AMD Ryzen 3 3300X vs. Intel Core i3 10100 In 350+ Benchmarks

[mlau]

Probably just me (throw the stones gently), but given the performance of the Intel CPU with iGPU and it's lower power... makes you wonder if Intel gets its act together and does 10nm or less, might it spell trouble for AMD? Granted it seems to be a big "if" for Intel right now.

intels power management is far superior to (and it seems much more complex) than amds. and all intel cpus have this knob which tells the cpu to either conserve power or go full perf. clear linux sets this knob to full perf, while a vanilla kernel will set it to medium/balanced.
I believe amd can improve here as well, they're only at the 2nd generation, while intel is at 10th .

[willmore]

UGHHHH!!! Report the rest of the typos please; this is annoying.

Come on, the rest are boring. You've found the best and most funny typo.

They must have been too subtle for me to detect. Or I would have mentioned them.

[creative]

Wooohooo go AMD!

[Slartifartblast]

Probably just me (throw the stones gently), but given the performance of the Intel CPU with iGPU and it's lower power... makes you wonder if Intel gets its act together and does 10nm or less, might it spell trouble for AMD? Granted it seems to be a big "if" for Intel right now.

Not really, Ryzen 4000 DT is just around the corner with the IPC gains rumoured to be quite large and AMD is expected to be delivering 5nm end of next year so it's a case of Intel playing catchup for at least two years. As for IGP very few people will be buying the i3 just for IGP use, it will be cheap gaming coupled with a discrete card so is somewhat moot. Nice to see AMD kicking Intel and forcing Intel's hand to do something as when AMD were in a dark place x86 CPU innovation virtually stalled for 5 years.

[M@GOid]

Probably just me (throw the stones gently), but given the performance of the Intel CPU with iGPU and it's lower power... makes you wonder if Intel gets its act together and does 10nm or less, might it spell trouble for AMD? Granted it seems to be a big "if" for Intel right now.

Trouble? Probably not, since they are not bond to the lack of competitiveness of Global Foundries anymore. Unless Intel magically surpasses TMSC lithography process, AMD is probably on a safe place.

In my view, Intel's biggest problem in the near term is not competitive products, but profit margins. if you think about it, on the desktop side, they didn't lack high core count CPUs, they always had them, but were selling under the Xeon brand, with a fat profit margin. So AMD twisted their arm, forcing them to make the quad-core/eight-thread i7 in to the i3. Before 6/8/10 core CPUs that were exclusively on the Xeon brand are now being sold under much less profit margins. I have no doubt they can sell a 16 core to compete with the 3950X, but to them, that is a race to the bottom of the profit margins, they are dragging their feet the maximum they can.

But they undoubtedly are on a uncomfortable place right now. Desktop sales are down and soon laptops will be too. When Apple finally ditches them for their own ARM designs, Intel will have a very difficult time convincing people they are better than AMD, if even a long time, prestigious client like Apple ditched them for something else. The fact that their CEO told customers to forget about benchmarks paints the picture their back is against the wall right now.

[duby229]

3300x is stronger but the i3 10100 is a better "all around", since it has and integrated GPU the 3300x is lacking.
They are not, IMHO, in the same segment: the 3300x is better suited for gamers and "enthusiasts" which want to keep price low due to missing GPU and the unlocked multiplier.
At the moment a product like i3 10100 has no real competition, because AMD 3200G and 3400G are old Zen+, and 4x00 APU series is still away from being commercial.

A note about power drainage: the AMD chipset X570 is known to consume a bunch of watts more than predecessors and competition, B550 and B450 would possibly make numbers a bit more comparable.

Hold up.... Can you name -any- Intel CPU that -doesn't- have an APU? I'm reasonably certain there aren't any. ALL Intel CPU's have an integrated GPU. And it's been identical for like the last 5 generations and was inadequate even the first gen it was used with. Now that GPU is just dead weight. The vast majority of games don't list Intel GPU's as supported and it's only useful for retro gaming at lowest settings and resolutions. Intel only does it so they can claim marketshare and in doing so they hurt PC gaming.

[Michael]

Hold up.... Can you name -any- Intel CPU that -doesn't- have an APU? I'm reasonably certain there aren't any. ALL Intel CPU's have an integrated GPU. And it's been identical for like the last 5 generations and was inadequate even the first gen it was used with. Now that GPU is just dead weight. Intel only does it so they can claim marketshare and in doing so they hurt PC gaming.

Any X series CPU. Also any of the F models like 9400F.

[devius]

Can you name -any- Intel CPU that -doesn't- have an APU?

Any CPU model number that ends in F. Example: i5-9600kf

Also any CPU made before 2010.

[duby229]

Any CPU model number that ends in F. Example: i5-9600kf

Also any CPU made before 2010.

Ok, That's actually a good thing. Call me surprised.

[Teggs]

Gamersnexus made the point that Intel has not allowed memory overclocking on mid or low tier motherboards in the past. You can and probably should acquire DDR4-3600 or 3200 to pair with an R3 3300X on B550 or B450. You cannot, unless Intel changes their scheme, pair anything over DDR4-2666 or maybe 2933 with an I3-10100 on the B or H series motherboards that are coming.

This unfortunate situation had a significant impact on results. It doesn't make the bench invalid, but it does make the numbers unlikely for general ownership.