Ryzen 7 3700X Trades Blows with Core i7-10700, 3600X with i5-10600K: Early ES Review

[Cybrshrk]

Well, most DIY motherboards already get ryzen 3000 near their limit. Ryzen 3000 is a total dud when it comes to overclocking, very little headroom and rampant power consumption to maintain all core OC for a whopping like 3% gain over just letting the CPU manage itself.

Ryzen 4000 is a much greater threat then 3700x OC is. Rumors are pointing to 15% IPC increase and 300-500 mhz higher clock rates. Even if AMD only managed 10% IPC jump with the same clocks or 5% IPC jump with their CPUs able to hit 4.7-4.8 GHz reliably instead of 4.5-4.6, they would take what remains of intel's performance crown, especially in games as AMD's cache changes should dramatically reduce per core latency, which is what holds Ryzen back in gaming applications.

The 10 series from intel is gonna bomb at this rate. Bonkers power draw that makes the FX 9590 look civilized and heat production that even 360mm rads struggle to handle.

I've read through all 3 pages of comments here and I see alot of "speculation" on how these Intel chips are worse than amd's offering but at the end of the day no one really care about "fixes" that hurt performance or "yields" or anything is you're trying to use to justify the fact that AMD even after 3 (and will probably 4) cpu generations they still can't take Intel down for what 80% of users really care about which is gaming performance.

No matter how you try to spin it Intel will still offer the highest fps in a consumer chip for the majority of games now and into the near future and until amd can claim this people will not care about anything else you're using to try and make amd look like the "right" you choice.

The only choice for most gamers is for my "X" amount of dollars to spend which platform will give me the most FPS in the games I play.

It looks like that even with all these "vulnerability fixes" and pushing things to their max the Intel chips will still be the best for gamers and until this changes amd will always be fighting an uphill battle.

I've been ready since the 1800x to jump on the ryzen train but sadly when benchmarks came out the 7700k was the better gaming choice and now with a new upgrade looming for me it still looks like even after 3+ years Intel will still be the place I go for maximum gaming performance rig along with whatever will take the top spot for gpu performance in the upcoming releases from either Nvidia or AMD.

I'm no fanboy of anything but the highest performance and nothing so far shows me as having any other choice than Intel once again.

 

[watzupken]

Well, most DIY motherboards already get ryzen 3000 near their limit. Ryzen 3000 is a total dud when it comes to overclocking, very little headroom and rampant power consumption to maintain all core OC for a whopping like 3% gain over just letting the CPU manage itself.

Ryzen 4000 is a much greater threat then 3700x OC is. Rumors are pointing to 15% IPC increase and 300-500 mhz higher clock rates. Even if AMD only managed 10% IPC jump with the same clocks or 5% IPC jump with their CPUs able to hit 4.7-4.8 GHz reliably instead of 4.5-4.6, they would take what remains of intel's performance crown, especially in games as AMD's cache changes should dramatically reduce per core latency, which is what holds Ryzen back in gaming applications.

The 10 series from intel is gonna bomb at this rate. Bonkers power draw that makes the FX 9590 look civilized and heat production that even 360mm rads struggle to handle.

I think you are referring to the top end Ryzen CPUs when you said overclocking is a dud. At the mid end like the Ryzen 5 3600, there will still be legroom for overclocking. And if you are looking at the high end, Intel's chips don't fare any better when it comes to overclocking. Think of the current Intel 9xxx series with all core turbo of 5Ghz, how much can you overclocking from there? The power requirement is significantly worst when you push it further since its clear that the chips is being pushed to its limits. And unfortunately for Intel chips in the mid/ low end, you don't get any overclocking feature even though there is a lot of overclocking headroom. Its just locked to create an opportunity to charge their users if they want to overclock.

I've read through all 3 pages of comments here and I see alot of "speculation" on how these Intel chips are worse than amd's offering but at the end of the day no one really care about "fixes" that hurt performance or "yields" or anything is you're trying to use to justify the fact that AMD even after 3 (and will probably 4) cpu generations they still can't take Intel down for what 80% of users really care about which is gaming performance.

No matter how you try to spin it Intel will still offer the highest fps in a consumer chip for the majority of games now and into the near future and until amd can claim this people will not care about anything else you're using to try and make amd look like the "right" you choice.

The only choice for most gamers is for my "X" amount of dollars to spend which platform will give me the most FPS in the games I play.

It looks like that even with all these "vulnerability fixes" and pushing things to their max the Intel chips will still be the best for gamers and until this changes amd will always be fighting an uphill battle.

I've been ready since the 1800x to jump on the ryzen train but sadly when benchmarks came out the 7700k was the better gaming choice and now with a new upgrade looming for me it still looks like even after 3+ years Intel will still be the place I go for maximum gaming performance rig along with whatever will take the top spot for gpu performance in the upcoming releases from either Nvidia or AMD.

I'm no fanboy of anything but the highest performance and nothing so far shows me as having any other choice than Intel once again.

I think its mentioned before many times, not everyone gets a computer to game. Highest performance to you is FPS may not be the same for others. If my primary focus is to use it for work that will benefit from more cores, then people will go for higher core count.

I feel Intel have an advantage in games only because they have the clockspeed advantage (on top of a good CPU architecture), and also the games optimized for limited number of core counts since Intel pretty much capped it at 4 cores for as long as they monopolized the CPU market. As Intel starts to pump out more cores on their chips, it may actually benefit AMD indirectly since games and apps will start getting optimized for more cores.

Also, Intel is able to get away with the clockspeed increase here by feeding the chip more power as you have seen in multiple reviews of the current top end chip from Intel pulling in north of 250W. One thing I do want to point out, and that is even if you are willing to pay top dollars for the fastest Intel CPU, you need to also pay top dollars for a motherboard, a good PSU and cooling to get the CPU to run all core turbo at full speed. What you see in reviews, reviewers tend to use high end components and cooling to achieve the supposed full sustained potential.

 

[btarunr]

Dremel.

Good luck trying to dremel notches without cutting away pins and destroying the chip.

 

[GoldenX]

You said fit, not work.

 

[btarunr]

You said fit, not work.

They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[GoldenX]

That "gap" in the production models vs the ES models. Quite interesting.

 

[londiste]

So if intel shrinks 11 series to 10nm double density 10 core skylake will measure 100mm2.

If they get to that point, it will not be that small. Sunny Cove (Ice Lake) to Willow Cove (Tiger lake) cores are bigger than Skylake cores are.
Direct shrink probably would not yield that good area reduction either, both Intel and AMD have said IO and some other parts do not scale down all that well and Intel has a bunch of IO and SOC-ish things on the die.

 

[Chrispy_]

All I'm seeing is that it still gets beaten by Intel's 18-month-old 9900K, the only Intel 8C/16T comparison point in these charts.

 

[Braggingrights]

All I'm seeing is that it still gets beaten by Intel's 18-month-old 9900K, the only Intel 8C/16T comparison point in these charts.

14nm, twice the draw... and every thermal I see has the Ryzen's running hotter

 

[efikkan]

Intel's last ace is the ring bus which has limits to be put in up to 10-core processors, and the bad Windows scheduler.

AMD's Zen 3 will likely have an 8-core CCX, so that jumping from core to core on different CCX adding incredible amounts of latency will be gone.

And Intel will be RIP.

You're just going to keep mentioning random things which you don't grasp, aren't you?

Of all the various workloads where Intel still beats AMD it's down to two reasons; better CPU front-end or peak AVX performance. If AMD wants to become more competitive in these workloads, then they have to improve in those areas.

There is no bias in Windows' scheduler towards Intel's ring bus, Intel's CPUs with mesh networks scales just as fine, please stop spreading this nonsense.
Most games only stresses 2-3 cores, so the change from 4-core to 8-core CCX is not going to be a game changer, pun intended.

Only a fool would claim Intel will be RIP. Sunny Cove is already much better than Skylake, and it's not like they've stopped further development while waiting for 10nm. There will be major architectural advancements from Intel in the next years. This will be the most exciting times in over a decade; two companies finally advancing at the same time.

 

[ARF]

You're just going to keep mentioning random things which you don't grasp, aren't you?

Of all the various workloads where Intel still beats AMD it's down to two reasons; better CPU front-end or peak AVX performance. If AMD wants to become more competitive in these workloads, then they have to improve in those areas.

There is no bias in Windows' scheduler towards Intel's ring bus, Intel's CPUs with mesh networks scales just as fine, please stop spreading this nonsense.
Most games only stresses 2-3 cores, so the change from 4-core to 8-core CCX is not going to be a game changer, pun intended.

Only a fool would claim Intel will be RIP. Sunny Cove is already much better than Skylake, and it's not like they've stopped further development while waiting for 10nm. There will be major architectural advancements from Intel in the next years. This will be the most exciting times in over a decade; two companies finally advancing at the same time.

Intel CPUs with mesh are always slower. It's a fact and if you were honest, you would respect it as a fact.
All is because of the ring bus and bad Windows scheduler..

 

[EarthDog]

Intel CPUs with mesh are always slower. It's a fact and if you were honest, you would respect it as a fact.
All is because of the ring bus and bad Windows scheduler..

Maybe instead of simply stating things.. how about you support it (everyone!). Just because Alf posts doesnt mean it's the Gospel.

 

[ARF]

Maybe instead of simply stating things.. how about you support it (everyone!). Just because Alf posts doesnt mean it's the Gospel.

It's common knowledge, to be honest. Shame on the people who pretend they don't know it.

 

[EarthDog]

Thank you for supporting yourself, finally. Why are you comparing HEDT with mainstream though? Who cares.

 

[efikkan]

Wonderful, a video not doing an apples to apples comparison, and then somehow concluding the ring bus is the culprit. :facepalm: For starters, if the purpose is to compare architectures then all CPUs should run on the same fixed clock far below throttle territory (that HEDT CPU is very likely throttling). Secondly, if the ring bus made a real difference, then the quad cores should be significantly faster than 6- and 8-core CPUs, but real reviews (including TPU) shows i7-9700K and i9-9900K is faster despite a longer ring bus.
Just because a random dude on YouTube claims something out of thin air, doesn't make it true. Let's let this nonsense be.

 

[Braggingrights]

Yeah, no random dudes in here

 

[ARF]

Wonderful, a video not doing an apples to apples comparison, and then somehow concluding the ring bus is the culprit. :facepalm: For starters, if the purpose is to compare architectures then all CPUs should run on the same fixed clock far below throttle territory (that HEDT CPU is very likely throttling). Secondly, if the ring bus made a real difference, then the quad cores should be significantly faster than 6- and 8-core CPUs, but real reviews (including TPU) shows i7-9700K and i9-9900K is faster despite a longer ring bus.
Just because a random dude on YouTube claims something out of thin air, doesn't make it true. Let's let this nonsense be.

8 cores 16 threads on mesh vs 8 cores 16 threads on ring. Both at 4.5 GHz.
The Mesh CPU is newer.

The conclusion - the ring bus is faster!

 

[$ReaPeR$]

This post does 2 things very well, it shows the pathetic state of Intel and it shows how some of the "objective" shills work in the comment section. It's a company guys, don't take it personally, because no company is your friend, they are out to make money in any way possible and that means that they will sell you shit products and make them sound like they are the best thing after sliced bread. Or they will literally bribe other companies to not buy the only other option, like Intel did and will do whenever possible because it's all about that bottom line.

 

[Braggingrights]

This post does 2 things very well, it shows the pathetic state of Intel and it shows how some of the "objective" shills work in the comment section. It's a company guys, don't take it personally, because no company is your friend, they are out to make money in any way possible and that means that they will sell you shit products and make them sound like they are the best thing after sliced bread. Or they will literally bribe other companies to not buy the only other option, like Intel did and will do whenever possible because it's all about that bottom line.

Gamers just don't care mate, and with how that entire industry has taken off fps will always rule. And you kinda sound like a shill for the other side so it's all good.

 

[Braggingrights]

Intel's last ace is the ring bus which has limits to be put in up to 10-core processors, and the bad Windows scheduler.

AMD's Zen 3 will likely have an 8-core CCX, so that jumping from core to core on different CCX adding incredible amounts of latency will be gone.

And Intel will be RIP.

Intel will still win gaming so who cares

 

[EarthDog]

Intel, RIP...... Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahhahaa...bewaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahhalolwtfbbqstfulolololhahahahahahahahahaha

Intel RIP... man did I need a laugh today. I appreciate whoever said that.

 

[Cybrshrk]

I think you are referring to the top end Ryzen CPUs when you said overclocking is a dud. At the mid end like the Ryzen 5 3600, there will still be legroom for overclocking. And if you are looking at the high end, Intel's chips don't fare any better when it comes to overclocking. Think of the current Intel 9xxx series with all core turbo of 5Ghz, how much can you overclocking from there? The power requirement is significantly worst when you push it further since its clear that the chips is being pushed to its limits. And unfortunately for Intel chips in the mid/ low end, you don't get any overclocking feature even though there is a lot of overclocking headroom. Its just locked to create an opportunity to charge their users if they want to overclock.



I think its mentioned before many times, not everyone gets a computer to game. Highest performance to you is FPS may not be the same for others. If my primary focus is to use it for work that will benefit from more cores, then people will go for higher core count.

I feel Intel have an advantage in games only because they have the clockspeed advantage (on top of a good CPU architecture), and also the games optimized for limited number of core counts since Intel pretty much capped it at 4 cores for as long as they monopolized the CPU market. As Intel starts to pump out more cores on their chips, it may actually benefit AMD indirectly since games and apps will start getting optimized for more cores.

Also, Intel is able to get away with the clockspeed increase here by feeding the chip more power as you have seen in multiple reviews of the current top end chip from Intel pulling in north of 250W. One thing I do want to point out, and that is even if you are willing to pay top dollars for the fastest Intel CPU, you need to also pay top dollars for a motherboard, a good PSU and cooling to get the CPU to run all core turbo at full speed. What you see in reviews, reviewers tend to use high end components and cooling to achieve the supposed full sustained potential.

I already use top tier equipment and cooling it's the whole point of buying the "best gaming parts period".

My whole point of gaming is your only goal and you'll only settle for nothing but the best then it can't be argued anyway but Intel is your only choice and looks to continue to be true even as of the 2020 releases.

I'll switch to ryzen no problem as soon as they can offer me what I want.

The best gaming experience. Period.

 

[kapone32]

I already use top tier equipment and cooling it's the whole point of buying the "best gaming parts period".

My whole point of gaming is your only goal and you'll only settle for nothing but the best then it can't be argued anyway but Intel is your only choice and looks to continue to be true even as of the 2020 releases.

I'll switch to ryzen no problem as soon as they can offer me what I want.

The best gaming experience. Period.

Where are your system Specs?