.png)
Since AMD's competitive launch of their Ryzen Processors, there has been much heated discussion between Intel's 14nm products and Ryzen's new sleek 7nm products which allows them to create monsters such as the Ryzen Threadripper 3990X, a 64-Core 128-Thread Extreme Workload CPU. Although most people would say AMD nowadays, we thought that we would dig that little bit deeper to show the real victor in many categories - value, low-end, middle-class and high end To make this as fair as possible, we have sourced our reference points at the end of this blog, and our data is sourced from various benchmarks, tests and results. To minimise any confusion, all the categories are done separately and ordered accordingly.
Please note that this is a compilation of many benchmarks, and none belongs to Designs By Murphy Xi. Their respective owners have been referenced for recognition.
System-Based Categories
Low-End Systems
Our low-end CPU's are considered to be anywhere between AMD's 6-Core or below CPU's (Sephron, Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, Athlon) and Intel's 4-Core or below CPU's (Celeron, i3, i5, Pentium). We naturally picked the Ryzen 5 against the i5 Dual Cores. The results actually are not really definitive, even with a GTX 1080 Ti, in ARK at 720p, 1080p and 1440p. Although CPU's like the 2600 and the 8400 can be considered as mid-range, their builds are often around $500 to $1000, which is low to mid-range (USD). Here are the results:
Image Courtesy: Tech Spot
In gaming, these results cannot show really if Intel or AMD has an edge in the competition. Where the 2600 is overclocked, if both RAM speeds were the same (which really doesn't matter for Intel), there still wouldn't be much difference. Even in Ultra and Epic settings, frame rates still average above 60 FPS in games such as Assassin's Creed in 1440p. A 2600 in its base clock can see some performance, but the fact that the 8400 remains not unlocked makes it not much of a better choice either.
In Cinebench R15, with the Ryzen 1600 against the 8400, we can see a lot more competition.
Image Courtesy: Tech Spot
The Ryzen 1600 has a much higher rating with both systems on the same motherboard and specs. Although the 1600 is slightly worse than the i5 at single-threaded performance, the 1600 does exceptionally well in multi-threaded performance, which most heavy workloads are done in. Not only does the Ryzen 1600 have better multi-core performance, but the fact that both the CPU's are at the same power consumption means that although the 1600 has better performance, the voltage will be expected to remain almost parallel to the 8400.
Also, the 8400 is a lot more expensive than the Ryzen 2600, and the B450 motherboards for the Ryzen chips are usually cheaper than the ones for the Intel chips. The B450 allows for sustainable overclocking without streching the budget to a $150+ motherboard, unlike Intel's overclocking Z370 chipsets that range at a higher price range.
Furthermore, AMD pursues cores over threads/clock speeds, and this is very useful for heavy workloads, especially video editing. The AMD Ryzen 2600/2600X/3600/3600X would be the perfect CPU for video editors.
Image Courtesy: Tech Spot
Comparing the Ryzen 3 Series to Intel's Pentium and the i5-7400, with different graphics cards on The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, at 1080p, there really isn't a clear lead. All of the CPU's except for the Pentium are in a 5% range from each other, and in fact the Pentium did better than the rest of the Ryzen CPU's with a 1060 graphics card.
Perhaps to squeeze every possible last frame out of your CPU, and money is not a worry around the low-end budget, the 8400 is the CPU for you.
Bottom Line: If you are buying a CPU purely for gaming and you need literally 5-10 more frames each game, the 8400 is the weapon for you. For everyone else, depending on your budget, a Ryzen 3 series or a 5 series is the CPU for you.
Mid-Range Gaming/Video Editing CPU's
It has been pretty well known from the mid to high range CPU's that Intel has taken the lead in the single-threaded performance, which, simplified, is raw gaming performance. In mid-range, CPU's can take more of a lead and flexibility can be created. Following the pattern of most AMD CPU's, the Ryzen series pursues more cores and threads over raw gaming performance and overclocking. For example, their successful launch of the Ryzen 7 2700X, coming in around $200 less than the i7-9700K, has slightly worse overclocks. However, it packs 8 cores and 16 threads that is identical to its competitor, the i7-9700K. This is more high, range, in this comparison, we will be comparing the CPU's that look like from Team Red: Ryzen 5 2600, 2600X, 3600, 3600X, 3400G, Ryzen 7 2700, 2700X and the 3700X. For those who are sharp eyed, the 2600 has also appeared in the low-budget. This CPU is very flexible, and due to its low price tag and its 6 core and 12 threads. From Team Blue, we have: i5-7600K, i5-8400, i5-8400F, i5-9600, i5-9600F, i5-9600KF, i5-9600K, i7-7700K and finally, the i7-8700K. Again, for those who are sharp-eyed, the 8400 has made another appearance.
Image Courtesy: Designs By Murphy Xi
In a head-to-heads line up of pretty much all of these CPU's, we have quite an extensive graph. All in 1080p, these CPU's have been thrown against the Cinebench R20 and also ACO (Assassin's Creed Odyssey). Below is a graph compiled on these CPU's:
Image Courtesy: Tech Spot
In Assassin's Creed, the 3700X has taken the lead (though we would consider this CPU to be high-end as well as it packs eight cores at $298 USD ($489 AUD). With two cores less, the 8700K still has advanced single-threaded performance, thus, making it suitable to gamers. The 3600 is next, and the 2700X after that. These two CPU's perform better than the i5-7700K and the 9600K mainly because of the core counts, though the 3600 has done exceptionally well against its competitor, the 9600K. The setup for everything was the same, so this means that 3600 definitely pulls out in front of the 9600K. The Ryzen 7 1800X comes next, probably due to its slightly less advance technology as the Ryzen generation 1 CPU's are 14nm, following the Intel trend, whereas the Ryzen generation 2 CPU's are 7nm, allowing for up to 15% higher consistent clock rates. The rest of the CPU's are all Ryzen generation 1 or an old Intel generation, explaining why the CPU does not perform very well in games due to its old architecture.
When comparing many head-to-head models in many games, we decided to go for a very well known battle: the AMD Ryzen 3600X vs the Intel Core i5-9600K. This is taken from AMD, so take like grains of salt as AMD would try to make their product seem more eye-catching. Here are the results in eight modern titles:
The results isn't too bad, considering that AMD has definitely taken the lead in the productivity side, which we will get onto a bit later. AMD's FPS does not look so bad at 1080p, but expect around 5-10 frames less on some games depending on your setup, this setup was definitely done with higher speed memory and a good graphics card (1080 Ti at least). Depending on your setup, the 3600X will be a little bit worse, just treat it again as grains of salt.
In the next head-to-head battle, we have the 2700X against the 8700K. Where the 2700X has 2 more cores, the 8700K makes up with clock speeds, at 5.0GHz. However, due to market prices, the AMD CPU is much more favourable, running $130 less than the Intel ($300+ AUD. However, as expected, the Intel CPU has taken the lead in gaming.
Image Courtesy: Tech Spot
Surprisingly, the 2700X holds up against the 8700K despite being 0.8GHz slower in OC mode in 1440p. However, for most gamers, 1080p is the option to go, and for those in 720p, the 8700K has exceptional performance over the 2700X both in the Minimum FPS and the Average Frame Rate.
Even though the 2700X holds up well in gaming, the 8700K outperforms the 2700X in every game. However, we will get into the core advantage in every task that you do on your PC a bit later.
In the Cinebench, as expected, because AMD pursues cores over raw gaming performance, it has much better results than the 8700K. However, those who 'only' to gaming may argue that the $130 is worth it. However, AMD has a point. How many of these do you do everyday? Search Google Chrome, Download a File, Open Google Docs, edit a video, spend time stress testing your CPU, and such things like this? Anyways, here are the results:
Image Courtesy: Designs By Murphy Xi
After reconsideration, the results below just how much the 2700X can make your life easier. 500+ rating on Cinebench can save hours on end after many years. More on this later in the bottom line.
Bottom Line: Most productivity is found in the mid-range CPU's. To reiterate, this is because that AMD pursues cores over threads. For gaming, we would still recommend the Intel CPU's due to their high turbo frequencies. For this budget, think about your purpose: Gaming/Streaming or Occasional Gaming/Streaming, but mainly Video Editing, Web Browsing and Video Rendering. For most YouTubers, the AMD Ryzen lineup is the weapon of choice (Including Designs By Murphy Xi).
High End Gaming/Streaming CPU's
Now that we are talking about high-end Gaming/Streaming CPU's, we can assume that Intel takes the lead right? In this category, we are considering these CPU's: AMD Ryzen 3700X, AMD Ryzen 3800X, AMD Ryzen 3900X, AMD Ryzen 3950X, Intel Core i7-8700K, Intel Core i7-9700K, Intel Core i9-9900K and finally the Intel Core i9-9900KS. In this one, we are just doing one-to-one battles.
The only one-to-one battle is arguably the most competitive battle that the technology world has ever seen - the 9900K vs the 3900X. Below are the more popular titles, to view all titles for gaming benchmarks, be sure to stick around for our blog: The Battle of the Flagship: Intel Core i9-9900K vs. AMD Ryzen 9 3900X.
(Not in OverClocked Mode)
(OverClocked Mode)
Image Courtesy: Tech Spot
As expected, Team Blue was able to pull out gaming, however, not as impressive a margin as we expected. In Base Turbo Clock Frequency mode, the Intel Core i9-9900K only pulls out 6% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, and surprisingly only 5% faster than the 3900X when overclocked, though the Intel CPU is known for its excellent overclock.
Although we talked about how this margin was not big, we would still recommend Intel's Core i9 for streaming.
Why?
Streamers are known for squeezing every last bit of frame rates out of their CPU's, where one lag spike can determine the result of the game. Yes, perhaps for everyone else, the 3900X is the choice of weapon. However, again, for streamers who are looking to stream often, for very demanding titles like Battlefield V, where 60 FPS is a constant struggle, the 9900K can often improve gameplay in-stream, and this can lead to many after effects. Also, due to its eight cores, it is still productive for video editing, though not quite as productive as the 3900X, but for the average gamer the 9900K packs more horsepower than desired.
High-End Video Editing CPU's
The High-End gaming category went to team blue. But that does not mean that team red does not have its own lineup for perhaps different reasons. In this category, we are focusing on these four CPU's: AMD Ryzen 9 3700X, AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, AMD Ryzen 9 3950X, Intel Core i9-9900K and finally the Intel Core i9-9900KS. Although the Intel 9 series CPU lineup is targeted for gaming, we just wanted to appreciate the margin that it is expected to fall behind the AMD 3rd Generation Ryzen Series lineup (as heavily hinted in YouTube reviews such as Gamers Nexus, JayzTwoCents, etc.) Note that we have also thrown in a 3700X, to see if even the 3700X, running at $210 less than the i9-9900K (at time of writing) in USD, equivalent to $382 less in AUD.
In this benchmark, note that every CPU is running at 8 cores only, including the 3900X. Every CPU is also running at 4GHz each, including the 9900K. Where this factor showed itself was where the 3900X has its 8 cores enabled spread across two dies, whereas the 3700X only had the eight cores spread on one die. However, still, due to these fair test conditions which would really show which CPU had the upper hand, we could achieve as fair a result as possible, as between these two CPU's we get to see which CPU boasts more multi-core performance. Note that all possible bottlenecks were removed, including the motherboard such as a bad Z390 motherboard for the 9900K. Below are the results, which are outlined one-by-one:
Image Courtesy: Tech Spot
Kicking it off with the trusty Cinebench R20 Multi-Core test, the 3900X has still managed to top everything else, with a comfortable ~15% speed increase over the 9900K. The 3700X and the 3900X are parallel with each other in results, but the 3900X pulls out just less than 0.1% faster. AMD is almost in a place where they are competing against themselves (Be sure to stick around for our Gazette, highlighting this issue and possibly a post regarding AMD's competition), where the 3rd Generation Ryzen Processors are getting 18% faster than their predecessors, the 2nd Generation Ryzen Processors.
Image Courtesy: Tech Spot
The morel of this one is the same: Intel lacks performance, however, only going down by 9% this time bu this time the Ryzen 3rd Generation Processors turned out to be 13% faster than its predecessor. Again, the results are paralleled to what we saw in the previous Cinebench, no difference/noticeable changes to make note of.
Image Courtesy: Tech Spot
In V-Ray, AMD's 4+4 die processing mode for the cores means that it has more of a performance boost, more than 1% faster than the 3700X. This is considerable, as in the real world, lets face it, you bought the 3900X to use all 12 cores, not to handicap 1/3 of them. Due to this architecture design, the Ryzen 3900X has been 6% faster than the i9-9900K, and over 10% faster than the 2700X this time around.
Image Courtesy: Tech Spot
We are ending with the Corona 1.3 Benchmark (And which, for those worried, is not affiliated or related to or with the COVID-19), which is basically a render time test given in times. Note that for this one Lower is Better. This time, the 3900X was 3% faster than the 3700X, which again is a minor feature, but now 16% faster than the 2700X, whilst only 4% faster than the 9900K. As aforementioned, the 9900K can still render in similar speeds to the 3900X (obviously remember the 4 handicapped cores) but is still the option for gamers.
Bottom Line: Even in fair test conditions, the 3900X pulls out faster than the 9900K, which makes it desirable if gaming is not the only thing that you do everyday. For those who game 0-1.5 hours a day, definitely AMD is the way to go. For YouTubers, AMD is the way to go. If you are desperately wishing to purchase the 9900K, read the section above title, "High End Gaming/Streaming CPU's".
Value CPU's
We are ending this with Value CPU's. There is no doubt about the fact that AMD has the upper hand in this category as most of their CPU's are more competitively priced that Intel's alternatives. Here are the top 15 Value CPU's, sourced from https://www.cpubenchmark.net/.
Image Courtesy: CPU Benchmark.net
It is extremely noticeable the Intel only holds one out of fifteen spots on the top 15 value CPU's. This demonstrates that to validate your purchase, AMD is most definitely the option to go with. It was surprising to find the Threadripper 1920X up at second place, but the Threadripper series can really justify its cheap price: Imagine a 9900K but a little bit worse at $300 USD ($550AUD) less. Just bonkers! The Ryzen 1600 and the Ryzen 2600 have always been of good value, followed by the eight core 1800X. This is really the pattern that we have seen with AMD and this has really been what has knocked Intel out of the competition.
The i3-9100F must be noted as well as an Intel 9th Generation processor, and in order to avoid the hassle of the BIOS update, a Z390 motherboard is required (Check out our review of the Top 5 Category Z390 Motherboards). As in our review, the Z390 boards that are less than $200 AUD are quite frankly garbage, and to invest in a flexible Z390 motherboard can range from $150+ USD, $250+ AUD such as the ASUS Z390-A gaming, lower-end Z390 system board coming in at $279 AUD.
Whereas on the other side of the house, AMD B450 motherboards can be shipped with BIOS updates already done prior, such as the MSI B450 Tomahawk Max, which is only $100 USD, $180 AUD! This price for the motherboard with rich features is sure to overpower the overpriced Z390 chipsets that work well like the X570 chipsets at a higher price (in which X570 chipsets follow the same pattern, for example, the MSI-A Gaming is really living a life in the dumpsters - literally in every review as it is basically featureless.)
Conclusion
We have covered a lot in this blog. In recap, every section but one goes to AMD. This is because of their high versatility, and their extremely low, competitive pricing. As discussed, the chipsets and the BIOS updates can be a problem for some.
Be sure to check out these blogs as well, and the later ones coming soon such as the 3900X vs the 9900K