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

yeah, the old cpu i5 10600k on 14nm beating the new 7nm ryzen 3900x in games

go cry running cinebench 24/7, i´m will play games

 

So... because it wins by a few %, that means the 3900X is suddenly not able to play games?

 

Exactly there's no right or wrong answers in the cpu market right now. It's really up to whatever you want to do with your computer. It's easier to recommend the new i5 though cause the last one kind of lacked threads while the new i5 is definitely more future proof. I had a non HT i5 in the past as a student and they quickly become "obsolete" for anything that is not purely gaming/web/email/office. I had to upgrade it after school despite still performing well enough in gaming. People should be happy Intel woke up and brought HT to all their cpus it's a very very good thing for students.

The reality is today in 2020 AMD is good enough for gaming and now with HT across the board Intel is good enough for work at any price point. Competition is good and it's up to the consumers to take a decision based on his own use case. For me as a computer engineering who doesn't see the difference between 80+ fps and 144 fps on a 144Hz monitor (i see the difference below 80 though) the choice is obviously AMD right now. But for a competitive gamer with mad skills the choice will obviously be Intel and a high refresh rate monitor.

 

Costing the double of price? Obviously not

 

New is a stretch here. The 3900x is almost 1 year old. Don't be that guy laughing at AMD when they release a product 1 year later than Intel or nVidia but doesn't apply the same kind of logic when it's the other way around. The reality is those cpus will probably have to fight against Ryzen 4 in 4 months or so.

 

Man even though the 10900k is a beast at gaming, for those budget conscious gamers the 10600k/kf is a great CPU. For me, by far the most interesting CPU in the line up. Hell, maybe even the 10700k/kf, starting at $350 USD for a 8/16 chip is pretty good.

 

Hold your Wallet,boys.Dont be so enthusiastic.

You want a new Core i9,right?Then spend a lot of money for water cooling,because on air this "new" Core i9 is a mess.
End of story.

Play hard,spend smart.
Dont make Intel laugh on you when you need to change again your motherboard and cooling system.

 

Huh? The 3900X costs $440 (and is actually lower on certain sites). The 10900K has a MSRP of $488. How is the 3900X double the price when it's actually lower?

If you're comparing the 10600X to the 3900X, it's no longer an apples to apples comparison. Regardless, it still isn't double the price.

 

Erm... he was talking about the 10600k. In games, it beats the 3900x. And costs a lot less. That's what he was saying.

 

r5 3500 vs i3 10100
r5 3500X vs i3 10300
r7 3600 vs i5 10400
r7 3600X vs i5 10500
r7 3700X vs i5 10600
r7 3800X vs i7 10700
r9 3900X vs i9 10900​

 

100w more in full load than 9900k what is already hungry swine.. No thanks.

 

And I addressed that too. It doesn't make sense to compare to that. Doubling the core count won't make games play better, so if gaming is your top priority, why pay more for no advantage? That doesn't make the 3900X a bad purchase. Regardless, the 3900X can play games more than adequately, which he seems to imply it can't do, simply because of a minor loss in FPS.

It's stupid to pay extra for cores you won't use and it's equally as stupid to pay more for an unnoticeable increase in framerate. I'm not denying the 10600K is a great gaming CPU (I would say it's the best choice depending on your priorities) but to downplay the 3900X because of a few extra FPS is ridiculous.

 

You edited your post when I was typing my reply. You clearly didn't get that he was talking about the 10600k vs 3900x, initially, otherwise you wouldn't have written that the 3900x is actually cheaper than the 10900k. Look, I was just clearing things up because you missed the point of his post.

 

I don't think it's that disappointing. Especially not for Intel - they're going to sell a ton of these. We don't know that Zen 3 will eat this alive in 3 months. People keep saying that every new Zen release. I think we'll see closer to parity for all use cases, but I don't think it's going to be as black and white as you make it out to be.

I like my 3700X, but I consider it to be a nice value oriented mainstream chip that does everything well at it's price point. It's not like it parted the Red Sea or anything. And if AMD does indeed take the performance crown for gaming with Zen 3, do you think the prices will still stay below Intel? Nope. Then you can buy it and then say how awful Intel is now that they are a couple of frames behind AMD at 1080p. I agree that this isn't a super exciting release for Intel, but they're still doing well in the comparative performance realm at 14nm vs. AMD's 7nm which I think is rather telling. Heaven forbid they ever sort out their process issues and then heat and power consumption won't be argue points any longer.

 

Definitely not disappointing as we all knew what we were getting. On top of that, Intel did some things right. All the CPUs in the line up have HT, all the notable ones can be bought with unlocked multiplier, or without unlocked multiplier and with/without a IGP. It's up to what people decide to go with. And on top of that, a sub $300 6/12 and a $350 8/16 CPU is nothing to complain about.

In fact, 14nm is clearly the limit here and it's quite impressive what Intel got out of 14nm. To compete with AMD on 7nm is nothing to scoff at. Intel just need a die shrink and things will really get exciting.

 

I acknowledge the 10600K is faster in gaming, there's no denying that. But that isn't what I'm disputing, so exactly what point do you think I'm missing here? Or is it you who doesn't get the point, and should butt out of other people's arguments?

He basically implied that the 3900X isn't any good for anything but Cinebench because it didn't top the gaming charts and costs "twice as much". How do neither of you understand that:
A. A few extra FPS doesn't diminish the fact that the 3900X is also good at gaming.
B. The 3900X costs twice as much because it has twice the amount of cores (and PCIe 4.0). Doubling the core count when a game is already maxed out won't accomplish anything. It seems like you guys think that price corresponds to gaming performance, which is absurd.
C. Nobody in their right mind would buy a 3900X only for the sake of the best gaming experience in modern titles. It's basically a mainstream workstation CPU. That doesn't make it a bad choice for games, so long as gaming isn't your only priority.
D. Whether it's the 3900X or the more appropriately-comparable 3600X, the 10600K is still going to win simply because of it's better boost clocks. All of these CPUs have enough threads and comparable IPC. The only one who gets #1 is whoever is clocked the highest. So again, mocking the 3900X doesn't make sense here.
E. Not everyone plays games. There are people who get a 3900X and do other things, which the 10600K would be noticeably slower in.

 

Another failed release from Intel, I don't need a space heater while worrying about its lifespan while using it on stock. Any who, I'll just buy myself a delid kit from rockit so I can finally OC my 8700k and make the temps stable at 75c at 5.3ghz - while waiting for 5nm arch from Intel or AMD as well as for the raytracing GPUs (hope Intel already released theirs n 2021 or 22).

 

Just so happens the 3600X is on sale right now for $199 at newegg.

https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-3600x/p/N82E16819113568

 

Yes it does , but only at 4.1Ghz
https://www.computerbase.de/2020-05...am-oc/2/#diagramm-leistungsrating-fps-geforce


So ddr5 cant come sooner..

 

This. The 10600k is an awesome gaming cpu and it is so good it makes investing in a more expensive cpu for gaming questionable. And with HT it will surely age better than its predecessors. And of course the 10900k remains the king if money is not a concern.

But like you said it doesn't change the fact that the 3900x is one of the best "home workstation" cpu ever released. I never though we would have one day this kind of performance for that price. It remains an awesome cpu if you just casual game at 60 fps and do serious work with your computer but can't afford HEDT (or don't want to argue too much with your wife over the price of your next upgrade lol).