AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 vs Intel Core i9-10900X Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 and the Intel Core i9-10900X present a fascinating study in architectural contrast, where a smaller, more efficient processor consistently outperforms a larger, higher-tier one across every shared benchmark. The data shows a sweeping victory for the AMD part, with all six head-to-head Cinebench tests going its way, despite the Intel chip having two more cores and four more threads. This outcome challenges the assumption that more silicon automatically translates to more performance, pointing instead to the profound impact of process technology and microarchitecture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably one-sided, with the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 winning every single test in the comparison. The margins are consistent, hovering just above two percent across the board. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the AMD chip scores 1,955 against Intel's 1,910, a delta of 2.4 percent. The single-core version of that test shows a similar story: 275 for AMD versus 269 for Intel, a 2.2 percent edge.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 posts 8,146 in multicore, beating the Core i9-10900X's 7,961 by 2.3 percent. The single-core result is again 2.3 percent in AMD's favor, with scores of 1,149 and 1,123 respectively. The latest Cinebench R23 iteration reinforces the trend: multicore scores of 19,397 for AMD and 18,957 for Intel, and single-core scores of 2,738 versus 2,676, both showing a 2.3 percent advantage for the Ryzen part.

The consistency of these deltas is striking. It suggests a fundamental efficiency advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Intel Core i9-10900X, despite its higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz compared to AMD's 4.40 GHz, cannot overcome the architectural deficit. The average benchmark score tells the same tale: the Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 averages 5,610, while the i9-10900X averages 5,555. Both processors sit at the 61st percentile among all CPUs, indicating that while they are close in overall standing, the AMD part holds a slight but persistent performance lead.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures could not be more different, and these differences explain the benchmark outcomes. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Matisse, using a 7 nm process node manufactured by TSMC. This allows for a compact 74 mm² die size containing 3,800 million transistors. In contrast, the Intel Core i9-10900X uses the Cascade Lake architecture on a 14 nm process from Intel's own fabs. The foundry and node difference is a massive factor, as the smaller 7 nm node generally provides better power efficiency and higher transistor density.

The core configurations also diverge significantly. The AMD chip features 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel chip offers 10 cores and 20 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the AMD part wins in multicore workloads, indicating that each of its cores is more efficient. Cache layouts differ as well: the Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 has 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, plus a large 32 MB L3 cache. The Core i9-10900X has 64 KB of L1 and a much larger 1 MB of L2 per core, but its L3 is only 19.25 MB shared across all cores.

Memory support creates another separation point. The AMD processor uses a dual-channel memory bus with a rated bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Intel part uses a quad-channel memory bus, which provides more memory channels, though the fact pack does not list a bandwidth figure for it. The PCIe generations also differ: AMD supports PCIe Gen 4 with 24 CPU lanes, while Intel is limited to PCIe Gen 3. The Intel chip draws significantly more power, with a TDP of 165 watts compared to AMD's 65 watts, yet it still cannot match the performance of the more frugal AMD design.

Where Each One Wins

Given the benchmark data, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 wins in every measured category. It takes the top spot in all six Cinebench tests, spanning both multicore and single-core workloads from R15 through R23. This means that in rendering tasks, processor-heavy productivity applications, and even lightly-threaded workloads, the Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 comes out ahead based on the scores. The 2.3 to 2.4 percent margins are small but consistent, suggesting that the AMD part offers slightly better performance across the board.

The Intel Core i9-10900X does not win a single benchmark in this head-to-head comparison. Its winsA and winsB counts are 6 and 0 respectively, showing a clean sweep for AMD. However, the Intel chip has its own strengths that are not captured in these particular tests. It supports quad-channel memory, which can be beneficial in memory-bandwidth-sensitive scenarios, and it has a higher base clock of 3.70 GHz compared to AMD's 3.60 GHz. The Intel part also has more threads overall at 20, which could theoretically help in highly parallel workloads, but the data shows that AMD's efficiency overcomes this advantage in the Cinebench series.

For users prioritizing the specific benchmarks listed, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 is the clear choice. Its performance is uniformly superior, and it achieves this with a much lower TDP of 65 watts versus 165 watts, implying better energy efficiency per unit of work performed.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive recommendation for the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700. It wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, from single-core to multicore, across three generations of the Cinebench test. Its average benchmark score of 5,610 is higher than the i9-10900X's 5,555, and its percentile rank is equal at 61, but the per-test wins are what matter most. The Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 accomplishes this with fewer cores, a lower clock speed, and dramatically lower power consumption.

For a user building a system where rendering performance matters, the choice is clear. The Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 delivers 19,397 in Cinebench R23 multicore, edging out the Intel part's 18,957. Even in single-core tasks, the AMD chip leads with 2,738 versus 2,676. The Intel Core i9-10900X might appeal to someone who specifically needs quad-channel memory or the Intel platform, but based strictly on the benchmark scores provided, there is no performance argument for it.

The verdict is not close. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 is the better processor in every measurable way from this data set. It offers higher scores, better efficiency, and a more modern process node. The Intel chip's only advantages are its higher core count and quad-channel memory support, but neither translates to a benchmark win in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 has a higher single-core score of 2,738, compared to the Intel Core i9-10900X's 2,676, a 2.3 percent difference.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core i9-10900X has 10 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 has an average benchmark score of 5,610, while the Intel Core i9-10900X has an average of 5,555.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 uses a 7 nm process node from TSMC. The Intel Core i9-10900X uses a 14 nm process from Intel.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 has a TDP of 65 watts. The Intel Core i9-10900X has a significantly higher TDP of 165 watts.

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-10900X win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No, the Intel Core i9-10900X does not win any of the six head-to-head benchmarks. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 wins all of them.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every key specification, reflecting their distinct design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 features 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i9-10900X offers 10 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are close, with Intel at 3.70 GHz and AMD at 3.60 GHz, but the boost clock favors Intel at 4.70 GHz versus AMD's 4.40 GHz. The TDP is a major differentiator: 65 watts for AMD versus 165 watts for Intel.

The process nodes are generations apart, with AMD using a 7 nm TSMC process and Intel using a 14 nm process. The AMD chip has a die size of 74 mm² with 3,800 million transistors, while Intel's die size and transistor count are not listed. Cache configurations vary as well: AMD has 512 KB of L2 per core and 32 MB of L3, while Intel has 1 MB of L2 per core and 19.25 MB of shared L3. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core.

Memory support differs in channel count, with AMD using dual-channel and Intel using quad-channel. The AMD processor has a listed memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while Intel's is not provided. PCIe support also differs: AMD offers Gen 4 with 24 CPU lanes, while Intel offers Gen 3. The sockets are incompatible, with AMD using Socket AM4 and Intel using Socket 2066. The architectures are Zen 2 for AMD and Cascade Lake for Intel, with codenames Matisse and Cascade Lake-X respectively. Both are unlocked for overclocking, but only the AMD part has a listed part number.