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

kiwigraeme

Posts: 43   +14
@mAdmAnDingo - okay, you've made your point. Let the matter be.
That's true he actually hammered Strawman .
That brings us back to the fact that is a real joy to see a very knowledgeable reviewer on any subject - I even take a lot of consumer organisation reviews with a grain of salt - I might accept their ones on cleaning products - but ones on say cameras - they don't have the years of experience and day to day usage some others have - specially when they they go on about specs like a 24Mb photo will be better than a 16Mb photo - ignoring the size and type of sensor - the tuning , the exposure - the post processing options offered by that respective and other companies - I don't give a stuff about cars - but you read reviews and many mention nothing about build quality ( ie do they use superior techniques or parts ) - no mention of reliability , or repair costs - oh I drove around town it felt nice and had good visibility - it perked up on the open road and took turns effortlessly - blah blah blah I returned the car to the dealer at the end of the month.
 
Why on earth do you lot use almost exclusively `1st person shooters` when you benchmark games. what about people who only play strategy.. like total war
 
Last edited:

Hi. I don't know how they did the test, but my i7-8700k scores more in cinebench20 without oc, in automatic, 498 s / c and 3797 m / c beating the i5-10600k. Sorry for the google translation
 

neeyik

Posts: 1,116   +1,098
Staff member
Why on earth do you lot use almost exclusively `1st person shooters` when you benchmark games. what about people who only play strategy.. like total war
They’re harder to achieve test run parity than FPS games, so it’s not a case that Steve and Tim deliberately ignore strategy games, it’s about generating CPU loads that can be easily replicated, with as little variance as possible, over and over.
 
I have an i7-8700k, and after reading the review and seeing the little difference between my i7 and this i5, I would dare to say that it is because the i7 goes up to 4.7 ghz and this i5 up to 4.8ghz. Surely if the i7 were raised to 4.8 practically they would yield the same ...
 

evolucion8

Posts: 40   +16
#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?
Obviously you are clueless, if you are going to astroturf for Intel, at least get the similarly fast 10700K which is way cheaper or stick to consoles, buying a 6% faster gaming CPU while being 50% slower in everything else compared to a 3900X is far from being a good buy lol
 

Strawman

Posts: 285   +177
Obviously you are clueless, if you are going to astroturf for Intel, at least get the similarly fast 10700K which is way cheaper or stick to consoles, buying a 6% faster gaming CPU while being 50% slower in everything else compared to a 3900X is far from being a good buy lol
Intel's aren't 50% slower in everything else. That's a commonly spread misconception. You can check the phoronix review, they tested 400 different benchmarks. The 10900k got first place in more than half of them, beating 3900x AND the 3950x.