Here is an interesting video review by Digital Foundry. The Ryzen 5 3600x is still the better well rounded CPU, especially when you start factoring in the the z board and k cpu costs. The savings could be put towards a better GPU and higher resolution monitor which both will help with the gaming experience more IMO.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel 10th Gen Comet Lake thread
- Thread starter AthlonXP1800
- Start date
Here is an interesting video review by Digital Foundry. The Ryzen 5 3600x is still the better well rounded CPU, especially when you start factoring in the the z board and k cpu costs. The savings could be put towards a better GPU and higher resolution monitor which both will help with the gaming experience more IMO.
I'm really struggling to see why anybody would buy Comet Lake over Ryzen.
Slower in productivity and only a few percent faster in gaming...at 1080p!
Runs much hotter, draws a lot more power, needing a stronger cooling solution than Ryzen.
Oh, and with all the above disadvantages, you might expect it to be cheaper...nope, it's more expensive, a lot more when you factor in no included cooler, and more expensive motherboards.
Planet Bizarro time.
Slower in productivity and only a few percent faster in gaming...at 1080p!
Runs much hotter, draws a lot more power, needing a stronger cooling solution than Ryzen.
Oh, and with all the above disadvantages, you might expect it to be cheaper...nope, it's more expensive, a lot more when you factor in no included cooler, and more expensive motherboards.
Planet Bizarro time.
Brand image matters. Intel has been the more attractive brand for longer. People buy all sorts of crap because they think it's a good brand, when in reality there are far better options out there.
Not to mention why would you support a business who made us buy 4 cores and 4/8 threads on mainstream platform for years? They have just started pulling their fingers out of their asses because AMD is finally taking the crown in the CPU market. My next CPU will be an AMD.
because I don't do any productivity or really care about cinebench ?
it rules the roost in games and tbh I think it scores higher then most reviewers let on. (maybe paid off by amd?!)
cooling is not really an issue if you have an old 240mm aio I would possibility say the 3900X is hotter if not the same.
yeah no cooler is a bummer but then again I look at my collection of old intel heatsinks and they are all rubbish and unused. I will agree amd does provide a decent cooler again didn't use it worth £5/10 2nd hand.
meh.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,806
- Location
- Planet Earth
Even as DF and Gamersnexus pointed out,unless you intend to spend more money on a Z490 motherboard,extra cooling,etc performance is held back. Reviewers are showing a best case scenario for Intel by using expensive motherboards and cooling. IIRC,I think DF even just use AMD stock coolers on their systems,and Intel expensive AIO coolers. If anyone has built or used Ryzen systems,they have very good stock coolers. The stock cooler on the Ryzen 7 3700X is almost equivalent to a CM Hyper 212,which is nearly £30.
So for most people,the Ryzen platform is more cost effective,and you can put more money into a GPU. For example,even £50 saved is the difference between a GTX1660 and an RX5600XT.
Edit!!
No doubt in some games based on older engines,I suspect Intel will be noticeably faster,but then you could get a Core i5 9600K for £200 and overclock that,and it will be better value than a Core i5 10600K for example. The extra HT won't make a difference.
So for most people,the Ryzen platform is more cost effective,and you can put more money into a GPU. For example,even £50 saved is the difference between a GTX1660 and an RX5600XT.
Edit!!
No doubt in some games based on older engines,I suspect Intel will be noticeably faster,but then you could get a Core i5 9600K for £200 and overclock that,and it will be better value than a Core i5 10600K for example. The extra HT won't make a difference.
I think most sensible people just think "This cpu costs £180 and gives 120fps. This cpu costs £280 and gives 125fps...I'll just put that £100 difference towards something noticable and forget about 5fps."
sure if that £100 could go towards a better gpu say then I agree.
2080ti is too old and expensive. I can’t see any reasons to buy Intel without a big price drop.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 2,775
You know DF are not exactly tech savvy right? Their review is a complete joke, apples to pineapples comparison. Intel pay cheque in bound.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 May 2017
- Posts
- 142
Can somebody for the love of God explain to me why the 10900k is pulling 20 fps more than the 9900k? How is that even possible. No way that those 2 extra cores make that much of a difference. I swear since the 10900k is out the 9900k looks terrible in reviews.
The test methodology could be different. Remember that the 9900k and 8700k would not have been retested in a 10900k review, they just amalgamate old test data, all reviews do that.
Assuming its apples to apples, the only other thing I could come up with is that its either the 2 extra cores or the higher cache. Cache in particular plays a big part in this game's performance - which is why the threadripper 3970x was/is the fastest CPU in this game (it simply has the biggest CPU cache). The 3970x has a 20 to 30fps lead over a 3950x in this same game, is it the extra 16 cores? Nope its the huge cache.
This particular game might be doing some latency sensitive calculation data that the developers chose to run inside the CPU's L3 cache so the more of it you have the higher your framerate
Assuming its apples to apples, the only other thing I could come up with is that its either the 2 extra cores or the higher cache. Cache in particular plays a big part in this game's performance - which is why the threadripper 3970x was/is the fastest CPU in this game (it simply has the biggest CPU cache). The 3970x has a 20 to 30fps lead over a 3950x in this same game, is it the extra 16 cores? Nope its the huge cache.
This particular game might be doing some latency sensitive calculation data that the developers chose to run inside the CPU's L3 cache so the more of it you have the higher your framerate
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 16,595
- Location
- Chengdu
Typically it's the AMD fans calling out conspiracies. How things have changed.
I'd very much be in the i5 price bracket, and I'd not want to be spending megabucks on the Z490 motherboards. Intel restricting memory speeds on the cheaper motherboards, makes it an easy platform to ignore. (Have a 3733 DDR4 kit sitting in it's packet waiting for me to build a new system.)
Last edited:
Can somebody for the love of God explain to me why the 10900k is pulling 20 fps more than the 9900k? How is that even possible. No way that those 2 extra cores make that much of a difference. I swear since the 10900k is out the 9900k looks terrible in reviews.
Not in Techpowerup:
https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900k/images/shadow-of-the-tomb-raider-1920-1080.png
** Do Not Hotlink Images **
Last edited by a moderator:
These reviews are not correct. The comet lake has much high TDP than any of the previous gen at stock level. So if you bring that to level pegging ie previous CPUs to the same stock base and boost clocks as comet lake and factor in some motherboards have much more aggressive power profile, then you will find comet lake doesn’t give you anything over the last few gen.Can somebody for the love of God explain to me why the 10900k is pulling 20 fps more than the 9900k? How is that even possible. No way that those 2 extra cores make that much of a difference. I swear since the 10900k is out the 9900k looks terrible in reviews.
basically the comet lake uses more power to have higher clock speeds out of the box in order to achieve the high frame rates. As some one said before, intel is doing the overclocking at the factory instead you doing it yourself.
ASRock motherboards enabling overclocking for non-K cpus this gen
https://www.asrock.com/microsite/2020BFB/
https://www.asrock.com/microsite/2020BFB/
Complete BS slide, 9900K Boost 5Ghz, 10900K 5.3Ghz Boost (+5%)Can somebody for the love of God explain to me why the 10900k is pulling 20 fps more than the 9900k? How is that even possible. No way that those 2 extra cores make that much of a difference. I swear since the 10900k is out the 9900k looks terrible in reviews.
Its quite simple, you don't get 20% higher performance from a 5% clock boost.
This is more like it....
This.... and its obvious.
Score 547: AMD Ryzen R9 3950X at 4.7Ghz, jordand77
Score 551: Intel Core i9 9900K at 5.3Ghz, LordByron69
The 9900K there scores less than 1% higher than the 3950X, the 9900K is clocked 13% higher, take off the 1% and the 3950X has a 12% higher IPC, it does 12% more per cycle, at the same 5.3Ghz the 3950X would score 613.
Intel are faster because they can push the clocks so much higher than AMD can 'currently', Zen 2 refresh will get a small bump in clock speed, Zen 3 will get a significant IPC bump, putting AMD's IPC probably around <30% higher than Intel.
Last edited by a moderator: