Top 5 Best CPUs: Intel Core vs. AMD Ryzen

Strawman

Posts: 334   +207
He likes recommending overpriced CPUs built on an old fab process that run hot as hell and soak up tons of power and get thrashed in any multi-threaded task, all for that minimal 5-10% boost in outdated engines that prioritize single-core frequency.
You sure you are talking about Intel? According to the review from this very site the 10900k run cooler and was equally or more efficient than the 3700x and the 3600. So what the actual duck are you talking about?

According to the blender data, it consumed 45wh for the blender test. The 3700x consumed 44wh and finished in 20% more time, whike the 3600 consumed 55wh and finished in 70% more time. So, again, what are you talkibg about?
 

grvalderrama

Posts: 283   +121
You sure you are talking about Intel? According to the review from this very site the 10900k run cooler and was equally or more efficient than the 3700x and the 3600. So what the actual duck are you talking about?

According to the blender data, it consumed 45wh for the blender test. The 3700x consumed 44wh and finished in 20% more time, whike the 3600 consumed 55wh and finished in 70% more time. So, again, what are you talkibg about?
I think you are talking about the review from the laptop cpu (10980hk). Because the 10900k does not run cooler, nor is more efficient than any of AMD's cpu you mentioned. By the way, the 10900k has a TDP rated 125w, all cores locked at 4.3 ghz. You should read both the 10900k and 10980hk reviews again, because though the 10980hk is a great cpu, nothing you said is true.
 

Strawman

Posts: 334   +207
I think you are talking about the review from the laptop cpu (10980hk). Because the 10900k does not run cooler, nor is more efficient than any of AMD's cpu you mentioned. By the way, the 10900k has a TDP rated 125w, all cores locked at 4.3 ghz. You should read both the 10900k and 10980hk reviews again, because though the 10980hk is a great cpu, nothing you said is true.
Uhm, yeah, right. Check the 10900k review. Power draw on blender was 205watts and it finishes the task at 805seconds. So the total consumption was 45wh. The 3600 was pulling 150watts and finishes the task at 1200 seconds or something along those lines. Total consumption was 55wh.
So.. Come again?

If you dont know how to calculate the wh, its time/3600 * power draw. So 805/3600*205 = 45wh
 

neeyik

Posts: 1,877   +2,191
Staff member
Power draw on blender was 205watts and it finishes the task at 805seconds. So the total consumption was 45wh. The 3600 was pulling 150watts and finishes the task at 1200 seconds or something along those lines. Total consumption was 55wh.
So.. Come again?
It's worth noting that the measured power consumption values are for the entire system, so there will be a difference in platform/motherboard efficiency within this situation. For the 10900K, an Asus ROG Maximus XII Extreme was used, whereas the 3600 was in a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master. There's probably not much in it, though.

If one breaks down the consumed energy for the Blender test, the results are as follows:

blender_efficiency.png
 

Strawman

Posts: 334   +207
It's worth noting that the measured power consumption values are for the entire system, so there will be a difference in platform/motherboard efficiency within this situation. For the 10900K, an Asus ROG Maximus XII Extreme was used, whereas the 3600 was in a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master. There's probably not much in it, though.

If one breaks down the consumed energy for the Blender test, the results are as follows:

View attachment 86724
Which means the 10900k is more efficient than like 70% of the ryzen product stack. It only loses to 2 cpus and ties the 3700x more or less. But yeah, fanboys are fanboys, what you gonna do :p
 

neeyik

Posts: 1,877   +2,191
Staff member
Updated the table to include some other 10th gen Core CPUs and some Threadrippers:

blender_efficiency.png

Edit: These data need to be interpreted with care. Is it saying that the 3990X is the most efficient CPU around? Unlikely - it's suggesting that it has so many resources available for the task, that it's not having to juggle everything like mad. It has 64 cores, 128 threads, and 256 MB of L3 cache - in the case of the latter, that's nearly 13 times the amount in the i9-10900K.

On the other hand, the 3600 has just 6 cores, 12 threads, and 32 MB of L3 cache. Hence why it requires more energy to do the same task, as some of this is used to manage the resources - that said, it's only 2.6 times more.
 
Last edited:

grvalderrama

Posts: 283   +121
Which means the 10900k is more efficient than like 70% of the ryzen product stack. It only loses to 2 cpus and ties the 3700x more or less. But yeah, fanboys are fanboys, what you gonna do :p
Nothing to add from what already neeyik said. Don't be too rush to call people fanboys, I'm actually answering to this comment from an Intel Core i5 laptop, needless to say that I have a Rysen cpu in my desktop pc. I've used and I'm still using Intel and AMD cpus, and also owned AMD and Nvidia gpus. Not what I'd call a fanboy so.... come again?
 

Strawman

Posts: 334   +207
Nothing to add from what already neeyik said. Don't be too rush to call people fanboys, I'm actually answering to this comment from an Intel Core i5 laptop, needless to say that I have a Rysen cpu in my desktop pc. I've used and I'm still using Intel and AMD cpus, and also owned AMD and Nvidia gpus. Not what I'd call a fanboy so.... come again?
You said nothing I said is true, while you are wrong, and didn't apologize. Ohkay
 

grvalderrama

Posts: 283   +121
You said nothing I said is true, while you are wrong, and didn't apologize. Ohkay
I still don't get what's so hard for you to understand that the core i9 isn't the most efficient cpu around. Neeyik already put it in simple terms. Also, you can hardly tell if a cpu is more efficient than other by just taking one test's result and going straight to conclussions, such as " 10900k is more efficient than like 70% of the ryzen product stack". From my point of view and reading the very whole of it, that's just nonesense. Finally, I think there nothing to apologize for... but if that makes you happy, I'm sorry my good fellow techspot reader!
 

StrikerRocket

Posts: 75   +42
Mobile CPU category is missing, now also completely dominated by AMD.

Meanwhile, Intel is hanging by a thread in the gaming category and while maybe that 10600K is still a good option, if the rumors about Zen 3 are only half-true, one might be better off getting a Ryzen CPU today with a motherboard that can upgrade to Zen 3.

+1
Exactly what I did this week, I bought a nice MSI MAG X570 Tomahawk (look at the VRMs on this one...!), 32 GB of DDR4 3600 cas16 and a Ryzen 3900X. I'm not at home right now, so, the hardware is on the shelf awaiting my return home next week. I can't wait to fire my first Cinebench on this one! To think that a 12 core CPU like the 3900X is more powerful than my dual E5 2680 V2 while consuming waaaayyyy less is amazing!
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 713   +1,264
Article needs to be redacted or updated: You really can't buy the 5950x or the 5900x right now. And specially not at those prices.
 

mattferg

Posts: 171   +170
Mobile CPU category is missing, now also completely dominated by AMD.

Meanwhile, Intel is hanging by a thread in the gaming category and while maybe that 10600K is still a good option, if the rumors about Zen 3 are only half-true, one might be better off getting a Ryzen CPU today with a motherboard that can upgrade to Zen 3.

To be fair, RyZen 4000 did edge out Intel 10th gen, but 11th gen 10nm (not out yet) should be competitive with 5000, and actually come in Laptop with decent GPUs
 

mattferg

Posts: 171   +170
Can‘t really argue with the conclusions, however I am curious if
- PCIe 4.0 will make a difference for the upcoming top end GPU
- the extra 4 PCIe lanes from the CPU will make a difference in IO intensive games that the next gen consoles may usher in. If you have heavy IO from the nvme drive plus networking there may be bottlenecks. Then again, the question is when we will see the first games of that type on PC, I.e. if this is even an issue for systems built now.

Testing seen everywhere. Basically no difference from PCIE 3.0 8x to 4.0 16x
 

flee2020

Posts: 14   +15
In my region (SE Asia), AMD products are way, way overpriced. AMD CPUs are in short supply and even the R3 3100 is selling at some USD 20-30 above the MSRP if you can find them.

So right now, I am building PCs with Pentium G6400s for beginners, i3-10100s for productivity users and i5-10400F for gamers.
 
Last edited:

fps4ever

Posts: 683   +905
Considering nothing AMD has out right now even comes close to the i3 in performance at $114 it makes perfect sense. At least from a gaming perspective and general office use. And yes you can get low priced motherboards for them. I generally like AMD but lets be real...
 

harm9963

Posts: 107   +60
Location Location Location, live down the road from Micro Center , 5950X is a dream , and was not mark up at the time , GPU are an other subject.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,141   +3,033
I got AMD Ryzen 5 3600 for 170 EUR last year. Coming from i5 Haswell the difference it's not THAT noticable. CPU demanding games show a big difference and somtimes where i5 would stutter in every day usage Ryzen doesn't but honestly, I could've gotten away without even upgrading.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,535   +1,116
I went from a 4790K to a 5800X this year and yeah it was expensive, it was cheaper than a 10900K or even a 10850K but yeah, I spent £660 on a mobo, CPU and RAM. I was lucky to get hold of it as stock was very limited and seemed to be selling out near instantly (or at least the same day).

And this is what I don’t understand, reviewers have condemned the 5xxx series as overpriced yet despite this they are selling out. This tells me they are not actually overpriced. If something is overpriced it’s because it didn’t sell. If anything a product that sells out on day one is under-priced.