Sunday, May 3rd 2020
Core i3-10100 vs. Ryzen 3 3100 Featherweight 3DMark Showdown Surfaces
AMD's timely announcement of the Ryzen 3 "Matisse" processor series could stir things up in the entry-level as Intel kitted its 10th generation Core i3 processors as 4-core/8-thread. Last week, a head-to-head Cinebench comparison between the i3-10300 and 3300X ensued, and today we have a 3DMark Firestrike and Time Spy comparison between their smaller siblings, the i3-10100 and the 3100, courtesy of Thai PC enthusiast TUM_APISAK. The two were benchmarked on Time Spy and Fire Strike on otherwise constant hardware: an RTX 2060 graphics card, 16 GB of memory, and a 1 TB Samsung 970 EVO SSD.
With Fire Strike, the 3100-powered machine leads in overall 3DMark score (by 0.31%), CPU-dependent Physics score (by 13.7%), and the Physics test. The i3-10100 is ahead by 1.4% in the Graphics score thanks to a 1.6% lead in graphics test 1, and 1.4% lead in graphics test 2. Over to the more advanced Time Spy test, which uses the DirectX 12 API that better leverages multi-core CPUs, we see the Ryzen 3 3100 post a 0.63% higher overall score, 1.5% higher CPU score; while the i3-10100 powered machines post within 1% higher graphics score. These numbers may suggest that the i3-10100 and the 3100 are within striking distance of each other and that either is a good pick for gamers, until you look at pricing. Intel's official pricing for the i3-10100 is $122 (per chip in 1,000-unit tray), whereas AMD lists the SEP price of the Ryzen 3 3100 at $99 (the Intel chip is at least 22% pricier), giving AMD a vast price-performance advantage that's hard to ignore, more so when you take into account value additions such as an unlocked multiplier and PCIe gen 4.0.
Source:
TUM_APISAK (Twitter)
With Fire Strike, the 3100-powered machine leads in overall 3DMark score (by 0.31%), CPU-dependent Physics score (by 13.7%), and the Physics test. The i3-10100 is ahead by 1.4% in the Graphics score thanks to a 1.6% lead in graphics test 1, and 1.4% lead in graphics test 2. Over to the more advanced Time Spy test, which uses the DirectX 12 API that better leverages multi-core CPUs, we see the Ryzen 3 3100 post a 0.63% higher overall score, 1.5% higher CPU score; while the i3-10100 powered machines post within 1% higher graphics score. These numbers may suggest that the i3-10100 and the 3100 are within striking distance of each other and that either is a good pick for gamers, until you look at pricing. Intel's official pricing for the i3-10100 is $122 (per chip in 1,000-unit tray), whereas AMD lists the SEP price of the Ryzen 3 3100 at $99 (the Intel chip is at least 22% pricier), giving AMD a vast price-performance advantage that's hard to ignore, more so when you take into account value additions such as an unlocked multiplier and PCIe gen 4.0.
14 Comments on Core i3-10100 vs. Ryzen 3 3100 Featherweight 3DMark Showdown Surfaces
Interestingly the 3100 boosted to 4.4GHz is shown in both comparisons so the number should only be used from the 3.6GHz run for a fair comparison.
Naturally all these benchmarks need to be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Not only could they be run with immature drivers, it's possible they are being run with engineering samples.
To illustrate, he has 4 Ryzen benchmarks that vary by 2.3% overall. This is more than the difference between the Ryzen and the Intel chip, and it's not explained here what if any tweaks were done for the different runs.
EDIT: Nevermind. Dude is overclocking the Ryzen. The 3100 is only rated for 3.9Ghz turbo and he has it running at 4.4Ghz. What a bogus comparison.
I would really like to see these 4C\8T i3's thrown up against old school i7's - like the 4790, 6700, 7700, and 8700 (non K models).
Fact is your getting the same performance for a better price and platform on the AMD, cool!
Also I see no point comparing this with the older 6xxx, 7xxx and 8xxx series. They are basically the same architecture. The Comet Lake is just a version on steroids (higher clock due to higher power consumption).
And, while your statement about overclocking the Intel CPU itself being disabled is true, it is possible to significantly overclock the memory. So again, this is all apples to oranges false comparisons.I always prefer actual results to assumption, assumptions are usually only as accurate as the objectivity of the person making the assumptions - and humans are not very objective.
There is already a comparison of the i5-10400 to an i7-9700F (8 core) out there which was fascinating. Specifically, the 6c/12t i5-10400 spanks the 8c/8t 9700 in WinRar and some of the 3dMark physics tests.