AMD 3300x vs Intel i9-10900k... evidence that gamers can save a lot of cash on CPU's

[Richdog]

Hi guys. I just watched a very interesting performance comparison video between an AMD 3300x and a Intel i9-10900k that re-enforced that beyond a surprisingly low pricepoint, CPU's don't make so much impact to most gamers. This may not be new or revolutionary information to many people, but with the CPU wars REALLY heating up in a post-COVID economy I think it's an ideal time to discuss it and give it some spotlight.

The CPU difference becomes FAR less significant when using 1080p Ultra detail or above graphical settings, with the AMD 3300x and the 10900k performing on a par or at least within 10% of each other, despite a massive 430% difference in price.

Of course the CPU can matter more in calculation-intensive games such as RTS, 4x etc, but even there it looks like the AMD 3300x is going to do the job adequately in most cases and stepping up to 3600x/3700x will give you the power you need to really be happy.

So what does this mean?

On average, you don't realistically need to buy anything above an AMD 3700x (8c16t) if you are a high-end gamer and also want ample power for most creativity work for the forseeable future. An AMD 3600x (6c12t) at 30% less represents the ideal "budget" option for high-end gaming with breathing room for creativity work.

The money you save on the CPU can be pumped into a GPU for FAR more perceptible bang for your buck than by pumping extra hundreds into the CPU/MOBO/RAM. Of course, if you are a performance enthusuast or overclocker then this is a moot point and you will buy what makes you happy regardless of cost, and that is fine, but for those budget and value conscious gamers who simply want the best performance for the money without fiddling around, then it makes sense to pair a modest CPU with a high-end GPU.

I really do not see anything better overall value than an AMD 3700x based platform with a bog-standard PCIe4-enabed motherboard and average branded RAM, with the money saved then going into a Nvidia Ampere 30xx on release. The release of the AMD 4000 CPU's in Q3/Q4 will push the AMD 3000 series down to even more ridiculous levels of value.

 

[Richdog]

I'm guessing that conclusion will be different when Nvidia 3000 series and Big Navi launch as there will be less of a GPU bottleneck at the higher resolutions and we'll see performance differences between the different tiers of CPU. It's right that CPU isn't a massive issue right now.

I don't see the logic of how the NV 3000 series will make a significant difference to CPU-limitations as the benchmarks show that low-end CPU's already provide more than enough power for current GPU's and are not at some maximum capacity. CPU's such as the 3600x and higher will therefore very likely provide more than enough power for even a 3080ti when you offload the processing to the GPU. The more you offload to the GPU (more detail and higher resolutions), the better a CPU will perform and the less performance dependency will be placed upon it.

 

[Richdog]

I'm pretty much of this mindset.

My current plan is a get an A520 board, the cheapest 8 core CPU (3700X or 4700X if significantly better & similar price to the 3700X), and dump the rest of the budget into the best GPU I can get late this year / early 2021.

Will A520 definitely have PCIe4 lanes? I read conflicting reports when I Googled.

 

[Richdog]

I see lots of posts similar to this, and have one concern

Intel still beats out AMD when it comes to 1080p - it is commonly agreed that this is because the GPU isn’t being bottlenecked here. As a result, when the GPU is being taxed heavily, like at higher resolutions, the CPU becomes less of a worry.

Do you think that with the new GPUs from NVidia, and to a lesser extent AMD, we could see the gap between Intel and AMD open up more, if the GPU is no longer the bottleneck at 1440p?

How much would this really matter do we think?

Did you read the above posts thoroughly? Maybe give them another once over.

 

[Richdog]

I would have liked to have seen minimum frame rates, frametimes and something other than 1080p considering the 10900k is part of the test.

They also show 4k Ultra? I mean it's not the most exhaustive set of tests with min/max, but to me it still confirms the situation and re-enforces what we already knew and applies it to the latest CPU generations.

I have, and still not sure

I guess it depends on how many FPS you need, vs want.

If we see 1440p become the new 1080p, where differences in IPC are exaggerated, with up to 5-10% in performance delta, it could be the difference between 144 FPS and 158. Not that much really - would it even be noticed?

And, as you say, if the GPUs are that much more powerful, the FPS might be so high that the differences are irrelevant, because they’re all maintaining 165 FPS at 1080p

I'm still not sure what you really mean but it seems you may be overcomplicating things in your mind a little...

 

[Richdog]

I'd agree with that but if you're building a PC here and now for gaming it's pretty hard to justify spending more IMO. Might as well just get the 3300x and save the extra cash to upgrade in a few years time when/if games do actually benefit from that faster CPU.

I will likely be buying a 3700x 8c16t in Q3 as I think this is the sweet spot for heavy gaming, creativity and productivity use for the forseeable future. There is nothing it won't handle for the next couple of years at least.

 

[Richdog]

i don't understand the hypocrisy sometimes
a 7700k was previously "not okay" (apprarently)...and now somehow a 3300x is?
lol.
okay.

Maybe you could please try explaining what your point in a more mature and intellectual way? I am sure I am not the only one who doesn't know what you mean.

 

[Richdog]

@CuriousTomCat @Richdog @humbug
i'm on about the "4 cores is not enough" brigade who are now (over)hyping this chip
yes whilst the 6700k/7700k may have been (ie definitely was) expensive, we're still talking performance from nearly 5 years ago now

I don't see anyone overhyping anything, you are the one who seems for some strange reason to be getting defensive about things. People are just reasonably saying that for the very low cost, the 3300x provides excellent performance in a budget CPU and that has enough grunt to power high-end GPU's at high detail and resolutions. It punches above its weight. Don't forget that GPU's are now much more powerful and games more demanding than 5 years ago and CPU dependence has decreased dramatically as a result.

whilst i commend amd for bringing "performance to the masses" it's nowhere near the level of the second coming of the messiah which some seem to think it is
£300 -> £120 in 5 years..yes one might argue this wouldn't have happened if ryzen didn't take off, but i'll save that for another thread

No-one is saying that. You are saying that to exaggerate an as-yet pretty unclear point.

 

[Richdog]

Pot. Meet. Kettle.

tamzzy. Meet. Ignore. List. Bye.

I find this a very interesting topic, I had this in mind when I built my current system, after a ton of research I decided if I was to follow this philosophy through properly I wouldn't even use overclocking components, I settled on an 8700, B360 mobo, and 32gb 2666mhz, and also a budget CPU cooler, due to it being a non-k 65w CPU the cooler alone can save you a lot, probably an extra £50 in my case.

I have to be honest, at first it felt a little daunting going down this route as this was the first time I bought a more 'limited' system like this, but based on the fact that I was running @ 3440x1440 I banked on my system leaning on the GPU, I ended up saving a ton of money going the 8700 route (this is last year) and this enabled me to get a lot better GPU and better overall performance.

If I had went and bought an 8700k, Z390 Mobo and faster ram I would have nowhere near performance I have now due to the fact that I couldn't of gotten the considerably better GPU I got with my non overlooking system, and even with a B360 I can still drop a 9900 in my system in the future, but for the next few years I'll just continue to upgrade my GPU and reap the performance.

Today I think the 3600 and B450 Mobo is the price to performance system to beat, especially at higher resolutions, and you can drop a Ryzen 4000 chip in a down the road, if was building a system today that is what I would get.

I am very similarly minded to you... when I build a new desktop gaming rig this year I will not be going for any fancy components geared towards overclocking, I will just be buying some solid stuff (with pcie4 though) to run with whatever mild OC I can get and then pair it with a good GPU and enoy it. From what I read, Zen2 is hardly a great overclocker anyway.

It seems like a while ago when overclocking was essential to getting good performance out of a CPU and every mhz counted...nowadays stock performance and speeds are so good that you hardly notice it anyway.

 

[Richdog]

Thanks humbug for the informative (if perhaps a tad heavy and complex in style of prose ) posts, much appreciated. It's great how even with the small architectural penalty that comes from having separate CCD's that Zen2 is so strong and such great value. Zen3 should really be a nice refinement of the architecture and for me it seems that the 4700x 8c16t will likely represent the ideal purchase when combined with modest-not-fancy components including a B550 and 32GB RAM. I will put the money saved into a 2TB PCIe4 SSD drive and of course a nice GPU such as an Nvidia 3080. I will stick to gaming at 1440p as I think it still represents the perfect sweet-spot for this generation of games, so a Ti may not likely be needed.

 

[Richdog]

You're welcome

Just out of interest old chap, what are your own personal upgrade plans (if any)?