Leonidas
Member
50-100% behind in some games is extremely bad and appaling for me. If it's okay for you your standards clearly are much lower than mine as I stated earlier.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Intel i5 10400/10400F vs. Ryzen 3600.
- Thread starter Leonidas
- Start date
Sakura Doritos
Member
What games, what resolutions, what frames per second. Don’t be vague so you can blame someone else for your inability to make a coherent argument.
Leonidas
Member
A number of games fall in that range when comparing the fastest current gaming CPU to the abysmal gaming performance of the original Zen. Do some research, it is a fact. I wouldn't have said it otherwise...
Last edited:
Sakura Doritos
Member
Keep moving them goal posts. Now it’s a abysmal gaming CPU when compared to the fastest today.
Yet it still plays GTA 5 with maxed out settings with just a 1080 graphics card just fine. It plays Witcher 3 the same and every game I throw at it. And instead of getting off the platform I could invest in. 2080, or a G-Sync monitor. Not that I need it. 60fps is fine for most people. Especially for streaming to YT or Twitch.
You are just a benchmark whore and FPS snob. You call something terrible when there is value to something that is tangible to people.
You don’t represent PC gamers. You represent marketing departments.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
I was initially lead to believe that the 10 series would end up being compelling CPUs for gamers when I saw the Intel slide. as I made the mistake of assuming that the prices shown on that slide were retail prices and that Intel would make major gains in price to performance compared to AMD. Turns out that those prices were for the bulk cost to vendors and the final prices in the store are obviously higher. Instead of being a $380 CPU, the 10700K is a $420 CPU. The only pleasant surprise is that the Z490 boards have not been priced as expensive as I expected and plenty can be had for under $200.
To get the Intel equivalent core count, you are still going to have to pay in excess of $100 more.
If high framerate 1080p competitive gaming is the end all, be all and there is no budget then sure go with Intel, but in all other instances the money you save going with AMD is better invested in faster GPU. Not to mention the money saved in not having to buy an extra cooler.
Last edited:
Damian black
Member
zen1 wasnt the best when it comes to gaming, but was still good enough for midrange builds.
1600 showed better frametime consitency compared to any i5 of that period.
If fact, I'd wager to say that it aged waaaay better than any i5 without hypertreading intel ever produced.
I still have it in my machine and it does its job well enough.
Last edited:
Leonidas
Member
Look at post #49, no goal post was moved on my end. Please improve reading ability before making such accusations.
Sakura Doritos
Member
I run that cpu too and it’s fine. If I replace it a 3300X seems to be the best financial option. The only gaming I do that would require the MHz and tech tweaks is better CEMU options and PS3 emulation.
PC gaming it does the trick for now. It’s better than my gaming laptop that is intel i5 and 1660.
Sakura Doritos
Member
please re-read your post #45 before you get condescending. Prick.
Last edited:
Leonidas
Member
How so? I simply stated people with 8700K don't need an upgrade. Near 10600K performance today 3 years ago, overclock it and it's basically a 10600K.
And then mentioned AMD's gaming improvements, they've come a long way since Zen1, even the budget 3300x is probably 30-60% faster than Zen 1 in a number of cases, making Zen1 abysmal today.
Sakura Doritos
Member
And still Zen 1 with modern games using more cores is more future proof than intel... for 1080 high fps or DX11 games sure intel is faster still but i think now the sweet spot is 1440p.
Last edited:
Leonidas
Member
Compared to pre-Zen 4-Core Intel maybe. But since Zen1 Intel released 8700K in the same year. 8700K is still near the top of gaming CPU charts while Zen1 is on the bottom of any modern CPU. Zen1 is the worst performing gaming CPU since it launched while 8700K still remains near the best performing.
Last edited:
Sakura Doritos
Member
Being on the bottom of a chart does not equal abysmal when the top ends of the chart are absolutely niche to the average gamer and require to violate the value proposition.
So what if I can’t do 120fps? I can and do 60-90! If I have a 60fps monitor then I am over qualified and can look to other IQ improvement techniques. If I am wanting that 120-144hz chase than I can go g-Sync Or 3300x at my leisure when a game I actually want To play requires it or a monitor deal was so good to pass up and it looks ass at 60hz.
We’re not talking about a CPU that struggles to do 1080p60 here...
You are just using benchmarks numbers to frame a narrative to shit on something without realizing the only people who care are people who want to make a new PC purchase or snobs. Or people who want to make a new purchase but are given an advice from a a snob.
Leonidas
Member
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
LIKE WHAT??? Dude, this is ridiculous There is around a 5-10% difference at most.
You're now getting into outright lying territory.
Sakura Doritos
Member
Well if he’s talking about a gen 1 1600 vs a 10660 at a benchmark that is made to show CPU strength it could be. But that isn’t a practical test and is disingenuous as fuck.
Since he refuses to provide his evidence basically all I can assume is he’s looking at numbers from a sheet by Gamer’s Nexus which they’ve already given ample caution to reading too much into the stat and he doesn’t want to call himself out.
Is that lying? Maybe. Bad faith? Absolutely. But hey as long as ‘50-100% in some games’ is nebulous he can sit in smugness.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
Here are some real world 1440p benchmarks:
And more:
I'd like to meet these people who spend $2000+ to get high end hardware with a 2080ti only to play at 1080p or below at lower settings.
Must be interesting characters.
LazyParrot
Member
Well, they're competitive again at least. I'd still go with AMD at this price point, though. The difference in performance isn't large enough to warrant paying for the more expensive Intel boards.
Sakura Doritos
Member
Ryzen 1000/2000 not aging very well in gaming compared to a 8700k is certainly true. Hardware Unboxed did a great GPU Scaling test a bit back. A R5 2600 basically bottlenecks every GPU above a RX 580 even at 1440p/Ultra settings in their testing. If you plan on buying a RDNA2/Ampere card this fall and you're on a Ryzen 1000/2000 you'll probably want to upgrade your CPU to Zen 3 too.
Sakura Doritos
Member
Or one could say the 2600 is doing work by keeping a value proposition for those who chose to go big on GPU with the idea of a CPU later.Ryzen 1000/2000 not aging very well in gaming compared to a 8700k is certainly true. Hardware Unboxed did a great GPU Scaling test a bit back. A R5 2600 basically bottlenecks every GPU above a RX 580 even at 1440p/Ultra settings in their testing. If you plan on buying a RDNA2/Ampere card this fall and you're on a Ryzen 1000/2000 you'll probably want to upgrade your CPU to Zen 3 too.
1440p 60 is certainly obtainable and a G-Sync monitor could be a good upgrade instead of new GPU/CPU if we don’t get a glut of games that make a 2070/2080 blush.
That could pave the way for waiting until part refreshes and Intel’s PCIe 4 CPUs to put pressure to AMD before you decide if an upgrade or platform swap is the right call.
nordique
Member
thanks
this is helpful for someone like me who knows nothing about the AMD vs Intel space
plan to build a pc in thefuture
Kenpachii
Member
problem the ryzen 1000 series had was microstutter and to get performance out of them u had to have high memory performance which was more expensive at the time and boards mostly had lots of issues even eating that. The whole 1000 series CPU line was simple not interesting for gaming u where better off going to intel.
2000 series started to fix this better, but other then rendering and if you really need a budget chip i would not recommend it even remotely because of the same reasons. Also single core performance isn't the greatest.
3000 series is where amd started to get its shit together a bit ( well still horrible launch tho ), They now started to fall in line with the 8000 intel series and are considered far more decent then the other chip series. They make some good budget CPU's that's for sure. Higher end kinda feels utterly useless tho as the performance simple isn't there for gaming to validate there pricing.
Going to be interesting to see where the 4000 series is going to land. they have a shot now at the top. But will they take it who knows.
2000 series started to fix this better, but other then rendering and if you really need a budget chip i would not recommend it even remotely because of the same reasons. Also single core performance isn't the greatest.
3000 series is where amd started to get its shit together a bit ( well still horrible launch tho ), They now started to fall in line with the 8000 intel series and are considered far more decent then the other chip series. They make some good budget CPU's that's for sure. Higher end kinda feels utterly useless tho as the performance simple isn't there for gaming to validate there pricing.
Going to be interesting to see where the 4000 series is going to land. they have a shot now at the top. But will they take it who knows.
Damian black
Member
who is going to buy a 12-16 core cpu to game exclusively? The 3900 and 3950 make a lot of sense.
People have to realize that PC is not just playing games.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
I try and defend Leonidas when possible. Is it accurate to say that in CPU Limited situations that Intel will give you the highest framerates? In most instances, yes. Sure. We can acknowledge that. That has value to ultra competitive gamers who want the highest framerates possible.
But I'd say that many gamers looking to upgrade are looking into 1440p - 4K gaming. That's were Intel's advantage is neglible and in many cases non-existent. The savings of going with AMD that can be put toward a better GPU provide a far greater gaming advantage.
I have not seen any recent gaming benchmarks that show 50% - 100% advantage for Intel. 5-10% in some instances at 1080p? Yes, I see that. The only game where the 10% threshold is approached is with Farcry New Dawn. That game for some reason does not like AMD CPUs. Everything else 5% difference is accurate.
Keep in mind that average is being skewed a little bit by Farcry New Dawn.
50% - 100% is straight up bullshit and Leonidas needs to be called out on it.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
They are. They're competitive gamers.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19575113/ROG_Swift_360Hz_G_SYNC_Monitor.jpg)
Nvidia and Asus announce a 360Hz gaming monitor designed for e-sports
It has an “advanced” G-Sync processor inside.
www.theverge.com
But that's basically it. I can't think of any other demographic that needs these latest Intel chips. The performance per dollar is just too low.
Sakura Doritos
Member
And I really like the fact I can run intellij, a kubernetes stack and have Warframe going in the background To market whore or get an alert in between automated tests.They are. They're competitive gamers.
Nvidia and Asus announce a 360Hz gaming monitor designed for e-sports
It has an “advanced” G-Sync processor inside.
But that's basically it. I can't think of any other demographic that needs these latest Intel chips. The performance per dollar is just too low.
granted NOW I can do that with Intel without devastating the wallet but it wasn’t really an option I was going to commit to prior to Zen fucking with the formula.
Optimistic Gamer
Member
Why open this thread and put your opinion out there if you're not willing to discuss data?
Leonidas
Member
Even Zen2 is 10-33% behind in a number of games today, Digital Foundry showed that. The 50-100% was for Zen1, read better...
Last edited:
Leonidas
Member
Because the benchmarks are GPU bound, I know that before even clicking on it. Even Zen2 is a bit behind Intel today, if Zen1 is close in those vids it's 100% GPU bound...
Optimistic Gamer
Member
Skipped through the vid and saw a lot of current/recent games that require decent hardware. Don't see why these wouldn't be representative for a gaming cup....
But I'm simple minded about this. This winter I'll just check what benches best at 1440p in actual games and buy it.
Sakura Doritos
Member
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
For 190ish bucks (based on what I’m seeing but correct me if I’m wrong) that seems like pretty solid gaming performance from the 10400. Seems like there’s some great values for very viable gaming CPUs right now
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
Gamers Nexus just uploaded their review
GHG
Member
Was just about to post this.
You're better off going with the 10600k if you are only concerned about gaming and would rather go with Intel.
Sakura Doritos
Member
Leonidas
Member
Good to see TechYes results from OP hold up.
It always makes sense to go for unlocked CPUs on Intel though, for top tier gaming performance.
Sell your X570 board unless you want to be stuck with 10400-like gaming performance today.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Isn't the premise of this whole thread that 10400 is a better choice over the 3600?
CesarNsnake
Neo Member
Armorian
Banned
They said that 10400 doesn't make any sense as with standard memory clock (that will be on non Z boards) it performs worse than AMD CPUs in almost everything. It's only slighty better on Z boards but with that only logical buy are K CPUs anyway.
Only until Zen 3 releases and that X570 gets a BIG boost
Rumored IPC alone will get them close to Intel but aren't they also changing something in CCX latency?
Last edited:
Leonidas
Member
They also post numbers which backup the OP TLDR. 10400 has lower power and better gaming performance than 3600. Some people made a big deal out of CPU power...
Last edited:
newtypepilot
Member
Leonidas
Member
Where is the clickbait? Everything in OP is true.
Leonidas
Member
AMD fell short of year(s) old Intel gaming performance every release for the past 3 years.
ZywyPL
Banned
It's kind of a bad timing for upgrading the CPU, isn't it? IMO 4C/4T CPUs still offer the best price/performance for playing current-gen titles, while 6C will quite possibly be insufficient once next-gen launches in a couple of months.
Still 14nm vs 7 tho.
Still 14nm vs 7 tho.