How is Intel Beating AMD Zen 3 Ryzen in Gaming?

[John Naylor]

one thing not mentioned here, is AMD = 0/null amount of security issues. Intel however... lmao...

That is certainly not true as both have had their issues well reported ... what has not been reported is a single actual user from either camp who has suffered a detrimental impact as a result of these "devastating vulnerabilities". There are about as common as Bigfoot carcasses.

 

[tirasoft]

Imagine losing your crap like that over ~1% difference in synthetic benchmark.

I wasn't the one in the first place claiming that "AMD takes over the Intel in gaming" ...
Was just doing my thing peacefully, lol...

But, just wanted to correct on these tech dedicated forums at least, an error which, seems to be, obsesively repeated over and over on all media/internet channels.

Get the new cryocooler it'll work well with your ego.

It's not about ego. It's about passion for tech stuff....
And I said before, nothing will keep me to switch to AMD when it proves better raw performance or better value/money.

 

[Fasola]

@W1zzard The conclusion was more passive aggressive than I expected but the review is appreciated. The amount of crap you got from those initial reviews must have been significant.

Anyway, as for testing suggestions, I'd want someone to clear this 2 v 4 modules vs SR vs DR mess once and for all. In my mind that would be done by getting 4 SR and 4 DR modules of the same capacity with the same or normalised characteristics (e.g. 8GB 3200CL16 which are fairly cheap and common). After that just test 2SR vs 4SR vs 2DR vs 4DR.

 

[centaurius]

Nice findings indeed with this article, thanks for this.

I haven't read all pages/comments yet but I would suggest some tests with hyper-threading disabled if it hasn't been suggested.

Another suggestion would be where you disable cores: The 10900k to use 8 cores and the 5900 also 8 cores only, just to see a direct comparison at this level.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I wasn't the one in the first place claiming that "AMD takes over the Intel in gaming" ...
Was just doing my thing peacefully, lol...

But, just wanted to correct on these tech dedicated forums at least, an error which, seems to be, obsesively repeated over and over on all media/internet channels.


It's not about ego. It's about passion for tech stuff....
And I said before, nothing will keep me to switch to AMD when it proves better raw performance or better value/money.

Well thankfully no one gives a shit what you or I use, that would be weird.
Some waffle about ego passion fruit.
Then proof of fruity ego ,noice.

 

[tirasoft]

There has nothing to do with your RIG or mine.
The arguments are the very same.
I just examplified with my RIG because I know the figures , but you are right, it has absolute 0 importance what RIG we do have.

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

I wasn't the one in the first place claiming that "AMD takes over the Intel in gaming" ...
Was just doing my thing peacefully, lol...

But, just wanted to correct on these tech dedicated forums at least, an error which, seems to be, obsesively repeated over and over on all media/internet channels.


It's not about ego. It's about passion for tech stuff....
And I said before, nothing will keep me to switch to AMD when it proves better raw performance or better value/money.

Funny attempt to turn things around, when entire raison d'etre for this article was some folks claiming in other thread "Intel still rules in gaming" over minute differences here and there (just like you happened to do)

 

[EatingDirt]

I'm sorry if it doesn't fit with your world view. And if you really advocate run of the mill stuff, maybe you should be posting on CNET and PCWorld. There's no point whatsoever building your own rig if you aren't going to tweak it at all, except for looks.

So doing a little experiment to answer, what rank on Time Spy CPU does a 10700K get for matching the top 5600X in the world at this moment?

Top 5600X gets a CPU score of 8615.

So what place would be on CPU score amongst 10700K's if you had that score?

43865 out of a total of 44613 submissions for 10700K.

But I'm being told the 5600X is faster....

Here's the 10700K that's as slow as a 5600X. The reason it's this slow is also evident, it's crippled by using its iGPU, probably bottlenecking on its RAM.

View attachment 175446

Edit :

So actually the top 5600X in world gets a score of 10358 with an all core OC of 5.3Ghz - way above stock. This is definitely using expensive cooling.

That would put him below 38000th place out of 44613 10700K's. i.e. somewhere in the bottom 15% of 10700Ks is where the fastest and most heavily overclocked 5600X in the world scores..

I'm sorry, but this is getting old. Every post you're comparing the 5600X to the 10700 & 10700k even though I've shown you, clearly, that they are in different price brackets, and are not direct competitors.

I've shown you that the 10700 & 10700k are anywhere from 8%(in the best case, and the 10700 non-k best case is slower than the 5600X) to over 25% more expensive than the 5600X. What your doing would be exactly as if I compared the 10700k to the 5800x, the 5800X is 20% more expensive than the 10700k. Hell, let's do that comparison.

The 5800X is faster than the 10700k by 11% in productivity, and would be faster than the 10700k in games at stock if TPU had tested it rather than the 5900x in this test. This is a larger gap than the 5600X to the 10700k, where the 10700k is 2% faster in productivity. I'm paying 20% more for 11% better performance if I buy the 5800X over the 10700k. If I bought the 10700k instead of the 5600X I would be paying 25% more for 2% more performance. By your 5600X vs 10700k logic, I should buy the 5800X.

If you're only talking about gaming, then the 5600X is better obviously better value than the 10700 & 10700k. Save 8% or more for 3% less performance(not including this review, which would make the 5600X faster).

The 10600k is the direct competitor to the 5600X. Please stop.

 

[Mussels]

Well, this explained some things


I may have some new hardware incoming

 

[RandallFlagg]

Completely false statement. I've repeatedly shown numbers and all you do show bold text of your viewpoint.

For a mild enthusiast, the 10700 is a whopping $18 more (at Wal-Mart no less) than the impossible to find $300 5600X and can be painlessly tuned to get 10%+ better than that what's being shown here on this site - and here it wins in many threaded cases stock in aggregate by a lot more than your imaginary 2% number.

Just for reference, the fastest 5600X in the world on TimeSpy CPU with a 5.3Ghz overclock scores in the bottom 40% of all NON-K 10700's on PCMark TimeSpy CPU.

See, I can bold stuff too.

The 10700K is definitely a better chip for an enthusiast than the 5600X. 10700 is better for the mild enthusiast or someone looking to stay at the same price point of the 5600X. EatDirt.

If I bought the 10700k instead of the 5600X I would be paying 25% more for 2% more performance.

 

[Dredi]

For anyone looking for cheap dual rank 16gb (8gbx2) memory kits, Crucial Ballistix uses dual rank memory sticks.

16 GB per stick ballistix are no longer DR if you check the details from their store. If you go 4x8 GB (by buying two sets of 2x8) they are still fine though.

 

[Upgrayedd]

What do the 1% and .1% lows look like?

That's what makes my decision. Average fps doesn't really tell the whole story. I want to know which CPU will give a smoother experience with less dips. If Ryzen is getting 3fps more on avg but dipping 15+ frames lower than Intel in the dips then I'd rather go with whoever dips the least to have a consistently smooth experience.

 

[seth1911]

Im waiting for Rocket Lake then ill see which upgrade ill take.

 

[Sparksx]

16 GB per stick ballistix are no longer DR if you check the details from their store. If you go 4x8 GB (by buying two sets of 2x8) they are still fine though.

You're right and that seems to be the case for some of their Ballistix Max line, too. E-die is still great value wise and I wouldn't not choose it because it's only single rank.

 

[tiefox]

@tirasoft They will never admit it... dont waste time...

BTW
Framechasers also claming the same point as you

( which I believe, Im also a regular guy and my 10900k @ 5.3ghz - 4400c17 beats 5900x and 5950x in games )

We are having lots of fun on framechasers discord, join us!

 

[tirasoft]

We are having lots of fun on framechasers discord, join us!

I know the video and Jufe himself ...
Have access to the Discord channel already , lol.

 

[Camm]

Impressive followup @W1zzard.

As for memory speed testing, may I suggest stick to what the CPU is rated for (in the case of Ryzen, 3200mhz) and tighten timings. I'm not entirely enthused by fanbois from both sides pushing for overclocks (Ryzen with Memory, Intel with MCE) to better 'show' why their platform is faster even though the chip is now operating outside of spec (even if its within tolerance), and neither do I think reviewers should either (or need to be testing both scenarios IMO - but if testing both, where do you draw the line in the sand?).

 

[Mussels]

I totally used the 'oh no some 16GB sticks are single rank' logic to justify a 2x32GB 64GB kit of ram.
Hehehehehehee.

 

[Deleted member 190774]

You can keep arguing all you like, but this seems to be the current position...

• AMD's new 5000 series CPU's are significantly strong across the board, irrespective of gaming or 'creativity'.
• Pairing a new 5000 series CPU with a 6000 series video card can improve the 6000's performance by 5-13% because of AMD's SAM technology. Not available with an Intel CPU!
• AMD's 5000 series CPU's are currently running with relatively new BIOS's. Who knows what performance tweaks (if any) will come.
  
  
• The new AMD 6000 series video cards seem very strong, with top performance in rasterization meeting or exceeding Ampere cards (without DLSS).
• The 6000 series video cards are supposedly more power efficient.
• The 6000 series video cards performance is supposedly lower in ray-tracing when compared to Ampere (3080/3090).
• The 6000 series video cards supposedly scale better at lower resolutions than Ampere does.
  
  
• Ray-tracing will obviously improve for all manufactures with newer card generations - but currently games without RT still look great due to skilled graphic artists / effects.

In Australia, a 10700K is $599, a 5800X is $699 and a 5600X is $469.

As always, will be good to see how this plays out when the reviews (of complete packages) start to land - but it seems to me that we're all winners.

 

[Shatun_Bear]

Intel fans have gone very quiet, what's wrong guys?

 

[RandallFlagg]

I totally used the 'oh no some 16GB sticks are single rank' logic to justify a 2x32GB 64GB kit of ram.
Hehehehehehee.

Been thinking about using the justification to buy 2 more sticks of RAM too

Big downside though, more sticks & larger capacity sticks have a tendency to limit OC headroom - esp on the RAM - and I noticed the rig in your sig is overclocked.

 

[Rob94hawk]

@W1zzard is it possible AMD used their 5950X in their benchmarks? I'm sure it's a negligable gain but figured I'd throw that in there.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Intel fans have gone very quiet, what's wrong guys?

They are enjoying their girlfriends enjoy your PC

 

[Mussels]

Been thinking about using the justification to buy 2 more sticks of RAM too

Big downside though, more sticks & larger capacity sticks have a tendency to limit OC headroom - esp on the RAM - and I noticed the rig in your sig is overclocked.

that's why i got 2x32GB for four ranks, and two dummy lighting sticks... all the benefits, none of the drawbacks. Hell if i get a cooler with clearance issues in the future i can loose a stick, and not even lose RAM.

Intel fans have gone very quiet, what's wrong guys?

Having seen intels power consumption figures, i think we know why the fans are usually so loud.

 

[NesteaZen]

it's a shame TPU still doesn't use %1