• 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 Claims Its Cheaper To Build A Faster Gaming PC With Its 10th Gen Core CPUs Than AMD Ryzen 3000

RavenXXX2

RavenXXX2

RavenXXX2

Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2007
Posts
22,763
Location
North West
Somebodies DIY sales are in the dumpster.

https://wccftech.com/intel-claims-1...e-and-faster-than-amd-ryzen-3000xt-in-gaming/

The performance benchmarks show that the Intel Core i7-10700K outperformed the AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT in several AAA titles. The Intel CPU was up to

  • 23% faster in Total War: Warhammer 2
  • 17% faster in Leauge of Legends
  • 15% faster in Monster Hunter World: Iceborne
  • 14% faster in Rocket Leauge
  • 12% faster in War Thunder Tank Battle
  • 6% faster in Total War Three Kingdoms

aPh12eg.jpg


T1M03GL.jpg
 
I'm surprised that they've chosen to use a lower RAM speed on their own system. I'd assume a higher speed would have given better average results for their benchmarking.
 
Ryan-3 said:
I'm surprised that they've chosen to use a lower RAM speed on their own system. I'd assume a higher speed would have given better average results for their benchmarking.
Click to expand...

I've not kept up with the situation on the 10K series side but generally Intel hasn't needed as high RAM speed - due to the architecture on AMD's side there is a big increase in performance upto around 3000-3200MHz - Intel could have stuck them both on slower RAM to spoil the AMD performance results but then I guess it would struggle with the cost narrative.
 
Intel pushing the one main advantage they have, I am shocked! SHOCKED!

Not to mention that it's skewed by using a Ryzen 9 that has 4C/8T over the 10700K. A Ryzen 7 would make a more fair comparison but when has fair ever made good marketing.
 
mickyflinn said:
Performance results based a 1080p who buys a 2080ti for that ?

Would the % difference be the same with diffrent gpu's.
Click to expand...

Any higher resolution then it's not the CPU bottlenecking, it's the GPU. And so all the results would be the same.
Therefore, you don't need that good of a CPU anyway. Because it's always going to be the GPU that is the limiting factor.
 
Toothy1911 said:
I'm surprised they went for the 10700K. I bet the 10600K would still be as fast, or there abouts for even less money.
Click to expand...

Same with the 3600 vs the 3900XT.......

They also cherry-picked the games that give them the best margins, and still only managed 15%. In those games a 3300X would probably do better.

Whats fascinating is that Intel are now shouting about being the budget option, how times change.... :D
 
welshrat said:
Oh dear me.
Click to expand...

whats wrong intel is quicker. no debate they are at games currently. current amd cpus are the same as a 8700. non k. they two gens behind on games. the new ones should be about level or just in front.

before people try to debate that AMD are as quick..AMD used them being as fast as a 8700 non k in there press launch....:p

so intel are faster at games currently and there is no debate.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
whats wrong intel is quicker. no debate they are at games currently. current amd cpus are the same as a 8700. non k. they two gens behind on games. the new ones should be about level or just in front.
Click to expand...

Well, they used AMD's second most expensive CPU vs a lower end Intel CPU to claim the "Budget choice" a more suitable CPU to compare to the 10700K is a 3700X.

You don't need 12 cores 24 threads for games. Well there are one or two that will help but Intel are not using those games because they get curb stomped in them.
 
I love that they admit defeat in CS:GO when previously they always had their single core performance to go to :D
 
The Ram speed choice difference is simply because AMD officially supports 3200Mhz while Intel supports 2933Mhz.

Not that this actually makes any difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom