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

You didn't correct anyone, thats not how you measure power draw, nobody cares if its 7nm or 14nm, whats important is the how much W it takes from the socket and how hot it gets, thats it.
You can get philosophical as much as you want, my electric company doesn't care about that.

If we go based on Steam data, most people use low end build.
How many people own the really expensive AMD CPUs 3900x/3950x3960x compared to cheap ones?

I dont care about boards with PCIe gen 2.0 or trash made by asmedia or both [x470 and all the last gen models], Its either x570 or z490.

Intel is cheaper because based on benchmarks even 10400 beats all AMD CPUs in Gaming , the discussion was about gaming, so please stay on topic, we discussed gaming here, of course 10600K is better and 10700K is "more better"and so on [I just got 10700K after a year with 9900K and it will be used for my NAS] but if we look at raw benchmark data for GAMING 10400 is enough to be faster in games then all Ryzen CPUs available right now.

Also 10400 has no RAM issues, if you install it on the Z mobo it will run RAM modules from the QVL list at advertised speed without any issues, and Intel is not RAM sensitive anyway, people that want to save money can get a nice cheap 2666Mhz kit, better then finding B-Die and then wasting time to optimize it on Ryzen, which regular [keyword: REGULAR] people dont know how and wont ever learn, they just want to plug and play.

And Intel ALWAYS has iGPU, you can say its unnecessary, but it has one, it can be used as backup GPU, it can be used instead of dedicated card if you just build BluRay, Media, Amazon/Netflix, email, school, university, excel, word, web machine.

You can use QuickSync to encode video so Intel has advantage here, even on cheap CPUs.

This is Intel Topic, I can say whatever i want if i stay on topic and about Intel, Real fanboys are the ones that come here and instead of staying on topic, criticize Intel or say how "muh AMD is better".

 

Non-sequitur?

 

That's if you purchase a RAM kit that is below 3000mhz then you are fine. But if you are a regular person who purchases a 3000mhz kit or higher because they think they higher number is better but they can't get speeds like that with the 10400 since it maxes out @2933 on Z490. However you do have a point that you can purchase cheaper RAM with Intel vs AMD. Also the last gen AM4 boards are PCI-E Gen 3. Also not all Intel chips have the IGPU. With the KF lettering like the 10700KF it lacks the IGPU that is slightly cheaper in price vs the standard K.

 

^
I was looking for a budget replacement 10500 & 4000mhz ram if my whole system went to crap.. so i would be limited to just 2999? What about 10600k?

Well, today I get a oldies cpu replacement, already changed mobo just to find out cpu died too.

Would go amd, but for 470e, i saw i could get better deal as a whole with intel

 

You can go 3700X, 3600mhz ram and X570 for much less then intel can offer.

 

Well, here ryzen consistently lagged behind in any game tested




Anyway, just got a replacement cpu now, hopefully that's that and it works as it should. *crossing fingers*

 

No you should be fine with the 10600K because it is an unlocked CPU so it is not limited to 2933. So you can put over 3000mhz memory if you wanted to. Also 10600K is a the best bang for the buck for Intel CPUs pretty much like the 2500K was back during the Sandy Bridge era.

 

You know what happened to 2500k compared to 2600k which had more threads. Same will happen with 10600k compared 10700k in a few years or less.

 

Very true. I haven't forgotten that. You are very correct. It goes with any Generation of core i series CPUs these days same goes with the AMD Ryzen Chips. That is the reason I went with a 3700x over a 3600 because of the extra cores and threads. The same thing applies to the 4790K over the 4690K. Also He could upgrade to an i7 or i9 later down the road if 6c/12t isn't enough which it will be at some point down the road.

 

No it does not GN tested the 10400 with 3200Mhz working just fine on a Z490. Its the lower end non-Z boards that lock the memory speeds. However most entry level Z490's are cheaper than B550's.

 

Oh really. Thanks for the info. I misunderstood what GN had said in the video.

 

Yeah Intel has done a real good job of making this confusing. His point is very valid still though as the 10400 should be a budget CPU and to spend even $75 on a board when a $40 one should suffice is still spending 80% more just to OC even more expensive RAM. It makes no sense from a value perspective.

 

I find it rather ironic and funny how you referenced a video titled "do not buy" for what I think is a product that you in fact did buy.
If you opted for the 10400, I would actually say that's a good choice compared to the 3600X, especially for gaming purposes. To me, the 10400 is the best all-around CPU for gaming, since it's pretty cheap, has a sufficient thread count, it isn't too power-hungry, and it's plenty fast enough to get good frame rates, even for VR.
However, if you went for the 10600K, I agree with @Undying that the 3700X would've been the better choice. I personally find it rather hard to justify the price of the 10600K for a few extra FPS. If you're on a budget, the 3700X will take longer to be obsoleted for an unnoticeable performance loss in today's games.

But, you do you. I don't have to agree with your priorities and I have no right to tell you what to get.

 

Can we bad these kinda idiots around here? Or do I have to put these fool on block lost?

 

I used quick search, 10500 is only faster or 10600 for ~ 215e.. I was kind of surprised how cheap and effective they really are by gaming (min fps), even i3 10320 - AMD 3300x rival. Something like 10500 or 10600 would be enough until DDR5, then I would get more proper stuff from either AMD or Intel.


Funny thing about this newer R7 pro 4750G 8core , it looks interesting with low latency, but there are there no real reviews for it,. Only some Asian leak.. I already saw it locally in a lot of shops, usually stuff gets reviewed sooner

 

Yeah just eyeballin pcpartpicker, Adorama has the 10500 in stock for USD 236. That’s not bad...

 

what I said for the 10890 already, there's not point into creating a new SKU for such a small difference the only explanation is that they have trouble making the "original" product and sell worse bins

my main beef with AMD is mostly the power management, idling that seems in "beta" for my 3960x threadripper, with sometimes higher temps and power draw at idle than running a cinebenchR20 ><
search for : amd temp spike if you don't own one yet that's what you'll get without heavy advanced user tweaking
there's something really wrong with power profiles in windows too, as they have a major impact on the cpu unlike intel desktop cpus who don't really care (thus you get attempts at fixing it like 1usmus)
now if AMD can fix that, and it looks like they did with their laptops, it's game over Intel

 

Guru3d's review of the 3900X put me off.The box claims 4.6 boost but the review stated it should be left at auto and whatever clocks you get depending on cooling etc.Even though Intel's new offerings only boost on 1 core to advertised speed, at least you get that speed from the jump off.I've grown accustomed to "knowing" not "guessing" what my cpu speed is or would be.
Sure no one has been more peeved than I at the security flaws/patches and performance degradation it brought, but I can play at 1440p with a 7 year old base system and still be very happy.
Not happy about that RDR2 review though, but it brought everyone to their knees so yeah...misery loves company, lol!!!

 

intels new cpu's uses multipreferred core tech and will boost on 2 cores to the advertised frequency.

 

I see your point - why not try going off of benchmarks with the names? Like "10500" vs "10890" or such n such. If price matters then use price as a sticking point to base your searches / benchmarks. Andandtech/GURU3D(here)/pcpartpicker/pchardware/techpowerup and many sites across the web have these capabilities.

This had been introduced in a recent build of Windows no? Given prerequisites are met and the optional feature is enabled by users AMD supported CPPC for some time as well.

AMD Zen 2 CPUs support ACPI's Collaborative Processor Performance Control,(2)

- taken from https://www.anandtech.com/show/15137/amd-clarifies-best-cores-vs-preferred-cores
The ranking of the “preferred cores” as characterized by CPPC2 does not directly correspond to the electrical characteristics of the cores, and further takes into account many other factors of the chip layout. The biggest factor at hand here that affects the choice of the highest performing preferred cores in the system, is that AMD is aiming to accommodate Windows’ scheduler core rotation policy.

Currently when there’s a single large CPU thread workload running, the Windows scheduler tries to rotate this thread between a pair of physical CPU cores. The rationale for this is thermal management, as switching between two cores would distribute the latent heat dissipation between the cores and reduce the average temperature of each core, possibly also improving power draw and maximum achievable frequencies.

For AMD’s CCX topology, this rotation policy however poses an issue as it wouldn’t be very optimal for a thread to switch between CPU cores which are located on different clusters, as there would be a large performance penalty when migrating across the two cores on different L3 caches. Taking this hardware limitation into account, AMD’s firmware “lies” about the CPPC2 data to the OS in order to better optimize the schedulers behavior and attempting to achieve better overall performance.

In my example above, the AGESA reports to the OS that core 2 and 3 are the fastest in the system, even though core number 4 is electrically/physically the fastest core. The choice here by the firmware is done by selecting the highest average frequency achieved by two cores within a CCX. In my case, this would correspond to cores 2 and 3, which are electrically ranked as #2 and #3.

While AMD’s explanation currently does map out for the two fastest cores in the system, the actual ranking in the CPPC2 data is furthermore impacted by other aspects. Again, in my system example above, we can see that even though electrically cores 0 and 1 are quite bad, with core 1 actually being the worst in the system, they’re still ranked in CPPC2 as being faster than all the cores in the second CCX. The reasoning for this is that again AMD is sort of abusing the CPPC2 frequency characterization data in order to force the Windows scheduler to first fill out CPU cores on the first CCX before having activity scheduled on the second CCX.

To complicate things even further, there’s other invisible factors at hand that impact the CPPC2 ordering. Taking my system as an example again, it doesn’t quite make sense for CPU core 5 to be ranked higher than core 6, as the electrical characteristics of the cores are in fact being described as being the opposite way around.

I had a theory that the firmware would possibly prevent the ranking of cores to be sequential to each other if the corresponding physical cores would be adjacent to each other. Indeed, AMD confirms that local thermal management is also part of the decision making of the CPPC2 ranking:

"[The firmware] mixes in additional requirements to optimize user performance: individual core characteristics, overall CCX performance, cache awareness, overall CPU topology, core rotation, localized thermal management, lightly-threaded performance counters and more."