• 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.

OcUK Zen3 review thread

jamman said:
It out performs the i9 10900k at times at half the price. Not sure thats too expensive unless you are only comparing it against the 3000 version.
Click to expand...
Would you buy a single core AMD for £300 if it beat the 10900k at single-thread/single-core performance, and would that make it great value at one quarter the price?

Because there sure are plenty of places where the 10900k out-performs a 5600X, as you know. There are also plenty of cases where a 5950X and a 10400 and a 5600X all perform exactly the same.

The trouble is, everybody here is using different metrics to suit themselves.
 
DeathStorm said:
No one who cares about value for money gaming is making the choice between a budget Intel chip and a workstation chip, comparing them only highlights the lack of an argument.
Click to expand...
Ok then the 10400F is 15% slower in games than a 5600X at half the price.
 
jamman said:
It out performs the i9 10900k at times at half the price. Not sure thats too expensive unless you are only comparing it against the 3000 version.
Click to expand...

TBF,Gamersnexus also said the Core i5 10600K performed like a Core i7/Core i9 in gaming too once you tweaked it. The fact is currently 6 cores seems a sweetspot for gaming,but once devs start coding more for the new generation consoles,I suspect the 8C~12C CPUs will start to see gains. Remember how quickly the 4C and 4C/8T CPUs went out of fashion too! :p
 
~>Dg<~ said:
you think a 5600x outperforms a 10900k need head looking at tbh
Click to expand...

In lots of titles it looks like it’s essentially on par with a 10900k. Quite impressive given its lack of cores, greater efficiency and lower price.
 
Joxeon said:
Zen 2 wasn't ahead in gaming yet most people recommended these for gaming builds over faster Intel chips based on the cheaper price yet now people are saying pay more and to get the faster zen 3 chips.

It's the other way around with Intel bring the value as the 10400F is only 17% behind the the £750 flagship 5950X in gaming performance @1080p with a £1500 GPU yet half the price of the 5600X.


Your could say the same about the RTX 3090 then.
Click to expand...

Zen 2 beat most of Intel’s range in gaming and pretty much destroyed Intel in every other metric.
 
jigger said:
Zen 2 beat most of Intel’s range in gaming and pretty much destroyed Intel in every other metric.
Click to expand...
According to whom?

I've just been watching the Gamer's Nexus video reviews of the 5600X and 5800X, and the clear conclusion they arrive at time and time again is that Intel's 10 series sits right in the middle of Zen 2 and Zen 3.

Ie the Intel 10600 was in most games beating the AMD 3700X, 3800X, 3900X.

And now the 5600X is - at 1080p at least - beating the 10900 in some games.

But from where do you get statements like "Zen 2 beat most of Intel's range in gaming"? Is this "jiggernomics"?
 
FoxEye said:
According to whom?

I've just been watching the Gamer's Nexus video reviews of the 5600X and 5800X, and the clear conclusion they arrive at time and time again is that Intel's 10 series sits right in the middle of Zen 2 and Zen 3.

Ie the Intel 10600 was in most games beating the AMD 3700X, 3800X, 3900X.

And now the 5600X is - at 1080p at least - beating the 10900 in some games.

But from where do you get statements like "Zen 2 beat most of Intel's range in gaming"? Is this "jiggernomics"?
Click to expand...

The 10 series was a year or so after the 3000. It’s performance is motherboard dependent too. So according to reality Zen 2>Intel.
 
If Intel dominate then on Latencymon i will skip AMD tbh. I asked for some figures on the other thread. It is easy to do download Latencymon click play and run it and a game windowed so you can see the reading in realtime.

Intel were really good i would get 55us max in any game on Z87 and thats a 5 year old platform. I want to see AMD numbers to see what they achived. 50ns is a good memory figure, But the realtime system latency matters as much for snappyness.
 
FoxEye said:
Would you buy a single core AMD for £300 if it beat the 10900k at single-thread/single-core performance, and would that make it great value at one quarter the price?

Because there sure are plenty of places where the 10900k out-performs a 5600X, as you know. There are also plenty of cases where a 5950X and a 10400 and a 5600X all perform exactly the same.

The trouble is, everybody here is using different metrics to suit themselves.
Click to expand...

In this case we are talking purely as a gaming CPU, more often than not it does out perform a 10900K and its much cheaper.

for a master of all trades its the 5900X. Or 5950X
 
Rofflay said:
If Intel dominate then on Latencymon i will skip AMD tbh. I asked for some figures on the other thread. It is easy to do download Latencymon click play and run it and a game windowed so you can see the reading in realtime.

Intel were really good i would get 55us max in any game on Z87 and thats a 5 year old platform. I want to see AMD numbers to see what they achived. 50ns is a good memory figure, But the realtime system latency matters as much for snappyness.
Click to expand...


What is that? Does it measure time from button click to action on screen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom