10400f as fast as 10900k

[muon]

[link]

In terms of value.

Click on the value filter.

The 10100f is the cpu to buy.

I always use the value column when purchasing and it's never been a bad choice.

Oh dear. If only you knew about that website. It's banned from most places because they manipulate rankings.

The performance and value ordering are a joke.

 

[Aretak]

(garbage)

In terms of value.

Click on the value filter.

The 10100f is the cpu to buy.

I always use the value column when purchasing and it's never been a bad choice.

That website is an absolute joke and run by a troll/shill trying to mislead tech-illiterate people. Even the Intel subreddit banned it for shilling Intel products too aggressively. Every time a new AMD CPU comes out that beats an Intel one in anyway, they change how they rank their CPUs. I believe memory latency is now their one true god, since it's the only metric where Intel are still ahead after Zen 3 took the single-threaded performance crown (their previous be-all and end-all for ranking CPUs).

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Oh dear. If only you knew about that website. It's banned from most places because they manipulate rankings.

The performance and value ordering are a joke.

That website is an absolute joke and run by a troll/shill trying to mislead tech-illiterate people. Even the Intel subreddit banned it for shilling Intel products too aggressively. Every time a new AMD CPU comes out that beats an Intel one in anyway, they change how they rank their CPUs. I believe memory latency is now their one true god, since it's the only metric where Intel are still ahead after Zen 3 took the single-threaded performance crown (their previous be-all and end-all for ranking CPUs).

I knew they favourites intel but does that also mean their SSD rankings and gpu rankings are similarly skewed or biased?

Genuine question.

Also what comparison sit would you recommend as a result of the above being biased?

I've always used userbenchmark.

 

[sideways14a]

I would always gfet the best cpu i could (within reason, budget ect) as games and especially windows have a habit of getting fatter and gobbling up more resources over time and revisions.
Not to mention all the other stuff going on in the background, virus scanning, update checking and the quadrillion other processes you dont usually see.

That said the 10400 aint a bad buy at the moment but it would take a lot to convince me to drop to it from say a 5600 .... well unless i wanted a cpu like right now

 

[muon]

Genuine question.

Also what comparison sit would you recommend as a result of the above being biased?

I've always used userbenchmark.

You can't take CPUs and condense it into a single ordering.

The question firstly is why are you buying a new CPU and then it is a case of working from there.

The OP has picked a very specific use which is 4K gaming with more recent titles. A 10400F is indeed a good buy for that.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

You can't take CPUs and condense it into a single ordering.

The question firstly is why are you buying a new CPU and then it is a case of working from there.

The OP has picked a very specific use which is 4K gaming with more recent titles. A 10400F is indeed a good buy for that.

I tend to buy value for money.

So the best pound for pound performance.

As an example my current pc is

B350 MSI tomahawk
3600x
2070 super
16gb crucial ballistix Lt sport
1tb 870 Evo plus

I always look at their value filter and filter out some other things and then make a decision based on the top ten or so that pop up.

Is there a better comparison site or a rankings site

 

[muon]

I tend to buy value for money.

So the best pound for pound performance.

As an example my current pc is

B350 MSI tomahawk
3600x
2070 super
16gb crucial ballistix Lt sport
1tb 870 Evo plus

I always look at their value filter and filter out some other things and then make a decision based on the top ten or so that pop up.

Is there a better comparison site or a rankings site

What does value mean to you? It's meaningless unless you know what you actually want to do with the CPU.

The 3600X doesn't make their value list. Never did because of how badly the scoring penalised Zen 2. So how have you picked that?

Is your system for gaming? What resolution and refresh rate? How frequently do you upgrade?

 

[Aretak]

I knew they favourites intel but does that also mean their SSD rankings and gpu rankings are similarly skewed or biased?

Genuine question.

Also what comparison sit would you recommend as a result of the above being biased?

I've always used userbenchmark.

I honestly have no idea what they're like for SSD ranking, but given how immature, deceitful and outright malicious the people running the site are, I wouldn't value any information they offer whatsoever, personally. They demonstrably have an agenda to shill certain products, so I don't see how any of their recommendations can be trusted. Of course, they spent years pretending to be unbiased and trustworthy and carefully cultivated their site to appear at the top of Google's search pages for almost any hardware comparison you care to enter, so even with their horrific reputation in enthusiast circles, I'm sure they still make plenty of money out of being shady ****ers.

There isn't any noteworthy easy alternative either though. If you actually want trustworthy information, you have to put the time in to seek it out and make your own value judgements. Any such ranking site is always going to be subject to the influence (and flaws) of the persons running it really, be it through outright lies, lies by omission, lack of product knowledge or simple incompetence. Whether that's a price worth paying for convenience is something for you to decide.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

What does value mean to you? It's meaningless unless you know what you actually want to do with the CPU.

The 3600X doesn't make their value list. Never did because of how badly the scoring penalised Zen 2. So how have you picked that?

Is your system for gaming? What resolution and refresh rate? How frequently do you upgrade?

It actually did make their value list well the 3600 did and I bought that first then bought a 3600x when there was a 20% off voucher on eBay and got it for a steal.

We are talking a couple of years ago the ratings change daily with price fluctuations.

If you go to ssd then filter by Samsung only then value the 870 Evo plus should be near the top. I normally filter the price too for sub £150 products when looking at SSD.

So I already had a Ryzen mobo I filtered by amd and value. The 3600 came up top.

I'm fact I just did that right now.

3600 is number one.

5600x number 2

3600xt number 3

3600x number 7


So it still works. I filtered out intel because I didn't want to do a full build just change cpu which is why I have a B350 board.

I find the site useful still.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-10400F-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X/4079vs4041

It's 4% faster. I just ignore the memory latency part anyway and always have done. I look at the figures in direct comparisons not what they list it as.

It's a useful site you just need to know what is relevant and what to ignore and remember to use filters.


Yeah I'm a gamer. I game at 1440p and 165hz however I have upgraded to 240hz now but still not unboxed my Christmas present the G7 odyssey.

 

[humbug]

It actually did make their value list well the 3600 did and I bought that first then bought a 3600x when there was a 20% off voucher on eBay and got it for a steal.

We are talking a couple of years ago the ratings change daily with price fluctuations.

If you go to ssd then filter by Samsung only then value the 870 Evo plus should be near the top. I normally filter the price too for sub £150 products when looking at SSD.

So I already had a Ryzen mobo I filtered by amd and value. The 3600 came up top.

I'm fact I just did that right now.

3600 is number one.

5600x number 2

3600xt number 3

3600x number 7


So it still works. I filtered out intel because I didn't want to do a full build just change cpu which is why I have a B350 board.

I find the site useful still.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-10400F-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X/4079vs4041

It's 4% faster. I just ignore the memory latency part anyway and always have done. I look at the figures in direct comparisons not what they list it as.

It's a useful site you just need to know what is relevant and what to ignore and remember to use filters.


Yeah I'm a gamer. I game at 1440p and 165hz however I have upgraded to 240hz now but still not unboxed my Christmas present the G7 odyssey.

Userbenchmark are Intel.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Userbenchmark are Intel.

They are biased toward them massively yes but the benchmarks themselves don't lie of you look at the figures rather than the scoring system.

As in how many points it gets for doing calculations. That's based on the cpu power and I compare those directly when looking at CPUs.

I also use it for buying GPU and ssd.

It's why I bought a 1650 super for my zwift rig. It said at the time it was the best value for money nvidi gpu. AMD was Rx570 or rx580 but I prefer Nvidia and it was in the top 3 so I went with that.

 

[humbug]

They are biased toward them massively yes but the benchmarks themselves don't lie of you look at the figures rather than the scoring system.

As in how many points it gets for doing calculations. That's based on the cpu power and I compare those directly when looking at CPUs.

I also use it for buying GPU and ssd.

It's why I bought a 1650 super for my zwift rig. It said at the time it was the best value for money nvidi gpu. AMD was Rx570 or rx580 but I prefer Nvidia and it was in the top 3 so I went with that.

They have the Ryzen 5600X also 4% faster than the 10400F, exactly the same as the 3600X. Really?

 

[Psycho Sonny]

They have the Ryzen 5600X also 4% faster than the 10400F, exactly the same as the 3600X. Really?

I'm reading 22-27% faster your not looking at the right place

3600 is actually 7-11% faster I looked at the overall rather than the direct figures for single core, dual core, etc

Easily done

 

[humbug]

I'm reading 22-27% faster your not looking at the right place

Yeah sorry, they have it 4% faster in games which is extremely contrived.

What do you make of this? is the 10900K/S/F really faster than the 5950X?

 

[muon]

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/

In terms of value.

Click on the value filter.

The 10100f is the cpu to buy.

I always use the value column when purchasing and it's never been a bad choice.

But you said you use this.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Yeah sorry, they have it 4% faster in games which is extremely contrived.

What do you make of this? is the 10900K/S/F really faster than the 5950X?

Again you have to compare the 2 directly they are using the stupid memory latency nonsense as the biggest factor.

Compare the core speed scores directly.

Yeah the site has gotten worse since amd got the upper hand but you just need to be a bit smarter when using it.

Like I said before I use filters and tend to put a strict budget on stuff.

Ram my budget is £100
Motherboard £150
CPU £250
GPU £500
SSD usually £100 but I did buy two at £120 each recently as it was a great deal.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

But you said you use this.

Yeah I do and if you filter for amd only you will see the best value CPUs for amd and I used that to buy my cpu. So I remove all the Intel CPU when I'm buying for myself.

I do the same for gpu I filter for Nvidia gpu only then use that to gauge what I buy.

Which is why I have a 1650 super and a 2070 super. Both were high up in the value when filtered by Nvidia only.

You can normally tell who makes the best cpu anyway with all the threads on here so by filtering for amd only I'm removing all their terrible scoring system and only looking at which AMD CPU offers the best value for money which is a direct comparison to their other cpus

 

[humbug]

Again you have to compare the 2 directly they are using the stupid memory latency nonsense as the biggest factor.

Compare the core speed scores directly.

Yeah the site has gotten worse since amd got the upper hand but you just need to be a bit smarter when using it.

Like I said before I use filters and tend to put a strict budget on stuff.

Ram my budget is £100
Motherboard £150
CPU £250
GPU £500
SSD usually £100 but I did buy two at £120 each recently as it was a great deal.

So you agree that the 10900K is a faster CPU than the 5950X.

This is why you like Userbenchmark, it is completely contrived and with that agrees with your own Bias.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

So you agree that the 10900K is a faster CPU than the 5950X.

This is why you like Userbenchmark, it is completely contrived and with that agrees with your own Bias.

Lolwut?

I own 3 AMD CPU currently.

 

[humbug]

Lolwut?

I own 3 AMD CPU currently.

So how can you believe anything on that site?

I'll give you a couple of quotes from their editorial.

Intel’s $190 USD i5-9600K, which, when paired with a 2060 Super, delivers higher EFps in four out of five of today’s most popular games. Allocating the savings to a higher tier GPU will result in an unquestionably superior gaming PC.

An RTX 2060S these days is a low end GPU, and this is under the Ryzen 5600X section. the 9600K in thier words is faster in 4 out 5 games than the 5600X, when paired with a 2060S, by a couple of % in very contrived benchmarks, you see what they are doing there?

Last year, AMD’s marketers secured significant sales of the 3000 series CPUs despite a 15% performance deficit against lower priced Intel parts. The games, specific scenes, software/hardware settings and choice of competing hardware were often cherry picked, undisclosed, and inconsistent from one product to the next.

Translation "Don't look at Independent reviewers, they are all fake, only our benchmarking software is accurate."