Question 10th gen CPUs

[eibelbilly]

I'm looking to build a new system my best friend uses a i7 9700f I would like to get similar or better fps for cheap what CPU should I buy,,,

According to userbenchmark the i7 9th gen is only 15 percent faster in game then a 10th gen i3

My current CPU is a fx6300 3.5ghz
Please help

 

[InvalidError]

From what I have heard, a thread is about 50% the perf of a core. (Link at bottom suggests it is 34%-70%)

SMT only yields extra performance proportional to the amount of execution resources whatever threads may already have been running on a core have left behind. You see gains from SMT in the 30-40% range because typical code mix only leaves 40-50% of the CPU under-used and able to be leveraged by SMT. You aren't seeing SMT4 on x86 because typical x86 workloads combined with deep out-of-order speculative execution can already keep most of the CPU busy with SMT2.

Sun/Oracle and IBM are using SMT4/8 in their server CPUs because they ditched power-hungry deep out-of-order speculative execution in favor of more power-efficient thread-level parallelism. Put enough threads on each core so that whenever one thread hangs on conditional branch or cache misses, other threads should have enough eligible instructions to keep the core busy until dependencies are resolved most of the time. It was the same reason Intel went SMT4 for Xeon Phi chips to achieve much higher throughput per watt than conventional x86 CPUs.

 

[InvalidError]

There really is not much of a noticeable difference between the i5 9400 vs i5 10400 when benchmarking them.

Depends on what you benchmark them with. The 10500 has SMT and will perform upward of 40% better in heavily multi-threaded workloads.

While 6c6t may be good enough for most games right now, 6c12t is pretty much guaranteed to hold up much better going into the foreseeable future as heavily threaded games keep becoming increasingly more common.

 

[ex_bubblehead]

And at this point this whole thread has wandered so far off the rails that it has become just useless arguing. Closing this before people have to be sanctioned.

 

[Shektron]

Ryzen would be better, it's not as expensive and will give you good FPS. A Ryzen 5 3600, with a B450 motherboard and 16 GB DDR4 RAM at 3600 MHz speed. It'll be a mid-range gaming setup, and depending on the game you'll get similar or slightly lower FPS, but all games will be completely playable as long as the GPU can handle them.

Edit: For a full system recommendation, please list a proper budget, where you live, what stores are available.

 

[Shektron]

A ryzen 5 CPU uses more ram on average and is double the price with 10 percent less fps than a i3 10th gen

Where are you getting these numbers from? What games do you play? The i3 will only be faster in games if they don't use more than 4 cores, and a lot of multiplayer games and even single player games nowadays use more than 4 cores. If you buy an i3 and play such games, your average FPS will be great but you'll get constant stutters, FPS drops, and it'll overall not be a good experience. And the average RAM usage thing is just wrong.

If you will only play 1 or 2 games with this PC, and you know they don't need more than 4 cores, then sure, go with 10th gen i3. Keep in mind, though, that you need a high refresh rate monitor to see all that extra FPS - a 60 Hz monitor can only display 60 FPS, anything above that 60 FPS is just a waste of GPU power because they'll never get displayed. It will improve input lag, but the difference in most games between Ryzen and Intel is so small that the input lag factor is almost negligible.

Again, it all depends on the games. Average FPS is not everything.

 

[eibelbilly]

CPU UserBenchmarks - 1442 Processors Compared

 

[Shektron]

CPU UserBenchmarks - 1442 Processors Compared

Where on this page does it say that a Ryzen 5 3600 "uses more ram on average" than an i3 10th gen?

 

[eibelbilly]

You might not have heard but the AI turbo-ing keeps upclocking it's self for higher performance

 

[eibelbilly]

Where on this page does it say that a Ryzen 5 3600 "uses more ram on average" than an i3 10th gen?

That's just what people online say

 

[eibelbilly]

That's just what people online say

I guess I don't have proof for that

 

[Shektron]

That's just what people online say

Whoever said that to you is either trying to fool you or is an idiot themselves, because there's no such thing, and even if there was, it's no way of comparing two processors. In fact, you WANT more RAM to be used because that makes your system faster since the system doesn't have to keep going back to your much slower secondary storage for accessing things, it can find them in RAM much faster.

Anyway, like I said, Ryzen is your best bet, unless you only play very specific games that don't need more than 4 cores.

 

[eibelbilly]

What about a i5 10600k

 

[Shektron]

What about a i5 10600k

What monitor do you have? If it's 144 Hz or below, the 10600K will not be any better than a Ryzen 5 3600.

 

[eibelbilly]

What monitor do you have? If it's 144 Hz or below, the 10600K will not be any better than a Ryzen 5 3600.

120hz

 

[eibelbilly]

120hz

All I want is a CPU that will get good fps on high settings under 160

 

[Cere]

Where are you getting these numbers from? What games do you play? The i3 will only be faster in games if they don't use more than 4 cores, and a lot of multiplayer games and even single player games nowadays use more than 4 cores. If you buy an i3 and play such games, your average FPS will be great but you'll get constant stutters, FPS drops, and it'll overall not be a good experience. And the average RAM usage thing is just wrong.

If you will only play 1 or 2 games with this PC, and you know they don't need more than 4 cores, then sure, go with 10th gen i3. Keep in mind, though, that you need a high refresh rate monitor to see all that extra FPS - a 60 Hz monitor can only display 60 FPS, anything above that 60 FPS is just a waste of GPU power because they'll never get displayed. It will improve input lag, but the difference in most games between Ryzen and Intel is so small that the input lag factor is almost negligible.

Again, it all depends on the games. Average FPS is not everything.

Where do you get games use 4 cores? Games in fact can run off of only 1-2 cores. But the higher cores you have and the more threads each core handle is the determining factor. The Problem with AMD is their gaming performance lacks in all tests. In fact a Ryzen 9-3950x PBO gets 129 FPS, where as an i7-9700K @ 5.1 gets 141 FPS. At base clocks though, Ryzen 9 3900x PBO gets 128 and i7-9700k 127. And I’ve never seen my i7-9700k run at base clock speed. When you open a game the i7 auto boosts itself (no overclocking done) to 5.1. So yea Intel beats the highest AMD processor in gaming. AMD is great for multitasking, Intel for gaming.

now if you’re on a budget get AMD, if not get Intel hands down. Just the 13 FPS in a game is like taking away a click or two here and there.

 

[eibelbilly]

Where do you get games use 4 cores? Games in fact can run off of only 1-2 cores. But the higher cores you have and the more threads each core handle is the determining factor. The Problem with AMD is their gaming performance lacks in all tests. In fact a Ryzen 9-3950x PBO gets 129 FPS, where as an i7-9700K @ 5.1 gets 141 FPS. At base clocks though, Ryzen 9 3900x PBO gets 128 and i7-9700k 127. And I’ve never seen my i7-9700k run at base clock speed. When you open a game the i7 auto boosts itself (no overclocking done) to 5.1. So yea Intel beats the highest AMD processor in gaming. AMD is great for multitasking, Intel for gaming.

now if you’re on a budget get AMD, if not get Intel hands down. Just the 13 FPS in a game is like taking away a click or two here and there.

Should I get a i3 10320 or a i5 10600

 

[Cere]

Should I get a i3 10320 or a i5 10600

Get an i5... i3 is only good for workstation. I5 is low grade gaming, but comparable to an i7 just a little less processing power. I5 works great as long as you don’t want or need to stream.

 

[vov4ik_il]

i5 10600k is claimed to be about as good good as i7 8700k. If that is the case, you will not regret it for sure.

 

[Shektron]

Where do you get games use 4 cores? Games in fact can run off of only 1-2 cores. But the higher cores you have and the more threads each core handle is the determining factor. The Problem with AMD is their gaming performance lacks in all tests. In fact a Ryzen 9-3950x PBO gets 129 FPS, where as an i7-9700K @ 5.1 gets 141 FPS. At base clocks though, Ryzen 9 3900x PBO gets 128 and i7-9700k 127. And I’ve never seen my i7-9700k run at base clock speed. When you open a game the i7 auto boosts itself (no overclocking done) to 5.1. So yea Intel beats the highest AMD processor in gaming. AMD is great for multitasking, Intel for gaming.

now if you’re on a budget get AMD, if not get Intel hands down. Just the 13 FPS in a game is like taking away a click or two here and there.

Have you ever played Ghost Recon Wildlands on a 4 core CPU? Or Shadow of the Tomb Raider? Or Battlefield V? Assassin's Creed Osyssey? These are just a FEW of the games that run far better on a 6c/12t processor than on a 4 core processor, with or without hyperthreading.

The claim of Intel being better at gaming is indeed true, but if you have ever seen a single unbiased review in your entire life, you'll know that Intel is better in VERY specific scenarios, and with a 120 or even 144 Hz monitor, you'll never tell the difference between an Intel chip and an AMD chip, let alone on a 60 Hz monitor. The fact of the matter is that the numbers you are claiming for showing Intel's superiority are very likely to be extremely biased - consider the very obvious bias that the 3950X is obviously running at its out of the box configuration, while the i7 has been overclocked on a very high-end liquid cooler to reach that 5.1 GHz figure. Along with that obvious difference, there's also the fact that the 3950X is a 16 core 32 thread processor while the i7 is a measly 8 core 8 thread. If you think comparing these two chips (with one being a $750 chip and the other being a $400 chip) is a fair comparison, you need help. The 3950X is obviously not aimed at gamers anyway.

My point being, any reasonable person knows that Intel being better at gaming is now only a thing that people say, but no one actually believes Intel is better for pretty much anything, except if you want to play less demanding eSports games with a 240 Hz monitor and an overkill GPU.

And also, an i3 is absolutely not a workstation CPU - it's the exact opposite. Do you even know what a workstation means? It doesn't mean a PC on which you do office stuff - a workstation PC is supposed to have high-end hardware for demanding things like video editing, animation, etc. An i3 is an entry-level gaming or office PC CPU, not a workstation CPU.

 

[Shektron]

All I want is a CPU that will get good fps on high settings under 160

Ryzen 5 3600 is $167 on newegg, at 120 Hz you don't want to buy anything else unless you want to spend extra on cooler and motherboard. If you buy an i5 10600K you'll need a separate aftermarket cooler and if you want to overclock you'll need an expensive motherboard(cheapest compatible motherboard with overclocking costs $150), if you get the Ryzen 5 3600 you can get a B450 MAX motherboard with all the features you need for $115, and no need for a cooler, stock is enough.

 

[Karadjgne]

I would like to get similar or better fps for cheap

Not going to happen. If you want high fps, it's gonna cost. No way around that.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3592-intel-i5-10600k-cpu-review-benchmarks-ryzen-5-3600-et-al

Start there, comment later.

 

[Karadjgne]

A thread is a line of code. Each core has a specific amount of bandwidth at its disposal. Normal operation each core processes a single line of code in one instance. Hyperthreading allows the use of a single core to process 2 lines of code simultaneously, IF bandwidth allows. A core is a logical component, a hyperthreaded core is a virtual component. So on a hyperthreaded cpu, you'll have 4 logical and 4 corresponding virtual cores as seen as 4c/8t.

The issue with many older games is the code strings were getting so long that hyperthreading was getting next to useless as the bandwidth couldn't be split up to accommodate 2 lines simultaneously. Use of less than 4 cores got the same results from a logical cpu as from a hyperthreaded cpu.

Battlefield 4 was one of the first AAA titles to optimize code strings, shortening them enough to allow hyperthreading to benefit in a meaningful way, allowing even the AMD FX to finally get usage of its node/2core setup, an 8350 barely being beaten by the i7 4790k, and placing it ahead of the faster i5 4690k.

Assassins Creed series and some others are not optimized very well, hyperthreading suffers but higher physical core count still benefits.

With Ryzen IPC still a half step behind Intel, and Intel greater clock speeds, in a single thread Intel wins. But single thread is useless on a modern platform as no games use that matrix anymore, far too complex. It's multi-thread that matters most.

On a core to core basis, Intel wins every time, but it'll depend entirely on the game whether it can make best use of a 6 core 6 thread Intel or a 6 core 12 thread Ryzen. Win some, lose some.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Dude, cores and threads are far from same thing. Each core has a number of threads it can handle at any time. You could have 2 cores and 12 threads on each core, giving you 24 threads total. Each thread can process information by itself. The core is the unit as a whole, the threads are the make up of each core.

This is completely and utterly incorrect. A Core can handle a maximum of 1 or 2 threads at the same time (depending if the core has SMT or CMT or not). In VERY basic terms, core schedulers move tasks into and out of the core's processing threads. But no there is no 2 core 12 thread processor in existence or any other imaginary combination.