cryoburner
Judicious
- Oct 8, 2011
- 5,756
- 1,365
- 34,840
So, you expect an i5-11400 to be faster than all of Intel's current mainstream lineup as well then? That seems a bit optimistic. : P
It's completely nonsensical comparing the value of a 6-core processor against an 8-core model that way. Today's games tend to not see much benefit from going over 6-cores with 12-threads, so you should be comparing against the readily-available Ryzen 3600, not a 3700X, especially one that's being sold at a price well above MSRP by some random third-party seller at a store that's otherwise out-of-stock. You could have at least linked to one of the other online stores that has the 3700X in stock at MSRP, if not the far more logical comparison of the Ryzen 3600 at $200. And you could just as easily say that there is no real reason to buy an i7 or i9 for running today's games, as those extra cores won't be doing much in most cases, at least not yet. It's very possible that the additional cores will provide more benefit as games begin targeting the new generation of consoles though, which all feature 8-core, 16-thread Ryzen processors that are much-improved over what their predecessors had.
The 3700X is also a prior-gen processor at this point, and is now getting a bit harder to find, since I doubt AMD is dedicating any significant amount of their limited 7nm production toward them. Hence, why they are out-of-stock at the site you linked to, with only a higher-priced third-party option available. If you are going to link to out-of-stock hardware in the $300+ range, you should probably link to the current-gen 5600X instead, as it can be over 20% faster than a 3700X in CPU-limited gaming scenarios.
And comparing 1440p Ultra gaming results as a measure of CPU performance? Even with the 2080 Ti being used for those benchmarks, performance was virtually identical between a majority of CPUs in that list, as the frame rates were largely graphics-limited. Even the budget quad-core Ryzen 3300X performed within about 5% of an i9-10900K there. Again, it's a bit of a nonsensical comparison, and the only thing it shows is that for running today's AAA games at 1440p, all of these CPUs perform about the same, whether AMD or Intel, mid-range or high-end. And with a more mid-range graphics card, the results would be grouped even closer together at 1440p, more like the 4K chart, where even a first-gen Ryzen 1600 is shown to perform within 3% of the fastest processor in the list.
The i5-10400/10400F is a decent gaming processor though, and I would say it is arguably a better deal than the Ryzen 3600 at current pricing. Performance-wise, the two are generally shown to perform about the same in games, with some review sites showing the 3600 slightly ahead when the 10400 is installed on a non-Z-series board where it can't take advantage of faster memory speeds, and the 10400 slightly ahead when it can. Realistically, any performance difference between the two should be imperceptible. The current ~$40 price difference arguably gives it a bit of an "edge", though the 3600 was that price for much of last year, until AMD's 7nm manufacturing capacity became tight, stretched between their new CPUs, GPUs and console APUs.
In any case, with the graphics card shortages as they are, none of this ultimately matters much. You are unlikely to be able to build a reasonably priced gaming system right now, so whether one is able to save a little money by going with one CPU over another is irrelevant.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram