10300 makes zero sense. Get expensive 1200 socket board, get a cooler, only to loose to 3300X with any cheap B450 mobo and with stock Wraith cooler.

To be honest, whole Comet Lake launch makes no sense. Ridiculously priced 1200 boards with short lived socket vs AM4 which already offers terrific price/performance value and will get support for Ryzen 4XXX.

Quote from: Hawkeye on April 25, 2020, 11:42:49
Overclocked cpu beats non-overclocked by just 3%.  In other words, nothing. 

Where did you read that 3300X was overclocked?

Quote from: Porio on April 25, 2020, 13:46:37
Why is Intel's i3 $30 USD more than the AMD? The performance doesn't reflect this increase. That's like the Intel tax?

$40-$50 more, cause the i3 doesn't come with a cooler which will cost you another $10-$20.

But you aren't done yet, you also need a new lga 1200 motherboard! Which is gonna cost ya a pretty penny. Expect to pay $20 more for the 1st year or so.

That would be pretty much up to $70 more for the intel.

And yes it is the Intel Tax.

Quote from: Porio on April 25, 2020, 13:46:37
Why is Intel's i3 $30 USD more than the AMD? The performance doesn't reflect this increase. That's like the Intel tax?

It's a tax that people like Hawkeye (1st comment) are more than willing to pay.

Why is Intel's i3 $30 USD more than the AMD? The performance doesn't reflect this increase. That's like the Intel tax?

Quote from: Hawkeye on April 25, 2020, 11:42:49
I don't understand why a comparison between a 3300x and 10300 is relevant.  Overclocked cpu beats non-overclocked by just 3%.  In other words, nothing.  So if intel's turbo boost is enabled, the 3300x loses by 7%. That might be news.  But who cares? Timespy? Am I missing something?
I have to be honest, this article is of such a low standard it appears to be written by a pc illiterate.  Or even worse, copied from another site.

Not sure what is triggering you here. There is plenty of relevance to this comparison, the 3300X is 25% cheaper than 10300 while offering higher performance at lower power usage(cause of how intel does TDP) and it comes with a cooler as well.

PS Not sure what you are trying to say about turbo boost... the only thing really left out is the 3300x turbo boosts to 4.34 and not 4.3. So there is some rounding going on.

I don't understand why a comparison between a 3300x and 10300 is relevant.  Overclocked cpu beats non-overclocked by just 3%.  In other words, nothing.  So if intel's turbo boost is enabled, the 3300x loses by 7%. That might be news.  But who cares? Timespy? Am I missing something?
I have to be honest, this article is of such a low standard it appears to be written by a pc illiterate.  Or even worse, copied from another site.