Intel i3-10100 CPU Review vs. AMD Ryzen 3 3300X, 3100, & i7-7700K Benchmarks
video description
Date: 2020-06-08
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
John
gamersnexus. I'd like to see a real world, dollar for dollar comparison between Intel and AMD's current line up. I think you guys have done a pretty good job,especially with the 10100 and 10400 as they are intended for low end motherboards and have a cooler in the box that's good enough to get the job done. Sadly it seems most if not all tech media has been comparing 10600k OC to a 3600 or at best a 3700x in all the reviews I've seen. I'm just not sure this is a fair comparison. While I have no doubt that even a stock 10600k is going to push more FPS than anything AMD has to offer, I wonder if the added boost in productivity might sway some buyers that don't mind losing 10 or 20 FPS on their games in order to cut their render times in half with a 3900x. That's the comparison I'd like to see. From benchmarks I've been able to dig up, the 3900x runs just fine on it's included box cooler at stock speeds, where as a solid OC on the 10600k is going to need a 100+ cooler to get that OC stable. From what I can see name brand, 240mm AIO's run 120- 150, I'll call it 100. Add to that that the 3900x will also run just fine at stock speeds on a a moderately priced B450 board, say a MSI Tomahawk that retails normally for around 120. a z490 board of the same quality will set you back at least 200, and probably more than that for one well suited to a stable OC. Lets call it 200 on the mother board. This leaves the Intel platform costing an easy 180 more than the AMD platform without the CPU. While data is sketchy, it seems the 10600k will sell for around 280-300. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say 280, while the 10900k will be something like 500. At the end of the day, then, for a 10600k system that can hit that OC, you're looking at spending 600. On the AMD side, that leaves you with 480 in your pocket to buy a CPU, making the 3900x the closest thing, dollar for dollar to the 10600k overclocked, plus an extra 80 to put in to a nicer mother board, or more likely, faster ram.
TLDR version, please benchmark Intel vs AMD at same cost all in. a 3600 is not the competition for a 10600k. the 3900x is.
reply
gamersnexus. I'd like to see a real world, dollar for dollar comparison between Intel and AMD's current line up. I think you guys have done a pretty good job,especially with the 10100 and 10400 as they are intended for low end motherboards and have a cooler in the box that's good enough to get the job done. Sadly it seems most if not all tech media has been comparing 10600k OC to a 3600 or at best a 3700x in all the reviews I've seen. I'm just not sure this is a fair comparison. While I have no doubt that even a stock 10600k is going to push more FPS than anything AMD has to offer, I wonder if the added boost in productivity might sway some buyers that don't mind losing 10 or 20 FPS on their games in order to cut their render times in half with a 3900x. That's the comparison I'd like to see. From benchmarks I've been able to dig up, the 3900x runs just fine on it's included box cooler at stock speeds, where as a solid OC on the 10600k is going to need a 100+ cooler to get that OC stable. From what I can see name brand, 240mm AIO's run 120- 150, I'll call it 100. Add to that that the 3900x will also run just fine at stock speeds on a a moderately priced B450 board, say a MSI Tomahawk that retails normally for around 120. a z490 board of the same quality will set you back at least 200, and probably more than that for one well suited to a stable OC. Lets call it 200 on the mother board. This leaves the Intel platform costing an easy 180 more than the AMD platform without the CPU. While data is sketchy, it seems the 10600k will sell for around 280-300. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say 280, while the 10900k will be something like 500. At the end of the day, then, for a 10600k system that can hit that OC, you're looking at spending 600. On the AMD side, that leaves you with 480 in your pocket to buy a CPU, making the 3900x the closest thing, dollar for dollar to the 10600k overclocked, plus an extra 80 to put in to a nicer mother board, or more likely, faster ram.
TLDR version, please benchmark Intel vs AMD at same cost all in. a 3600 is not the competition for a 10600k. the 3900x is.
reply
Jouni
Only reason to buy this is place holder for rocket lake. Smart non-rich people not in hurry should wait for zen4 or ocean cove. Lets put it this way if leaks are correct then in about 2-2.5 years there 1.8X IPC increase and addition of AVX-512 on top of that AND manufacturing process improvements that should bring increase in core counts and more than doubling the memory bandwidth. So what you should expect is that in 2.5 years you should get atleast triple the performance per dollar. When there is long stagnation because one project is stuck and everything else goes forward when the other projects are ready you should see sequence of large generational leaps. Desktops have catching up to do in terms of both process and architecture for laptop lineup and it is that catch up that brings extra on top of what we should expect in terms of generations. And potential source of improvement is response to first generation of Ryzen from ground up. Will we see desktops where die area for GPU is replaced with die area for more cores, since that change alone would double the core count over what process improvements do. So we would have 5-6x transistor density and doubling the area available for cores. So that would be 12x more transistor for core complexes on Intel side potentially available in just couple of years. That increase in transistors is probably spend on both improving IPC and core count so core count won't be 10x.
Of course this is potential and not necessary something they will deliver, the hope for design with far less GPU won't necessary happen. But still if they double the core count and double the per core performance in classic workloads that would be 4x improvement, AND we get the 10x improvement from AVX-512 for several things on top of that. (The benefit from AVX-512 isn't widening, its ability to be used in scenarios where older AVX is useless.)
reply
Only reason to buy this is place holder for rocket lake. Smart non-rich people not in hurry should wait for zen4 or ocean cove. Lets put it this way if leaks are correct then in about 2-2.5 years there 1.8X IPC increase and addition of AVX-512 on top of that AND manufacturing process improvements that should bring increase in core counts and more than doubling the memory bandwidth. So what you should expect is that in 2.5 years you should get atleast triple the performance per dollar. When there is long stagnation because one project is stuck and everything else goes forward when the other projects are ready you should see sequence of large generational leaps. Desktops have catching up to do in terms of both process and architecture for laptop lineup and it is that catch up that brings extra on top of what we should expect in terms of generations. And potential source of improvement is response to first generation of Ryzen from ground up. Will we see desktops where die area for GPU is replaced with die area for more cores, since that change alone would double the core count over what process improvements do. So we would have 5-6x transistor density and doubling the area available for cores. So that would be 12x more transistor for core complexes on Intel side potentially available in just couple of years. That increase in transistors is probably spend on both improving IPC and core count so core count won't be 10x.
Of course this is potential and not necessary something they will deliver, the hope for design with far less GPU won't necessary happen. But still if they double the core count and double the per core performance in classic workloads that would be 4x improvement, AND we get the 10x improvement from AVX-512 for several things on top of that. (The benefit from AVX-512 isn't widening, its ability to be used in scenarios where older AVX is useless.)
reply
Royameadow
In reality, Intel needed to only release the 10320, 10600, 10700, and 10900 in both an Unlocked variant without UHD Graphics and an Unlocked variant with UHD Graphics, which would've alleviated the cost factor and decimate any chances of horrible segmentation; the 10100 is really meant to be a replacement for the 7700 (No Suffix), which I feel that you needed to cover here as well, as the 10320 is closer in performance to the 7700K (according to Third Party benchmarking sites) and thus the 10100 mustn't simply have been compared to the Unlocked Kaby Lake Flagship, though I am sure that there are many reasons that came into play (possibly the lack of the 7700 in your inventory might be explanatory here).
Against Ryzen 3100, the 10100 and the F variant do its job in holding the Entry Level Zen II part at bay in Gaming to an extent, but it is clear that the RAM Frequency handicaps truly do hold it back, and with us still not knowing how Base Frequency Boost (which really also needs to be tested on the Locked Coffee Lake chips to see how it made a difference for them as well) will affect the Locked chips, we don't know if the 10100F, 10320, 10400F, 10600, 10700F, and 10900F will be a better buy than their K Series counterparts for use on a B460, H470, or W480 board; wishfully we will have this part of the mystery be solved soon, because I do feel that BFB can help make an argument for why people could get a Comet or even Rocket Lake CPU over a Zen II option, but whether or not it'll make a difference in every workload is what has truly yet to be seen, especially when Price to Performance is concerned.
reply
In reality, Intel needed to only release the 10320, 10600, 10700, and 10900 in both an Unlocked variant without UHD Graphics and an Unlocked variant with UHD Graphics, which would've alleviated the cost factor and decimate any chances of horrible segmentation; the 10100 is really meant to be a replacement for the 7700 (No Suffix), which I feel that you needed to cover here as well, as the 10320 is closer in performance to the 7700K (according to Third Party benchmarking sites) and thus the 10100 mustn't simply have been compared to the Unlocked Kaby Lake Flagship, though I am sure that there are many reasons that came into play (possibly the lack of the 7700 in your inventory might be explanatory here).
Against Ryzen 3100, the 10100 and the F variant do its job in holding the Entry Level Zen II part at bay in Gaming to an extent, but it is clear that the RAM Frequency handicaps truly do hold it back, and with us still not knowing how Base Frequency Boost (which really also needs to be tested on the Locked Coffee Lake chips to see how it made a difference for them as well) will affect the Locked chips, we don't know if the 10100F, 10320, 10400F, 10600, 10700F, and 10900F will be a better buy than their K Series counterparts for use on a B460, H470, or W480 board; wishfully we will have this part of the mystery be solved soon, because I do feel that BFB can help make an argument for why people could get a Comet or even Rocket Lake CPU over a Zen II option, but whether or not it'll make a difference in every workload is what has truly yet to be seen, especially when Price to Performance is concerned.
reply
William
Intel made some really nice improvements to their product stack and released some really interesting CPUs this generation, unfortunately the platform costs , and, to a lesser extent, the CPU costs just make them hard to justify. A 110 10100? Great. A 220 10600K? Where do I line up? At 140 and 270 respectively, its a bit hard to swallow. When you add in that you need a Z490 board(with the price jump this generation) and better cooling to really unlock their potential, AMD just looks like a better deal. If they could take the H470 line and unlock XMP, and PL1, PL2, and tau modifications and sell the boards at 100-200, they could have some pretty popular parts. Businesses still would have B460 and H410., and the Hx70 series has kind of lost relevance.
Still, I would say that the 10100 is the premier office CPU this generation. If you're not doing gaming or video editing, the IGPU should be fine for most people and a hyperthreaded quadcore should be good for work. It might also be good for parent and grandparent builds. It looks to be better than the 3400G at about the same price, if you can find a 3400G. The 3200G is cheaper, but also slower.
reply
Intel made some really nice improvements to their product stack and released some really interesting CPUs this generation, unfortunately the platform costs , and, to a lesser extent, the CPU costs just make them hard to justify. A 110 10100? Great. A 220 10600K? Where do I line up? At 140 and 270 respectively, its a bit hard to swallow. When you add in that you need a Z490 board(with the price jump this generation) and better cooling to really unlock their potential, AMD just looks like a better deal. If they could take the H470 line and unlock XMP, and PL1, PL2, and tau modifications and sell the boards at 100-200, they could have some pretty popular parts. Businesses still would have B460 and H410., and the Hx70 series has kind of lost relevance.
Still, I would say that the 10100 is the premier office CPU this generation. If you're not doing gaming or video editing, the IGPU should be fine for most people and a hyperthreaded quadcore should be good for work. It might also be good for parent and grandparent builds. It looks to be better than the 3400G at about the same price, if you can find a 3400G. The 3200G is cheaper, but also slower.
reply
fly
I see this as a decent CPU if you are building a Z490 based setup but cant afford the expensive 8 or 10 core CPUs yet. You can get a system up and running on Z490 for fairly cheap and have a decent upgrade path to either a high core comet lake chip or wait until rocket lake comes. But the AMD side of things has the same sort of upgrade path too on a X570 or B550/B450 board. Its the best i3 we have seen yet.
Its good enough for the vast majority of people but so is the 3300x at the same price and thats the issue with it. Props to intel though on finally including hyperthreading on all CPUs now. These will be great CPUs in a few years for extreme budget builders in low income countries. Also used i7s should plummet in price because 4c8t i7s can be purchased new now with a new board and new memory for what people are trying to get for used 6700k/7700k chips on ebay.
reply
I see this as a decent CPU if you are building a Z490 based setup but cant afford the expensive 8 or 10 core CPUs yet. You can get a system up and running on Z490 for fairly cheap and have a decent upgrade path to either a high core comet lake chip or wait until rocket lake comes. But the AMD side of things has the same sort of upgrade path too on a X570 or B550/B450 board. Its the best i3 we have seen yet.
Its good enough for the vast majority of people but so is the 3300x at the same price and thats the issue with it. Props to intel though on finally including hyperthreading on all CPUs now. These will be great CPUs in a few years for extreme budget builders in low income countries. Also used i7s should plummet in price because 4c8t i7s can be purchased new now with a new board and new memory for what people are trying to get for used 6700k/7700k chips on ebay.
reply
AlphaJon
I like this CPU.. Can run any game without hiccups. (and you get the low memory latency that Intel offers). But a bit too expensive for the current market. Price it at 99, and it's a killer value (and they should release the cheap B/H chipset mainboards Now, to start selling these in truckloads..
Though.. There is still the Ryzen 5 1600 AF (at about 100 price), which is a more strong CPU - and my own choice as a Tech.
But I would recommend the majority of Average non tech Value oriented gamers to get the new i3 instead. I have not heard of anybody upgrading their i7 Sky/Kalby Lake because it had issues with games. They just upgrade because they want more cores (and result is the placebo effect - or higher frames one really can't notice IRL)
reply
I like this CPU.. Can run any game without hiccups. (and you get the low memory latency that Intel offers). But a bit too expensive for the current market. Price it at 99, and it's a killer value (and they should release the cheap B/H chipset mainboards Now, to start selling these in truckloads..
Though.. There is still the Ryzen 5 1600 AF (at about 100 price), which is a more strong CPU - and my own choice as a Tech.
But I would recommend the majority of Average non tech Value oriented gamers to get the new i3 instead. I have not heard of anybody upgrading their i7 Sky/Kalby Lake because it had issues with games. They just upgrade because they want more cores (and result is the placebo effect - or higher frames one really can't notice IRL)
reply
Herr
Having an IGPU is kinda important to me - mainly since a full-fledged GPU would just be an insane waste of watt and power, and when I do things that specifically needs a GPU it is easier (and more economical) to just hook up an eGPU to the relevant computer (thunderbolt is kinda important to me as well) or slave in a jetson (unless we are talking CUDA cores there are no use for a GPU for me between that of a Intel Iris Pro 640 and where you want separate cases due to cooling for CPU and GPU).
I guess the game kinda changes a bit when you use multiple computers, rely heavily on VNCs, and realised you never game at more than one machine at once (and that many of the compute workload can be put on a networked jetson)
reply
Having an IGPU is kinda important to me - mainly since a full-fledged GPU would just be an insane waste of watt and power, and when I do things that specifically needs a GPU it is easier (and more economical) to just hook up an eGPU to the relevant computer (thunderbolt is kinda important to me as well) or slave in a jetson (unless we are talking CUDA cores there are no use for a GPU for me between that of a Intel Iris Pro 640 and where you want separate cases due to cooling for CPU and GPU).
I guess the game kinda changes a bit when you use multiple computers, rely heavily on VNCs, and realised you never game at more than one machine at once (and that many of the compute workload can be put on a networked jetson)
reply
Jason
Oh Wow... I thought they were going to charge around 95-120... 140+ not where you want to be... 120 Ryzen 3300X... 160-175 Ryzen 3600... Crush it in value/performance.
The Integrated is good for system builders. Because sometimes we sell many products without video cards and customers want to put their own GPU.
So customers can't say your computer isn't working if it doesn't work with their add on Video Card...
You just say... It's your power supply or card. Because Look... It works without out it and shows video. So prevents customers from lying or if they are uneducated.
reply
Oh Wow... I thought they were going to charge around 95-120... 140+ not where you want to be... 120 Ryzen 3300X... 160-175 Ryzen 3600... Crush it in value/performance.
The Integrated is good for system builders. Because sometimes we sell many products without video cards and customers want to put their own GPU.
So customers can't say your computer isn't working if it doesn't work with their add on Video Card...
You just say... It's your power supply or card. Because Look... It works without out it and shows video. So prevents customers from lying or if they are uneducated.
reply
werty
The use case I can think of is you want just a general use PC for web browsing etc and you need the iGPU but you think a Celeron or Pentium isn't enough maybe because you do some workload sometimes where the extra threads help or because you just think a 2 core CPU won't be enough for even web browsing in the future. In most cases I would take the 3300X over this especially since it has the weak iGPU. My 8th gen NUC that has the better Iris Pro GPU would beat it in anything graphics related.
reply
The use case I can think of is you want just a general use PC for web browsing etc and you need the iGPU but you think a Celeron or Pentium isn't enough maybe because you do some workload sometimes where the extra threads help or because you just think a 2 core CPU won't be enough for even web browsing in the future. In most cases I would take the 3300X over this especially since it has the weak iGPU. My 8th gen NUC that has the better Iris Pro GPU would beat it in anything graphics related.
reply
Ivan
For anyone that's into music production, recording, playing, etc. Intel chips have lower latency in real-time audio processing, something you might care about if you're playing any instrument through VST plugins.
EDIT: I could not find reliable data confirming this for 3000 ryzens, only 1xxx and 2xxx. Sorry.
Having said that, there is potential to save money with an intel platform if you can get away without a discrete GPU, atleast until Zen 2 APUs arrive
reply
For anyone that's into music production, recording, playing, etc. Intel chips have lower latency in real-time audio processing, something you might care about if you're playing any instrument through VST plugins.
EDIT: I could not find reliable data confirming this for 3000 ryzens, only 1xxx and 2xxx. Sorry.
Having said that, there is potential to save money with an intel platform if you can get away without a discrete GPU, atleast until Zen 2 APUs arrive
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
