[SOLVED] Why i3 9100f is bad against ryzen 5 3500

[nikhilsaxena835]

So everyone is saying that the ryzen 5 3500 is the winner but I couldn't see why. 9100f costs almost half as 3500 and give nearly the same performance as checked on user-benchmarks.

 

[Phaaze88]

Userbenchmark: that was a mistake. That site is run by Intel shills, and is far from reliable.
More relative result: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-3500-vs-Intel-i3-9100F/3588vs3461

Neither is very good if looking to game on them, at least; very limited thread count. Older titles will be fine though.

 

[DeauteratedDog]

Userbenchmark weights low-thread-count performance and memory latency performance heavily -- Intel Core processors do well in those metrics,

 

[mdd1963]

For surfing, running Solitaire, Word, and Calc, I'd actually expect the 9100F to be faster, to the user...

Any games planned, get the 3500X, or, even the 3300X.

(Userbench is quite close to worthless)

 

[Phaaze88]

Yay! Solitare, Word, and Calc - faster than ever! Whooo!

 

[FoxVoxDK]

The sarcasm in this room is so thick I can touch it! xD

 

[Third-Eye]

Quick internet search shows me the i3-9100F is around 3-5% faster than the Ryzen 5 3500. The R53500 has 6 cores 6 threads and the i3-9100F has 4 cores 4 threads, so 3500 would be better for multithreaded games and tasks.

 

[nikhilsaxena835]

Then which processor will you recommend for like 140$
P.S. parts here in india are costlier than in US

 

[Phaaze88]

Then which processor will you recommend for like 140$

Depends:
If you just want something for simple browsing, MS Word - light stuff, etc., I'd say the 9100 non F, if you don't already have a discreet gpu.

If this is for running more modern games, then neither, because both are already limited out of the gate; you won't get far on either without some performance issues.
Ryzen 1600AF(12nm), 2600, 3100, 3300X, or Intel 10100, 10320... wouldn't go any lower than those.