Intel Core i3-10300 and i3-10100 Cinebench Scores Spotted, compared with Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100

Alleged prices, but I remember Hilbert also reporting this I think.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/full-10th-gen-comet-lake-cpu-tray-pricing-listed

 

These processors may be lower end than the 6/6, 6/12, 8/8, 8/16, etc, processors, but they aren't at a low end at all, they are actually still very useful processors for most things, just at look how good the 6700 and 7700 processors still are for most tasks, especially for gamers. Now, sure, who knows how they will be seen by the casual buyer who wants a "home PC for stuff" if that still exists, or how will be offered by sellers, but for the ones who bother to see what's there, wants a new PC for some gaming (or even something else, specific), with a new processor and is tight in budget (which are a lot of people), these processors with a mid range graphic card are an aboslutely amazing buy.
Think about it, right now there aren't such options. If the Core i5 6/6 (6/12 in months) processosr or the Ryzen 5 6/6-6/12 processors aren't cheap enough for you then you only have unfit 4/4 Core i3/Ryzen 3 or worse 2/4 Pentium/Athlon or some old arquitecture processor (A6/A8/A10). Now, there are great offers like the 1600AF (older arquitecture but still extremely apt for everything) but those are abnormalities. And again, just see what the Intel 6700, 7700 are still capable to do.
All this of course if these processors are cheap enough.
So to me you have to rather see them as mid range processors, because 4/8 newer arquitecture processors are still great.
Now, I wonder when that will stop being the case?

 

Hey, I didn't make the video. Here's a comparison from BF1, it's not the easiest game to bench but yeah, the 1600 is on top, but to say the 7600 is left to do office tasks is a bit silly


And to show you that I'm not a fanboy, here's Watch Dogs 2, again 1600 wins
Here's SotTR, pretty much a draw


And like I said above, and I quote, "Those CPUs are fine but then can struggle in some games, whereas the 8 threaded equivalents are chugging along nicely." There is still a lot of games that will not take advantage of the cores that the 1600 offers and that's where you see the 7600 on top. And there's games where the 1600 is on top. But again, saying the 7600 is left to do office work is incorrect. You must know that.

 

Pretty soon, I would say. I'm still on 4c/8t and I don't see a reasonable upgrade for my needs right now.

I will remain on this CPU for another year, I think. I want to see a gaming performance increase to go with the number of cores. I'm thinking my next CPU will be a 8c/16t (or more) CPU with gaming performance that will be worth upgrading to.

 

Why to use 4000 memory with ryzen 3000 the sweet spot is 3733 for minimum latency after that you are ruining your cpu performance ,my 3800x + 3733 at tight settings is giving me 63.5ns your 4000 memory takes the latency at least 90-95 and that is the reason that your oced 7700k is winning and what about the cpu usage for this old cpu is always 100% and in latest dx12/Vulcan games showing stutters and really low 1-0,1% fps.

 

4 of 6 games in this bench is optimized for single threaded performance this is best case senario for intel.But the numbers for both is good.

 

show me these low 1%/0.1%

 

Bunk.

4000 MT/s ram will cut the IF ratio to less than 1:1, so you're either deliberately gimping your own performance, or you're spouting utter bull.
Set the ram to 3733 MT/s then show us those games that perform better on a 7700k over a 3600.

At any rate, I find it amazing that ever since joining in 2003, I have found the first ever person actually worth putting on my ignore list. Have fun.

 

He never said he was using 4000mhz with Ryzens

 

PS: The vast majority of gamers DO NOT Overclock!

On Topic: Will be interesting to see the benchmarks comparing both Intels Vs. Amds chips

 

Learn too read... I didn't say 4000mhz memory on Ryzen
I'm using 3800c16 memory on 3900x with 63ns memorylatency on Asrock x570.

 

It was legit at least here where i live msrp is rarely the actual price in canada there is a rape charge for the pleasure of having our crappy currency exchanged on top of the actual exchange.

 

Learn too read... I didn't say 4000mhz memory on Ryzen

 

You see, it would have helped if you said it was CAD. But you choose not to. I'm not psychic. BTW, $350 USD is $490 CAD so you actually got a good deal.

 

FYI: Looks like the 1600 AF is no longer only $85 on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/-/es/gp/product/B07XTQZJ28/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

No I meant 400-450$USD after factoring the conversion at the time the exchange was actually better at the time for us they where around 500cad at the time regardless of what it cost my main point stands it's funny to see these once expensive parts at the bottom of the barrel though I guess this is how the tech industry goes.

 

Forgot to mention they always tack on an extra 20-50$ for no reason exchange aside.

 

Just checked Canadian prices vs USA prices. Not scientific or anything but...

9900k $524 (Newegg USA) - $679 Memory Express (Canada) / 1.29x the US price
9700k - $380 USD - $539 CAD / 1.42x the US price
Ryzen 3700x $299 USD - 429 CAD / 1.43x the US price
Ryzen 3800x $ 367 USD - $475 CAD / 1.3x the US price
Cheapest 2080 Super - $710 USD - $1000 CAD / 1.41x the US price
Cheapest 2060 - $289 USD - $439 CAD / 1.52x the US price
Cheapest 5700xt - $378 USD - $520 CAD / 1.37x the US price

Seeing as the conversion rate is currently 1 USD = 1.40 CAD, you're getting very comparable prices to the USA. Sometimes below the conversion rate, sometimes just over.

In what sense is the 7700k bottom of the barrel btw? Please explain? I'm genuinely curious.

 

What I'm not seeing here is much of a penalty other than clock-speed difference in the Cinebench scores between the dual-die 3100 and the single-die 3300x (die = cpu chiplet here, not counting the IO chip). I would surmise there's not much of a penalty if the core complexes can't use L3 cache on another core complex in the 1st place.

What I think is genuinely priceless is the folks that are saying about '7700k' or '7600k' etc similar quad-core intel chip is 'faster in games'. Yes, the intel's do beat AMD in about half of the games, if that's all you run / all that is important to you, keep the 7600k, that'll save more AMD chips for the rest of us to make the games with.
So, to that end, not everyone (not even here) buys their PC for gaming. Sure, many people who build custom machines play a few games - but how many will even notice a 1~10% difference in game speed without seeing an FPS counter - IF they play games on it?
Maybe they want it for office work, an email PC in the living room or HTPC, maybe for some light content creation on a budget?
I do mostly content creation here. That's what matters most. Game performance comes in a distant 3rd after content creation and over-all system performance/file management performance.
I could have bought a 9900k/z390 board / a lesser video card, in-stead of the 3700x /x570 motherboard / 2070 super, but I didn't.

The only thing that matters, to most, is that the new machine you build or buy is better than the old one. This can include new instructions, much better memory bandwidth (that lots of single-threaded dx11 titles won't tax, for the most part those less-memory-bandwidth-taxing games will favor intel), or just drastically less power usage (like a 3700x vs a 4790k OC'ed @ 4.4ghz).
It's nice to see a two-fold or better increase in performance when making a new build from the ground up, to stave off any buyer's remorse.
So, to that end, if you have a 4790k, move up to at-least a 3700x. If you just have a 2500k and are on an extreme budget, get that 3300x or if you want 6 cores get the 1600AF / 2600 or 3600 if needed where budget allows. Get some fast memory but don't pay more than an extra 20~25$ for fast memory (excluding RGB stuff for the kids if that's your thing). While going from a 2500k to a 3300x isn't much of a jump, it will certainly give you all the new standards on the motherboard, the new instruction sets, a much better scheduler (the system is much more responsive even with all threads working), much higher memory bandwidth, less security holes (the posters vouching for the 7600k's speed didn't count that in), and much better power usage.

I'm not a fanboy of anything but "competition in the market-place".
This level of chip is both for people on a budget, and people like me who 11 years or more ago built their now-retired-age mother an Athlon II Regor-core dual-core PC with DDR2 in it, who want to buy something affordable on the cheap for her to do the church/tractor club meetings and emails on it with. That said, that little old Athlon II boots Windows 10 in 4~5 seconds from Bios stage completion / hand-off.
--That is all.
P.S. I came from a 4790k to a 3700x, the difference is mind-blowing. Maybe on some games you won't notice the difference, but you're not building a fancy PC to just run 'yesterday's software' either.

 

I never said the 7700k is bottom of the barrel i said it is being compared to bottom of the barrel in the article the scores are being compared to the 3100/3300 and i3's which are bottom of the barrel.
I had never heard of memory express before but dam they got way better pricing on intel processors than on newegg and that's where i normally compare all my prices thanks for that