AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT CPU Benchmarked Against Intel Core i5-10400, Matches The Gaming Performance But At Higher Price Point

[cucker tarlson]

AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT CPU Benchmarked Against Intel Core i5-10400, Matches The Gaming Performance But At Higher Price Point

The gaming benchmarks of AMD's Ryzen 5 3600XT 6 Core CPU have leaked out and compared to Intel's cheapest Core i5 chip, the Core i5-10400.

wccftech.com

 

[Fourstaff]

I don't think 3600XT will ever get any bang for buck awards, but the new 10x00 i5s are doing quite well in gaming.

 

[cucker tarlson]

I don't think 3600XT will ever get any bang for buck awards, but the new 10x00 i5s are doing quite well in gaming.

yeah dunno who's gonna buy this with 3600/3600x

 

[ratirt]

I don't think 3600XT will ever get any bang for buck awards, but the new 10x00 i5s are doing quite well in gaming.

Maybe but the 3600XT has a MSRP just like 3600X had during launch date. The bang for buck for the 3600XT is not as impressive but still it is not bad and it is obvious the 3600X price must have dropped a bit.

 

[Fourstaff]

Maybe but the 3600XT has a MSRP just like 3600X had during launch date. The bang for buck for the 3600XT is not as impressive but still it is not bad and it is obvious the 3600X price must have dropped a bit.

Yup, 3600X is likely going to retain the bang for buck title until it gets EOL'ed. Or even the non X version.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I just don't get the AMD / Ryzen games thing. Facts don't support AMD being the gamer's choice.

Here is a fact: Overall every single Ryzen CPU is beaten by an i3-10320 running 3200Mhz DDR4 in games on TPUs test suite of games.

Here's another fact: The i3-10100 (a $108 chip on Amazon at this moment) beats every single Ryzen CPU in the same tests above except the 3600X and 3700X (and presumably 3800X if it were listed).

This is also true of many other sites actual bench results. Yet, same sites, recommend AMD for games (except GN, who recommends a 10600K as the best gaming CPU).

I think I figured out why. Watching a youtuber yesterday, he stated that anytime he says AMD wins vs intel, he gets lotsa like and subs. If he says the opposite, he gets unsubs and dislikes. These people make a living this way, so it's pretty obvious what they're going to say.

Let the excuses and equivocations for AMD begin.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I just don't get the AMD / Ryzen games thing. Facts don't support AMD being the gamer's choice.

Here is a fact: Overall every single Ryzen CPU is beaten by an i3-10320 running 3200Mhz DDR4 in games on TPUs test suite of games.

Here's another fact: The i3-10100 (a $108 chip on Amazon at this moment) beats every single Ryzen CPU in the same tests above except the 3600X and 3700X (and presumably 3800X if it were listed).

This is also true of many other sites actual bench results. Yet, same sites, recommend AMD for games (except GN, who recommends a 10600K as the best gaming CPU).

I think I figured out why. Watching a youtuber yesterday, he stated that anytime he says AMD wins vs intel, he gets lotsa like and subs. If he says the opposite, he gets unsubs and dislikes. These people make a living this way, so it's pretty obvious what they're going to say.

Let the excuses and equivocations for AMD begin.

View attachment 160959

You know a lot of pc owner's that just game, I know one out of near a hundred people who Only game's on his pc and he doesn't give the slightest shit so long as 1080p 60 is possible.

Few really need the 5-10% no 2-3% FPS at 1080p, simple.

Most do more than just. Game.

 

[cucker tarlson]

I just don't get the AMD / Ryzen games thing. Facts don't support AMD being the gamer's choice.

Here is a fact: Overall every single Ryzen CPU is beaten by an i3-10320 running 3200Mhz DDR4 in games on TPUs test suite of games.

Here's another fact: The i3-10100 (a $108 chip on Amazon at this moment) beats every single Ryzen CPU in the same tests above except the 3600X and 3700X (and presumably 3800X if it were listed).

This is also true of many other sites actual bench results. Yet, same sites, recommend AMD for games (except GN, who recommends a 10600K as the best gaming CPU).

I think I figured out why. Watching a youtuber yesterday, he stated that anytime he says AMD wins vs intel, he gets lotsa like and subs. If he says the opposite, he gets unsubs and dislikes. These people make a living this way, so it's pretty obvious what they're going to say.

Let the excuses and equivocations for AMD begin.

View attachment 160959

While Intel is still the fastest for gaming,that doesnt mean ryzens are slow.
And they're power efficient.come with a cooler.can be paired with cheaper mobos and still use faster ram.
I use Intel myself cause all I want is gaming performance and my 10500 gives me higher overall gaming performance than 3700x but theres plenty of reasons to get a ryzen and I think if youre an inteligent person they should not be difficult to think of.

 

[RandallFlagg]

You know a lot of pc owner's that just game, I know one out of near a hundred people who Only game's on his pc and he doesn't give the slightest shit so long as 1080p 60 is possible.

Few really need the 5-10% no 2-3% FPS at 1080p, simple.

Most do more than just. Game.

Reality check.

Most people watch youtube videos, pay bills, maybe apply for credit cards, lookup maps, play on twitter or facebook, and shop.

None of those things is a problem for any of the Intel processors listed, and in some of those cases the intel boxes are superior (it's a tossup on web benchmarks).

I'm also specifically citing articles about "Best gaming PC" builds which you conveniently ignored. Best gaming PC builds are Intel, that's what the facts say.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Reality check.

Most people watch youtube videos, pay bills, maybe apply for credit cards, lookup maps, play on twitter or facebook, and shop.

None of those things is a problem for any of the Intel processors listed, and in some of those cases the intel boxes are superior (it's a tossup on web benchmarks).

I'm also specifically citing articles about "Best gaming PC" builds which you conveniently ignored. Best gaming PC builds are Intel, that's what the facts say.

I didn't ignore anything I answered the question I wanted to.

Most are fine with a phone then no.

But we are not talking those.

And we are not discussing work PC.

Reality check , you won't catch me trying to push processors for either company.

But to say you Have to buy one or the other based on one use case to me is strange, I couldn't give a rat's ass what you or anyone else buys, and I'm not here pushing AMD but to pretend that one or the other brand is now defunct, Cos 3-5fps is ridiculous, always was.

If the above are competitive, Good, price war please Intel/AMD.

 

[kapone32]

Reality check.

Most people watch youtube videos, pay bills, maybe apply for credit cards, lookup maps, play on twitter or facebook, and shop.

None of those things is a problem for any of the Intel processors listed, and in some of those cases the intel boxes are superior (it's a tossup on web benchmarks).

I'm also specifically citing articles about "Best gaming PC" builds which you conveniently ignored. Best gaming PC builds are Intel, that's what the facts say.

Neither are they an issue for the 3000G. The other thing is streaming and if you tell me that doesn't matter I will show you Twitch. Watching Youtube videos is part of AMD's rise so Gaming PC has a very wide definition. The CPU is not the Gaming Processer unit but the Central processing unit, meaning it handles everything. Even on an objective level AMD makes so much more sense than Intel. BTW you cannot find a 3300X for sale anywhere in Canada. I have 4 requests for that build or upgrade.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Intel wins at power consumption - 6c/12t :

Intel wins at games 6c/12t :

 

[DemonicRyzen666]

Wasn't this proven to be fake ?
At least that was what I read on Tom's hardware.

 

[Fourstaff]

Stay on topic. Last warning.

 

[thesmokingman]

Wasn't this proven to be fake ?
At least that was what I read on Tom's hardware.

I think they're too busy to notice it was faked.

 

[Frick]

'Im also specifically citing articles about "Best gaming PC" builds which you conveniently ignored. Best gaming PC builds are Intel, that's what the facts say.

For best of the best sure, but say best for a given price it gets murkier when you factor in the whole build, what to go back on, what is considered good enough, and current market prices.

 

[AsRock]

Reality check.

Most people watch youtube videos, pay bills, maybe apply for credit cards, lookup maps, play on twitter or facebook, and shop.

None of those things is a problem for any of the Intel processors listed, and in some of those cases the intel boxes are superior (it's a tossup on web benchmarks).

I'm also specifically citing articles about "Best gaming PC" builds which you conveniently ignored. Best gaming PC builds are Intel, that's what the facts say.

Maybe you should be saying thank you for buying AMD as it it made Intel lower their prices.

I got mine part due to being one of those who don't need extreme fps, been a hell long ass time since i built a AMD set up which was a Athlon 64 3800x2 ($350 at the time ). So it was part a matter of principle and the fact of 12c+24t for less than $420 never mind a mobo for that chip under $155.

Support those who help to bring the prices down. Not those who say it cannot be done until the competition prooves other wise then suddenly they can.

And all the Intel security flaws, they all fixed yet ?, any more performance hits going to happen ?.

 

[phanbuey]

I just don't get the AMD / Ryzen games thing. Facts don't support AMD being the gamer's choice.

Here is a fact: Overall every single Ryzen CPU is beaten by an i3-10320 running 3200Mhz DDR4 in games on TPUs test suite of games.

Here's another fact: The i3-10100 (a $108 chip on Amazon at this moment) beats every single Ryzen CPU in the same tests above except the 3600X and 3700X (and presumably 3800X if it were listed).

This is also true of many other sites actual bench results. Yet, same sites, recommend AMD for games (except GN, who recommends a 10600K as the best gaming CPU).

I think I figured out why. Watching a youtuber yesterday, he stated that anytime he says AMD wins vs intel, he gets lotsa like and subs. If he says the opposite, he gets unsubs and dislikes. These people make a living this way, so it's pretty obvious what they're going to say.

Let the excuses and equivocations for AMD begin.

View attachment 160959

it's definitely an underdog thing.

That being said:

$230 CPU + Cooler + mobo combo... WITH an upgrade path so you can just plop another CPU in it next year. Intel just cant limbo at that level, and they're about to lose high end too.

They win right now, but the wins are kind of meaningless - AMD is slapping them on pricing and upgrade path, which are a bigger deal than a few FPS here or there or a few watts.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Intel wins at power consumption - 6c/12t :

View attachment 160988

Intel wins at games 6c/12t :

View attachment 160990

true.
but there's only a few specific skus that are worth buying and mainly if your focus is gaming.the locked i5s and i7s are super nice perfromers and in gaming they're damn efficient in that 4.0-4.5G range.
I wouldn't buy the K anymore.not worth it.for the price of 10600K I got a 10500 and 16 gigs of 4133 ram.Literally same price.

ryzens entire lineup except for 3800x is just much more sensibly priced,more so if you factor in b450 vs b460.ffs intel can't make a mid range board that runs 3200 when amd have had one since 2017.

I don't have a problem still choosing intel,but to say ryzen 3000 sells cause yt channels push them for likes is not entirely true.
Yes,some of the channels have become trash,but 3000 and am4 have more than enough merit to ignore them and make a r3000 purchase a conscious decision.

 

[HenrySomeone]

I just don't get the AMD / Ryzen games thing. Facts don't support AMD being the gamer's choice.

Here is a fact: Overall every single Ryzen CPU is beaten by an i3-10320 running 3200Mhz DDR4 in games on TPUs test suite of games.

Here's another fact: The i3-10100 (a $108 chip on Amazon at this moment) beats every single Ryzen CPU in the same tests above except the 3600X and 3700X (and presumably 3800X if it were listed).

This is also true of many other sites actual bench results. Yet, same sites, recommend AMD for games (except GN, who recommends a 10600K as the best gaming CPU).

I think I figured out why. Watching a youtuber yesterday, he stated that anytime he says AMD wins vs intel, he gets lotsa like and subs. If he says the opposite, he gets unsubs and dislikes. These people make a living this way, so it's pretty obvious what they're going to say.

Let the excuses and equivocations for AMD begin.

View attachment 160959

Bingo! I've been saying that for years now. Due to the combination of the already mentioned underdog thing and hordes of fanboys on the internets (many are that probably precisely because of the former, the rest remember the good ol' days of Athlons / XP / 64s and could never grasp that in 2006 all that changed) AMD gets much and I repeat, MUCH more praise than it deserves from most outlets. But it's especially annoying (and deceiving) to push them even for gaming when in reality they are still very noticeably behind. With the release of the 10th gen, the only cpu that sort of makes some sense in its class is the 3300X (depending on price of course), while 10400f already beats everything team red has to offer, not to mention 10600k and above. The only real fault with Intel's platform(s) is the lack of memory OCing on non-Z boards, but seeing as decent Z490 boards (decent for non-k chips at least) can be had for around 160$, even that's not too much of an issue. Many also love to point out their crappy stock coolers, which is fair enough perhaps, but AMD's ones are barely any better, especially the "Stealth". Prism is sort of ok temperature wise, but is insufferably loud (out of several first-hand experiences). Realistically, if you're planning a mostly gaming build (and often also if you will only game occasionally, depending on your primary use, but generally everything except heavy rendering) and have to buy new mobo either way, you should look no further than Intel.

but there's only a few specific skus that are worth buying and mainly if your focus is gaming.the locked i5s and i7s are super nice perfromers and in gaming they're damn efficient in that 4.0-4.5G range.
I wouldn't buy the K anymore.not worth it.for the price of 10600K I got a 10500 and 16 gigs of 4133 ram.Literally same price.
ryzens entire lineup except for 3800x is just much more sensibly priced,more so if you factor in b450 vs b460.ffs intel can't make a mid range board that runs 3200 when amd have had one since 2017
I don't have a problem still choosing intel,but to say ryzen 3000 sells cause yt channels push them for likes is not entirely true.
Yes,some of the channels have become trash,but 3000 and am4 have more than enough merit to ignore them and make a r3000 purchase a conscious decision.

So, you finally did it! No surprise you went 1200, but I can't quite agree that k-skus aren't worth it anymore, especially the 10600k. The ones above are more questionable indeed - 10700f for instance gives a true monster performance when properly matched with the right mobo and ram. Still though, with your components you're all set to plop a Rocket Lake 8/16 bad boy in somewhere down the line and that one will likely outmatch AMD until they get on 3nm, lol.

 

[cucker tarlson]

So, you finally did it! No surprise you went 1200, but I can't quite agree that k-skus aren't worth it anymore, especially the 10600k. The ones above are more questionable indeed - 10700f for instance gives a true monster performance when properly matched with the right mobo and ram. Still though, with your components you're all set to plop a Rocket Lake 8/16 bad boy in somewhere down the line and that one will likely outmatch AMD until they get on 3nm, lol.

I absolutely wanted an igpu.I know F-series are good gaming performers for the money,but face it,where are you going to get a new display output for just a few bucks premium.troubleshooting a dgpu,in between cards,just plug it into your mobo and run windows like before.10500 is also 300mhz higher clocked than 10400f,not a lot but 10400f at 850 vs 10500 at 950 is no contest for me.

10600K - no thanks.Performance is there,but face it,only way you're gonna get that extra 8-10% over 10500 is via agrresive overclock and I don't feel like throwing away the efficiency that comet-s achieves under 4.5GHz.Games that pulled 70W from my 5775c are now at 40-45W.Locked i5 + fast ram (I actually changed 3733 to 4133) was a planned idea.And with RKL I'll be buying an i5 too.if I ever need one.
ATM my new system runs at +85 fps where my 5775c struggled to keep a steady 60.I wasn't expecting that much performance increase really but I'll take it.

we're OT and the wccft article turned out to be bogus (whaddya know ).I think 3600x +100mhz performance is easy to guess anyway.the price should be lower to compete with 10400 and 10500.

 

[RandallFlagg]

still choosing intel,but to say ryzen 3000 sells cause yt channels push them for likes is not entirely true.
Yes,some of the channels have become trash,but 3000 and am4 have more than enough merit to ignore them and make a r3000 purchase a conscious decision.

It isn't just yt, websites are ad revenue funded too and you need look no further than these forums to see what their customer demands.

There are other factors at work too I believe. The people who write reviews themselves have a workload, and view the world from that perspective. The most intense portion of that workload is generally video editing. This is where Ryzen shines, and for them this is 'productivity', but is that productivity for everyone else? TPU is one of the few sites that gives a comprehensive set of benchmarks for multiple use cases, but even here they are heavily concentrated on video / media encoding. How many media encoding tests do we have? Two different versions of Cinebench, Blender, h264. h265, more?

For me productivity is largely how fast a Visual Studio .Net application compiles, and performance under VMWare. These are areas where Intel/AMD pretty much trade blows. I recently saw someone ask about AutoCad, and of course people piled in for AMD. Guess what? Intel is faster running AutoCad, straight up.

AMD definitely has their merits but the use cases are more narrow than generally believed.

 

[HenrySomeone]

Yup, all the skewed reviews and fanboy-fueled "advice" make quite a number of previously neutral people go AMD, even if Intel would actually be a better choice. But I guess those of us who aren't fooled as easily should be somewhat grateful because even with all the Ryzen sales, Intel still has shortages. If those sales were more in accordance with actual performance, quality, stability and reliability (i.e. way lower), Intels would probably be considerably more expensive due to them simply not being able to satisfy all the demand...

 

[cucker tarlson]

there's a lot of stuff that reviewers forget.
the thing about an igpu - it's always dismissed.from my experience you don't need it for most of the time.I only used it for a couple of days when I sold my cards and once when I needed to trooubleshoot my pc.that's the whole point tho - you gonna buy a dgpu for those couple of ocassions when you need basic display ?

there's also power,and how it's tested - it's always idle and full load with a stress test.
no one tests usual loads,like browser and video playback.and once you do - this may shock intel 14++++++++ hecklers
but I guess "1.45v in idle is normal for r3000,it's how it works" like they always tell us.

they're obviously ignoring the fact that software like da vinci uses cuda acceleration now and it's super fast.
streaming - nvenc paired with a cheap cpu is as good as a 8/16 streaming on cpu.but the "ryzen for streaming" point is still raised.


but how good are these channels going to be.
hwunboxed ran a 10400 video that had more commentary than tests. nitwit is going the same way.

 

[RandallFlagg]

And that's exactly what TPUs gaming power load shows on the 10400. Most games aren't going to max your CPU out unless you have an older 4c part. Even the K parts don't do badly on power when they aren't overclocked - and they are faster in base form.

I did some looking at streaming benchmarks a while back and basically found what you're saying - NvEnc and QT are what most real streamers are using. The only benchmarks I found were on GN site and they were old, didn't use gpu encoders, but showed an 6 core 8700K handily defeating the 8 core 1700 in both streaming and non streaming.

I wouldn't expect the 3600XT to do anything more than beat the Intel i3 lineup on games, which the 3600/3600X are losing now. The 3600XT might become competitive with an i5-10400/10500, but probably with a much worse power comparison (which the 3600/3600X already loses per previously posted charts). This really shouldn't be news to anyone actually paying attention to the benchmark results.