Intel Core i5 10400F vs AMD Ryzen 3 3300X
After the initial test of the Core i5-10600K and the top model, the Core i9-10900K against their respective AMD competitors, we are still looking at a smaller model today, the Core i5-10400F vs the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X.
As a non-K model, the i5 10400F doesn’t have an open multiplier anymore and also shows some differences under certain circumstances.
Whether it absolutely has to be a K model, where the strengths, but also where the weaknesses of the Core i5-10400F lie, we’ll take a look at the following pages.
All K-models and also certain batches of the Core i5-10400(F) use the large 10-core die, in which two or four cores are disabled accordingly, as well as the integrated graphic unit if necessary.
Additionally, STIM (Soldered Thermal Interface Material) is used here, as well as a thinner die, respectively a thicker heatspreader.
A Core i5-10600 as well as a Core i5-10500 can also use the smaller 6-core die.
The two variants can be distinguished by the stepping. The Q0 stepping is based on the 10-core variant of Comet Lake-S.
The G1 stepping on the other hand is based on the 6-core variant.
We unfortunately had an engineering sample (QS) of the Core i5-10400F, which still uses the G0 stepping.
So we don’t really know which variant is used here.
Due to the naming, however, probably also the larger 10-core variant with STIM and the thinner Die.
But now to the in-depth test.
Test Results: Intel Core i5 10400F vs AMD Ryzen 3 3300X
Ranking First: Intel Core i5 10400F
- Great multi-threaded performance
- Low energy consumption
- Solid temperatures
- No open multiplier
Performance Winner in i5 10400F vs Ryzen 3 3300X
Like the Core i5-10600KF, the Core i5-10400F also offers six cores and active hyperthreading.
So 12 threads can be processed. In opposition to the K models, the Core i5-10400F has a TDP of 65 W.
The PL2 is 134 W and Tau, so the duration how long the PL2 can be on is 28 s.
The memory interface of the Core i5-10400F is specified to DDR4-2666. Intel only offers the interface with DDR4-2933 starting with the Core i7-10700F.
Benchmarks: Cinebench R20
The Cinebench is a classic tool for evaluating the multi- and single-threaded performance of a processor.
It still scales quite well over several dozen cores and also shows the single-core performance of a processor via the single-threaded test.
The Core i5-10400F reaches a value of 77.2 W in the power consumption test.
But this isn’t the peak value, because the processor also likes to scratch at the 100 W for a short time.
The continuous load then also sinks quite soon to almost exactly 65 W – if the motherboard completely keeps to the specifications and doesn’t play any “games”.
The power consumption of the entire system is correspondingly low.
The Core i5-10400F is quite economical when you show it the limits vs the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X.
Performance per watt and performance per Dollar
The benchmarks and measurements of power consumption are one thing.
However, a complete picture can only be obtained by bringing together some of the important key figures. In the multi-threaded disciplines of rendering and encoding, processors scale with the number of their cores.
So we took a look at the ratio of nT power per watt.
The Core i5-10400F can keep up quite well in the ratio of multi-threaded performance per watt.
You are the best placed Intel processor directly behind various Ryzen processors.
Six cores, twelve threads and this with only 77 W play the decisive role here.
The Core i5-10400F is even a bit better in terms of multi-threaded performance per Dollar.
The price of 175 Dollar naturally plays the decisive role here and only raises the Core i5-10400F to this position.
Cache and core latencies as well as temperature/clock performance
Now we also want to take a look at the core latencies and the behavior of clock and temperature.
Intel uses a die and not yet a chipset design for the Comet Lake S processors.
For the Ryzen processors the latencies are always quite interesting due to the design.
On current Intel processors, the design is quite simple and the core-to-core latency scheme looks similar.
In comparison to the Core i5-10600K, which is also a six-core, but on a larger die, the Core i5-10400F achieves similar latencies.
While we see differences between about 25 and 70-75 ns for AMD (depending on whether the cores are on the same CCD or another one), they are almost identical for Intel with about 45 ns across all cores.
An extreme example is the Ryzen 3 3100 and Ryzen 3 3300X, each with four cores but a different design.
How do the new Comet Lake processors behave under load? What clock speed do they offer, how high is the power consumption and what temperatures are reached?
To answer all these questions we record the package power, average clock and temperature over all cores.
For the test we use the Blender 2.82 with a demo file and let the rendering run through.
The Core i5-10400F’s clock, package power and temperature behavior is quite boring in the Core i5-10400F, as the processor is constantly running at 4 GHz in Blender rendering, consumes 77 to 80 W and doesn’t get warmer than 55 °C.
There are no major changes during the 10 minute rendering.
The Core i5-10400F is a real all-rounder.
The multi-threaded performance increases significantly due to the now active hyperthreading.
However, the Core i5-10400F can’t quite keep up with the Comet Lake S top models due to the fairly low boost clock rate, but Intel has to find a justification for the larger models somewhere.
It shows a consistently good performance in games, but isn’t even on the fastest processors.
The power consumption seems to depend heavily on the mainboard used and the settings made there.
On our test platform, the Core i5-10400F adheres particularly well to the specifications and doesn’t afford any (from Intel and the motherboard manufacturers) intended slips.
Depending on the user’s BIOS settings, the Core i5-10400F can also be completely different – at least this is what the tests of our colleagues show.
No big jumps are possible with overclocking.
Therefore, we have also refrained from a detailed test of this aspect.
The easiest way is to combine the processor with faster memory, at least on a mainboard with a Z490 chipset.
However, if you decide on a non-K model, you should also be aware of this fact and not assume that you can make big leaps here.
Verdict: Performance Winner in i5 10400F vs Ryzen 3 3300X
The Core i5-10400F’s striking argument is its price.
It can be found starting at 175 Dollar and is thus very affordable.
The Ryzen 3 3300(X) is once again significantly cheaper, but only offers four cores, so that we at least consider the Core i5-10400F to be the future-proof solution.
However, this leaves out the fact that we can’t yet issue an official certificate for the socket LGA1200 for future security, although there are many indications that the Rocket Lake processors will also run on it.
Together with a cheap motherboard, the Core i5-10400F is a real recommendation for those who can do without PCI-Express 4.0 for the time being and still want to give Intel preference, which is by no means to be taken as an accusation.
Ranking Second: AMD Ryzen 3 3300X
- Good multi-core performance
- Mid-range gaming performance for cheap
- Multiplier unlocked
- Not a huge jump over Ryzen 3 3100
Price performance ratio winner in i5 10400F vs Ryzen 3 3300X
Ten months after the launch of Zen 2 on July 7, 2019, AMD enters the entry-level segment with Ryzen 3 3300X and Ryzen 3 3100.
Previously, Ryzen 3000 with Zen 2 on the desktop was only available with at least six cores, the smallest solution for end customers to date was Ryzen 5 3600, whose market price is 170 Dollar.
The first two Ryzen 3s, with four cores and prices between 110 and 130 Dollar, address a market that AMD served exclusively with APUs in the end customer segment, although the Ryzen 3000G was still based on Zen+.
In addition to detailed benchmarks, the test also gets to the bottom of the question why AMD decided to take this step.
An eight-core processor halved – in two ways
The new Ryzen 3 does not use a new die, but is based on the technology available since July.
The Zen 2 Matisse die with its various components is, as is well known, basically always an eight-core model, which is combined with an I/O die either singly or in the desktop twice.
The single CPU die consists of two CCX, each of which produces four cores including L3 cache.
To make a quad-core processor out of this, there are two ways, which AMD surprisingly even uses both.
AMD Ryzen 3 3100: Half a CCX disabled
The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 uses shared resources.
It combines two cores each including 8 MByte L3 cache from the two CCX, while the other two are not functional.
The result is a quad-core processor with 16 MByte L3 cache and the disadvantage that the cores have to go the way into the other CCX to interact with each other, which, as we know, has an extremely negative effect on the latency.
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X: One of two CCX completely disabled
With the Ryzen 3 3300X, AMD goes the other way.
Here the manufacturer completely shuts down a CCX and concentrates all resources on the remaining “core complex”.
This makes it virtually a “native” quad-core processor with the advantage of the shortest data transfer paths.
3300X vs. 3100: significant latency advantages
AMD itself says that the different structure of Ryzen 3 3000 alone can play a role in certain scenarios – and this has been shown in the Techtestreport test, especially in WinRAR.
In the past, this benchmark has already reacted to shared resources in AMD’s processors with a heavy penalty, and Ryzen 3 3000 doesn’t change that:
Ryzen 3 3300X is 67 percent ahead of Ryzen 3 3100 here, and is the first to show what has been revealed in theoretical latency measurements like SiSoft Sandra or the CoreLatencyTest.
The jump from one core in CCX0 to another core in CCX1 and thus core to core in the Ryzen 3 3100 is quantified with over 75 ns, while within a CCX the latency is not 30 ns between the individual cores and thus always the same in the 3300X.
The cache and memory benchmark of AIDA64 also shows some significant effects in almost all disciplines, except for the L1 cache directly coupled to the core.
The throughput rate remains constant in memory, but the latency deteriorates significantly from 3300X to 3100. With 68 ns, the Ryzen 3 3300X even beats all other Matisse processors – the “native” quad-core model shows its advantages.
The other measured values are also always clearly in favor of the 3300X; 10 percent more clock speed alone does not explain them.
Some games also profit from the choice of the 3300X, for example Kingdom Come and Metro Exodus with a plus of 23 and 24 percent in frametimes or FPS.
By focusing on only one CCX, the 3300X not only approaches the Ryzen 5 3600 and 3600X, but even outperforms them thanks to the same clock speed, as long as six cores don’t give an advantage.
This is because the small six-cores also have to draw their resources from two CCXs.
The separate CCXs and the chip design do not always have advantages.
With small CPUs, which would also be possible with monolithic silicon, they can be a disadvantage – and not only because of 125 mm² (I/O) + 74 mm² (CCD) die area, which is only used for four cores.
However, not too much importance should be attached to the topic as a whole over the course:
Most of the extra power on the Ryzen 3 3300X compared to the 3100 is ultimately due to the additional 400 MHz clock, the different setup provides a few bonus percentages.
Anyway, the overall picture outweighs: AMD’s technical approach from CCX over CCD to chipset makes CPUs from the 100 Dollar desktop to the 5.000 Dollar server processor possible.
The few percent loss compared to hypothetical monolithic dies, if technically feasible at all, is more than made up for by the economic efficiency.
Nevertheless, this aspect remains a starting point for future CPUs from AMD, because wherever resources are shared or outsourced and have to work together again later, there are losses.
A logical step would be to drill the CCX up to eight cores. Rumors in this direction have been around for quite some time.
Classification in the model range
The integration of the new CPUs into AMD’s current Matisse processor portfolio is simple:
The two Ryzen 3s are the entry level.
The model 3100 is heavily cut back on clock speed, but it can still keep SMT, eight threads are not available from Intel in the market so far.
This should help the Ryzen 3 3300X as an opponent of the Intel Core i5-9400F, a turbo clock on the level of the other Matisse CPUs of the 65 watt class makes you sit up and take notice.
The new processors implement all turbo modes, as AMD has planned for Matisse processors.
The “Precision Boost” clocks the CPU cores according to various parameters so that they can even exceed the advertised maximum clock rate – this is what happened with the Ryzen 3 3300X in the Techtestreport test system.
However, this is so approved by AMD.
After there were many complaints at the start about not reaching maximum clock rates, the manufacturer has significantly optimized the behavior and created room for improvement.
The prices at the start are high
The prices called up look consistent on paper, but in the trade, another language has been spoken for some time.
In particular, the Ryzen 3 3300X seems too expensive to start with for 129 Dollar, while the Ryzen 5 3600 is freely available for 168 Dollar and thus 39 Dollar more.
The Ryzen 3 must therefore be subject to the EIA as soon as possible, and sales are to officially start on May 21.
The question: Why this processor now?
The reason for the new CPUs is not that AMD is suddenly reinventing itself here after the shift from CPUs to APUs in recent years.
Rather, the two new Ryzen 3 will be the only runnable entry-level processors AMD has to offer for the new B550 mainboards.
Renoir for the desktop is obviously not yet ready or not available in sufficient quantities.
But surely there are older cheaper six-core CPUs (Ryzen 2000) and the quad-core Ryzen 3000G series APUs?
Indeed, but you can’t use them on B550.
While X570 officially supports all Ryzen except the first generation, AMD has excluded all CPUs with a pre-Zen 2 architecture from B550.
The Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G APUs are also listed as incompatible.
So there was no cheap CPU for B550. The question of why Ryzen 3 3000 was chosen seems to have been answered.
B550 boards only support Zen 2 and Zen 3
The step is quite serious, since AMD has always been praised for durable CPU sockets and suitable boards (vice versa).
If you want to buy cheap B550 boards from June on, you will be extremely limited at the start – and without the now introduced Ryzen 3 there would be no solution at all.
AMD has brought back the BIOS ROM that was already too small on some boards for Ryzen 3000 and would rather be prepared for the future than for the past:
Renoir for the desktop as well as the Zen 3 generations Vermeer (as Matisse successor) and Cezanne (as Renoir replacement) are to be supported with the B550 chipset.
There’s no space left for “old problems” at the start, which would have to be freed up again in 2021.
In the past, new motherboards were shipped with support for older CPUs, but later the support was cancelled because the space in the ROM was needed for newer processors.
And these are practically on the doorstep with Renoir and later Vermeer and Cezanne based on Zen 3.
Mainboard manufacturers confirm AMD’s specification upon request.
The too small BIOS memory is always an issue with AMD, although many AMD boards barely support more than 50 processors, while the manufacturer advertises with over 200 models for the socket.
At Intel, on the other hand, there are motherboards that offer support for well over 150 CPUs.
Anyone who wants to use older processors such as the Athlon 3000, which is less than half a year old, will have to make do with older boards – an extremely rare scenario so far.
B550 boards from 16 June
The B550 boards should be officially available from mid-June. As expected, they will support PCIe 4.0 from the CPU and, for example, loop through to the graphics card, but will not offer it through the chipset itself.
This chipset is ultimately intended as a link between the 400 series chipsets and the flagship X570, but should enable motherboards from 100 US dollars – that would also be the golden mean.
New Ryzen 3 runs on old 400 series boards
Conversely, the Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X run on all 400 series boards that are available on the market.
According to the manufacturers, the necessary BIOS updates have been in circulation for many months.
The latest AGESA version, which appeared last, is not necessary.
The test with a B450 mainboard therefore worked without problems with both Ryzen 3.
For all tests, the new test system built with AMD Ryzen 3000 (Test) in summer is used.
All essential parameters are identical to ensure comparability.
Windows 10 has therefore not yet been updated to version 1909 and the driver for the GeForce is as of July.
Windows in new version has no relevant influence on AMD’s new CPUs, the manufacturer therefore recommends using 1903 or 1909.
It’s unfortunate timing from AMD: The latest entry-level processors must now be tested on extreme high-end boards, although they are actually intended for B550 boards, which in turn do not support older CPUs.
So direct comparisons are not possible, and here again the existing setup is still best suited.
Benchmarks in applications
Four cores and eight threads of the two newcomers are just sufficient in modern applications.
It is therefore not surprising that the two-year-old Ryzen 5 2600 is ahead of the two newcomers – and it ranks in the same price range.
However, traditional Intel CPUs with four cores or previous AMD solutions from the APU family are easily put in their place by Matisse even with only four cores.
What Zen 2 also means is shown by the newcomers in single core tests.
The significantly increased IPC ensures a very good result, especially in combination with the higher clock speed of the Ryzen 3 3300X.
Since the clock speed in the Turbo is even higher than the small Ryzen 5 3600, the Ryzen 3 3300X is at the top of the ranking.
Benchmarks in games (Full HD and UHD)
In games, early 2020 also counts: four cores (and eight threads) is the absolute minimum, a high clock rate is always good, six cores are sometimes an advantage.
The current mix of games is (still) paying off for the Ryzen 3 3300X. More clock speed than the small Ryzen 5 3600, plus the bonus of four active cores in one CCX brings it minimally in front.
The overall package is ultimately so good that it delivers almost the same gaming performance as all other Ryzen 3000s.
As usual, however, this is a snapshot, because more than four cores (eight threads) are rapidly becoming more important in the gaming environment and the recommendation goes clearly to a six-core CPU.
The smaller Ryzen 3 3100 already has a harder time of it. It starves a bit over the clock and is very likely to suffer from inter-CCX communication problems.
Because games react aggressively to the latencies, the lag is much more striking than in applications.
However, it’s enough to beat AMD’s chosen opponent, the Intel Core i3-9100F – clearly in the double-digit percentage range, depending on the title.
The power consumption
In idle mode, the Ryzen 3 show their origin:
A Matisse processor is a Matisse processor, all of them are virtually on a par.
Under load, the differences become clear.
In the single-core test, the Ryzen 3 3300X has almost the same electrical performance as the Ryzen 5 thanks to a similarly high clock rate, but it is surprisingly high under full all-core load under Cinebench.
The Ryzen 5 3600 requires only 6 percent more power for almost 40 percent more performance in the test – here the quad-core processor is disappointing.
The smaller Ryzen 3 3100 is much more efficient.
In terms of package power, the analyses show that even the Ryzen 3, especially the 3300X, is allowed to exceed the TDP.
Here, the same limits apply as for the previous 65 Watt Matisse processors, so the 74 Watt maximum is completely within limits.
Surprisingly high temperatures
The high power consumption of Ryzen 3 3300X is also evident in the temperatures.
78 degrees is not critical, but certainly a high value.
The 3600s are in a similar environment.
AMD’s best CPU in the market, the Ryzen 7 3700X as a 65 watt efficiency package with eight cores, is however in a much better position and even ahead of the Ryzen 3 3100.
This speaks for a residual use of the chips by the newcomers, while the best ones are reserved for stronger processors.
Overclocking also works with the Ryzen 3
Even the smallest Matisse processors are provided by AMD with a freely definable multiplier and can be overclocked in this way.
This is only possible with K-CPUs at Intel.
With the tenth generation Core, Intel has even dropped the K-model in the Core i3, the smallest overclockable solution is now again a Core i5 for at least 237 US dollars.
In return, the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 for 109 Dollar can be clocked up to 4.5 GHz and the Ryzen 3300X seems to be able to do the same.
This is a significant increase, especially coming from the smaller model, as the guaranteed clock rate is only 3.6 GHz. There was not much time for validation of the results during the test.
AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 leave a divided echo at the end.
Both are powerful for a quad-core processor and are still very well equipped for the majority of games, but they can only play out the advantages that Ryzen 3000 with Zen 2 stands for to a limited extent.
Both CPUs are neither a real novelty, nor are they extremely efficient or their price particularly attractive.
And there is the issue of a forced changeover floating along, as this becomes necessary for AMD customers in the entry level, as there is no other choice on a B550 mainboard:
The chipset is only compatible with Zen 2 (and in the future guaranteed Zen 3), even Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G with Zen+ are out.
The other way around, the new Ryzen 3 3000 runs on old boards.
The dichotomy is clearly evident in the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X for 130 Dollar.
The CPU will undoubtedly have to deal with the old six-core AMD Ryzen 5 2600, which is available for 115 Dollar, and only 39 Dollar above that is the threat of the successor Ryzen 5 3600.
The Ryzen 3 3300X beats the Ryzen 5 2600 house-high in games and single-core scenarios, but it lags in double digits in multi-core loads.
In comparison to the Ryzen 5 3600, the Ryzen 3 3300X is close in games, and the current six-core processor is far ahead in multi-core apps.
The final assessment of the Ryzen 3 3300X is therefore greatly influenced by the results in games and the answer to the question of how long four cores will not be at a disadvantage compared to six.
The editors recommend going for six cores instead of four when it comes to AAA titles.
Somewhat the same applies to AMD’s six-core CPUs with the Ryzen 3 3000 as recently in the relationship between Intel and AMD: in single-core applications and benchmarks in the lead, in multi-core loads and the price is behind.
The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 is a bit slower, but with 99 US dollars (before taxes) in the US it offers a psychological advantage in terms of price.
The circle of opponents is smaller.
The 3100 makes all previous desktop APUs obsolete for customers who rely on a discrete GPU anyway.
The gap to the 3300X is small, in percentage terms almost in all areas less than the price difference between the two. And it clearly beats Intel’s cheaper Core i3-9100F.
A B550 mainboard paired with this Ryzen 3 makes sense in the future.
To make a real recommendation today is nevertheless difficult.
If you want to rely on current AMD hardware, you won’t be able to avoid an X570 board for weeks to come, because B550 will be available at the end of June. But X570 is not intended for the price range of Ryzen 3.
The recommendation is therefore still to use at least one Ryzen 5 3600, which at 168 Dollar costs 39 Dollar more than the Ryzen 3 3300X, but with 50 percent more threads easily achieves up to 40 percent more performance and is therefore the clearly future-proof choice.
In games it will also turn a small current disadvantage into an advantage over time.
Even if the cheaper B550 boards appear, one should go for the larger CPU, which is even less important due to the savings on the board.
A niche for Ryzen 3 3000 that is already usable at the moment is the combination with a B450 board, which is already available from 60 Dollar and should work without problems with the CPUs.
Such a system won’t survive, but in combination with a good graphics card, better results are achieved on average over most games than with comparably expensive six-core Ryzen.
And even compared to the Core i3 and Core i5, which sell like sliced bread, Ryzen 3 3100 and Ryzen 3 3300X are now the much better choice – until the new tenth-generation Core i5 from Intel arrives, as Comet Lake-S makes the biggest leap in exactly this area.
Interesting will be in the near future, where AMD will place the new APUs based on Renoir in the desktop.
In the Ryzen 1000 generation, APUs and small CPUs are cannibalized, which is why AMD discontinued the small CPUs in favor of APUs just a few months after their launch.
As in those days, the APU is based on a smaller die (than the sum of the two needed for Matisse) including all features and a graphic – the B550 boards have the corresponding outputs.
This story could be repeated here.
Final Verdict: Intel Core i5 10400F vs AMD Ryzen 3 3300X
All in all, we have to say that the better performing and future-proof CPU is the Intel Core i5 10400F vs the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X.
All in all the Ryzen 3 3300X is the cheaper solution and maybe has a slight advantage in price-performance ratio, but overall it is not big.
We recommend, you go with the Intel i5 10400F if you can scrap out the few bucks more.
If you cannot the Ryzen 3 3300X is not a bad choice but overall, not as future-proodf as the Intel i5 10400F.
There are rumors that AMD will announce a Ryzen 4000 series at the end of the year. We will keep you updated about that.