Amd 5600x vs intel i7 10700k

[Cuddle Bunny]

Hello honey bunnies, I can't decide on my next cpu! I want future proof. I Wana pair it with a 3080. I will OC it.

Intel offers 2 more cores, but amd offers pcie 4.0.

They're basically the same thing, for today's games. But what about tomorrow's games? Which cpu should I choose?

[DeadPhoenix]

why not go for the 5800x???

[_I_]

10700k is cheaper than 5600x

pci-e 4.0 has no benefit over 3.0 at this time
4.0 has more bandwidth, but 3.0 x16 is more than any current gpu needs
only real pro is that a 4.0 x1 lane can run more devices

if you like to oc and tweak, intel is the way to go
get a z board and good cooler

ryzen oc is near pointless, they will boost to what cooling and power can provide
5800x is better, but costs about $150 more

either way, get a good board with vrm cooling and better cpu cooler

[Monk]

5800X is about equal to an well overclocked 10700k (when on a z490 with 4400MHz ram - get patriot viper steel series it's cheap), though, if you don't need it now, I'd wait a few weeks and see what 11th gen is priced at, I have a feeling the 11900k will be sub £400 as it will only be an 8 core.

The 5600X is a bad buy with the 10700k now costing the same or less.
There us an exception to this, if you are running a 360Hz monitor and play exclusively esport games that can benefit from the 5600X large cache.

Pcie gen4 offers no benefits currently for gaming and when such features do arrive, it's up in the air as to what gains they will really offer, I'd expect less than 10% tbh.

Unless you already have the 3080, you won't be building this any time soon anyway, especially if you want a 5600X so might as well wait and see what 11th gen offers.

[Julien, cut it out.]

Either one is fine.
Neither PCIe 4.0 nor core count above 6 with the current CPU throughput of Zen 2 and Zen 3 or Core i 10th gen are currently relevant for gaming. This will be valid for the next few years.

Get the cheaper build.

[Yamantaka]

Between those two I'd recommend going for 10700k. Extra cores will provide more in future. Just get decent cooler.

https://youtu.be/JSwe1cOkZbY

[r.linder]

_I_님이 먼저 게시:

ryzen oc is near pointless, they will boost to what cooling and power can provide

Not only is it pointless, it's actually really dangerous for the 7nm chips. I recommend that making note of that to everyone, because they can seriously degrade their CPU or even kill it.

As of Zen2, Ryzen CPUs depend entirely on the Silicon Fitness (FIT; designed to protect the CPU) to determine what voltages are safe based on the current flow to the CPU. A manual overclock disables the FIT, which means it can't protect the chip, and TSMC's N7 is extremely sensitive and prone to electromigration. These CPUs can easily be damaged even if you use 1.3v for a manual OC, so it's not even worth it at all. The only safe manual OC on 7nm Ryzen chips is effectively just an undervolt, and you'll pretty much always lose single threaded performance to some degree.

At idle, the CPU will be allowed to pull up to whatever the maximum core voltage that BIOS allows (i.e. 1.5~1.55v) and that's safe because the CPU is barely drawing any current. A similar story happens in very light loads (i.e. browsing the web, video playback, etc.)

In the average gaming load, the CPU will be limited to whatever the chip's FIT determines to be safe for that load, which differs from game to game based on intensity on the CPU. For the most part though, I've seen around 1.34~1.39v in a lot of games with my 3900X, but that can be different with other chips as it's all silicon lottery going forward.

At full load and the max current that the board will allow the CPU to draw, you'll see a glimpse of what some refer to as the "FIT voltage" which is the basis for choosing that voltage to use for a manual OC. That voltage can range from anything between, for example, 1.1v and 1.3v depending on silicon lottery. The simplest way to find the FIT voltage is to just run the CPU at stock (no PBO) and just slam the CPU with a P95 small FFT test while monitoring the voltage with Ryzen Master. My FIT voltage is around 1.3v and my manual CCX OC is only set to 1.256v, with no worthwhile gain increasing the voltage and clocks because the clocks I achieve at 1.256v is basically the high point of the curve.

A manual OC can be safe at idle, but once you put a load on the CPU, even a gaming load, you're just gradually going to be degrading the CPU, especially if you slam it with P95 to stress test it since it's going to be running at full current draw. It may pass, but that doesn't mean the voltage is actually safe because it's a 7nm processor. It can't actually handle the voltage long-term if it's above the "FIT voltage." For instance, if your CPU isn't getting more than 1.2v in Prime95 small FFT, that's basically the safe limit of what to use for a manual OC, going above that most likely will degrade the 7nm Ryzen processor. The 14nm and 12nm Ryzen processors can safely use up to around 1.3625v (according to AMD) in manual overclocks because the process isn't very dense, but for 7nm, AMD's recommendation for voltage was stock voltage. They support the idea of people using programs like Clock Tuner but they still don't recommend overclocking, and that was kind of the purpose of PBO2 + Curve Optimiser to begin with.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

Ryzen 5600x compares with i5-10600K. They are of same performance tier.
i7-10700K is higher tier CPU which compares with Ryzen 5800x.

LoL, people are getting intel so cheap these days that they forgot their tier.

[r.linder]

🌈Cloud Boy🌈님이 먼저 게시:

Ryzen 5600x compares with i5-10600K. They are of same performance tier.
i7-10700K is higher tier CPU which compares with Ryzen 5800x.

LoL, people are getting intel so cheap these days that they forgot their tier.

The 10600K and 5600X share the same spec tier, but the 5600X can outperform the 10700K in some instances. Still, not worth the price compared to the 10700K right now because it costs more, has less cores/threads, runs really hot (expected to reach 80 degrees often with a GOOD cooler at stock), and only performs better marginally.

AMD and Intel merely switched roles. AMD is generally the raw performance king disregarding cost (made worse by supply and demand) while Intel is currently the new price/performance king. Intel needs to be overclocked now to keep up.

[Illusion of Progress]

I was faced with the same decision as you last year, only in reverse. It came down to the Core i5 10600K or the Ryzen 7 3700X. Although I didn't have a strict budget, so I could have entertained the Intel 8 core offering in the Core i7 10700K, that would have added over 50% to the price of the CPU while being less than 10% better. And, I would have had to get a CPU cooler up front (I used the stock cooler with the Ryzen until recently, whereas the Intel CPU came with none), so I would have been looking at something like close to ~$200 or so going with Intel for something I wouldn't have noticed the difference in a blind test, and I was already spending a lot because of RAM.

Same thing, longevity was a goal of mine, so I went with the Ryzen 7 3700X. With Zen 2, AMD wasn't far enough behind to make the slower per core performance a major concern.

For you, the concept is the same, but the chips are different and the places of Intel and AMD are reversed. Facing those two options, with longevity being a desired factor, I'd pick the Core i7 10700K over the Ryzen 5 5600X, easily.

🌈Cloud Boy🌈님이 먼저 게시:

Ryzen 5600x compares with i5-10600K. They are of same performance tier.
i7-10700K is higher tier CPU which compares with Ryzen 5800x.

LoL, people are getting intel so cheap these days that they forgot their tier.

Won't repeat what Escorve said, but it's not that people are forgetting anything. It's just that the REAL comparison is price.

Also, you can't entirely compare on a limited range of software (like games especially) because in the case of these "higher" core CPUs (which can even be as "little" as even 6 to 8 or above), if none of the stuff truly needs as many cores enough of the time, you get situations where the faster per core CPU simply wins by default, even if it has a "low" amount of cores, and you get cases where people were going "Core i3/i5 matches or exceeds AMD's high end", which is stretching one situation to apply to the whole. That doesn't actually mean they are in the same performance tier overall (not that price alone decides performance either, but for buyers, it's usually the most important one).

[Magma Dragoon]

The 10700k is the better choice because it exists and you can buy it.

[Cuddle Bunny]

DeadPhoenix님이 먼저 게시:

why not go for the 5800x???

Because....money!
That chip is over $600 where I live.

[DeadBeat]

Cuddle Bunny님이 먼저 게시:

DeadPhoenix님이 먼저 게시:

why not go for the 5800x???

Because....money!
That chip is over $600 where I live.

Memory Express just dropped the 10700k down another $20 so it's going for $440 Cdn.

[Nabster]

I would get i7 over r5 based on the extra cores and thread of they are around the same price.

[r.linder]

Cuddle Bunny님이 먼저 게시:

DeadPhoenix님이 먼저 게시:

why not go for the 5800x???

Because....money!
That chip is over $600 where I live.

You can get a 10700K for less. Same core/thread count and the socket isn't going to be dead in a year (AM5 is coming)

[_I_]

should get a compatible cpu/mobo/ram kit when upgrading cpu anyway
keep the set together for upgrading other builds or selling