Today we're going to compare the Ryzen seven 3700X and Core i5-10600K in a number of games, but nosotros'll exist doing and then with low or esports level of quality settings in games such as Fortnite, Globe of Tanks, Rocket League, and almost half a dozen other competitive titles.

This is quite unlike to the game tests featured in our CPU reviews where we exam with loftier and ultra quality presets in modern and ofttimes very enervating titles such as Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Battleground V and Ruddy Dead Redemption 2, to name only a few. And although in these tests nosotros apply a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti graphics bill of fare and test at 1080p every bit well as 1440p, in many instances performance is withal more express by the GPU.

Nosotros're not talking about a hard GPU bottleneck here, just the GPU is often the more operation limiting component. Of grade, that doesn't matter likewise much considering using an RTX 2080 Ti at 1080p is already a bit unrealistic, as nigh gamers with a $1,000+ graphics card would play these AAA titles at 1440p using loftier quality settings.

When reviewing the Cadre i5-10600K for example, we noted that while the Ryzen 7 3700X was five% slower at 1080p, that margin might abound past a small-scale margin in more CPU-limited gaming scenarios, for instance playing Fortnite with competitive quality settings. This led us to recommend the Intel processor for those who must have every last frame possible, just for anybody else the 3700X is just a better value more well-rounded product.

Still, it would be good to know just how much more performance you lot tin get from the Intel processor and if that actress functioning is something you can actually take reward of. Now for this examination nosotros're looking at out of the box performance with XMP loaded using CL14 DDR4-3200 retentiveness, but we're non power limiting the 10600K. In our review we constitute that a 5.one GHz overclock could heave gaming performance past equally much as 12%, so keep that in mind.

We as well considered calculation in overclocking results for both CPUs, though ultimately we didn't recollect that would make this article whatever better given what we've found in the past when turning AMD and Intel CPUs for maximum gaming functioning. Intel CPUs typically enjoy more headroom when it comes to core frequency, but the AMD CPUs benefit massively from retention tuning, and in the end that results in similar functioning gains.

For testing we've lined up ix games, all tested at 1080p and 1440p using low quality settings with both an RTX 2080 Ti as well as an RTX 2060 Super.

Criterion Time!

Starting with Battlefield V at 1080p using the low quality preset, nosotros've manually removed the 200 fps cap, setting information technology to 600 fps. The results with the RTX 2080 Ti look as though they are withal capped simply we assure y'all they are not. The 10600K peaked at 211 fps in this examination.

Interestingly, both CPUs maxed the RTX 2080 Ti at just shy of 200 fps and we meet like results when using the RTX 2060 Super. Standing still and looking at the sky for instance would run into the frame rate spike to effectually 250 fps, just when actually executing the benchmark pass frame rates rarely went over 200 fps.

Despite dropping down to the RTX 2060 Super we meet very similar results which is interesting because the 2080 Ti with the ultra quality preset is ~fifty% faster, though that'southward based on our 1440p data which nosotros'll look at at present.

Moving to 1440p and here we start to see some separation. These results really do hint at a frame cap for the 1080p testing but that wasn't the case. Anyway, at 1440p the 10600K was up to half-dozen% faster than the 3700X with the RTX 2080 Ti installed, though the 1% low performance was almost identical.

What'southward really surprising to see is the margins extended with the slower RTX 2060 Super, here the 10600K was 9% faster. You'd expect the margins to close up with the slower GPU but that wasn't the case in Battlefield V using the DX11 API. Some strange and unexpected results in Battlefield V for certain, just it's worth nothing that while slower, it would be near impossible to tell the difference between the 3700X and 10600K.

Next up we take Fortnite and for testing this title we prepare everything to depression with the exception of describe distance which was maxed out using the 'epic' quality setting. We're also using the DX12 API in a 20 v 20 Team Rumble earlier the first circle closes.

Fortnite is a very hard game to test with, at to the lowest degree if the goal is to study accurate data because once a week Epic breaks older replays when updating the game, forcing me to create a similar replay. However, we've noticed that even when recreating the exact same benchmark pass, the results can exist quite unlike to the previous replay depending on where the other players are and what they're doing.

In the past when using the epic quality settings this difference wasn't that noticeable, simply with the depression quality settings the results could vary by upwards to 100 fps which is insane. So for this testing we created a replay on the Intel exam organization and and then copied information technology over to the AMD system and ran all the benchmarks on the same day, assuasive u.s.a. to provide an apples to apples comparison.

Here we meet that on average the 10600K was eight% faster than the 3700X, striking 352 fps. The Intel processor was too 12% faster when comparing the one% low data, only it'south worth noting both pushed well over 200 fps at all times in our benchmark. That said, we are heavily CPU leap in both scenarios every bit nosotros see when dropping down to the RTX 2060 Super that frame rates only decline by a slim 5% margin.

Information technology's also very interesting to notation that the margin between the 10600K and 3700X really grows slightly with the slower GPU, now the Intel processor is 12% faster when comparison the average frame rate and eighteen% faster when comparing 1% low data. That'southward a significant delta, though nosotros're notwithstanding looking at well over 200 fps at all times with the Ryzen processor, so for those of you lot rocking a 144 Hz monitor, that's probably not going to exist an issue for you.

Things modify quite a bit at 1440p and at present we're starting to encounter GPU spring results when using the RTX 2060 Super.

The 10600K was still upwardly to 14% faster with the RTX 2080 Ti and despite both CPUs delivering well over 200 fps at all times, that is a decent performance advantage for Intel. For those using slower GPUs such as the 2060 Super you're looking at up to an viii% margin in favor of Intel and looking at the numbers I call up it's fair to say even pro gamers wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Moving on to the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, for this test we're not using the Steam workshop FPS Benchmark just a custom benchmark pass on the map 'Vertigo' against some bots. Full disclaimer: I don't play CSGO, only those who practice tell me the FPS Benchmark isn't indicative of actual gameplay performance, so hopefully this custom laissez passer is more useful.

Testing at 1080p we find a strong CPU bottleneck with both the 3700X and 10600K as the RTX 2080 Ti and 2060 Super results are most identical. What's interesting hither is that the 3700X is faster than the 10600K, delivering 8% better average performance and 22% stronger 1% lows, using either GPU.

The 3700X was also able to continue the frame rate above 200 fps at all times whereas the 10600K dripped downwards to 184 fps. We're not sure how much divergence that really makes, but we see CSGO gamers often challenge you need at least 300 fps in this title for competitive play. Once more non a CSGO player, then I have no idea how true that is. For casual players though we're sure 180 fps is still cutting it.

At 1440p we're looking at like margins and here the 3700X was up to 14% faster.

This is a slightly surprising result, though going into this nosotros knew CSGO was a championship where 3rd-gen Ryzen was extremely capable, simply information technology's prissy to validate what nosotros saw previously using the 'very high' quality settings.

Rainbow Six Siege was featured in our 10600K review and using the ultra quality settings the 10600K and 3700X were very evenly matched, the Ryzen CPU was slightly slower when comparison the average frame rate merely 5% when comparing the 1% low information.

Here we're seeing with the low quality settings that the performance is nigh identical with the 2080 Ti, the 3700X was simply iii% faster when comparing the average frame charge per unit, but that's also inside the margin of fault.

We run across a 7% functioning reward for the 3700X when using the slower 2060 Super, non a huge margin but it does indicate that the Ryzen CPU is a little faster in this title. Information technology's worth noting that with these competitive settings either CPU enabled over 250 fps at all times.

Increasing the resolution can increment CPU load and here we see the 10600K drib off when using the RTX 2080 Ti, abaft the 3700X past a 17% margin when comparing the 1% depression data, though the average frame rate is more than evenly matched. Then when using the 2060 Super we find results that are largely GPU spring.

PUBG is a title we know to play ameliorate with Intel CPUs when using the loftier quality settings, so unsurprisingly Ryzen loses here with the very low quality preset enabled. The 10600K was upwardly to 17% faster when using the RTX 2080 Ti at 1080p, keeping the frame charge per unit above 200 fps at all times.

Dropping downward to the RTX 2060 Super sees the results become GPU limited and now there'south no difference between the processors.

We're looking at basically the same margins at 1440p using either GPU, the 10600K was upward to 20% faster with the RTX 2080 Ti and just 4% faster with the 2060 Super.

Frame rates in Phone call of Duty: Modern Warfare using the low quality settings are very competitive, here the 10600K was at most 5% faster.

We see much the same at 1440p. The 10600K was up to 7% faster when comparing the 1% low data with the RTX 2080 Ti, just overall the experience was much the same.

Rocket League has a 250 fps cap but you can remove that by editing a configuration file and we've washed exactly that for testing. The 10600K destroys the 3700X in Rocket League with the limits removed, boosting 1% low performance with the RTX 2080 Ti by almost twoscore% and the boilerplate frame rate by 24%.

When using a more than realistic GPU for this title the margins are neutralized and now the 3700X and 10600K deliver the same performance with the RTX 2060 Super.

The margins seen at 1080p with the RTX 2080 Ti close up significantly at 1440p and now the Intel processor is upward to 22% faster. The 10600K is clearly the faster CPU in Rocket League with the limits removed, but we do question how useful that extra performance is, peculiarly given the game has a 250 fps cap by default.

Next up nosotros have Globe of Tanks using the Hard disk Client merely with the minimum quality settings enabled. Here we're looking at a strong CPU bottleneck as both the RTX 2080 Ti and 2060 Super see the aforementioned level of operation. We're likewise looking at over 200 fps at all times, making the 10600K upward to 13% faster. This is another game where I'thousand non sure going over 200 fps is beneficial to anyone, and so the margin betwixt these AMD and Intel processors could very well be irrelevant.

Demonstrating but how CPU jump we were in the previous set up are the 1440p results which show about the same numbers with both CPUs enabling over 200 fps at all times.

There's non much more to say on this one. It'due south our understanding that World of Tanks is a relatively boring-paced tank shooter, so going well over 200 fps may not be entirely beneficial.

The last game we tested is War Thunder which is showing some pretty wild frame rates using either GPU or CPU. In both cases we are CPU bound, and looking at well over 350 fps at all times.

Nothing changes at 1440p. Here the 10600K is upwardly to fourteen% faster, but the 3700X dipped to just 348 fps, and so the margins are largely irrelevant at this point.

This last graph looks at the operation of both CPUs as an average across the ix games tested. With the RTX 2080 Ti, the 10600K was 10% faster than the 3700X when comparison the i% low information, but just 2% faster with the RTX 2060 Super. We think it's fair to say that for most of you the gaming performance difference between these two CPUs is going to exist shut to aught.

Closing Notes

There were a few surprising results for sure, only overall we think this comparison went as expected. In our Core i5-10600K review we institute that the Intel processor was on average 6% faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X. That was using high to ultra quality presets. In this test, nosotros found that margin has extended to seven%, or ten% if we focus on the 1% low data, when running depression quality settings in a number of competitive titles.

This doesn't change anything we said in our review. For those who missed it, nosotros basically said that if you want to maximum performance in most games, then become the 10600K, only for the nearly function you won't exist able to tell the divergence. That beingness the example, we recommended the 3700X for its stronger productivity performance which you will often benefit from and we also await the two extra cores to come handy down the road.

Looking dorsum over the results we saw comparable performance in Battleground V and Phone call of Duty Mod Warfare, while the 3700X was faster in Counter-Strike where we were seeing well over 300 fps on boilerplate and slightly faster in Rainbow Vi Siege where we were seeing over 400 fps on average.

Also, the 10600K was faster in Fortnite, another title where both CPUs allowed for over 300 fps on boilerplate. In Rocket League both maintained 300+ fps at all times, same with World of Tanks, and then PUBG where both averaged well over 200 fps, so how much does that extra operation really affair?

For example, when going from 300 to 330 fps, which would be a ten% increase, you're looking at a 0.3ms improvement in latency. One time you exceed the refresh rate of near all modern monitors the only do good becomes input latency and we'd say 0.3ms is imperceptible for well-nigh everyone.

Lesser line, the Core i5-10600K is a pretty adept gaming CPU. Y'all'll potentially pay a little extra for the cooler and motherboard, but in terms of value it makes out pretty well in a gaming-merely scenario. Simply if the 10600K is a good gaming CPU, so is the 3700X and there's literally zero adventure the 10600K will be the faster gaming CPU in 3 yr's time, worst case for AMD, the margins remain the same. So feel free to pick your favorite platform, and game on!

Shopping Shortcuts:
  • AMD Ryzen seven 3700X on Amazon
  • AMD Ryzen 5 3600 on Amazon
  • Intel Core i5-10600K on Amazon (presently?)
  • Intel Cadre i7-10700K on Amazon
  • Intel Core i9-10900K on Amazon
  • AMD Ryzen 9 3900X on Amazon
  • GeForce RTX 2060 Super on Amazon
  • GeForce RTX 2080 Ti on Amazon