Review: Intel Core i7-10700K processor (8c/16t)

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jul 9, 2020.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    38,529
    Likes Received:
    7,120
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    A review that has been overdue is the 8-core Core i7-10700K processor from Intel. The 10th generation Intel Core desktop processors previously known as CML aka Comet Lake has been received with mixed ...

    Review: Intel Core i7-10700K processor (8c/16t)
     
  2. Devid

    Devid Member

    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    26
    GPU:
    RTX 2080
    5.1GHz@1.51V?:eek:
    I've thought only I've got unlucky hands when it comes to silicon lottery...

    So far:
    8700K 5GHz@1.36V stable
    9700K 5GHz@1.34V stable
    9900K #1 P0, terrible IHS, impossible to keep it cool delid->copper IHS 5GHz@1.34V stable and hot.
    9900K #2 R0, nooope, 5GHz@1.39V-1.4 not stable.
    9900K #3, P0, noooope, 4.9GHz@1.39-1.4V not stable...
    Ok, back to number one, and since I've had it rather than more and more unsuccessful try.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
    chinobino and mohiuddin like this.
  3. nizzen

    nizzen Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,093
    Likes Received:
    240
    GPU:
    3x2080ti/5700x/1060
    Cheaper and faster in games than 3800xt.

    Nice with competition
    ---
    This review 10700k cpu must be the worst in the whole world :p

    Looks like 10900k got most of the best binned cores. I have 2x 10900k , and both do 5300mhz all 10 cores with 1.27v load and 1.28v load
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
    mohiuddin likes this.
  4. Dribble

    Dribble Member Guru

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    61
    GPU:
    Geforce 1070
    Always think it's a bit disingenuous to say it's only gaming that these do well at. Basically if whatever you are doing doesn't need more cores then the Intel cpu provides it's faster. It's not just in single threaded tasks that the Intel chip is quicker at, it's also at any task that uses multiple cores up to the max cores of the intel chip, because the intel chip can clock all of those cores so high, where as the ryzen clocks down more.
     
    mohiuddin and nizzen like this.

  5. nizzen

    nizzen Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,093
    Likes Received:
    240
    GPU:
    3x2080ti/5700x/1060
    My 3900x "max oc" is 11% faster than my 10900k "max oc" in Cinebench r20. 3900x has 20% more cores.

    10900k "max oc" is 12-30% faster in games than 3900x "max oc". It depend on the game.
    10900k is faster in almost all photoshop tasks too VS 3900x, so it's not just gaming ;)

    So 10 series is pretty good in everything, not just gaming. If rendering is life, 3950x or threadripper is the best buy ;)

    Ps: I love my 3900x too. Using them for different tasks.
     
    mohiuddin and MegaFalloutFan like this.
  6. MikeGR7

    MikeGR7 New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gtx 980
    No idea why you had to use 1.5V for 5.1Ghz.

    I have 2 10700Ks and one does 5.1@1.32V and the other 5.1@1.35V.

    You either had bad luck with silicon or you left vcore on Auto and only changed the Frequency Multiplier which usually is stable but leads to extremely high Vcore being used.
     
  7. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    38,529
    Likes Received:
    7,120
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    Yes and no.
     
    nizzen likes this.
  8. asturur

    asturur Master Guru

    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    195
    GPU:
    Geforce Gtx 1080TI
    I think no one said that.
    Before the 10th series that was sort of true. Comparing prices 9900k was no convenient with a 3700x or 3800x outside expensive game setups ( with expensive GPUS )
    This 10th series mainly just lowered prices. The 10 core version is still a game only thing, for obvious reasons. Because if needed more cores, you would already be with a 3900x or 3950x.

    Today a 8 core intel vs amd 8 core is similarly performing and similarly priced. And no one can deny that.
    Performance differences are in the 5% range it seems, with the 3800x winning by an insignificant small margin in most of the multi thread benchs.

    So again yes, if you have no personal preferences for the branding, what can make you move the decision is preference for the current state of game optimizations or the current state of pci express 4.0 SSD.

    If you can find a place where hilbert said that those cpus are good only for gaming, it means i did not read carefully and sorry then for the useless post.
    Who comes here to understand the current CPU market has already clear ideas, who comes here to just brag around `i'm better than you` will continue with this non sensical `intel is shredding amd in games tests` `amd is smoking intel in productivity applications` `intel is gaming only` `amd is for chinebenchers h24` and so on.
     
    mohiuddin likes this.
  9. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,943
    Likes Received:
    622
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    Not that different from my 3700X, except offering somewhat better fps in games (which would be useless for me personally but people with better screens and GPUs would enjoy it) at the expense of eating electricity like there's no tomorrow when taxed. Lacking PCIe 4.0 is the strange thing. The Ampere generation of Nvidia GPUs will be PCIe 4.0 cards, so it's not just M.2 SSDs anymore, even if you didn't care about the already PCIe 4.0 AMD GPUs.
     
  10. SaiBork

    SaiBork Master Guru

    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    GV-N108TAORUS X-11G
    Great looking review as always!
    I do wish someone would review a 10900 (non-K) version. The base clock is lower, but the boost is almost as high as the K version. With the base clock of the non-K version being lower, the TDP has been set way lower by Intel and this makes me very curious about the difference in perfomance.

    Most of the times we only get reviews of K CPUs, but sometimes I wonder how big the difference is when someone is not intending to run an overclock anyway.
     

  11. Xuanzang

    Xuanzang Master Guru

    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    GTX 1080 Sea Hawk
    Very nice review HH.
     
  12. wavetrex

    wavetrex Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    657
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX1080 AMP!
    So, a slightly faster and cheaper 9900K or just a 9900KS in new clothes ?
    They could have just reduced 9900K price and be done with it.
     
  13. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    1,756
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    A little strange how the 9900K comes on top sometimes (maybe the results weren't compensating for security mitigations since they were recorded?). These 10th gen products seem to be the first reasonably-priced CPUs Intel has released since Sandy Bridge.

    By that logic, isn't it a bit disingenuous to buy this CPU for such tasks? Wherever clock speed is the #1 concern, you might as well get a 10600K, where you can more easily maintain higher clock speeds at a lower price. When clock speed isn't the #1 concern, this CPU doesn't beat the 3800X in all tests. It's already very power-hungry as-is, so any overclocking advantage it may have is crippled by its heat output. I'm not saying it's bad, because its performance is competitive for the price, but gaming really is the only task it has a distinct advantage in, compared to the competition. It isn't the best option for heavily multi-threaded workloads and it isn't the best option if you care about super high clock speeds. But, I would say it makes for a healthy middle-ground.
     
    Richard Nutman likes this.
  14. rdmetz

    rdmetz Member

    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    6
    GPU:
    2x EVGA GTX 780 6GB SC

    He says whole ignoring the 3600XT 3900XT and ESPECIALLY 3800XT lol
     
    GenClaymore and MegaFalloutFan like this.
  15. MegaFalloutFan

    MegaFalloutFan Master Guru

    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    102
    GPU:
    RTX 2080Ti 11Gb
    No, this CPU is better in every way, I had 9900K and had to use 280mm AIO even on stock and with slight overclock like using Multi Core Enhancement, it would heat up like stove.
    Now on 10700K im using simple Noctua D5s [with single fan] and have lower temps and easy 5ghz and i haven't even started overclocking yet, im sure i can do 5.2-5.3
    Also on stock it beats 9900K


    Are you sure that your CPU-Z 9900K scores are correct? without multi core enhancements or some turbo boost OC?
    The thing is CPU-Z the pre-set scores for 9900KF [same clocks as K right?] are lower then yours
    SC: 543
    MC: 5423

    Also pre-set scores for 10700 [nonK] are higher then 9900KF
    SC: 568
    MC: 5625

    So 10700K should be faster then both

    I also have 10700K and had 10700 for a week and 9900K for a year before
    But my scores are always lower then pre-set scores, no matter what I do, I think my windows just needs re-install and it has turbo boost 3.0 and other CPU related drivers broken for sure, my CPUs cant even match pre-set scores on stock not to mention be higher then that like yours.
    Only with 5Ghz overclock my 10700K beats the pre-set scores of 1070 non K
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020

  16. wavetrex

    wavetrex Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    657
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX1080 AMP!
    And you are a total noob on these forums, too lazy to even bother checking something before you say it:

    https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/review-ryzen-5-3600xt-ryzen-7-3800xt-and-ryzen-9-3900xt.433163/

    See who is the person that first commented on how useless are those releases too, or the other few posts below accentuating the same idea.

    I have no love for any of these mega-corporations, especially when they do sh|t releases like these.
    Wow, you had a 9900K and "upgraded" to 10700K.
    Amazing job, congrats !
    Intel must love you deeply.
     
  17. rdmetz

    rdmetz Member

    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    6
    GPU:
    2x EVGA GTX 780 6GB SC
    The 10 series is best if gaming is your priority. But we have too many AMD fanboys who want AMD to "win" so bad that they ignore the fact that the "gains" they could see with AMD are never really going to be seen in their day to day. So many of the 99% gamer / 1% anything relevant to AMD types have jumped on the bandwagon for amd (mainly cause it's always been the "lower cost" option) and even though their choice is measurably getting them lower performance daily. They just go on accepting it as the "right" choice simply because a benchmark for use cases that never or barely apply to them looked better (and it allowed them to go cheap and still feel like they "won").

    I have no problem admitting AMD got major leads in some cases and if I was doing that day 2 day regularly I would probably use one for it. But myself and many many others have shown that a majority of the people who do "discuss" this type of stuff online is also theyl type with 85% (or more) of their usage coming from games. And based on the growth of these processors vs the people actually using them for said tasks they excel in its quite clear that a lot of people are buying the wrong part for the job out of ignorance or brand allegiance.

    I'm just saying too many gamers act like they are content producers without "producing" anything for these numbers to make sense.

    Trust me a processor could be 25x faster in every other task but even if it's only 10% faster in 1 if that task is all I care about doing its the one I'm getting. What good is an advantage you never see?

    There's also the fact that according to resale value (the only other value that matters to me beyond my own use case) Intel will almost always hold its value much better than AMD.

    I recently sold my 7700k (paid $350 in 2017) for $300 while my bud who swore his ryzen 1800x (paid $500 in 2017 as well) and it's 8 core (vs my 7700k's 4) would become the better gaming chip in time, just tried to sell his after seeing what I got and he couldn't even get $150.

    I lost $50 and had the better gaming cpu for 3 years meanwhile he lost $350 and NEVER saw better gaming whatsoever.

    Who made the right choice?
     
    shady28 and MegaFalloutFan like this.
  18. rdmetz

    rdmetz Member

    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    6
    GPU:
    2x EVGA GTX 780 6GB SC
    Not my job to know your entire post history. You made a comment and didn't even mention the relevant (and ironic) facts and I just thought it should be acknowledged.
     
  19. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    1,756
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    His point is that AMD's XT lineup is not immune to his ridicule, so where's the irony? Both Intel and AMD are re-releasing products with a different name. He's not wrong to criticize Intel (or AMD) of this, but since this isn't an AMD topic and he already commented on what they did, there wasn't exactly a need to bring them up.
     
  20. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    1,756
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    There are hardly any AMD fanboys in this thread, so you're ironically already pushing your own biases. As for everything else you said:
    * Yes, Intel is the best for gaming, by a very narrow margin. The margin closes as you get to resolutions people actually want to game at. The losses are measurable, but how many tears are you going to shed over a 10% loss in cases where the framerate is already in the hundreds?
    * Only until the 10th gen did Intel offer products with a really competitive price. People jumped ship to AMD because the minimal performance loss was worth the lower price, lower TDP, and (depending on the situation) extra cores. The lower TDP means less heat and therefore less noisy fans, which many people take seriously. Until the 10th gen, AMD was objectively a better value. That doesn't necessarily mean the fastest, but, most of us are mature enough to not partake in petty flexing.
    * You're being a bit of a hypocrite. Sure, AMD fans touting Cinebench scores is tiresome and doesn't really say much about their actual usage, but you're basically just cherry-picking the results of games using an indiscernible difference in framerate as a reason to buy a CPU. The fact of the matter is, whether you buy AMD or Intel, they both offer great productivity experiences. They both offer great gaming experiences. In everyday tasks, you won't know which brand you're using.

    The reason people praise AMD is because if it weren't for them, I assure you, you would not be able to get an 8c/16t i7 for this price today. Intel is responding to what AMD offers. This isn't 2015; Intel isn't a resoundingly obvious win - they're actually competing now.
     
    AsiJu, JAMVA, carnivore and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page