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

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
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.
I think taking any 3000 CPU over an 10th gen right now is an mistake. 4000 series is 3 months away or so and are coming with some very notable improvements. An 8 core CCX (which will help tremendously with gaming) and another 10-15% IPC improvement (I have heard some rumors saying more IPC, but I am going with the absolute minimum I have heard.

Not to mention an improved 7nm+ process. So don't get me wrong, I am not knocking 3000 series (I own an 3700x) but I think it would be foolish to purchase any CPU with 4000 series CPU launch so close. Best to wait, even if one doesn't purchase 4000 series, 3000 series will also come down in price. Win-win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daveteauk

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
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.
True. But don't forget that next gen GPUs (RTX 3000 and RDNA2) are coming and they will be more powerful at the same or lower price points. So the 5700xt that doesn't bottleneck on any CPU now will be an RDNA2 or RTX 3000 that does bottleneck your CPU at the same or lower price point of current GPUs.

But of course, the higher the res and settings the less a bottleneck will happen. But there are still some games that still bottleneck an Ryzen CPU, even at 1440p as shown by Techspots own benchmarks. And I do still know lots of people playing at 1080p on PC as well (crazy, I know).

But next gen GPUs will be more powerful (thus bottleneck an CPU) at the same or lower price points. But 4000 series is also around the corner so best to wait for those. I will be upgrading my 3700x to an 4950x for work and gaming.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
Unless your building a gaming rig.
Unless you are building an super high FPS gaming rig and don't care about anything else, price,tdp,security and productivity/price performance.

So there are sacrifices when going with Intel. Intels FPS does not come without catches. It just depends if you are okay with those catches or not, I am not. But no problem if you prefer gaming performance above everything else I mentioned.I do understand that and have friends who also want exactly that. And I have friends who prefer Ryzens balance.Ryzen does still game good enough for most of us after all, we are not talking about playable/unplayable here.

So just purchase what makes you happy, whatever lets you sleep at night.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 44   +11
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.
Nonsense. The Wraith Prism cooler works great on my 3700x and ASUS X570-F Gaming combo. Just go into your BIOS and set a custom fan profile, I have got my lowest fan speed at 45% or so and have it scaling up to 100% fan speed at 100% load at 75 degrees. Then set your fan smoothing to 3 sec delay up and 3 sec delay down. Perfect.

I never hear my fan at idle or on the desktop or gaming, It only ever spins up to max when I am rendering or converting and then it is very subdued until 100%, and that doesn't bother me because my temps never go above 69-70 degrees when rendering.

And my temps never idle above 36 degrees max in summer. So I don't know what you did wrong, but the Wraith Prism is excellent when set up correctly. Watching youtube and doing any normal tasks never make the Prism cooler heard and my temps are always excellent, at most 39-40 degrees when watching youtube in summer and doing some normal OS and work related tasks. The fan smoothing stops the fan from spinning up abruptly/sharply when the CPU increases its voltage for single/light core work loads and the CPU temps jump quickly.Perfect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: daveteauk

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,802
Switching from AMD to 10900k/10700k
The reason AMD's market share for consumers, mainly gaming consumers hasn't increased uniformly with Ryzen's general success is that, for the most part, any core i7 from several years ago, even the lowly 4 core 7700K, still does quite well with gaming.


 
  • Like
Reactions: daveteauk

daveteauk

Posts: 24   +4
Unless your gaming.


If your not gaming.
ONLY if you are ONLY gaming on your PC, if you're doing ANYTHING else on it, you'd be dumb to spend on this = more overpriced Intel, still ripping us off; they're learning, but way too slowly.
 

HardReset

Posts: 790   +340
Also worth to consider are next gen consoles with very fast SSD's (basically PCIe 4.0 ones). AMD supports PCIe 4.0 whereas Intel does not. Also even with PCIe 3.0 AMD is much better since AMD has straight connection from CPU to NVMe SSD. With Intel that PCIe 3.0 x4 interface is shared with NVMe, LAN, audio, SATA, USB etc etc.

So Intel is probably very bad choice for gaming when considering upcoming games and not 2012 games like Far Cry 5 (Far Cry 5 is Far Cry 3 with new skin, basically nothing else)...
 

daveteauk

Posts: 24   +4
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.
To be competitive now, it needs to drop in price by a minimum of 30% - Intel are still on the Rip Off it's customers routine. They've yet to really wake up to the crap they're in, relying on fan boys to buy it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lionvibez

daveteauk

Posts: 24   +4
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)
That is THE dumbest excuse for buying Intel I've ever heard!
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,887   +1,120
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 - Ā£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.
no point trying to explain that to him and the rest of the Team blue fan boys on the site.

Majority of people only care about playable vs unplayable performance.

These guys will die on that blue sword for 10+ fps that won't be noticeable in game play. And that is the only argument they have and its a pretty weak one. I'm looking forward to Zen 3 removing this excuse to see what they will say next.
 

Bamda

Posts: 43   +23
I went shopping. I found some interesting numbers. As of 5/24/2020 at 7:08 PM EST.

Intel Core i7-10700K Desktop Processor 8 Cores up to 5.1 GHz Unlocked LGA1200 (Intel 400 Series chipset) 125W
Price: $798.00

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-10700K-Desktop-Processor-Unlocked/dp/B086ML4XSB#customerReviews

Don't forget to get a MB with the CPU.

ASUS ROG Strix Z490-E Gaming Z490 (WiFi 6) LGA 1200 (Intel 10th Gen) ATX Gaming Motherboard (14+2 Power Stages, DDR4 4600, Intel 2.5 Gb Ethernet, Bluetooth v5.1, Dual M.2 and Aura Sync)
Price: $299.99

https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-ROG-Str...KT0NNVG35MK&psc=1&refRID=JK4E3Y0BTKT0NNVG35MK

OR

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X with Wraith Prism Cooler, ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming, CPU / Motherboard Bundle
Price $669.98

https://www.microcenter.com/product...strix-x570-e-gaming,-cpu---motherboard-bundle

Intel Price $1097.99
AMD Price $669.98
AMD Savings $428.01

Much to ponder indeed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HardReset
I'm just curious where the 3800X would fall in some of these benchmarks. I mean AMD makes two 8 core/16 thread processors. While most people (myself included) would opt for the cheaper 3700X, it's essentially AMD's "budget" option at this tier. Considering the 3800X is clocked higher and has better (binned) silicon, I'm curious how it compares. Obviously in benches where the 3900X loses to the 10700K, it's not going to matter. I'd be curious to see where it falls in Cinebench and 7-zip where the 10700K falls in between the 3700X and 3900X.
 

Bamda

Posts: 43   +23
I went shopping. I found some interesting numbers. As of 5/24/2020 at 7:08 PM EST.

Intel Core i7-10700K Desktop Processor 8 Cores up to 5.1 GHz Unlocked LGA1200 (Intel 400 Series chipset) 125W
Price: $798.00

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-10700K-Desktop-Processor-Unlocked/dp/B086ML4XSB#customerReviews

Don't forget to get a MB with the CPU.

ASUS ROG Strix Z490-E Gaming Z490 (WiFi 6) LGA 1200 (Intel 10th Gen) ATX Gaming Motherboard (14+2 Power Stages, DDR4 4600, Intel 2.5 Gb Ethernet, Bluetooth v5.1, Dual M.2 and Aura Sync)
Price: $299.99

https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-ROG-Str...KT0NNVG35MK&psc=1&refRID=JK4E3Y0BTKT0NNVG35MK

OR

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X with Wraith Prism Cooler, ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming, CPU / Motherboard Bundle
Price $669.98

https://www.microcenter.com/product...strix-x570-e-gaming,-cpu---motherboard-bundle

Intel Price $1097.99
AMD Price $669.98
AMD Savings $428.01

Much to ponder indeed.
Oh one other thing. There is the cost of cooling the CPU. AMD includes a very good cooling option, Intel does not. Keep in mind that these Intel CPUs do run warm to hot if pushed hard so standard inexpensive cooling is not recommended from everything I have read. So you will be looking at spending another $80 to $150 if you are going to overclock the CPU for maximum FPS. So the cost of jumping on to these new Intel CPUs is not a cheap proposition to say the least.

So that would push the total dollars well over $500 to get a new Intel CPU over an AMD for a few more frames in games. I can't say it is worth the added expense, IMHO.
 
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.
It only doesn't make sense if it is assumed that value to performance is a linear function. Most relationships have asymmetries when reaching the extreme lower/upper bounds
 

phinn888

Posts: 6   +1
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 had me with the 3700X, it's a strong option although weaker than even the i5-10600K for gaming which is the same price. But that extra $80 saved from this would only go towards an RTX card for me, AMD GPUs are still a joke. Hopefully Big Navi or RDNA2 will change that.
 
I'd never buy AMD. Unfair maybe, but historically just too many problems when it comes to gaming.

If you're tinkering around with Adobe products then maybe. But definitely not for gaming.

As the stats show, Intel absolutely trounces AMD at gaming.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,488   +1,465
TechSpot Elite
I guess if you define "trouncing" as 123 FPS over 116 FPS (or 156 vs 145), then you'd better go ahead and pay $200-250 more for your Intel CPU & MoBo to get those extra few frames.

The smart money for FPS would be to get the AMD setup and spend the $200-250 extra on a better GPU which will "trounce" the lower tier one by more than just a handful of FPS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HardReset and Bamda
The smart money for FPS would be to get AMD
Full stop. AMD everything. AMD is computing life. Intel is amazingly TROUNCING AMD every day on every benchmark for gaming. /#amd-fn!atics

"Except $" griping has always indicated cash strapped individuals who probably own nothing under discussion, tech product detractors are ever-present. A month after this article launched, prices and availability have changed, guess which company is losing it's precious cash intake the fastest?

One hint > IT'S not Intel.

good news but also not unexpected Far Cry series has always favored Intel CPUs and we like to include it as this is a worst case scenario for AMD. While the 10700K will often be around 5% faster than the 3900X in gaming, there are titles such as Far Cry New Dawn where Intel is around 15% faster and that margin can even be seen at 1440p
No top of the line Consumer System using AMD products outperforms a top of the line Intel Consumer System in gaming. Ding. Grab that mic and talk about sockets and zipping and the wonderful AMD functions that have NOTHING TO DO WITH GAMING.

"Oh some of us like to use our computers to do other stuff beside gaming"

I saved your fingers, typed it already šŸ˜‹
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,488   +1,465
TechSpot Elite
Nice troll. Sorry you were triggered but gamers actually consider the cost of their equipment, otherwise why do gamers prefer the 2070 Super to the 2080 Super by a 2.4:1 margin? The very margin I was referring to in my AMD for more gaming FPS argument.

And CPU sales numbers on Amazon dispute any claims made about people preferring Intel overall.

That's great that you blindly prefer Intel but it seems most people put more consideration into their purchases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bamda

BoboOOZ

Posts: 51   +45
I think taking a 10700k over a 3900x in gaming would be a mistake. What do you guys think?
If you are doing encoding/compilation tasks, go with the 3900X, but otherwise, it's way too many cores for gaming. If you just wany gaming, grab a 3800X/XT, or, even better, wait a few months and grab a 4800X...
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 294   +141
In a world dominated by AMD's Ryzen lineup


A world "dominated" by Ryzen ? In which parallel dimension ?
Don't get me wrong, Ryzen are the best solution out there, but the "world" still use Intel.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 294   +141
The key point here is just one : price.
The 10700K is a very good CPU, for sure, but it costs much more that it should. And you have to factor in the price of a Z490 motherboard, which is very high too.
Iā€™m an Intel customer at the moment (two systems, 9700K and 9600K) but I cannot deny you can buy a 3700X system for much less, or an even better 3900X PC for a similar amount of money and better performance.
For gaming only (my main usage) an old 9600K or an even older 8700K are quite close and cost much less. You can use the spared money for a better VGA.