The Core i3-12100 beats the Ryzen 5 3600 in gaming benchmarks

BSim500

Posts: 921   +2,174
How about the 5600x instead of the 3600
Seriously? The 5600X is around £240 or more than double the price. At one point last year it peaked to £330 (whilst the i7-10700F was £240 and i3-10100F was £72). This comment isn't aimed at you but the fanboyism on this forum has reached farcical proportions. If Techspot seriously started comparing the R3 3100 to the i5-12400F or even i7-12700F, half the forum would be howling at the moon over 'extreme bias', yet here we are seeing the opposite with almost no sense of self awareness...

If people want to compare 4C/8T CPU's that are newer than the 3100 / 3300X, then the only serious "like for like" (ie, same price, same tier, same cores) comparison to be made would have been the 4300G / 5300G / 5300X and it's hardly Techspot's fault that they simply can't benchmark what AMD refuse to make...
 
Last edited:

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,577   +2,916
12400 is the bottom end if you're buying into Alder Lake for gaming. No maniac puts a 12100 on a Strix Z690 board and a $90 cooler, which surely gives extra performance (albeit single digit percentage) versus the kind of chipsets and coolers that CPU would realistically be paired with.

The 10400 is similarly slightly faster than the 3600 in games, the same 12MB cache and two more cores for a more rounded experience. Of course it's a dead platform, if you did plan on moving upwards from a 12100 that is one advantage.

I have found the 0.01 percent lows (basically stutters) of 4 core 8 threads CPUs to be a barrier to smooth gameplay in some games that six cores simply do not suffer. Six cores are now the clear sweet spot on price versus performance for gaming.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,675   +2,654
I‘m really hoping AMD will keep Zen 3 / AM4 around as budget platform a long time after Zen 4‘s launch.

The problem right now is that both Zen 2 and 3 are made on the same process, so there‘s no way Ryzen 3000 can fill the dirt cheap budget role Ryzen 2000 series could after Zen 2 was launched.

With Zen 3 on 7nm and Zen 4 on 5nm this should again be an option.

As for 4 cores: Sadly, reviews are still single task focused. I guess if that‘s someone‘s use case a 4 core CPU might be an option but I would bet once you have several tasks running in the background it‘s game over. Even earlier reviews comparing a 7700x to a 1700x in multi-tasking (gaming plus streaming) showed that this killed performance on quad core CPU.

But as always, it depends on the use case.
Good thing Intel doesn't market i3's as being just as good as i5s, huh?

Gee, I wonder why.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,675   +2,654
12400 is the bottom end if you're buying into Alder Lake for gaming. No maniac puts a 12100 on a Strix Z690 board and a $90 cooler, which surely gives extra performance (albeit single digit percentage) versus the kind of chipsets and coolers that CPU would realistically be paired with.

The 10400 is similarly slightly faster than the 3600 in games, the same 12MB cache and two more cores for a more rounded experience. Of course it's a dead platform, if you did plan on moving upwards from a 12100 that is one advantage.

I have found the 0.01 percent lows (basically stutters) of 4 core 8 threads CPUs to be a barrier to smooth gameplay in some games that six cores simply do not suffer. Six cores are now the clear sweet spot on price versus performance for gaming.
Gamers play on everything from phones to handhelds to consoles to laptops to PC's.

There is NO minimum.
 

maroon1

Posts: 154   +166
I am going to be 100% irrational here and declare that no matter how much performance the 12100 has over the 3600 I would never pick a 4/8 core CPU over a 6/12 one as a matter of principle.

In fact I'd be happy if AMD decides to make the previous gen 6/12 chips the default entry level ones at least while that supply lasts like they have done this generation.

So even if quad core is 10x faster per core, you would still buy 6 cores ??? LOL

Thats 100% irrational and stupid


 

Puiu

Posts: 5,875   +4,885
TechSpot Elite
What's illogical is to care when the CPU was released. It's sold, brand new, at over 200€. If it's slow cause it's old then it's price should reflect that. When I buy a CPU I don't care the slightest about when it was released, I care about the performance and the price. The 3600 is expensive and slow. Regardless of when it was released.
False, the 3600 was always a good deal. It was the king of budget PCs for a long time.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,675   +2,654
The logic is exactly the one mentioned in the post that you've quoted, AMD is currently treating their old hardware as their entry level offer and indeed it remains a popular CPU that is still selling well (3rd most sold CPU according to the latest Amazon chart on Anandtech).

Whether one would buy or not a quad core as a matter of principle is a personal opinion, personally I don't see much of a market for similar (cheap) parts simply because there's no decent and cheap GPUs available to match it right now. 3300X appeared to be fairly popular in its days, despite its four cores.
lol When will this ever stop?
Not everyone buys a computer to play demanding games if they play them at all, or run so many apps it bogs down your system. At that point you would look for something better. What do you think banks use? People new to computers? People that need one for work? People on low budgets?

There's is a 100% use for 4 cores (and 8T). That's why Intel keeps making them and AMD tries to make them. Techies are the minority in comparison to the rest that buy prebuilts. The majority of prebuilts I come across in the real world are not strong systems and they def aren't used to play Cyberpunk. More like Roblox and Minecraft, with the ability to play the latest competitive shooters with ease since GPU performance is stronger than it ever was across all SKUs. An i3 paired with an RTX 30350 doesn't so silly if you open your mind. They exist for a reason.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,248   +4,362
I believe it was the Greek philosopher Steven Kommonsenses who wrote

"Some people also like to confuse how games and cores work. Making statements like games will require 8 cores or something to that effect. Games don’t require a certain number of cores, they never have and they never will. Games require a certain level of CPU performance, it’s really that simple."
You can remove me from your quote: I never even mentioned games, I just said that even if irrational, going back to a 4/8 chip in 2022 is just not something I would be willing to do even if there's a margin-of-error disadvantage with such an old product as the 3600.

The issue is that AMD is unwilling and/or unable (A bit of both imo) to release anything for the lower end market to compete. Doesn't means that comparing a low end product to a mid tier product from the previous generation is a fair compromise, no matter the price.

Intel simply has no competition for the i3 line up at this point in time and probably for most if not all of 2022.
 

Strawman

Posts: 597   +299
False, the 3600 was always a good deal. It was the king of budget PCs for a long time.
Was, like 2 years ago. Now it's the king of overpriced CPU's. Ok, im joking, the throne belongs to the 5600x / 5800x, but the 3600 isn't far off :p
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,577   +2,916
Gamers play on everything from phones to handhelds to consoles to laptops to PC's.

There is NO minimum.
Logical bottom end of the platform for gaming, nobody said minimum.

If you're buying into that new platform with a new board and cooler then it should really be the 12400. Unless you're coming from a 6600k or anything worse than that. But a 12100 still isn't what I would regard a worthwhile upgrade in 2022.

If you are coming from something like that then who waits half a decade to spend ~$250 (plus RAM cost if needed) on another four core and budget board setup barely faster than a Ryzen 3600? Especially when a ~$320 six core setup faster than an 11700k is available?

We'll let the insane asylum inmates answer those questions, cos that's where they need to be housed. The 12400 is a lot of muscle for the money and easily the obvious the sweet spot.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,675   +2,654
Logical bottom end of the platform for gaming, nobody said minimum.

If you're buying into that new platform with a new board and cooler then it should really be the 12400. Unless you're coming from a 6600k or anything worse than that. But a 12100 still isn't what I would regard a worthwhile upgrade in 2022.

If you are coming from something like that then who waits half a decade to spend ~$250 (plus RAM cost if needed) on another four core and budget board setup barely faster than a Ryzen 3600? Especially when a ~$320 six core setup faster than an 11700k is available?

We'll let the insane asylum inmates answer those questions, cos that's where they need to be housed.
My original comment still stands as is.
 

Danny101

Posts: 2,026   +841
Better to me to be behind 8% on gaming and be better at everything else. I mean what's the minimum frame rate that's always good enough?
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,675   +2,654
It does if it's not in reply to my post.
You said 12400 minimum.
I say you're dead wrong.
You typed out specific scenarios, but I was speaking logically. If the 12100 is better than what they have or don't have a computer at all and it has the performance for what they need it for and are on a low budget, the 12400 is not THE minimum. That's YOUR minimum.
 
Last edited:

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,577   +2,916
You said 12400 minimum.
I say you're dead wrong.
I said it's the bottom end for gaming buying new on that platform, not the minimum. Bottom end and minimum are not the same thing, not in the last definition I checked.

I then clarified that further in the same post before you replied by making it clear that the 12400 is logically the sweet spot and best value choice.

Later on I also stated anyone choosing the 12100 for gaming particularly in the case of full new platform upgrade over an older part needs their heads checking. A common scenario was employed to explain why I felt that to be the case, but I do not claim that is the only scenario where someone in some niche would take the 12100.

My original comment still stands as it is. Too many people on the internet extrapolate beyond what is actually said to suit their agenda.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,675   +2,654
I said it's the bottom end for gaming buying new on that platform, not the minimum. Bottom end and minimum are not the same thing, not in the last definition I checked.

I then clarified that further in the same post before you replied by making it clear that the 12400 is logically the sweet spot and best value choice.

Later on I also stated anyone choosing the 12100 for gaming particularly in the case of full new platform upgrade over an older part needs their heads checking. A common scenario was employed to explain why I felt that to be the case, but I do not claim that is the only scenario where someone in some niche would take the 12100.

My original comment still stands as it is. Too many people on the internet extrapolate beyond what is actually said to suit their agenda.
Thats an opinion, not actual fact. You make simple things more complicated than they need to be.

You're arguing against the market, performance, point and price of the product, meaning you don't know how the market works. You're in a bubble that will never break unfortunately.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,248   +4,362
There seems to be a lot of argument revolving around the best deal for "Low end" or "Bottom end gaming"

I must say that right now and at least for the next 2 months or so in the rare case Eth doesn't fully recovers in 2 or 3 weeks (And I maintain that it will, see my post on that other news item) buying any kind of GPU immediately destroys any kind of "low end" gaming on a PC. Best actually low end option right now for PC gamers would be to well, buy an Xbox series S which is widely available, priced ok and can be used with just the xbox game pass whatever thingie so eventually you have the option to come back to the PC with most if not all of your gaming library if GPU prices are more reasonable.

But failing that well right now buying even a low end GPU is not an option. What *is* an option is spending a bit more than the 12100 and getting a 5600g instead, that's it no GPU. It will play most games @ 1080p medium and for most recent AAA titles you probably need 900p low or even 720p low so not pretty, but it *works* perfectly fine for something like 90% of the full steam library and you don't need to shop around for either a GPU that's going to be 400 or 500 bucks to pair with the 12100 destroying any of these notions of "Better for low end gaming" again, the current market being what it is.
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,577   +2,916
You make simple things more complicated than they need to be.

You're arguing against the market, performance, point and price of the product, meaning you don't know how the market works. You're in a bubble that will never break unfortunately.

We can all do without the unearned condescension.

Price versus performance is a real metric and not exactly complicated.

I'm also arguing with the market, because the current market going by boxed CPU sales is indisputably 6 cores or more. There isn't anything less than that in the top five best selling positions on various Amazon sites for example. In the USA today only one CPU up to the top fourteen sellers has less than six cores, and the situation is similar elsewhere.

In addition, we're likely less than a year away from six cores wresting the most common CPU configuration of PCs surveyed on Steam away from four core machines for the first time. Very significant after about eight years of four core domination.

Perhaps it is you who is unaware of how the market is working presently?

Ultimately you pays your money and takes your choice.