Intel is preparing new "KA" CPUs, including i9-10900KA, i9-10850KA, i7-10700KA and i5-10600KA Spotted

I almost feel bad for Intel then I remember they brought this on themselves with years of stagnation/brain-drain and anti-competitive behavior against AMD.

 

@MegaFalloutFan
You forget that while intel you have to buy a z490 mobo to make full use of a k series cpu that is not the case with amd so the amd processor is cheaper as well as the mobo being way cheaper there is no comparison in cost to performance amd wins by a landslide at least where i live pls just stop with these troll comments. Intel has a great product but unfortunately the value just isn't there and there's nothing that can change that until they slash prices.

 

You can run a Ryzen 9 3900X on a $70 B450 motherboard and have all features except PCIe Gen 4 avaiable..... Or you can use an $80 B550 motherboard and get PCIe Gen 4 as well.... Either way, you can enable XMP without voiding warranty, run memory above 2933mhz and overclock.... Things you can't do on B460, H470, Q470 or W480......

There really isn't much reason to buy x570 anymore since B550 is available. There's no real-world benefit for most users.

In a production environment, those minutes and seconds matter....

 

B550 boards are not 80$ but 125$ for the cheapest asus prime. Also, with most b450 boards you can forget the overclocking 3900x so that cpu will stay stock.

 

Yeah I don't care about the school yard argument. I want to know what this is all about. It's starting to make me cringe & squint.

 

So your saying AMD is acceptable and adequate at 1440p and 4K gaming because due to GPU bottlenecking. AMD is just as good as Intel at PC gaming ,great point and I agree 100%.


Or you saying people who use AMD CPU's are scumbags,that sounds more like what your actually trying to say. Are you also suggesting buy new Nvidia card when they come out and reduce your PC gaming resolution to 720p and 1080p for the best Intel/Nvidia experience.

Trying to discredit people who use AMD CPU's. This is just nonsense from you and other's on forums.I personally do not agree 100% at all with you.

Since I only game at 1440p and 4K and use a AMD CPU for my PC gaming,lets take a closer look at the number's posted in the links provided by you. (Sorry HH ,not trying to promote another site ,as your reviews I personally rely on for my PC gaming Needs.)

Also let's just note test setup in posted links by you and I will pick Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ,since I am from Canada will go with CAD dollars.

ASUS Z490 Maximus XII Extreme- $999 CAD
10900K at 5.3 GHZ-$749 CAD
Total- $1748 CAD

Let's just note test setup in posted links by you and I will pick AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ

ASRock X570 Taichi-$489 CAD
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ-$279 CAD
Total-$768 CAD

So $749 Intel CPU vs $279 AMD CPU
Serious question,in reality which one would you pick for the following test below posted by you and I am sure you own INTEL/AMD machines the same as me.

Intel is not the only PC gaming choice out there no matter what anyone say's,just my 2 cent's


1440 game in posted links.

Intel Total Frames at 1440P=1364.8
AMD Total Frames at 1440P=1318.4

Intel 46.4 Total FRAMES advantage over AMD over 10 games tested.

Spoiler

AC Odyssey
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 77.9
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 76.3

BF5
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 145.0
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 139.3

Civilization VI
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 158.9
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 155.6

Far Cry 5
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 144.1
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 112.9

Metro Exdous
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 120.0
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 113.8

Rage 2
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 102.9
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 103.0

Sekiro
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 135.3
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 143.5

Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 131.6
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 130.0

The Witcher 3
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 140.3
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 138.2


Wolfenstein II
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 208.8
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 205.8

4K game in posted links.

Intel Total Frames at 1440P=816
AMD Total Frames at 1440P=805.4

Intel 10.6 Total FRAMES advantage over AMD over 10 games tested.

Spoiler

AC Odyssey
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 48
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 46.8

BF5
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 92.5
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 90.5

Civilization VI
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 108.2
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 110

Far Cry 5
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 84.1
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 82.1

Metro Exdous
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 73.7
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 71.2

Rage 2
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 51.6
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 51.9

Sekiro
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 83.3
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 80.5

Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 69.1
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 68.8

The Witcher 3
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 84.5
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 83.9

Wolfenstein II
Intel 10900K at 5.3 GHZ - 121.0
AMD 3600 at 4.2 GHZ - 119.7

 

$79.99
https://www.newegg.com/asrock-b550m-hdv/p/N82E16813157953

$94.99 if you want something beefier
https://www.newegg.com/gigabyte-b550m-ds3h/p/N82E16813145210

$120.99 if you want something better
https://www.newegg.com/asrock-b550-phantom-gaming-4/p/N82E16813157935

And all support up to 3950X and upcoming 4950X.

Cheapest Z490 at $129.99 and not the best board if you want to overclock the 10900K/KA/KF/F/<whatever>
https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E168131...re=z490-_-13-157-918-_-Product&quicklink=true

As for "3900x so that cpu will stay stock", shows ignorance of how AMD cpus work/overclock. All core overclock on AMD cpus is counter productive and only for those who want all core load 100% of the time. Light loads (aka gaming) better leave the CPU alone and tweak some of the settings.

My 3900X was boosting on 2 cores at 4.65Ghz at stock (1 core 4.72Ghz) with the last V2 1002 AGESA bios came out for motherboard a month ago settings at 100% load (gaming) with just CPPC & Preferred Cores ON and PBO OFF with 1usmus power plan with just a D15. The rest of the cores are between 4350-4575 load depending.
Same settings the 3950X now does 2 cores at 4.73Ghz and 1 at 4.8Ghz rest of cores varying. No manual overclock etc.

And both CPUs operating at 3800C14 with 1900 IF.

 

ASRock B550M-HDV is currently $79.99. I looked up the price, quite literally, minutes before posting.....
ASRock B550M-HDV (currently on back-order, but listed price has been $79.99 for as long as I've been watching it)
ASRock B550 Phantom Gaming 4 is $120.... That's $15 cheaper than the cheapest Asus Prime B550 board
Asus Prime B550M-A/CSM is currently $135....and it's the cheapest listed Asus board.

When I quote prices, I've actually verified the prices I'm quoting within a few minutes of posting.....

 

Does the KA stand for Kick A$$? Next we have Intel KMS edition.

 

I'm expecting the Intel BLM edition to drop any day now.

 

Yes you can, with low memory clock and dont hitting the boost clock losing to i5 10600

Ryzen 3000 have a good gains when running at 1:1 if clock and you need a x570 chipset to hit that

 

This is the excuse that I always hear, telling me to buy an ancient B450/X470 mobo that stuck with PCIe gen 2.0 from the chipset and has very few features, this is not a solution.
Ryzen doesn't really overclock, and Intel is faster in video games even on NON-K CPUs, so you dont need a Z, you can do with H or B and still beat Ryzen
Based on the benchmarks I posted by that respectable site, not wcctech mind you, a simple 10400F [NON-K] is faster then all Ryzen CPUs in all resolutions, 1440p and 4K including, faster then 3900X. Actually even simple Intel 10300 was faster then all Ryzen CPUs in 1440p and even cheapo Intel 10100 was faster then ALL Ryzen CPUs in 4K.
So here you go, need 6 cores? Get 10400F + H or B mobo, you have PCIe Gen 3.0 from CPU AND motherboard [unlike B450 and X470] and you beat Ryzen in video games.
Have a hobby and compress movies? Anime? Pron? Get 10400K + H or B and you have QuickSync encoder that beats even 10/12 core CPU encoding.
In case you want good modern build, say 10700K+z490 or Ryzen 3800XT + X570, the X570 will be more expensive, you also forced to buy more expensive RAM and for what? To have Less FPS in games, why? Whats the point?

I can completely Understand buying 3950x and above for WORK, yes that logical, but when you buying home PC and compare performance in games, then Ryzen not only slower but lacks iGPU, which is has QuickSync and can compress media faster then CPU can
So Ryzen loses its advantage even here, and the most important is that Intels Chipsets and motherboards RARELY have any issues and bugs like AMD do, people alsways have issues with AMD drivers, chips, SATA controllers, USB and so on, especially on non x570 mobos where everything made by Assmedia.
People always try to avoid using Assmedia SATA controllers and Assmedia USB if their mobos have any, they slow, bugy and outright bad and here you have a full motherboard made by them, Assmedia SATA, Assmedia USB, Assmedia PCIe.

Sorry thats honestly Trash level hardware, both sides have it BTW, not just AMD and quoting the cheapest possible hardware is not honest, thats just for people looking to buy the bare minimum, most people come here to Guru love hardware and I assume build at least middle to high level builds.
Me personally, I needed a mobo for home NAS [unRAID] the minimum I allowed myself to go is ROG STRIX Z490-H GAMING, which is among the best [feature-wise] home server boards and BTW building a home server I considered Ryzen, yet it lost to Intel due to being near twice more expensive and more then twice power hungry.
I dont need a GPU for my NAS, my 10700K is all I need, but if you go the Ryzen route, you either stuck with Quad core APU or spending on GPU, which not always possible due to PCIE availability in the server that used for SAS and 10G networking cards

 

Is this post a joke?
You pick up the most expensive Intel parts vs. trash level ryzen.

OK, lets do it your way, now we will take a trash level cheapo Intel i3-10300 vs Ryzen 3900x in 1400p and 4K
Measured as % slower then 10700 non K Stock.
1440p Intel 10300 = 96.9% vs Ryzen 3900x 96.4%
4K Intel 10300 = 99.7% vs Ryzen 3900x 98.5%


You dont need to pick anything that benchmark already sorted everything, if you want to beat ALL Ryzen CPUs in 4K gaming, you can buy as low as i3-10100 > i3-10300 > i5-10400F > i5-10600K > i7-10700 > i7-10700K > i9-10900
All of these were faster in 4K benchmarks based on totals, so whats your point?
You can have a nice 6C/12T build from Intel 10400F + any mobo you want, even cheap B or H and it will outperform Ryzen 3900x + 700$ x570 mobo in video games, be it in 1440p or 4K

Also that benchmark wasn't about 10900K, it was about 10700 [non K] and showing that this CPU with slight power "overclocking" [Unlocking constant boost, its a 65W CPU] can perform better then stock 10700K and 10900K in video games
That whats the article was about.

 

Why are you pairing the 10900K with one of the most expensive motherboards on the market? There are Z490 boards for $200 USD like the Z490 Tomahawk that perform just as well as that $750 USD Maximus XII Extreme. And are those numbers coming from an overclocked 10900K? The all core turbo on a 10900K is 4.8 GHz, not 5.3 GHz unless overclocked. 5.3 GHz would definitely be pushing higher frames than that. Then that's not even mentioning that the 10600K overclocked can match the performance of a stock 10900K in gaming for almost half the price.

 

@MegaFalloutFan still curious to know what an "AyMD" is....

- Written on my Intel Core i5-7Y57 vPro, "built for 4K" ah'

"Now now Timmy, be a good boy & behave" you know we'll release the BBW edition when we're good & ready

 

Timmy!

 

Perhaps but I am a PC gamer and yeah I don't really give a frack about Intel's new line up. It has nothing to do with speed, power usage or those 5 extra FPS for an extra £100bucks it comes down to the reality that AMD killed it when they needed to. I bought in to their hardware when I was looking to upgrade (3700x), as I imagine a fair few did and it doesn't matter what Intel does now they aren't doing anything that is significant enough to make someone who invested in Ryzen hardware turn round and dump it in favour of buying in to one of Intel's CPUs.

All Intel are doing is tiny iterative updates to try and keep them on par / relevant. Besides IF pure performance is the thing PC gamers are looking as you claim, then gamers aren't going to give a frack as they've released a variation of their CPUs that are slightly slower for an even slightly lesser price.

 

Popcorn for this thread

 

DId you read the post,no you did not.

 

1st, check what thermal density means. Then check what kind of cooling is efficient for monolithic die intel uses and what is efficient for Zen 2 chiplet based CPUs.
Then reiterate about power draw which you tend to extrapolate from temperature which has such a poor correlation between 2 completely different CPU manufacturing processes.

If you fail horribly, just compare 2 available numbers from very link you posted:
3900x system has some 15% higher MT power draw than 9900K.
3900x system has some 45% higher MT performance than 9900K.

If it still does not click, remember fact that 3900X system actually came cheaper than 9900K system.