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

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,599   +2,563
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.
Most don't buy CPUs a la carte....
And when they do, the i3's are a great choice for the money.
 

Strawman

Posts: 577   +294
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.
The problem is, PC gamers already have a GPU. Even a 5 or 6 year old 1050 - 1050ti or even a 960 / 970 is better than the 5600g. The problem isn't finding a GPU that is equivalent to the 5600g IGPU, most people already have a gpu that's equal or better.
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,553   +2,842
Most don't buy CPUs a la carte....
And when they do, the i3's are a great choice for the money.

Hence the steam survey. Doesn't care where you bought the cores.

The wind is blowing only one way. Six and eight already significantly outweigh the fours on Steam. Seems unfair to tag team but truth is it is only logical.

At the very end of last year we crossed a threshold where more than half of machines in December's Steam survey had six cores or greater. No trumpet sounded but I noticed it. So I am pretty sure developers do too, to go along with the consoles.

It will be a pretty big deal when crossover happens for six cores alone being top dog. 2022 looks like it.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,599   +2,563
Hence the steam survey. Doesn't care where you bought the cores.

The wind is blowing only one way. Six and eight already significantly outweigh the fours on Steam. Seems unfair to tag team but truth is it is only logical.

At the very end of last year we crossed a threshold where more than half of machines in December's Steam survey had six cores or greater. No trumpet sounded but I noticed it. So I am pretty sure developers do too, to go along with the consoles.

It will be a pretty big deal when crossover happens for six cores alone being top dog. 2022 looks like it.
Steam huh?

Since you're there, what's the top resolution and core count?

I'll wait...
 
Last edited:

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,553   +2,842
Steam huh?

Since you're there, what's the top resolution and core count?

I'll wait...

Middle of 2020 eighteen months ago, six cores had 25 percent share on the survey and four cores had 45 percent.

Four cores alone easily beat out combined six and eight cores, which were 33 percent.

As of last month 4 cores were down to 35 percent and 6 cores up to to 33 percent.

Six and eight cores combined now edged over 50 percent, which is a pretty staggering gain in a mere 18 months. One suspects the pandemic has helped the adoption rate. Not that it matters much. Half of all machines on steam now pack six cores or more. Four cores are down to just above one third, and shrinking rapidly after dominating since about 2014.

So yes you can buy a brand new four core today for gaming. It might be rather against the market though.

I notice these numbers mainly because console gamers like to pretend most PC gamers have feeble machines. When it is pretty clear despite the serious supply chain problems many millions on Steam alone (it's easy to forget China has the most PC gamers and Steam is not a huge platform there) have machines comparable or better than new consoles.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,599   +2,563
Middle of 2020 eighteen months ago, six cores had 25 percent share on the survey and four cores had 45 percent.

Four cores alone easily beat out combined six and eight cores, which were 33 percent.

As of last month 4 cores were down to 35 percent and 6 cores up to to 33 percent.

Six and eight cores combined now edged over 50 percent, which is a pretty staggering gain in a mere 18 months. One suspects the pandemic has helped the adoption rate. Not that it matters much. Half of all machines on steam now pack six cores or more. Four cores are down to just above one third, and shrinking rapidly after dominating since about 2014.

So yes you can buy a brand new four core today for gaming. It might be rather against the market though.

I notice these numbers mainly because console gamers like to pretend most PC gamers have feeble machines. When it is pretty clear despite the serious supply chain problems many millions on Steam alone (it's easy to forget China has the most PC gamers and Steam is not a huge platform there) have machines comparable or better than new consoles.
35%. 4C is number one for core count. 67%. 1080p is number one for resolution. i3's are great for gaming when that's all you need. Not so niche, huh?

Those are December numbers. 4C numbers may even go up in the coming months after ADL i3's are out for a bit. Consoles have weak CPU's and okay GPU's. The only reason AMD got the contract is price and performance in one package. If you have a slow CPU at lower resolutions, more cores will not help.

This was fun. Let's do it again sometime.
 
Last edited:

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,553   +2,842
35%. 4C is number one for core count. 67%. 1080p is number one for resolution. i3's are great for gaming when that's all you need. Not so niche, huh?

Those are December numbers. 4C numbers may even go up in the coming months after ADL i3's are out for a bit. Consoles have weak CPU's and okay GPU's. The only reason AMD got the contract is price and performance in one package. If you have a slow CPU at lower resolutions, more cores will not help.

This was fun. Let's do it again sometime.

It's ok to say four cores are good enough for minimum level gaming, since that is just your opinion.

It's not ok to pretend they are anything but a minority and virtual niche for NEW processor sales and PCs purchased for gaming. Not on the evidence of the past 18 months. That is obviously wrong.

They'll seemingly also be a minority before this year is out for install base on Steam, despite long historical sales and dominance. That'll be quite a landmark shift.

No more repetition of these observations is required. The discussion was never really about what worked in the past. It was about what is sold right now to replace the old. Consumers driving trends.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,599   +2,563
It's ok to say four cores are good enough for minimum level gaming, since that is just your opinion.

It's not ok to pretend they are anything but a minority and virtual niche for NEW processor sales and PCs purchased for gaming. Not on the evidence of the past 18 months. That is obviously wrong.

They'll seemingly also be a minority before this year is out for install base on Steam, despite long historical sales and dominance. That'll be quite a landmark shift.

No more repetition of these observations is required. The discussion was never really about what worked in the past. It was about what is sold right now to replace the old. Consumers driving trends.
lol Good luck with that.
 

skaven

Posts: 12   +18
Imagine, that Ryzens never come to us. that i3 will be i7 for 500€. all must hail to AMD for this :)
 

meric

Posts: 364   +359
I find it great news that a bottom line CPU from intel offers this kind of acceptable performance, for what it is. This gives an idea of how good the next gen, from both camps, will be. But I would like to see good, fast SoCs with HSA/UMA architecture from both teams. Apple showed us all that there's a lot of potential in that area and such chips should not necessarily cost an arm and a leg.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,218   +4,270
I find it great news that a bottom line CPU from intel offers this kind of acceptable performance, for what it is. This gives an idea of how good the next gen, from both camps, will be. But I would like to see good, fast SoCs with HSA/UMA architecture from both teams. Apple showed us all that there's a lot of potential in that area and such chips should not necessarily cost an arm and a leg.
I tink UMA might be the way to go for future laptops & desktops but not by much: I know that M1 is ahead of both AMD and Intel in terms of performance and battery but honestly, not by that much.

That is to say yes: what Apple is doing wins out in performance but the software side is doing quite a bit of heavy lifting. When there's no software magic sauce going on we see the M1 just do ok vs the x86 counterparts.

So on the x86 side I can tell you that it's popular because there isn't a single solution for everything. The flexibility is what propelled the platform forward and kept it there for decades.

What needs to happen is that flexibility is translated to greater and greater advances but again, in the software side of it mainly through virtualization: We are already seeing core density and transfers speeds for component reach the levels of "If you need hardware flexibility, generate that on a virtual machine not on physical hardware" as a viable proposition.

So once more and more of that transition is moved over to "the cloud" (Because I believe it will happen, regardless of whenever it's a good idea or not, simply because people with money are investing heavily on it) then solutions like the one Apple has with a UMA SoC will become the norm and very likely something on the x86 side will be done to try to compete: Not sure if it will be Google with ChromeOS, another Linux based solution that really works like an appliance OS (Think Android but targeted for x86 thin client pcs) or maybe even Microsoft (Although they failed at it so many times and are still so invested with the recent release of Windows 11 they probably won't win out)
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
$100 for a CPU like this is outstanding value, far better than anything AMD ever delivered with Ryzen, even pre 5000 series when AMD massively ramped up their pricing. In fact since Ryzen launched the prices of CPUs in general has gone through the roof!

It’s amusing watching the fanboys cry in this thread. Comments like “I would never buy a 4/8 over a 6/12”. I mean would you really buy a 6/12 part that loses to a 4/8 in games? Lmao. Most people don’t need more than 4 cores and 8 threads. Most games definitely don’t. This has been objectively proven. Why are people so willing to buy more cores they don’t need? I will never know. The steam deck is a 4/8 solution, I hope some users aren’t put off by that.

It’s all about the performance, not all cores are the same. We should be looking at the actual performance numbers and not core count.

Intel are not AMD, they do not go silently in the night for 10 years when they get beaten. And that’s a good thing for all of us.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 18,820   +7,750
How about a Ryzen 5 5600x? I mean, if they’re going to throw their new chips at something, at lease make sure it is current generation technology.
Sure why not throw it up against a Thread ripper? That's sure to make Intel look bad a you feel all warm and smug.

And maybe when AMD comes up with a $100.00 5600x, people will actually pay attention tp what you have to say..

OTOH, why not compare the i3 to the 3600? After all, most of its owners are out there with their megaphones shouting "Intel is dead".

Yeah well, not so fast there fanboyz
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,820   +7,750
4 core huh. I wanna see it compared to the 3300x.
Well, the AMD is $70.00 more. Are we comparing it dollar for dollar, or only on your terms?

You should buy one of each and check it out for yourself. I mean you have a fancy avatar and all that, but I'm not entirely certain the reviewing community has to humor you because of it
 

AMDGeForceRX4090

Posts: 96   +107
Well, the AMD is $70.00 more. Are we comparing it dollar for dollar, or only on your terms?

You should buy one of each and check it out for yourself. I mean you have a fancy avatar and all that, but I'm not entirely certain the reviewing community has to humor you because of it
Err... Cause they're both 4 core but one's much older and I'm curious. What jumped up your arse?
 

Jimster480

Posts: 152   +138
Who's fault is that? AMD had every opportunity to release 4000 APU's, the 5300X, the 5300G, etc, but refused the whole lot. It's hardly "Techspot bias" to point out that Intel are winning in the budget market because AMD have simply stopped trying.
I agree, AMD couldn't really make these cheap chips though due to their architecture design. They need to make an APU design with only 4 cores which would be a whole redesign.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,820   +7,750
I think you need a rest from this site. It seems to be an addiction.
I thought I made it quite clear in my first post, I don't care what you think. Quick question though; do you have stickers all over you case to match your avatar?

If so, maybe you need a break from AMD for awhile, and build yourself an Intel based machine.

After all, if you need the toys you play with to establish your sense of self worth and identity, that could indicate deeper issues.
 
Last edited:

AMDGeForceRX4090

Posts: 96   +107
I thought I made it quite clear in my first post, I don't care what you think. Quick question though; do you have stickers all over you case to match your avatar?

If so, maybe you need a break from AMD for awhile, and build yourself an Intel based machine.

After all, if you need the toys you play with to establish your sense of self worth and identity, that could indicate deeper issues.
If you didn't care you wouldn't respond :)

To answer your question though, the only stickers I put on cases are those that come with the hardware. So cpu/gpu/mobo/ram stickers. If there's room and they don't ruin the look that is.

I have this avatar to trigger hardware fanboys that have brand loyalty to companies that don't give a crap about you or anyone else. I go for what ever hardware gives good perf for the price, regardless of who makes it.