Intel i5-10600K vs Ryzen 7 3700X

[Peter97]

Hi there,

 

As I wrote before on this post I am still looking for the optimal build to fly DCS in FHD with the RTX2070.

 

I want to know what your opinion is about the Intel i5-10600K vs Ryzen 7 3700X.

 

Why do I choose those ones you say? Well, they fit just fine within my budget (around 1600€) and I have read these are optimal now for a gaming pc of this price.

 

The thing is, both are great CPU's but the i5 has less cores/threads than the Ryzen but has higher CPU clock frequency.

 

That being said, thats why I want to know which one will perform better in DCS.

[Leaderface]

I´ve read that 10600K will OC very easily, so, if you end up with a good memory, for me, it seems the better choice. And you can be on par with a stock 10700K very easily.

But I sugest you to wait only 10 days to those Ryzen 3700XT not because they will be on par (allthought they will be near), but because you probably will see 10600K prices relaxing a bit.

You will be fine on that machine untill Ryzen 3 on year fall.

Just be sure not to blame you when the new Nvidia cards arrive in October. (Just that).

 

Enjoy it!

Edited June 26, 2020 by Leaderface

[reece146]

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

That's before OC

 

 

<Synthetic benchmark comments apply>

[BeastyBaiter]

I suspect the 10600k is the better option for DCS. Stock it probably doesn't matter but my 10600k hit 5.0GHz with trivial effort. 1.31v is all it took, no additional tinkering needed. It's my understanding the current Ryzen chips are basically maxed out from the factory, so no overclocking headroom to play with. You can bump the all core boost up some but will sacrifice single thread in the process, so that's a bad thing for DCS.

 

Using the benchmark software linked above, my 10600k at 5.0GHz at 1.31v gets 3176 in single thread. They list it at 3013 which is a mix of overclocked and stock results I think. Their Ryzen 7 3700x score is 2681. Overall the Ryzen 7 is the superior CPU, but in DCS specifically (and many other games), the i5-10600k still wins when overclocked. You can see this in plenty of online reviews from groups like hardware unboxed and gamers nexus on youtube. None of them are particularly fond of Intel either, for their usage it's Ryzen or nothing since their stuff takes advantage of the extra cores. But they show plenty of game results too.

[reece146]

Agree, Ryzen is architecturally and technically superior and from what I've read stable overclocking is in the 100-200MHz range (i.e. meh).

 

When I build a new workstation for... like... work... (so many threads... bwaahahahaha) I will likely spec Ryzen 9 but for single core gaming Intel is still the one to go with IMO.

 

 

Caveat - Intel for DCS. Any other gaming software it seems like a wash.

Edited June 26, 2020 by reece146

[Sn8ke_iis]

Personally, I'd go with the 10600K just because I enjoy overclocking.

 

That being said, I'd bet you would see no frame rate difference at 1080p with a 2070S as the GPU would be your limiting factor. You'd need a 2080 Ti or something from the high end of the new 3000 series to actually see a frame rate difference. Just an educated guess from all the benchmarks I've seen. Might make a difference in VR in CPU limited situations.

[Wali763]

What people tend to forget with newer (10th gen) Intel-CPUs that they cause additional costs for cooling, at least the 10700K and 10900K. But also the 10600K can draw quite some power. PL2 is (I think) 180W. And thats before OC. So good cooling is required, which are some additional 100e+.

 

AMDs (not the new XTs) have a reasonably cooler included but OC will also require a better cooling-solution. But OC on AMDs renders only small gains anyway.

 

If you stay at stock, AMD is probably the better choice. But if you want to OC Intel for sure is better, tjough more costly.

 

I would not go for the new XTs from AMD since they offer only some 5% gain, but are way more expensive and dont have a cooler. And there wont be a 3700XT.

 

Id like to point to another CPU, namely the I5-9600K Im using. 80e cheaper than the 10600K bur only a few % slower. My CPU oc"s to 5,2GHz (kind of) stable, but since I dont want it to run at 1,38V Vcore 24/7 Im down to 5GHz at 1,28V. If you only use it for DCS this could be a good solution. But in a more general use-scenario only 6cores seems too little nowadays..

 

Other Intel 8th or 9th gen CPUs (8700K, 9700K) dont seem so interesting, since they are priced way to high...

[Leaderface]

And, as Vertigo72 used to say, don´t substimate the memory subsystem.

It seems new XT Ryzen will have a 2.000 Mhz Infinity fabric that translate to DDR4 at 4.000 Mzh for optimum results.

I don´t think we can subestimate AMD so frequently.

See that:

I know an Intel 6600K is not a 10600K but the gains in DCS FPS translating to AMD and a speedier memory is awsome there.

I just would like to see someone runing DCS on those new XTs AMDs on a DDR4 at 4.000 Mhz.... Maybe that wouldn´t be so far from the 10600K. (Maybe).

Unfortunately we would have to wait a year and half to see AMD transitioning to DDR5.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Leaderface

[Beirut]

I went with the 3700X. Comes with a good cooler, good clock speeds, and those 8 cores and 16 threads are definitely gonna get used somewhere.

 

There's no doubt the 10600K is really good, but the price difference here was noticeable. $50 more for the CPU and I'd still have to buy a cooler on top of that. Honestly, at this level of expenditure, given that "this CPU" gets 117FPS on GTA V" but "that CPU gets 128FPS on Tomb Raider", maybe it's as simple as buy-what-you-like.

 

I had the image in mind of replacing my old 4-core with a big fat 8-core/16/thread CPU with that nice RGB cooler on it and the little Ryzen logo - so I bought it. And if someone wants a 6-core dragster with a fancy aftermarket cooler on top, and it makes them happy - buy it.

[StoOopiD]

And, as Vertigo72 used to say, don´t substimate the memory subsystem.

It seems new XT Ryzen will have a 2.000 Mhz Infinity fabric that translate to DDR4 at 4.000 Mzh for optimum results.

I don´t think we can subestimate AMD so frequently.

See that:

I know an Intel 6600K is not a 10600K but the gains in DCS FPS translating to AMD and a speedier memory is awsome there.

I just would like to see someone runing DCS on those new XTs AMDs on a DDR4 at 4.000 Mhz.... Maybe that wouldn´t be so far from the 10600K. (Maybe).

Unfortunately we would have to wait a year and half to see AMD transitioning to DDR5.

 

i want a XT :doh:

 

here it is i7-10700k vs. 3700x

keep in mind that the i7 has a higher clock

[BitMaster]

Those 24 vs 20 lanes alone is worth considering AMD over Intel. The platform has more advantages in the deep.

 

You can set your new GPU ( PCIev4 ) to 8x mode and still have plenty bandwidth in addition to another x16 slot with the same bandwidth ( for a 2nd GPU, a 2x.NVMe AIB, 10GB network ) all directly connected to the CPU.

 

I have only built AMD for the past...15-18 months. Not a single customer, friend, family regrets that I convinced them.

 

Sure, I am happy with my 8700k's performance, no doubt, but it comes with a lot of hassle and heat and bugs and flaws I have yet to encounter on those ~10 AMD's I have built.

[reece146]

The number of lanes is an important consideration. In my case i made sure to get a motherboard that has 2 PCIe_x16 slots that can both do x8 when both are populated while giving 4 lanes for M.2 connected to the CPU for an NVME drive. That's 20 lanes. The rest of the lanes go through the chipset.

 

 

 

A lot of Intel based motherboards offer two or more PCIe slots but then do things like x8,x4[,4] which may or may not matter depending on use case. Probably doesn't matter with Crossfire/SLI/NVLINK since the bandwidth is going over NVLINK but if you are not joining the cards separately then it matters I think.

[Dudikoff]

Sure, I am happy with my 8700k's performance, no doubt, but it comes with a lot of hassle and heat and bugs and flaws I have yet to encounter on those ~10 AMD's I have built.

 

Bugs and flaws? Any issues besides those related to Intel IRST drivers?

[Sn8ke_iis]

But also the 10600K can draw quite some power. PL2 is (I think) 180W. And thats before OC. So good cooling is required, which are some additional 100e+.

 

This was constantly stated by tech "journalists" before the new Intel chips were even released. It didn't really bear out in the performance data. AMD has a really effective marketing team that uses those articles and social media. Best to look at benchmark data for your use case. Unfortunately, in our case, except for games in general that favor single core performance, no one has done a breakdown of how the different CPUs compare in DCS.

 

With a 10600K a good Noctua air cooler is all you need if you are on a budget.

 

On my system while playing DCS a 9900K draws about 60-70 watts at stock settings. For most people current draw is an overstated issue. I've tested my chip drawing 200w + but only during stress tests, never playing games.

 

Unless you have multiple computers in a small room rendering 24/7 for $ paying European rates for electricity, most people won't notice any difference in power draw.

 

This guy is one of my new favorite content creators. He actually compared power draw for the different CPUs. This was on stock settings. As you can see, the 10600K (6 core) draws the least, the 3900X (12 core) draws the most. The two 8 core CPUs are neck and neck. Depends on the game and even what part in the game. Only a few watts difference.

 

 

In the US, assuming you are not buying from scalpers, the 10600K is cheaper than the 3700X. I'd put the savings towards a 2080 S GPU or fast, low latency RAM. Then you'd see a performance benefit in games.

 

OP, to answer your question, no one here can definitively say which one will be faster in DCS. If I was building a system just for gaming and DCS I would go with the 10600K. If I was planning on also using it for rendering, encoding, compiling, etc. I'd consider going with the 3700X. Either way I'm confident your experience in DCS would be agnostic to either CPU. If you did a blind comparison, I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference without looking at a frame rate counter.

[reece146]

One thing that always gets glossed over in the benchmarks comparing Intel to AMD is that even when they are sometimes mostly equivalent there is still a sizable difference in the 1% and 0.1% frame rates between platforms (Intel having higher/better numbers).

 

I think these benchmarks are a lot like bench racing car engines - people will quote top HP and TQ numbers but completely ignore the area under the curve.

[BitMaster]

Bugs and flaws? Any issues besides those related to Intel IRST drivers?

 

There is more than just that IRST driver that is really annoying tbh, whenever I watch a long video it is almost certain that it haunts me with a brrrrrrr sound hang until it recovers.

 

There is the sleep bug, but tbh, I dont know if an AMD with same periphery would maybe suffer the same flaw.

 

I want two NVMe "and" keep my 6 Sata attached...but I have to drop 2 Sata for 2nd NVMe, AMD can have that, only with the thrird NVMe it drops Sata. AMD also gives you the option to go x8 x8 with the 2 PCIe x16 slots. That's another option I would like to have....while on 8xPCIe v4 and a v4-GPU you have still enough bandwidth for current cards.

 

 

3rd..and maybe most important. With the recent updates, Bios, FW installs for Intel ME and Microcodes I have dropped considerably behind a stock clocked 8700k around a year ago in Cinebench R20. I run 5G all-Core and this default 8700k in the databank from Cinebench gains 500 points more ( around that ), 3300 vs 3800 points. How come ??

 

 

My next rig will for sure be an AMD if Intel doesn't change it's policy. Same likely with Nvidia.

 

 

I can also make use of as much cores as I can afford due to my VMware things, given that memory and I/O can keep pace on Desktop chipsets. I think 16 cores is borderline with our memory capabilities on any of the Intel/AMD Desktop chips. Many cores tend to do a lot of things if used properly and that may soon collide with 2-channel memory DDR4, imho and world. Same goes with I/O aka multiple NVMe.

 

Yeah, I'd love that 3900XT :D

Edited June 27, 2020 by BitMaster

[Peter97]

Those 24 vs 20 lanes alone is worth considering AMD over Intel. The platform has more advantages in the deep.

 

You can set your new GPU ( PCIev4 ) to 8x mode and still have plenty bandwidth in addition to another x16 slot with the same bandwidth ( for a 2nd GPU, a 2x.NVMe AIB, 10GB network ) all directly connected to the CPU.

 

I have only built AMD for the past...15-18 months. Not a single customer, friend, family regrets that I convinced them.

 

Sure, I am happy with my 8700k's performance, no doubt, but it comes with a lot of hassle and heat and bugs and flaws I have yet to encounter on those ~10 AMD's I have built.

 

Why do you say more lanes provide better performance for DCS?

 

Also, why do I always read DCS takes advantage of single core performance?

 

Doesn't DCS operate with all the cores the CPU has?

 

Many questions... hehehe

[Motomouse]

If you can not decide between Intel and AMD for DCS. Take Intel!

 

AMD is the hipper processor and better overall. I am on a 3600X myself.

 

But if you have to ask and DCS is your primal instinct, Intel!

[Falcon_S]

...

 

I want to know what your opinion is about the Intel i5-10600K vs Ryzen 7 3700X.

 

...

 

Why do I choose those ones you say?..

 

Ryzen 7 3700X

 

Beacuse you will be so happy, DCS will work smooth and outside of DCS you will see more power from Ryzen 7 3700X CPU. Simple.

[Sn8ke_iis]

[quote=Peter97;4403300}

 

Also, why do I always read DCS takes advantage of single core performance?

 

Doesn't DCS operate with all the cores the CPU has?

 

Many questions... hehehe

 

To answer your second question, No, DCS only uses 3 cores. The core that is handling the graphics rendering thread that sends draw calls to the GPU is the one that will bottleneck and decrease framerate, cause stutters, etc. The other 2 cores are sitting around waiting most of the time. This single core bottleneck is common to most games, not just DCS.

 

Now an application that will actually use and scale with cores and threads is a rendering program like Cinema4D or Blender. If you run a benchmark in Cinebench, you can see the program split up the rendering job into "tiles". If you do a single core/thread test it will render one tile at a time. For a multicore test on my system it will render 16 tiles at a time, 8 when I turn off Hyperthreading corresponding to the 8c/16t of my CPU. For this type of computation, it's relatively easy to split the work up among cores and threads and see a performance benefit.

 

Now for gaming graphic engines rendering in real time it's not so easy to split up work among threads and still keep everything in sequence. We notice if the AI doesn't shoot right or a missile doesn't track properly.

 

Intel consistently wins in gaming benchmarks because of clockspeed, low latency, and overall sinlgle core performance. Again, when comparing these CPU benchmarks make note of the GPU used. It's a 2080 Ti to rule that out as a limiting factor. You won't see the same differentiation if you are using a 2070 S as that will likely be the limiting factor.

 

And I concur with what a previous poster said about 1 and 0.1% low comparison. They are a good objective metric of framerate drops that you'll actually notice. Frametime graphs as well.

[BitMaster]

Why do you say more lanes provide better performance for DCS?

 

Also, why do I always read DCS takes advantage of single core performance?

 

Doesn't DCS operate with all the cores the CPU has?

 

Many questions... hehehe

 

I didn't explicitly say more lanes is better for DCS, it is overall better. More lanes means more devices connected that can communicate uninterrupted by other data streams going in & out.

 

I definitly like the idea of 2 NVMe, both directly attached, 1x OS and 1x Apps/Games. Call me old fashioned.

[Motomouse]

regarding the 1% FPS:

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1955-ryzen-3950x-vs-core-i9-9900ks-gaming/

 

The comparision is not so simple like you make it appear :-)

[Sn8ke_iis]

regarding the 1% FPS:

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1955-ryzen-3950x-vs-core-i9-9900ks-gaming/

 

The comparision is not so simple like you make it appear :-)

 

That's a really good benchmark but there really isn't much in the way of explanation regarding 1% lows. It was more about memory tuning. Unless I missed a paragraph as I skimmed it. The 3950X is a good chip. From the benchmarks I've seen it has the best single core of AMD's current lineup. Haven't seen any XT benchmarks yet. It's a $750 chip in the States though. You can buy a binned 10600K and a custom cooling loop for that. The 3950X is for people who cant afford Threadrippers and want to do production work. I wouldn't recommend it just for gaming.

 

The 1% low is the average frame rate of the lowest 1 percentile. It's what you are more likely to perceive as a stutter. I seriously doubt even pro gamers can tell a 10-20 framerate difference at high framerates without looking at a counter.

 

Frametime graphs are nice as well. You want a nice smooth line for whatever your target frametime is. e.g. 16.7ms for a 60 fps framerate.

 

I'm really interested to see the new gen of AMD chips and how they do in gaming. Even if it's just on an enthusiast level machine and wins by a few frames it will be an impressive accomplishment. I can just see all the online nerd fights that will ensue. Intel will be right on their heels with a new uarch release though. It's a great time as CPU consumer. Now if we can get this kind of competition in GPUs...

[Leaderface]

I'm really interested to see the new gen of AMD chips and how they do in gaming. Even if it's just on an enthusiast level machine and wins by a few frames it will be an impressive accomplishment. I can just see all the online nerd fights that will ensue. Intel will be right on their heels with a new uarch release though. It's a great time as CPU consumer. Now if we can get this kind of competition in GPUs...

Let´s see that Ryzen3 vs Rocket Lake competition. At the end of the year?....

prety sure on the AMD side, but Won´t put any money betting that Intel will be on track with those chips at the end of the year.

Even the actual Comet Lake-S appeared with a notable delay.

But let´s see: Those willow cove cores should bring a notable IPC gain to the actual desktop architecture (but maybe they can´t go as hi on Mhz, so.....)

This christmas will be a feast of hardware novelties

[Motomouse]

At least there is some real competition ongoing. Fun to watch and follow.