Just How Much Faster are Intel CPUs for Gaming?

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 3,549   +3,373
I am just glad to see the 10th generation i3 and i5 making such impacts on gaming.

Normally, I only recommend my clients to i7 or i9 if I'm sure they can afford it.

Now I can feel comfortable recommending an i3 with a 1660Ti or RTX 2060.
 
Last edited:

DZillaXx

Posts: 94   +138
Honestly can't recommend anyone buy Intel anymore. Zen 3 is not too far away and will bring massive gains when it comes to gaming. The only area Intel is able to maintain a slight lead.

Being slightly faster in a few games that don't scale much past 4 cores is only good today. Not the future. Zen 2 already does great in games and Honestly is the CPU to get today. But with Zen3 so close and Intel having nothing to compete with it. I don't see why anyone would go Intel.
 

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,804
Wow, whether or not its noticeable, 10-30FPS is pretty substantial.
I knew Intel was better for gaming but when you compare them like this, I didn't think it was THAT much of a difference.
Intel for gaming all the way, which is why, gamers haven't had a reason to switch since Ryzen released. In fact, if building a gaming rig in 2020, Intel still makes alot of sense. Glad to finally see a review that purely focuses on this aspect, seeing a 20-30FPS difference in some cases is really eye opening.
10 year old Intel architecture with a paint job STILL putting a beatdown on AMD's best, yikes, that will drive a stake through any AMD fanboy's heart.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: shady28

ColdSoup

Posts: 90   +180
Wow, whether or not its noticeable, 10-30FPS is pretty substantial.
I knew Intel was better for gaming but when you compare them like this, I didn't think it was THAT much of a difference.
Intel for gaming all the way, which is why, gamers haven't had a reason to switch since Ryzen released. In fact, if building a gaming rig in 2020, Intel still makes alot of sense. Glad to finally see a review that purely focuses on this aspect, seeing a 20-30FPS difference in some cases is really eye opening.
10 year old Intel architecture with a paint job putting a beatdown on AMD's best.
What would also be eye opening is if you did a blind test of 300fps vs 330fps. I guarantee you can't tell the difference.
 

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,804
What would also be eye opening is if you did a blind test of 300fps vs 330fps. I guarantee you can't tell the difference.
Doesn't sound like you read my comment.
The VERY FIRST thing I said was "whether or not its noticeable".
So I guess I have to repeat myself? Ok....

Wow, whether or not its noticeable, 10-30FPS is pretty substantial.
Thats a beatdown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shady28
Wow, whether or not its noticeable, 10-30FPS is pretty substantial.
I knew Intel was better for gaming but when you compare them like this, I didn't think it was THAT much of a difference.
Intel for gaming all the way
Unless you're playing CS:GO (which is currently the most played game on Steam by a wide margin) in which case you had better get the AMD CPU because it has up to a 37FPS AVG lead (or 40FPS in lows) advantage over Intel which is SIGNIFICANT!

This is also the case for Battlefield V (2FPS advantage @1080p) and Rainbow Six Siege (19FPS advantage @1080p).

As long as you make sure to avoid those games, Intel is the best but if you play those, be prepared to have an inadequate machine compared to an AMD setup.
 

ColdSoup

Posts: 90   +180
Doesn't sound like you read my comment.
The VERY FIRST thing I said was "whether or not its noticeable".
So I guess I have to repeat myself? Ok....

Wow, whether or not its noticeable, 10-30FPS is pretty substantial.
Thats a beatdown.
Why is it substantial if it makes absolutely zero perceptible difference? That's like saying I can drive my car 800mph instead of 830mph. Who cares?
 

Nobina

Posts: 2,673   +2,294
Wow, whether or not its noticeable, 10-30FPS is pretty substantial.
I knew Intel was better for gaming but when you compare them like this, I didn't think it was THAT much of a difference.
Intel for gaming all the way, which is why, gamers haven't had a reason to switch since Ryzen released. In fact, if building a gaming rig in 2020, Intel still makes alot of sense. Glad to finally see a review that purely focuses on this aspect, seeing a 20-30FPS difference in some cases is really eye opening.
10 year old Intel architecture with a paint job STILL putting a beatdown on AMD's best, yikes, that will drive a stake through any AMD fanboy's heart.
10-30 FPS because both CPUs push high framerates. Percentage wise it's 6% on average. Nothing to ignore but it's not substantial.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,593   +1,628
TechSpot Elite
Doesn't sound like you read my comment.
The VERY FIRST thing I said was "whether or not its noticeable".
So I guess I have to repeat myself? Ok....

Wow, whether or not its noticeable, 10-30FPS is pretty substantial.
Thats a beatdown.
OK 10-30 fps is substantial and repeatable. But it's not a beatdown to anyone except Intel fanboys.

Put another way:

Is it worth spending more money on a machine to give you a 0.75ms improvement in frametime delay in games? When your monitor's overall delay is 5x that? If you're spending $1200 on a GPU already, then sure as that costs more than these CPU/Mobo/Cooler combos. The placebo effect is a real thing.

If you're spending ~$400 on a GPU, then it doesn't make sense to spend more as the overall difference is close to zero and just get the less expensive combo. Unless, again, you're a fanboy for one setup over another.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,429   +6,035
Wow, whether or not its noticeable, 10-30FPS is pretty substantial.
I knew Intel was better for gaming but when you compare them like this, I didn't think it was THAT much of a difference.
Intel for gaming all the way, which is why, gamers haven't had a reason to switch since Ryzen released. In fact, if building a gaming rig in 2020, Intel still makes alot of sense. Glad to finally see a review that purely focuses on this aspect, seeing a 20-30FPS difference in some cases is really eye opening.
10 year old Intel architecture with a paint job STILL putting a beatdown on AMD's best, yikes, that will drive a stake through any AMD fanboy's heart.
1. The 3700X isn't AMD's best. It's not it's second best or even 3rd best either. This isn't a top end CPU comparison to begin with.

2. Just don't complain about unrealistic tests when AMD's zen 3 launch. AMD already wins in some very large eSports titles, a 80 FPS loss in CSGO for Intel would, according to your diction, be utter domination.
 

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,804
The 3700X isn't AMD's best.
Neither is this 6 core Intel.
This article is comparing a Intel 6 core/12 thread to an AMD 8 core/16 thread, if anything AMD has the advantage.
Both chips are quite impressive but for gaming there is a clear winner.
Thats a wrap folks, although IMO the AMD 3600 is probably the best all around chip, even though its still a little slower in gaming then a 4 year old stock 8700K.
And the comments about 30FPS when your running 200FPS are valid, but there are examples of gaming from 720p, 1080p and 1440p where your seeing a 5-15 FPS difference around 60FPS-120FPS, which could be a difference maker for locking at 60FPS, 120FPS or 144FPS.
Also, the Intel chips overclock and will probably be more future proof for gaming.

Not disagreeing that the visible difference will in most cases, be nothing to worry about, but there is a clear winner here and 20-30FPS in pretty substantial, you can downplay it all you want if you like.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MaxSmarties

dirtyferret

Posts: 636   +730
The title of the test is "Just how much faster are Intel CPUs for gaming?" and then you post "In our review we found that a 5.1 GHz overclock could boost gaming performance by as much as 12%, so keep that in mind." but then you don't show the CPUs OC which would show the 10600k at around 20% faster (ballpark) based on your 10600k test and this current test...so why didn't you OC the CPUs to answer your title?

















 

Jerry in WA

Posts: 84   +80
Right now, seems the only reason to build an Intel rig is for pure gaming. And that may only be true for a few more months. The next AMD chips are likely to close that gap too - it's not like it's a large gap to close.
 

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,804
So, the takeaway would be that unless you pair your $300 CPU with a $1200 GPU, there is zero difference in 1080p / 1440p gaming between the two CPU.
Thats completely true, if you ignore results like these:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/

Battlefield 5: 8700K faster by 11FPS/18FPS
8700K:114/167
3600: 103/149

Tomb Raider: 8700K faster by 10FPS/19FPS
8700K: 78/114
3600: 68/95

Far Cry: 8700K faster by 10FPS/7/FPS
8700K: 84/110
3600: 74/103

World War Z: 8700K faster by 34FPS/25FPS
8700K: 169/201
3600: 135/176

Rage 2: 8700K faster by 4FPS/8FPS
8700K: 122/168
3600: 118/160

Hitman 2: 8700K faster by 12 FPS/13FPS
8700K: 94/118
3600: 82/105

 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,429   +6,035
So, the takeaway would be that unless you pair your $300 CPU with a $1200 GPU, there is zero difference in 1080p / 1440p gaming between the two CPU.
Don't forget it's 1080p low. If you were just gaming at 1080p the difference would be even smaller.

It's an incredibly niche scenario.

Neither is this 6 core Intel.
This article is comparing a Intel 6 core/12 thread to an AMD 8 core/16 thread, if anything AMD has the advantage.
Both chips are quite impressive but for gaming there is a clear winner.
Thats a wrap folks, although IMO the AMD 3600 is probably the best all around chip, even though its still a little slower in gaming then a 4 year old stock 8700K.
And the comments about 30FPS when your running 200FPS are valid, but there are examples of gaming from 720p, 1080p and 1440p where your seeing a 5-15 FPS difference around 60FPS-120FPS, which could be a difference maker for locking at 60FPS, 120FPS or 144FPS.
Also, the Intel chips overclock and will probably be more future proof for gaming.

Not disagreeing that the visible difference will in most cases, be nothing to worry about, but there is a clear winner here and 20-30FPS in pretty substantial, you can downplay it all you want if you like.
It's important to highlight the performance of a CPU but it's also important to note in which situations said performance can be obtained.