In terms of overall gaming performance, the Intel Core i3-10300 4-Core 3.70GHz is noticeably better than the AMD FX-9590 when it comes to running the latest games. This also means it will be less likely to bottleneck more powerful GPUs, allowing them to achieve more of their gaming performance potential.

The Core i3-10300 4-Core was released over three years more recently than the FX-9590, and so the Core i3-10300 4-Core is likely to have far better levels of support, and will be much more optimized and ultimately superior to the FX-9590 when running the latest games.

Both CPUs exhibit very powerful performance, so it probably isn't worth upgrading from one to the other, as both are capable of running even the most demanding games at the highest settings (assuming they are accompanied by equivalently powerful GPUs).

The FX-9590 has 4 more cores than the Core i3-10300 4-Core. 8 cores is probably excessive if you mean to just run the latest games, as games are not yet able to harness this many cores. The cores in the Core i3-10300 4-Core is more than enough for gaming purposes. However, if you intend on running a server with the FX-9590, it would seem to be a decent choice.

Both the Intel Core i3-10300 4-Core 3.70GHz and the AMD FX-9590 have the same number of threads. The FX-9590 has one thread per physical core, whereas the Core i3-10300 4-Core uses hyperthreading and has 2 logical threads per physical core.

Multiple threads are useful for improving the performance of multi-threaded applications. Additional cores and their accompanying thread will always be beneficial for multi-threaded applications. Hyperthreading will be beneficial for applications optimized for it, but it may slow others down. For games, the number of threads is largely irrelevant, as long as you have at least 2 cores (preferably 4), and hyperthreading can sometimes even hit performance.

More important for gaming than the number of cores and threads is the clock rate. Problematically, unless the two CPUs are from the same family, this can only serve as a general guide and nothing like an exact comparison, because the clock cycles per instruction (CPI) will vary so much.

The Core i3-10300 4-Core and the FX-9590 are from the same family of CPUs, and thus their clock speeds are directly comparable. With this in mind, it is safe to say that with a 1 GHz faster base clock rate, the FX-9590 manages to provide significantly better performance than the Core i3-10300 4-Core. What is more, the FX-9590 also manages to eke 0.6 GHz higher frequency when being stressed by CPU-intensive applications.

Aside from the clock rate, the next-most important CPU features for PC game performance are L2 and L3 cache size. Faster than RAM, the more cache available, the more data that can be stored for lightning-fast retrieval. L1 Cache is not usually an issue anymore for gaming, with most high-end CPUs eking out about the same L1 performance, and L2 is more important than L3 - but L3 is still important if you want to reach the highest levels of performance. Bear in mind that although it is better to have a larger cache, the larger it is, the higher the latency, so a balance has to be struck.

The maximum Thermal Design Power is the power in Watts that the CPU will consume in the worst case scenario. The lithography is the semiconductor manufacturing technology being used to create the CPU - the smaller this is, the more transistors that can be fit into the CPU, and the closer the connections. For both the lithography and the TDP, it is the lower the better, because a lower number means a lower amount of power is necessary to run the CPU, and consequently a lower amount of heat is produced.

The Core i3-10300 4-Core has a 155 Watt lower Maximum TDP than the FX-9590. However, the FX-9590 was created with a 14 nm smaller manufacturing technology. Overall, by taking both into account, the Core i3-10300 4-Core and the FX-9590 would appear to produce roughly the same amount of heat, and consume about the same amount of power.

The Core i3-10300 4-Core has an on-board GPU, which means that it will be capable of running basic graphics applications (i.e., games) without the need for a dedicated graphics card. The FX-9590, however, does not, and you will probably have to look for a dedicated card if you wish to use it at all.

For in-depth GPU comparisons with the Intel UHD Graphics 630, click on the following GPU overview comparison icon (visible throughout Game-Debate), and choose a GPU from the list to compare against:

On-board GPUs tend to be fairly awful in comparison to dedicated cards from the likes of AMD or Nvidia, but as they are built into the CPU, they also tend to be cheaper and require far less power to run (this makes them a good choice for laptops). We would recommend a dedicated card for running the latest games, but integrated GPUs are improving all the time and casual gamers may find less recent games perform perfectly acceptably.