Ryzen 7 2700X vs. Ryzen 7 3700X: High Refresh Gaming Comparison

Recently nosotros compared the Ryzen 7 3700X against the new Cadre i5-10600K in ix competitive titles using depression quality settings to run into just how much faster the Intel processor is when letting the frame rate shoot well higher up what you'd need for 144Hz gaming.

The results were interesting, though for the virtually part the margins weren't overly dissimilar to what nosotros had seen in our original CPU review. That is, performance in esports style of games didn't differ greatly than when we tested modernistic AAA games using high and ultra graphics quality presets.

We had found the i5-10600K to exist 6% faster on average than the R7 3700X when gaming, and that margin barely changed to seven% using low quality settings in games such as Rocket League, Fortnite and PUBG. Clearly, the 3rd-gen Ryzen processor was able to concord its own and fifty-fifty pulled ahead in a few instances.

This had us wondering how well the previous generation R7 2700X would stack upwards confronting the 3700X, and of grade, the i5-10600K, under the same test weather. So nosotros've gone back, tested and added the 2700X to the results in this benchmark comparing. We also took the time to overhaul our CSGO testing using a method recommended past a number of very neat Counter-Strike gamers.

For testing we're looking at out of the box performance with XMP loaded using CL14 DDR4-3200 memory on both AMD and Intel processors. The 10600K is not power limited, every bit that'due south typically the out of the box experience. Likewise, in our original review we constitute that a 5.i GHz overclock could boost gaming performance by as much as 12%, so go along that in listen. We've besides found gains of over 20% for Ryzen processors when adjusting memory timings. That's to say in our experience nosotros've found AMD and Intel processors enjoy like operation gains when tuning.

Benchmarks

Nosotros'll be looking at the aforementioned suite of 9 games, all tested at 1080p and 1440p using depression quality settings with both an RTX 2080 Ti and an RTX 2060 Super.

First upwardly we have Battlefield at 1080p using the depression quality preset and already we face some interesting results. The 2700X isn't much faster with the 2080 Ti when using the low quality settings opposed to the ultra quality settings, nosotros're looking at virtually a 13% improvement in average frame rate with no change to the one% low.

Also for reference, with the ultra quality settings the 3700X is 9% faster than the 2700X, but we're seeing a 21% increase in performance for the tertiary-gen Ryzen processor. This highlights the kind of step forward AMD made with the Zen 2 architecture.

Mayhap more surprising is that fifty-fifty with the RTX 2060 Super, the 2700X is still the operation limiting component equally hither the 3700X was eighteen% faster. Of course, the 2700X was nevertheless skilful for over 100 fps at all times, and then we imagine most of you volition be satisfied with the level of performance using higher quality settings, but it's clear for competitive gaming the 2700X is the primary bottleneck.

The 1440p results are a niggling more than favorable every bit we start to run across the examination weather condition become a petty more GPU bound. The 3700X was 9% faster than the 2700X when looking at the average frame charge per unit with the RTX 2080 Ti, but 16% faster when comparing 1% depression information. Even with the 2060 Super we meet up to a 12% performance increase when going from the 2700X to the 3700X.

In Fortnite we're looking at almost identical performance using either the 2060 Super or 2080 Ti, as the 3 CPUs are the principal operation limiting component, then permit's but focus on the 2080 Ti information. Here we're over again looking at up to a 23% functioning improvement for the 3700X over the 2700X, taking the boilerplate frame rate from 265 fps up to 325 fps. The 10600K is nonetheless 8% faster than the 3700X which is an impressive result for Intel.

At the same time, it's evident how much AMD has managed to bridge the gap in a unmarried generation. We should note that the 2700X was able to maintain over 200 fps at all times in our demanding Fortnite criterion, so while much slower than the Intel Cadre i5, for most gamers it's still getting the job done just fine. However clearly if y'all're serious about Fortnite and want the maximum performance possible, information technology wouldn't accept made sense to purchase a 2nd-gen Ryzen processor in favor of the Intel alternatives.

Jumping to 1440p with the 2080 Ti we're notwithstanding looking at a substantial functioning uplift for the 3700X over the 2700X. Here tertiary-gen Ryzen was up to 21% faster.

It's also worth noting that the 10600K is up to 33% faster. Basically if AMD were competing with Intel's 10th-gen range using 2nd-gen Ryzen information technology would be a bloodbath for team red. Of course, in the procedure AMD drove downward Intel pricing, but notwithstanding the margin betwixt the 2700X and 10600K is truly massive.

When using a less powerful GPU like the RTX 2060 Super we've already encounter a fairly strong GPU bottleneck at 1440p and now the 10600K is but eight% faster than the 2700X.

For testing CSGO, nosotros previously moved abroad from the customs benchmark to bot matches which more than accurately represented real gameplay, but getting accurate information with bots tin can exist tricky. The good news is, information technology turns out in that location'south an even better method for accurately measuring real gameplay and that method sees u.s.a. take advantage of the replay function past viewing pro matches.

And then we've gone back and tested the three CPUs using this new method. Previously we had found the 3700X to exist 8% faster than the 10600K when comparing the boilerplate frame rate and upward to 22% faster when comparison the 1% low data. The frame rates however were much college as the bot match didn't encounter fume grenades regularly going off.

Using the pro match we see that the 3700X and 10600K are much more than evenly matched. Compared to the 2700X however, the 3700X was upward to 31% faster taking the i% depression figure from 163 fps right up to 214 fps. That's a massive generational functioning leap.

The margins remain nearly the same at 1440p. Here the 3700X was up to 34% faster than the 2700X which saw it deliver comparable performance to the 10th-gen Core i5 processor.

Adjacent upwards we have the Rainbow Six Siege results where we find our biggest margins yet. Whereas the 2700X express the RTX 2080 Ti to 304 fps on boilerplate, the 3700X was almost 40% faster, hitting 420 fps. That performance uplift almost seems as well pregnant but remember, core to core communication was improved by up to l%, as seen in our day-i review. Those margins are less extreme when using the RTX 2060 Super, but fifty-fifty and so the 3700X was up to 22% faster.

The RTX 2060 Super results at 1440p come across all CPUs deliver virtually the same performance, showing nosotros're heavily GPU limited. Large margins are still seen when using the RTX 2080 Ti and although the 2700X matched the average frame rate of the 10600K, the Intel processor was 13% faster when comparing 1% depression performance.

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds results show a more balmy 13% performance uplift for the 3700X over the 2700X, and while that'southward nevertheless a nice generation-on-generation uplift, it's one of the smaller gains we've seen then far.

It'southward worth noting that the Core i5-10600K was 17% faster than the 3700X, then Intel does enjoy a substantial performance advantage in this title. The 10600K was also up to 32% faster than the 2d-gen Ryzen processor.

Because the 3700X is able to bridge the gap between the 2700X and 10600K, we discover when using a less powerful GPU like the RTX 2060 Super that the third-gen Ryzen processor is able to push the mid-range GeForce GPU to its limits. In fact, the 3700X was up to 21% faster than the 2700X with the slower GPU.

Increasing the resolution to 1440p reduces the 3700X's lead over the 2700X to just 10% with the RTX 2080 Ti. The 10600K was withal upwards to 19% faster.

Again, for max performance in a title such as PUBG, the Intel processor is clearly the superior option, though near may not require north of 150 fps in this title.

Moving on to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, we're just looking at very mild performance gains when moving from the 2700X to the 3700X to the melody of viii% improve average frame rates, while the 10600K was 5% faster than the 3700X.

With the RTX 2060 Super nosotros saw basically the aforementioned performance from the iii processors.

The 1440p information sees virtually the aforementioned margins, nosotros're looking at upwardly to a half-dozen% improvement for the 3700X over the 2700X with the RTX 2080 Ti and RTX 2060 Super.

When testing with Rocket League both Ryzen processors provided like one% low performance despite the 3700X boosting the boilerplate frame rate by 17%.

We should note that by default Rocket League caps the frame rate to 250 fps, though information technology can be removed by editing a configuration file. Even the 2700X volition max out an RTX 2080 Ti prior to whatsoever modifications of the game files.

The margins close upwardly a fiddling at 1440p as the game starts to become more GPU jump, only still the 2700X and 3700X delivered comparable ane% depression functioning with averages well over 400 fps.

Globe of Tanks is a wearisome-paced tank shooter where positioning is more than of import than picture show shots, so 144 Hz displays that are fed 144 fps volition exist more than sufficient for this one. That being the case the 2700X is perfectly fine for Earth of Tanks gaming as it allowed for over 170 fps at all times.

But of course, looking at this purely from a operation standpoint the 3700X was upwards to 22% faster which is a significant uplift. Without third-gen Ryzen, Intel would be up to 37% faster in this title.

The margins seen at 1440p are much the same. We're still primarily CPU limited simply 2700X withal allowed for over 170 fps at all times.

The State of war Thunder gives us another example of the significant step forward AMD made with Zen 2. Hither the 3700X is upwardly to 48% faster than the 2700X when looking at i% lows and 42% for the average frame rate.

The 2700X heavily limits system performance in State of war Thunder and while a minimum of ~250 fps is yet impressive, it's a far cry from what the Intel processor tin attain in comparison.

Fifty-fifty at 1440p the 3700X is nevertheless up to 43% faster than the 2700X while the 10600K is just 14% faster than the 3700X which admittedly is still a decent margin, but it does seem a lot less pregnant given we're talking nigh 348 fps vs 397 fps.

Taking an Average

In the graph below you can check out the average performance seen beyond the ix games we just tested. Comparing the 1% depression data, we run across that the Ryzen vii 3700X was on average 20% faster than the 2700X and 26% faster when comparing boilerplate fps. Those are some truly impressive generational operation gains.

The 2700X still enabled highly playable performance with smoothen frame rates, so for many gamers that deviation won't be realized, particularly given you're almost e'er GPU limited nether realistic conditions, high refresh/competitive gaming being almost the merely exception.

The 3700X was still effectually 22% faster when using the slower RTX 2060 Super, though that's not surprising given the quality settings used at 1080p. This also highlights that anything faster than the RTX 2060 Super is generally pointless for competitive gaming.

What We Learned

For some of yous these results volition come as a surprise, especially because this isn't the kind of game testing we commonly perform. We too don't believe many other tech media outlets have provided this sort of data, which makes sense given most of you probably aren't seeking farthermost 300+ fps frame rates in Rocket League, War Thunder, or Fortnite.

That said, nosotros have included low resolution testing in the by that revealed the 8700K to be up to 52% faster than the 2700X, albeit in an older version of CSGO using an inferior test method and that particular result was an outlier. While the 10600K was on average 35% faster than the 2700X in this examination at 1080p using low quality settings, we have found similar margins when testing with titles such as Far Cry Key, Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia, StarCraft II, Wreckfest, and World of Tanks, to name a few.

We've also found very pregnant improvements in cache bandwidth, cadre-to-core communication and DRAM latency in past IPC tests comparison the 2700X and 3700X.

Something else worth noting is a 2-year-old characteristic nosotros wrote, comparing the Ryzen seven 2700X and Core i7 8700K on a 35 game benchmark. When forming our conclusion we bankrupt down the pros and cons, and in the end said we'd personally get the 8700K, it was but the improve gaming CPU. We noted that fifty-fifty though the 2700X packed two extra cores, which made it the superior performer in core-heavy workloads, we didn't expect that to give it an advantage in games inside the next few years.

Fast forward to today and the 8700K, which has substantially been re-branded as the 10600K, is still faster than the 2700X in all games. The operation deviation in more than enervating AAA titles under realistic test atmospheric condition is closer to 12% rather than the 35% seen here in competitive gaming benchmarks. Still, for roughly the aforementioned cost nosotros'd buy the 8700K over the 2700X for gaming.

There is no question AMD has taken a pregnant leap with Zen 2. In our opinion, gaming performance is so close now relative to Intel that it won't make a departure for the vast bulk of gamers. It'll be interesting to see what kind of footstep forward AMD can brand with Zen 3 and nosotros suspect information technology won't be long before Intel's feeling serious pressure level on all fronts. Hopefully they tin can also provide some decent IPC gains with time to come generations.