well, he did manage to slip in that no one cares about anything besides rendering and gaming performance, cause no one ever uses their $99 cpu for anything besides Cinema4D or games. that's it.
@@zangetsu6638 well yes. the only demanding applications for a PC are gaming and production programs. If you are using your PC for just browsing the web and windows, you'll be just as well off with a 2010-era Pentium as with a Threadripper 3990X.
Imagine 3 years earlier you´re paying premium for a 4c/8t processor. Before that an i5-2500k from a fcking second generation was still coming close in performance. All i can say is thank you AMD
@@perfectdiversion they have crossed into more digits, sooner or later you cant keep adding a larger number on anything. adding more letters into the combo will be a must. hence the monitor joke, those things are utter nonsense unless they revamp their whole products completely, i can see the same happening.
@@perfectdiversion things like 10900K and 10900X, and having 5 digits being too much for the 4 digit based languages like English to understand easily.
@@Elbethium it might have one more digit but everyone says it the same way. Nobody says ten thousand one hundred. It's ten one hundred. Same as ninety nine hundred or thirty six hundred. I didn't add the k or x lol. Get it?
@@perfectdiversion dangerously close and in time. you get it? also, what does it matter how people say it? just because you say it fast and simple doesnt mean it isnt taking more room on the product packaging. that is what i mean. sooner or later
TLDR, on 1% Low FPS: i3-10100 + H460 + DDR4-2666 = 3100 +AnyMB + DDR4-3200. For only gaming that battle's comes down to cost, and AMD will probably win. For productivity AMD wins. 3300x + AnyMB + DDR4-3200 beats both of them by 19%, and will almost certainly be worth the premium.
intel would win with the "f" no IGP version, if its priced anywhere near the 9100f (which is 75 us dollars), but then promptly lose again if amd releases R3 4100/4300x
i3-10100 min: 93 avg: 130 R3 3100 min: 88 avg: 118 for $20 more, the i3 is better in gaming than the R3 3100 plus it comes with an iGPU the R3 3100 is made obsolete by the 3300X and the i3-10100
@Zangetsu i3-10100 min:88 avg:125 AMD 3100 min:88 avg:118 AMD 3300X min:105 avg:137 I'm looking at the 2666MHz RAM results because H460 and B460 boards don't at this time support RAM overclocking, and the maximum RAM speed for this Intel i3 is 2666. In Gamers Nexus' review Steve wasn't sure if 2933MHz would work, but he fully expected 3200MHz not to work on H460 and B460, even if the kit is rated for 3200MHz. Running the i3-10100 on 3200MHz RAM requires a Z490 board, which will make the system cost way to high. So as I said, i3-10100 = AMD 3100 in 1% lows (when paired with boards under ~£135). The 3200 ram for the AMD CPU would add about £5 (£63 vs £68 for Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB CL16), but then again, you could overclock some lower end RAM. I'm typing this from a PC with DDR3-1600-CL10 RAM overclocked to 1866MHz without even changing the timings. The iGPU is, as you say (and as pointed out at 19:31 in this video) useful for basic office work, but for gaming, is doesn't serve much use. As I said above, I agree with you that the 3300X makes more sense than the 3100, but I'd argue that there's no reason to buy the i3-10100 for gaming, unless it ends up closer to the £100 of the AMD 3100.
Anyway when you buy an i3 you have a low budget. So why would you losing money when you can *invest* in an AMD CPU ? When it's the time to sell/change, AMD is far better.
@Mifthahul Fikri i believe 9100f basically took over the 9100, hard to even find 9100 (*edit, both are available on amazon.com, 9100f is 74.99, 9100 is 122.50, thats about right). Point is even right now the 9100f is not that bad of a value, it performs within 5% of a 1600 af (gaming only) and still cheaper, and uses a shitton (technical term :P) less power, especially if you OC the 1600 at all. OF COURSE, there is no good upgrade path on b360,365 boards, its worse in compiling/rendering, and if you go up a little bit in budget, its all AMD, all the time, way up until the 10600k for value and if you aren't just gaming then its AMD til the sky.
@@mmarcinigielski8374 did you see wrong my comrade The 10400 has that performance with z490 motherboard and 3200mhz memories If you're crazy enough to buy a processor like this to use with a z490 But it comes in the same as the i3 10100, if you use it with 2666 memories (most likely it will be that) it doesn't even beat the r5 3600
It competes with the 3100 in performance so you're correct about that but Intel positions itself as the premium brand so they always charge more. It's price is exactly where they want it to be (for launch, I imagine they get cheaper in a couple months). If Intel had the same price as the 3100 they wouldn't be premium they would be value which hurts the image they want to go for. Just overpriced poop as usual lol.
this is the IGP one, the 9100f is 75 dollars, so the 10100f should be under 100 at the very least, making it just around where it should be in performance. Funny you don't see steve shitting on 3200g/3400g for their price
@Mykel Hardin the retailers will compete on price and are likely to reduce the price by a small amount. It's selling above RCP right now because of shortages.
7700K is looking like highway robbery lmao. This should be more than enough proof that intel couldve changed a long time ago, and only improving because of fear of AMD
Well, I have a 7700k machine that's a couple of years old and I'm perfectly happy with it - a recent 8 minute 15 second 1080p video with a fairly complicated edit rendered in 2 minutes 34 seconds doesn't seem bad to me - but I wouldn't dream of building an Intel system right now.
Time has changed! Previously overclock AMD to 5GHz beyond to compete with Intel Now intel needs to be pushed all the way to the 5GHz to even beat AMD budget processor. How 3300X obliterated 10600K when capped at 4.3GHz 😂😂😂 AMD now should try to up the clocks so that each Intel processor needs to be overclocked with LN2 to beat Ryzen out of the box 4.8GHz 😂😂😂
And even before that, AMD had to convince the average consumer that speed didn't mean everything, I distinctly remember the AMD xxxx+ terminology. AMD used to have a lot higher IPC than Intel.
AMD was always on par you just had to patch this www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/intel_compiler_patcher.html to get full performance. In fact you still have to use the patcher to get full performance from AMD chips on programs using the compiler.
correct, the times have been a changing! with the universal availability of mass produced high-core count and high-thread count cpus such as the ryzen 5 series, the ryzen 7 series, the ryzen 9 series, and thread ripper on the amd side, and the latest core i5s, core i7s, core i9s, and XEONs on the intel side, honestly things aren't like they were a few years ago, and most i3 users really aren't going to be doing too much professional Cinema4D or Blender work all day. sure, a few might. but face reality: thanks to the new market choices, you aren't getting an i3 to render graphics 24/7.... but that's all that this channel seems to focus on these days, so what can you do....
This argument reminds me of the apple fanboys trying to defend the Macbook Air. "it doesn't need a fan on the CPU cooler, because it's not meant to be used for heavy workloads. So if it's running hot it means you're doing something with it that you're not meant to."
@@ultrademigod lol thats like ferrari selling you a 458 with no radiators and you telling people it doesnt need a radiator because it's a show car, its not meant to go over 200mph. meanwhile a glorious high horsepower engine is in the back quietly sobbing....
@@musek5048 More like people buying a Pinto and complaining that it can't haul a horse trailer. Buy something that's fit for purpose. A Macbook Air is a Facebook and Starbucks machine. Buying a half-inch thick laptop and expecting it to render video as fast as a workstation is idiotic.
@@wildfireDZ We test games differently (I use a mix of built in benchmark (half because it's easier to reproduce and it lets others compare) and game play), however the conclusions are basically the same.
Thats why some channels like TestingGames & TheFullSetup do a better job of benchmarking, because they show a more realistic picture of performance. You guys however show a more academic version of benchmarks. Nobody plays with max gpu and min cpu, it only shows the max difference between cpus which is ok and all but not so relevant. We know Usain bolt is the fastest on earth and would be even quiker on the moon. Apart from academic value, to know how many seconds he would finish the 100m in on the moon, doesnt hold much significance. Pure numbers and stats do not always coincide with wisdom.
@@prateeksaini5412 It's because they want to benchmark the cpu, not the gpu. For example in a game, if you have 100% gpu usage, 30% cpu usage and 30 fps, that doesn't mean the cpu is only capable up to 30 fps, it's because gpu bottleneck.
I am liking this refresh from Intel. Is 14nm an old platform by modern standards, yes. But seeing Intel make the most of this process shows their engineering capabilities. Now for the next chipset and here's to hoping it'll be on their 10nm process. Here's to hoping.
My ryzen 1600 it's still the king especially in minimum fps !! And this is the stock ryzen , everyone knows you can overclock easily between 3.8-4.0ghz and catch the stock ryzen 2600
Yeah these 6c/12t cpus are great! I built a system for a cousin of mine using that 2600 , I was blown away by how effective this chip was . He will have a blast with it . I hope you will have one too!
I grabbed it at $85 for my sons rig. Should have bought two. I grabbed one at $104 Thursday. Had a $10 gift card from Amazon (they messed up an order) so got it for $94. I’ll take it! Upgrading from a 2200G with an RX 570.
And here we are 7 months later when the 3300x doesn't exist and the 3100 is £125 in the UK. The i3 10100f is only £79 and is now the budget gaming king! and i have just bought one for my work PC cos AMD cannot make any chips!
Me: Please a MotherBoard + CPU all under $ 180.00 ???????? Intel: Ummm no no no ... you will need right now $ 279.00: i3 10100 $ 129.00 + B460 no yet but a Z490 in $ 150.00 Me: $279.00 Ummmmmmm no no no ....: O with that i can buy a R5 3600 + MB 450 + 8GB RAM ...... CRAZY PEOPLE WTF Amd: Take a R3 3100 for $ 99.00 + B450 for $ 75.00 all for $ 174.00, you want it? Me: Pack it please
IMO I3 10100 only become a reasonable buy when it is be paired with a H series board, it still can't compete against 3300X, but at least it is somewhat reasonable.
There's no reason to buy this Intel 10100 part, it's totally beaten in all areas plus you can tweak the Ryzen Processor and Memory to completely crash it in gaming beyond what it already is doing.
First, the Ryzen 3 3100 can be overclocked AND you would see gains by doing so, the 3300X is kinda running near it's limits (it's silicon lottery, there may be good OCers, but are you going to be that lucky to find one). That's a 20$ saving. Second nobody says that you need a B450 Tomahawk for a R3 3300X, otherwise said a cheaper B450 or even a B350 that supports Zen2 would do the job. And you still have an unlocked chipset. And if you are looking for an APU desktop Renoir is right around the corner, plus the R5 3400G is close enough to the 10100 in productivity benchmarks. And don't make excuses for gaming perf when you have an iGPU. We will also see if prices on 3000 APUs drop when 4000 desktop comes out. Any way you look at it, intel is pointless, even with OEMs modding the power tables on H and B boards so that someone would consider buying one.
Video Index 00:00 - Welcome back to Hardware Unboxed 05:31 - Application Benchmarks 09:40 - Power Consumption 10:02 - Battlefield V 11:25 - Far Cry New Dawn 12:05 - Gears Tactics 12:31 - Rainbow Six Siege 13:05 - Ghost Recon Breakpoint 13:23 - Shadow of the Tomb Raider 13:58 - Red Dead Redemption 2 14:23 - 1080p Average 15:07 - Final Thoughts
ROFL, i love how every reviewer ditched 9700k from graphs, seems to me intel instructed them to, cuz it beats even newer 10 core 10900k intel in terms of frametimes, especialy on nvidia ultra low latency mode
I see the 9700k as a gamble that didn't pay off. Intel hoped it could steer the market away from higher core count with a decent 8 core non-HT, then the market just left them behind. Nothing wrong with the 9700k, there are just better options.
@@nimrodery thats what i thought aswell, until i turned nvidia low latency mode to ultra, my cpu temps and usage dropped ALOT, and it gave me flattest frametimes ever seen, not single spike
Is it possible to achieve DDR4 3200 MHz using XMP profiles on B460? If so then it really isn't an issue in most cases since most people buy 3000/3200 MHz CL16 memory for their builds
Bought a 3300x bout a week ago, with a low cost B450 MSI mobo and I couldn't be happier. Great bang for buck, far as gaming goes. Rigged with a 1650 Super and 16Gb of 3600mhz RAM, with a 144mhz LG monitor. It runs anything on 1080p like a dream. Just want to say thanks for all the info and tips, this channel and it's comment section helped me so much to make choices and lose my DIY jitters. You're all stars!
I always love when I go to the YT home page after watching a HUB review and it suggests the same review done by other channels. I already watched the grand master's take, why would I waste time watching someone else tell me a worse version of the same information while using INFERIOR BAR GRAPHS!!!
10100 having an advantage in less demanding title? 3300X crushed 10100 in each test you showed. And the only one where 10100 was slightly faster, the difference was 2 fps which was like 2% difference in 1% low.
just watching this in Jan 2021 and sorry but no way am I going Ryzen for budget build! If you could find one in stock anywhere the money being asked for these now puts them in mid range. People are selling used on fleebay for crazy money. All the completely biased reviews and the entire of youtube following like sheep has meant these are no longer budget cpu's. Meanwhile none of the channels like this has said anything about Intel bringing out the i3 10100f (same chip no graphics) for £75!!!!!!!! This is a killer budget option and there are now cheap mobo's available aswell for £65. This means I can get an i3 and mobo for same price as 3300x. This combo will outpace the 3100 in normal day to day use and gaming and is not too far behind the much more expensive 3300x. Intel i3 10100f for my budget build - much more bang for buck !!!!!!
@@mathunit1 I'm saying nobody's going to buy a i7 4770 over 10100 in 2020 just because of performance, since they'd lose out on all the modern feature we've gained since 2013 when
I would buy older high end tech over new low end tech. It is better performance, and better performance per dollar, and still serviceable for many use cases. However the value of all 4C/8T older tech is now capped in value to the price of a 3300X core system. If you wanted to recover your investment in high end intel from recent years by selling, it is too late..
Hello from the future (Feb 2021). The 10100 is like $80 now. If you live near a micro center, you can get $20 off when bought with a $100 B460 mobo. So it's quite competitive and may help offset the inflated cost of GPUs nowadays. Good luck out there and may the odds be ever in your favor.
@Hardware Unboxed Great video Thank you. I remember a time when would get on these main board makers case when they would try to pull a fast one and run the FSB slightly above the stock FSB speed to gain a slight boost in performance and make their boards look better than the other companies. I remember websites like Anandtech and Toms Hardware and pretty most other sites that wanted to expose these cheap tricks to gain some performance. Most everyone called it cheating and eveyone would rag on the companies that tried to pull the wool over everyones eye's by doing things like this. Move forward to 2020 and now we have companies purposely setting the CPU's out of spec as listed by Intel on the data sheets of what or how things should be run and set to and no one seems to care that they are doing this now days. My thoughts are if it is set to out of spec settings as a default as listed by the CPU maker and using a lot more power than listed or running at out of spec clock rates it is basically cheating to gain more performance over the other guys and make themselves look better than the other guys. I'm sure if Intel did not have to deal with AMD and tthe Ryzen CPU's they would probably lock all of this down like they have in the past to older gen CPU's when they had no competition from AMD. Being that AMD has caught up and is now beating Intel I guess it is a free for all type thing now days. It is to bad though that if INtel still insists on not allowing faster memory speeds to be set on the lower tier boards with non K CPU's that they are leaving a lot of performance on the table for these lower end CPU's.
Thanks for another great review. What I get from all these reviews is that the best cpu is still the Ryzen 3600, which is priced at $167 on Amazon, and $159 at Microcenter, here in the USA. The price creep on these budget cpus is crazy - just buy a 3600 and call it a day.
Me too! Just got it on wednesday. It replaced a 2600 in my gaming rig. 3300X at this price is one of my best purchases ever! Now that my B450 will support zen 3, i have an awesome upgrade path. Well done AMD and Lisa Su!!!
@@dzikputih i was talking about people who went with first generation Ryzen in 2017 and then in 2018 or 2019 upgraded again.If you add up the cost, you will see that you paid about the cost of I9-9900K or I9-10900K for worst performance, which is dumb.
It would be an interesting experiment to see how these cpu's cope with different TDP values if that can be set. Like 45 watts and such. And see how setting negative offsets can help out.
I know some people have done benchmarking charts that include some OC'ed CPUs, but it would be nice to see a current chart of most major desktop CPUs of the past 3-4 years showing their 'max capability' (i.e. OC'able CPUs OC'ed to reasonable speed all users should be able to easily get on air cooling) compared to each other.
You'd assume so but it's not. The only places you can get one is from scalpers for $200+ or a preorder. And the closest microcenter is a measly 12 hour drive away
@@roebbiej it's not availabe in the USA.... I would assume that if that's the case, it should NOT be in stock in the Netherlands as well? you logic like a US democrat
@@zangetsu6638 it's actually pretty widely available. I've seen listings in Canada, Australia, England, etc. It's supposed an issue with shipping and the rona keeping it from US retailers
Extremely helpful video, Steve. I’m exploring my options for a budget gaming and productivity PC and was flip flopping between the 10100 and the 3100/3300X. Your evidence made the resoundingly clear argument to go with the 3300X. Thanks again.
Ryzen processors support ECC memory. If you find a mobo that supports ECC as well, you can build a small server for things like hosting your own game servers. It's a cheap way to start getting into server-grade hardware.
People who say i3 processors are not used for productivity are absolutely delusional. Whole Indian IT industry runs on i3 processors. Same with most IT countries. It has a HUGE market.
Interesting comparison between the two lower end products. I'd say the 3300x is overall superior. For me though, I was watching my 8700k versus the 21 month newer 3700x in the gaming benchmarks and I liked what I saw.
Could you explain in one of your videos how it is that reviewers get such wildly different results even when using comparable components? You use a 2080 ti, 3200 mhz RAM, Jarrod's Tech uses a 2080 ti and 3200 mhz of RAM. Yet, for example, in Breakpoint, 108 fps avg 68 fps 1% low JT measured, you had 128 fps avg and 107 fps 1% lows for the 3300x. That is a significant difference in 1% low of about 40 fps, you would notice that, you would notice going from 107 to 68. This is at 1080p Ultra settings on both tests. The same discrepancy came up in Far Cry New Dawn as well. Where your 1% low was 20 fps higher than JTs measured 1% low for the 3300x the same was true for Battlefied V, it was 30 fps for the 1% low - you 105 fps JT measured 76 fps. I have not done any other comparisons, as it is a Saturday, but I think the 1% lows in this video in particular painted a certain picture of the i3-10100, but if this is not a result that is replicable by other reviewers, is it a fair picture? This is not 5fps, these are big jumps in comparable components. This is not an AMD vs Intel matter, you measured the 1% lows for the i3 at 109 in Breakpoint, and JT measured them on the i3 at 65. So again a massive 40 fps difference, this time favouring Intel. I would just like to know how can an audience follow reviewers providing benchmarks when this isn't the margin of error, or different components (as might be the case running different CPUs when benchmarking a GPU) but significant departures in recorded FPS from the same GPU/RAM speed and CPU. Are motherboards and power supplies having that large an impact on FPS?
@@Hardwareunboxed So really, out of comparing, which I was able to do on this occasion because of the stark contrast in the reviews which left me a bit confused - that 1% low stuff was important in this review at least, unless the reviewer says "benchmark" we won't actually know whether that is performance we will see. I suppose that is just another good reason to watch Hardware Unboxed! Thanks for the response btw.
No problem, I've had to start emphasising that we don't use the built-in benchmark in Shadow of the Tomb Raider for example. It's not very good for measuring CPU performance, the later stage of the game we use is much more CPU demanding.
what is there to be concerned about? If you spent $349 on a 7700k in 2017, you had the best 4/8 for 4 years already. keep in mind, AMD wasn't releasing anything new with the 3300x that intel didn't already have out on the market. AMD is trying to play "catch up" to intel.
@@Philballer17 But this review shows that Intel is playing "catch down" to AMD. How about Intel's big push to 10nm when AMD is at 7nm and releasing 5nm Zen 4 in 2021? Another Intel "catch down" strategy..
But for how long will these low end CPUs last? When the next gen 8 core / 16 thread consoles (which will become the standard very quickly) are around the corner, the games will still be optimized for current gen consoles for a year or so, since Battlefield 6 which comes out in 2021 will already be a fully next gen game, meaning the life span with these CPUs is just a good year. It's also ridiculous how expensive PC hardware is compared to a next gen console, a console with a 500-600€ price tag will last me 7-8 years, but a PC with the same price tag will last you a year or so. For the first time I'm kinda thinking about buying a console over a PC, when it solely comes to gaming obviously.
Sir, it depends. If you compare like sandu bridge era it's a yes. But as hardware getting small manufacturing process like 7 nm and smaller it's become harder to increase the performance mostly just physics law that limit it. Architecture of the CPU is more important that clock speed it's safe to say at least R3 3300X will last at least up to PS6 show up. Because PS5 were designed on Zen architecture. We should have live chat/stream with @hardwareunboxed guys.
8 cores / 16 threads at a couple GHz isn't equivalent to 8 /16 at almost 5 GHz. You're really only getting a subsidy from Sony or Microsoft, the hardware isn't better. If you're buying a low-end CPU with your priority being high fps gaming for years, you may have things slightly mixed up. Basically, to get the best results on PC, spend more money. You can get a satisfactory experience on console for less money, sure, but you're getting hardware designed for 60/120 Hz TVs, running games at 60 fps, nothing that competes with midrange or high end PCs.
for the MSI Mortar B450 Max, should I buy 2x8 3600 CL16-19-19-39 or 2x8 3200 CL14- Dimms? I wanna use it with Ryzen 5 3600 and maybe later upgrade processor in a few years. Also I noticed the Mortar board doesn't have cooling on the upper side, just the left side, should I get the Tomahawk instead? I just like the Mortar cause it has S/PDIF digital out, which is nice.
The teachers at my school are issued i3 X100 level computers and I know that there is a lot of Powerpoint and Excel work being done. Some teachers also make videos from time to time. One of them had to leave his computer on overnight to render a video and was hoping it would be done before he had to use it for the morning meeting. Several of the English teachers use Audacity and with the current distance learning, the usage of videos has really spiked. I'm using my home computer(an i7 6700) and a 2400G system at school to run OBS and Davinci Resolve. Those are pretty much 10100 level now. The IGP really gives Intel the edge for systems like the ones we use at school. Hopefully the next APUs are price and performance competitive to the i3 10100. One thing that may make a difference between a Z490 and B460 is tau limits, though it seems like several manufacturers are allowing changing that on H and B series boards. How much difference does changing tau from 56s to 444s(or whatever the max is) make in terms of performance and power?
Thanks for watching guys. Please note at 5:03 I meant B460, not B360. Damn these chipset names :D
I was wondering about That!! Thanks for Clearing that one up! 👍
As many results not scaled from 0, please consider adding an extra-scale with % over highlighted item. Thanks in advance
I wanted to comment this, but it's already heeeya
I was about to ask if you used the good 'ol socket hammer, or some other kind of socket wizardry ;)
@@unotoli All results are scaled from 0.
I’m only half way through and it feels like Steve has already ran out of ways to say AMD is faster.
well, he did manage to slip in that no one cares about anything besides rendering and gaming performance, cause no one ever uses their $99 cpu for anything besides Cinema4D or games. that's it.
@@zangetsu6638 well yes. the only demanding applications for a PC are gaming and production programs. If you are using your PC for just browsing the web and windows, you'll be just as well off with a 2010-era Pentium as with a Threadripper 3990X.
Steve saying 3300x is faster for 20 minutes :D
Thanks. Saved me 10 minutes
@@phoenixzappa7366 saved my wallet, n 😋a good dual kit ram up grade 🐱🎉
According to userbenchmarks, the 10100 is faster by 10%
@@a_spire I have lost my faith in userbenchmarks
@@a_spire userbenchmark is crap.
Imagine 3 years earlier you´re paying premium for a 4c/8t processor. Before that an i5-2500k from a fcking second generation was still coming close in performance. All i can say is thank you AMD
On the other hand, I saved quite a bit staying with 2500k for all these years
Still using my secondhand 2500. It's a beast and deserves its legendary status.
@@rokzakrajsek9864 the last legendary chip series was haswell. after that, performance gains were small.
Kouki Munster I believe you. I just wanted to share my own unofficial opinion :)
I think the R5 3600 is gonna be the new i5-2500k in future, people are gonna hang onto them for some time.
intel's naming scheme is dangerously close to entering the monitor game cats walking over keyboards naming the products
Ten one hundred. It's seriously no different to previous generations. I don't get the issues?
@@perfectdiversion they have crossed into more digits, sooner or later you cant keep adding a larger number on anything. adding more letters into the combo will be a must. hence the monitor joke, those things are utter nonsense
unless they revamp their whole products completely, i can see the same happening.
@@perfectdiversion things like 10900K and 10900X, and having 5 digits being too much for the 4 digit based languages like English to understand easily.
@@Elbethium it might have one more digit but everyone says it the same way. Nobody says ten thousand one hundred. It's ten one hundred. Same as ninety nine hundred or thirty six hundred. I didn't add the k or x lol. Get it?
@@perfectdiversion dangerously close and in time. you get it? also, what does it matter how people say it? just because you say it fast and simple doesnt mean it isnt taking more room on the product packaging.
that is what i mean. sooner or later
Ryzen 3300x is really beast mode.Those mins destroy new i3 and old i7 7700k all day.
3300X is just insane tbh, it often comes really close to 3600 which is 30 EUR more expensive in my country :D
Destroys 7700k, at stock clocks, really 10% in 1% lows in one title(not taking to account crazy 1080 R6 numbers) is called destroy?
@@saashaa51 280$ (now) vs 120$ (now).
@@saashaa51 wich one win? i7 7700k vs r3 3300x
i go on r3 for build gaming
22 minutes montage of Steve saying 3300X is faster
And it is!
Thanks for the summary, I fell asleep after he said it about 20 times...
Can he do the montage of 3100 + 3300x being out of stock?
Meanwhile at abUser benchmark...
10100: 28th place, 3950x: 40th place with 300% more cores and higher clocks.
The people there are drunk from the Intel money
You should read their 3300x "review"
@@kokonaka5577 lmfao, they try so hard :)
They even ranked i3 as better than the 9900k because apparently 4 cores is the optimal........
@@sannidhyabalkote9536 even intel has banned them in reddit
TLDR, on 1% Low FPS:
i3-10100 + H460 + DDR4-2666 = 3100 +AnyMB + DDR4-3200. For only gaming that battle's comes down to cost, and AMD will probably win. For productivity AMD wins.
3300x + AnyMB + DDR4-3200 beats both of them by 19%, and will almost certainly be worth the premium.
intel would win with the "f" no IGP version, if its priced anywhere near the 9100f (which is 75 us dollars), but then promptly lose again if amd releases R3 4100/4300x
i3-10100 min: 93 avg: 130
R3 3100 min: 88 avg: 118
for $20 more, the i3 is better in gaming than the R3 3100
plus it comes with an iGPU
the R3 3100 is made obsolete by the 3300X and the i3-10100
@Zangetsu
i3-10100 min:88 avg:125
AMD 3100 min:88 avg:118
AMD 3300X min:105 avg:137
I'm looking at the 2666MHz RAM results because H460 and B460 boards don't at this time support RAM overclocking, and the maximum RAM speed for this Intel i3 is 2666. In Gamers Nexus' review Steve wasn't sure if 2933MHz would work, but he fully expected 3200MHz not to work on H460 and B460, even if the kit is rated for 3200MHz. Running the i3-10100 on 3200MHz RAM requires a Z490 board, which will make the system cost way to high. So as I said, i3-10100 = AMD 3100 in 1% lows (when paired with boards under ~£135). The 3200 ram for the AMD CPU would add about £5 (£63 vs £68 for Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB CL16), but then again, you could overclock some lower end RAM. I'm typing this from a PC with DDR3-1600-CL10 RAM overclocked to 1866MHz without even changing the timings.
The iGPU is, as you say (and as pointed out at 19:31 in this video) useful for basic office work, but for gaming, is doesn't serve much use. As I said above, I agree with you that the 3300X makes more sense than the 3100, but I'd argue that there's no reason to buy the i3-10100 for gaming, unless it ends up closer to the £100 of the AMD 3100.
Anyway when you buy an i3 you have a low budget. So why would you losing money when you can *invest* in an AMD CPU ? When it's the time to sell/change, AMD is far better.
@Mifthahul Fikri i believe 9100f basically took over the 9100, hard to even find 9100 (*edit, both are available on amazon.com, 9100f is 74.99, 9100 is 122.50, thats about right). Point is even right now the 9100f is not that bad of a value, it performs within 5% of a 1600 af (gaming only) and still cheaper, and uses a shitton (technical term :P) less power, especially if you OC the 1600 at all. OF COURSE, there is no good upgrade path on b360,365 boards, its worse in compiling/rendering, and if you go up a little bit in budget, its all AMD, all the time, way up until the 10600k for value and if you aren't just gaming then its AMD til the sky.
Slower and more expensive than AMDs offerings... Great launch Intel
That's not accurate. On Amazon the 3300x is sold out and going for $199.
@@robertp457 well of course that's assuming both are in stock, at least in my country the 3300x is about 120$
Robert P yet you think the $199 price is accurate? Do you not understand launch pricing? Stock? Basic economics? Baffling.
10400f >3700x in gaming.it's not all that bad.
@@mmarcinigielski8374 did you see wrong my comrade
The 10400 has that performance with z490 motherboard and 3200mhz memories
If you're crazy enough to buy a processor like this to use with a z490
But it comes in the same as the i3 10100, if you use it with 2666 memories (most likely it will be that) it doesn't even beat the r5 3600
The Title should be: "Ryzen 3 3300x beat the crap out of intel core i3 10gen series"
Agree 100%
or Intel 10th gen i3 series dead on arrival
Well intel is cheaper...
@@gamerdweebentertainment1616 no it isn't, its actually more expensive, fool.
@@gamerdweebentertainment1616 ????
Intel should sell these at 100 dollars
It competes with the 3100 in performance so you're correct about that but Intel positions itself as the premium brand so they always charge more. It's price is exactly where they want it to be (for launch, I imagine they get cheaper in a couple months). If Intel had the same price as the 3100 they wouldn't be premium they would be value which hurts the image they want to go for. Just overpriced poop as usual lol.
this is the IGP one, the 9100f is 75 dollars, so the 10100f should be under 100 at the very least, making it just around where it should be in performance. Funny you don't see steve shitting on 3200g/3400g for their price
$80
@Mykel Hardin the retailers will compete on price and are likely to reduce the price by a small amount. It's selling above RCP right now because of shortages.
@@Healcraft Steve will not criticize 3200g/3400g because the igpu performance is worth the money unlike Intel igpu.
7700K is looking like highway robbery lmao. This should be more than enough proof that intel couldve changed a long time ago, and only improving because of fear of AMD
Well, I have a 7700k machine that's a couple of years old and I'm perfectly happy with it - a recent 8 minute 15 second 1080p video with a fairly complicated edit rendered in 2 minutes 34 seconds doesn't seem bad to me - but I wouldn't dream of building an Intel system right now.
@@Kevin-mx1vi yeah you might wanna read my comment again. Slowly this time, and the entire thing....
@@Kevin-mx1vi yeah no one cares dude..
Time has changed!
Previously overclock AMD to 5GHz beyond to compete with Intel
Now intel needs to be pushed all the way to the 5GHz to even beat AMD budget processor.
How 3300X obliterated 10600K when capped at 4.3GHz 😂😂😂
AMD now should try to up the clocks so that each Intel processor needs to be overclocked with LN2 to beat Ryzen out of the box 4.8GHz 😂😂😂
It was like that back in the old days
And even before that, AMD had to convince the average consumer that speed didn't mean everything, I distinctly remember the AMD xxxx+ terminology. AMD used to have a lot higher IPC than Intel.
AMD was always on par you just had to patch this www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/intel_compiler_patcher.html to get full performance. In fact you still have to use the patcher to get full performance from AMD chips on programs using the compiler.
correct, the times have been a changing! with the universal availability of mass produced high-core count and high-thread count cpus such as the ryzen 5 series, the ryzen 7 series, the ryzen 9 series, and thread ripper on the amd side, and the latest core i5s, core i7s, core i9s, and XEONs on the intel side, honestly things aren't like they were a few years ago, and most i3 users really aren't going to be doing too much professional Cinema4D or Blender work all day. sure, a few might. but face reality: thanks to the new market choices, you aren't getting an i3 to render graphics 24/7.... but that's all that this channel seems to focus on these days, so what can you do....
"Welcome back to harbor unbox"
*
TH-cam... never change mate.
It's worth it to turn on closed captioning just for a laugh.
my favorite is the rare harbour on box
Not enough Antipodeans on TH-cam for the Algorithm to learn from them
I liked hadron box
Amazing video. I thought Intel would take the lead again here, but the 3300X is just too good.
Intel, making amd look hella good since 2019
You mean 2018
It's actually Intel who made AMD good so thx Intel if you Want to thx amd
@@gasviation9077 Yep, you right. Thx intel...
@@thecoolerplayer6813 2017
The Cooler Player you mean 2017
People: "We don't use i3 for productivity"
i7 7740x: " :( "
More people use these types of CPUs for " productivity" than they do paired with a 2080ti and gaming.
This argument reminds me of the apple fanboys trying to defend the Macbook Air.
"it doesn't need a fan on the CPU cooler, because it's not meant to be used for heavy workloads. So if it's running hot it means you're doing something with it that you're not meant to."
@@albundy06 lol that's a fair point
@@ultrademigod lol thats like ferrari selling you a 458 with no radiators and you telling people it doesnt need a radiator because it's a show car, its not meant to go over 200mph. meanwhile a glorious high horsepower engine is in the back quietly sobbing....
@@musek5048 More like people buying a Pinto and complaining that it can't haul a horse trailer.
Buy something that's fit for purpose. A Macbook Air is a Facebook and Starbucks machine.
Buying a half-inch thick laptop and expecting it to render video as fast as a workstation is idiotic.
The 3300x holds it together even against the bigger brothers. Binning for the winning
Great review - 3300X is such a beast for its price - I want to get one for my mum, just because
I have to say , you guys deserve a lot more subscribers. Really great work on the testing Steve.
I'll take the 3300X over this Intel trash. Well played AMD.
and over the 3100 trash as well
hell, the 3100 gets beat by the i3 and the i3 even comes with an iGPU for like a 20 spot
@@zangetsu6638 lol 3100 has a good upgrade path and can be overclocked.
So stfu Intel fan boy
@@FwAddin the i3 has an even better upgrade path, up to overclocked i9's
so sit down amd fan boi
@@zangetsu6638 nigga I use intel.
Also your telling me an i3 has better upgrade path than a ryzen in a b550? Pffffft okay
@@FwAddin XD
10:10 🥰
I mean everyone Knows you should be using a GT 1030 with the DDR4 Memory!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Tho your results and steve results are somehow very different
@@wildfireDZ We test games differently (I use a mix of built in benchmark (half because it's easier to reproduce and it lets others compare) and game play), however the conclusions are basically the same.
Thats why some channels like TestingGames & TheFullSetup do a better job of benchmarking, because they show a more realistic picture of performance. You guys however show a more academic version of benchmarks. Nobody plays with max gpu and min cpu, it only shows the max difference between cpus which is ok and all but not so relevant. We know Usain bolt is the fastest on earth and would be even quiker on the moon. Apart from academic value, to know how many seconds he would finish the 100m in on the moon, doesnt hold much significance. Pure numbers and stats do not always coincide with wisdom.
@@prateeksaini5412 It's because they want to benchmark the cpu, not the gpu. For example in a game, if you have 100% gpu usage, 30% cpu usage and 30 fps, that doesn't mean the cpu is only capable up to 30 fps, it's because gpu bottleneck.
I am liking this refresh from Intel. Is 14nm an old platform by modern standards, yes. But seeing Intel make the most of this process shows their engineering capabilities. Now for the next chipset and here's to hoping it'll be on their 10nm process. Here's to hoping.
You were right... for laptops. Took another generation for desktop to reach 10 nm.
My ryzen 1600 it's still the king especially in minimum fps !! And this is the stock ryzen , everyone knows you can overclock easily between 3.8-4.0ghz and catch the stock ryzen 2600
Yep. I´ve got mine at 3,8ghz and no reason to upgrade before 4000-series
Yeah these 6c/12t cpus are great! I built a system for a cousin of mine using that 2600 , I was blown away by how effective this chip was . He will have a blast with it . I hope you will have one too!
Got a 12nm one to 4.1 GHz. Loving it!
It was SOO easy to get my 1600 to 3.8ghz,i stressed it thoroughly and no problems. Great budget option,till i can get myself the 3700
1600 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩
Funny how 10100 is 2 dollars more expensive, it's newer, it requires a new motherboard, it's locked and it's slower. Great product Intel!
18:12
And the 3300x can be overclocked 👀
The new video timestamps are a god send, I still watch the full vid but for q & as and podcast style videos it is amazing
Great Work Steve! Me here Smiling at My $85 1600 AF!! Amazon has them back as of now for $105! Get them while they Last! 👍💯😎
Nice, clear em off the shelf
Got the Ryzen 5 3600 it’s a beast
I grabbed it at $85 for my sons rig. Should have bought two. I grabbed one at $104 Thursday. Had a $10 gift card from Amazon (they messed up an order) so got it for $94. I’ll take it! Upgrading from a 2200G with an RX 570.
This was an amazing week to be a HU fan, thanks for the hard work and amazing content :)
Oh look.. another DOA cpu from Intel!
This is why I love healthy competition between these two companies...
And here we are 7 months later when the 3300x doesn't exist and the 3100 is £125 in the UK. The i3 10100f is only £79 and is now the budget gaming king! and i have just bought one for my work PC cos AMD cannot make any chips!
£75 on scan UK :) just bought one and they have an MSI H410 mobo for £56!!!
meanwhile you would pay the same just for the 3300x if yo could find one!!
Steve, you really need to shave your beard and arms. Bitrate/video quality is taking a hit )))
Watch in 4K :P
Shave...arms.
Lol, wut?
@Predator Ex Shaving your beard is 10x less manly than shaving your arms.
Wanted to get 3300x but it is out of stock everywhere, in the end, I got a 10100 for 100$ and a cheap h410m
Me: Please a MotherBoard + CPU all under $ 180.00 ????????
Intel: Ummm no no no ... you will need right now $ 279.00: i3 10100 $ 129.00 + B460 no yet but a Z490 in $ 150.00
Me: $279.00 Ummmmmmm no no no ....: O with that i can buy a R5 3600 + MB 450 + 8GB RAM ...... CRAZY PEOPLE WTF
Amd: Take a R3 3100 for $ 99.00 + B450 for $ 75.00 all for $ 174.00, you want it?
Me: Pack it please
Intel need to change from "Intel inside" to "dead inside"
Come on, at least they lowering prices! 7700K for $120!
Come on, at least they tried a bit more than ninth gen. LOL
@@SilverforceX buys the underdog products. Waiting for further black Friday deals
@@SilverforceX Nope. It's a 7700 (non-K) for $140. 1K unit tray price does not equal MSRP.
If you want an OC'ed 7700K for $120 then buy the 3300X.
@@SilverforceX actually non K!
So AMD actually has a CPU that is priced like it's Intel counterpart and is faster even Far Cry? 😅😅
IMO I3 10100 only become a reasonable buy when it is be paired with a H series board, it still can't compete against 3300X, but at least it is somewhat reasonable.
There's no reason to buy this Intel 10100 part, it's totally beaten in all areas plus you can tweak the Ryzen Processor and Memory to completely crash it in gaming beyond what it already is doing.
First, the Ryzen 3 3100 can be overclocked AND you would see gains by doing so, the 3300X is kinda running near it's limits (it's silicon lottery, there may be good OCers, but are you going to be that lucky to find one). That's a 20$ saving.
Second nobody says that you need a B450 Tomahawk for a R3 3300X, otherwise said a cheaper B450 or even a B350 that supports Zen2 would do the job. And you still have an unlocked chipset.
And if you are looking for an APU desktop Renoir is right around the corner, plus the R5 3400G is close enough to the 10100 in productivity benchmarks. And don't make excuses for gaming perf when you have an iGPU. We will also see if prices on 3000 APUs drop when 4000 desktop comes out.
Any way you look at it, intel is pointless, even with OEMs modding the power tables on H and B boards so that someone would consider buying one.
@@herobrinecyberdemon8104 Ryzen 3 3100 will never pass I3 10100 in gaming, it's pointless.
Video Index
00:00 - Welcome back to Hardware Unboxed
05:31 - Application Benchmarks
09:40 - Power Consumption
10:02 - Battlefield V
11:25 - Far Cry New Dawn
12:05 - Gears Tactics
12:31 - Rainbow Six Siege
13:05 - Ghost Recon Breakpoint
13:23 - Shadow of the Tomb Raider
13:58 - Red Dead Redemption 2
14:23 - 1080p Average
15:07 - Final Thoughts
God bless people like you)
Appreciate your work, but YT have sub-titles on time line
@@emulation2369 he just copied the description...
They embedded the timestamps in player itself..
@@angumech13 i use Vanced YT app on phone and it doesn't have that feature yet.
The 10400 is such a beast for a low-end i5. Best low-budget CPU for gaming right now.
I just got the 10th gen i9 but I'm glad that the 3300x is smoking the i3.
The future for AMD is seriously exciting
ROFL, i love how every reviewer ditched 9700k from graphs, seems to me intel instructed them to, cuz it beats even newer 10 core 10900k intel in terms of frametimes, especialy on nvidia ultra low latency mode
I see the 9700k as a gamble that didn't pay off. Intel hoped it could steer the market away from higher core count with a decent 8 core non-HT, then the market just left them behind. Nothing wrong with the 9700k, there are just better options.
@@nimrodery ^
@@nimrodery thats what i thought aswell, until i turned nvidia low latency mode to ultra, my cpu temps and usage dropped ALOT, and it gave me flattest frametimes ever seen, not single spike
Is it possible to achieve DDR4 3200 MHz using XMP profiles on B460? If so then it really isn't an issue in most cases since most people buy 3000/3200 MHz CL16 memory for their builds
Ryzen All Day, Everyday
Bought a 3300x bout a week ago, with a low cost B450 MSI mobo and I couldn't be happier. Great bang for buck, far as gaming goes. Rigged with a 1650 Super and 16Gb of 3600mhz RAM, with a 144mhz LG monitor. It runs anything on 1080p like a dream. Just want to say thanks for all the info and tips, this channel and it's comment section helped me so much to make choices and lose my DIY jitters. You're all stars!
Looks like the IF really is the bottleneck on high core count Ryzen chips.
I can’t wait for them to pack 8 cores in one CCX!
a n i m e
n
i
m
e
I always love when I go to the YT home page after watching a HUB review and it suggests the same review done by other channels. I already watched the grand master's take, why would I waste time watching someone else tell me a worse version of the same information while using INFERIOR BAR GRAPHS!!!
Right now it's a different story i3 10100f + b560m is best budget gaming PC for 2021...
10100 having an advantage in less demanding title? 3300X crushed 10100 in each test you showed. And the only one where 10100 was slightly faster, the difference was 2 fps which was like 2% difference in 1% low.
just watching this in Jan 2021 and sorry but no way am I going Ryzen for budget build!
If you could find one in stock anywhere the money being asked for these now puts them in mid range. People are selling used on fleebay for crazy money. All the completely biased reviews and the entire of youtube following like sheep has meant these are no longer budget cpu's.
Meanwhile none of the channels like this has said anything about Intel bringing out the i3 10100f (same chip no graphics) for £75!!!!!!!! This is a killer budget option and there are now cheap mobo's available aswell for £65. This means I can get an i3 and mobo for same price as 3300x. This combo will outpace the 3100 in normal day to day use and gaming and is not too far behind the much more expensive 3300x.
Intel i3 10100f for my budget build - much more bang for buck !!!!!!
Can't wait to hear from userbenchmark how they call the i3 10100 the new best gaming Cpu which even beats the 3950X.
It beats all AMD CPUs.
TLDR: the 10100 is practically a 4770 from 7 years ago.
As far as performance yes. But they are different in almost every other way
@@mathunit1 I'm saying nobody's going to buy a i7 4770 over 10100 in 2020 just because of performance, since they'd lose out on all the modern feature we've gained since 2013 when
I would buy older high end tech over new low end tech. It is better performance, and better performance per dollar, and still serviceable for many use cases. However the value of all 4C/8T older tech is now capped in value to the price of a 3300X core system. If you wanted to recover your investment in high end intel from recent years by selling, it is too late..
Hello from the future (Feb 2021). The 10100 is like $80 now. If you live near a micro center, you can get $20 off when bought with a $100 B460 mobo. So it's quite competitive and may help offset the inflated cost of GPUs nowadays. Good luck out there and may the odds be ever in your favor.
Welcome back to Harbor Unbox lads
We just need a big slap for nVidia, need some serious competition in GPU market
YES! Forget about CPUs, AMD needs to really step it up give Nvidia the competition they've been missing the last yeat.
Fast forward to oct 2021 you can't buy ryzen 3 3300x and it's last price was $250 where I live, the i3 10100f is available and priced at $145.....
@Hardware Unboxed Great video Thank you.
I remember a time when would get on these main board makers case when they would try to pull a fast one and run the FSB slightly above the stock FSB speed to gain a slight boost in performance and make their boards look better than the other companies. I remember websites like Anandtech and Toms Hardware and pretty most other sites that wanted to expose these cheap tricks to gain some performance. Most everyone called it cheating and eveyone would rag on the companies that tried to pull the wool over everyones eye's by doing things like this.
Move forward to 2020 and now we have companies purposely setting the CPU's out of spec as listed by Intel on the data sheets of what or how things should be run and set to and no one seems to care that they are doing this now days. My thoughts are if it is set to out of spec settings as a default as listed by the CPU maker and using a lot more power than listed or running at out of spec clock rates it is basically cheating to gain more performance over the other guys and make themselves look better than the other guys.
I'm sure if Intel did not have to deal with AMD and tthe Ryzen CPU's they would probably lock all of this down like they have in the past to older gen CPU's when they had no competition from AMD. Being that AMD has caught up and is now beating Intel I guess it is a free for all type thing now days.
It is to bad though that if INtel still insists on not allowing faster memory speeds to be set on the lower tier boards with non K CPU's that they are leaving a lot of performance on the table for these lower end CPU's.
Intel is dead. I have a 3990x, this thing runs mostly at 4ghz and it's never broken 60 degrees. Intel doesn't have an answer to amds kick ass node
What cooler and case are you using?
Thanks for another great review. What I get from all these reviews is that the best cpu is still the Ryzen 3600, which is priced at $167 on Amazon, and $159 at Microcenter, here in the USA. The price creep on these budget cpus is crazy - just buy a 3600 and call it a day.
Good luck finding any of these in stock at msrp.
If these trends continue, the Ryzen 4xxx should be a complete Beast. At least until 10nm becomes available for Intel...
proud owner of 3300x here!
Me too! Just got it on wednesday. It replaced a 2600 in my gaming rig.
3300X at this price is one of my best purchases ever!
Now that my B450 will support zen 3, i have an awesome upgrade path.
Well done AMD and Lisa Su!!!
Lol, only AMD fanboys upgrade every year.Such a waste of money.
@@EVIL19231 upgrade from i5 4690k, the cpu cant play any cpu intensive games anymore.
PLA1N_3VIL LoL u might be right. I remember i didn’t touch my builds for years when i used the i7-2600, 4770K or the 7700T.
@@dzikputih i was talking about people who went with first generation Ryzen in 2017 and then in 2018 or 2019 upgraded again.If you add up the cost, you will see that you paid about the cost of I9-9900K or I9-10900K for worst performance, which is dumb.
Just something I caught. The 7th gen chips had HD630 graphics and not UHD630 graphics :)
amd is the premium cpu now. more expensive than intel sometimes 100% more
It would be an interesting experiment to see how these cpu's cope with different TDP values if that can be set. Like 45 watts and such. And see how setting negative offsets can help out.
How are the amd's 50 euros more expensive. The i3 is 90 euros, i will take the i3.
I know some people have done benchmarking charts that include some OC'ed CPUs, but it would be nice to see a current chart of most major desktop CPUs of the past 3-4 years showing their 'max capability' (i.e. OC'able CPUs OC'ed to reasonable speed all users should be able to easily get on air cooling) compared to each other.
intel be like wots an ipc upgrade
Where I live: 3100 is 25% more expensive than the 10100
Looks like my 8700k is still going strong 🥰
Of course is a recent i7
So is my 3900X 💪👍 lol 😝
*i5-10600
Wow. I really expected the 10100 to be more competitive with 3300x, but once again Intel disappoints.
"The 3300x is available locally..."
Cries in US not having it still
Yeah - but you can get a Ryzen 3600 for $159 in the US if you live near a Microcenter, with $20 off a motherboard to boot.
It's available in the Netherlands... I would assume that if that's the case, it should be in stock in the US as well?
You'd assume so but it's not. The only places you can get one is from scalpers for $200+ or a preorder.
And the closest microcenter is a measly 12 hour drive away
@@roebbiej it's not availabe in the USA.... I would assume that if that's the case, it should NOT be in stock in the Netherlands as well? you logic like a US democrat
@@zangetsu6638 it's actually pretty widely available. I've seen listings in Canada, Australia, England, etc. It's supposed an issue with shipping and the rona keeping it from US retailers
The 10100 does make for a better ITX no external GPU offering but that’s about it. There is no practical reason to buy Intel at all at this point.
Who would honestly buy a 10100 lol
I can only see this as either a cheap as bones basic system or as the cheapest placeholder you can get
The Middle East. Intel plays dirty in that region.
Lots of people will.
someone who buy a system for Word, Excel, Power Point, and do not need GPU
@@AliciaCLR , $50 Athlon 3000G can do the MS Office work with ease, no need this Intel 10100
Extremely helpful video, Steve. I’m exploring my options for a budget gaming and productivity PC and was flip flopping between the 10100 and the 3100/3300X. Your evidence made the resoundingly clear argument to go with the 3300X. Thanks again.
3300x amazing value .
In the Balkan regions the 10100F costs €50 less than 3300X which is 66% less, and that makes it a far better purchase.
Like first, and then watch it.
It is SO incredibly frustrating to see reviewer, after reviewer, after reviewer, sing the praises of the 3300x and you. Can't. Get. It. Anywhere.
Never could complete paper launch. AMD playing a little dirty.
Dead on Arrival, great job Intel
Everyone: *talks about AMD is better than intel*
Me: *cries in i5-2400*
I5 2400 was a good CPU
Ryzen processors support ECC memory. If you find a mobo that supports ECC as well, you can build a small server for things like hosting your own game servers. It's a cheap way to start getting into server-grade hardware.
I got my hands on a 10100 for $99 because Cyber Monday came early to Newegg. Amazing how Intel is now the budget option
So you can only overclock on a z490 board?
Got this for $95 in the US, couldn't find a 3300x. Anything would be better than my fx 4350. Should get the new cpu tomorrow.
With the 3200G listed for 84€ here, the integrated GPU in the intel part doesn't have too much of a killer feature.
People who say i3 processors are not used for productivity are absolutely delusional. Whole Indian IT industry runs on i3 processors. Same with most IT countries. It has a HUGE market.
CPU of the year award goes to Ryzen 3300X👑
Interesting comparison between the two lower end products. I'd say the 3300x is overall superior. For me though, I was watching my 8700k versus the 21 month newer 3700x in the gaming benchmarks and I liked what I saw.
Could you explain in one of your videos how it is that reviewers get such wildly different results even when using comparable components? You use a 2080 ti, 3200 mhz RAM, Jarrod's Tech uses a 2080 ti and 3200 mhz of RAM. Yet, for example, in Breakpoint, 108 fps avg 68 fps 1% low JT measured, you had 128 fps avg and 107 fps 1% lows for the 3300x. That is a significant difference in 1% low of about 40 fps, you would notice that, you would notice going from 107 to 68. This is at 1080p Ultra settings on both tests. The same discrepancy came up in Far Cry New Dawn as well. Where your 1% low was 20 fps higher than JTs measured 1% low for the 3300x the same was true for Battlefied V, it was 30 fps for the 1% low - you 105 fps JT measured 76 fps.
I have not done any other comparisons, as it is a Saturday, but I think the 1% lows in this video in particular painted a certain picture of the i3-10100, but if this is not a result that is replicable by other reviewers, is it a fair picture? This is not 5fps, these are big jumps in comparable components.
This is not an AMD vs Intel matter, you measured the 1% lows for the i3 at 109 in Breakpoint, and JT measured them on the i3 at 65. So again a massive 40 fps difference, this time favouring Intel.
I would just like to know how can an audience follow reviewers providing benchmarks when this isn't the margin of error, or different components (as might be the case running different CPUs when benchmarking a GPU) but significant departures in recorded FPS from the same GPU/RAM speed and CPU. Are motherboards and power supplies having that large an impact on FPS?
Answer is simple, built-in benchmark vs. In game performance.
@@Hardwareunboxed So really, out of comparing, which I was able to do on this occasion because of the stark contrast in the reviews which left me a bit confused - that 1% low stuff was important in this review at least, unless the reviewer says "benchmark" we won't actually know whether that is performance we will see.
I suppose that is just another good reason to watch Hardware Unboxed!
Thanks for the response btw.
No problem, I've had to start emphasising that we don't use the built-in benchmark in Shadow of the Tomb Raider for example. It's not very good for measuring CPU performance, the later stage of the game we use is much more CPU demanding.
It’s nice to see the 1600 non AF on that list cuz that’s still what I’m rocking.
I got a used one of these for $60 for my youngest son. He even uses it for VR games. Nothing wrong with it.
In the war of manufacturers we consumers always win
Did all the angry Intel fanboys end up on Dailymotion or something? There's no "but this weird edge case though!" Comments
what is there to be concerned about? If you spent $349 on a 7700k in 2017, you had the best 4/8 for 4 years already. keep in mind, AMD wasn't releasing anything new with the 3300x that intel didn't already have out on the market. AMD is trying to play "catch up" to intel.
@@Philballer17 But this review shows that Intel is playing "catch down" to AMD. How about Intel's big push to 10nm when AMD is at 7nm and releasing 5nm Zen 4 in 2021? Another Intel "catch down" strategy..
Intel nutbuggers busy sending death threats with fake profiles on reddit while parking their fat asses in their mom's basement
But for how long will these low end CPUs last? When the next gen 8 core / 16 thread consoles (which will become the standard very quickly) are around the corner, the games will still be optimized for current gen consoles for a year or so, since Battlefield 6 which comes out in 2021 will already be a fully next gen game, meaning the life span with these CPUs is just a good year.
It's also ridiculous how expensive PC hardware is compared to a next gen console, a console with a 500-600€ price tag will last me 7-8 years, but a PC with the same price tag will last you a year or so. For the first time I'm kinda thinking about buying a console over a PC, when it solely comes to gaming obviously.
Sir, it depends. If you compare like sandu bridge era it's a yes. But as hardware getting small manufacturing process like 7 nm and smaller it's become harder to increase the performance mostly just physics law that limit it. Architecture of the CPU is more important that clock speed it's safe to say at least R3 3300X will last at least up to PS6 show up. Because PS5 were designed on Zen architecture. We should have live chat/stream with @hardwareunboxed guys.
8 cores / 16 threads at a couple GHz isn't equivalent to 8 /16 at almost 5 GHz. You're really only getting a subsidy from Sony or Microsoft, the hardware isn't better. If you're buying a low-end CPU with your priority being high fps gaming for years, you may have things slightly mixed up. Basically, to get the best results on PC, spend more money. You can get a satisfactory experience on console for less money, sure, but you're getting hardware designed for 60/120 Hz TVs, running games at 60 fps, nothing that competes with midrange or high end PCs.
Thank you HU team. 👍🙂
for the MSI Mortar B450 Max, should I buy 2x8 3600 CL16-19-19-39 or 2x8 3200 CL14- Dimms? I wanna use it with Ryzen 5 3600 and maybe later upgrade processor in a few years. Also I noticed the Mortar board doesn't have cooling on the upper side, just the left side, should I get the Tomahawk instead? I just like the Mortar cause it has S/PDIF digital out, which is nice.
Whoever bought i3 9100f recently will kill themselves at this point lol
I am really happy knowing that I made the right decision to jump into the am4 platform
The teachers at my school are issued i3 X100 level computers and I know that there is a lot of Powerpoint and Excel work being done. Some teachers also make videos from time to time. One of them had to leave his computer on overnight to render a video and was hoping it would be done before he had to use it for the morning meeting. Several of the English teachers use Audacity and with the current distance learning, the usage of videos has really spiked. I'm using my home computer(an i7 6700) and a 2400G system at school to run OBS and Davinci Resolve. Those are pretty much 10100 level now. The IGP really gives Intel the edge for systems like the ones we use at school. Hopefully the next APUs are price and performance competitive to the i3 10100.
One thing that may make a difference between a Z490 and B460 is tau limits, though it seems like several manufacturers are allowing changing that on H and B series boards. How much difference does changing tau from 56s to 444s(or whatever the max is) make in terms of performance and power?