Core i3 10300 for a budget build?

[likeaboz2002]

Just like the title says, should I be considering the Core i3 10300 when creating a ~$700-$800 budget gaming build? The plan is to build a $500 base build with no GPU before I go to school in the fall, and then add a used 1070 or 1080 for $200-300 a month or two later. Normally I wouldn't consider anything but Ryzen for this build, AM4 motherboard availability is absolutely nonexistent. This led me to consider the i5 9400, priced at $160 and with good motherboard stock, but unlike AM4 the LGA1151 is a dead end, my only upgrade option would be a Coffee Lake i7. Meanwhile the i3 10300 is priced the same AND has in stock motherboards AND performs almost identically (if not better) to the i5 9400 in games AND uses the LGA1200 socket which should support 11th Gen Intel CPUs. Sure it has two fewer cores than the i5 9400 (and 2 more threads), but I probably won't be utilizing those cores. Plus, if I need more cores I can just upgrade to a 10th gen i5 or maybe even an 11th gen i5. Is the i3 10300 a good purchase?

 

Also, I read some articles saying that non-K 10th gen CPUs can be overclocked on non-Z chipsets, is this true? https://www.techpowerup.com/266489/asrock-enables-overclocking-on-non-z-motherboards-for-10th-generation-non-k-comet-lake-cpus

[KGGaming]

I would recomend going with an amd ryzen 3 3100 or 3300x if you can afford it as for me amd is far better value for money and if you get a good b450 boards if will support 4000s series

[likeaboz2002]

Just now, KGGaming said:

I would recomend going with an amd ryzen 3 3100 or 3300x if you can afford it as for me amd is far better value for money and if you get a good b450 boards if will support 4000s series

The only problem is the Ryzen 3 3300x is out of stock everywhere and so are the motherboards. Plus, at only $30 cheaper than the i3 10300 (which according to UserBenchmark has 5% better overall performance) I wouldn't say it's even that much better of a value, especially if I would end up paying that price difference when buying an AM4 motherboard

 

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

2 minutes ago, likeaboz2002 said:

which according to UserBenchmark has 5% better overall performance

UserBenchmark is not accurate. You should not use it.

 

The 3100 or the 1600af will be your best options right meow.

[Slayer3032]

5 minutes ago, likeaboz2002 said:

The only problem is the Ryzen 3 3300x is out of stock everywhere and so are the motherboards. Plus, at only $30 cheaper than the i3 10300 (which according to UserBenchmark has 5% better overall performance) I wouldn't say it's even that much better of a value, especially if I would end up paying that price difference when buying an AM4 motherboard

 

UserBenchmark is completely meaningless, forget it even exists.

[likeaboz2002]

1 minute ago, HairlessMonkeyBoy said:

UserBenchmark is not accurate. You should not use it.

 

The 3100 or the 1600af will be your best options right meow.

I would like to get either of those CPUs, if I could find them or their motherboards in stock for a reasonable price. The 1600AF is going for $160+ and the 3100 is going for $200+

[likeaboz2002]

3 minutes ago, Slayer3032 said:

UserBenchmark is completely meaningless, forget it even exists.

is there any reliable way to compare CPU and GPU performance?

[Slayer3032]

41 minutes ago, likeaboz2002 said:

is there any reliable way to compare CPU and GPU performance?

Absolutely, look up 3rd party reviews by trusted sources not just websites who sit back and cash in from massive amounts of SEO and referral links along with restructuring their entire scoring in a way that makes zero sense and massively favors Intel. Cinebench is usually the benchmark search for to use for direct comparisons of cpus. It's a good measure of the overall potential of a specific cpu and can most easily be compared to another. Otherwise, for gaming performance you're going to have to specifically look up benchmarks of the games you play. Some games significantly favor Intel, others AMD and the same goes for gpus.

 

Usually I go to Youtube for this as there's tens of thousands of videos of side by side comparisons of various combinations of hardware. Of course though, if you're looking for something a little more professional there's always GamersNexus, LTT, HardwareUnboxed, JayzTwoCents and a slew of other reviewers. Some of which have full on articles/news websites like Anandtech, Tomshardware and many more all of which have public facing reviewers who can personally be held accountable for flawed reviews and bad information when that does happen.

 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3423-intel-i7-7700k-revisit-benchmark-vs-9700k-2700-9900k

 

The i3 10300 doesn't even seem to be out yet anyways? Why are you worried about cpu availability when there's really not even preorders yet, which you shouldn't do anyways. They all come back in stock eventually, no matter what cpu you choose you're going to fight availability or pricing. Anyways it's basically going to just be a 7700k with a significantly better iGPU. Not that that's a bad thing at all, but expect roughly the same performance as it's an identical cpu with similar clock speeds.

 

Since you're in Colorado Springs, if you're really really fighting availability you might try the Denver Microcenter. Microcenter has had some really insane deals over the past couple years and usually they have everything in stock although everyone is having stock issues right now. BestBuy had Ryzen 3000 stuff in stock for MSRP on launch week, maybe give that a try too.

 

I personally wouldn't buy a quad core at this point, 4c/4t is a bottleneck nowadays and it's only a matter of time with the huge thread counts in the new consoles and new cpus that we'll finally see more and more well optimized games for higher thread counts. If you're only planning to use it for a few years, it'll be fine but with Intel already talking about new sockets. LGA1200 really isn't the most appealing upgrade when it's mostly just the previous gen i7 skus wrapped up into the 3rd new socket for the 5th refresh of the same architecture.

 

As far as the entire 9th gen though. Avoid the non-hyperthreaded trash like the plague, complete waste of money, unless it's priced 30-40% lower than a comparable part with SMT.

[dizmo]

If you want to buy now and don't want to wait, I'd probably take a hard look at the i3-10100. It's available, and only $129. It trades blows with the 3300x in games, sometimes losing, sometimes winning, sometimes on (basically, within a few frames) par. Also, because of it's relatively low price, it tends not to lose as much value, so when you do decide to upgrade in the future you won't lose as much on the chip. Really, it's only $130 anyway.

 

If you pay $300 for a 1080, you'll be drastically overpaying in a few months; 3rd gen Nvidia cards will be out, and a 3060 should smash the 1080.

 

 

@Slayer3032 i3's are 4/8, not 4/4. Also, you should consider the fact he said he won't be buying a video card at first. This means unless he already has one, none of the AMD chips are viable.

[Slayer3032]

32 minutes ago, dizmo said:

@Slayer3032 i3's are 4/8, not 4/4. Also, you should consider the fact he said he won't be buying a video card at first. This means unless he already has one, none of the AMD chips are viable.

Yeah, I compared it to the 7700k as the 10300 has higher clocks than the 6700k. I was strongly recommending against anything in the 9th gen line up. The newer Intel igpu seems pretty promising and acceptable actually, although I don't even know if it comes on LGA1200.

 

I wasn't really going for a strong AMD recommendation as 10th gen is definitely competitive unlike 9th gen but rather just my overall take on the current gen. I was more trying to recommend to not just jump at something just because it's the only thing in stock at the moment unless you absolutely need that item ASAP.

 

With how all over the place availability is right now and Nvidia constantly moving all of the cards up market since the mining boom. I honestly don't expect Ampere to bring a noticeable price to performance increase. I think the 3060 will be a $400-500+ card at least at launch until AMD releases some appealing cards on RDNA2.

[dizmo]

34 minutes ago, Slayer3032 said:

With how all over the place availability is right now and Nvidia constantly moving all of the cards up market since the mining boom. I honestly don't expect Ampere to bring a noticeable price to performance increase. I think the 3060 will be a $400-500+ card at least at launch until AMD releases some appealing cards on RDNA2.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. The 2060 was only $50 more than the 1060 on launch, but iirc had a significantly larger die (so it actually costs more to produce). Since this is a node shrink, on top of the fact we wont see a larger die, we won't see the price increase we saw before.

 

AMD cards are historically disappointing. I don't imagine this will be any different.