Top 5 Best CPUs: Intel Core vs. AMD Ryzen

Tantor

Posts: 130   +168
The 5800x is a great value. It's the fastest 8 core, great for gaming and rendering. It's snappy, no lag.

It's got relatively low power draw. If I had gone Intel 11700 I would probably would have have needed to upgrade my 650 watt Seasonic Platinum PS.

The biggest value is the 'hand me down' capability. When I upgrade to Zen 4 next year, I'll pass my 5800x on to my wife's computer which has a B450 mobo. It'll be a drop-in replacement for her 1800x, which goes to my daughter. No need to upgrade the cooling either. Or I might drop it into my mini-itx X470 box, which is feasible due to the lower power draw. I wouldn't want to put an 11900 into a small shoebox.

The 5800x is the sweet spot of gaming CPUs. It's easily worth an extra $60 bucks over the 11700.
 

131dbl

Posts: 41   +13
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'd say it really depends on how long you plan to hang on to the system. With an X570 MB, it's a pretty awesome setup that can do what HEDTs were doing 3 years ago. The boards with 3 NVMe ports, where two come off the chipset and one directly off the CPU is built for production on a budget, but even if you only want to game, having 3 NVMe ports will give you what you need if games start to want to use the NVMe to grab data WHILE the game is going. I use mine for a dual OS setup. I have Ubuntu MATE on the NVMe that connects to the CPU, and Win10 on the other 2 drives that are in a RAID. 2 SN750 1TB NVMe drives in RAID 0 is quite impressive, and that's my gaming setup. Even though it's going through the chipset it's still plenty fast. Gen4 really helps there even though for the two drives they're limited to the chipset-CPU link speed of 8GB/s.

But to your point about gen4 and GPUs. You already have issues where some GPUs give a slight performance boost with gen4. It's not anything to buy a product for if you want to save money. The next generation of GPUs are probably going to show a little more gain using gen4, and the issue that's being addressed that will make the most difference is latency throughout the system. When all the parts in the system are running very low latency, you'll see more improvement with gen4 GPUs, in some games. Once again it's that way already, but it's small. When you're going to need it is when you have high quality imaging in a game, AND you are running it at 4K, AND you can run the game at higher frame rates. So, best quality settings, 4K, maybe HDR, AND high frame rates. I'm thinking we're about 2 generations of GPUs away from that. For me though, I plan on having my X570 systems for years, so that's my plan with those systems. Adding higher quality GPUs for 2 generations of GPUs from now, either AMD or Nvidia depending on pricing, performance, and being able to use those on 4K displays. The MB and CPU architecture are certainly capable of it, especially if there is such a thing as a Zen 3+.

Then add in the fact that you can add an adapter off the chipset that runs PCIe gen4 X4, and it won't cut into the 16 lanes from the CPU to GPU. That's the part that really impresses me. An NVMe RAID 0 with the 2 drives off the chipset that can run up to 8GB/s, AND STILL have an add on adaptor running PCIe gen4 X4 without affecting the GPU.

Sorry this is long, but the question of gen4 is complex, especially over a longer time period.
 

neeyik

Posts: 1,877   +2,191
Staff member
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.
It's only a bottleneck because of the elements in IO transfers that DirectStorage is aiming to supersede, namely the size of the command queue and the fact that it's serial in nature.
 

131dbl

Posts: 41   +13
The 5800x is a great value. It's the fastest 8 core, great for gaming and rendering. It's snappy, no lag.

It's got relatively low power draw. If I had gone Intel 11700 I would probably would have have needed to upgrade my 650 watt Seasonic Platinum PS.

The biggest value is the 'hand me down' capability. When I upgrade to Zen 4 next year, I'll pass my 5800x on to my wife's computer which has a B450 mobo. It'll be a drop-in replacement for her 1800x, which goes to my daughter. No need to upgrade the cooling either. Or I might drop it into my mini-itx X470 box, which is feasible due to the lower power draw. I wouldn't want to put an 11900 into a small shoebox.

The 5800x is the sweet spot of gaming CPUs. It's easily worth an extra $60 bucks over the 11700.
Different testers were getting about the same game results with the 5800X as with the 5900X. I run 8 core CPUs because my systems are always multi-tasking and I like for them to be snappy when I'm browsing the web. At Micro Center, if you're lucky enough to live by one, they are now selling the 5800X for $430 USD and I already bought one. And, it's really the entire system that appeals to me, including an X570 MB. I figure that with a GPU upgrade in a couple generations of GPUs from now, it's going to be one FAST gaming system, even though newer systems will beat it out. It just won't matter that much as most games are GPU limited, and that will get worse as modern titles come out with updated game engines and the imaging is better than today's games.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,109   +688
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.
Benchmarks have very low I/O load, usually not even network connection. So benchmarks are totally wrong way to determine if DMI link really affects.

Right. Suddenly CPU comparison is value and not speed comparison :D
 

Bamda

Posts: 243   +121
This is like when you are at the club, and the only women left are the fat chicks, something is better than nothing.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,300   +1,810
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.

This won't be a problem..



 

Irata

Posts: 1,445   +2,327
Benchmarks have very low I/O load, usually not even network connection. So benchmarks are totally wrong way to determine if DMI link really affects.

Right. Suddenly CPU comparison is value and not speed comparison :D

That is what I find irritating, the lack of consistency.
The 10900k was certainly the fastest gaming processor at that time, so it‘s OK to recommend it, even if - considering mainboard, cooling and power needs - it cost several hundred $ more than the slower competing choice. And that‘s not even considering that you could not get it at msrp in the US for several months after release but instead had to pay a lot more.

Looking at CPU + mainboard + cooling/power build costs, I‘d say the 5800x is overall not more expensive than a 10900k build, same goes for a 5600x vs 10700k. Heck, put that 5600x on good $110 B450 board (even cheaper in Europe), use the boxed cooler and you‘re set.
 
Last edited:

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,256   +1,386
TechSpot Elite
It's only a bottleneck because of the elements in IO transfers that DirectStorage is aiming to supersede, namely the size of the command queue and the fact that it's serial in nature.
Well if it succeeds, that would be spectacular. File sizes are getting so massive that backing up a home drive is starting to take as long as it used to take businesses to backup their mainframes. :laughing:
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 491   +290
I don't really want to read the apologist by AMD fanboys here, but as an AMD customer (I have a 5800X and a 3600X, and a 5800HS on my notebook) I'd like to say THANK YOU to Lisa Su and her ridiculous price policy. Basically the two best mainstream CPUs (5600X and 5800X) are totally overpriced and made Intel offering much more attractive. Good job greedy lady.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 491   +290
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.
I'd like to check where you've got your "facts" about 10700 being slower than 5600X in gaming.
And here in Europe 10700 costs less than 5600X.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,445   +2,327
I'd like to check where you've got your "facts" about 10700 being slower than 5600X in gaming.
And here in Europe 10700 costs less than 5600X.
Oh, that‘s easy. Don‘t even have to leave Techspot to show that on average the 5600x is faster than a 10700K:
Average-o.png


And the games list did not even include high fps e-sports titles.

Price wise, a 5600X in Germany goes for €324, a 10700K is €299 (KF actually costs more). So the CPU is cheaper, but even if you do not want to use the bundled HSF for the 5600X you will need to spend less on an aftermarket cooler and a lot less on a mainboard: A B450 Tomahawk Max II costs €88, if you want fancy you get a B550 Tomahawk for €149. For the 10700K you will need a decent Z490 or Z590 mainboard, so €150 plus.

So overall a Ryzen 5600X build is cheaper and faster in gaming than a 10700K build.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,256   +1,386
TechSpot Elite
Benchmarks have very low I/O load, usually not even network connection. So benchmarks are totally wrong way to determine if DMI link really affects.

Right. Suddenly CPU comparison is value and not speed comparison :D
Well, to be fair, Steve Walton has alyways promoted value over outright speed but one thing that must be pointed out is that ALL of the CPUs have become so fast that speed differences between them tend to be irrelevant except in some very specific cases. Hardware has been outpacing software for a LONG time now and this is the logical result of that.

Sure, some CPUs are faster at some things and some CPUs are faster at other things but we've been splitting hairs for years when it comes to consumer use. Gaming CPUs are now ALL gaming flawlessly and that's the most demanding thing that home PC users do. The old games of SB vs FX and Xeon vs Opteron died long ago. The game is now i3 vs. R3, i5 vs. R5, i7 vs. R7, i9 vs. R9, nothing vs TR and Xeon vs. EPYC. There are no dogs left in the game because all of these are pretty incredible CPUs in their own right.

The idea of "futureproofing" has been proven to be a fool's errand so many times that I can't believe the word still exists. As a result, a lot of times, the biggest difference between two CPUs is the value preposition. When all of the CPUs are more than fast enough, what other criteria can you use? I mean, sure, you can use the criteria of ethics (I sure do) but ethics are something that not everyone has. :laughing:
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,739   +6,107
Good job greedy lady.
Seriously! You can't fault AMD for finally being able to rake in some of Intel's cash. They had a long dry spell and you want them to continue that spell. I'm happy for them. In fact I have been considering purchasing my first AMD system in two decades. I think I can remember buying a second hand AMD PC back in 99.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 491   +290
Seriously! You can't fault AMD for finally being able to rake in some of Intel's cash. They had a long dry spell and you want them to continue that spell. I'm happy for them. In fact I have been considering purchasing my first AMD system in two decades. I think I can remember buying a second hand AMD PC back in 99.
Yes, I'm blaming AMD for being what they once criticized: Intel.
The only reason we are still speaking about Intel Comet Lake is the ridiculous price of AMD Zen 3.
With a Zen2 level pricing, Intel would have been out of business.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 491   +290
Oh, that‘s easy. Don‘t even have to leave Techspot to show that on average the 5600x is faster than a 10700K:
Average-o.png


And the games list did not even include high fps e-sports titles.

Price wise, a 5600X in Germany goes for €324, a 10700K is €299 (KF actually costs more). So the CPU is cheaper, but even if you do not want to use the bundled HSF for the 5600X you will need to spend less on an aftermarket cooler and a lot less on a mainboard: A B450 Tomahawk Max II costs €88, if you want fancy you get a B550 Tomahawk for €149. For the 10700K you will need a decent Z490 or Z590 mainboard, so €150 plus.

So overall a Ryzen 5600X build is cheaper and faster in gaming than a 10700K build.
speaking about AMD supporters... here we have the Legion.

Yes, you have to stay here, because elsewhere numbers are slightly different.

relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png


10700K is cheaper, with integrated GPU, and you can find a MSI Z490-A Pro for 150€, which is the price of a decent B550 board (only you can consider a B450 with a beta BIOS support a good solution for a Zen 3 CPU).

And to be clear, I'm not saying Intel i7 is better, because it is not (and I'm personally using many Ryzen for this reason alone), but it surely is better priced, again, thanks to the greedy Lisu Su, your hero.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,445   +2,327
speaking about AMD supporters... here we have the Legion.

You ask for proof, you are given proof .... and you insult the person replying to you. 👍
Yes, you have to stay here, because elsewhere numbers are slightly different.

10700K is cheaper, with integrated GPU, and you can find a MSI Z490-A Pro for 150€, which is the price of a decent B550 board (only you can consider a B450 with a beta BIOS support a good solution for a Zen 3 CPU).

And to be clear, I'm not saying Intel i7 is better, because it is not (and I'm personally using many Ryzen for this reason alone), but it surely is better priced, again, thanks to the greedy Lisu Su, your hero.
Ryzen 5000 is officially supported on B450 boards. No beta Bios needed. The B450 Tomahawk Max II officially supports Zen 3 as per MSI‘s product page.


So yes, €88 gets you a new board that officially supports Zen 3 out of the box.

Now to your graph - I see you conveniently picked an old one, but here‘s a new one from Techpowerup that shows the 10700*K* ahead of the 5600X very slightly, but you asked for proof that the slower 10700 non-k was slower than the 5600X.

relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png


You can also watch e.g. Gamers Nexus reviews. Or you can watch whatever you want.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,445   +2,327
Why did my statement turn into 5600X versus 10700K???

What is going on here? That is NOT what I said!!!!!!

I compared the EQUALLY PRICED 5600X versus the 10700 NON-K.

Seriously, guys. I was making a gaming bang for buck comparison that was 100% accurate. Quit debating my point (as quoted and then argued) when it wasn't my point at all!!!!|

Edit: Lots of exclamation marks does not equal anger. I am just being loud about being misquoted and then it turning into a debate. ;)

Edit 2 - The non-K 10700 is lower clocks than the K model. And it makes a difference allowing 5600X to take the lead. It's not a huge difference, really, not worth a debate. Just pointing it out is all. And again, I am neither pro-AMD or pro-Intel, I buy both happily. Not a fanboy thing at all.
Sorry, it‘s just that 10700K benchmark results are easier to come by.

The discussion itself is also pretty pointless as we‘re discussing gaming differences that are minuscule and don‘t really matter in real life unless someone is a competitive high fps gamer (CS Go or similar) where the fps difference is more pronounced. Either way, both options are perfectly fine.

I guess I need to be less adamant but I simply don‘t like factually incorrect statements - and I‘m not referring to you here.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 491   +290
And again , you showed to know very little about Intel. A 10700 on a Z490 can unlock power limits and gaming performance are quite similar (less the 3% difference) from a 10700K... speaking about incorrect statements.
I’m quite bored by the usual suspects here defending AMD no matter what. Even as an AMD customer (since 486 IIRC) it is very annoying the level of fanboysm in some comments. The 10700 is not worse than the 5600X at gaming, even if I don’t particularly like Comet Lake. And for sure the 5600X is an overpriced product, especially outside US.
I’m perfectly fine with my 5800X, but I paid 480€ for it a few months ago, and it definitely is too much for an 8 core CPU.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,109   +688
I’m perfectly fine with my 5800X, but I paid 480€ for it a few months ago, and it definitely is too much for an 8 core CPU.
To remind, before Ryzen launch you had to pay this much for 8-core CPU (not counting nuclear/cat cores):


I guess some people are never happy...
 

Irata

Posts: 1,445   +2,327
And again , you showed to know very little about Intel. A 10700 on a Z490 can unlock power limits and gaming performance are quite similar (less the 3% difference) from a 10700K... speaking about incorrect statements.
I’m quite bored by the usual suspects here defending AMD no matter what. Even as an AMD customer (since 486 IIRC) it is very annoying the level of fanboysm in some comments. The 10700 is not worse than the 5600X at gaming, even if I don’t particularly like Comet Lake. And for sure the 5600X is an overpriced product, especially outside US.
I’m perfectly fine with my 5800X, but I paid 480€ for it a few months ago, and it definitely is too much for an 8 core CPU.
This is getting a bit boring, but the performance difference shown in TPU‘s latest Benchmarks is 1.2%.

Yes, on a Z490 board with unlocked power limits the 10700 performs almost identical to the 10700K - at a higher power consumption and higher temps than the 10700K due to it having a lower quality die. Anandtech did a good review.

In fact, it has almost three times the max power consumption vs the 5600X - 214.72W vs 76.09 W. Even if power consumption does not matter to you, it will require a stronger PSU , Cooling solution and case ventilation.

So yes, for the same gaming performance you have the choice of getting a
5600X at €324 plus an MSI B450 Tomahawk Max II board for €88 and use the stock HSF - total € 412
or
10700F for € 268 plus an MSI Z490 Gaming plus for € 158, spend €15 extra for a stronger PSU plus €70 for a Be Quiet Dark Rock Pro (assuming you want an HSF that can handle the CPU’s max power consumption) for a total of €511.
 

Tyrchlis

Posts: 149   +111
That is one thing that I have found surprising with my new AMD build...

I moved from a Core i7 7700K 4 core, 8 thread to a Ryzen 7 5800X, doubling the core and thread count, yet cut my power consumption by a massive amount. Running both at 5Ghz, I hit about 141 watts on the Ryzen 7 5800X according to HWInfo64, but was seeing upwards of 200-205 watts on the Core i7 7700K.

This upgrade was all around a "best case scenario" of doubling cores, improving the per core performance, and STILL cutting power consumption by around 40-ish % on the CPU side.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 491   +290
To remind, before Ryzen launch you had to pay this much for 8-core CPU (not counting nuclear/cat cores):


I guess some people are never happy...
To remind just one year before the 3700X from the same manufacturer was 350€ and even the highly specced 3800X was 400€.

I guess some people here will defend AMD nevertheless...
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 491   +290
This is getting a bit boring, but the performance difference shown in TPU‘s latest Benchmarks is 1.2%.

Yes, on a Z490 board with unlocked power limits the 10700 performs almost identical to the 10700K - at a higher power consumption and higher temps than the 10700K due to it having a lower quality die. Anandtech did a good review.

In fact, it has almost three times the max power consumption vs the 5600X - 214.72W vs 76.09 W. Even if power consumption does not matter to you, it will require a stronger PSU , Cooling solution and case ventilation.

So yes, for the same gaming performance you have the choice of getting a
5600X at €324 plus an MSI B450 Tomahawk Max II board for €88 and use the stock HSF - total € 412
or
10700F for € 268 plus an MSI Z490 Gaming plus for € 158, spend €15 extra for a stronger PSU plus €70 for a Be Quiet Dark Rock Pro (assuming you want an HSF that can handle the CPU’s max power consumption) for a total of €511.
This is getting a bit boring, but the performance difference shown in TPU‘s latest Benchmarks is 1.2%.

Yes, on a Z490 board with unlocked power limits the 10700 performs almost identical to the 10700K - at a higher power consumption and higher temps than the 10700K due to it having a lower quality die. Anandtech did a good review.

In fact, it has almost three times the max power consumption vs the 5600X - 214.72W vs 76.09 W. Even if power consumption does not matter to you, it will require a stronger PSU , Cooling solution and case ventilation.

So yes, for the same gaming performance you have the choice of getting a
5600X at €324 plus an MSI B450 Tomahawk Max II board for €88 and use the stock HSF - total € 412
or
10700F for € 268 plus an MSI Z490 Gaming plus for € 158, spend €15 extra for a stronger PSU plus €70 for a Be Quiet Dark Rock Pro (assuming you want an HSF that can handle the CPU’s max power consumption) for a total of €511.

To be boring is your cheerleading AMD. You don’t need a better PSU for a 10700F. The PSU choice is influenced by the VGA you are going to use. It is absolutely ridiculous what you wrote here.
You are using a 1660Ti or a 3060? A good 550W is good for both. A 3070 ? Use a 650W for both. A 3080 ? The recommended size is 750W.
Those raw numbers are influenced by the GPU power needs, not the CPU.

And again, no one half competent is going to use the crappy included cooler you can find in a 5600X or in a 10700F.
A decent cooler (even less expensive than the dark rock Pro 4) would be enough for both.