Testing Games evaluated ten games at 1080p resolution, comparing each against the recently announced Intel Core i3-12100F and AMD’s (nearly) three-year-old Ryzen 5 3600 CPUs. As the title suggests, you’ll discover how far Intel has progressed in recent years to become a viable competitor to AMD in terms of economical but unexpectedly powerful chip technology.
Let’s start with a rundown of the system components in use. Testing Games’ test setup includes Microsoft’s prior Windows 10 operating system, an ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-A D4 motherboard with an Intel Core i3 12100F CPU, and an ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Hero motherboard with an AMD Ryzen 5 3600 processor for the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 test. CORSAIR’s RM850i 850W PSU, two Samsung 970 EVO M.2 2280 1 TB SSD memory, and an undisclosed DDR4 memory.
Strangely, the precise brand of DDR4 memory isn’t listed. G.SKILL Trident Z RGB Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4-3600 (PC4 28800) Intel XMP 2.0 desktop memory, on the other hand, is linked. The fact that this isn’t included in the test’s components raises questions about why it wasn’t revealed earlier. The conclusion, however, would virtually match the results of the tests.
The games tested are:
- Forza Horizon 5
- Call of Duty: Warzone
- Hitman 3
- Cyberpunk 2077
- Death Stranding
- PUBG (Players Unknown Battle Ground)
- Microsoft Flight Simulator
- Horizon Zero Dawn
- Mafia Definitive Edition
- Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Here is the video to witness the tests in action:
The test findings show that Intel’s newer Golden Cove cores outperform AMD’s slightly older Zen 2 technology. The AMD R5 3600 CPU, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, produces fewer frame rates per second than the contemporary Intel Core i3-12100F, which has 4 cores and 8 threads and produces similar results.
Let’s have a look at the overall results. During the test, we took screenshots of each game and sought to determine peak times when both systems were running at maximum capacity.
When looking at the Forza Horizon 5 test, the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 processor averaged 175 frames per second compared to Intel’s 188 frames per second—a modest improvement (only 13 frames per second better; less than 1% improvement)—however, Intel’s test was demanding more power from the GPU than AMD’s (around 30-40W between the two tests).
Even while Intel’s processing power was higher, with an average of roughly 65 percent and a very small difference in MHz, Intel’s temperature and power consumption were lower than AMD’s.
And when I went through the rest of the games on the list, the findings were almost identical. Large visual changes between the two chips are difficult to identify graphically. During Hitman 3 and Horizon Zero Dawn, I only noticed a few visual skips. Users would have to check for minute distinctions between the two companies with great care.
Temperatures do have an impact on performance, but even when Intel was marginally ahead of AMD, it was nowhere near the dangerously high levels reached by either manufacturer.
In terms of the result, it appears to be helpful to save up to $100 between the two CPUs, especially considering Intel’s somewhat greater gaming performance when compared to the older AMD chipset. Although AMD’s 6 cores are useful, the Core i3-12100F appears to be an excellent pick for gaming when paired with an entry-level H610 board and DDR4 memory.