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

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,776
Anyone think this will happen? I was gonna grab a 3600 or 3600X soon but I may very well wait.
Just buy a 3700x today. I wouldn't buy a 3600 today with the next gen consoles being 8 core and being able to score a 3700x for $279 (I currently own a 3600, it's great)
 

Bankie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
2,001
the 3700x embarrasses the 7700k in every benchmark on this page including power usage.

https://forums.oculusvr.com/communi...intel-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i7-8700k-and-i7-7700k

so when are you buying one?

I upgraded from a 7700k @ 4.9 to a 3700X. With a 2080TI at 1440P gaming performance in modern titles is pretty much the same with them only being 1-5 fps different (RDR2 & Assassin's Creed Odyssey). In a handful of games the 7700k is far faster (League of Legends, Far Cry Primal). All in all it's pretty much a wash for gaming.
 

Master_shake_

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
17,795
I upgraded from a 7700k @ 4.9 to a 3700X. With a 2080TI at 1440P gaming performance in modern titles is pretty much the same with them only being 1-5 fps different (RDR2 & Assassin's Creed Odyssey). In a handful of games the 7700k is far faster (League of Legends, Far Cry Primal). All in all it's pretty much a wash for gaming.
because at 1440p you are gpu limited.

those benchmarks i posted are at 720p

where the cpu is the limitation
 

Bankie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
2,001
because at 1440p you are gpu limited.

those benchmarks i posted are at 720p

where the cpu is the limitation

Yeah, so if you're running a real GPU at a real resolution they're either the same or the 7700k will come out well ahead like in LoL or FC: P.
 

vegeta535

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
8,853
My 2700X while running HandBrake will get as hot as 65C, but then again I'm using a custom loop. I hear 9900K's typically run 90C while air cooling.
Hot. I had a 7820x that got up to almost 90c under custom loop before I delided. It then ran in the upper 70s. My 3950x under the same loop kisses 70c. This while keeping my fans at 50% and whisper quite vs having them cranked to 75% on the 7820x. Granted I was overclocking it to 4.8ghz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
29,857
Just buy a 3700x today. I wouldn't buy a 3600 today with the next gen consoles being 8 core and being able to score a 3700x for $279 (I currently own a 3600, it's great)

That's one way to look at it. The other is to buy a 3600 now and just upgrade to the 4XXX part later this year or when the 6 core starts to show its weaknesses. I don't think you'll have heavily optimized games initially.

I recently picked up a 3600 for $160 during an Amazon sale. Usually the 3700x is $280 on sale. I mean that last two cores is expensive. Right now I'm not sure you'd notice a huge difference in gaming (I didn't notice a difference between a 3600, 3600x, 3800x, or 3900x) in real world testing. They were all plenty fast for gaming at 1440p in my case.
 

fullvietFX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
2,015
My 2700X while running HandBrake will get as hot as 65C, but then again I'm using a custom loop. I hear 9900K's typically run 90C while air cooling.

I will get to 80 C when gaming sometimes on newer titles. It’s an awesome CPU but man it’s hot and loud.
 

1_rick

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
2,674
Anyone think this will happen? I was gonna grab a 3600 or 3600X soon but I may very well wait.

Well, it's already $270 if you are local to Microcenter--and that's $10 down from just a month ago. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets that low but probably not until the 4000 series comes out. So, as always, it comes down to "no matter when you buy it it'll be cheaper tomorrow/something better comes out tomorrow". Might as well get it now if you need an upgrade, or not if you don't.
 

SPARTAN VI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
8,366
because at 1440p you are gpu limited.

those benchmarks i posted are at 720p

where the cpu is the limitation

So doesn't that support the argument that he should just keep his 7700K until there's at least 10% performance bump in games that people play at real-world resolutions & settings? Defeats the whole purpose if the only place we see a 10% gaming performance margin is when we dump the resolution to 720/768P and lowest settings. I also upgraded from an i7-6700 to a 3700X, virtually no difference in 1440P and 4K performance (and wasn't expecting any).
 

Master_shake_

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
17,795
So doesn't that support the argument that he should just keep his 7700K until there's at least 10% performance bump in games that people play at real-world resolutions & settings? Defeats the whole purpose if the only place we see a 10% gaming performance margin is when we dump the resolution to 720/768P and lowest settings. I also upgraded from an i7-6700 to a 3700X, virtually no difference in 1440P and 4K performance (and wasn't expecting any).

he said thread performance which at 720p the amd does in spades.

you know when the cpu is being taxed to the fullest

you guys are looking at gpu bound scenarios.
 

SPARTAN VI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
8,366
he said thread performance which at 720p the amd does in spades.

you know when the cpu is being taxed to the fullest

you guys are looking at gpu bound scenarios.

Ah true, I thought I'd read he was looking at primarily gaming workloads, but he'd only mentioned gaming once. Carry on. (y)
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,776
That's one way to look at it. The other is to buy a 3600 now and just upgrade to the 4XXX part later this year or when the 6 core starts to show its weaknesses. I don't think you'll have heavily optimized games initially.

I recently picked up a 3600 for $160 during an Amazon sale. Usually the 3700x is $280 on sale. I mean that last two cores is expensive. Right now I'm not sure you'd notice a huge difference in gaming (I didn't notice a difference between a 3600, 3600x, 3800x, or 3900x) in real world testing. They were all plenty fast for gaming at 1440p in my case.

Valid argument.

I guess you could say if you don't want to upgrade starting off with 8 core 16 thread is a better idea now, if you plan on going 4000 series a 3600 might be a better idea now.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
29,857
The more I read, it sounds like the 10700 is going to be priced closer to the 3700x at around $300. The 10900 is going to be some $500+. The 10600 sounded like it was going to be sub-$200.

This is according to techspot.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
The more I read, it sounds like the 10700 is going to be priced closer to the 3700x at around $300. The 10900 is going to be some $500+. The 10600 sounded like it was going to be sub-$200.

This is according to techspot.

that may be MSRP but given they still can't even produce enough 9 series cpu's i'd venture to say that you'll never see 10 series at msrp after launch day.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
60,654
My 9900KF only uses around 120W IIRC at 5Ghz. It shouldn’t be that hard to cool... it’s only an 8 core CPU.

That's at idle conditions. Under full load and while overclocked the 9900K pulls considerably more power than that.

1586270472917.png


Even under turbo boost conditions, you can ignore the TDP ratings. They are meaningless. More than that, the 9900K isn't "just an 8 core" CPU. It's a 14nm CPU at extremely high clock speeds. It isn't a very efficient process when you have 8+ CPU cores in the same package running at the necessary clock speeds to remain competitive. It isn't as if you can take AMD's 7nm processors or something else and extrapolate the power consumption of an Intel CPU as though an 8 core CPU couldn't possibly use that much power or be horribly inefficient because they absolutely can.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
29,857
that may be MSRP but given they still can't even produce enough 9 series cpu's i'd venture to say that you'll never see 10 series at msrp after launch day.

You may never see the 10 series after launch day period. Depending on the progress with Rocket Lake...

Maybe it ends up being like mainstream "Broadwell." I don't think I've ever actually seen a 5775C in person.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,964
That's at idle conditions. Under full load and while overclocked the 9900K pulls considerably more power than that.

View attachment 236146

Even under turbo boost conditions, you can ignore the TDP ratings. They are meaningless. More than that, the 9900K isn't "just an 8 core" CPU. It's a 14nm CPU at extremely high clock speeds. It isn't a very efficient process when you have 8+ CPU cores in the same package running at the necessary clock speeds to remain competitive. It isn't as if you can take AMD's 7nm processors or something else and extrapolate the power consumption of an Intel CPU as though an 8 core CPU couldn't possibly use that much power or be horribly inefficient because they absolutely can.

I was talking about just the CPU (and OP i was responding to was addressing gaming). I would imagine your numbers are total system usage?
 
Top