Friday, April 3rd 2020

Ryzen 7 3700X Trades Blows with Core i7-10700, 3600X with i5-10600K: Early ES Review

Hong Kong-based tech publication HKEPC posted a performance review of a few 10th generation Core "Comet Lake-S" desktop processor engineering samples they scored. These include the Core i7-10700 (8-core/16-thread), the i5-10600K (6-core/12-thread), the i5-10500, and the i5-10400. The four chips were paired with a Dell-sourced OEM motherboard based on Intel's B460 chipset, 16 GB of dual-channel DDR4-4133 memory, and an RX 5700 XT graphics card to make the test bench. This bench was compared to several Intel 9th generation Core and AMD 3rd generation Ryzen processors.

Among the purely CPU-oriented benchmarks, the i7-10700 was found to be trading blows with the Ryzen 7 3700X. It's important to note here, that the i7-10700 is a locked chip, possibly with 65 W rated TDP. Its 4.60 GHz boost frequency is lesser than that of the unlocked, 95 W i9-9900K, which ends up topping most of the performance charts where it's compared to the 3700X. Still the comparison between i7-10700 and 3700X can't be dismissed, since the new Intel chip could launch at roughly the same price as the 3700X (if you go by i7-9700 vs. i7-9700K launch price trends).
The Ryzen 7 3700X beats the Core i7-10700 in Cinebench R15, but falls behind in Cinebench R20. The two end up performing within 2% of each other in CPU-Z bench, 3DMark Time Spy and FireStrike Extreme (physics scores). The mid-range Ryzen 5 3600X has much better luck warding off its upcoming rivals, with significant performance leads over the i5-10600K and i5-10500 in both versions of Cinebench, CPU-Z bench, as well as both 3DMark tests. The i5-10400 is within 6% of the i5-10600K. This is important, as the iGPU-devoid i5-10400F could retail at price points well under $190, two-thirds the price of the i5-10600K.
These performance figures should be taken with a grain of salt since engineering samples have a way of performing very differently from retail chips. Intel is expected to launch its 10th generation Core "Comet Lake-S" processors and Intel 400-series chipset motherboards on April 30. Find more test results in the HKEPC article linked below.
Source: HKEPC
Add your own comment

97 Comments on Ryzen 7 3700X Trades Blows with Core i7-10700, 3600X with i5-10600K: Early ES Review

#1
sam_86314
Wonder if people will find a way to get these LGA 1200 chips to work in 1151 boards. The general pad layout looks very similar.

Or maybe Intel completely messed up the pinouts on these chips so that wouldn't work.
Posted on Reply
#2
Arcdar
So for an Intel build the best P/L still is with the 8700k -- or if you go with AMD the 3600X to get the most for the Money. Everything above that is not worth the Performance increase for the Price-premium.

But interesting to see how the 8700k and the 3600x are compared to the "new flock" of Intel 10th gen.



Of Course, all of this is early numbers, not the final CPU'S (there are still some slight changes to be expected from Eng-samples to the final product) and a generic OEM-Board which also influences the numbers compared to the later Tests on "high end consumer boards" (it doesn't MASSIVELY Change the numbers bit still will Show a noticable difference to this test here). Like I said, won't Change the world, but I'm curious About the final testing / Performance and how it compares to the 2700x and 8700k ((which both look more and more like really nice ways to upgrade regarding Price-Drops which could/should be expected in that market :) ))
Posted on Reply
#3
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
sam_86314
Wonder if people will find a way to get these LGA 1200 chips to work in 1151 boards. The general pad layout looks very similar.
The key notches are different. It won't fit.
Posted on Reply
#4
londiste
Arcdar
But interesting to see how the 8700k and the 3600x are compared to the "new flock" of Intel 10th gen.
8700K was a $360 CPU 3 years ago. 9600K is a $260 CPU that usually sells for $210. If Intel keeps that pricing or reduces it, 10-series might be competitive.
In that comparison, 8700K will suffer from security issues while 10600 has most of them fixed in hardware.

The more curious graph from the HKEPC story is this one though:
Posted on Reply
#5
Arcdar
londiste
8700K was a $360 CPU 3 years ago. 9600K is a $260 CPU that usually sells for $210. If Intel keeps that pricing or reduces it, 10-series might be competitive.
In that comparison, 8700K will suffer from security issues while 10600 has most of them fixed in hardware.
True, but I was Talking more About the "current Prices on the market". I'm curious how the new ones will be, but I'm still happy the 8700k might be a good alternative for my GF's pc to upgrade her machine (even though I have to see if it's worth it changing her from her e5-2690v2 + 2060super …. even with the 3.8G max-turbo it performs more than well enough for 1440p in Division2 and might still be enough for cyberpunk2077 which is all she cares About anyway ^^).

Regarding the security issues I'd be really concerned if I'd be using it in Company Hardware, a Server or in an Environment where it really affects me. Here I just care About the Performance loss for the fixes that are out there and "enough for my Needs" --- and as Long as the 8700k performs roughly like it does Right now it's still more than a viable Option (Looking at the mobo+cpu Prices compared to 9th gen and 10th gen Prices). Yes, regarding that I could also look at the 2700x or 3600x on AMD-Side, but it is what it is and she wants to Keep her Intel logo ^^ (and I love her too much to argue About something like that :D *lol* )
Posted on Reply
#6
watzupken
I think the question is how much power is this i7 10700 really drawing when outperforming the R7 3700X? Its locked from people manually overclocking it, but does not mean that it will not draw over and above the TDP when it boost, since we already know how this TDP works for Intel. Moreover, what is stopping people from getting extra performance by overclocking the 3700X while you can't do the same for the i7 10700? There is no magic bullet here since this is still pretty much a 14nm chip, no different from a Coffee Lake chip. At this point they can only beat AMD Zen 2 is really by pushing clockspeed hard and matching price.
Posted on Reply
#7
londiste
watzupken
I think the question is how much power is this i7 10700 really drawing when outperforming the R7 3700X?
Twice, for the worst use cases like the AIDA64 FPU one they have in the HKEPC article - 176W vs 91W.
Posted on Reply
#8
Flaky
btarunr
The key notches are different. It won't fit.
Just like 771 cpus in 775? :p
If intel didn't change most of the socket's pinout it may be possible.
Posted on Reply
#9
Caring1
Flaky
Just like 771 cpus in 775? :p
If intel didn't change most of the socket's pinout it may be possible.
Pretty sure the 771 notches are the same, only the pin layout is different.

Edit: I remember cutting the tabs in the socket with a hot knife, then using the sticker mod.
Posted on Reply
#10
CapitanXeon
Caring1
Pretty sure the 771 notches are the same, only the pin layout is different.
771 notches are different. You need to cut either the socket of the motherboard or make new notches on the CPU, which is generally what i did because i'm not confident enough to put a knife into a socket.
Posted on Reply
#11
Dredi
londiste
Twice, for the worst use cases like the AIDA64 FPU one they have in the HKEPC article - 176W vs 91W.
65W indeed, just with a +- 170% margin. :’-)
Posted on Reply
#12
Harry Palms
I wonder what Intel is thinking? New chipset for new CPU's, so new motherboards, so more expensive to go this route. "New" CPU's deliver nothing significant as far as performance compared to AMD, which allows you to run it's latest CPU's on 300 series boards. I'm no fanboy at all. Just seems like Intel is desperate at this point just to make ends meet.
Posted on Reply
#13
efikkan
Harry Palms
I wonder what Intel is thinking? New chipset for new CPU's, so new motherboards, so more expensive to go this route. "New" CPU's deliver nothing significant as far as performance compared to AMD, which allows you to run it's latest CPU's on 300 series boards. I'm no fanboy at all. Just seems like Intel is desperate at this point just to make ends meet.
Yes, it is very expensive and requires a lot of resources throughout the company to push a new short-lived platform. But then again, OEMs and motherboard partners expect "new" stuff, which is probably the main reason for releasing this platform.

While the Comet Lake-S platform might not be very exciting to us end users, it will not be a bad platform either. It's yet another Skylake with two more cores, more aggressive boosting and some tweaks, so I think we all have a good idea of where it will land performance wise. Conscious PC buyers should always look to benchmarks relevant to their use case; e.g. the Cinebench scores are only relevant if you plan to use Cinema4D, and specific benchmarks like this should not be extrapolated into generic performance. The Skylake architecture already performs excellently in workloads like Photoshop, Premiere, web browsing and programming, so these CPUs are relevant for plenty of users. The bigger problems for Comet Lake-S are two things; energy efficiency (which matters to some) and market relevance if Zen 3 is looming.
Posted on Reply
#14
Vayra86
btarunr
The key notches are different. It won't fit.
Nothing a knife won't fix! :D
Posted on Reply
#15
basco
computerbase tells us that the 176 watt i7-10700 was on a b460 entry level mobo
Posted on Reply
#16
ppn
176 on that naked 4 phase motherborad seems risky. 20-40 watts is lost in the power phases as heat. So you dont hav to run it at default voltage you know. 1 volt could be just fine, and down to earth 100 watts total cpu+vrm inefficiency. Unless it is partially unlocked 4 bins that means 5.00 Ghz sweet.

Can it safely pull more than 150 watts on 4 pin at all. how is it not burning.
Posted on Reply
#17
Darmok N Jalad
If performance is similar, I just see AMD knocking down their price to win out on value and thermals. It wouldn’t take much, since Intel can’t/won’t compete as well on price. AMD just needs to hold on until 4000 series. I’m curious how supply will be with these new chips as well. It’s gotta be pushing 14nm pretty hard.
sam_86314
Wonder if people will find a way to get these LGA 1200 chips to work in 1151 boards. The general pad layout looks very similar.

Or maybe Intel completely messed up the pinouts on these chips so that wouldn't work.
Considering 10th gen lets thermals really go out the window, I’d suspect they had to change things around in order to add more power delivery to the chip. Isn’t there a 10 core model planned?
Posted on Reply
#18
medi01
The order in which CPUs are listed in the title is confusing.
Posted on Reply
#19
londiste
Darmok N Jalad
If performance is similar, I just see AMD knocking down their price to win out on value and thermals. It wouldn’t take much, since Intel can’t/won’t compete as well on price.
"Won't" might be a thing. Intel definitely can if they want to. Intel has smaller dies and more margins to cut especially if you consider Intel keeps the manufacturing profit as well which goes to TSMC for AMD CPUs.
Based on pictures in the source article Intel is still/again using the 6-core dies for 10600K. Think about it this way - Ryzen 3000 CPUs are 125mm^2 12nm IO die plus 75mm^2 7nm CCD die. Intel's 6-core is 149mm^2 14nm die. Intel 8-core die is 175mm^2 which should still be very good in terms of manufacturing cost. Hell, even 10-die is ~200mm^2 which is right where Zen/Zen+ dies were.
Posted on Reply
#20
efikkan
Comet Lake-S features 6-core and 10-core dies, "cut" down as needed.
Posted on Reply
#21
Steevo
Lol, so Intel is selling gen 8 tech with the same security flaws with a couple more cores and higher TDP, has the balls to demand a new mobo as well?


What am I missing? Is this a joke?
Posted on Reply
#22
claster17
ppn
176 on that naked 4 phase motherborad seems risky. 20-40 watts is lost in the power phases as heat. So you dont hav to run it at default voltage you know. 1 volt could be just fine, and down to earth 100 watts total cpu+vrm inefficiency. Unless it is partially unlocked 4 bins that means 5.00 Ghz sweet.
It should be fine if the boost only lasts for a few seconds.
Can it safely pull more than 150 watts on 4 pin at all. how is it not burning.
That 4pin can easily sustain 150W. It's designed for 8A per +12V for a total of 192W.
Steevo
Lol, so Intel is selling gen 8 tech
It will be the 5th iteration of Skylake, so technically still gen 6.
Posted on Reply
#23
Outback Bronze
claster17
It will be the 5th iteration of Skylake, so technically still gen 6.
Yep, gone well past long in the tooth..
Posted on Reply
#24
watzupken
Harry Palms
I wonder what Intel is thinking? New chipset for new CPU's, so new motherboards, so more expensive to go this route. "New" CPU's deliver nothing significant as far as performance compared to AMD, which allows you to run it's latest CPU's on 300 series boards. I'm no fanboy at all. Just seems like Intel is desperate at this point just to make ends meet.
There is nothing significantly new in the supposed "new" chipset. I feel one of the main driver for a "new" chipset is because existing boards may not keep up with the power requirements of these new chips. At the top end, where the boards are overbuilt, perhaps, but not in the mid or low end.

For me the worst part about getting this new chipset is that I believe there is no upgrade path ahead for it. I read apparently the next gen Intel CPU is going to require a new socket. So this 4xx series chipset is an upgrade dead end.
Steevo
Lol, so Intel is selling gen 8 tech with the same security flaws with a couple more cores and higher TDP, has the balls to demand a new mobo as well?


What am I missing? Is this a joke?
The security flaws discovered to date should likely be fixed at the silicon level.

No you are not missing anything, this "new" chip is basically a Skylake on steroids.
Posted on Reply
#25
R0H1T
watzupken
There is nothing significantly new in the supposed "new" chipset. I feel one of the main driver for a "new" chipset is because existing boards may not keep up with the power requirements of these new chips. At the top end, where the boards are overbuilt, perhaps, but not in the mid or low end.

For me the worst part about getting this new chipset is that I believe there is no upgrade path ahead for it. I read apparently the next gen Intel CPU is going to require a new socket. So this 4xx series chipset is an upgrade dead end.
This isn't new, selling new chipsets is a big business for Intel & planned obsolescence arguably a bigger one!
watzupken
The security flaws discovered to date should likely be fixed at the silicon level.

No you are not missing anything, this "new" chip is basically a Skylake on steroids.
The performance hit will still be there, people need to get this out of their head that hardware fixes will not result in any performance loss!

Extra cache, besides higher clocks, being the biggest difference.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment