News Intel Core i5-11400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 3600: Budget Gaming CPU Face-off

[Why_Me]

The jump from Ryzen 1K to 2K and then to 3K was quite big leaps in short amounts* of time. I started with the 2700X and I am now using the 3800XT and just waiting for the 5800X to go on sale to get it. The leaps are quantifiable (as in, noticeable) on a day-to-day basis as well. It is Intel that's been left in the dust over upgrades over time and were forced by AMD to give support on current 400-series boards for the Rocket Lake fam, otherwise they would have pulled the same shenanigans as the 200-series over "oh, but power!". As if Rocket Lake was cool and quiet... Geez...

Anyway, I've read most comments and there's a lot of hit and miss in the arguments and evidence. As I've said before, I'm not fully convinced the 11400/F siblings are the best purchase in that range; I don't like products with too many caveats and I don't like recommending them either. I'd still tell people to try and jump to the $300 range for either a 10700K (while they last!) or the 5600X (comes with a cooler). Bottom of the barrel, I'd say to go for a 3100X or B450+3400G. Which, I have to say, hasn't been mentioned either; was it that much slower? I can't remember.

Also, someone mentioned "stability" with the Ryzen CPUs. First gen was horrible, yes. 2K and onwards, I have to say it's been smooth sailing, except the USB shenanigans with the 5K and 500-series chipsets they* were fixed with a couple BIOS upgrades. I will say AMD and the motherboard vendors have been very picky with RAM support though, but other than that, most setups just work as you'd expect.

Cheers!

The 11400F is the best sub $200 cpu atm according to the reviews/benchmarks. That's how that works.

 

[InvalidError]

The 11400F is the best sub $200 cpu atm according to the reviews/benchmarks. That's how that works.

And reviews are usually written from the "build new system" point of view, not the "upgrade from the immediate generation prior" one where it is hardly ever worth bothering with unless you skip a couple generations or the core count for a given price point gets bumped up.

 

[Why_Me]

And reviews are usually written from the "build new system" point of view, not the "upgrade from the immediate generation prior" one where it is hardly ever worth bothering with unless you skip a couple generations or the core count for a given price point gets bumped up.

Fact of the matter is the 11400/11400F beats the 3600 in a majority of benchmarks.

 

[avenge]

Budget gaming with GeForce RTX 3090?

 

[-Fran-]

The 3100 and 3300X are next to unobtainable and the 3400G is 4c8t Zen+ which is nowhere near as fast as a 11400(F), you would need to step down to an i3 to make a reasonable comparison at that point.

Hm... I guess that's true. Were there any Rocket Lake i3s released? I guess you also have the 10400/F in the lower tier as well, so anything under a 3600 becomes irrelevant. How the turns have tabled!

The 11400F is the best sub $200 cpu atm according to the reviews/benchmarks. That's how that works.

With some asterisks, yes.

Regards,

 

[mitch074]

For most normal people, the "upgrade path" argument is grossly over-valued since they aren't going to upgrade their PC again until the platform is obsolete and not really worth putting any more money into unless they get parts for almost free. If Zen 3 CPUs hold up value anywhere near as well as Intel's i5 and up, it could be a long time before "upgrade path warriors" get anything decent for a reasonable price.

True - but still significant. Look at it this way : enthusiasts who built a system in 2018 (the year when Intel finally went past 4 cores as the top range) will want to change their PC in 2022.

• they went with Intel : they will buy a complete PC. May switch to brand new DDR5. Cost : a whole new rig.
• they went with AMD : they will buy a complete PC. May switch to brand new DDR5. Cost : a whole new rig.
• they went with AMD on a X470 or B450 : they may buy a Zen 3 CPU, flash the BIOS, install the CPU. Cost : a CPU.

The last time I had such a conundrum, I had a Pentium 75@112.5 that I replaced with a Pentium 133@166, and I was hesitating between buying a K6 II 333, a K6-III 450 (with a new mobo) and a Celeron 300A. The fact that I had a buyer for the Pentium 133 made it so that I went Intel (and the 300A was a fantastic bargain), but Intel's next platform would have to be PRETTY DAMN GOOD to beat a 12-core Zen 3...

 

[Why_Me]

Hm... I guess that's true. Were there any Rocket Lake i3s released? I guess you also have the 10400/F in the lower tier as well, so anything under a 3600 becomes irrelevant. How the turns have tabled!

With some asterisks, yes.

Regards,

And what asterisk would those be?

 

[-Fran-]

And what asterisk would those be?

Power consumption, cooling, temps, features and MT performance (at 65W).

The fact it spikes at 140W for Turbo in ST tasks is not really something I'd consider too safe when using low power PSUs, but I guess anything decent above 450W should be able to cope. The temps with the bundled cooler are really high, even at 65W and a throttling fest with MCE enabled. Then you have the feature parity to B450/B550 boards (remember the 3600 doesn't really need a B550) or even the lower A420/A520 boards. And, less appealing, but an asterisk none the less, you can't really expect a low end board to support (in full MCE) a higher tier part down the road either, where with AMD you can realistically upgrade later on to something better when prices get less out of whack. A 3600 motherboard can happily accomodate a 5800X.

Regards,

 

[Why_Me]

Power consumption, cooling, temps, features and MT performance (at 65W).

The fact it spikes at 140W for Turbo in ST tasks is not really something I'd consider too safe when using low power PSUs, but I guess anything decent above 450W should be able to cope. The temps with the bundled cooler are really high, even at 65W and a throttling fest with MCE enabled. Then you have the feature parity to B450/B550 boards (remember the 3600 doesn't really need a B550) or even the lower A420/A520 boards. And, less appealing, but an asterisk none the less, you can't really expect a low end board to support (in full MCE) a higher tier part down the road either, where with AMD you can realistically upgrade later on to something better when prices get less out of whack. A 3600 motherboard can happily accomodate a 5800X.

Regards,

The board in this review goes for $120 USD.

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_core_i5_11400f_and_asus_b560_plus_prime_review/1
Intel Core i5 11400F and ASUS B560 Plus Prime Review

And this would be the upgrade path.

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i7-11700f-core-i7-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118263
Intel Core i7-11700F $333.99

 

[jgraham11]

In our full review, we covered that using the stock cooler with lifted power limits causes throttling. This is basically the TLDR of the review, so we don't cover every single facet. However, we did show performance with the stock cooler and power limits enforced.

Thank you Paul for responding to my comment. I do have to agree with you that you touched on this point in the referenced review however you did not test Gaming/Productivity with the configuration stated, only one synthetic load. Considering that is the default configuration for most motherboards (including the one you tested with), you should have included that in your testing to show the performance penalty of overheating for Gaming/Productivity workloads.

 

[TerryLaze]

Thank you Paul for responding to my comment. I do have to agree with you that you touched on this point in the referenced review however you did not test Gaming/Productivity with the configuration stated, only one synthetic load. Considering that is the default configuration for most motherboards (including the one you tested with), you should have included that in your testing to show the performance penalty of overheating for Gaming/Productivity workloads.

That one synthetic test uses at least 30% more power than anything that has any real use case which would be cinebench, anything else will use even less than 30% less...as you can see the intel XTU stress test is at 80% power draw compared to the 130% that the synthetic test shows.

Power usage, with gaming at least, will be low enough to get full performance even with the stock cooler with MCE turned on and power limits lifted, productivity will be on a per case scenario but then again nobody that buys a 11400 cares a lot about productivity to begin with, that's just a bonus.

How To - Intel CPU Temperature Guide

Update: March 12th, 2024 Preface The topic of processor temperatures can be very confusing. Conflicting opinions based on misconceptions concerning terminology, specifications and testing leaves users uncertain of how to properly check cooling performance. This Guide provides an understanding...

forums.tomshardware.com

 

[InvalidError]

True - but still significant. Look at it this way : enthusiasts who built a system in 2018 (the year when Intel finally went past 4 cores as the top range) will want to change their PC in 2022.

• they went with AMD on a X470 or B450 : they may buy a Zen 3 CPU, flash the BIOS, install the CPU. Cost : a CPU.

No USB 2x2, only PCIe 2.0 from chipset, mostly lower-quality boards because manufacturers were still holding back on committing resources to AM4 during Zen+, only "beta" (not fully endorsed by AMD) support for Zen 3. Yes, everything any self-respecting enthusiast would want to plop an expensive 5000-series CPU into at a time there 600-series motherboard will make even 500-series board look grossly anemic.

 

[-Fran-]

The board in this review goes for $120 USD.

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_core_i5_11400f_and_asus_b560_plus_prime_review/1
Intel Core i5 11400F and ASUS B560 Plus Prime Review

And this would be the upgrade path.

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i7-11700f-core-i7-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118263
Intel Core i7-11700F $333.99

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3AEj3x39vQ


Uhm... Not quite? Or least, I would not consider it "safe" to do. Those VRMs do get really hot on the cheaper boards mainly because their cooling is either insufficient or flat out non existant. That is also one of the asterisks, which ok, it also applies to AMD as well, but in this case it is even more exhacerbated.

And that's not even counting the cooling you'd need to get on top of it! I'm pretty sure the 5800X can throttle to ~95W and still be able to use the Wraith that comes with the 3600. That being said, I'd love to test that assessment somehow, but my 5600X is using proper a 160W HSF.

EDIT: They went and made an extension of the original video to explain more, so it's definitely worth a watch

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKzNkWfoQyQ


Regards,

 

[mitch074]

No USB 2x2, only PCIe 2.0 from chipset, mostly lower-quality boards because manufacturers were still holding back on committing resources to AM4 during Zen+, only "beta" (not fully endorsed by AMD) support for Zen 3. Yes, everything any self-respecting enthusiast would want to plop an expensive 5000-series CPU into at a time there 600-series motherboard will make even 500-series board look grossly anemic.

And this impacts... How many? What devices really benefit from a 20Gb USB port, right now? How many people still plug anything other than a GPU in a PCIe slot that is chipset-controlled and would require such bandwidth?
Those that are will probably get a brand new mobo in 2022, with DDR5 support and a Zen4 CPU (or whatever Intel manages to pull off by then), and may even enjoy USB4/Native Thunderbolt support. The latter, to me, is more susceptible to warrant an upgrade than USB 3.2 does.
And people who want to upgrade a working PC without breaking the bank, and whould have done so in S2-2020/ S1-2021 if things weren't so dire, would enjoy getting 99% of the performance from a new system for the price of a single CPU.

 

[InvalidError]

And this impacts... How many? What devices really benefit from a 20Gb USB port, right now? How many people still plug anything other than a GPU in a PCIe slot that is chipset-controlled and would require such bandwidth?

YOU were writing specifically about ENTHUSIASTS in 2022. Enthusiasts are the people most likely to want to hook up high-performance stuff to their computer.

I don't consider myself an enthusiast yet I can easily imagine myself wanting a desktop USB hub with 2x2 uplink so I can run any mix of 5/10/20G devices from that hub with no performance worries a few years from now and I may end up being one of those weirdoes that ends up running an 11400 on a Z590 for it.

 

[mitch074]

YOU were writing specifically about ENTHUSIASTS in 2022. Enthusiasts are the people most likely to want to hook up high-performance stuff to their computer.

I don't consider myself an enthusiast yet I can easily imagine myself wanting a desktop USB hub with 2x2 uplink so I can run any mix of 5/10/20G devices from that hub with no performance worries a few years from now and I may end up being one of those weirdoes that ends up running an 11400 on a Z590 for it.

Did I say "weirdo"? Moreover "Enthusiasts" doesn't mean only "latest and greatest" - it also covers "best bang for buck" and "DIY".
As for the need for USB 3.2, remember : there are PCIe cards that can give you that right now. It's still cheaper than a whole new PC.
And, yes, I know what you mean : back when USB2 came out, I thought long and hard about changing my whole system - 40 times more bandwidth was tempting, especially when USB powered hard disk drives became easy to find. However, when a $30 USB2 PCI card could do the trick, I felt it was a better investmend and allowed me to keep using my system for a couple years more.
Compared to that, a mere 4 times more bandwidth at best on something that is already more than enough for a majority of use (USB 3.0 can do more than half a Gb per second, which is the max transfer rate of a SATA SSD) is not incentive enough to upgrade.

 

[InvalidError]

As for the need for USB 3.2, remember : there are PCIe cards that can give you that right now. It's still cheaper than a whole new PC.
Compared to that, a mere 4 times more bandwidth at best on something that is already more than enough for a majority of use (USB 3.0 can do more than half a Gb per second, which is the max transfer rate of a SATA SSD) is not incentive enough to upgrade.

You almost cannot add 2x2 (20G) after-the-fact since even PCIe 4.0 is only 16Gbps per lane and getting to 20Gbps would mean having to sacrifice the usually only x4 slot in the system assuming it isn't already being used for something else.

While USB3 may be fast enough to keep up with SATA3 SSDs reasonably well, there are external enclosures for NVMe SSDs too and those will likely become the most common use for USB 20G.

 

[mitch074]

You almost cannot add 2x2 (20G) after-the-fact since even PCIe 4.0 is only 16Gbps per lane and getting to 20Gbps would mean having to sacrifice the usually only x4 slot in the system assuming it isn't already being used for something else.

While USB3 may be fast enough to keep up with SATA3 SSDs reasonably well, there are external enclosures for NVMe SSDs too and those will likely become the most common use for USB 20G.

And that's what I mean : not many people really need the ability to copy 2 Gb/sec yet. Heck, most computers don't HAVE that kind of throughput on their internal drive! Those who do, and actually make use of it, WILL replace their system. And they'll have a good reason to do so.

 

[InvalidError]

And that's what I mean : not many people really need the ability to copy 2 Gb/sec yet. Heck, most computers don't HAVE that kind of throughput on their internal drive! Those who do, and actually make use of it, WILL replace their system. And they'll have a good reason to do so.

Most people didn't have that sort of throughput before because NVMe SSDs used to cost 30-50% more than SATA. Now, 3.0x4 NVMe SSDs cost about the same as SATA. People wanting to copy files at 1-2GB/s are going to become more common.

 

[-Fran-]

These are the asterisks I do not like about these CPUs when they get "unbound" praise:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68aE1za_Ak


Would you get the same asterisks with AMD? Maybe, but I'm willing to say they'll be less terrible, specially on the cooling side.

Cheers!

 

[spongiemaster]

These are the asterisks I do not like about these CPUs when they get "unbound" praise:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68aE1za_Ak


Would you get the same asterisks with AMD? Maybe, but I'm willing to say they'll be less terrible, specially on the cooling side.

Cheers!

Almost didn't suck is about the most positive thing this site has said about a prebuilt system. If you think I'm exaggerating, feel free to link to a review of a prebuilt on that site that doesn't get completely trashed. Would you have recommended a CyberPower PC to anyone before reading this? I certainly wouldn't have. If someone puts a nice car stereo in a 1995 Toyota Corolla and it sounds like garbage because nothing else was changed, it wouldn't affect whether or not I recommend the product. The implementation matters. So not really sure what your point is here.

 

[-Fran-]

Almost didn't suck is about the most positive thing this site has said about a prebuilt system. If you think I'm exaggerating, feel free to link to a review of a prebuilt on that site that doesn't get completely trashed. Would you have recommended a CyberPower PC to anyone before reading this? I certainly wouldn't have. If someone puts a nice car stereo in a 1995 Toyota Corolla and it sounds like garbage because nothing else was changed, it wouldn't affect whether or not I recommend the product. The implementation matters. So not really sure what your point is here.

The point is: for your average consumer, when they read reviews on how good a certain CPU is without knowing all the asterisks, they'll just won't be making good purchasing decisions; that is all.

Particularly, in that review, they failed the build because of the thermals. Like, that was the whole big point they had an issue with. They're not even use a completely stock cooler for it and the case has proper airflow (or so it seems). I'm not piggybacking on the fact that most pre-builts are bad (specially on the cheaper end), but on the fact that Intel has an issue with thermals and power which ARE NOT TRIVIAL TO IGNORE. They do bring real usage issues when you are not aware and these CPUs, the 11400/F siblings, are on the same boat as the CPU in that build, or within striking range to make it an issue.

That is my point.

Regards,

 

[spongiemaster]

The point is: for your average consumer, when they read reviews on how good a certain CPU is without knowing all the asterisks, they'll just won't be making good purchasing decisions; that is all.

Particularly, in that review, they failed the build because of the thermals. Like, that was the whole big point they had an issue with. They're not even use a completely stock cooler for it and the case has proper airflow (or so it seems). I'm not piggybacking on the fact that most pre-builts are bad (specially on the cheaper end), but on the fact that Intel has an issue with thermals and power which ARE NOT TRIVIAL TO IGNORE. They do bring real usage issues when you are not aware and these CPUs, the 11400/F siblings, are on the same boat as the CPU in that build, or within striking range to make it an issue.

That is my point.

Regards,

This is a textbook example of confirmation bias. The problem with the system lies with the builder, not the CPU. As the reviewer mentioned, but you left out, thermals could have been improved with a $30 HSF. Assuming Cyberpower didn't get the HSF they are using for free, they could have fixed the thermals of this $1000 system by spending an extra $15-20 on the HSF for the CPU. The reviewer goes on to say: "The fact that Cyberpower would ship this thing out the door in this state is embarrassing." Which is spot on. Did they not test the system at all before deciding on the final configuration? How was this missed? A first time DIY'er could possibly make a mistake like this, however, it is inexcusable for an established system builder to make this mistake.

Edit: Here is the cooler Cyberpower is using:

https://www.newegg.com/cooler-master-rr-i71c-20pc-r1/p/N82E16835103279?Item=N82E16835103279

It retails at $20 and is the cheapest CoolerMaster HSF listed on Newegg.

 

[TerryLaze]

The point is: for your average consumer, when they read reviews on how good a certain CPU is without knowing all the asterisks, they'll just won't be making good purchasing decisions; that is all.

Particularly, in that review, they failed the build because of the thermals. Like, that was the whole big point they had an issue with. They're not even use a completely stock cooler for it and the case has proper airflow (or so it seems). I'm not piggybacking on the fact that most pre-builts are bad (specially on the cheaper end), but on the fact that Intel has an issue with thermals and power which ARE NOT TRIVIAL TO IGNORE. They do bring real usage issues when you are not aware and these CPUs, the 11400/F siblings, are on the same boat as the CPU in that build, or within striking range to make it an issue.

That is my point.

Regards,

This is a textbook example of confirmation bias. The problem with the system lies with the builder, not the CPU. As the reviewer mentioned, but you left out, thermals could have been improved with a $30 HSF. Assuming Cyberpower didn't get the HSF they are using for free, they could have fixed the thermals of this $1000 system by spending an extra $15-20 on the HSF for the CPU. The reviewer goes on to say: "The fact that Cyberpower would ship this thing out the door in this state is embarrassing." Which is spot on. Did they not test the system at all before deciding on the final configuration? How was this missed? A first time DIY'er could possibly make a mistake like this, however, it is inexcusable for an established system builder to make this mistake.

He actually shows the thermal paste having a pattern on it due to it not making contact to the HSF, he also shows thermal camera pics of how it doesn't make any contact in the center of the die.
It's actually pretty amazing that with the heaviest realistic workload it only looses a couple of hundred Mhz all core.

 

[-Fran-]

This is a textbook example of confirmation bias. The problem with the system lies with the builder, not the CPU. As the reviewer mentioned, but you left out, thermals could have been improved with a $30 HSF. Assuming Cyberpower didn't get the HSF they are using for free, they could have fixed the thermals of this $1000 system by spending an extra $15-20 on the HSF for the CPU. The reviewer goes on to say: "The fact that Cyberpower would ship this thing out the door in this state is embarrassing." Which is spot on. Did they not test the system at all before deciding on the final configuration? How was this missed? A first time DIY'er could possibly make a mistake like this, however, it is inexcusable for an established system builder to make this mistake.

Edit: Here is the cooler Cyberpower is using:

https://www.newegg.com/cooler-master-rr-i71c-20pc-r1/p/N82E16835103279?Item=N82E16835103279

It retails at $20 and is the cheapest CoolerMaster HSF listed on Newegg.

It's not so much as "confirmation bias" as a point on "it can go bad really easily".

As I said, it can happen to an AMD CPU and the fault lies completely with the builder (Cyberpower in that case), but it's a reality that the increased power and thermals are a problem for such a CPU. The way the cooler was mounted didn't seem incorrect or that they did a bad job at it. Take that as you will, but that can indeed happen to anyone else using a similar cooler, the stock one or even a better one.

Regards,