Trending March 2024 # Amd Zen 3 Cpus Vs Intel 10Th Gen Cpus # Suggested April 2024 # Top 11 Popular

You are reading the article Amd Zen 3 Cpus Vs Intel 10Th Gen Cpus updated in March 2024 on the website Moimoishop.com. We hope that the information we have shared is helpful to you. If you find the content interesting and meaningful, please share it with your friends and continue to follow and support us for the latest updates. Suggested April 2024 Amd Zen 3 Cpus Vs Intel 10Th Gen Cpus

Let’s kick off this comparison with probably one of the simplest and strongest deciding factors of when it comes to choosing what CPU you need for your PC.

So, first to AMD and their ZEN 3 CPUs. The pricing structure for the new 5000 series line of chips ranges from around $799 in the USA for the Ryzen 9 5950X, to $299 for the Ryzen 5 5600X. That’s a pretty big gap, and for the full list of different AMD Zen 3 CPU prices just look below:

     

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X:

$799 (Approx. £620)

     

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X:

$549 (Approx. £420)

     

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X:

$449 (Approx. £350)

     

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X:

$299 (Approx. £230)

So, the prices for these chips can look a little steep. If you were hoping to improve your gaming PC with a new top of the line Ryzen chip alongside an RTX 3080, you might be looking at a combined cost of around $1,500 just for those two components alone – which is quite a lot, considering I haven’t even factored in things like a compatible AM4 motherboard, better RAM or even improved cooling. Or RGB.

And then there is the question of how these prices stack against the previous release of the Zen 2 generation from AMD, which saw the top-performing chip of that generation (the Ryzen 9 3950X) hit shelves with a price tag of $749 attached. Obviously, the question here becomes ‘what makes the new AMD chip worth that extra $50’, and it’s a question that comes down to performance – which we will dive into soon enough.

Before we do get down to the performance per penny statistics of these chips, let’s have a quick word about how the Zen 3 chips stack against their Intel counterparts.

Currently, Intel doesn’t make a desktop-grade CPU that can offer the type of performance which would bring it into competition with the 5950X – so that might give you an indication on that extra $50. However, the 5900X can be put pretty comfortably against the I9-10900K, and when it comes to these two chips AMD comes out as $50 more expensive, with the 5900 at $549 and the I9-10900K set at $499 (retailer suggested price).

The same story can be told about the rest of the Zen 3 chips in comparison to Intel’s selection of 10th generation CPUs – they all have price tags with an increase of around $50 on their Intel counterparts.

The chief point you need to take from this section is this: if you are looking for a modern CPU that falls into a cheaper and more affordable bracket than high performance, then Intel is certainly going to be providing the better option as their officially suggested prices are lower than AMD’s.

However.

Intel’s CPU’s are often priced higher than they should be by retailers, with the i9-10900K’s price tag hovering around the $700 mark in some retailers alone. Take into account the fact that realistically, AMD’s equivalent CPUs have better-listed specifications than Intel’s, and it should be a lot easier to swallow the relatively small price difference between the two CPUs.

When it comes to budget then, AMD comes out on top if you are looking for a better performance for penny investment. Let’s talk more about that performance though.

You're reading Amd Zen 3 Cpus Vs Intel 10Th Gen Cpus

Should You Buy The New Amd Ryzen 3000 Cpus Or Stick With Intel?

AMD just shocked the consumer PC space with a powerful lineup of new AMD Ryzen 3000 CPUs, which I recently covered on HDG. Is it finally time to make the switch from Intel to AMD?

In this article, I take a look at AMD’s new Ryzen processors and offer some tips on which processor brand you should go for in 2023 and 2023 when building a new computer.

Table of Contents

Keep in mind that because the AMD Ryzen 3000 chips are so new, we can’t offer precise benchmarking comparisons yet, but we can still provide a rough price to performance comparison between AMD’s new Ryzen 3000 CPUs versus Intel’s equivalent offerings.

For low-end budget builds, make sure to read my post on Intel vs AMD (Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 CPUs). This article will focus on the higher-end CPUs from both companies.

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X vs. Intel i9-9900K

We will start at the very top because we think this is where the biggest attention will be drawn. If you’re a serious gamer or content creator, the best CPU available was the Intel i9-9900K, by a long shot. But the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X has the potential to completely change that.

First, let’s talk about pricing. The AMD Ryzen 9 3900X will cost $499, whilst the i9-9900K is sitting at around $485 right now. The pricing for Intel’s best gaming CPU may drop in an attempt to compete against the new Ryzen lineup, but for now, the prices are very comparable.

At a glance, the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X has enough power to outperform the i9 9900K. We are still waiting for benchmarks, but there’s a lot to get excited about. Firstly, AMD’s new Ryzen 9 3900X is using a 7 nanometer process. Smaller transistors mean that CPUs can be more power efficient, pushing out more calculations without hitting temperature limits.

So, a jump to 7 nanometer from 14 nanometer is already a big thing for Ryzen, and it should mean better single threaded performance. The base clock speed is 3.8GHz, bigger than the 3.6GHz base clock of the i9 9900K, and you also get a much larger cache of 6MB/64MB versus 2MB/16MB. For multi-threaded performance, things are looking pretty spectacular

Ultimately, the Ryzen 9 3900X easily has the potential to be a more powerful alternative to the i9 9900K at basically the same price. And, if you need even more computing power, the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X cache and a base clock of 3.8GHz. Intel is definitely worried right now.

AMD Ryzen 7 3800X vs Intel i7-9700K

A slight step down from the i9-9900K is the i7-9700K, usually retailing for around $400. AMD’s new competitor at this price point is the AMD Ryzen 7 3800X.

a cache of 12MB of L3. Once again, I won’t be surprised if AMD knocks the ball out of the park in terms of performance if you put the AMD Ryzen 7 3800X against the i7-9700K

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs i5-9600K

But what about the low end? All of a sudden, AMD may just have beat Intel in performance for gaming at the high end, but can they still hold onto their title for best low end CPU? Well, the best way to find out is to compare the new AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs the i5-9600K.

Firstly, the i5-9600K sits at $230 right now, and the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 will launch for $199. I would be very shocked if Intel doesn’t drop the price of the i5-9600K to compete with the new Ryzen 5 3600, so let’s just assume price points will be the same.

Even at this price point, AMD still wins with the better architecture – their cheapest new AMD Ryzen 5, the 3600, is still using a 7nm processor, leaving the 14nm i5-9600K in the dust. Both processors can be boosted, but the i5-9600K starts at 3.7GHz, versus the 3.6GHz base clock of the Ryzen 5 3600.

That extra 100mHz isn’t going to mean anything against the single threaded six cores on the i5 gives the Ryzen 5 3600 so much more room for better performance.

I’d suggest that the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 will hit far, far better benchmark results against the i5-9600K.

AMD vs Intel in 2023 – Who Will Win?

Ultimately, at every single price point, AMD has completely beaten Intel’s offering. So what will Intel do to compete? For now, Intel may drop their pricing a little to offer a better deal for customers, but even then, AMD is still likely to win the price/performance game.

Intel are of course working to launch their own 7nm CPU range. When they do, we wouldn’t be surprised if things look up for Intel again, but that may not be until 2023 or beyond. If you’re in the market for a good gaming CPU, the new AMD Ryzen lineup is an excellent place to start.

If you are a gamer or a content creator, I absolutely cannot recommend AMD more than Intel at this point. The new lineup will launch on July 7, so I’d suggest waiting a few months after that date to make sure there aren’t any major manufacturing issues that come up. This would make a new AMD Ryzen 3000 CPU the perfect gift around the holiday period.

Summary

In summary, should you switch to the new AMD Ryzen 3000 lineup? Well, if you are in the market for a new CPU, absolutely. If you already have the i9-9900K, it may not make sense to upgrade unless you’re absolutely after a new PC within the next 6 months.

If you are on anything less powerful, then a CPU upgrade to a new AMD Ryzen 3000 CPU will definitely bring you enough performance improvements to make the investment worth it.

Intel’s Sandy Bridge Cpus: What To Expect

Intel will be ringing in the New Year with their long-awaited second-generation Core processor, codenamed “Sandy Bridge.” It’s the “tock” of the company’s 32-nanometer fabrication process, which succeeds this year’s corresponding “tick”-the 32-nanometer die shrink of the company’s Nehalem microarchitecture, codenamed “Westmere.”

That’s a lot to digest: Intel’s general CPU strategy follows a tick-tock pattern; the company unveils alternating successions of brand-new microarchitectures and improvements for its product cycles. Sandy Bridge is the former: a brand-new chunk of CPUs with a new socket, new chipsets, and new technologies that are designed to push Intel to the next echelon of computing performance.

Of all the changes present in Sandy Bridge–including Intel’s final push to unify its desktop and mobile lines under an identical 32-nanometer production process, none are perhaps as remarkable as the company’s integration of a graphics processing unit directly onto the die of some Sandy Bridge processors. These should be able to double the performance of Intel’s current integrated graphic lineup. But that’s not all: neighbor to the GPU is an upgraded video processing unit that dedicates actual silicon to encoding and decoding videos, improving the performance of both.

But before we get too far into the raw technical details, here’s what Intel’s been able to let loose in regards to the actual lineup of chips heading out the door in early January. The company hasn’t dropped its “Core” designation for its CPU lineup: You’ll still see Core i3, i5, and i7 branded chips on the market. The number immediately following the “i” modifier-a “2”-will indicate that said CPU is a part of the Sandy Bridge family, as it’s a second-generation CPU. Three more numbers will indicate the specific processor SKU, and a letter possibly appended to the end-“K,” “S,” or “T”-will detail whether the CPU is unlocked for overclocking, optimized for “lifestyle” computing, or optimized for power-savings.

Intel’s second-generation Core processors will come in two- and four-core variants. Hyper-threading is still present; it’s the process by which one physical CPU core is split into two virtual CPU cores of-sorts. Turbo Boost is back as well, but it’s been kicked up a notch from Nehalem’s designs. Not only can all four cores receive an automatic overclock depending on your system’s workload, but the CPU will actually push past the rated thermal design power (TDP) of the chip itself for brief periods of time. The technological wisdom is that a CPU can get away with a bit of over-overclocking before it has to back off at the TDP limit — the CPU doesn’t immediately jump up to said limit, for example, if the cores get clocked up to extreme amounts.

Those opting to use Intel’s built-in CPU/GPU combination instead of a discrete graphics card will also be treated to enhanced video decoding and encoding capabilities as a result of the chip’s built-in media processor. But just how much has Intel’s fixation on fixed-function processing boosted its video capabilities? A demo at this year’s Intel Developer Forum featured a three-minute 1080p source video converted to a 640-by-360 iPhone video in around 14 seconds-or roughly 400 frames per second.

New vector extensions built into Sandy Bridge CPUs-dubbed AVX, or Advanced Vector Extensions-should increase floating-point performance for tasks like video and photo processing, as well as certain financial applications. In essence, AVX’s 256-bit vectors–double those of its predecessor instruction set, Streaming SIMD Extensions or “SSE”-will allow your system to crunch more data by grouping it together in larger chunks. And that directly correlates to the power efficiency of the chip itself. In order to actually benefit from AVX however, consumers will have to be running Windows 7 SP1. Expect to see the update hit sometime in the first quarter of 2011.

The full details on Sandy Bridge’s performance are still under wraps, but CES 2011 is looming over the horizon, and a few vendors are getting the party started a bit early. For a look at how Intel’s second-generation Core processor performs for work and play, stay tuned to our coverage!

Intel Approached Amd About Access To Mantle

Intel has approached AMD about access to its game-boosting Mantle technology, an AMD executive said Friday.

Intel, for its part, confirmed that it has indeed asked AMD for access to the Mantle technology, for what it referred to as an “experiment”. However, an Intel spokesman said that it remains committed to what it calls open standards like Microsoft’s DirectX API.

AMD launched its low-level Mantle API technology last year, providing a low-level code path for game developers. Microsoft’s own DirectX APIs or the open OpenGL API provide generic instruction sets for a variety of graphics chips, including those from Intel and Nvidia. But by writing “to the metal,” as it were, developers can write instructions optimized for a particular graphics architecture, dramatically increasing the game’s performance on that particular chip. Early tests show that a game like Battlefield 4, optimized for Mantle, can show gains of up to 58 percent in terms of frame rate compared to DirectX, though performance gains vary greatly by hardware configuration.

The game developers who make first-person shooters like the Battlefield series are being aggressively courted by AMD and Nvidia.

Nvidia has also reorganized its gaming libraries, including its PhysX engine, into what it calls GameWorks. Nvidia has licensed GameWorks to Crytek and Ubisoft (which used GameWorks in Watch Dogs), while AMD has signed up about 47 game developers for Mantle, according to Richard Huddy, AMD’s “gaming scientist,” in an interview.

That has turned the competition between Nvidia and AMD into a race to sign up developers. Meanwhile, gamers are watching eagerly to see if their games will receive a free boost from adopting one graphics technology or another.

Intel on the sidelines?

So far, the fight has been between AMD and Nvidia, which combined sold about 33 percent of the GPUs sold during the second quarter, according to Jon Peddie Research. The remaining two-thirds of the market is owned by Intel, which hasn’t publicly committed to an architecture-specific API.

Does Intel need a Core-specific API? So far, the company says no.

“I know that Intel have approached us for access to the Mantle interfaces, et cetera,” Huddy said. ” And right now, we’ve said, give us a month or two, this is a closed beta, and we’ll go into the 1.0 [public release] phase sometime this year, which is less than five months if you count forward from June. They have asked for access, and we will give it to them when we open this up, and we’ll give it to anyone who wants to participate in this.”

An Intel spokesman confirmed that it had made the request, but downplayed any Intel-specific low-level API plans.

“At the time of the initial Mantle announcement, we were already investigating rendering overhead based on game developer feedback,” an Intel spokesman said in an email. “Our hope was to build consensus on potential approaches to reduce overhead with additional data.  We have publicly asked them to share the spec with us several times as part of examination of potential ways to improve APIs and increase efficiencies. At this point though we believe that DirectX 12 and ongoing work with other industry bodies and OS vendors will address the issues that game developers have noted.”

In a separate email, the Intel spokesman said that it had been working with the Khronos Group and with Microsoft to ensure that future APIs target “a wide range of graphics hardware”.

“Our belief is that software developers will prioritize their investments by bringing their great games and user experiences to all platforms using non-proprietary/open solutions; and whilst we all experiment, we hope that these experiments are used primarily to drive better standards and improve the graphics industry for everyone,” the Intel spokesman said.

Mantle’s roadmap

But back to Mantle. Huddy previously told PCWorld that AMD would bring its Mantle technology to Linux and to Steam boxes, the Linux-based gaming devices spearheaded by Valve Software. Naturally, AMD will continue to evolve the Mantle technology, Huddy said.

Mantle will eventually accelerate Steam boxes, AMD says.

The Mantle drivers are part of AMD’s Catalyst software, a wrapper for AMD’s software drivers. Huddy described Catalyst as “a little long in the tooth,” and said his understanding was that AMD planned to “rev it” with a new update soon.

For now, Mantle’s focus is on improving the frame rates of games that tap into it, an easy way to sell AMD’s performance to the numbers-obsessed world of gamers and benchmarking sites. That doesn’t preclude AMD spending resources to improve the graphical quality, though.

“Our very first iteration has primarily focused on a performance differentiation, but we do know with that extra performance we can spend it on extra [image] quality,” Huddy said. 

Likewise, AMD has prioritized its relationship with game developers and the engines that drive them, not the professional graphics space, Huddy said. But he added that his focus on games left him unaware of whether or not AMD was having similar conversations in the professional graphics space—one of the priorities for AMD’s chief executive, Rory Read. 

“I would think that a workstation app developer who has looked at any care at what we have done with Mantle so far would realize that there is a pretty significant benefit” with Mantle, he said.

Mantle hasn’t even officially launched yet. But with companies already taking sides, low-level APIs could become the battleground of the next few years.

Windows Phone Link Vs Intel Unison: Which Is Better?

Windows Phone Link App

A PC running Windows 11/Windows 10 (with May 2023 update or later).

An Android phone running Android 7.0 (Nougat) or later.

An iPhone running iOS 14.0 or later.

Your Android Phone and PC must be connected to the same Wi-Fi network.

Intel Unison App

The Unison app from Intel is a fairly new application that allows you to connect your Android or iOS device seamlessly, enabling access to features such as File Transfer, Calling, Messaging, and Notifications on your Windows desktop. The minimum requirements to run the Intel Unison app are as follows:

Microsoft Windows 11 SV2/22H2 Stable Build (doesn’t support Windows 10).

iOS 15.x or Later.

Android 9 or Above.

Intel claims to design it specifically for Evo CPUs with 13th-generation and selective 12th-generation processors; however, the app works fine on lower generations (such as the 8th-generation) and AMD processors in our testing.

If your system meets the necessary requirements, then you can install Windows Phone Link or Intel Unison using these easy steps.

Installing and configuring the Phone link app is pretty straightforward on a Windows system. Here’s what you need to follow:

1. Install the Phone Link app from Microsoft Store if it isn’t pre-installed on your machine.

7. Finally, provide all necessary permissions to sync both devices, and you’re all set to use the Phone Link app.

8. You can now view your device status and contents through different tabs available in the app.

If you are an iPhone user, the process to connect your iPhone to Windows Phone Link app is slightly different, check out our guide to Connect Your iPhone to Windows Phone Link.

Similar to the Phone Link app, Intel Unison can be installed from the Microsoft Store, where you can sync it with your smartphone using the in-app QR code. Follow our quick guide to installing Intel Unison on your Windows machine.

Compact Design Interface.

Offers Quick Toggles to Control the Phone, such as Changing Ringing Profiles and DND.

The app also displays active services and device information such as Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and Network Reception.

More Personalization Options, such as themes, wallpapers, and light/dark modes.

Intel Unison

A Minimal ‘Tabbed’ interface.

The Photos/Gallery tab allows direct media upload to your smartphone’s Gallery app.

The Calls tab shows a complete contacts list alongside the dialer app, making it easier to identify a person and place calls.

To help you decide the best app, let’s compare the features of Windows Phone Link and Intel Unison for their effectiveness and productivity.

Contrary to Phone Link, the Unison app doesn’t show a recent call tab to help you track recent calls. However, the app displays a separate Contacts list section which you can browse to place your calls conveniently.

When it comes to displaying and managing device notifications, the Windows Phone Link app owns the competition. Phone Link not only provides a detailed description of the app notification but allows you to post a reply using your desktop.

Viewing the device photos on a desktop with the Phone Link and Intel Unison app is quite convenient. Windows Phone Link offers a Photos tab where you can view up to 2,000 recent photos stored on your device. However, it is only limited to displaying photos, and you won’t be able to locate or play any videos stored on your Android device.

On the other hand, the Intel Unison app makes all device photos and videos accessible on the desktop with its Gallery tab. It also offers individual tabs to differentiate and separately watch photos, videos, and albums. In addition, you can adjust the content viewability by switching the thumbnail size or changing the gallery view. Overall, the Unison app offers more refined features to browse and view media content from your phone on your desktop.

You can also repeat the same process on the Unison smartphone app (Google Play Store/Apple App Store) to exchange files without delay.

Now that you’re well acquainted with the feature comparison of these apps, here are the pros and cons to help you pick the suitable one for your needs.

Works with both Android Phones and iPhones

Provides more features to manage device activities and view phone status details.

Allows sending replies to popup notifications without opening them.

The compact interface makes everything accessible in a single window without the need to close other tabs.

Personalizing the app makes its interface more appealing and attractive.

Intel Unison

Allows connecting to both Android and iOS devices.

Unlike Phone Link, the Unison app can show device videos on a desktop, making it easier for users to browse content.

You can transfer and exchange files between your desktop and connected smartphone at blazing-fast speeds.

It doesn’t require any Microsoft Account to sync between devices making it more flexible.

You can turn off/mute notifications for selective apps such as Phone apps, Messages, etc.

Windows Phone Link

Requires a Microsoft Account to sync.

Connectivity issues on the Battery Saver Mode on the laptop.

You can’t Transfer Files.

Random disconnection issues.

You can’t turn off Notifications for selective apps.

It Consumes slightly more system resources than Unison.

Intel Unison

You can’t reply to a Notification.

It requires the latest Hardware and Software specifications to work.

It doesn’t offer Audio Player controls for the connected smartphone.

Lastly, personalizing the Unison app is limited, as there are no theming options.

A: As per official sources, the Intel Unison app requires the latest stable build of Windows 11 alongside the 13th-generation Intel processors. However, we were successfully run the app on previous-generation Intel and AMD processors without any issues.

A: Yes, follow our Intel Unison installation guide to connect an iOS device with it.

After spending days working with Windows Phone Link and the Intel Unison app, we believe the latter to be more fruitful and productive in the long run. While the Phone Link might look appealing initially with its design, Intel Unison makes more sense with more practical features like File Transfer and connectivity to various smartphones. Let us know which one you prefer, and subscribe to GadgetsToUse for more awesome comparison guides.

You might be looking for the following:

You can also follow us for instant tech news at Google News or for tips and tricks, smartphones & gadgets reviews, join GadgetsToUse Telegram Group, or for the latest review videos subscribe GadgetsToUse Youtube Channel.

Coolpad Note 5 Vs Redmi Note 3 Quick Comparison Overview

In this article, we will try to figure out if Coolpad Note 5 can trounce Redmi note 3.

Coolpad Note 5 Coverage Coolpad Note 5 vs Redmi Note 3 Specifications

Key Specs  Coolpad Note 5 Xiaomi Note 5

Display 5.5-inch IPS LCD 5.5-inch IPS LCD

Screen Resolution 1080 x 1920 pixels (~403 PPI pixel density) 1080 x 1920 pixels (~403 PPI pixel density)

SIM Card type Dual SIM Dual SIM

OS Android OS, MIUI 8 based on Lollipop Android OS,  Cool UI based on 6.0 (Marshmallow)

CPU

Hexa-core (4×1.4 GHz Cortex-A53 & 2×1.8 GHz Cortex-A72) Octa-core (4×1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 & 4×1.2 GHz Cortex-A53)

GPU

Adreno 510 Adreno 405

Chipset Snapdragon 650 Snapdragon 617

Memory 32GB, 3GB RAM 32GB, 4GB RAM

Memory Card Slot microSD, up to 256 GB (uses SIM 2 slot) microSD, up to 200 GB (uses SIM 2 slot)

Primary Camera 13-megapixel 16-megapixel

Secondary Camera 8 MP 5 MP

Fingerprint Sensor Yes Yes

Battery 4,010mAh 4,050mAh

Price 11,999/- 10,999/-

Coolpad Note 5 vs Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 [Hindi Video]  Design & Build

Once premium design, all metal body, is now a norm for budget phones. Redmi Note 3 and Coolpad Note 5 are no different; both the phones have metal uni-body design with plastic on top and bottom for antenna placement. Both of them look identical from the front but back is curvier on Note 5 which makes it more comfortable to hold.

Display Performance & Hardware

Coolpad Note 5 is powered by  64-bit octa-core Snapdragon 617 processor coupled with Adreno 405GPU. It is the same processor used in Moto G4 plus and HTC A10. The processor has eight average performing cores, Cortex-A53. During our short time with the phone, it felt smooth in between basic tasks. We are yet to test the gaming on this phone but going just by the hardware specification, it may fall short of Redmi note 3.

Redmi note 3 is powered by 64-bit Hexa-core Snapdragon 650 processor coupled with Adreno 510GPU. As we told in our Redmi note three review, the phone handles any tasks you throw at it like  a charm, thanks to high-performing Cortex A-72 cores. Similarly, gaming performance is also top notch for the price but, you can notice minor frame drops with high-end games like Asphalt 8 (high-performance mode) or Modern Combat. You cannot ask everything for 11,999, right?

Camera

Coolpad Note 5 sports a 13MP shooter on back and 8MP on front; whereas, Redmi Note 3 sports a 16MP shooter on back and 5MP on the front. Despite the megapixel count, images that are taken from both the phones lack accurate details and sharpness. That said, in abundant light conditions, you can take some good looking shots on both the phones, but make sure your hands are firmly fixed.

Under low light conditions, the photos are dull with more noise creeping in that makes them unusable at times. Coming straight to the point, rear camera on Redmi Note 3 has proved to be a good camera for its price but Coolpad Note 5 still has some tests to pass. Front facing cameras are decent on both the phones but photos that are taken from Note 5 have more details, thanks to 8MP lens.

If you are looking for a good rear camera in this price segment, we would suggest you to check our Moto G4 plus review where we quoted that it has the best camera on the budget phones.

Battery

The stand out feature on both the phones is the battery capacity. Redmi Note 3 comes with 4050 mAh battery; Note 5 comes with 4010 mAh battery. You can easily get one day of battery life, and if you are a prudent user you can even get two days of battery life.

To compare, Redmi note 3 has a slight edge over Note 5 with optimized MIUI. We will compare the charging time and talktime of both the phones in our detailed comparison. So keep visiting for more on Coolpad Note 5.

Pricing & Availability Conclusion

In every aspect, both the phones perform neck to neck. In our preliminary comparison, Redmi note 3 trumped in performance and display quality; whereas, Coolpad Note 5 trumped in looks and build quality but lack of Gyro sensor is a huge drawback. We will keep testing both the devices side by side to categorically decide a winner so keep an eye on our page.

Update the detailed information about Amd Zen 3 Cpus Vs Intel 10Th Gen Cpus on the Moimoishop.com website. We hope the article's content will meet your needs, and we will regularly update the information to provide you with the fastest and most accurate information. Have a great day!