4 ms·
In games the 10600K[0]. And the 10400(F) is equally fast[1]. Outside of games the 3800X wins against those two, though the 10600K could keep up with it a bit be
by onli 6y ago
In games the 10600K[0]. And the 10400(F) is equally fast[1]. Outside of games the 3800X wins against those two, though the 10600K could keep up with it a bit better if we would look at its overclocked results.
[0]: https://www.pc-kombo.com/de/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids%5B%5D=Intel+Core+i5-10600K&ids%5B%5D=AMD+Ryzen+7+3800X https://www.pc-kombo.com/de/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids%...
[1]: https://www.pc-kombo.com/de/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids[]=Intel+Core+i5-10400F&ids[]=AMD+Ryzen+7+3800X https://www.pc-kombo.com/de/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids[...
- Nursie 6y ago> In games the 10600K[0]. And the 10400(F) 2 fewer cores, that's a far worse deal.
- onli 6y agoDoesn't matter, if it's faster.
- Nursie 6y agoThat's highly debatable. It matters to me, I do a lot of parallel software builds. Two more cores makes a difference. If you only game, that's one thing. I don't.
- onli 6y agoNo, that's not debatable. I was specifically talking about gaming, and mentioned in all my comments specifically what performance category I'm talking about when making performance claims.
- Nursie 6y agoActually if you go back to the top of the thread there are no such claims, just that the chips are not good value. I'd argue that going forward the intel chips are going to hold their own less well in games too, with a lower core count, especially as the core count in consoles goes up.