Intel i7 10700K or AMD Ryzen 9 3900X — which CPU is best for gaming?

[Citizen Cook]

PC gamer claims that the intel CPU is better for gaming than the AMD alternative. What say you?

[Citizen Cook]

Back in 2014 I bought an Intel i5 4670K for £150 and it destroyed the weak-ass CPU in the consoles.

Now, in order to simply equal the new consoles I'd need a Ryzen 7 3700X.
That's about £280.

The new consoles offer a lot of power for a very low price.

[vadim]

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

Now, in order to simply equal the new consoles I'd need a Ryzen 7 3700X.
That's about £280.

You should not believe in marketing hypes.

[Citizen Cook]

Originally posted by vadim:

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

Now, in order to simply equal the new consoles I'd need a Ryzen 7 3700X.
That's about £280.

You should not believe in marketing hypes.

What do you mean, you doubt the veracity of the claims?

[vadim]

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

What do you mean, you doubt the veracity of the claims?

Console CPUs are more similar to mobile models. Any desktop processor is much more powerful.

[Citizen Cook]

https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/this-is-how-much-itll-cost-to-build-a-gaming-pc-with-the-ps5-and-xbox-series-xs-specs-4018215

[vadim]

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/this-is-how-much-itll-cost-to-build-a-gaming-pc-with-the-ps5-and-xbox-series-xs-specs-4018215

This article is very stupid

[Citizen Cook]

Originally posted by vadim:

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/this-is-how-much-itll-cost-to-build-a-gaming-pc-with-the-ps5-and-xbox-series-xs-specs-4018215

This article is very stupid

What makes you say that?

[vadim]

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

What makes you say that?

Authors made a build that is much more powerful than console. It has better CPU, better graphics, more memory and so on.
Secondly, they made this build using existing hardware to match unreleased condole. Not surprisingly, the build is expensive.
You can say "wait, CPU in this build has the same clock rate, both PC and console have 16 GB RAM and PC graphics has even less theoretical performance in TFLOOS"
All of that is BS.
Ryzen 3700x has 3.6 GHz base clock. But reaches 4.4 GHz in real applications.
PC in the article has 16 GB system RAM. And additionally 8 GB VRAM. 24 GB total.
While equivalent PC should have only 8 GB RAM (+8GB VRAM). Is this amount is good and "future-proof" (I hate this term) for current PCs?
TFLOPs is nothing but pure numbers. RTX 3080 has about 30 TFLOPS. Almost 3 times more than RTX 2080S (11 TFLOPS). But it's not 3 times faster.
Ryzen 3700 provides twice more TFLOPS than 2700. Can you say it gives twice more FPS?
Etc, etc...

[Citizen Cook]

Originally posted by vadim:

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

What makes you say that?

Authors made a build that is much more powerful than console. It has better CPU, better graphics, more memory and so on.
Secondly, they made this build using existing hardware to match unreleased condole. Not surprisingly, the build is expensive.
You can say "wait, CPU in this build has the same clock rate, both PC and console have 16 GB RAM and PC graphics has even less theoretical performance in TFLOOS"
All of that is BS.
Ryzen 3700x has 3.6 GHz base clock. But reaches 4.4 GHz in real applications.
PC in the article has 16 GB system RAM. And additionally 8 GB VRAM. 24 GB total.
While equivalent PC should have only 8 GB RAM (+8GB VRAM). Is this amount is good and "future-proof" (I hate this term) for current PCs?
TFLOPs is nothing but pure numbers. RTX 3080 has about 30 TFLOPS. Almost 3 times more than RTX 2080S (11 TFLOPS). But it's not 3 times faster.
Ryzen 3700 provides twice more TFLOPS than 2700. Can you say it gives twice more FPS?
Etc, etc...

Digital Foundry largely agreed with that article.

[vadim]

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

Digital Foundry largely agreed with that article.

They can agree with whatever they want. To put it mildly, they are not authorities for me.
Let's take the simplest and most obvious difference: are you aware that PC with a total memory of 24 GB will have an advantage over a PC with 16 GB, regardless of how you divide those 16 between system and video memory?

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

Originally posted by vadim:

Authors made a build that is much more powerful than console. It has better CPU, better graphics, more memory and so on.
Secondly, they made this build using existing hardware to match unreleased condole. Not surprisingly, the build is expensive.
You can say "wait, CPU in this build has the same clock rate, both PC and console have 16 GB RAM and PC graphics has even less theoretical performance in TFLOOS"
All of that is BS.
Ryzen 3700x has 3.6 GHz base clock. But reaches 4.4 GHz in real applications.
PC in the article has 16 GB system RAM. And additionally 8 GB VRAM. 24 GB total.
While equivalent PC should have only 8 GB RAM (+8GB VRAM). Is this amount is good and "future-proof" (I hate this term) for current PCs?
TFLOPs is nothing but pure numbers. RTX 3080 has about 30 TFLOPS. Almost 3 times more than RTX 2080S (11 TFLOPS). But it's not 3 times faster.
Ryzen 3700 provides twice more TFLOPS than 2700. Can you say it gives twice more FPS?
Etc, etc...

Digital Foundry largely agreed with that article.

Digital Foundry can't be trusted though. Anyone who knows their stuff knows that.

They doubled up on NVIDIA's claims for Ampere, and they were way wrong.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

Originally posted by vadim:

You should not believe in marketing hypes.

What do you mean, you doubt the veracity of the claims?

Console and PC CPUs vary wildly, it's not a 1:1 comparison.

Console CPUs are lower power/TDP because it's running in a small chassis with very limited space, it can't pull nearly as much power as a desktop chip can.
Console CPUs are usually also ARM-based while desktop is based on x86. The only thing similar between a 3700X and the next gen console Zen2 is the architecture nomenclature.

You can't directly compare console and PC hardware because they follow different hardware and software standards and aren't even directly compatible.

[vadim]

Originally posted by Escorve:

Console CPUs are usually also ARM-based while desktop is based on x86.

???

[Citizen Cook]

Originally posted by Escorve:

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

What do you mean, you doubt the veracity of the claims?

Console and PC CPUs vary wildly, it's not a 1:1 comparison.

Console CPUs are lower power/TDP because it's running in a small chassis with very limited space, it can't pull nearly as much power as a desktop chip can.
Console CPUs are usually also ARM-based while desktop is based on x86. The only thing similar between a 3700X and the next gen console Zen2 is the architecture nomenclature.

You can't directly compare console and PC hardware because they follow different hardware and software standards and aren't even directly compatible.

True. That's why I think a 3900X would be a more reasonable match for the consoles CPU.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Citizen Cook:

Originally posted by Escorve:

Console and PC CPUs vary wildly, it's not a 1:1 comparison.

Console CPUs are lower power/TDP because it's running in a small chassis with very limited space, it can't pull nearly as much power as a desktop chip can.
Console CPUs are usually also ARM-based while desktop is based on x86. The only thing similar between a 3700X and the next gen console Zen2 is the architecture nomenclature.

You can't directly compare console and PC hardware because they follow different hardware and software standards and aren't even directly compatible.

True. That's why I think a 3900X would be a more reasonable match for the consoles CPU.

More likely, it would be closer to a 3300X in raw performance.