Top 5 Best CPUs: Intel Core vs. AMD Ryzen

mrtraver

Posts: 492   +249
I feel validated that the Core i3-10100 I just bought for a new build made the list. I was initially going for the Ryzen 5 3400G, but I could never find one in stock anywhere for a reasonable price. I ended up getting the Intel and an MSI motherboard combo for far less than the only available AMD CPU alone.

It's for my decidedly non-gaming wife, but it seems a shame to use Intel integrated graphics along with a speedy M.2 SSD, 16 GB RAM and a 144GHz 27" monitor. It boots fast and lets her have lots of Chrome tabs open, so she's happy.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,436   +1,612
TechSpot Elite
Jeez. You know, I was actually concerned that I had chosen a bad time to get my CPU, mobo, RAM and GPU last summer, what with everyone talking about what was to come. Now, I'm thrilled that I did because I paid $300CAD for my R5-3600X (no 3600 was available in my region at the time). I used it on my ASRock X370 Killer SLI motherboard because the X570s (hell, even the B550) motherboards were completely out to lunch on pricing. That really is a MAJOR advantage with AMD compared to Intel. Since I was able to drop my R5-3600X into my X370 board, I was able to wait and bide my time and wait indefinitely for a sale to come or I could say "Screw PCI-e 4.0" and just stick with X370. I wanted a Gigabyte motherboard but for some reason, Canada Computers put the ASRock X570 Pro4 motherboard on clearance!!! I was like, "An X570 motherboard on CLEARANCE in late 2020?!" I figured that there must be something wrong with it!

Of course, I started searching the web for reviews on it thinking (this might be a terrible board). Well, I was pleasantly shocked because it was one of the few (if not the only) ASRock X570 motherboard that Steve WASN'T disgusted with. So, with it having so many goodies that I wanted, I bought it. Then I waited for DDR4-3200 to go on sale and managed to grab the last Team Dark DDR4-3200 16GB kit that Canada Computers had.

Getting things piecemeal like this ensured that EVERYTHING that I bought was on some great sale. I even lucked out on my RX 5700 XT. The MSRP of the RX 5700 XT was $400USD and I paid $480CAD which was $369USD at the time (I couldn't say no to that). As I look now, the idea that I paid LESS than MSRP while living OUTSIDE of the USA just boggles my mind.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bragging because this was pure luck, not skill. Ordinarily, I would never have purchased components less than six months before the launch of the next-gen parts because they drive the prices down even further. I wasn't good, I wasn't wise... I was simply fortunate. I'm just using it as an example of how screwed up the industry and marketplace were in 2020. By doing what would ordinarily be something so stupid that I'd normally never consider it, I somehow ended up ahead.

Go Firgure.
 
Last edited:

Angga B

Posts: 140   +119
Been spending two weeks to procure a single 59xx, to no avail, nowhere in sight. I had to settle with the 'mere' i9 10850K without any possible future upgrade since Intel is so adamant on keep changing motherboard every gen. Daym.

Yeah, techspot, you missed this "almost 10900k" but priced somewhat substantially lower do you? It come with a very cheapo smallish carton box with cartoonish picture of avengers on it but I don't give a daym.
 
Last edited:

Ludak021

Posts: 471   +349
Been spending two weeks to procure a single 59xx, to no avail, nowhere in sight. I had to settle with the 'mere' i9 10850K without any possible future upgrade since Intel is so adamant on keep changing motherboard every gen. Daym.

Yeah, techspot, you missed this "almost 10900k" but priced somewhat substantially lower do you? It come with a very cheapo smallish carton box with cartoonish picture of avengers on it but I don't give a daym.

you have to change mobo all the time because you are buying top-tier stuff every time. If you bought, say, 9900K you could have been content for more years to come. Unless you have to have the greatest. If so, don't complain, just pay.
 

meric

Posts: 318   +326
I think AMD's 5600x should be mentioned. Yes its MSRP is higher that its predecessor but first, it's that much better, and second, it can go toe to toe (in gaming) with more expensive CPUs, such as 10700k/10900k and 5800x/5900x. It's only slightly slower where it is slower. It's hardly a budget chip at that price, though.
 

theruck

Posts: 327   +156
Meanwhile in Europe

Ryzen 5 3600 - 220 EUR
i5 10400F - 144 EUR
difference 53%

thank you AMD for being the paper winner.
 

Sir Alex Ice

Posts: 73   +41
AMD Ryzen™ 5 1600AF is about 120$ here before tax while the 3600 is 210$. Some overpricing, but not as huge as in other parts.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,424   +1,569
AMD is the best now. Not only with performance. The motherboard x570 can easy update use for a few AMD cpu generation on the future. Like my old 3 years old motherboard amd x370 can still use for ryzen 3950. Is that imagine unlike intel last for 1 year only :(
AMD is the best, except 2 out of 3 Zen 3 parts are "grossly" overpriced, assuming you can find one at MSRP, you only got Zen 2 on X370 with unofficial bios, Zen 3 and any refreshes stops at X570. That's from AMD. Intel CPU support is not one year only.

Sooooo......
 
Every time I see any article with CPU recommendations or any sort of pros/cons the 10850K is always ignored when discussing Intel. Considering that it's usually in stock and usually $70-80 and sometimes over $100 less expensive, I don't understand why it's existence gets ignored so much. I'd like to see it compared to the 5800X since they would be at similar price points based on MSRP.
 

toooooot

Posts: 1,476   +737
I was gonna recommend AMD Ryzen 5 1600 65W used from ebay sub 100.
But then I checked the prices...
They ve gone up drastically.
What a terrible time to upgrade.
2600x I bought for 120 is now 190.
This is not good at all.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,436   +1,612
TechSpot Elite
My R5-3600 has an "X" at the end of it because when I bought it, it was on sale for the same price as the R5-3600. Moreover, the closest Canada Computers store that had the R5-3600 was over 50km away. So, I guess that I "settled" for the (superior) R5-3600X for the same price as the R5-3600 without all the driving.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,666   +3,535
TechSpot Elite
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.
The extra bandwidth is not really for the GPU, but for I/O. For gaming we might see Direct Storage play a key role in making the upgrade to 4.0 worth it, although it might just disappoint as a technology.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,130   +719
Funny how power consumption is suddenly irrelevant. Also
You also get 20 PCIe lanes from the CPU, whereas 10th-gen Core parts got just 16, and that means the CPU can connect directly to your primary M.2 storage device for even greater performance.
I don't recall this being big thing past years. AMD has had 20 lanes from 2017 and Steven didn't care a bit. But when Intel gets them 2021, it's suddenly highly recommended feature that makes difference🤦‍♂️
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
You do realize Intel CPU's mentioned in article are 11th gen 10nm?
 

Irata

Posts: 1,511   +2,469
Funny how power consumption is suddenly irrelevant. Also

I don't recall this being big thing past years. AMD has had 20 lanes from 2017 and Steven didn't care a bit. But when Intel gets them 2021, it's suddenly highly recommended feature that makes difference🤦‍♂️

You do realize Intel CPU's mentioned in article are 11th gen 10nm?
That‘s a thing I have been wondering about how well IO is represented in benchmarks. In addition to the four extra lanes Ryzen also has high speed USB directly from the CPU.

In a usage scenario that I‘d say is pretty normal everything that‘s not the GPU has to go over the x4 DMI link for 10th gen and earlier Intel CPU. There‘s drive access, sound, USB devices like microphones, headsets, maybe even a webcam, networking, keyboard, mouse.....

Edit: It only seems to make a difference and result in „even greater performance“ for the 11400 over the 10400 but not when comparing the 10x00 to Ryzen 5800.
The fact that the 5600x beats the 10700k in gaming also does not seem to matter for the best gaming CPU category. It‘s not even mentioned.
 
Last edited:

Tyrchlis

Posts: 155   +114
I would certainly call Core i7 10700 non-K the ultimate bang for buck champion right now for sure, absolutely so. But it's slower than Ryzen 5 5600X at gaming, and costs the same. The Ryzen has 2 less cores, but faster per core performance.

I've recommended several people to build i7 10700 machines recently as gaming was less important to them and they really needed the 2 extra cores. But if recommending a gaming build, BOTH of the recommended processors in this article were TERRIBLE choices and feel politically motivated.

I am not a fanboy either. I own Intel and AMD equally and happily. Both have strengths and weaknesses. The 10th Gen Intel stuff is just slower at gaming in general than Ryzen Zen 3, it's just a fact. I've helped enough builds now to know the benchmarks lean towards AMD strongly at the resolutions that budget gamers play at.

Honestly, right now, the roles are reversed from the last few years. AMD is now the gaming choice for best single threaded performance and Intel is the budget king. Both offer chips that fail to reach those goals, but both ALSO nail those goals with a few well targeted options, and AMD is the gaming king right now. And when that changes again back to Intel, watch my build a new machine all over again! I absolutely don't care which one is leading, I'm happy to buy either.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,511   +2,469
Here‘s from an older Best 5 CPU review where the six core i5-10600k was recommended as gaming CPU pick:

but if you’re primarily gaming the 10600K is an attractive option that won't break the bank.

This Core i5 part is priced to compete with the Ryzen 7 3700X, and again if you are mostly interested in productivity performance, then just get the AMD processor that is faster thanks to the 2 extra cores, but if gaming is the name of the… game, well, we think the Core i5-10600K is pretty great.

I guess the same could be said about the 5600x vs 10700K right now. At the same time, the 10900K was also picked in spite of its high price since it offered the ultimate gaming performance at the time. Value was no concern.



As for the 11400 being recommended as value pick - no argument here.
 
Last edited:

Geralt

Posts: 404   +466
TechSpot Elite
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.
Expensive??? My cpu only cost me more than that one year ago.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,436   +1,612
TechSpot Elite
With a difference of only $10-$15 in price, there is no reason to choose an "F" model CPU. Even a GPU as crappy as Intel's is worth more than $10-$15 as insurance against video card failure.

For non-productivity purposes, you still can't really go wrong with an R5-3600(X or no X). To be perfectly honest though, if you're not gaming, even a first-gen Ryzen is perfectly viable if you can find it cheap. I personally didn't notice a performance bump in games from my R7-1700 to my R5-3600X but my display is "only" 60Hz and who knows what the future holds... I only got the 3600X because it was on for some stupidly low sale price and so I said "What the hell?" since I was curious to see what PCI-Express v4.0 was like.

At the end of the day though, the conclusion that I draw from Steve's article here is:
"If you were thinking of building a PC right now, I reckon that you should change your mind!"
 
Last edited:

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,436   +1,612
TechSpot Elite
AMD is the best now. Not only with performance. The motherboard x570 can easy update use for a few AMD cpu generation on the future. Like my old 3 years old motherboard amd x370 can still use for ryzen 3950. Is that imagine unlike intel last for 1 year only :(
That will all depend on whether or not the next AMD generation will be using DDR5. If it is, then no, our X570 motherboards won't support them. The CPU's memory controller won't be compatible with DDR4.
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.
I seriously doubt the PCI-e4 will make a significant difference. The bandwidth of PCI-e3 is already just insane. It takes a helluva long time for video cards to get bottlenecked by the motherboard's PCI-e version. Hell, I know a guy who still uses an FX-9590 with a GTX 1080 Ti for gaming on an ASUS 990FX motherboard. That's PCI-Express v2.0!

I remember back when PCI-e3 came out. Intel (as usual) was using marketing BS to hype their motherboards over AMD's 990FX chipset by saying that their motherboards had a PCI-e3 slot while AMD's motherboards were still "stuck" with PCI-e2. What Intel wasn't so forthcoming with was the fact that their "amazingly fast" PCI-e3 slot was only an x8 slot and PCI-e3 x8 was the same speed and bandwidth as PCI-e2 x16. So there was literally no difference.
Intels CPUs are still good for gaming until you realise how much you have to spend on a motherboard and an aftermarket cooler then AMD makes more sense. Ryzen 5 3600 is all you need unless you're trying 4K gaming in which case, why?
The resolution has no effect whatsoever on CPU gaming performance. That's 100% GPU work. CPUs only send draw calls to the GPU. Beyond that, the CPU is irrelevant for graphics.
An RTX 2080 Ti is saturating roughly around 60% of PCIe 3.0 x16 bandwidth. I suppose it will be hard for the upcoming top end GPU to fully saturate it and if it does it will be only very slightly.
Yeah, it takes a LOOONG time. As I said up above, I know a guy who uses a GTX 1080 Ti on an AMD 990FX motherboard with PCI-Express v2.0 x16 and it doesn't seem to bottleneck it. He still games happily with an FX-9590 (not a chip that I'd ever use but more power to him.. he'll need it...:laughing:).
No argument with your technical point, but in defense of the language... you mean that it's using around 60%. "Saturation" means full use, so BTW "fully saturate" is redundant.
QJWAc3J.jpeg

May be you should start recommending AMD
Don't forget that this is a person who refers to their rig as:
"My RTX 3090 Computer"
🤣
1600AF the best budget for average users
It's true. First-gen Ryzen are still damn good CPUs. I would still be using my R7-1700 if Canada Computers didn't have some stupidly good sale on the R5-3600X.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,436   +1,612
TechSpot Elite
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!
I guess this would be called a "Strawman argument"? :laughing:
 

Irata

Posts: 1,511   +2,469
I seriously doubt the PCI-e4 will make a significant difference. The bandwidth of PCI-e3 is already just insane. It takes a helluva long time for video cards to get bottlenecked by the motherboard's PCI-e version. Hell, I know a guy who still uses an FX-9590 with a GTX 1080 Ti for gaming on an ASUS 990FX motherboard. That's PCI-Express v2.0!
I‘m still on PCIe 3 with my 2700X + B450 Tomahawk Max combo and considering that I will not be going for a top tier GPU that shouldn‘t be a problem even for the next GPU gen.

But: What about direct storage ? That should move a lot of additional data over the PCI bus from your nVMe drive to the GPU. If you add SAM to the picture, probably even more between GPU and CPU.
If that will make a noticeable real life performance difference is another question.
 

BadThad

Posts: 570   +599
Every time I see any article with CPU recommendations or any sort of pros/cons the 10850K is always ignored when discussing Intel. Considering that it's usually in stock and usually $70-80 and sometimes over $100 less expensive, I don't understand why it's existence gets ignored so much. I'd like to see it compared to the 5800X since they would be at similar price points based on MSRP.

Indeed! They are the same CPU with a 100MHz speed difference. I just put together a 10850 system and the 10900 wasn't even considered, not worth the extra money.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,436   +1,612
TechSpot Elite
I‘m still on PCIe 3 with my 2700X + B450 Tomahawk Max combo and considering that I will not be going for a top tier GPU that shouldn‘t be a problem even for the next GPU gen.

But: What about direct storage ? That should move a lot of additional data over the PCI bus from your nVMe drive to the GPU. If you add SAM to the picture, probably even more between GPU and CPU.
If that will make a noticeable real life performance difference is another question.
For direct storage, I totally believe that it will be faster. The only question in that case would be "Can the CPU actually keep up with the speed of the data stream?" because sometimes the CPU is the bottleneck in local file transfer speeds. I think that may be why Tim did an article a few months back that showed little to no performance improvement in gaming load times even between PCI-e4 NVMe, PCI-e3 NVMe and SATA SSDs. The only thing that caused a delay was a spinning platter drive. I have to assume that the bottleneck for the SSDs was the CPU because no matter the operation, everything has to go through the CPU.