUs though, they don't even try with Ryzen, biased and/or incompetent.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
Then you could go ahead and test the same areas as DF in Crysis 3 and KCD.


Personally I've tested ashes which supposedly scales well with Ryzen and I cal tell you that a 3900x is nowhere near my 10900k. I almost hit 80 fps in the ingame bench with 24/7 OC settings.
And their MB is also a terrible platform for Ryzen, DF does not care or try with Ryzen. They are not even aware or care that the MB they have is terrible. You should not be pairing an 3900x with that, what if they tested all their Intel 10th gen CPUs with an asrock z490 budget MB that Steve tested recently, the one that has shocking VRMs? That would be fair in my mind.

It might or might not be as bad as the MSI X570 Gaming they are using now, or it might be worse ,but that would be the same lousy unenthusiastic attempt they give Ryzen.

I think DF is incredibly biased and/or incompetent all round. They give Intel the best with MB platforms and tweaking/overclocking as well. They do nothing for Ryzen, bad platform and no tweaking nothing. You tell me who is dishonest/incompetent.biased?

All their Ryzen 3000 content is stock. Nothing has been tweaked timings wise and they have never even attempted to max out the infinity fabric either at 3800mhz/3733. They haven't ever tweaked Ryzen 3rd gen RAM performance period. But they overclocked Intels 10th gen (and all Intel CPUs) as a standard.

They do both for Intel, nothing for Ryzen. DF is only Intel, everything about their benchmarks/Ryzen setup/no Ryzen tweaking vs optimal conditions and overclocking for Intel CPUs vs stock Ryzen says exactly that. They have never even done a side piece for testing 3rd gen max IF clock or tweaked timings. But they routinely compare overclocked Intel CPU vs unoptimized Ryzen CPUs. If on Intel owner can OC and tweak their CPU, why not Ryzen owners get the same optimization treatment and benchmarks?

They care so little, they use a well known inferior MB, they don't care period. It shows they do no Ryzen research/testing, but they always do for Intel. DF is the worst, period. Even if the MB is 100% perfect and gives no issues whatsoever, it still says otherwise with their biased treatment of Ryzen vs Intel. They should have done research and bought an decent MB for Ryzen (only fair) to put my mind and others at rest. And they should be optimizing their Ryzen 3000 test bench as well (only fair) because they do for Intel constantly.

And let me put this way so that even you could understand, why don't you hound DF to give Ryzen a fair shot, why don't you give them hell to get them to do for Ryzen what they do for Intel? I know why, because that won't support your bias. Every publication is lying because DF treats Ryzen poorly and kisses Intel butt. You can go back to DF and suck their toes if you like, but while you are doing that ask them to give Ryzen the same treatment they give Intel. I think that is only fair, don't you?

Until that happens, it is DFs burden to explain why they don't optimize Ryzen 3000 in any tests whatsoever and also to explain why they are using an inferior platform for Ryzen. Why does Intel get the full AAA treatment but not Ryzen at their place of business? Their treatment and attitude is most clear, and you are blinded by fanboisim to even consider they are at fault in any way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HardReset

Strawman

Posts: 290   +177
Im sorry but Intel gains more from memory tweaking, simply because they have a way higher cap. My 10900k is running 4400mhz c16, something Ryzen cannot do. So tweaking both systems will give an advantage to Intel rather than AMD
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
I know Intel gains just as much or more from RAM tweaking, Steve has also shown that. I am not debating if Intel is faster for gaming, Intel clearly is faster for gaming, Steve has shown this as well, everyone has. I am not debating that and I never was, the debate is if DF was BIASED in their testing (they overclock Intel and don't do anything for Ryzen), and DF clearly is.

You have completely and utterly not understood what I said. My point is DF overclocks their Intel CPUs vs Ryzen in their test to go along with their stock Intel CPU tests. But for Ryzen, RAM tweaking is overclocking, that is what raises AMDs performance.

The point is not to make Ryzen faster than Intel CPUs, it is to tweak Ryzen to bring up their lows in the games that DF benchmarks that Ryzen does badly in, do you get it now? The point is to bring up Ryzen perfomance vs Ryzen performance in their own benchmarks. Jeeze, try and remember your own argument will you. You clearly have a short term memory problem.

DF show Intel at their best (overclocked) and that is okay with you. But Ryzen is not allowed its tweaking to improve Ryzens performance in their benchmarks? You are just as BIASED as DF.

You are the one saying that Ryzen can't stay above 60 FPS at all time in DF tests, and I am telling you why, because they never optimize or try with Ryzen, but they do exactly that for Intel. Get it now?

How short is your memory, you have already forgot what we were debating. You said DF shows Ryzen falls under 60 FPS all the time, and I said DF does their best to make sure their Ryzen CPUs do perform sub optimally, but they do their best to overclock their Intel CPUs for max performance in the same Intel CPU reviews. Get it now? Try to remember your own argument will you.

DF shows overclocked Intel CPU vs stock Ryzen CPUs in their Intel reviews, but they never even tweak Ryzen 3000 RAM performance in Ryzen 3000 CPU reviews, not even in Ryzens own CPU reviews! How BIASED is that?
 
Last edited:

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
Im sorry but Intel gains more from memory tweaking, simply because they have a way higher cap. My 10900k is running 4400mhz c16, something Ryzen cannot do. So tweaking both systems will give an advantage to Intel rather than AMD
And they use a terrible MB for Ryzen, I am not sure if/ how much issues that causes, but it is still unfair.

You want Ryzen to be tested on an bad platform and you don't want Ryzen to be tweaked optimized either.

Fine, DF must put their Intel CPUs on an Asrock budget Z490 MB (the one with terrible VRMs). And they must turn of MCE in every test they do from now on, all test done with MCE on is violating Intel power guidelines, it is pre overclocking out of the box, that is why Gamers Nexus turns it off for their benchmarks. If they turned off MCE your 10900k would run at an much much lower all core clock in all tests and benchmarks, as Gamers Nexus has proved. That is fair.

You are lucky Steve doesn't turn off MCE. Steve is fair to both Intel and AMD. Unlike DF who only do the best for Intel and the worst for Ryzen.

And you are just as bad as DF, you are happy that they overclock Intel CPUS and run their Intel CPUs on decent MBs, but not happy when I want the same for Ryzen. You are flat out BIASED.
 
Last edited:

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
I know Intel gains just as much or more from RAM tweaking, Steve has also shown that. I am not debating if Intel is faster for gaming, Intel clearly is faster for gaming.

You have completely and utterly not understood what I said. My point is DF overclocks their Intel CPUs vs Ryzen in their test to go along withe their stock Intel CPU tests. But for Ryzen, RAM tweaking is overclocking, that is what raises AMDs performance.

The point is not to make Ryzen faster than Intel CPUs, it is to tweak Ryzen to bring up their lows in the games that DF benchmarks that Ryzen does badly in, do you get it now?

They show Intel at their best (overclocked) and that is okay with you. But Ryzen is not allowed its tweaking to improve Ryzens performance in their benchmarks? You are just as BIASED as DF.
So to be clear, Intel overclocking is fine for DF and for you in their tests? But Ryzen is not allowed to have its RAM tuned without Intel getting the same treatment as well?

Not that I think their is anything wrong with that, but when coming from you with your attitude, than it is completely BIASED because YOU ARE BIASED LIKE DF.
 
Last edited:

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
Im sorry but Intel gains more from memory tweaking, simply because they have a way higher cap. My 10900k is running 4400mhz c16, something Ryzen cannot do. So tweaking both systems will give an advantage to Intel rather than AMD
AMD gains hugely from RAM overclocking, if you look at Steves Ryzen 3000 RAM tweak guide, you will see this. Ryzen won't overtake Intel with tweaked RAM timings, but it will bring mins above 60 FPS at all times in every scenario with an 2080ti. But you wouldn't know that with DF, because they are biased and only do their best for Intel CPU tests, BIASED. They do nothing to get the best out of Ryzen, what do you call that when they do that for Intel and not AMD, oh that's right, BIASED.

They give Intel an decent MB and overclock in their tests as well. Ryzen is an bad MB and no tweaking at all in any test ever. They don't do a single thing to improve Ryzen performance, I am glad you are as biased as they are and I am glad you are happy to suck their toes. But you and DF are both BIASED, and everyone can see that.

How is DFs treatment of Ryzen in their tests fair compared to their treatment of Intel in their tests? Please tell me how you think that is fair? I am waiting for you to explain to me why DF overclocking Intel is fine but tweaking Ryzen is not? And I am dying to know why Intel get an decent MB but Ryzen does not?

If you come back and tell me that is fair......
 
Last edited:

Strawman

Posts: 290   +177
I have no idea what you are talking about. DF runs all CPUs at stock with 3600 ram with xmp. So it's a really fair test. They are not biased, you just don't like their results. Well, too bad I guess
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
Im sorry but Intel gains more from memory tweaking, simply because they have a way higher cap. My 10900k is running 4400mhz c16, something Ryzen cannot do. So tweaking both systems will give an advantage to Intel rather than AMD
It is like you are a
I have no idea what you are talking about. DF runs all CPUs at stock with 3600 ram with xmp. So it's a really fair test. They are not biased, you just don't like their results. Well, too bad I guess
Yes, exactly. They run all their AMD test with stock 3600 XMP RAM tests. They have done no tweaking of timing, (they run 16-16-16 timings) so have done no Ryzen DRAM calculator tweaking (like Steve) at all. They have done no IF overclocking either (to 3800/3733).

If you stopped beings so BIASED and go and watched Steves Ryzen 3000 RAM tuning benchmarks you will see Ryzen has huge potential when you do exactly that.

But instead, you are BIASED and suck DFs toes, DF does overclocking for Intel and nothing (no RAM tuning for Ryzen) and gives Intel an decent MB and ARyzen a poor MB.

All it shows me is you are as BIASED as DF is BIASED and incompetent. They don't even know that you get a lot more performance out of Ryzen by tuning the RAM or they don't care, so BIASED and/or incompetent.

But they and you are very happy for them to overclock Intel CPUs no problem. You and DF are full of it.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
I have no idea what you are talking about. DF runs all CPUs at stock with 3600 ram with xmp. So it's a really fair test. They are not biased, you just don't like their results. Well, too bad I guess
Here you go you BIASED fanboy. You don't have ANY excuse now. I have provided you the link.
In many games (not every game) with MAX IF clock and TWEAKED TIMINGS Ryzen 3000 gains quite a bit of FPS with an 2080ti specifically at ULTRA settings, the same way DF benchmarks.

And if you want to believe DF, they say it is Intels "Throughput" that helps Intel in KCD. Those are DFs exact words. And if you look at those benchmarks I provided, in ACO Ryzen gains a lot once tweaked to the max with an 2080ti. It keeps Ryzen above 60 FPS in those tests with those settings. See for yourself. So if DF did the same thing, it would increase Ryzen 3000 performance enough to stay above 60 FPS, you are effectively increasing its throughput, its max bandwidth.

It won't boost single core performance, but it does boost throughput, duh.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
I have no idea what you are talking about. DF runs all CPUs at stock with 3600 ram with xmp. So it's a really fair test. They are not biased, you just don't like their results. Well, too bad I guess
Ryzen uses an 4x4 core CCX layout, if you or DF had done any research or cared about being fair to Ryzen the same way you are to Intel with overclocking, than you would know Ryzen benefits hugely from tweaked timings and Infinity fabric.

The cores communicate over the IF. So, if DF cared at all about showing Ryzen in the same light the praise Intel and show Intel overclocked CPUs vs stock Ryzen CPUs, they should ABSOLUTELY do their best to show of Ryzen properly as well, get it now?

That is only fair, but you and DF are so BIASED you are BLINDED to whatever I say or anyone says. You think it is fantastic that they show overclocked Intel CPUs vs stock Ryzen CPUs. DF has never once done anything for Ryzen 3000 performance, but they overclock and tweak Intel CPUs in videos CONSTANTLY.

How is that not unfair?
 
Last edited:

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
I have no idea what you are talking about. DF runs all CPUs at stock with 3600 ram with xmp. So it's a really fair test. They are not biased, you just don't like their results. Well, too bad I guess
Unlike DF, Steve does his best to ALWAYS be fair. He test Intel and AMD at stock and their best. If you look at any of Steves conclusion it is always that Intel is the faster gaming CPU, but AMD is the best price to performance usually.

But the 10600k sits as Steves current best gaming CPU, and the 3600 sits as his best budget gaming CPU. It is only YOU and DF who are BIASED here my friend.

Steve is right that Ryzen is good enough for most of us who actually don't have the cash to buy Intel products or an 10900, or just prefer Ryzen for their productivity to price performance with decent gaming performance (like myself).

And Ryzen is great when tuned properly and is an excellent product at an excellent price. It is good enough gaming an excellent at everything else.

But Intel is there for those who want to spend more money, and Steve has recommendations for those as well. Steve is unbiased and fair. You and DF, you are two of a kind.
 
Last edited:

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
I have no idea what you are talking about. DF runs all CPUs at stock with 3600 ram with xmp. So it's a really fair test. They are not biased, you just don't like their results. Well, too bad I guess
And even just TWEAKING the timings at 3600 down from cl 16 to 14 will improve performance. But I want
DF to do both IF and RAM tweaking, that is only fair.
In fact, I would like DF to do an Ryzen RAM/IF/Timings scaling video. I want DF to do 3200mhz/3600mhz/3773mhz/3800mhz. And at every frequency I want them to test with the absolute lowest timings vs stock timings as well. I want the works, the same they do for Intel.

Ryzen has an specific app you can download called Ryzen DRAM calculator. It was the first app I downloaded with my 3700x to tweak the performance of my RAM.

And if I can do it, so can DF. Because DF thinks that their viewers can overclock their Intel CPUs, so why can't their viewers tweak their Ryzen timings?

I will tell you why, DF is Intel BIASED and/or incompetent. Almost every Ryzen 3000 owner who watches this channel will tweak their timings. tweaking timings (and IF if maxing out your RAM is possible) is basically optimizing Ryzen, get it?

And I want Richard or Alex (because he owns an 3900x) at DF to do the same for Ryzen. And give us a bloody better MB while they are at it because that is only fair as well, or give Intel a terrible z490 budget MB to test their Intel CPUs as well, that is also fair. You choose.
 
Last edited:

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
A
I have no idea what you are talking about. DF runs all CPUs at stock with 3600 ram with xmp. So it's a really fair test. They are not biased, you just don't like their results. Well, too bad I guess
And I know for a fact that Richard is working on an Intel RAM performance video, he even said that in hIs 10600k review.

And he always goes on about how Intel needs fast RAM and how well Intel scales with RAM, but he does no investigative tests or video for Ryzen. He has never even mentioned the fact that Ryzen benefits from tuned RAM or tuned RAM with max IF clock. Not once, NEVER.

But he never stops going on about how important it is for Intel or how they overclock Intel CPUs.

He just leaves Ryzen at stock with not one attempt or mention of increased performance with Ryzen RAM and/or IF tuning. He does not care about Ryzen or his Ryzen viewers, he has never ONCE tried to get max performance out of Ryzen in an Intel review. He has never even done it in Ryzens OWN REVIEW for crying out loud. He has never given ANY Ryzen 3000 performance increasing content.