Intel Core i7-10700K vs. Ryzen 7 3700X vs. Ryzen 9 3900X

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,241   +2,057
It looks like a good gaming part, if your aim is solely to game. I would probably go for this if all I wanted in life was 1080p frames.

But for most you will look at a 3700x costing $80 less and think......well that gets me a class up in GPU, from a 5700 to an XT, much more impact on my gaming.
 

Alfatawi Mendel

Posts: 70   +122
The problem Intel has got with these chips, is the value proposition.
They really make no sense.
a) They are very expensive for what they are.
b) performance has not increased enough to make a compelling upgrade
c) Power requirements means hefty a motherboard VRM solution, Top of the range cooling - and maybe even a new case, essential purchases.
d) new Intel uarch coming in less than a year - and this stuff will be defunct.
e) AMD still have the better overall performance.

There is literally no reason to buy into this dead-end architecture.
 

Axil00

Posts: 38   +45
It looks like a good gaming part, if your aim is solely to game. I would probably go for this if all I wanted in life was 1080p frames.

But for most you will look at a 3700x costing $80 less and think......well that gets me a class up in GPU, from a 5700 to an XT, much more impact on my gaming.
That's basically where I'm at as well. The main problem with intel right now is how much power you have to push through the silicon. The 3700x comes with a cooler that is good enough if not spectacular.

Not only do I have to buy a cooler for the intel chil but unless you go liquid your dumping all that extra heat into your case and making your GPU work harder to stay cool as well.
 

Mithan

Posts: 101   +88
I think taking a 10700k over a 3900x in gaming would be a mistake. What do you guys think?

My reasoning is the following:
4 extra cores means all the back ground crap you may have running these days, will have an impact on the 9900k/10700k but virtually zero impact on the 3900x. I know this usually reflects as 1% lows, but benchmark systems are not real world systems, they are best case scenarios without crap in the back ground. Crap = Discord, Steam, Epic, UbiSoft, Origin, etc, etc, etc. They all have spikes or worse, even in gaming mode in my experience, where extra cores will be better.

Anyways,"up to 5%" at 1440p is not noticeable. Other YouTube benchmarks show 9900k/3900x as virtually the same for 1440p.

I do expect 1440p benchmarks to widen with new AMD and nVidia GPU's though.


Somebody tried to tell me last night on Reddit that a 3900x is a huge down grade to a 9900k. sigh.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,002   +1,331
As a Cheaper 9900K it looks good.

Could use a price drop though and doesn't really seem to change much in the intel line up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

jbc029

Posts: 104   +186
A cheaper 9900K with a new MoBo. Check.

i3 and i5 please. Super curious about i3 vs R3 3300X for a budget banger.
I think the i5 is where it'll be strongest. All the i3s are locked, so they can't OC to 5GHz. The i5 10600k will be a monster.
 

redgarl

Posts: 161   +220
It looks like a good gaming part, if your aim is solely to game. I would probably go for this if all I wanted in life was 1080p frames.

But for most you will look at a 3700x costing $80 less and think......well that gets me a class up in GPU, from a 5700 to an XT, much more impact on my gaming.
You guys are funny, buying Intel will not change your gaming performances if you only buying mid-range or high cards, you need the enthusiasm products at 1080p.

This is why those reviews are dangerous, people are mislead believing they have an edge when they don't. Nowadays if you don't have a 2080 TI, YOU ARE NEVER in CPU bottleneck. These results doesn't reflect reality of using a 5700 XT.

If you use a 5700 XT, all the CPUs are going to get you the same results at 1080p, the only difference are the multi-threaded performance that are going to be quite noticeable on Ryzen CPUs.

Steve, please do a CPU/GPU bottleneck explanation video. People get confused and they believe that buying Intel will give them the same results as you pairing a 2080 TI for showing CPU bottlenecks. It needs to be clear. Beside Anandtech, I never seen anyone else doing it.

Basically, compare CPUs with 3 different GPU categories. Mid-range, high end and enthusiast. When they are going to see those CPU bottleneck disappear below enthusiasts, they will understand what they are buying.

I recommend you comparing the 3700x and the 10700k with a 1660 Super, a 5700 XT and a 2080 TI. People would understand then.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,591   +1,626
TechSpot Elite
I think the i5 is where it'll be strongest. All the i3s are locked, so they can't OC to 5GHz. The i5 10600k will be a monster.
True about the i3s but the i3-10320 (90210?) turbos up to 4.6 GHz (single core, dunno about all-core) so it should still compete with the R3 3300x in terms of clock speed for gaming.
 

redgarl

Posts: 161   +220
I think taking a 10700k over a 3900x in gaming would be a mistake. What do you guys think?

My reasoning is the following:
4 extra cores means all the back ground crap you may have running these days, will have an impact on the 9900k/10700k but virtually zero impact on the 3900x. I know this usually reflects as 1% lows, but benchmark systems are not real world systems, they are best case scenarios without crap in the back ground. Crap = Discord, Steam, Epic, UbiSoft, Origin, etc, etc, etc. They all have spikes or worse, even in gaming mode in my experience, where extra cores will be better.

Anyways,"up to 5%" at 1440p is not noticeable. Other YouTube benchmarks show 9900k/3900x as virtually the same for 1440p.

I do expect 1440p benchmarks to widen with new AMD and nVidia GPU's though.


Somebody tried to tell me last night on Reddit that a 3900x is a huge down grade to a 9900k. sigh.
1440p = GPU bottleneck

The 3900x is better... by a large margin, cheaper because you can get a B550 motherboard and pair it with an air cooler, and more available.

Basically, going with Intel is stupid.
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,241   +2,057
You guys are funny, buying Intel will not change your gaming performances if you only buying mid-range or high cards, you need the enthusiasm products at 1080p.
We understand well enough. We know. That's why I emphasised the extra $80 is better spent on a GPU than a CPU.

The question is whether you realise and understand that RTX2080Ti performance will also only be midrange in two years anyway.

People will replace their GPU long before they ditch the board and CPU, if they bought smart enough. Possibly multiple GPU upgrades.

Which is another reason why these tests are run with the fastest cards at relatively low resolutions like 1080p, to stretch the CPU as much as possible and see where it might end up for a lot of people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

tacobravo

Posts: 129   +150
We understand well enough. We know. That's why I emphasised the extra $80 is better spent on a GPU than a CPU.

The question is whether you realise and understand that RTX2080Ti performance will also only be midrange in two years anyway.

People will replace their GPU long before they ditch the board and CPU, if they bought smart enough. Possibly multiple GPU upgrades.

Which is another reason why these tests are run with the fastest cards at relatively low resolutions like 1080p, to stretch the CPU as much as possible and see where it might end up for a lot of people.
Its $80 plus the cost of a good CPU cooler to cool that Intel cpu
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson
Only reason I choosed Intel 10 gen on my end over AMD, integrated graphics..

I won't use it, but when I upgrade my desktop, I re-use my stuff on my server (storage, dlna, etc). and I prefer not to have to add a graphic card..

also, I can reuse my old Noctua NH-D14 from my old i7 3770k on the 10 gen 10600k or 10700k.. (I upgrade every 6-8 years)
 

Alfatawi Mendel

Posts: 70   +122
Unless your gaming.


If your not gaming.
Let me explain.
Scenario 1) You're a gamer: You already most likely are running a 9900k + 2080ti.
Spending $700 - 800 on a 10900k/10700k +mobo for 1% FPS increase is insane.

Scenario 2)
New gaming rig: $2500 - £3500 (or more) on 10900k/10700k+mobo+cooling+2080ti+case+memory+psu etc.
Obsolete in less than a year with new AMD/Intel uarch coming out. Insane.

Scenario 3) Switching from AMD to 10900k/10700k
$1000 for chip/mobo/cooling to run your 2080ti at 1080p, for 5-10 fps. Insane.

All other scenario's - see 1 2 and 3 above.

Before you get your knickers in a twist...You absolutely will NOT be able to get the performance from a $150 z490. And you WILL need a top of the range AIO water cooling solution. IF you are using a mid-tier Graphics card....It would be insane to spend money on a new cpu/mobo, when your cash would be better spent on a significant Graphics card upgrade.
 

Ludak021

Posts: 279   +209
Its $80 plus the cost of a good CPU cooler to cool that Intel cpu
Have fun with AMD stock cooler on 3700x. I didn't.
There are some very cheap people around here. Paying ~$700 for mobo cpu and ram, but will stick with box cooler to SAVE money. This tells me (I am projecting, I know) they can't afford either, or they are just fanbois.

and yes, 10xxx is a waste of money at this point, so don't get me wrong there.
 

dirtyferret

Posts: 636   +730
I think taking a 10700k over a 3900x in gaming would be a mistake. What do you guys think?

My reasoning is the following:
4 extra cores means all the back ground crap you may have running these days, will have an impact on the 9900k/10700k but virtually zero impact on the 3900x. I know this usually reflects as 1% lows, but benchmark systems are not real world systems, they are best case scenarios without crap in the back ground. Crap = Discord, Steam, Epic, UbiSoft, Origin, etc, etc, etc. They all have spikes or worse, even in gaming mode in my experience, where extra cores will be better.

Anyways,"up to 5%" at 1440p is not noticeable. Other YouTube benchmarks show 9900k/3900x as virtually the same for 1440p.

I do expect 1440p benchmarks to widen with new AMD and nVidia GPU's though.


Somebody tried to tell me last night on Reddit that a 3900x is a huge down grade to a 9900k. sigh.
You over estimate the "back ground crap" and if it needs an extra four cores to run then it should be closed or your processor is rather weak.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 933   +553
Lots of AMD apologists making excuses about the fact that Intel retains gaming superiority. I’m the sort of person who only spends my own money on gaming hardware. For work my company gave me a laptop, a workstation and a virtual desktop with (up to) hundred of cores of power behind it. I didn’t spend any of my own money on it.

But my personal rig, that I did spend my own money on is only used to play games and watch Netflix. Therefore for me, Intel is better than AMD because the reviewers all point out that it plays games faster.

However if you aren’t me and you aren’t just playing games on your own hardware then AMD is probably a better buy.

It’s not a tough concept to grasp...
 

mrvco

Posts: 92   +82
I'll be interested to see how the i5-10600K compares in terms of gaming performance. Obviously Intel is counting on their loyal fans buying at these prices and they've probably priced them correctly relative to the mfg capacity they can justify allocating towards them. However as a more pragmatic buyer that isn't obsessed with brand loyalty or benchmark results or eeking out otherwise inconsequenital cost-no-object single digit % FPS increases, each of these 10th Gen processors seem to be one price tier too expensive to make sense relative to what AMD has on offer, especially when you take total system build cost into consideration.
 
Last edited:

Alfatawi Mendel

Posts: 70   +122
Have fun with AMD stock cooler on 3700x. I didn't.
There are some very cheap people around here. Paying ~$700 for mobo cpu and ram, but will stick with box cooler to SAVE money. This tells me (I am projecting, I know) they can't afford either, or they are just fanbois.

and yes, 10xxx is a waste of money at this point, so don't get me wrong there.
The point is, the stock cooler on a 3700x is perfectly functional. Adding an aftermarket premium cooler is only necessary if you plan to stress the chip. AND it is still cheaper than the Intel equivalent.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 51   +44
It looks like a good gaming part, if your aim is solely to game. I would probably go for this if all I wanted in life was 1080p frames.

But for most you will look at a 3700x costing $80 less and think......well that gets me a class up in GPU, from a 5700 to an XT, much more impact on my gaming.
You are right. It is a good gaming CPU. But I went with an 3700x last year and if 10th gen was available at the time, I still would have made the same choice. I do spend more time working nowadays (rendering and converting) but I still have a great gaming experience in my downtime.

I have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours rendering and converting since last year (with my CPU at 90-95% usage during this), and I have had great TDP and temps. And I have not had 1 single crash or BSOD or system error. It has been an fantastic build for me (X570+3700X+2080s).

So I absolutely intend to upgrade to an 4950x at launch, for work and gaming. I am 110% satisfied with my Ryzen build (after an strenuous test run since last year) and will be happily supporting AMD with my next purchase.

But like I said, I also understand if someone wants their build to focus on super high FPS gaming going with an Intel CPU. It is just different needs for different cases.