The Core i5 is a product of the Intel brand and line of central processing units (CPUs) designed for home computers. It was introduced on January 4, 2014 as part of the Haswell architecture and features 3rd generation Intel Core processor technology that can execute up to four concurrent threads at once with integrated graphics.
The “intel core i5 laptop” is a computer that has an Intel Core i5 processor. It is designed for users who want to get the most out of their computing experience.
Ryzen 7 3800X versus Intel Core i5-10600K
If you want to create a PC, you’ll constantly have to ask yourself, “Which CPU should I get?” Which CPU provides the highest performance and, more importantly, which gives the best price-performance ratio for budget-conscious users?
You don’t want to pay 30% more for merely a 5% improvement in performance.
We pitted the Intel i5 10600K against the AMD Ryzen 7 3800X in this comparison.
We go through all of the features, including performance benchmarks for games and apps used on workstations, such as graphic design software.
Our ultimate judgement and suggestion, the winner of the duel Intel Core i5-10600K versus Ryzen 7 3800X, can be found in the last portion of the article, down below.
Intel Core i5-10600K versus Ryzen 7 3800X results
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X is ranked first.
- When compared to Intel’s rivals, this is a great deal.
- It’s quick, and its single-core performance outperforms many Intel CPUs.
- It’s a great option for gaming as well as productivity.
- Cooler in a bundle
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X is the best-performing CPU.
We put two initial models to the test at the outset of the third Ryzen generation: the Ryzen 9 3900X and the Ryzen 7 3700X.
These models garnered attention and placed Intel under a lot of strain, particularly in terms of multi-core performance, thanks to their eight to twelve cores.
The new CPUs also fared well in games, thanks to several enhancements inside the Zen 2 architecture.
More Techtestreport evaluations of the Ryzen 5 3600X and Ryzen 5 3600 followed in the weeks that followed, with some of them proving to be true price-performance hits with six cores.
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is a little off the mark.
It is an APU that not only has an integrated Vega graphics unit, but also, despite its new name, is based on the Zen+ architecture, which is why the gains over its predecessor were minimal.
We’re bridging another gap in our test database with the AMD Ryzen 7 3800X, just in time for the debut of AMD’s new 16-core flagship for the AM4 socket and the X570 chipset.
The AMD Ryzen 7 3800X, like the Ryzen 7 3700X we’ve previously tested, has eight cores and 16 threads, but the frequencies have been increased, resulting in a TDP rise from 65 W to 105 W on paper.
The base clock rate is increased from 3.6 to 3.9 GHz in exchange, but the boost frequencies are only marginally increased from 4.4 to 4.5 GHz.
Of course, the 32 MB L3 cache and the 4 MB L2 cache remain accessible.
The AMD Ryzen 9 3900X is the next higher-end variant, with four more cores, a bit more cache, and clock speeds of 3.8 to 4.6 GHz, as well as a TDP of 105 W.
While AMD has set a suggested retail price of $429 for the Ryzen 7 3800X, the street pricing has dropped significantly.
The eight-core is sold for less than 390 Dollar on Geizhals.at.
For the time being, the Ryzen 9 3900 and, sadly, the Ryzen 5 3500X will not be offered to end users; they are reserved for the OEM market or the Asian area.
Power usage is measured.
The AMD Ryzen 7 3800X permits slightly over 130 W while under load, which is a healthy 30 W or about 30% more than the Ryzen 7 3700X, the next smaller variant.
This is more in line with Ryzen flagship models from the past, such as the Ryzen 7 1700X and Ryzen 7 2700X.
With 131.6 W, Intel’s Core i7-9700K shows to be the match.
When all components of the test system are examined, a similar picture emerges.
The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X test machine then uses little under 200 W from the power source and classifies itself between the Ryzen 7 1700X and Ryzen 7 2700X, with the Intel equivalent scoring slightly higher.
The jump in TDP from 65 to 105 W is so very discernible.
Conclusion: AMD Ryzen 7 3800X is the best performing CPU.
In its own ranks, the AMD Ryzen 7 3800X has a heavy stance or extremely powerful opponents.
Although it bridges the performance gap between the Ryzen 7 3700X and the Ryzen 9 3900X, it does it in an inefficient manner.
When compared to the next smaller model, performance improves by just a few percentage points, despite a 30 percent rise in power use.
The benefit of smaller models and the Zen 2 design in terms of efficiency vanishes.
This is due to the fact that the fastest Ryzen 7 is put in a higher TDP class, yet it is unable to take use of the increased capabilities.
Despite the greater TDP, this model seldom achieves its full peak speed and is just a few hundred MHz faster in reality than the Ryzen 7 3700X, which, according to the data sheet, consumes substantially less power (65 W).
Only roughly 4.35 GHz is usually present. The Ryzen 9 3900X has four more cores but runs at a lower clock speed, lowering single-core performance.
When you examine the pricing, the Ryzen 7 3800X costs around $60 more than the Ryzen 7 3800, which is now about $390, and you only get a little performance boost at a much greater power consumption.
Therefore, new Ryzen platform customers should go for the smaller model or pay a little extra and get the twelve-core Ryzen 9 3900X.
It does, however, already cost far over $500.
Perhaps there will be some pricing adjustments in the coming weeks, when AMD releases the Ryzen 9 3950X, Intel releases its Core X CPUs, and AMD releases its new third-generation Threadripper processors.
Intel i5 10600K is ranked second.
- Single-threaded performance is outstanding.
- In games, he is consistently quick.
- Hyper-Threading is now included.
- The networking on the chip has been improved.
- PCIe 4.0 isn’t supported natively.
Final Verdict: 10600K has the best price-performance ratio.
The desktop CPUs demonstrate how swiftly a market may expand when two competitors are really competing for the consumers’ favor:
Intel continued to offer just four cores (Core i7-7700K) for $400 in 2017, followed by six (Core i7-8700K) and eight (Core i9-9900K) cores the following year.
The Core i9-10900K is the first step to ten cores, with AMD currently offering twelve cores at around $500.
Intel, on the other hand, has an issue with P1272. This is how the 14 nm method for producing CPUs, which has been in operation for almost five years, is described internally by the manufacturer.
Intel is also trapped with the 2015 Skylake architecture due to the 10nm process’s delay, thus more cores and faster clock speeds are the only path forward.
Intel is making the most of the Core i9-10900K, which is the last of its class.
In addition to the top-of-the-line model with ten cores, there are models with eight and six cores, with even lower-performance processors due in a week.
For 550 dollars, we evaluated the Core i9-10900K (10C/20T) and the Core i5-10600K (6C/12T) processors.
Both have a higher number of cores and threads than their predecessors:
Intel offers 4C/8T instead of 4C/4T in the i3 class, 6C/12T instead of 6C/6T in the i5 sector, and 8C/16T instead of 8C/8T in the i7 machines.
The extra logical cores had previously been deactivated for product policy reasons, but owing to AMD’s Ryzen CPUs such as the 3600X (6C/12T), 3700X (8C/16T), and 3900X (12C/24T), Intel had no choice but to respond and picked the obvious alternative.
While AMD has been utilizing the AM4 socket for all CPUs for the last three years, Intel has migrated to a new socket:
The LGA 1200 socket (with the same cooler bracket) replaces the LGA 1151 v2 socket, with the manufacturer citing a new power supply as the cause.
In reality, the PCIe Gen4 socket has been prepared.
As is customary, the new boards come with updated chipsets:
The Z490 is for high-end boards, whereas the B460, as well as the H470 and H410, are for budget boards.
What they all have in common is that they all support PCIe Gen3 and, at the very least, the Z490 and H470, they all support USB 3.2 Gen2 natively without the need of an extra controller, but none of them support PCIe Gen4.
A closer integration of 2.5 Gbps Ethernet (Foxville) and WiFi6 is one of the new features (AX201 via CNVIO interface).
Unlike AMD’s Ryzen 3000, the 10th Gen CPUs, internally dubbed Comet Lake S, do not support PCIe Gen4.
The 11th Gen aka Rocket Lake S with 14 nm and new Cove microarchitecture, which will also fit into the LGA 1200 socket, will enable this functionality and 20 instead of 16 lanes.
As a consequence, certain motherboards will have an M.2 NVMe/PCIe SSD socket, which will be incompatible with the Core i9-10900K.
CML-S, on the other hand, remains current for the time being, with Intel having built a chip with particular capabilities in favor of high clock rates.
It won’t operate without soldering.
Nothing has changed at Comet Lake S since Skylake S in 2015 in terms of architecture, since the Skylake technology is almost same in its actual core.
The frontend and backend remain unchanged, and neither have the cache levels; only the L3 buffer scales with the number of cores.
Intel does not employ a mesh like the CPUs with 18 or more cores, therefore they are linked via a basic ring bus.
Intel has made adjustments to the original Skylake architecture throughout the years to assist combat security flaws:
Comet Lake S includes a microcode update for Spectre V3a Rogue System Register Read and a hardware fix for Speculative Store Bypass (Spectre V4).
There were already hardware mitigations against L1 Terminal Fault and Rogue Data Cache Load in previous CPUs (Meltdown V3).
Additionally, firmware addresses Branch Target Injection (Spectre V2) and operating system updates address Bounds Check Bypass (Spectre V1).
Comet Lake S is built on two processors, one with ten native cores (Stepping Q0) and the other with six (Stepping G1).
Intel did not comment on die size or transistor count on demand, as anticipated, but we estimate the bigger CPU to be little around 200 mm2 in size.
To improve heat transmission, Intel has flattened the 10 core chip from 800 m to 500 m. (Thinning).
The backdrop is that silicon has a low heat coefficient, which is why a thinner ground wafer aids in quicker heat dissipation.
Intel additionally re-solders all CPUs based on the 10C-Die.
The silicon wafer itself must be meticulously coated with a variety of metals, including nickel and titanium.
The top layer is comprised of gold, as is the bottom layer of the processor’s metal cover (heat spreader), which is mostly built of copper.
Indium, which functions as a solder and heat conductor, adheres solely between the two gold layers.
It’s tough to say how much a heatspreader soldered by Intel decreases temperature when compared to paste.
For the first time with the Comet Lake S, low temperatures are important: Intel has included the Thermal Velocity Boost technology from the mobile category.
When temperatures are below 70 degrees Celsius, the i9 models clock one multiplier stage faster than when temperatures are higher.
The turbo on all cores goes from 4.8 GHz to 4.9 GHz, while the boost on two cores increases from 5.2 GHz to 5.3 GHz with the Core i9-10900K.
In practice, these frequencies are only accessible when applications are initiated; once a consistent load is present, the clock rates decline.
Intel has done strong binning for Comet Lake S once again, which means it has sorted the matching chips by pre-selection.
The first P1272 processes, 14 nm and 14+ nm, were intended for lower frequency applications.
The transistor gate pitch was expanded to 14++ nm, allowing Intel to employ even faster clock speeds at the cost of a bigger chip area.
However, since the frequency of the CPUs is restricted by thermal power loss, this does not function indefinitely or on all cores.
EWMA describes PL1, PL2, TAU, and PL3.
Intel has defined power constraints that limit or even enhance energy consumption and hence CPU speed with the Sandy Bridge generation of 2011 and its Turbo Boost 2.0 (see PDF on page #16).
The power limitations are simply suggestions, according to Intel, and motherboard makers and OEM partners are allowed to modify them.
As long as the maximum frequencies provided by Intel are not exceeded based on the number of cores employed, increasing the objectives is not overclocking.
Overclocking occurs only when a board is set up in such a manner that certain clock speeds are levered out.
The Core i9-10900thermal K’s design power (TDP) is 125 watts, according to Intel.
As a result, it matches to PL1, the CPU manufacturer’s suggested power limit under continuous load.
Intel cites a TDP of 95 watts in earlier CPUs, such as the Core i9-9900K, and offers this figure as a suggestion for the PL1.
The PL2, in addition to the PL1, is intended for short-term loads, such as burst workloads.
This covers not only the initialization of software, but also the processing stages involved in picture editing, since filters are seldom applied one after the other.
Furthermore, the PL2 is tied to a temporal value, the so-called TAU (Turbo Time Parameter).
Previously, it was typical to set PL2 to a factor of 1.25 of PL1 and TAU to 28 seconds.
With 95 watts PL1, this translates to around 119 watts for almost half a minute, after which the chip’s power consumption is lowered.
This works without a hitch because thermal inertia prevents the CPU, including the cooler, from overheating in such a short period of time since heat does not travel rapidly.
However, Intel advises that the PL1, PL2, and TAU be configured considerably more aggressively with the Comet Lake S:
The PL1 is 125 watts, the PL2 is a solid 250 watts, and the TAU is 56 seconds on the Core i9-10900K.
However, none of the three mainboards we tested were able to maintain the PL2 value for an extended period of time.
The cause for this is the EWMA, not a faulty power supply.
Exponentially Weighted Moving Average is the abbreviation for Exponentially Weighted Moving Average.
The EWMA, which is based on a number of criteria, is subtracted from the TAU, reducing the amount of time that the short-term PL2 may exist.
The faster the EWMA decreases the TAU, the more often heavy or extended loads are delivered to the CPU; the more idle time the processor has, the better.
However, regardless of the Z490 board, the 56 seconds were just not possible in our instance.
The TAU time and hence the PL2 were exhausted within half a minute, sometimes even after a few seconds, depending on the board and benchmark.
As a result, we ran our tests twice, once with the Intel recommended 125/250 watts and (up to) 56 seconds, and once with the PL1 set to 4,096 watts, ensuring that the Core i9-10900K was not constrained by a power constraint.
On Asus’ Z490 ROG Maximus XII Hero WiFi, we may pick between Intel spec and Unlimited during the boot process by pressing F1 and F3.
Gigabytes of Z490 Aorus Master and MSI’s Z490 Ace provide 4,096 watts in real life, which is around 250 watts.
The Core i5-10600K, on the other hand, seldom exceeds 125 watts, with the exception of the y-Cruncher (Pi calculation using AVX code) and Prime95.
The AMD 3900X maintains its superiority.
All Ryzen CPUs were tested on an Asus Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi (X570, firmware v1302), while the Intel chips were tested on a Gigabyte Z490 Aorus Master (firmware vM4) and an Asus Maximus XI Hero, respectively (Z390, firmware v1502).
All software and games, as well as Windows 10 v1909, are installed on a Corsair Force MP600 with PCIe Gen4 that runs on 32 GByte DDR4 memory according to AMD/Intel specifications.
Let’s have a look at the Core i9-10900K first: Because it has ten cores and a slightly faster clock rate, it outperforms the Core i9-9900K by an average of 12%.
It’s just 6% in games, but it’s 23 percent in multithreaded apps.
Under stress, the unrestricted Core i9-10900K adds further 11 percent to all cores, up to 20 percent in the best situation.
The Core i9-10900K outperforms AMD’s cheaper Ryzen 9 3900X in games and applications where clock speed rather than cores is important — whether at 125 watts or more than 250 watts.
We usually see the 3900X in front.
The Core i5-10600K has an easier game compared to the Core i5-9600K since it can fall back on twelve threads instead of six and has higher frequencies.
It accounts for a 19 percent difference on average, with 14 percent in games and the same 29 percent in multithreaded apps.
In games, the Core i5-10600K outperforms all Ryzen 3000 CPUs, while the 3800X and 3900X can still keep up in critical frame times.
In apps, the Core i5-10600K is almost as fast as a Ryzen 5 3600X, which is substantially less expensive at roughly $200.
The Ryzen 7 3700X, which is priced similarly to the Intel processor, provides much better application performance than the Intel chip, at least when multiple cores are in use.
Furthermore, the Ryzen 7 3700X is even more cost-effective, and it may be used with a less expensive or quieter cooling system if necessary.
For our testing, we chose a Noctua NH-D15S with double ventilation, making it one of the most powerful systems on the market.
Under blender load, the Core i5-10600K uses roughly 110 to 115 watts of package power, thus it doesn’t use its PL1 or even PL2.
Blender barely reaches 55 degrees after 20 minutes, indicating that the soldered heatspreader and thin die are working.
The Core i9-10900K with 125 watts PL1 reaches 61 degrees, but with a steady 250 watts, we get 85 degrees.
The Core i5-10600K and Core i9-10900K are less efficient than their AMD counterparts, despite the fact that they should – and do – surpass their nominal 65 and 125 watts, respectively. The Ryzen 7 3700X has an 88-watt package power rating, whereas the Ryzen 9 3900X has a full 142-watt rating.
Final Verdict: 10600K has the best price-performance ratio.
The Core i9-10900K costs about 550 dollars, while the Core i5-10600K is expected to cost around 300 dollars.
However, because to the 14 nm shortage, it is unclear how many chips will finally find their way into stores and how pricing will change – up or down.
Intel’s achievement with Comet Lake S, based on 14-nm technology and the Skylake architecture, is impressive:
The number of CPU cores rose from four to ten, and the clock speed increased from 4.2 GHz to 5.3 GHz, starting with the Core i7-6700K (test) in 2015.
During the same time period, AMD abandoned bulldozer technology, including the 28 nm technique, and built the Zen1/Zen2 architecture, which uses 14 nm and 7 nm and is now used in the Ryzen 3000.
In terms of pricing, the Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K are at least modestly to badly positioned against them:
If gaming is the only consideration, Intel is unbeatable. However, as soon as programs, particularly multithreading, enter the picture, the two Comet Lake processors lose.
The Core i9-10900K computes slower than the Ryzen 9 3900X, which is $100 cheaper, while the Core i5-10600K frequently loses to the Ryzen 7 3700X, which is also $100 cheaper.
If you have a Core i9-10900K, you should check into the UEFI settings on the motherboard right away:
Almost all Z490 boards defy Intel’s (non-binding) 125 watt guideline.
The decore is up to 20% quicker, but it requires 250 watts for the CPU cores while rendering!
The cooling is optional, even if the boards are built for it.
During the Asus ROG Maximus XII Hero WiFi’s startup process, we may choose between Intel’s presets and unrestricted power limitations by pressing F1 and F3.
MSI’s Z490 Ace and Gigabytes of Z490 Aorus Master apply full steam without the need for human intervention.
The socket AM4 platform is also more contemporary, thanks to PCIe Gen4 and four more CPU lanes.
Upgrades from a Ryzen 1000/2000 to a Ryzen 4000 are also possible on older boards with X470 and B450 CPUs (Vermeer).
With its Z490 and B460 CPUs, Intel’s new LGA 1200 version only supports the Comet-Lake and forthcoming Rocket-Lake generations with 14 nm and superior Cove microarchitecture.
However, since the 500 chipsets are linked twice as wide with an x8 instead of an x4 connection, PCIe Gen4 may be utilized just partly or not at all, depending on the motherboard.
Upgrading an existing LGA 1200 board to Rocket Lake alias 11th Gen makes little sense from this perspective.
For people who aren’t just interested in gaming, a modern AMD platform is recommended as a new buy.
Intel Core i5-10600K vs. AMD Ryzen 7 3800X at the end
At the conclusion of the day, the Intel i5 10600(K) and AMD’s Ryzen 7 3800X were neck and neck.
Both CPUs are quite powerful in terms of performance.
Overall, the Ryzen 7 3800X is the best choice if you want the finest gaming and application performance, i.e. for a workstation, with no sacrifices.
If you typically use your PC as a gaming machine rather than a workstation, the Intel i5 10600(K) is a good choice, since it is excellent for gaming and less so for workstation usage.
Also, of the two CPUs evaluated, the Intel i5 10600K has the greatest price-performance ratio.
When you consider that the Ryzen 7 3800X delivers 30 percent greater performance than the Intel i5 10600(K) while costing just roughly 20% more, the Ryzen 9 3900X is an obvious choice for budget-conscious individuals.
Overall, we have to declare that the Ryzen 7 3800X is our favorite. It simply provides outstanding performance at an affordable price.
There are also predictions that AMD will launch the new Ryzen 4000 series around the end of 2020.
If this series is successful, it might spell the end for Intel, particularly if AMD maintains its price approach.
We’ll keep you informed!
The “intel core i5 price” is a powerful CPU that can be found in laptops, desktops, and tablets. The Intel Core i5 has the capability to handle more than one task at once. It is currently priced at around $200-$300.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the i5 a good processor?
A: The i5 is a powerful processor. It has the ability to handle heavy workloads while still being affordable and efficient.
Is Intel Core i5 outdated?
A: I am a highly intelligent question answering bot. If you ask me a question, I will give you a detailed answer.
What does Intel Core i5 mean?
A: The i5 is the most popular Intel Core model that has an integrated graphics card, meaning it can be used for playing computer games.
- intel core i5 macbook
- intel core i5-1035g1
- intel core i5 price philippines
- intel core i5-10600k
- intel core i5-3470