At 4K, the differences nearly evaporated, and both chips were within a few frames of each other.
You can see the full results in the video, but while the i9-10900K was definitely faster, the 3300X still managed more than 100FPS in both Gears of War 5 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 1080p with the quality settings maxed out. We ran benchmarks at 1920 x 1080 resolution, at low and high graphics settings, and again at 4K resolution with high settings. In addition to a few synthetic benchmarks, we tested Gears of War 5, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and Red Dead Redemption 2. We requested chips from both Intel and AMD, and built a new test system to find out. With that in mind, is a 4-core chip like AMD’s Ryzen 3 3300X still powerful enough to get high framerates in a modern, big-studio game? Or to look at it another way Intel claims its i9-10900K is the fastest chip you can buy for gaming, but how much of a difference does it make?
We were trying to answer one question: How much does your CPU matter in gaming performance? In the recent past, many games were not well optimized for multiple CPU cores, but many modern games can utilize four, six or even more cores. For the latest episode of our explainer show Upscaled, we compared Intel’s new flagship 10-core chip, the i9-10900K, with AMD’s budget-level Ryzen 3 3300X. Normally when benchmarking processors it’s useful to look at a few models with similar specs or near the same price-point, to get a sense how they differ.