AMD Ryzen 3 3300X vs Intel i9-10900K: How much does CPU speed matter for games? | Upscaled

[@klym8_]

"Intel couldn't get us the i3"... Intel scared bruhhhhhh

[@SammieDD3]

Bruh I got an i3

[@ZazzilasArden]

@@SammieDD3 He meant Intel didn't want to offer the i3 for comparison against the 3300X.

[@likeclockwork6473]

AMD can't get me the 3300X either. Pre ordered May 17

[@TheStraightGod]

@@likeclockwork6473 I personally just gave up and bought the 3600

[@vert3cx373]

FACTS

[@FeelAndCoffee]

Loved the the Verge build reference.

[@adebowalekonstantinov404]

can someone timestamp it please?

[@AANation360]

Where was it

[@overwheat]

@@AANation360 2:36 ish

[@WarriorsPhoto]

Yeah I liked it as well. Good way to pay respect.

[@joshg3129]

Wait so this guy is comparing the $120 AMD to the $500 Intel chip? Shouldn't he be comparing the $500 Intel to the $500 AMD 3900x, which happens to be much faster than the Intel? Something smells very fishy..

[@LGXerxes]

1% lowest frames would be nice to see. Or a frametime graph EDIT: Frogot to say: really good video! Enjoying the Upscaled serie.

[@kishores7034]

What is 1% lowest frames?

[@potatoesarelyfe4706]

It shows how low the frame rate dips (the lowest 1% of the frames averaged)

[@selohcin]

@@potatoesarelyfe4706 No, "1% Low" usually refers to the 99th percentile frame times. Every major tech reviewer uses this standard and the RivaTuner software calculates this way.

[@nathangamble125]

@@potatoesarelyfe4706 It's not the average fps of the slowest 1% frames, it's the maximum fps of the slowest 1% frames. Like selohcin said, it's a percentile score.

[@rushnerd]

Frametimes are incredibly important. You could get decent results from a first gen i7 or old AMD chips, but the experience in actual gameplay vs new cpus is a LOT different even if the FPS numbers are the same.

[@warnacokelat]

AMD: innovation Intel: marketing

[@joshua_v_thomas]

True

[@RafitoOoO]

AMD is taking no prisoners recently. Just embarassing intel.

[@demonking5436]

Amd ryzen 5 5600h with RTX 3050 4gb or and ryzen 7 5800hx with GTX 1650 4gb ?? Please somebody help me😬

[@adamkullai5971]

Do you really want to pay a 400 dollar premium for an extra (wait for it) 4 frames per second for the 10900K

[@nathangamble125]

it's higher in a lot of games... but then, if you're using anything less than a Radeon VII or RTX 2080, the benefit would be even less than what we see in this video.

[@ahmedezaansworld6113]

@Jeff T lol you do know intel is marketing the 10900k as the "fastest gaming processor" no mention of compute workloads, as they know a 3900x would rip them apart in those.

[@Frostie3672]

@@ahmedezaansworld6113 that fastest gaming processor marketing is quite telling but going by the comments I see in most videos on youtube the majority of intel fans haven't figured it out. Basically intel are themselves acknowledging that ryzen plays games just fine, unlike back in the fx bulldozer days when amd was way behind in gaming performance & so that marketing line from Intel wasn't needed. When it comes to gaming, either amd or Intel will get you a great gaming performance, will be amusing when zen 3 comes out though if it tops intel in gaming as I wonder if amd will then advertise their high end cpu as the fastest gaming cpu lol

[@tastycarbonara]

@Jeff T not wrong for the time being. They're also right if we don't look at the prices...

[@adultbrian]

@Jeff T The only argument against that is that the new consoles will all be 8 core 16 thread cpus, so it makes sense if your looking to keep up with the next gen to get an 8 core cpu, but for the 3300x price you can easily upgrade later when you feel like its needed

[@James-ln6li]

Loving this Upscaled series

[@WarriorsPhoto]

Chris is great presenter and he always comes off as genuine. (:

[@TommyVercettisGamingNews]

Yeah it was a great video! I really needed this information to purchase a cpu

[@HelloFellowDinosaurs]

@@WarriorsPhoto I thought that too, he finds a way to speak facts without offending people 😂

[@demonking5436]

Amd ryzen 5 5600h with RTX 3050 4gb or and ryzen 7 5800hx with GTX 1650 4gb ?? Please somebody help me😬

[@az-fy3mp]

intel should just stop playing these stupid higher clock game and start reducing the prices if they cannot get better ipc from these processors

[@Matlockization]

Intel is too dam greedy to reduce the price, besides they have shills to pay off before they cross that bridge.

[@EvlEgle]

Lol, you mean the same processor they have been selling for like 6 years now.

[@EvlEgle]

@@Matlockization Its not so much greed as the fact that intel wont price their product to be competitve on price to performance with AMD. They will either make a product that is like 3-5% faster sell it on prestige of being better, or they wont compete. Intel is a premium product like Apple or Lexus. Idiots will always pay more for perceived quality that comes along with the price being higher.

[@Matlockization]

@@EvlEgle Correct. Although it would be nice to see company's optimizing their software to be more compatible with AMD architecture.

[@EvlEgle]

I mean AMD is outperforming intel on just about everything but core clocks right now. And Intel doesn't seem to have anything ready to release anytime soon that can compete. 6+ Years of not having to compete with AMD really is going end up hurting intel in the long run if AMD keeps up with the velocity of its new releases. Zen 3 right around the corner. Zen 4 or whatever the new socket will be called in 2022 I'd bet. And intel can't do anything but keep rereleasing 14nm chips. 10nm chips where such a failure they dont even seem to making desktop skus at all.

[@tinaungmyint4983]

I guess he made some shady throws at the verge pc build. 😹😹

[@Jakensik]

When?

[@cosmins3268]

@@Jakensik 2:39 The perfect amount of thermal paste

[@TimSheehan]

@@cosmins3268 That's a more general thing, there's always someone in the comments who thinks you used too much, too little, or the wrong pattern to apply thermal paste when it just plain /doesn't matter/ as long as you use a sane amount and tighten the cooler/block down correctly.

[@cosmins3268]

@@TimSheehan yep , nailed it .

[@theSUBVERSIVE]

To think The Verge was born from Engadget... hahahaha...

[@JensUhlmannOfficial]

Upscaled should be a standalone channel IMO and produce more videos, because the series sets it apart from other tech channels. They are the only videos I watch from this channel.

[@demonking5436]

Amd ryzen 5 5600h with RTX 3050 4gb or and ryzen 7 5800hx with GTX 1650 4gb ?? Please somebody help me😬

[@VardhanShrivastava]

Wow, never thought that anybody will pull this comparison! Kudos for trying something new!

[@unskeptable]

Would

[@demonking5436]

Amd ryzen 5 5600h with RTX 3050 4gb or and ryzen 7 5800hx with GTX 1650 4gb ?? Please somebody help me😬

[@VardhanShrivastava]

@@demonking5436 hx over h, but wait, when did 3050 launch?

[@ronniedai3683]

I use the same CPU cooler with only 1 fan installed on my 3950X. Never had the temp go over 70C.

[@thattoonguy9050]

Do you have that 3950x underclocked by any chance. Got the 3900x with a corsair h100i aio, hits a constant 90c under full load @ 4.3 on all cores

[@katech6020]

@@thattoonguy9050 Undervolt it and thermal will become better. many motherboard give more voltage than what the CPU actually need to. also 3950X is a better bin and use less power than 3900X

[@taegire]

I have a 3900x overclocked to 4.4 Ghz @ 1.3 Volts. Same deal it never goes over 70C on my Noctua NHD15. I do however have both fans on my cooler and theyre spinning at 1048 RPM

[@demonking5436]

Amd ryzen 5 5600h with RTX 3050 4gb or and ryzen 7 5800hx with GTX 1650 4gb ?? Please somebody help me😬

[@InvntdXNEWROMAN]

This is one of those videos where the 1 percent and 0.1 percent lows are really important and aren't shown here.

[@Albertomor4321]

Kyle Gruber why?

[@default632]

@@Albertomor4321 in layman terms, that's the lowest frames your experience, thus, the stutturs you notice. Newer CPU (ryzen) is better in that regard

[@evalangley3985]

GPU bottleneck... it doesn't matter...

[@leafbelly]

@@Albertomor4321 I honestly have no idea, but I'm guessing it's because it would make Intel look bad ... because everyone on KZbin hates Intel. At least that's all I ever see in comments on these kinds of videos.

[@katech6020]

they are not bad. i have seen 3300X benchmarks with a 2080Ti and it was good

[@MatrixJockey]

WAIT FOR ZEN 3

[@ruxandy]

@@hypnotoad2999 , the assumption is that you already have a decent CPU (and also true is that nowadays, even a 5 year old CPU can handle most games just fine, with few exceptions). Heck, I have many computers (*cough* 20+ *cough* crazy *cough*), and one of them is a Core i5 2600k, running @ 4.8 GHz. Believe me when I tell you that this CPU still packs a punch 9 years after it launched! So, having said that, if the games you play still work fine, but you still want to upgrade anyway.... might as well just wait for a worthy Sandy Bridge successor :) I, for one, bought the Ryzen 5 3600 a year ago, because I think this is the next 'Sandy Bridge' (I might be wrong, time will tell).

[@shamanahaboolist]

@@hypnotoad2999 No it isn't. Zen 3 is a bigger generation jump than most. It includes big changes in all the systems surrounding the CPU too. The consoles give you a clue that the next gen AMD stuff is big. A big jump in RAM speed and PCIE 4.0

[@ares7522]

@@hypnotoad2999 u dump?

[@Redfoot138]

I bought the 3300X for now and will upgrade to Zen 3 later.

[@rufioh]

This was actually a really good video. I was expecting that it was going to be an unfair comparison, but you addressed that really early in the video. But the almost non-existant performance at 4k ultra settings was definitely surprising

[@Cooe.]

It shouldn't have been. 4K gaming has been GPU bound/bottlenecked literally since the first 4K monitors showed up. As long as you have enough CPU threads to run the game engine properly, 4K performance changes extremely little CPU to CPU because you're so damn GPU bottlenecked (CPU's always waiting on the GPU, not the other way around).

[@erwinmatic5062]

@@Cooe. correct.

[@janbeggebeen]

wow I can save a lot of money with my 4k monitor. Do not understand why.

[@namenotfound8747]

BS at 4K if it ain’t a RTX 2080ti then you have no business running it at that resolution. As someone who does plays 4K or 5k monitors if you can’t give me 60fps, then it’s best to play 1080p with every on max. No one is using a Radeon 7 for 4K ultra or god forbid 5k, unless its like Hitman, Doom, or Forza. Think about it. Who spends that much money to play at 40-45 FPS. If want 60fps at 4K and sometimes at 5k 60fps its a flagship intel i9 and RTX2080ti. AMD has no business in high end gaming. At least not yet.

[@rushdown3031]

@@namenotfound8747 Agreed.

[@21paperclip]

Of course Intel couldn't provide their slowest least capable chip

[@demonking5436]

Amd ryzen 5 5600h with RTX 3050 4gb or and ryzen 7 5800hx with GTX 1650 4gb ?? Please somebody help me😬

[@johnmichaelb1]

This is probably my favorite tech series ever. They go into the details without being overwhelming

[@InvntdXNEWROMAN]

Wish this data had the 1 percent and 0.1 percent lows though. Just seeing the average frame rates doesn't paint the entire picture.

[@leafbelly]

@@InvntdXNEWROMAN He literally just said "without being overwhelming."

[@EspHack]

a more important metric for this particular comparison would be frametime consistency, lesser cores will have way more chances to screwup, so even though a 3300x usually throws more avg fps than a 2600, the 2600 will overall look "smoother" thanks to the core count overhead thats to say, I prefer a SOLID 90fps rather than a jumpy 120fps

[@vh9network]

You win with the Radeon VII. I'm so sick of seeing tech reviewers throw in a RTX 2080 Ti on every benchmark. Nice to see something different.

[@corniel657]

Should've been the 5700xt tho

[@chadbizeau5997]

2080TI is the de facto fastest card out there (not counting the Titan). It is the best GPU to test CPUs with to make sure games are as CPU bound as plausible.

[@vh9network]

@@chadbizeau5997 I know the 2080 Ti is the fastest consumer card, but you should be able to stick in any modern GPU and get good results of what games are GPU versus CPU bound.

[@leetoza4362]

@@vh9network trying my best to understand why you want to see that. The point of testing if it's a bottleneck currently, is to try ascertain if your next gpu would be bottlenecked, hence you use the fastest card around to try crystal ball similar performance from next gen cards. What exactly does your proposed test prove, other than "here are some middle ground benchmark results".

[@LogicaSimple]

I love how you addressed this topic. Information on this can be really tricky to understand for newcomers.

[@lindsaysmall7471]

Super interesting content, don't often see comparisons that aren't apples to apples. Really good stuff

[@ares7522]

Well, note: ryzen 4000 is coming this year (in maybe 5nm already) and Ryzen 3000 refreshes named XT in 7nm+

[@phillip_iv_planetking6354]

AMD's or TSMC's 7nm is 7nm in name only. TSMC's 5nm is not really 5nm LOL.

[@kingduytan]

Nice comparison videos. I'm glad it emphasizes an important aspect for the common folks when buying a gaming PC: a balance build that yields best p/p for the RESOLUTION and picture quality they wants to game at. Most reviews just focus solely on how a 3-4k rig perform in 1080p low settings, when in reality if you are reaching the Radeon vii or 2070 range you'll most likely game at 1440p+, then the CPU becomes much less important, and that money saved going down from even an i5 10600k to r5 3600 can be put toward next GPU tier which yields much more fps in return.

[@KalanYore]

AMD were innovators of dual chips to be independent CPUs whereas Intel just sandwiched 2 cores... AMD was first to make multiple quad chipsets and 8 core chipset... AMD also has materials to their CPUs to reduce heat and requires less power, longer lifespan along with overclocking in comparison to Intel chipsets? nVidia GPU graphics cards are superior as well GTX/ Ti or RTX... Intel is using more threads [ multithreading ] for their product; using virtual cores running between actual CPU processing cores to achieve their goal to push the limits while eating a lot of power and AMD again outperforms Intel by using CPU cores processing power and less virtual cores processing mapping... if one wants to cheat to take advantage is to have as many more threads than your competitor?!? Between these CPUs that AMD has 8 threads while Intel has 20 threads for a quad core chipset?

[@stromsie]

They are comparing a $100 CPU to a $500 CPU. Its impressive that the Ryzen 3 can keep up with the top of the line for consumer parts from intel in gaming (A metric which Intel has dominated for all of recent history). Just to be clear though, the Ryzen 3 is a 4 core (8 thread) CPU and the i9 is a 10 core(20 thread) CPU. AMD has higher core (and thread) count chips available for cheaper than even the 10900k that will perform similarly in gaming but absolutely trounce them in multithreaded CPU loads. You are correct about the power usage, but this isn't because AMD has done some amazing magic. Intel is still running a 14nm node whereas AMD is on 7nm. Smaller nm nodes mean more power efficiency. I fully expect intel to wallop AMD if they can get their smaller process nodes figured out (they have been struggling to do this for a long time). Long story short: AMD is a great all arounder and an amazing CPU for the price. If you want absolutely balls to the wall gaming performance you go with the 10900k. Outside of that very specific use case, AMD is better in basically every other scenario... for now.

[@kalapoikedeviere7962]

@@stromsie if im correct amd might move to 5nm by the time intel goes to a smaller node

[@FATMIKED5183]

@@kalapoikedeviere7962 I hope so.That would be hilarious.

[@stromsie]

@@kalapoikedeviere7962 time will tell:) AMD outsources the production of their chips, so they are limited to the technology that other vendors have. Intel does it all in-house, so their capacity and innovations rely solely on them. I expect their next releases to move to a smaller node as they already are for their mobile CPUs.

[@leafbelly]

@@FATMIKED5183 Why is that funny?

[@WarriorsPhoto]

Because you do such good reviews I came to watch this video. I liked the way you went about showcasing these benchmarks. It showed where the GPU and CPU started to become the bottle neck. Thank you for doing this and I am sure you'll find ideas to write and prepare for us.

[@YTPartyTonight]

Ryzen 9 3900X can now be found for around $400. I purchased my 3900X for that price at Micro Center over a month ago.

[@oogioboogie]

Intel got nothing on AMD when it comes to power efficiency and value.

[@kaptain1477]

r3conwoo a better comparison is mustang vs Tesla. That’s a better comparison because electric motors are 95% power efficient while gas is 35% for the engine and for all the features on the Tesla makes it a way better buy.

[@sezoism]

the 3900x is really not that far off from the i9 lol..and the beauty of the i9 is you have so many ways to customize it from super power mode to more efficiency

[@phillip_iv_planetking6354]

@vijay surendran Yet it's old 14nm still beats AMD in gaming and in some workstation apps LOL. AMD should be winning in everything given they have a chip half the size and are at what it's 4th refresh now? All AMD has done is catch up literally. Fucking priceless.

[@phillip_iv_planetking6354]

@Static Charge Red Field I think it is a minor hiccup. Intel's 7nm is on track. And it's closer to a real 7nm than TSMC's 7nm in name only. Even Intel's troublesome 10nm is far denser than TSMC's "7nm". Given what I do favors Intel im sticking with them. Their comeback should raise the bar again. And now that Jim Keller is out of the picture I believe AMD is going to milk the crap out of Zen.

[@MrOrangeSmash]

@@phillip_iv_planetking6354 funny how you just watched a I9 sweat against a $100 R3 chip at 1440p and can sit here and defend it still LOOOOL

[@Real28]

There is SO much wrong with this. Even in the description "GPU tends to matter more" The two are intertwined - in fact, you don't even mention the RAM which also has a huge influence. You cant pair a 2080Ti with a Intel Celeron nor could you pair a 3950X with a GTX1550 and expect results to be nothing but destroyed. What you're seeing here is a GPU bottleneck. In high resolutions, the GPU is the limiting factor. However, if you pull your RAM or CPU down to slower clock speeds or exchange for worse performers, youll see the frametimes and turn times drop dramatically or become erratic. Remember, raw fps isnt really a measure of how good an experience is. Low AND consistent frametimes is a better indicator. Id recommend the author of this video watch a recent video from Gamers Nexxus about pairing the 10600K with 4000mhz ram and seeing just how important RAM is to the equation. Also, using 4k as your "see, CPU doesnt matter as much" is unfair because you're comparing your data against a known bottleneck. That is why good data (like from GN) opts to use 1080p or 1440p because the GPU is NOT limited and can overperform. This means that any differences you see are in the CPU. This is why the differences get smaller as you increase the resolution - you're hitting a bottleneck.

[@RaufZero]

So true. So ambarassing seeing tech youtuber talking such BS. Wrong on so many levels.

[@BlaqZ]

"GPU tends to matter more" its exactly what it is. GPU does matter more than a RAM, OR A CPU, doesnt matter if you use a 4000mhz ram on 750 if the other runs on 2080. The author literally wanted to compare the cpu difference, if the gpu ARE the bottleneck, coz it is what it is, its doesnt matter the cost of cpu if the gpu itself is the bottleneck, you literally creating problems to compare and swaying from the author main theme to see the cpu performance in a AAA games does really matter if the game itself is gpu-bound

[@gbnq2513]

@ Real Wow dude. You missed the whole point of this video! This is not a 'technical' deep dive into performance metrics of the CPUs at every level possible. 99% of the people out there have mid range GPUs. So, this video was meant for them. It shows that when you do have a mid range GPU that will most probably be the bottleneck, the CPU matters less when looking at the larger picture (no pun intended). Yes sure, if you have a 2080ti, then the numbers will be starker between high end and low end CPUs across all resolutions. But for all us poor people who can only afford mid range GPUs ( ie. the bottleneck), why waste $ on a high end CPU when that low end CPU can keep the mid range GPU just as fully fed when running high resolutions?

[@the-abhishek-yadav]

Please increase the frequency of the upscaled series videos

[@EspHack]

2:43 oh yeah, he watches LGR

[@leafbelly]

What does that have to do with LGR? I just took it as a knock to every CPU build video (or Verge specifically).

[@moran_singh]

I dont get it why PC builds in youtube are not showing thermal paste application footage?

[@EduardoEscarez]

Is kinda the dumbest fight possible you could have in comments, between the "too much paste" vs "too little paste", so is good just to avoid that.

[@coolperson4283]

BTW, benching at the lowest settings doesn't tax the CPU fully. Some graphics settings also impact the CPU as well. So, best CPU bound scenario would be 720p at ultra settings.

[@formulaic78]

I recently switched from a Ryzen 2700 to a 3800x (with a 2080ti). I game mostly at 2.5 and 4K. I have noticed very little difference in gameplay, EXCEPT in VR. Half Life Alyx had several scenes that would drop from 90fps down to the 70s and 80s. The 3800x completely eliminated that. Dirt Rally is also smoother, though I'd love to try this chip and see if I could finally use high/ultra settings, cos it still autosets me (correctly to get 90fps) to medium settings.

[@williammurphy1674]

Formulaic 78 .. Thank you for posting your findings after your upgrade! I was interested in upgrading from my 2700x to the 3800x as well, but being I play at 1440p/144hz with a 2070 Super FE, all the test results from most sites showed very little fps improvements in like 90% of games tested. There was from 0 fps to 4/5 fps in the majority of games, except in Far Cry 5 the 3800x had like 15-20 fps improvement at 1440p/144hz which is impressive, but an outlier really... Anyway, I'm keeping my almost 2 year old 2700x a little while longer I guess. It's been good to me, so no complaints here in doing so! ...

[@IndiaRediscovered.]

That's the difference between 7nm and 14nm heat 🔥

[@CaptainFSU]

Thank you somebody finally said it

[@phillip_iv_planetking6354]

More like 12nm++ vs 14nm++++. TSMC does not have a 7nm chip. It is 7nm in name only. Even Intel's 10nm is denser than TSMC's "7nm".

[@acqzuel]

did you enable integrated gpu on the 10900k for the premiere test?

[@nottsoserious]

If only the 3100 or the 3300x would be in stock so that I could buy one 😭

[@Bunny-zn7ke]

Hey where can i get ryzen 3 3300x bc i cant find it anywhere

[@zipzeolocke2]

You might need to redo this test in a year or two because I imagine after the new consoles release, game developers are going to start coding their games for 8 cores! More games are going to start utilizing more cores as the hardware limitations get raised

[@sobleck]

the perfect amount of thermal paste.... footage not found....LOVE IT!

[@ssenyosdaviee1873]

Great comparison... Earned a sub

[@TheManWithanIdea]

Glad to see Upscaled trying out new material. I would mention that it is easy to GPU bind a review when you do not even have a mid-tier GPU. You did not necessarily have to have a 1080TI or 2080TI, you could have used something as cheap as a 2060 Super.

[@roebbiej]

I love this series, please continue with them!!

[@prisonerofthehighway1059]

Excellent video. In the future, maybe use 1440p instead of 4K. I feel like the mid range enthusiast is shooting for 1440p Ultra @ 100+ FPS. The high end guys are gonna buy the top end skew regardless.

[@MiltonGeorges]

Awesome video - compared to other hardware enthusiast channels on KZbin, this test actually compared realistic configurations that most of us would have at home. Having said that, intel not being able to provide a low end chip for comparison really backfired on them here. For > 90% of pc gamers out there who are mostly interested in hitting 60 FPS with high / ultra settings, this test shows that even a cheap cpu will get you there easily now. The high end cpus are clearly overkill or likely for competitive gamers trying to hit 140hz or higher.

[@michigantoga]

How can I return my i9-10900K?

[@mostafaabdelhady2458]

love the upscaled series , informative and to the point

[@rushnerd]

They said they wanted to test the i3 and asked intel for one, but they have to be aware intel never launches anything but their flagships first. In any case not having a 2080Ti for this test is a bit silly when they are using a mother board that costs almost as much as said card.

[@roebbiej]

What is important is that these benchmarks are done on fresh windows installs and no programs in the background. In reality, people have multiple programs run and have junk on their OS. And in that case extra cores can help a lot in overall performance.

[@evilformerlys4704]

It's a 4 CPU for like $170 up against a 10 core $530 CPU. It's barbones for a reason since the 4 core is just for gaming only mainly, if you wanted more there are options that will be in the $530 CPU class with more than enough cores to deal with your scenario. Doesn't matter how fresh an install is, there's still a ton of processes running in the background before you can even fire up the internet to download the updates.

[@tp7886]

For a sim racing rig, how much of an impact would the CPU have? Are those games more reliant on CPU processing than other games?

[@nazea2795]

what keyboard is that at 7:56?

[@hogey74]

For the cost of a 10900 and mobo you could buy a 3300x, 3700x, 2 b450 mobos and have change.

[@BaghaShams]

When I upgraded from an i3 to i7, there wasn't a single frame of difference in the over 10 games I benchmarked. But you can't mention this sort of thing on reddit or you'll get downvoted to hell. I don't know why but people get really mad when you mention that CPU really doesn't matter when it comes to gaming.

[@daweitao2668]

In your case you certainly have a significant GPU bottleneck for that to happen. But I agree with the sentiment that many people go overboard with their CPU when after a certain point the GPU is more important i.e. the system needs a sensible balance between parts. Still, as mentioned in the video, next gen consoles are coming, they have something like a clocked down 3700x in them (8 core 16 threads) so CPUs will start to get pushed harder next year and then more so when the cross-gen period is over.

[@tomeryud]

what matters is what bottelecking your perfomence (its also different from game to game). i have an old i5 from 2014, and im starting to get bottlenecked alot more nowdays.

[@JayJapanB]

Depends on the cpu and depends on the games. Also were you measuring frametimes? Some titles in the past would get inconsistant frametimes on i5 cpus. Digital foundry did a video on it.

[@Tyler-sl6vg]

4 years ago you didn't need the threads. If you had the i3 now you'd be wanting to build a new PC. You made a very smart move going to i7 when you did.

[@BaghaShams]

@@Tyler-sl6vg Well that's good to hear! Except it doesn't align with the results of this video. CPU seems to only matter in low resolution/quality settings, in order to achieve framerates your monitor likely can't show. But on high quality (which is what I run at) the CPU difference is negligible. So I still haven't seen evidence that CPU matters for gaming.

[@TheFourthWinchester]

So, in hot countries like mine, Intel will basically burn the house down. Quite literally. Also, daaaayum. Ryzen is smacking Intel all across. I will finally go over to Team Red with my next build.

[@shaolin95]

The sad stupid comments of butthurt AMD fanboys. It used to be laughable now is just sad

[@CaedenV]

Last fall I thought exactly that... But keep in mind where the numbers count; Intel's CPUs are expensive, but the motherboards are cheap. AMDs chips are cheap, but their boards are pricey. Intel sees the threat, and for the first time in forever offering some limited sales (how I ended up with mine). From there it is a question of threads vs single-thread performance. Unless you are streaming, or doing some weird physics simulations, then today you do not need anything more than a quad core with HT/SMT. Looking forward 10 years you might need 6-8 cores? But most multi-threaded uses are going to off-load to the GPU (especially on next gen GPUs that will have more direct connectivity to storage and RAM). The idea of having a monster machine with 10+ cores is dumb for your average gamer (myself included). My reasons for getting what I got was mostly because it had been 10 years, so I wanted to double all my specs. Double the cores and threads, double the RAM, double the storage... did I need to? Absolutely not! my 10 year old computer kept up fine in all but 1 niche area. But if my old system lasted 10 years of daily abuse (literally CPU rendered blu-ray rips on it for 3 years straight before my software allowed GPU rendering), then I expect my new computer to last another 10 years. In that time I expect that 8 core loads may *start* to be a normal thing, and at that point I will double everything again. But if you are building something today that you expect to last you 2-4 years, then get the fastest quad core you can afford. And right now that is Intel. Clock for clock they are a little faster, and they can typically out-class AMD in overclocking still (even if they drink all the power). Zen 3 is coming this fall, and that may actually beat Intel clock-per-clock... but I dobut it will also beat the overclockability of Intel's chips yet, which will still give Intel the win (however slim).

[@xPandamon]

@@CaedenV I would not call AMD boards pricey, they're somehow still cheaper than Intel Boards from my experience

[@xPandamon]

@@shaolin95 Your comment makes no sense here

[@onestepup9950]

Can someone explain I don't get what gen this R3 3300x falls into. Isn't supposed to be the same gen as the R5 3600? How is it equal and some what faster than it? Or is R3 3300x the new Zen2+ architecture? And what happens to the naming scheme of R5 3600? They don't a performance boost? I'm sure they can't be named R5 4600 right?

[@evilleader1991]

Good first review, maybe you can add 1% low and 0.1% low aswell? :)

[@SpacedGhost77]

Need to get my hands on that ASUS Crossfire 8. Sounds like something no ones ever seen or imagined.

[@ThunderBlastvideo]

This makes sense. The higher potential frames you can get on a set GPU (aka doing low quality), the more CPU power you need (aka more power to push out frames). I love this video, not like other popular channels that just do ultra only. Really just if you have a high refresh rate monitor (aka you care about 100+ FPS more), then you need a better CPU.

[@JRPW]

Great vid!

[@michaelgimenez4032]

That was sweet but now the stupid question: If i am in a game ( Warframe) and during intense action i have trouble maintaining the magic 144 fps but both CPU and GPU are no where near their maximum clock or usage percent... How do i whip them so they provide what they should essentially easily provide?

[@bentaylor5647]

What cpu/gpu do u have?

[@getsideways7257]

How about some DCS World testing? Surely a proper combat flight sim is more CPU dependent?

[@mikedittsche]

Add Star Citizen and Bannerlord to that list. For these games a powerful multi core CPU really is worth it.

[@getsideways7257]

@@mikedittsche I'd prefer having my list clean of non-sims...

[@agps4418]

What kind of games are CPU-bound anyway?

[@SpencerN.C.]

Actually just built a new system for a friend a couple days ago. Ryzen 5 3600, Radeon 5600XT, 16GB of RAM, Samsung 960 EVO NVMe SSD. He won't be playing over 1080p, so the 5600XT (on sale) should provide the best bang-for-the buck. The Ryzen 3600 is probably a bit more powerful than he needs, but he does multitask a fair bit and it should last him for a few years without worry. IIRC, his old rig was an 8th gen AMD A8, with a similarly dated GPU, so this should be a fairly MASSIVE upgrade for him.

[@TheJRay217]

Could you talk about Bluetooth headphones? More specifically AptX

[@telecomsteve]

What keyboard is paired with this pc? Looks slick.

[@amith5777]

can i stream live while using 3300x playing atleast high setting and get over 100 fps ??

[@techforthedisabled9514]

Did you find the tweezers

[@stevenanderson3205]

If you are buying a 10900K i would wait also for a 3080ti. Did he get the 3950X to 5.3 ghz.? For 5.3 you need a bios update.

[@osirisgolad]

Would very much like a RISC-V video. Thank you for the well written and researched videos.

[@Xblade45]

Top notch video!! BUT PLEASE DROP THE IMPERIAL METRICS!!

[@Belfor09]

Ignoring 1% low data while benchmarking CPUs is the worst thing you could do. It doesn't matter what average you get if you're constantly going below certain treshold where you're being able to pick up the stutter. Constant 60fps is better than jumping between 30 and 90 fps. Both will show the same average but the first one will have significantly better gaming experience.

[@intrepidexplorator8618]

How did it handle 4k 4:2:2 400Mbps video editing and color correcting in Resolve or Adobe Premiere

[@AlfredoCampuzano]

The Fan in the back is set to intake?

[@LensToHorizon]

Alfredo Campuzano oh yeah lmao

[@RukiKenishiro]

actually you can make the front and back fans as intake with the two top fans as exhaust. the back fans can cool the VRM and as hot air rises, it would go out at the top. unfortunately the back fans have no dust covers, so generally it should be used as an exhaust. can't remember who tested it, but there is some pc specific tech channel that did this configuration as testing. The VRM and internal chassis temp is cooler in that test. so it is doable.

[@vinnyoh4274]

Why was this taken down initially?

[@CaedenV]

yup, these intel chips eat as much power as you give it. I upgraded last year from an i7 2600 (4.2GHz is as far as the non-k chip can OC), to an i9 9900k overclocked to 5.2Ghz. On the old i7 my trusty Evo cooler never got warm to the touch, ever. I don't think I ever saw it get over 75*c, and those cold chips could hit 85*c without fear of damage, but being a non-k chip that was as fast as it could go. The i9 is a whole different story. The cooler gets quite warm to the touch, even with both fans on medium under everyday loads. Even though the chip only hits 70-75*, it is just so much more massive under the heat spreader that there is just that much more heat to dissapate. Granted, this thing is OC'd a full 1GHz faster than the old chip could dream of... but it is also on a highly optimized 14nm process compared to the old i7 on a first attempt 32nm node. And that is all fine and good... except that these are both rated at 95W TDP, when they very obviously ARE NOT in the same class of heat output. Anywho, my overclocking is being limited by thermals, and can only really burst up to 5.2GHz. Under sustained load I cap out around 4.6GHz, and when I OC to 5.3 I hit major stability issues when the chip warms up. So a larger cooler is suggested, and should help my normal clocks, and well as maybe get me up to 5.4-5.6 GHz at the top speed. I have never considered water cooling until this chip, and to keep the clocks up and the noise down, it may be a requirement now rather than just something to say that you have water cooling. But the point is; AMD chips can run with much smaller cooling configurations, and much quieter fan setups without issue. This does not bench as high as the Intel chips can go... but it also means that when you OC an AMD chip, you are much more likely to get that full OC in performance, where the intel platforms do not... unless you spend an arm and a leg on cooling. ... now if only AMD's chipsets could run so cool as to not need a chipset fan... something we got rid of in the industry 15 years ago! Come on AMD! Don't loose the easy battles!

[@ares7522]

Only X570 got a chipset fan, AMD confirmed X670 and B550 wont have that fan anymore

[@uzeyirveli]

Wait, why is 3300X faster than the i9 at 4K?

[@maxlaries6095]

Video card draw a pixel resolution, not the cpu. Cpu simply doesn't care about the resolution.

[@quentinrusso8413]

It's not really faster. At this resolution, the GPU is the bottleneck. This, those few 1 to 3 fps deference, weather it's in favour of the i9 or the Ryzen 3, is just showing that those tests are not extremely accurate. The difference at the is just "within a margin of error". All benchmark results should be considered like numbers ''more or less a few percent". Love from pcrm

[@Cooe.]

It's called "margin of error" due to run-to-run variability. If you ran the tests more times, the i9 would come out ahead just as often.

[@Cooe.]

@Predator Ex This is not why. Zen 2's per-thread IPC advantage is less than 5% (AMD's additional MULTI-THREADING performance at the same clock comes from their better SMT than Intel's HT, but that has nothing to do with single-thread IPC), and the i9-10900K has way better single-thread performance than a R3 3300X (go look at some benchmarks dumbass...). It's simple margin of error run-to-run variance. The game is completely GPU bound at 4K, CPU performance is irrelevant on the framerate.

[@nathangamble125]

Random variation.

[@marcinmod1490]

Wait 3-5 years, you will see bigger difference. 9 years ago I was choosing between I5 2500k and I72600k. I chose the cheaper version because of only 1-2FPS difference in gaming tests. Today there is even 20% diference in new games between them. I think current games are just not able to use the strong CPU power yet. Wait until developers will start writing games for 8cores 16threads and they will do it because new consoles will use such processors as far as I know. Buying 4 cores today is like own knee shot.

[@lukewc533]

Can’t find the Ryzen 3 3300x anywhere that is actually available for 120, does anyone know where to find it?

[@vitalino1981]

6:35 soo for 4k gears of war 3300x is actually better? 😄 Wow, that was unexpected

[@default632]

Meh single threaded perf worked for AMD this round

[@cheesyburps5013]

The results go back and forth between Intel and AMD, and he said it was a bit of a wash, so Im guessing if you ran the tests another 10 times for each cpu the scores would be exactly the same. That's because at 4K (until, say the Nvidia 4000 series comes out) you will always be gpu bottlenecked, assuming you have a 4+ core cpu from the last 5 or so years

[@KD_Puvvadi]

what this video effectivly shows is you don't need 500 dollers chip to game at 4k, all you need is good gpu, you don't need 10900k, that's a great thing for consumer/gamer

[@josephjuanaliagavalenzuela2345]

Imho, buying any of these new cpus doesn't makes sense (if you just game), what gives you more fps? 500€ + 300 + 100 (cpu + mobo + cooler) Or rtx 3070/3080 (since they are around the corner)?

[@zipzeolocke2]

I recently built my parents a new computer and chose the Ryzen 5 3600X 6 cores CPU, in a Asrock X570 ITX motherboard, 16 GB of 3200 MHz RAM, with a RX 580 8 GB graphics card and a 500 GB SSD with a 2 TB hard drive for storage. Not to mention the motherboard came with a great Wi-Fi 6 chip and my dad hasn't lost connection ever since he started using the new computer. He would complain nearly every day with the previous PC because the Wi-Fi chip was over five years old. He loves the new PC and I'm happy he's happy :P

[@IqbalSaiful]

Great insights 👍🏼

[@cheesyburps5013]

What people don't seem to get is that the cpu is forever capped at that fps (that changes between games tho). If your specific cpu caps at, say, 100fps in GTA V, you will NEVER be able to go over that. You could upgrade to an Nvidia RTX 3080ti later down the line and you would be stuck at 100fps max regardless of settings and resolution. Your minimum fps would also suffer the same fate, meaning any huge dips, either in busy places or from doing certain actions, will still dip exactly the same This is why you should buy the most powerful cpu you can afford, if the main thing you want to do is game, and you aren't planning to do any major upgrades for a couple of years at least

[@hankblah]

this looks like a junior's work compare to what Steve's work at GamerNexus....... but anyhow.... keep up the good work (maybe doing laptop reviews instead might actually be a smarter way to go forward)

[@ComfyShortz]

I would go up to a Ryzen 3600 if you are buying on the lower end. It's $172 on newegg and I think the 2 extra cores would make it a little more future proof than the 3300x.

[@iphonepunker]

I Dual intel Xeons X6890's basically 12 cores 24 threads between two CPU's running at 3.5Ghz and turbo boosting to 3.7Ghz, I have had these CPU's in my machine since 2011. I have gone through 4 GPU upgrades in the same machine, I am now running a 64GB RAM and just picked up AMD 5700 xt. My machine is still has given me no reason to upgrade the CPU's, because most games are now mostly GPU intensive now a days and the Xeons are still great when I need to do proper work like video rendering but even though most of my applications are also GPU accelerated the CPU's usually make minimal impact in speed. its always the same more cores for productivity, faster cores for gaming.

[@adilakhtar007]

Summary : AMD is best 9:30 🔥

[@reddead2067]

Thank you for this video. It’s my current scenario with Skylake 6700k and a 2080Ti on a 1440p ultrawide monitor. You have informed me not to upgrade my CPU for gaming. At 1440p high res gaming, I’d only get a few extra frames.

[@13seneca]

If all you do is gaming, there is very little value in upgrading. However, anything else you would do with your PC would benefit massively with an upgrade to something like a Ryzen 3600. And if you got a B550 motherboard, you would have an insane upgrade path if need be.

[@13seneca]

@Harold Yeoh I mean, if you look hard enough, you will always find something that is "worth waiting for". There is no information on when DDR5 will replace DDR4 on the desktop platform, so I would definitely disagree that waiting on that is the smart thing to do right now. Waiting on Ryzen 4000 would be very valid though.

[@dallatorretdu]

can we go back in wasting money on full custom loops? i really like those

[@paullasky6865]

Exactly. "Best gaming CPU" in a world where CPU is wayyyyyy less important than GPU. 🤷‍♂️

[@dra6o0n]

GPU less important than RAM. RAM is less important than Fastest SSD you can get. 3200mhz ddr4 is 25GB/s of transfer speed, you need a 25GB/s SSD which DOES NOT EXIST. This means a 1GB/s ssd holds back the CPU for like 25 seconds TO LOAD 25GB into RAM. You can stream directly from SSD TO CPU TO GPU VRAM... But you store unused data in RAM, meaning its bottlenecked.

[@maxlaries6095]

Lol, dude you are wrong, completely. CPU basically draw every frame on the screen, do a draw calls, draw a polygons and also calculate a physics, AI and etc. Just try to achieve a 60 fps in the AC odyssey with the core i3, SPOILER ALERT - YOU WILL FAIL, because before the videocard, cpu draw the frames and if your cpu isn't capable enough SPOILER ALERT - you can't get it

[@paullasky6865]

Obviously if you compare it to an i3 you're going to have a problem. You knew the point I was making.

[@superheaton]

Ditto. Gpu used to be advertised as very important for games and it still is, but somehow people are comparing cpu to another cpu for gaming. Then they find it ks usually 5% difference close to range of error. So, just a good single core design and frequency is gonna win these comparisons. Cpus are awesome. The future is going to be a hybrid of cpu and gpu on the same die. Or at thr least a very close interconnect.

[@fpshooterful]

GOOD TEST..... was waiting for something like this.

[@siclusiferx]

How about VR and CPUs ?

[@LetsTakeWalk]

I have an old i5 4690k cpu and I think Gpu’s are much more important for graphics. But for simulations (like city building games), CPU does matter more. And some older games only use one core (Guild Wars 2), so faster CPU speeds makes the game run much better.

[@Cooe.]

Your problem is that you only have 4-threads, not that your CPU cores aren't fast enough to keep up. 4-threads just isn't enough for modern game engines. The Ryzen 3 3300X in this video is a 4-core/8-thread CPU, which is the minimum you need thread count wise. If you had a 4c/8t i7-4790K instead, you'd be having no issues whatsoever.

[@likeclockwork6473]

Use some Delta fans on that cooler if you need more airflow

[@Chris-iw5pd]

Why you using the 3300x and not the 3900x which is the competitor to the 10900k? 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@franchellevanheerden]

I really love this video. But which CPU for 4K gaming with a 2080TI ? i want to upgrade from my 4770K.

[@boshumok6399]

Any 6c/12t Ryzen 3600 or Intel 10th gen i5 should do a nice job in games for a few years.

[@MrSEA-ok2ll]

It's simply ironic that powerful, multi-core cpu's have gotten so affordable with the addition of Ryzen from AMD, but GPU prices have only rocketed. That's why I conduct all work wonderfully via my PC, but choose to game via consoles; especially with the release of the new Xbox Series and PS5 coming this November. GPU's are getting too steep in price when one wants to game above 1080p.

[@lmoises]

What graphics card did he use.

[@Phunker1]

Transport Fever 1/2 is such a game and that's what I had to buy a fast CPU for. I guess it depends on what you like playing.

[@nicholasjoseph9062]

Why radeon 7 and not 2080ti?

[@pezza39817]

At current prices I can buy 4 x 3300x for the price of 1x 10900k and still have change.