• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Question Gaming: Ryzen 7 3800XT or i7-10700k?

Dave3000

Senior member
Jan 10, 2011
969
13
81
I right now have an i7-4930k with a GTX 1080 ti but I want to see better performance in gaming and be prepared for FS2020. Should I go for the i7-10700k or the Ryzen 7 3800XT? I don't need more than 8 cores for gaming right now, so I see no point in a 3900X or 3950X (even though I can afford those) for just gaming right now or any time soon, especially since the upcoming PS5 and XBox Series X are going to have 8-core/16-thread CPUs.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,604
8,460
136
Well, even though the 10700k might be a shade faster, the 3800XT gives you the option to upgrade in a few months when Ryzen 3 comes out.
 

Dave3000

Senior member
Jan 10, 2011
969
13
81
So do I, but I don't really prioritize value in my purchase decisions. Also I think a 3700x is a much better value than the 10700k but I know that I would rather have a 10700k than a 3700x for gaming, especially if I can afford a 10700k. I just want to get the best for my purposes and within reason.
 

JasonLD

Senior member
Aug 22, 2017
300
262
106
So do I, but I don't really prioritize value in my purchase decisions. Also I think a 3700x is a much better value than the 10700k but I know that I would rather have a 10700k than a 3700x for gaming, especially if I can afford a 10700k. I just want to get the best for my purposes and within reason.
Well, depends on your overall budget on your rig. Settling on 3700x will allow you to get better components around your rig (memory, GPU, cooling, Power) if you are set on certain budget. Otherwise, if you don't mind spending extra $150 on CPU, 10700k is best for gaming.
If you can wait (4-5 months), I think waiting for Zen 3 based processor might be more worthwhile. It is entirely up to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elfear and Tlh97

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,371
5,281
136
Only way 3800XT makes any sense is if you are committed to tuning it for high clocks and high memory speeds, and a 10700k might still pull out on top if used strictly for gaming.

Why don’t get a higher core count cpu then? Like 10900k or 3900x?
10900k might not be significantly better except for the larger L3, though the bin will be better. 3900x can actually be inferior to 3800X/3800XT in gaming since 3900x is all over the map in its max OC while 3800x at least has a rep for hitting 4.4-4.5 GHz all-core OC. Matisse is better in games with all-core OC once your clocks start going above 4.2 GHz in nearly any modern game. Plus of course you will want to aim for DDR4-3800 CL 14. I think that would/should be the goal regardless of your platform.

If you can wait until October blah blah blah, but hey not everyone can wait. Plus I feel a little bad telling people to wait for the XT CPUs in June (hah!) when they were really not that exciting after all. Zen3 will, of course, be a big change, but that is in three months, and some people just don't want to wait for a limited launch of 12c and 16c products (even if the new cores will probably be stunningly good).
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,562
1,031
126
This is an interesting situation. For most gaming scenarios, even a 10600k is faster at stock than the fastest OC tuned Zen2 XT.

However, there are a couple of exceptions where the gap is fairly small, and the case of Counter Strike Source where it's basically tied, which seems to be a case where the game is so old (closing on two decades!) where the most crucial elements of the game actually fit inside the generous Zen2 cache, bypassing the latency limitations of the Zen chiplet architecture.

Latency being a bit worse on Zen2 is irrelevant to 99% of things outside of gaming, because you're dealing with predictable, serialized loads (encoding, compression, distributed computing ala folding/SETI) which are not as sensitive to it.

Both are more than fast enough for all generic light duties of web, office apps, etc, but general purpose and heavy compute scenarios simply favor Zen2, often by enormous margins when also considering the costs and power consumption.

Circling back to gaming, if you absolutely had to buy something over the next few days and wanted the best overall gaming options, they would be the 10600k, 10700k, and 10900k. 6C/12T 10600k is the best value of the three, and I find the 10900k a bit silly, as 10C/20T is not enough of an advantage over the 8C/16T 10700k to be worth the exaggerated price and aggressive cooling requirements. With a typical nice AIO or big air cooler like a Noctua DH15 Chromax, I think the 10600/700 would be actually superior in terms of keeping a more consistent all core OC vs the i9.

BUT, we are only a few days away from FS2020 moving from a limited alpha build to a public beta, which will probably be fairly representative of final performance. Given that it looks to be an extremely sophisticated and demanding title, if you are most interested in building a strong PC for this title specifically, it will be worth waiting to see what the actual performance is like with current hardware.

Questions such as :

Does it scale to very high core counts? If so, it might make a case not only for the i9, but the 3900/3950 could potentially outpace Intel in this title.

Does it on the other hand scale poorly past 6 Cores? In this case, a 10600k might make the most sense, or in the event it runs particularly well on Zen2, perhaps a 3600/3600X/3700 build.

Is it something like F1 where all the common CPUs run it well past normal refresh rates? Maybe this will let you spend less on CPU now, and plan on a drop in CPU upgrade in a few years.

Is it GPU or CPU bound at your expected display resolution and refresh rate? It's a world of difference attempting 1440/144 vs 4k/60 for example, and with Freesync/Gsync, a situation with fluctuations between 110-130 is totally fluid, while the same GPU might struggle to lock 4k/60, which is VERY jarring when you have drops under 60, and can experience tearing and input lag. The ramifications of these limitations drastically change where you need performance.

4k/60 you need an abundance of GPU grunt but not much in the way of CPU to maintain the most demanding titles at smooth framerates, while 1440p VRR, you are actually needing both solid GPU as well as CPU performance to hit those goals.

Two PCs doing 4K/60 with a 2080 Super, but one being a Ryzen 3300X and one being a 10900K OC, you would not be able to tell the difference between them in virtually any gaming scenario. As long as the CPU side of the minimums is beyond 60fps, you would never be able to see any reduction from having a $120 CPU vs a $700(?) one. But change that to 1440p mixed settings and 144hz, and suddenly you see big differences as even a 9900K/10700K/10900K at max tuned OC is STILL too slow to maintain 144fps in the most demanding titles no matter how strong your GPU is. Lower the settings to 800x600 and everything minimum and these heavy games still can't maintain 144 with current CPUs.

 
  • Like
Reactions: guachi and Tlh97

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,371
5,281
136
This is an interesting situation. For most gaming scenarios, even a 10600k is faster at stock than the fastest OC tuned Zen2 XT.
Not really sure if I agree with you there. 8c+ Matisse @ 4.5 GHz + DDR4-3800 14-14-14-28 is not something to dismiss out-of-hand. There haven't been that many benches of a combo like that, especially since it is so hard to hit those clocks with anything but the 3800x/3800XT. Of course if you put the same effort into the Intel rig then things change. But stock? Nahhh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,000
1,523
136
Tis might sound like a crazy suggestion but here it goes: buy a solid X570 board and 3600(non-X). It should do well gaming wise and will be a good chip for multi-tasking (plus it's CHEAP). In 3-4 months upgrade to a Zen3 12 core, it will cost like 3900XT now, maybe a tad more. BUT, it should be head and shoulders above both 3800XT and 10700K in gaming. Productivity wise, it will be a slaughter.
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,185
531
136
Tis might sound like a crazy suggestion but here it goes: buy a solid X570 board and 3600(non-X). It should do well gaming wise and will be a good chip for multi-tasking (plus it's CHEAP). In 3-4 months upgrade to a Zen3 12 core, it will cost like 3900XT now, maybe a tad more. BUT, it should be head and shoulders above both 3800XT and 10700K in gaming. Productivity wise, it will be a slaughter.
Where have we heard this before? Wait, like every other AMD release in the last decade, or so? It's funny how you lump both the 10700k and 3800XT together as if they're in the same league - gaming wise. Intel has lower core/clocked chips that are better in gaming.

How confident are you that Zen 3 will outdo Comet Lake S in gaming? Comet Lake is highly overclockable and tunable. He could get Comet Lake S now and upgrade the CPU (only) to Rocket Lake S, too, when that releases for even more (gaming) performance.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: spursindonesia

Magic Carpet

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2011
3,260
67
91
10900k might not be significantly better except for the larger L3, though the bin will be better. 3900x can actually be inferior to 3800X/3800XT in gaming since 3900x is all over the map in its max OC while 3800x at least has a rep for hitting 4.4-4.5 GHz all-core OC. Matisse is better in games with all-core OC once your clocks start going above 4.2 GHz in nearly any modern game. Plus of course you will want to aim for DDR4-3800 CL 14. I think that would/should be the goal regardless of your platform.
That is, of course, true.

My point was, come 3080 Ti this fall and we might actually see more of a difference with these higher-core-count CPUs. There are already game engines that can take advantage of more than 16 threads, for example. And I'd rather have more cores @ stock than overclocking fewer ones leading to excessive power consumption, but that's just me.

1595504106408.png 1595504326180.png


If you can wait until October blah blah blah, but hey not everyone can wait. Plus I feel a little bad telling people to wait for the XT CPUs in June (hah!) when they were really not that exciting after all. Zen3 will, of course, be a big change, but that is in three months, and some people just don't want to wait for a limited launch of 12c and 16c products (even if the new cores will probably be stunningly good).
Zen 3 is going to be worth the wait, if all of those leaks are true, imo.
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,000
1,523
136
How confident are you that Zen 3 will outdo Comet Lake S in gaming? Comet Lake is highly overclockable and tunable. He could get Comet Lake S now and upgrade the CPU (only) to Rocket Lake S, too, when that releases for even more (gaming) performance.
Very confident. Not only against CML but Vs Rocketlake as well. They both will look silly, there will be no reason to buy them unless intel goes massive price cut route.

BTW,
Computerbase did a test with frametimes/fps @ 720p, 9900KS is 2% faster than 3900XT when frametimes are in question and 4% faster than 3900XT in pure fps. They used 2080Ti FE for a GPU, so top of the line graphics card for a super low resolution testing.
https://www.computerbase.de/2020-07/amd-ryzen-9-3900xt-7-3800xt-5-3600xt-test/3/#abschnitt_fps_und_frametimes_in_720p
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,185
531
136
Very confident. Not only against CML but Vs Rocketlake as well. They both will look silly, there will be no reason to buy them unless intel goes massive price cut route.

BTW,
Computerbase did a test with frametimes/fps @ 720p, 9900KS is 2% faster than 3900XT when frametimes are in question and 4% faster than 3900XT in pure fps. They used 2080Ti FE for a GPU, so top of the line graphics card for a super low resolution testing.
https://www.computerbase.de/2020-07/amd-ryzen-9-3900xt-7-3800xt-5-3600xt-test/3/#abschnitt_fps_und_frametimes_in_720p
So, according to that test the 9900ks and 3900xt are statistically tied, more or less? Yet a 5GHz oc'ed 3950x lost to 9900k? We'll be revisiting this thread in the near future. :)
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,000
1,523
136
So, according to that test the 9900ks and 3900xt are statistically tied, more or less? Yet a 5GHz oc'ed 3950x lost to 9900k? We'll be revisiting this thread in the near future. :)
You can contact computerbase if you doubt their credibility, I'm sure they will be glad to reply to your concerns.

PS Cannot wait for the demolition Zen3 will do :)
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,562
1,031
126
Not really sure if I agree with you there. 8c+ Matisse @ 4.5 GHz + DDR4-3800 14-14-14-28 is not something to dismiss out-of-hand. There haven't been that many benches of a combo like that, especially since it is so hard to hit those clocks with anything but the 3800x/3800XT. Of course if you put the same effort into the Intel rig then things change. But stock? Nahhh.
I hear you, it sounds kind of crazy, but it's true (in the overwhelming majority of benchmarks). GN actually got 4.6(!) with their fastest Zen2, and the extra cores meant basically nothing for either Intel or AMD above 6C/12T in almost everything, hence the very strong showings for 3600/10600 overall, and even the 3300X all things considered. This is with 1.9(!!!)GHz IF, and incredibly aggressively tuned DDR4.


Edit : re-reading this, I realized I didn't make it clear that I was speaking specifically regarding gaming and 6C/12T by their tests, obviously scaling non gaming workloads and professional workflows can benefit enormously with 8C/16T and beyond. I also agree that if someone can afford it, bumping up to 8C/16T for gaming with a 3700X or 10700K is entirely reasonable as well. It's very likely to pay off in future titles more often, and although someone could upgrade later, it's just as understandable to go ahead and buy it now. Where I sort of draw the line personally is 10C and beyond, which I do feel is a needlessly expensive step for purely gaming, and not really effective yet. By the time it IS useful to have 10 or 12 cores for gaming, it will mean much faster options of Zen3 and beyond will be available anyway.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and tamz_msc

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,562
1,031
126
So, according to that test the 9900ks and 3900xt are statistically tied, more or less? Yet a 5GHz oc'ed 3950x lost to 9900k? We'll be revisiting this thread in the near future. :)
I'm not trying to be rude to Computerbase, as I understand that particularly with the Non K parts, it's reasonable to match them with the typical slow DDR4 as is limited with the B series mobos (eg; garbage, but 'okay' for desktop use), yet matching it with K series CPUs on Z series mobos is almost head scratchingly stupid.

In that 'test', they state DDR4-3200 CL14 was used for Ryzen, which is ehhh. I mean, it's fine I guess. Honestly 3600 of higher range but not exotic memory would make sense for all higher end CPUs, as I doubt a whole lot of 3950X buyers would be struggling so much as to have to buy low end 3200 speed Ram, which means giving up on 1:1 ratio IF speeds, which DOES limit Zen2 gaming performance.

However, they used DDR4 2666 C14 for a 9900K? Just laughable.

Hardware Unboxed did a DDR4 performance scaling test on the 9900K (stock clock, no OC!) and found that most applications were not very sensitive to memory bandwidth, but that in CPU limited gaming scenarios the gap simply between 3000 and 4000 was ~14%.

Now 4000 speed may not be necessary, as there is a point at which price vs performance at the last ticks of the scale doesn't make sense for everyone, and most of that gap can be hit by getting 3600 and nice timings, which is extremely affordable these days.

Every single 'max' SKU is priced at a premium beyond the benefit.

3950X vs 3900X
2080ti vs 2080 Super
10900K vs 10700K
DDR4 4000+ vs DDR4 3600

However, there is a point where matching higher end parts with budget stuff also doesn't make sense, and is unbalanced or crippling.
 

Attachments

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,627
2,296
106
Yeah a tuned 3600XT with memory speed and latency that is achievable with a very high-end B-die kit is just barely matching the 10600K at stock. The 10600K when tuned and overclocked is at least another 10% ahead. The same tuning when applied to a 10900K would put it at least 15% ahead of tuned Zen 2. Zen 3 might be able to equalize that gap with Comet Lake, but Rocket Lake? I'm not hopeful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,259
2,490
136
So do I, but I don't really prioritize value in my purchase decisions. Also I think a 3700x is a much better value than the 10700k but I know that I would rather have a 10700k than a 3700x for gaming, especially if I can afford a 10700k. I just want to get the best for my purposes and within reason.
Well, if money isn't an object - then personally, if I was building just a gaming system, I'd go with the 10700K (and very fast RAM). I love my 3900x, but gaming isn't my top priority. If you are not building in the next couple of months, then personally, I'd wait for Zen3. Good luck with you build. Drop us a line about your impressions when you are done!
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,562
1,031
126
Yeah a tuned 3600XT with memory speed and latency that is achievable with a very high-end B-die kit is just barely matching the 10600K at stock. The 10600K when tuned and overclocked is at least another 10% ahead. The same tuning when applied to a 10900K would put it at least 15% ahead of tuned Zen 2. Zen 3 might be able to equalize that gap with Comet Lake, but Rocket Lake? I'm not hopeful.
All we can honestly do is wait and see. I guess I could put myself down as 'hopeful', but not 'expecting'.

When you really think about it, Zen2 is overall the superior platform for almost everything already, and the monolithic die and ultra low latency ring bus architecture of Intel's offerings really seems to only pay off in extreme duty gaming scenarios as well.

I have to reality check myself regularly to observe that although in fact Intel is notably and measurably faster as a pure gaming option, that it's under the most high end scenarios. Take for example the 10600K stock and tuned XT comparison. Unquestionably the 10600K *is* better at this on average, particularly when both are tuned.

Now take that same comparison and run it with 5600XT or 2060 Super and 60hz display. Suddenly the two systems become indistinguishable. Even a 3300X or 10400f or i3 10100 and you are suddenly limited by other situations.

As for Zen3, all we can do is wait and see what happens. 🤷👍
 
  • Like
Reactions: blckgrffn and Tlh97

senttoschool

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,428
170
106
That is, of course, true.

My point was, come 3080 Ti this fall and we might actually see more of a difference with these higher-core-count CPUs. There are already game engines that can take advantage of more than 16 threads, for example. And I'd rather have more cores @ stock than overclocking fewer ones leading to excessive power consumption, but that's just me.

View attachment 26587 View attachment 26588



Zen 3 is going to be worth the wait, if all of those leaks are true, imo.
That's pretty cool. One of the few times I've seen a benchmark where 16+ threads actually benefit.

Six core processors like the 3600x or 10600 will age poorly in gaming even though they're good value right now. The PS5/XSX era will accelerate parallel processing in PC gaming for sure.
 

gk1951

Member
Jul 7, 2019
72
45
51
What resolution monitor are you gaming on?

From most test results I see, the difference in FPS for similarly priced Intel and AMD cpus narrows as the resolution increases to 1440 then to 4k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Arkaign

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,562
1,031
126
What resolution monitor are you gaming on?

From most test results I see, the difference in FPS for similarly priced Intel and AMD cpus narrows as the resolution increases to 1440 then to 4k.
When it comes to to 60hz gaming, it does more than narrow, it outright vanishes. I think the 3300X makes the best 60hz gaming CPU today, with a nice budget B450 and 16GB of 3600 Ram.
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
6,955
427
126
In general you won't notice the difference between a 3700X/3800X and a 10700k. There are a couple scenarios however where the Intel chip may provide a noticeable uptick in performance:

1) You game at 1080p, have a high refresh monitor, and a very powerful GPU (2080S/2080Ti).
2) You game at 1440p, have a high refresh monitor, use lower graphics settings to match your framerate with your refresh rate, and have a very powerful GPU.
3) You plan on overclocking the crap out of 10700k and have a high refresh monitor.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY