INTEL CONCLUSION
WHAT A RIDE this whole build process has been! If you skip to page 68, you can read about how our Intel build went “pop” during the photo shoot, taking out a power supply. We don’t know why, a fault somewhere along the line, maybe? But one fresh PSU later and we’re good to go.
Fortunately, unlike our Team Red competition, the Intel build’s install process went a lot smoother. As we don’t technically rely on high-speed memory in anywhere near the same capacity, what you get with this build is exactly what you get. Theoretically, we could add higherspeed memory, maybe go for a 3600 or 3733MT/s kit, but the only area we’d see performance increases would be in video-editing applications and maybe in Adobe Photoshop or similar programs. It’s not worth the extra investment unless you can find them cheaper due to greater availability (or a kit that doesn’t come with some flashy RGB).
You’ll notice I’m delaying talking about how the Intel rig did in terms of in-game performance. That’s because, if we were to sum it up in two words, it’d be “not good”. Not “not good” as in an “oh man, this system doesn’t have a discrete GPU, how terrible is the performance at 1080p” sort of way, but in an “oh man, this system can’t compete with AMD, despite costing more, and the performance is worse at 1080p” sort of way. Yeah, that kind of “not good”.
Our highest recorded average frame rate was 20fps in TotalWar, on Low at 1080p. The lowest figure was in an admittedly AMD-optimized title, AssassinsCreed:Valhalla with a whopping 5fps on High. That’s not good. This is Intel’s latest UHD 750 graphics and it doesn’t hold a candle to that inside the Ryzen 7 5700G or even its cheaper sibling. This is a shame, because Intel’s Iris stuff is genuinely impressive, certainly on laptops. Perhaps it’s a limitation due to the size of the processor, or complexity due to architecture design (Intel still uses a monolithic chip design that’s costly and difficult to develop), but the lack of Iris graphics makes AMD the go-to choice for those looking to build a budget gaming PC.
The story gets better when you play some less intensive titles, such as Hades, Minecraft, and CrusaderKingsIII. All of them performed well, averaging 3040fps, making them more than playable, even Divinity:OriginalSin2, and Prison Architect were enjoyable experiences. So maybe it’s not hitting that 60fps sweet spot, but you don’t need to play AAA titles to have fun, and both of these machines represent a significant leap over past generations in terms of that capacity. That said, with either build, you’d almost always be better off getting a dedicated GPU if you could right now.
Apart from that, the big winner for Intel was in the PCIe 4.0 performance. WD’s SN850 PCIe drive ran rings around its PCIe 3.0 predecessor, clocking in substantially higher scores, sequential reads were twice that of the SN750, and writes almost double, with a similar story on the Random 4K situation too.
So, then, AMD wins. For the time being, Intel can’t quite keep up, even with an unlocked Core i5 and an advanced cooler on top of it. Admittedly, the 5700G is considerably more expensive than the i5, but even the 5600G clocks in similar performance (although with two fewer cores), and that’s a processor that comes in at around $260, $10 cheaper than the Intel chip, and includes a cooler too.
If you want to run an iGPU system, don’t care about AAA titles, and are happy with that PCIe 3.0 limitation, Team Red is rightly king of the hill. However, if you’re looking for something to tide you over until you invest in a next-gen GPU, Intel still holds the iGPU candle there, at least for now. With both AMD and Intel ramping up to launch new processors, it may not be long until the battlefield shifts once more.
It’s a tale as old as time, Blue vs Red, Intel vs AMD—no doubt this battlefield will be revisited again soon, and that’s no bad thing, at least not for us.