Question i7-10700K vs. 3700x

delaro

Splendid
Herald
Since it's basically an 9900k look at benches,intel is quite a bit ahead in gaming and is still a bit faster in productivity the only thing noticeably slower on intel is zip compression due to zens huge cache,as long as you run it as any sane person would I would go with intel.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-review,6214-6.html
I'd still wait for real-world benchmarks and the release of the next Ryzen series chips. 10 series might leapfrog Ryzen gen 3 by a marginal amount but what happens with Gen 4 which is also right around the corner.

7-10700K @ $389 is supposed to complete with the 3800X @ $329 btw, the 3700X is much cheaper $299 so for that $100 more the performance gap would have to be very large. The issue here is a 4700X "Same price" is going to be at least 10% faster and from comments leaked on test samples, they are claiming 17% which is a massive jump if true.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: TheeAngel
7-10700K @ $389 is supposed to complete with the 3800X @ $329 btw, the 3700X is much cheaper $299 so for that $100 more the performance gap would have to be very large.
The difference is up to 30% in far cry and hitman and that's with a pretty small sample of games,it might not be worth it for everybody but it's still a pretty big deal.
The issue here is a 4700X "Same price" is going to be at least 10% faster and from comments leaked on test samples, they are claiming 17% which is a massive jump if true.
Yeah...
...I'd still wait for real-world benchmarks and the release of the next Ryzen series
If it's 17% at zip compression because they increase the cache even more it's going to be pretty much pointless for most main-stream users.
 

delaro

Splendid
Herald
The difference is up to 30% in far cry and hitman and that's with a pretty small sample of games,it might not be worth it for everybody but it's still a pretty big deal.
You're still comparing a $400 chip to a $300 chip ;)

If it's 17% at zip compression because they increase the cache even more it's going to be pretty much pointless for most main-stream users.
Like I said no real benchmarks other than what is leaked and leaked benchmarks are always in favor. If I was in the market to buy something that isn't even out yet.. well then I would still wait for all of the chips from both sides to be released.
 

Phaaze88

Dignified
Herald
You're still comparing a $400 chip to a $300 chip ;)
Which method is correct though:
-Comparing 2 mainstream/HEDT cpus in the same price bracket?
-Comparing 2 mainstream/HEDT cpus with the same core to thread counts?
Or is there another option? :unsure:
I remember getting into an argument about this 2 years ago(I think). I ended up getting ganged up on, because I was of the 2nd opinion.
It didn't make much sense to me at the time why some people were getting so heated up about it: they were comparing cpus of 2 different markets - I forgot if it was a Ryzen mainstream VS Intel HEDT part, or vice-versa though.
 

falcon291

Proper
Jul 17, 2019
238
28
140
18
Which method is correct though:
-Comparing 2 mainstream/HEDT cpus in the same price bracket?
-Comparing 2 mainstream/HEDT cpus with the same core to thread counts?
Or is there another option? :unsure:
I remember getting into an argument about this 2 years ago(I think). I ended up getting ganged up on, because I was of the 2nd opinion.
It didn't make much sense to me at the time why some people were getting so heated up about it: they were comparing cpus of 2 different markets - I forgot if it was a Ryzen mainstream VS Intel HEDT part, or vice-versa though.
I think comparing CPUs in the same price bracket is a lot more correct for the customer. This would not be something good for Intel though.

I have a 9700K, don't have plans to change for the next 2 or 3 years, but if it goes like this I would go for an AMD. Less fps but more cores/threads and better performance in general but not gaming.
 
Presumably, the 10700 at top unrestricted power loadings should slip (roughly) into the 9900K spot, not a bad place to be...(it's also possible that with CPU SPectre/Meltdown mitigations, it might only match the 9900K even if clocked 100 MHz higher....

I'd want to see the actual assorted gaming benchmarks, however...; perhaps this will slip into sub-9700K pricing levels, probably a necessity given the R5-3600 and 3700 pricing....
 

falcon291

Proper
Jul 17, 2019
238
28
140
18
Presumably, the 10700 at top unrestricted power loadings should slip (roughly) into the 9900K spot, not a bad place to be...(it's also possible that with CPU SPectre/Meltdown mitigations, it might only match the 9900K even if clocked 100 MHz higher....

I'd want to see the benchmarks, however...
Probably yes, as it would have the same core count and also same thread count with 9900K. About mitigations we need to see the benchmarks, if Intel did it right -this time- I would expect better performance at the same clock. We will see.
 

dorsai

Honorable
Nov 23, 2013
768
97
11,290
85
It depends on a couple of things...what video card are you going to pair it with...what resolution do you game at...what besides gaming will you do with the system ?

If you're going to use any video card below the 2080ti then the differences between CPUs in gaming will tighten substantially. There's a reason review sites always use a 2080ti when reviewing highend CPU's...because at higher resolution or with mid level GPUs the differences between CPUs becomes less and less relevant. Yes a 10700k or i9 9900k will still be a few FPS faster in games with a mid level GPU but then you'll have to ask yourself if the extra 150$ is worth the jump from 120 to 130 fps...especially when at high FPS the 1% low is arguably much more important. It's the same issue with resolution...as it increases and a system becomes more GPU bound the differences will again shrink on mid tier GPUs.

If you have the money for a 2080ti then yes I would recommend you go for the 10700k as it will run the 2080ti at it's best. If money is an issue then personally I would go with the 3700x...or at least wait and see what the Ryzen 4000 series brings to the table.

The below linked video is a good example...the 9900k is slightly faster than the 3700x with a 2060 super...the question for you is simple...is it 150$ faster.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQQ740jSYwY
 
Last edited:

xravenxdota

Respectable
Aug 26, 2017
336
46
1,890
17
The difference is up to 30% in far cry and hitman and that's with a pretty small sample of games,it might not be worth it for everybody but it's still a pretty big deal.

Yeah...

If it's 17% at zip compression because they increase the cache even more it's going to be pretty much pointless for most main-stream users.
No offense but you speak about games that favors intel.The 3700x slower than 9900k in productivity?Btw the new threadripper shattered everything intel had.It even beat out a dual xeon which cost 20k usd.So don't speak like intels superior.Sad part is amd does this with about a quarter of intels budget.
 

delaro

Splendid
Herald
[/QUOTE]

3700X $324 and 9900K $514 That's a huge price difference and the comparison
Which method is correct though:
-Comparing 2 mainstream/HEDT cpus in the same price bracket?
-Comparing 2 mainstream/HEDT cpus with the same core to thread counts?
Or is there another option? :unsure:
I remember getting into an argument about this 2 years ago(I think). I ended up getting ganged up on, because I was of the 2nd opinion.
I remember that. :kikou:

I look at it as performance per dollar spent. Comparing a $500 chip vs a $300 chip you would expect to see a big advantage for the more expensive chip correct? This isn't the case right now, is it? To be fair you should be comparing chips at close to the same prices because that is the largest factor for the majority of the buyers.



This is the more extreme case that points out what I'm saying.

$1999 Chip 10 series vs $1300 Threadripper and only a 9% difference seems...errr(n)
Lower the price to $979 and now you're $300 cheaper and 9% faster, that looks great on paper for the time being until AMD slashes prices.
 

Phaaze88

Dignified
Herald
I remember that. :kikou:
Damn...

$1999 Chip 10 series vs $1300 Threadripper and only a 9% difference seems...errr(n)
Lower the price to $979 and now you're $300 cheaper and 9% faster, that looks great on paper for the time being until AMD slashes prices.
This I get, and it makes sense.

But does it makes sense to you when people compare - for example, the mainstream Ryzen 3900X/3950X to something HEDT, like the 10900X?
Sure, if one looks at cpu horsepower alone, the former stomps the latter.
But for people that actually NEED the extra PCIE lanes, greater memory capacity, and whatever else provided by HEDT, the mainstream chip then becomes invalid.
 

falcon291

Proper
Jul 17, 2019
238
28
140
18
Yeah ruffly 30% higher price for 30% more gaming performance,

if FPS are important for you and especially if you believe that you will keep your CPU for the next generation or two of GPUs then you are just spending more to get better results fo a longer time.
If only the fps difference is actually 30 percent.
 
This is really silly...buuuuuut i guess I'd buy 10700 if at list price.

Why? because I already have a 3700X and am extremely pleased with it, don't need another thank you! Oh...and I could turn the 10700 around and sell it for insane profit since it's not gonna be released to market for...how long? and even once it IS released I can't imagine availability being high; maybe even another of those auction-only parts...anyone know?

Why not keep it? well...i can not imagine it improving on my 1440p gaming experience in the least. Not since it's my GPU (5700xt, maybe not the top but still no slouch to be sure) is the bottle-neck in any game I like. And at any rate, who the heck knows anything about that pig-in-a-poke? Wouldn't it be wiser to wait on reviews to see what it does?

And then, just like @delaro suggested: if I'm gonna change, I'm gonna move up not down so I'd go with another imaginary product, 4700X. Or whatever Zen3 part will hold that position in the stack.
 
Last edited:
3700X $324 and 9900K $514 That's a huge price difference and the comparison
...

I look at it as performance per dollar spent. ...
[/QUOTE]

IMO, that's absolutely the right way to do it. I mean, it perfectly logical that if you can just put more money on the table you will always be able to stack the performance difference in your favor. The only logical way is to compare performance-per-dollar (or GBP, Euro, whatever) because those are the primary two factors in play for anybody making a 'buy' decision.

If you want to do a 'top of stack to top of stack' (since no amount of money will ever improve it for anybody) that's OK too, but it has to include a consideration for whether the cost delta is actually worth whatever performance delta exists.
 
Last edited:

falcon291

Proper
Jul 17, 2019
238
28
140
18
The gain in fps just does not justify the price. If you want the best of the best CPU for gaming (not much in anything else) go with 9900K. But even for gaming if you have limited budget it would be better to use for something else.

3700X rival is 9700K not 9900K. But if I already didn't buy 9700K, I would buy a 3700X instead.
 

Phaaze88

Dignified
Herald
3700X rival is 9700K not 9900K
To that end, I'd actually say the 3600/X is the rival to the 9900K in gaming.
The 3700X only offers an extra 2 cores and 4 threads, but that's not worth the 90-120USD premium over the 3600/X if gamers don't take advantage of those extra resources.

The 3700X is in such an odd spot, I have a hard time recommending it for gaming only; there are better options available.

Why is it that the moment someone mentions wanting to game PLUS something else, they are so quick to dismiss the 3600/X and go straight to the 3700X/3800X?
3600/X can multitask just fine. Games aren't always using up 8 threads, and even if one does, there's still 4 left for whatever. Spend that 90-120USD anywhere else.

I used to think differently about the 3700X, but after having done some more research(reviews, videos, benchmarks), it's not a good cpu at all.
The current best:
1)Gaming cpu for the money is the 3600 - X version if you can get it on sale.
2)'Shut up and take my money' version goes to the 9900Keep Spending.
[I picked the 9900KS over the 9900K because it is ever so slightly, just a teeny little, tiny smidgen faster, and slightly more power efficient than the latter.]
After all the money someone will have blown on that thing + a decent enough cooler for overclocking VS someone doing a 3600X build...
-Ex 1, using a 2080ti in both: 1200 + 9900K(650) + 360mmAIO(150) VS 1200 + 3600X(240) + NH-U12S(60) = A person doing a 9900KS build will have spent at least 150% more for a measly 4% average fps gain - FOUR PERCENT - over someone with a 3600X. WTF.
-Ex 2, using lower end gpus, that difference matters even less. It's so bloody stupid...
3)Gaming/streaming/video editing, multitask, blah, blah, blah - whatever other 'I may do this', or 'I might do that later' excuse to justify spending needlessly on a cpu the user doesn't actually need: 3600/X
4)Workstation cpu(non-HEDT) for the money goes to the 3900X - 3950X if it ever goes on sale(!)
5)Money is no object workstation cpu: Well, you, my friend, should be looking at a Threadripper 3000...

Intel is crap right now - yeah, I'm even calling the 9700K and 9900K crap right now. The price premium they command - depending on the application, for a single digit gain or loss in performance compared to Ryzen's best, is CRAP.

Did I mention how Intel is crap right now?


-A little angry rant from a former Intel fanguy
 

falcon291

Proper
Jul 17, 2019
238
28
140
18
To that end, I'd actually say the 3600/X is the rival to the 9900K in gaming.
The 3700X only offers an extra 2 cores and 4 threads, but that's not worth the 90-120USD premium over the 3600/X if gamers don't take advantage of those extra resources.

The 3700X is in such an odd spot, I have a hard time recommending it for gaming only; there are better options available.

Why is it that the moment someone mentions wanting to game PLUS something else, they are so quick to dismiss the 3600/X and go straight to the 3700X/3800X?
3600/X can multitask just fine. Games aren't always using up 8 threads, and even if one does, there's still 4 left for whatever. Spend that 90-120USD anywhere else.

I used to think differently about the 3700X, but after having done some more research(reviews, videos, benchmarks), it's not a good cpu at all.
The current best:
1)Gaming cpu for the money is the 3600 - X version if you can get it on sale.
2)'Shut up and take my money' version goes to the 9900Keep Spending.
[I picked the 9900KS over the 9900K because it is ever so slightly, just a teeny little, tiny smidgen faster, and slightly more power efficient than the latter.]
After all the money someone will have blown on that thing + a decent enough cooler for overclocking VS someone doing a 3600X build...
-Ex 1, using a 2080ti in both: 1200 + 9900K(650) + 360mmAIO(150) VS 1200 + 3600X(240) + NH-U12S(60) = A person doing a 9900KS build will have spent at least 150% more for a measly 4% average fps gain - FOUR PERCENT - over someone with a 3600X. WTF.
-Ex 2, using lower end gpus, that difference matters even less. It's so bloody stupid...
3)Gaming/streaming/video editing, multitask, blah, blah, blah - whatever other 'I may do this', or 'I might do that later' excuse to justify spending needlessly on a cpu the user doesn't actually need: 3600/X
4)Workstation cpu(non-HEDT) for the money goes to the 3900X - 3950X if it ever goes on sale(!)
5)Money is no object workstation cpu: Well, you, my friend, should be looking at a Threadripper 3000...

Intel is crap right now - yeah, I'm even calling the 9700K and 9900K crap right now. The price premium they command - depending on the application, for a single digit gain or loss in performance compared to Ryzen's best, is CRAP.

Did I mention how Intel is crap right now?


-A little angry rant from a former Intel fanguy
I was a fan of Battlefield. After the TTK change not so but it is another story. Battlefield V uses all cores of my 9700K, in Battlefield 1 it was 6 cores, 2 cores are not used in any case.

What I am trying to say, never games make use of more cores. so I don't recommend anything less than 8 cores, especially for future proofing. If I was paying money for 9900K, instead I would buy 3900X. But both of them for gaming now would be overkill, but would outlive a 9700K one year at least.
 
What I am trying to say, never games make use of more cores. so I don't recommend anything less than 8 cores, especially for future proofing.
Games use a lot of cores right now because they are made for jaguar cores and that's the only way to pull this off.
If the new gen has ryzen cores as they claimed games will go back to using less cores since the ryzen cores will be able to handle the load much better.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS