Review: Core i5 10600K and Core i9 10900K processors

Next year is my upgrade year - who wants my money?

AMD...INTEL...NVIDIA...BEZOS.

It literally could be anyone...

 

Well, looks like Intel keeps it's distance now. Anyway waiting on the next Ryzen CPUs to make any decisions.

 

Unless the next Ryzen is something amazing, i´m gonna continue with my 7600K for the near future...

 

How are you finding running on 4 threads? Do you mostly game?

 

My system is a gaming one and so far my Oced 7600K has proven itself very capable at it. I have a 144hz screen, that i use with Nvidia´s DSS to game at a resolution of 3413x1440, and the 7600K with my 1080Ti work very well. Do far the only game that my system can´t handle at max setting properly is Sniper Ghost Warrior 3, everything else runs very well although there are recent games i still have no tried on it.

 

Ummm...my B450 board supports 12 USB ports. Same as the Asus TUF Gaming Z490-Plus. Not sure where you get the idea that B450 has limited USB ports. Even my B350 has 12 USB ports.....

Also, B450 and Z490 are in different market segments. B450 is a mainstream chipset whereas Z490 is a "high-end" chipset..... Pretty sad that you have to compare different market segments....and products never intended to compete with each other.

If you want an accurate comparison, it would be X570.....

 

What are You smoking? I have gtx 1060 abd my 7600k is 100% load in some game. Its totaly useless in new games. Outer worlds 100% cpu and stuttering, world war z, same. Star Wars same. That 7600k is huge bottle neck. Im selling now while they have any decent value, already purchased 3300x ( next year replace with zen3).

 

225w + obsolete platform + 5% more performance + 90 degrees on one of the best air cooling = recommendation.. uhkay

 

So you think 10900k using 225w in games and is 90c in games? Or are you one of "them" that playing Prime95 24/7?
+5% more performance compare to what?

 

Depends a lot on the games you play as well as the settings and resolution you use. The higher the resolution, the less impact the CPU really has. My son is gaming on a stock clocked 6600K with a GTX1660Ti and has no issues. He'll probably get upgraded to an i5-10400 later in the year though.... I have no intent of overclocking his system, so no point in a K sku....and the 10400 will already be considerably faster.

 

I meant via rear IO, in this particular case.

 

What resolution are you gaming at?

 

All 3 boards I looked at, have 6 rear USB ports....as does my B350 board. Unless you have one of the few USB-C devices on the market, the ASRock B450M-HDV actually has more usable USB ports on the rear IO than the Asus TUF Gaming Z490-Plus. USB-C is a niche port only good for USB-C flash drives, smartphones, USB hubs and a few external harddrives. If you don't have 1 or more of those, the port is otherwise useless without adapters.

 

I could link to some £150 ish z490 boards that have 8 USB ports. But that's not the point I was trying to make. I was just justifying the cost of Z490. More USB ports was just one of the things on my list. They do cost more but you also get more. Like you say, they're higher end than B450 boards so it makes sense. Most of the $200 Z490 boards have more USB ports than the cheap B450 boards. I'll stand by that.

 

I see the Intel fans are desperately holding on to the last hope gaming (LOL evewn if you own AMD machines also), it is mind blogging to me why your trying so hard to defend Intel and put AMD down over and over again,year after year. I own both Intel and AMD ,I use AMD for gaming and there are no problems in gaming on AMD.There is no difference in gaming to me on AMD @ 4K over Intel @ 4K. Maybe it is time to stop the crazy fanboy crap. Ask why Intel is taking your money for little to no improvement.

The reviews done were great but 8 pages of fanboy stuff.

 

I see you came here to call nobody in particular a "fanboy". Is that your input here? Or do you want to discuss things?

BTW, maybe you don't see a difference in 4k gaming because you use 290 Crossfire. That kinda explains everything. You couldn't be more GPU bottlenecked.

 

You are 100% wrong the only way it would be a fanyboy style review as you are taking it then they wouldn't mention AMD at all or put them down entirely and say don't purchase AMD because they suck or whatever. I don't see that here.

 

I looked at a $150 Z490 board and a $200 Z490 board. Both boards from Asus The aforementioned Asus TUF Z490 Gaming-Plus ($200) and the Asus PRIME Z490M-Plus. That's pretty much where I stopped. Most people trying to decide between AMD and Intel, shouldn't be comparing features of Z490 and B450. They should be comparing Z490 and X570.... or B450/550 and the later Intel equivalent. If they're comparing based entirely on features, X570 gives PCIe 4, today as well as up to 10 USB ports on the rear IO..... No waiting another year to get PCIe 4....

 

Well, this forum does heavily favor gaming.... If you're going to build a system for maximum framerates with no compromises, Intel is a better option.... AMD processors simply can't push the same framerates....

 

Just looked at the Aorus Elite X570 vs Z490. Both have 10 USB ports on the read IO. They're pretty much identical boards, feature wise. The Z490 costs £15 more. Both support PCIE 4.0. But yeah, I agree that while yes, you can be cheaper on AMD, Z490 boards simply cost more because they're better boards than B450. They should be compared to X570 boards. Problem is, while we both agree Z490 shouldn't be compared to B450, they always are. Yes, B450 is cheaper. There's a reason for it.