Amd intel cpu comparison: Intel Core i5-12400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X: Value CPU Showdown

AMD vs. Intel: The Evolution of CPU Gaming Performance

After looking at the last few generations of Intel and AMD CPUs separately, here’s our final installment in the gaming performance progress series. In this article we’ll be comparing a decade of AMD and Intel CPUs head to head.

For those of you who missed the first few articles, this all began with a look at Intel’s 10th generation Core CPUs, where we tested Core i3, i5, i7 and i9 models at the same clock speed and with the same number of cores active. This gave us a clear and very interesting look at how L3 cache capacity influences gaming performance, and we found that for today’s games Intel often sees its biggest performance uplifts when increasing the L3 cache capacity, rather than adding more cores.

By limiting all CPUs to just 4 active cores with 8 threads at the same clock frequency, we got a really good look at stuff that hasn’t been tested before, and that led to comparisons with older Intel CPUs.

Naturally, the next step was to do the same with a range of AMD processors while normalizing the core count and clock frequency. This exposed just how weak the old FX series was, and the huge leap AMD has made with each successive Ryzen generation.

This CPU architecture benchmark was an interesting way of looking at the progress both companies have made. Now all that was left for us to do was test a few more CPU generations that were missing from previous articles such as Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, and of course, Rocket Lake, and throw all the data together.

So for this test, all CPUs were clocked at 4.2 GHz with the exception of the Ryzen 7 1800X which only clocked to 4.1 GHz, but that’s just a 2.5% frequency discrepancy that won’t influence results in a meaningful way. Models using DDR4 memory were paired with DDR4-3200 CL14 and DDR3 models used DD3-2400 CL11 memory. Other than that everything is as apples to apples as possible with every model running with 4 active cores.

Please note no cores were disabled on the FX-8350, so if you believe it’s an 8-core CPU then I guess 8 cores were active. Whatever the case, it’s either a slow quad-core or a beyond terrible 8-core processor, we’ll leave that for you to decide. Throughout our gaming tests we used the Radeon RX 6900 XT. Let’s dig into the data…


Starting with Rainbow Six Siege results, we see that when comparing the 2012 options — AMD Piledriver and Intel Ivy Bridge architectures — we see that Intel delivered 21% better frame rates and a 29% stronger 1% low, which was a significant advantage and as a result AMD was forced to sell their parts at a much lower price. That really stung considering the FX dies were almost twice the size at 315mm2, and as a result were also significantly more power hungry.

From Ivy Bridge to Haswell we’re looking at a very strong 23% performance uplift and I don’t recall seeing margins that big back in 2013, but of course, games weren’t as demanding at the time and GPUs weren’t nearly as powerful. In fact, it was extremely difficult to highlight the benefits of SMT technology for games.

By 2013 though things were getting dire for AMD as they were competing with Haswell and clock-for-clock Intel was ahead by almost 50%, at least in this kind of games. Broadwell with its eDRAM doesn’t offer much over Haswell, a small 4% gain which is nothing to write home about. In 2015 we also received Intel’s Skylake architecture and by this point virtually no one even uttered the name ‘AMD’ when discussing CPUs. That’s because everything else being equal, Intel was offering 73% greater gaming performance in RSS.

This is where things start to stagnate for Intel. From Skylake to Kaby Lake we see their smallest performance gain in generations. Basically nothing was gained from the 6700K to the 7700K.

Then as we discovered recently, since Skylake the key source of improved gaming performance by Intel has been to increase the L3 cache capacity. This starts with the 8700K which jumps up from the 7700K’s 8MB L3 cache to 12MB and this results in a minor 4% performance boost in Rainbow Six Siege. Then Intel upgraded to a 16MB L3 cache with the 9900K and although the core count and clock frequency remained the same at 4.2 GHz, the frame rate was increased by a further 5%.

Of course, while Intel was stuck with what was essentially Skylake but with more cores and cache, AMD saw room to make its reappearance. Ryzen was unleashed for the first time in 2017, five years after the FX-8350. The first generation architecture was nearly 40% faster when compared to the FX series in Rainbow Six Siege.

But as impressive as that gain was, AMD was still miles behind Intel when it came to gaming performance. In this example, they roughly caught up to Haswell, where Intel was back in 2013. Ryzen appealed to enthusiasts as it offered more cores and as such was a productivity beast. So although the gaming performance wasn’t exactly impressive, it was decent and there were other positives on offer which helped make the series a success and a step in the right direction for AMD.

As Intel added two more cores with Coffee Lake, AMD needed to press forward and they did that with Zen+. Here the 2700X offered a decent 9% improvement — still 17% slower than Intel’s 2018 architecture — but the gap was slowly closing. In 2019 things really heated up when AMD launched Zen 2 and they were no longer on Intel’s heels with the 3800X trailing the 9900K by just 5 to 10%.

With the 2020 release of Zen 3 the time finally came where AMD could surpass Intel in gaming performance and give the final death blow to the 14nm process. Clock for clock AMD was now 16% faster, and of course, Zen 3 did clock very well, so for the most part AMD was now faster for gaming. Intel tried to lessen the blow with Rocket Lake and while some gains were made, in some instances like what we see here, Intel took a step backwards.

That was a long look at the Rainbow Six Siege results, so we’ll summarize some of the following games…

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla provides us with far less interesting data as this one is mostly GPU limited and doesn’t make good use of the CPU. Intel capped out with the introduction of Skylake and AMD never managed to catch them, but if we look back to 2012 where Intel was up to 56% faster, today that margin is just 7% in Intel favor, at least when matched clock-for-clock at the same core count.

Battlefield V was brutal on the AMD FX-8350. Here it managed just 47 fps on average while the 3770K was good for 95 fps, a 102% performance increase from Intel in 2012. If that wasn’t bad enough Intel achieved a 37% increase with Haswell, jumping up to 130 fps on average, almost an 180% increase from the FX-8350. From Haswell to Broadwell we see a modest 8% increase and then from Broadwell to Skylake a 4% increase, while Kaby Lake offered nothing new.

After Ryzen arrived, we’re looking at Haswell-like performance, though that’s not entirely accurate. While the average frame rates are a close match, the 1% low performance of Ryzen was almost 30% better. AMD then achieved an 11% increase from Zen to Zen+ while Intel boosted clock to clock performance by 5% by increasing the L3 cache capacity of their Core i7 range.

Again, it was Zen 2 where AMD brought real pressure, boosting performance by 16% which was enough to match Intel at the same core count and clock frequency in this game.

Intel did see a performance uplift with their 11th generation, jumping up to 177 fps on average which is a 10% boost. Despite that improvement, AMD is still out in front with Zen 3, offering 8% more performance on average. This means from 2017, Intel has achieved a performance improvement of 20% while AMD almost tripled that with a 57% improvement from Zen to Zen 3.

F1 2020 isn’t as hard on the CPU as Battlefield V, but even so we see strong gains across most of CPU generations. The 2012 match up sees Intel able to deliver 46% greater performance with Ivy Bridge when compared to Piledriver. Then from Ivy Bridge to Haswell we see a modest 12% increase and this time Broadwell offered a 10% boost over Haswell, so for a few years Intel was managing to eke out some decent gains on the 14nm process without adding more cores.

That came to a screeching halt with Skylake, and we see no real change from the 6700K to the 8700K, which was a problem for Intel as AMD started to strike back with Ryzen.

Ryzen wasn’t exactly amazing out of the gate with the 1800X only able to match the 5-year-old 3770K. Zen+ gets AMD up to speed with Haswell or thereabouts, and Zen 2 puts them on par with Broadwell and not a great deal behind Skylake through to Coffee Lake. A massive boost is seen with Zen 3 to finally hit the lead, even against the more recent Rocket Lake architecture.

Hitman 2 shows an 11% performance increase from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge which isn’t something we see often, though I wonder how much of this is down to the difference in PCI Express bandwidth given we’re comparing PCIe 2.0 vs 3.0. Whatever the case, it means in 2012 Intel’s architecture offered 33% more performance in this title.

Then from 2012 to 2013 Intel managed to improve performance by a whopping 38% and that meant their lead over AMD was blown out to 84%. As we’ve seen a number of times now, Intel managed reasonable performance gains from Haswell to Broadwell to Skylake, and that’s where things slowed considerably for the Blue Team. It wasn’t until the 11th-gen that Intel managed a solid performance uplift and in this example it was enough to beat AMD’s Zen 3.

But well before the arrival of Zen 3, AMD had to make do with first generation Zen and here they were still slower than Intel’s 5 year old Haswell architecture. Zen+ did get them on par with Haswell and Zen 2 pushed them up to Skylake, which meant they were competitive with Coffee Lake.

Horizon Zero Dawn performance on Intel CPUs is very similar to that of Assassin’s Creed Valhalla in the sense that they were able to max this one out with Skylake. AMD, on the other hand, took until Zen 3 to get there. AMD improved performance by just over 50% from 2017 to 2020, while Intel didn’t move but they were already out in front.

The Cyberpunk 2077 results don’t look that different to other CPU demanding games we’ve checked out so far. In 2012 Intel enjoyed a 48% architectural performance advantage and by 2015 that margin more than doubled to 110% with Skylake. This is why the AMD FX series was such a disaster for the company. Aware that it was a complete failure, they were forced to shift gears with a fundamental redesign and that took time.

So starting in 2012, it took five years before we would see another flagship CPU from AMD, and in that time they were forced to do battle with Intel who in this example had a 110% architectural advantage while using half as much power, brutal stuff.

What we can also see here is Intel’s steady refinement of their 14nm process up until Skylake. From Sandy Bridge to Skylake, Intel found almost 50% more performance over a 4 year period which is remarkable. However, from Skylake to Rocket Lake which is a 6 year gap, they found just 13% more performance when not adding cores and running at the same clock speed.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider shows us how Intel enjoyed the benefits of a significantly more efficient architecture nearly 10 years ago, delivering 32% more performance at the same frequency. Then from Ivy Bridge to Haswell we see a further 23% increase for Intel and from Haswell to Broadwell a 13% increase. Then things start to slow down, Skylake was just 5% faster than Broadwell, and that means from the 6th generation to the 10th Intel boosted performance by just 11%.

We also see AMD shadowing Haswell with Zen and then matching it with Zen+. But by the time Zen 2 arrived AMD were up to speed and then they raced ahead with Zen 3, though Intel did catch them up a little with Rocket Lake.

Watch Dogs Legion provides us with another good example of Intel stagnation over the last 6 years, essentially hitting a brick wall with Skylake, though they recently overcame that with Rocket Lake. As before, we can see how brutal pre-2017 was for AMD, blowing a margin in the 95% range with Haswell and AMD wouldn’t be able to match that level of performance until 2017 with Zen.

Performance Summary

All the data we’ve gathered provides real insight into how AMD and Intel CPU architectures compared over the past decade for gaming. We’ve seen AMD come from nowhere to often beating Intel, while the latter has made smaller steps in pure architecture terms in the last five to six years. Let’s take now look at the 9 game average…

Back in 2012 Intel was ahead by a 43% margin on average when comparing the FX-8350 and Core i7-3770K at the same clock frequency. That’s a massive difference, compounded by the fact that AMD consumed significantly more power at the time.

But if only that was a worst case scenario for AMD. Just a year later Intel extended that margin to 77% and by 2015 they were 110% ahead.

Technically, the 6700K wasn’t even Intel’s flagship desktop part in 2015, that honor goes to the Core i7-5960X and its 20MB L3 cache, but that’s a different story. Given that massive performance discrepancy, AMD was forced to slash pricing from the $195 introductory price in 2012 to just $120 in 2015, with some sales seeing the chip drop as low as $90. That would be like AMD having to sell a part like the 5800X at less than $200 today.

Clearly, AMD was able to turn around this situation years later. And although Zen wasn’t a gaming monster in 2017, it was good enough to improve upon those foundations. Zen+ continued that trend in 2018 and by 2019 AMD was smashing Intel’s desktop CPU sales.

What We Learned

As we wrap up this interesting look at the architectural performance differences for gaming between AMD and Intel over the past decade, this evolution clearly highlights why our reviews have been mostly positive towards AMD Ryzen processors from 2018 onwards, and why they were so pro-Intel prior to 2017.

It was extremely difficult to recommend AMD CPUs for PC gaming back in the FX days. The arrival of Ryzen marked a turning point, and while I wasn’t completely sold on the first generation, at least for gaming, there were plenty of scenarios where you could recommend them.

Based on this data, you can see why Zen+ started to shift things in AMD’s favor. They were still well down on Intel for gaming when CPU limited, but a lot of the time games aren’t CPU limited, and not all gamers want to just play games. This made Ryzen a desirable and well rounded solution that was also cost effective.

With Intel and AMD now evenly matched in terms of gaming performance — AMD does hold a significant efficiency advantage, which is funny looking back at 2012 — we can’t wait to see what the next generation of hardware brings.

There’s a ton of promise behind Intel’s 12th generation Alder Lake CPUs which are arriving very soon and are expected to bring big changes, which should be very exciting for prospective buyers and the overall market. Make sure you stick around for that as we plan to review the new chips when time comes.

Shopping Shortcuts:
  • AMD Ryzen 5 5600X on Amazon
  • AMD Ryzen 7 5800X on Amazon
  • AMD Ryzen 9 5900X on Amazon
  • Intel Core i5-11600K on Amazon
  • Intel Core i7-11700 on Amazon
  • Intel Core i9-11900 on Amazon

AMD vs. Intel (Ryzen vs. Coffee Lake Comparison)

Your computer’s CPU performance is vital to your productivity, gaming, entertainment, and everything in between. And when it comes to modern CPUs, there are only two dominant forces you need to know about: Intel and AMD.

In fact, if you head out to buy a new desktop right now, there’s a very strong chance you’ll come home with an Intel or AMD system. But if these two CPU manufacturers dominate the market, how do you rightly choose between them? Here’s what you need to know.

The CPU Kings: AMD Ryzen and Intel Coffee Lake

The big debate is currently between AMD’s well-received Ryzen CPU architecture and AM4 chipset, and Intel’s Coffee Lake and 300 Series chipset. These represent the latest and greatest in desktop CPU technology.

Want an easy (and vastly oversimplified) way to summarize the AMD vs. Intel CPU battleground?

AMD CPUs have long focused on packing in CPU cores, bringing theoretical gains in multi-threading performance, while Intel focused on high clock-speed and individual core efficiency. For a long time, Intel dominated AMD in the CPU market. But the introduction of the long-awaited Ryzen architecture brought AMD back to the forefront as a competitive force.

AMD vs. Intel: CPU Performance

One of the first metrics you should consider is performance. How much power is that shiny new Ryzen or Coffee Lake CPU packing under the hood?

Reviewers and salespeople tend to jump to the clock speed and number of cores as the basic CPU power measurement. They’re not wrong, but that doesn’t give you the entire CPU power picture. Consider:

  • Clock speed: Clock speed refers to how many processing cycles the CPU completes per second.
  • Cores: The number of physical cores the CPU has. More cores mean more processing power.
  • Instructions per second: How many millions of instructions can the processor handle?
  • Cache: Large CPU caches allow for the storage of information accessed frequently.
  • Front Side Bus: The front side bus allows the CPU to communicate with the rest of your system and needs to run at a similar speed.

Another important performance metric is the CPU generation. Comparing CPUs across different manufacturing and technology generations is difficult because while the numerical representation of CPU performance remains similar, the underlying technology is different. Some estimates put the generational CPU performance difference as high as 20 percent (in favor of the newer generation).

With this in mind, AMD and Intel CPU generations don’t completely sync. The Ryzen 1st generation hit the market before Intel’s Coffee Lake, and now Ryzen’s 2nd generation is on the market without a direct Intel competitor. Intel Cannon Lake, the next CPU generation, is expected to arrive in the latter half of 2018.

Accordingly, the following specs include both Ryzen CPU generations alongside Intel’s Coffee Lake, where possible. (The entry-level Ryzen 1300 series CPU doesn’t have a 2nd generation model yet.)

AMD Ryzen 2 CPU Features

The Ryzen 2 CPU generation brings a few new features to the architecture that give it a significant boost. In fact, the Ryzen 2 generation is better than its Intel 8thgeneration Coffee Lake counterpart in many ways—but crucially, not all.

AMD’s senior product manager, James Prior, says the AMD Ryzen 2nd generation is «not an area statement, it’s a power efficiency statement. The area is not going to change much, but the ability for us to manipulate the frequency-voltage curve has improved.»

The performance-per-watt of the CPUs receives an extra boost using AMD AM4 chipset features such as Precision Boost 2 and Extended Frequency Range 2 (XFR2). You can read more about Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 below.

The AMD Ryzen 2nd generation also comes to your system with a brand-new stock cooler designed to maximize those Precision Boost 2 and XFR2 turbo performances gains. The Wraith Stealth, Spire, Max, and Prism availability depends on the Ryzen 2 CPU you purchase (but many of them have exciting user-controlled flashing LEDs!).

Precision Boost, Precision Boost 2, and XFR2 Explained

An AMD processor and motherboard recognizes when the CPU has extra capacity during intensive processes. The CPU frequency rises until it hits the maximum (turbo) frequency, or the power or temperature threshold. When Precision Boost hits the limit, it attempts to maintain the peak by adjusting in 25MHz intervals.

Precision Boost implements this in «two-core boost» or «all-core boost» modes, with the two-core boost providing a larger performance boost. For example, this is how Precision Boost works with the Ryzen 5 1600 CPU:

  • Boost up to 3.6GHz using 1-2 cores
  • Boost up to 3.4GHz using 3-6 cores
  • Base clock of 3.2GHz if boost not available

Precision Boost 2 takes this additional power and performance further, but with one major difference: there is no lower clock speed limit if more than two CPUs are in use. Precision Boost 2 allows for maximum frequency across all cores up to the limits of frequency, power consumption, or temperature.

The performance boost varies depending on the workload, as well as the type of program you use. Thus, lighter programs receive more boost, while more intensive ones receive less. A cooler system receives more boost; a warmer system receives less.

Precision Boost Overdrive is a framework present in the current Ryzen Zen+ CPU architecture and AM4 X470 motherboard platform. Currently, Overdrive is like a more aggressive version of Precision Boost 2 that works by altering the direct voltage of the CPU cores, allowing for theoretical performance gains outside the advertised CPU frequency range.

Extended Frequency Range 2 (XFR2) works in conjunction with Precision Boost 2. XFR2 helps define how far the system can push the CPU frequency in relation to the operating temperature. Essentially, the better the cooling, the more boost the system can handle.

Entry Level: AMD Ryzen 3 1300X vs. Intel Core i3-8350K

The entry-level CPUs for AMD and Intel both pack a decent punch. There are a couple of major differences, though. For instance, the Ryzen 1300X is 0. 5GHz slower than its Intel counterpart, but works with a higher RAM frequency and has a 2MB L2 Cache.

Another important distinction is the Thermal Design Power (TDP). (TDP is the maximum amount of power a cooling system needs to dissipate to keep the CPU cool.) The Ryzen 1300X’s 65W is much easier to cool than the i3-8350K’s 91W—though the overall clock speed reflects this difference.

One final consideration goes to system overclocking. AMD unlocked the Ryzen 1300X’s multiplier, as did Intel for the i3-8350K. The good users over at UserBenchmark rank the Intel i3-8350K 26th for speed (out of 1,105 CPUs tested via the site), while the Ryzen 3 1300X ranks 79th.

Overall, it is pretty difficult to separate these two CPUs. The Intel CPU certainly packs a punch, but the AMD Ryzen CPU is a steal at that price point.

Mainstream: AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs. AMD Ryzen 5 2600X vs. Intel Core i5-8600K

Moving onto the mainstream (mid-tier) CPUs, you have the AMD Ryzen 5 1600X, the Ryzen 5 2600X, and the Intel Core i5-8600K. Again, the CPUs have particular strengths and differences.

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600X and 2600X, and Intel Core i5-8600K, have equal clock speed and CPU cores. They also have the same maximum RAM frequency (both CPUs only work with two RAM channels, too).

What sets both AMD Ryzen 5 CPUs apart from the Intel counterpart is the number of CPU threads. Both AMD chips have 12 threads, compared to the i5-8600K’s six. The 2600X also has a turbo CPU frequency of 4.2GHz, taking it past the 1600X, but still behind the i5-8600K’s 4.3GHz.

In a further boost, the AMD Ryzen 5 1600X and 2600X combine a 3MB L2 cache and a huge 16MB L3 cache in an attempt to boost both single and multicore performance. The higher speed is passed on in TDP, with the 1600X and 2600X generating up to 95W in comparison to the i5-8600K’s 65W.

Again, separating these three CPUs is difficult. The Ryzen 5 2600X is the superior CPU, at least for now. Its baseline performance in conjunction with XFR2 and Precision Boost 2 means you’re guaranteed solid, powerful system performance.

But don’t dismiss the Intel Core i5-8600K. The fine folks of UserBenchmark still rate the Intel CPU with better single-core performance over both the 1600X and 2600X. Conversely, the same users consider the 1600X and 2600X multicore performance over the Intel chip.

Thus, the Intel may well offer better performance for gaming and other single core tasks, while the Ryzen CPU multithreading might offer better performance for those switching between programs with intensive processes.

Performance: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X vs. AMD Ryzen 7 2700X vs. Intel i7-8700K

Climbing up another CPU performance tier, you have some seriously powerful chips to consider. The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X and Intel Core i7-8700K were the flagship chips for their respective CPU generation (barring the super high-end desktop chips—more on these in a moment!). The introduction of the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X does somewhat change the perspective, though. Still, there are some spectacular specs for you to mull over.

Right off the bat, you’ll note the AMD Ryzen 7 1800X and 2700X have two more cores than the Intel i7-8700K. With those two additional cores comes an additional four CPU threads. In this, both the 1800X and 2700X offer substantial gains in multicore performance and represent an excellent choice for resource-intensive creative processes. The newer 2700X also works with a higher RAM frequency, too.

However, as you have seen before, the Intel CPU beats out the AMD competitors in single-core performance. As such, many gamers prefer the Intel i7-8700K to power high-end gaming rigs.

High-End Desktop: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X vs. Intel i9-7960X

The final comparison is between the frankly obscene AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and the equally monstrous Intel i9-7960X. Both of these CPUs pack a massive 16 cores and 32 threads, bringing a staggering amount of power to your desktop.

Despite Threadripper’s single-core performance advantage of 0.6GHz, the Intel i9-7960K outperforms the AMD chip in multiple benchmarking tests. One of the most notable defeats comes in the AMD-preferred Corona Renderer benchmark, where the i9-7690K consistently breezes past the Threadripper 1950X.

Unfortunately for AMD, the readings don’t drastically improve in other areas. UserBenchmark contributors rate the i9-7960X’s single-core, quad-core, and multicore performance higher than the Threadripper 1950X. (How many cores do you need, anyway?)

One saving grace for AMD is that the Threadripper isn’t that far behind in performance but is worlds ahead regarding cost. The 1950X is usually hundreds of dollars cheaper than its Intel equivalent. You can have the phenomenal power of a 16 core, 32 thread CPU and still have a little cash left over (plus you need an X299 motherboard to use an Intel Core i9 CPU—another expense).

There’s one more fact to note. The Intel i9-7960K is an Intel Skylake generation CPU—the generation before AMD’s Ryzen 1 and 2, and Intel’s Coffee Lake (the other Intel CPUs on this list).

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2 and Intel’s 28 Core, 5Ghz CPU

I am only mentioning these devices in passing, but you must consider them. Intel announced a behemoth 28 core CPU running at 5GHz per core. The current price estimate is over $2,000.

In response, AMD made a much-anticipated announcement: the Threadripper 2 is coming. The direct Intel competitor will pack 32 cores and 64 threads into a single CPU. AMD’s corporate vice president, Jim Anderson, says «This is heavy metal performance.»

Both of these spectacular CPUs will arrive in the latter half of 2018.

AMD vs. Intel: Chipset Features

The Ryzen and Coffee Lake CPUs come with their own motherboard specifications. The entire specifications for each chipset variety would take a long time to list. So here’s what the top motherboard chipset for each manufacturer brand brings to your system, as well as a short overview of model numbers and an image with a few details.

AMD AM4 Chipsets: X470, X370, B350, A320

The AMD AM4 chipset unites AMD Zen generation processors under a single motherboard platform. Previously, AMD had a wide range of motherboard chipset builds which could get confusing. The AM4 socket and chipset will power AMD products for the foreseeable future (until 2020).

There are four main chipset models to consider. The X470 is the top-of-the-line motherboard released to coincide with the latest Ryzen 2 CPU generation, while the A320 series is the basic, low-frills end of the spectrum. Check out the table below for an overview of differences.

The biggest draw for the X470 is the potential for faster RAM support, working well with speeds up to 2933MHz. AMD says X470 motherboards will get the best out of the 2nd-generation Ryzen CPUs. The boards are better equipped to handle the higher clock rates of the new chips, as well as better implementing XFR2 and Precision Boost 2.

Furthermore, the X470 rolls out with support for AMD’s StoreMI technology. StoreMI works similarly to Intel’s Optane Memory, but with a few crucial differences. For instance, you can pair a spacious mechanical drive with an SSD or up to 2GB of RAM to create a rapid virtual disk, keeping your important files on the fastest device. But unlike other RAID technology or even Intel’s rival system, you can create or disband a StoreMI configuration at will.

Another key AM4 chipset feature is overclocking compatibility. The X470, X370, and B350 motherboards specifications all allow you to overclock your Ryzen CPU (if compatible, of course), while only the Intel Z370 (and upcoming Z390) allow overclocking. Thus, AMD has a superior range of motherboards available for enthusiasts looking to squeeze extra performance from their CPU.

Intel 300 Series Chipsets: Z370, h470, Q370, B360, h410

The Intel 8th generation Coffee Lake CPUs were accompanied by the Intel 300 Series chipset. At the Coffee Lake launch, only the enthusiast-grade Z370 chipset was available to consumers. Since then, Intel has slowly released the rest of the 300 Series chipset range, catering to a wide range of consumer types.

Check out the below image for a brief overview of Intel 300 Series chipset features.

The Z370 chipset features Modern Standby mode, allowing your system to connect to the internet and update your inbox and similar while the system is in a sleep state. While this is a common laptop feature, Modern Standby is one of the first true desktop implementations.

In conjunction, the Z370 allows for so-called «ambient computing.» Ambient computing lets wake-on-voice features function in super-low power modes, among other useful additions.

The Z370 has some definite downsides, though. For instance, changes in motherboard power regulation prevent Intel Skylake and Kaby Lake processors from working on Z370 motherboards, despite sharing the same CPU socket. Another Z370 downside is the lack of 2nd generation USB 3.1 ports (there are none).

It is worth mentioning that while the Z370 chipset doesn’t feature integrated Wi-Fi, the other chipsets do. The integrated Wi-Fi supports speeds of up to 1,733Mbps over the 802.11ac Wi-Fi standard.

At this point, if you want to build a high-end Intel system but don’t want to overclock, the h470 chipset is probably your best option.

AMD Ryzen or Intel Coffee Lake: Which Will You Buy?

You now have a thorough understanding of the AMD Ryzen and Intel Coffee Lake processor battle. Better still, you know where the relative strengths lie when thinking about their respective chipsets, too.

Purchasing a new system is always slightly tricky. AMD’s Ryzen and AM4 architecture has clawed Intel back into reaching distance. For some, it has surpassed it. The price to power ratio of an AMD system makes them an extremely attractive proposition. Furthermore, AMD appears to have a strong development identity, and there is definitely more to come from the Ryzen and AM4 platform.

But does that mean Intel is done? Of course not, and only a fool would discount them from powering past AMD with their next CPU generation—whenever that finally arrives. Make sure you know how to properly compare CPUs so you can keep up with the latest developments.

here is a comparison between 13th Gen CPUs and Ryzen 7000

Today, Intel introduced the 13th Gen Core payload. Six Raptor Lake chips have been announced and will be available to customers and system integrators starting October 20.

Details all that’s new about these processors right here, but in a nutshell they offer more cores and threads, more cache levels and higher frequencies than their immediate predecessors. It’s a healthy dose of goodness from one generation to the next. nine0044

24 253 W 54 MB 3.4 GHz 5.4 GHz 409 dollars REZEN 7700x 8 4.5 GHz 5.4 GHz 399 US dollars Nucleus I5-13600K 14 (6P+8V) 181 V.

44 MB 9004 3, 5 GHz 5.1 GHz 319 US dollars Raizen 5 7600x 6 12 142 W

38 MB

4. 7 GHz

299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299s

The real question is how Intel’s best consumer processors compare to Zen 4 based Ryzen 7000 Series chips now that we have specific pricing data for both. It’s just a choice enthusiasts are going to make this winter. nine0003

Intel Core i9 13900K vs. AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

The best chips from both companies are listed in the first two lines. The different design approaches mean that AMD is sticking to a symmetrical architecture where every core and thread has the same corresponding performance capability. On the other hand, Intel has bet on the ground and said that consumer processors perform best with a combination of high-performance P-cores with power-saving E-cores. nine0003

AMD opts for a standard 16-core 32-thread layout for the Ryzen 9 7950X, which has been a high-end mainstay since 2019. Clock speeds are eerily similar for both companies’ best processors, and cache levels don’t differ by a million miles. Recent leaks suggest that the two champions are roughly equal in content creation performance, although Intel believes they outperform Ryzen in games.

Key to Intel’s continued commitment to desktop PCs is a MSRP of $110, or 15.7%, lower than AMD’s. That’s a telling amount on the big assumption that overall performance is the same. Core i9The -13900K also looks very value for money compared to the 12-core, 24-thread Ryzen 9 7900X. Of course, it’s still too early to revise Ryzen prices, but Intel’s aggressive move is sure to irritate AMD HQ.

The cost of the platforms is also the same, as the premium AMD X670E and Intel Z790 motherboards are in close proximity to each other. From what we can gather at this early stage, AMD will lead the chipset spec as the Z790 doesn’t add much to the Z690 in the field.

Intel Core i7-13700K vs AMD Ryzen 7 7700X

The best tier 2 processors cost around $400. While the Ryzen 7 7700X maintains the eight-core, 16-thread topology from many previous generations, Intel has moved ahead with the same number of cores and threads as the very best 12th generation processor.

Core i7-13700K is actually a Core i9-12900K latest generation. It might even be faster thanks to the improved Raptor Lake technology that adds more cache and smarter prefetching. Frantically chasing performance while using the 253W max power mode, we don’t see how the rival Ryzen 7 7700X can match the innate potential. Looking back at our detailed review, this class of Ryzen plays second fiddle to the Core i9-12900K, which, you guessed it, is a good proxy for the Core i7-13700K. nine0003

Of course, another argument can be made that AMD consumes much less power than Intel in this price category and segment. That’s true, but we believe that AMD may need to price-balance the Ryzen 9 7900X to compete with the increased power of today’s best Core i7.

Intel Core i5-13600K vs.

Ryzen 5 7600X

This extra core and thread mantra once again serves Intel well in the Core i5 firmament. The specs do suggest that Core has multi-core performance superior to Ryzen if you’re okay with higher power draw. nine0003

Let’s be clear. Intel achieves performance hegemony on paper by significantly boosting the performance of its 13th Gen Core i7 and Core i5 processors. AMD’s approach is more restrained, preferring to improve on the previous generation at the expense of frequency and a small amount of IPC.

Gaming performance is currently unknown. We believe that the 13th generation Core and Ryzen 7000 series processors will be equally matched in this respect, as the processors outperform others depending on how the game engine performs on a particular architecture. nine0003

The long-awaited crown of the world’s best gaming processor is a battle for another date — most likely January 2023 — as the firms are ready, we believe, 6GHz Core i9-13900KS and cache-enriched Ryzen 7 7800X3D.


Knowing all the intricacies of the Raptor Lake and Zen 4 architectures, we can say with confidence that the Core i9-13900K and Ryzen 9 7950X are a good match. The trend is turning in Intel’s favor with some really aggressive top-of-the-stack pricing, but as always, detailed benchmarks will tell. nine0003

The Core i7 takes a rough approach to high octane performance with a 253W mode. Disguised as a Core i9 from the current generation, the AMD Ryzen 7700X is very difficult to counter the existing threat. The same applies to the Core i5 vs. Ryzen 5.

It’s clear that Intel has prioritized maximum performance at the expense of power and possibly profit. It can’t be cheap to increase the number of threads, caches, and frequency on the same production node while keeping prices basically the same as the previous generation, which, let’s not forget, isn’t all that bad to start with. nine0003

While we’ve been impressed with Ryzen’s generation-by-generation improvements when looking at the 7950X and 7700X, a Core Storm is brewing on the horizon. We can’t wait to do a comparative analysis. As Mac himself once said, I want to have some fun.

If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl+Enter .

Win 10 vs Win 11 in games — test Intel Core i9-12900K and AMD Ryzen 9 5950X — i2HARD

Evgeny Serov

December 13, 2021

Performance comparison between Intel Core i9-12900K and AMD Ryzen 9 5950X on Windows 10 and Windows 11

Today we will try to understand one delicate issue, the debate about which has not subsided lately: in which version of Windows tests are stronger, and in which direction should enthusiasts fight?

The main core of the debate is that the 12th generation of Intel processors, according to manufacturers, should work better in the new version 11 of the operating system, while Ryzen processors, on the contrary, experienced certain problems with it. And comparing the results in different operating systems is somehow wrong.

The situation with the choice of a single version of the OS for comparisons is exacerbated by constant updates, any tests can become irrelevant in the shortest possible time.

So, we update everything we can (windows, games, drivers) and get started.

Test stand

As is already clear from the introduction, the main subject of study is the 10 and 11 versions of Windows. We will compare the behavior of the flagship Core i9-12900K and Ryzen 9 5950X processors. The more cores, the more opportunities to see the difference. Motherboards and all other components correspond to the level.

Both processors are in fixed overclocking. 5950X is still the same: 4.85 / 4.825 GHz on CCX.

12900K new — we continue to collect statistics on overclocking potential.

This copy is about the same in terms of the memory controller — 4100 MHz in Gear1. The ring tire is slightly worse. Its fixed maximum is 4400 MHz, but the cores themselves are a little more successful: at the same 5.2 / 4.1 GHz, this 12900K is able to show itself in LinX.


Benchmark tests

We will immediately tell you about some of the nuances that are very noticeable. In version 10 of Windows, new Intel APUs sometimes exhibit oddities. For example, testmem5 will only run on efficient E-cores. Similar maneuvers can be performed by archivers, rendering in a video editor. On Windows 11, the Tread director does not allow himself such a thing and gives no reason to doubt his professional suitability.

Ryzen also has its own characteristics, but, on the contrary, in version 11 of the operating system.

The recommended chipset drivers in some cases allow you to transfer a low-threaded task to the correct core with the best boost, but at the same time, L3 cache in AIda64 synthetics does not behave very stable.

Without the L3 chipset driver installed, the cache seems to work better in the same non-ideal test, which is probably reflected in the results of sensitive gaming tests. A little, but still.

On Windows 10 at 12900 in a fixed overclock, the single-thread Cinebench test still runs on the first core and with a reduced effective frequency, hence the result is worse than with a bus up to the same 5.2 GHz. In the 11th such behavior is not observed.

The 5950x does not experience such problems and it does not matter in which version of Windows the squares are rendered. In a multi-threaded test, the difference is difficult to detect.

Another benchmark — CPU-Z, despite the blurry practical application of the scores, does not show such problems with single-threaded load in 12900K; the task spins on the cores marked for the best boost, but a little more successfully in the 11th version of Windows than in the 10th.

For the 5950s, such a feature was not delivered. Only the first core is still loaded. However, for fixed overclocking, this is not a problem. It turns out that the difference between versions of Windows is small and only in a single thread.

In the Blender benchmark, as in Cinebench multithreading, there is essentially no difference. If you need to load all the available capacities, then the tricky distribution of flows will not noticeably affect the final result.

Let’s take a look at the CPU Profile test results from the 3DMark package. The multi-threaded result shows that the 12900K is indifferent to the OS version, while the Windows 10 version is preferable for Ryzen 9.

The single-threaded test does not bring any surprises. For 12900K, version 11 is a little more preferable, and 5950X as a whole makes no difference.

The other number of threads in the test does not show anything interesting, except for eight. Here suddenly there is a noticeable for 5950x is almost a ten percent difference.

A closer look reveals a strange load distribution. Instead of using only physical cores, logical threads are loaded for some reason.

Moreover, installing the chipset driver corrects the situation a little, but not dramatically.

So, before gaming tests, there is an assumption about the advantage of Windows 11 in low-thread for 12900K and less dependence on the OS of one thread for 5950X. But for Ryzen, in general, we should expect slightly less gaming performance on the new operating system, and in the case of tasks not for all cores, even strange situations are possible. At the same time, the full load of all available capacities should reduce the differences in Windows versions to a minimum.

Game tests

Cyberpunk 2077, 1080p, ray tracing ultra preset, FOV — 85, DLSS ultra performance, one ray tracing item off — everything to reduce the load on the video card.

The overall load across all streams is quite high. There is no way to identify any patterns in the distribution of threads, but a slightly higher performance of 12900K in Windows 10 can be noted. For Ryzen 9, there is almost no difference in FPS, but there is a certain tendency for Windows 11 to use SMT more actively in terms of threads.

Dry numbers indicate a slight, but the advantage of the old version of the OS.

Far Cry 6, 1080p, ultra preset, DXR both settings enabled, resolution scale set to 0.5.

Everything is much more interesting here. In Windows 10, the 12900K experiences some oddities in load distribution, 6 P-cores are loaded, two are idle, but the efficient ones are all busy with some kind of work.

In Windows 11, the distribution looks more correct: each of the productive cores received one loaded thread, and each cluster of E-cores received a small load distributed over two cores (at least from the point of view of cache usage, this looks much more optimal).

The difference in FPS against the background of such differences in the distribution of threads is quite insignificant. Apparently, tasks on different threads are performed equally successfully both there and there, and their importance is not great.

For the 5950X, something interesting could not be seen. The FPS is also almost the same, but in contrast to 12900K, we have the expected barely noticeable drawdown in the 11th version of Windows.

If you look only at the final FPS numbers, then you won’t guess what is happening with the distribution of threads.

Starcraft2, 1080p.

The load on the cores of the second CCX for the 5950 was explained before the gaming tests by the lack of a chipset driver, but this does not have a noticeable effect on FPS due to the fixed overclocking and high frequency of all cores.

With 12900K everything is much more interesting again. In Windows 10, one and a half threads are familiar and performance has already been measured, but in version 11 of the OS, monitoring tools cannot catch the main thread. According to HWiNFO data, it is always possible to register loaded 4 threads and their employment is far from the maximum. But this does not prevent to get the final best result.

Moreover, the difference between the versions of the operating system is the largest of those registered in comparison. Here are the cases: the oldest game and the biggest benefit of switching to a new Windows.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider, 1080p, maximum preset, to reduce the load on the video card, we had to not only overclock it, but also reduce the resolution modifier to 20%.

12900K does not let you get bored. In Window 11, E-cores are not used at all, hyperthreading is enabled from the very start of the scene. In Windows 10, the start loads strictly by thread per core. The performance of these two approaches is comparable, the new operating system is almost imperceptibly ahead.

For the 5950, the situation is similar, but, on the contrary, a drop in performance is recorded in version 11 of the OS. And basically it is at the beginning of the third scene, in difficult places there is practically no difference.

If we evaluate only the FPS numbers, then the essence of the differences in behavior in different operating systems for the 12th generation of Intel processors is lost.

Total War Saga: Troy, maximum preset, unit size and grass quality are extreme, resolution modifier is 50%, anti-aliasing is disabled.

The higher the processor load, the smaller the differences between versions of Windows. Almost like in renderings — everything that is there is used, and there is no any freedom in the management of computing power. It is curious that only in the most difficult places the 12900K is slightly inferior to the 5950x, but on average it significantly outperforms its 16-core competitor in this game.

According to the final result, you can’t say that somewhere in general you can find a noticeable difference between operating systems. In Troy it doesn’t exist.

Watch Dogs: Legion, 1080p, FOV 90, Ultra Preset, DXR Ultra, Resolution Scale 25%.

For the 12900K, we can see a more explicit move away from hyper-threading in Windows 11, which is contrary to the current trend. For 5950 this is less pronounced, but the overall impression is the same.

The efficient cores of the new Intel processor are used in both operating systems, and in general, the difference for this game can be traced only in the final result. It is curious that with all the current updates, Windows 10 is slightly better than Windows 11, even in rare stutters on Alder-lake.

Warzone, 1080p, esports settings.

In this online shooter, the situation is similar to the Legion, only the opposite is true. More clearly seen is the desire of the operating system to divide the task so that each core has one thread in Windows 10 and not with Intel, but, on the contrary, with Ryzen.

Maybe, of course, monitoring does not manage to catch all the nuances, but for now, this behavior can be noted. In Warzone 10, the operating system version is clearly preferred by both AMD and Intel.


What conclusions can be drawn from the example of these demonstration games? Windows 10 is indeed preferable for AMD processors, but it’s impossible to say unequivocally that the 12th generation of Intel feels more confident on a fresh operating system everywhere. There are cases, like with Starcraft, where Windows 11 is really useful, but the reverse is true with Warzone. Based on the combination of gaming and synthetic comparisons, we can conclude that the thread director behaves more adequately in Windows 11, and this is a really strong argument in favor of this operating system.

It is important to understand that comparisons are valid only up to significant updates, and they happen very often. For example, in our previous attempt to compare Windows 10 and 11, the more experienced system looked better on both Alder-lake and Zen processors.