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

We should be happy intel is competitive again it will drive the prices down. Even if it last only for a while. Zen3 will probably blow these away so until then there will some nice choises on both sides.

 

So much more power required for so damn little extra performance - not something any company should be proud of or, for that matter, forcing a new motherboard purchase for a fixed, two CPU iteration life cycle. It doesn't matter how 'good' the next, final iteration will be if it's on a dead end board.
Now contrast that with AM4's lifespan..."are you not entertained!!"

 

Competition drives price down Always a good thing

 

My guess is that Zen 4000 will over take Intel especially in sales.

AMD might even take back gaming and all the while still using a B450 mobo. Now that's value and it's only coming from one side.

I think 4600/4700 are going to be very good and for me well worth the wait.

 

Great review thanks for sharing, these reviews bring out the nutbars arguing, so I will join. I only game on my AMD computer and never touch the Intels for gaming, I play PC games @4k but the people who want to play games at 1920x1080 on medium settings with 2080 ti ,then enjoy and Intel CPU are the best by a few % in Avg FPS.

 

ok hands down Intel wins again time to kick my 3600 for this new monster because fps is going to make a difference 9 more fps means ill surpass my 1080p 144hz and ill shot even better then if i had amd, if your new or upgrading from a old gen then its fine but really.

 

Every time the same thing (although kudos for the 2.5k results). I wanna see the gamer with a 2080ti gaming at 1080p or 720p? The only results that make sense with the 2080ti are from 2.5k up. And at that resolution, well, the extra fps is so not worth the power consumption.
Now one thing that remained in my head, the life span of this "new" CPU. So its just a filler. I don't really understand this line of CPU's purpose tbh.

 

Thank you @Hilbert Hagedoorn for the quality content on your reviews , well done !.

This new cpus have just a little bit more to offer for gaming than last gen 9xxx due to increase core clocks but some of this core clocks increase were really needed as this cpus and the platform Z-490 has hardware mitigation for the gazillion vulnerabilities hence it was needed to clock higher to counter fight the lost performance. In hwbot there is a bios for the Asus Apex Z-490 only to be used for benchmarking , to squeezed the last drop of performance on this cpus stripping away some of the hardware mitigations baked on the Motherboard and cpu that Does in fact affect the performance.

Overall Intel remains king for gaming and AMD for multi threaded workloads , and that is the way it is. I find the little 6 core i5 10600K and KF the more interesting cpu strictly for gaming , 10900K 10 core 20 threads only for benchmarks hobbie as it will clock like crazy on sub-sero cooling and memory goes beyond what we are used to. Overall not bad , not good it was a mehh launch at best. I have incoming Asus Apex XII and a few cpus 10900K , 10700K and 10600K strictly for my hobbie of benchmarking under sub-sero cooling on Liquid Nitrogen , that's where the fun is on this cpus .

 

Meh, it offers very little compared to AMD's "old" products.
Ryzen 3600 + B450 is still the best bang for your back in most cirucmstances.

Let's keep in mind that, for a mainstream build, you can buy AMD4 mobos for ~ £90, while an entry level ATX Z490 costs £150+.
Between that and the MSRP difference between 10600K and 3600, which should be ~$40 ish, you're probably shelling an extra $80-100 for the package.

We now wait for street prices and how intel will react to initial sales, but I don't see the situation improving much.

 

Too little, too late for Intel. Value-wise AMD has the edge. Anyone thinking of OC-ing (on both AMD/Intel) is wasting his time for too little perf vs massive heat/power draw penalties. Lets face it, the days of OC'ing on modern day CPUs is over.

Therefore for reasonable and practical CPU buyers, AMD is more appealing. The 3700x for example can be had today for $289 (ie, Amazon) and that includes the Wraith cooler which is all you need if running at stock. With Intel you need to buy separate cooler which will add maybe $50-100 and that just for air cooling. And needs to be a decent cooler even if you run at stock. Because once these CPUs enter PL2 mode, the extra heat/power may be an issue.

Gaming? Anyone at 1440p and over should be a non-issue. Then we have Zen 3 later this year. Intel is looking quite a bit unattractive at this stage.

 

Dude, I'm amazed at your inability to read. You picked an argument with the other guy, not me. Based on missing his point. He was on about gaming performance of the 10600k vs 3900x. All I did was to point out that he was on about something else to what you were thinking. I don't give a f*ck, lol. Now you're turning this into a 3900x vs Intel fight simply BECAUSE YOU FAILED TO READ!!!

Let me check your profile to see if you have an AMD CPU.

EDIT: Oh, no sh1t, yes you do.

I don't know man, he doesn't even state what motherboard he used for the 10600k review. That's kinda relevant at this moment.

 

Every time the same answer: there is no point comparing cpu with gpu bottleneck!
The better a cpu is capable at delivering frame rate, even at lower resolutions, the better it will behave with games in the coming years with more cpu intensif even at higher resolution!
And soon, more powerful Ampere GPU will be there!

 

Right, so if I picked an argument with the other guy and not you, why are you here?
How am I turning this into a 3900X vs Intel fight? The entire point I was trying to make is that the 3900X isn't comparable to the 10600K. They're totally different and good in their own way.

You failed to read and comprehend.

 

I don't know man, he didn't even state which motherboard he used for the 10600k review, kinda relevant at this time.

I simply saw your reply to his post where he said that the Intel (10600k) outperforms the 3900x at half the price. At gaming. And you clearly failed to read that and started comparing the prices between the 10900k and 3900x. So I corrected you. Not sure why you had to start something with me.

 

This. Problem is, no matter what Intel do, someone will come and tell you it's at a cost. Yes, it is. Then it's again for everyone to decide whether they want to deal with the cons of each platform.

 

Again, I addressed BOTH models, not just the 10900K. This is still entirely your misinterpretation coming into play. Either that or your arrogance, since we long established that the 10900K wasn't the subject.
I knew before saying anything that the 10600K was better at the 3900X at gaming. How are you not understanding that? I'm also not the one comparing the prices. In fact, I was trying to undermine the price comparison. I was saying there's a reason for the price difference.

The point you somehow aren't getting is that I'm refuting the dismissive attitude. He basically said "the 3900X is only good for CB" as though being behind by a few FPS somehow makes a CPU no longer worthy at gaming, or that gaming is the only reason to buy a CPU. THAT is what I'm disputing and why I responded in the first place. It doesn't matter whether it's the 10900K or 10600K, the point remains the same. Get this through your dense head.

 

When it comes to absolute performance? Yea.
But most people are budget limited, value is a big factor when making a purchase. Considering that, I think AMD still has an edge in gaming.

A 3600 is close to a 10600K, but the latter is about £30-40 pricier, not to mention the extra £50-80 you have to shell out (B450 vs Z490).
Ultimately (in UK) you can get a 3600 + mobo for ~£250, while it looks like a 10600K could be had for £370 (£210 + £160).

That's a +48% difference right there, while the performance uplift is vastly smaller.

 

I don't know if I would want to run a £70 motherboard. Ever. BTW, the 10600k is not £30-£40 more expensive. It's almost £100 more expensive.

 

70? I'm talking about £90-£100 - B450 Max (Tomahawk / Gaming plus / A-Pro)

 

BAH, I'm interested in what Ryzen 4000 can do! This 10900K release from Intel is a bit of a snore, but I guess we knew what to expect - slightly better performance than 9900K. I suppose 10900K would be an OK buy for someone if they wanna build now, but I think it makes sense to see what Ryzen 4000 can do later in the year. It seems that 10900K is best used with a good cooling solution and at stock considering overclocking doesn't get you much further. I suppose with a fantastic rather than good cooling solution then you may as well overclock it though, but sensibly it looks like a reasonably priced good cooling solution and stock 10900K make better sense.