Intel 10 Series "Comet Lake" Launch Review Roundup (10900K, 10700K, 10600K, 10500K)

Since I am an AMD fan through and through, I would not buy these for my personal builds, ever. However, the motherboards do look cool and Intel has finally given a half way decent response to AMD, 3 years later but, it is still a much better response than before. Therefore, for Intel fans or those who look at the FPS counters, these processors would do them well.

I just like when new stuff comes out and now that AMD is on top of things, Intel has finally got off their rocking chair, mostly.
 
Snowdog said:
Fair enough, though it likewise isn't fair to claim the 10600K is a $300 CPU when comparing to AMD, when 10600KF is the more reasonable comparison, with a $237 ARK price, and $250 street price at release that you yourself witnessed. If it was already down to $250 street at launch, that is a sign it will be reaching ARK price sooner rather than later.

Sure there is a premium, bu the 10600KF is a better gaming CPU than the 3600. Heck, 10600KF it's a better gaming CPU than anything AMD has. $250 or less for a great Gaming CPU, seems like good deal to me.
Click to expand...

"Better" gaming cpu is still subjective in this case. Yes, if you own a 2080Ti and want the most out of it, fine but, if you have anything less than that........ Essentially, if you have a super high end card, then sure, it is objective but, on anything less, I am not sure you will see any real difference.

Edit: Basically, I will stand by what I think but, this stuff is exciting, nonetheless. :)
 
Last edited:
Thats why I've used the Best Buy prices of $280 and $250 consistently and never stated $300 in my comparisons. For some, that last 5-10% of gaming performance has always been worth a hefty premium. If 10% gaming performance at 1080p right now is worth $150-200 to you (cpu+mobo price differences) thats your right-- just not for me.
 
GreenOrbs said:
Thats why I've used the Best Buy prices of $280 and $250 consistently and never stated $300 in my comparisons. For some, that last 5-10% of gaming performance has always been worth a hefty premium. If 10% gaming performance at 1080p right now is worth $150-200 to you (cpu+mobo price differences) thats your right-- just not for me.
Click to expand...

People always talk shit about intel MB prices, then turn around and buy x570 AMD boards which start at higher prices than Z490 boards.

If you are really on a budget, the 10400F has an ARK price of $157 and will still beat the 3600 in gaming:
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
People always talk shit about intel MB prices, then turn around and buy x570 AMD boards which start at higher prices than Z490 boards.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fair comparison to make right now since X570 motherboards are hard to come by and are price gouged terribly. When the boards are both in normal supply they are almost exactly equivalent in pricing. For example, a budget board Asus Z490-P is $159 at NE and the list price of the X570-P is $159 with sales putting it closer to $135, etc which is where I'd expect the Z490 boards to be a few months after launch. The Crosshair Hero VIII Wifi is $379 and the Maximus Hero XII Wifi is $399, The TUF X570 Gaming Plus Wifi is $165 and the TUF Z490 Gaming Plus is $199 so in those cases, you're just flat out wrong. The X570 Strix-F is $299 and the Z490 Strix-F is $269, so in that case you're right. I wouldn't say it's a hard and fast fact that AMD is more pricey by any means.
 
Last edited:
kirbyrj said:
I don't think that's a fair comparison to make right now since X570 motherboards are hard to come by and are price gouged terribly.
Click to expand...

You mean unlike the "fair" comparison, of comparing Intel CPU prices when the part is just released days ago, in short supply and subject to gouging?
 
Snowdog said:
You mean unlike the "fair" comparison, of comparing Intel CPU prices when the part is just released days ago, in short supply and subject to gouging?
Click to expand...

No, people are comparing MSRP of Intel processors, which almost never go down over time.
 
Snowdog said:
You mean unlike the "fair" comparison, of comparing Intel CPU prices when the part is just released days ago, in short supply and subject to gouging?
Click to expand...

That has zero bearing on MY statement. I called you out on your motherboard pricing comparison and showed you evidence you were factually incorrect :p.

I never mentioned CPU pricing.
 
Snowdog said:
If you are really on a budget, the 10400F has an ARK price of $157 and will still beat the 3600 in gaming:
Click to expand...

The 10400F is probably the most interesting CPU they released (or will release as the case may actually be since I can't find one for sale). I think the biggest difference between that and the Ryzen 3600 is the fact that it boosts 200-300Mhz higher. That's really the biggest difference in gaming from what I can tell from that video.
 
kirbyrj said:
The 10400F is probably the most interesting CPU they released (or will release as the case may actually be since I can't find one for sale). I think the biggest difference between that and the Ryzen 3600 is the fact that it boosts 200-300Mhz higher. That's really the biggest difference in gaming from what I can tell from that video.
Click to expand...

Maybe but, at the same time, just getting a less than $100 B450 motherboard and a 3300X at MSRP will save you at least $100 or so, which you can then put towards a better graphics card. Oh well, at least Intel appears to be trying, this time.
 
ManofGod said:
Maybe but, at the same time, just getting a less than $100 B450 motherboard and a 3300X at MSRP will save you at least $100 or so, which you can then put towards a better graphics card. Oh well, at least Intel appears to be trying, this time.
Click to expand...

In fairness, I haven't looked at the 3300X at all simply because it's 4C/8T, so it might be great, but I just don't know as I haven't researched it. I'm generally looking at mid range 6 core+ CPUs which is why I have several 3600s (and have used the 8400 and 9400F). If the 10400F is $160-165, I think that's a good value CPU if you don't need to couple it with a Z490 board. A B460, H470 or whatever they are releasing should be fine and sub-$100. What would make it better is if they would actually open up memory overclocking on lower end boards (at least enabling XMP), but it is still Intel...
 
kirbyrj said:
In fairness, I haven't looked at the 3300X at all simply because it's 4C/8T, so it might be great, but I just don't know as I haven't researched it. I'm generally looking at mid range 6 core+ CPUs which is why I have several 3600s (and have used the 8400 and 9400F). If the 10400F is $160-165, I think that's a good value CPU if you don't need to couple it with a Z490 board. A B460, H470 or whatever they are releasing should be fine and sub-$100. What would make it better is if they would actually open up memory overclocking on lower end boards (at least enabling XMP), but it is still Intel...
Click to expand...

At this time, only Z490's are available but, if you can buy a lower end board for cheap, that would help. The reason I compared the two is because, of course, the 10400 is a 4c / 8t cpu, as well. I would never spend my own money on Intel but, if someone offered me a 10900k and Z490 motherboard as a gift, I would never turn it down. :D
 
ManofGod said:
At this time, only Z490's are available but, if you can buy a lower end board for cheap, that would help. The reason I compared the two is because, of course, the 10400 is a 4c / 8t cpu, as well. I would never spend my own money on Intel but, if someone offered me a 10900k and Z490 motherboard as a gift, I would never turn it down. :D
Click to expand...

Actually, i5-10400F is 6/12 for $170ish (based off $190 price for i5-10400 at best buy right now). I think it will be as good as a R5 3600 in value once the cheaper Intel boards come out unless AMD drops the 3600 further. As to the 3300x its great value at $120 with 5% less performance than a 3600. Not sure how it will hold up going forward though with games starting to demanding more threads. I'd personally prefer a 6/12 to a 4/8.

Wondering if Ryzen 3 will already be out by the time Intel releases the cheaper boards though. Thats what 3-4 months away?
 
GreenOrbs said:
Actually, i5-10400F is 6/12 for $170ish (based off $190 price for i5-10400 at best buy right now). I think it will be as good as a R5 3600 in value once the cheaper Intel boards come out unless AMD drops the 3600 further. As to the 3300x its great value at $120 with 5% less performance than a 3600. Not sure how it will hold up going forward though with games starting to demanding more threads.

Wondering if Ryzen 3 will already be out by the time Intel releases the cheaper boards though. Thats what 3-4 months away?
Click to expand...

Oops, I did a search but it brought up the 10400H, which is what I was referencing off of.
 
kirbyrj said:
That has zero bearing on MY statement. I called you out on your motherboard pricing comparison and showed you evidence you were factually incorrect :p.

I never mentioned CPU pricing.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about it.

Unless a competitive combined platform price runs several hundred dollars difference, almost nobody here is going to make a decision based on price difference anyway.

Its going to come down to how familiar you are with Intel or AMD. Your curiosity to switch brands, boredom, concern about drivers stability, BIOS support, CPU exploits, performance in your preference in games, video encoding, modeling performance, showing off you e-peen, looks, RGB, water cooling support, etc etc etc etc etc etc ......

I bought a 3900x partially because I just wanted to build something different and to be ready for PS5/XBSX ports.

Nobody actually gives a damn about $30/$50/$100. Maybe just something to argue about to pass time.
 
VIC-20 said:
I wouldn't worry about it.

Unless a competitive combined platform price runs several hundred dollars difference, almost nobody here is going to make a decision based on price difference anyway.

Its going to come down to how familiar you are with Intel or AMD. Your curiosity to switch brands, boredom, concern about drivers stability, BIOS support, CPU exploits, performance in your preference in games, video encoding, modeling performance, showing off you e-peen, looks, RGB, water cooling support, etc etc etc etc etc etc ......

I bought a 3900x partially because I just wanted to build something different and to be ready for PS5/XBSX ports.

Nobody actually gives a damn about $30/$50/$100. Maybe just something to argue about to pass time.
Click to expand...

I would never switch, although building a fourth computer sure is tempting. :) I am just pleased to see competition which means AMD might release something before Zen 3.
 
ManofGod said:
I would never switch, although building a fourth computer sure is tempting. :) I am just pleased to see competition which means AMD might release something before Zen 3.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Our decisions are all quite varied, unique and often complex.
 
Snowdog said:
People always talk shit about intel MB prices, then turn around and buy x570 AMD boards which start at higher prices than Z490 boards.

If you are really on a budget, the 10400F has an ARK price of $157 and will still beat the 3600 in gaming:
Click to expand...


The 10400f is a very interesting CPU, but it won't cost $157 in stores. $165-$175 is more likely. Even at that price, it's still a pretty solid value for a budget build.
 
Derangel said:
The 10400f is a very interesting CPU, but it won't cost $157 in stores. $165-$175 is more likely. Even at that price, it's still a pretty solid value for a budget build.
Click to expand...

If the 9400F is anything to go by, it does go on sale around that $157 price occasionally. They hit ~$125 in the used market. The real problem is the lifespan of Comet Lake in general. I'm not expecting a full year out of it. More like 9 months IMO. I don't know that I'd buy a 10400F now only to see (what should be) a much better performing 11400F. It isn't enough of an "upgrade" over a 3600 to switch platforms if you already have a motherboard that will run a 3600.
 
I do a lot of 4K and below video encoding aside from gaming so I'm prob gonna go Ryzen 4900X or whatever - but rumor is intel has 11 series in the fall IIRC
 
staknhalo said:
I do a lot of 4K and below video encoding aside from gaming so I'm prob gonna go Ryzen 4900X or whatever - but rumor is intel has 11 series in the fall IIRC
Click to expand...

The next gen will be darned interesting. Ryzen 3 vs Rocket Lake (11th gen) should be a spicy one. This would be their first real architecture update since Jim Keller joined Intel a few years back-- this is the same guy that did the Zen architecture for AMD (and the great Athlons back in the day). Finally moving on from rehashing Skylake for the nth time. Still on 14+++++ but yeah.
 
staknhalo said:
I do a lot of 4K and below video encoding aside from gaming so I'm prob gonna go Ryzen 4900X or whatever - but rumor is intel has 11 series in the fall IIRC
Click to expand...

I would be very surprised about a fall launch. I'd say at best Q4'20, but far more likely Q1'21.
 
kirbyrj said:
I would be very surprised about a fall launch. I'd say at best Q4'20, but far more likely Q1'21.
Click to expand...

While it's not impossible, I think you're right. We are in the middle of Q2'20. By the time inventory is readily available for the Intel 10th Gen CPUs, the quarter will be almost over. That would put Intel competing directly with themselves one quarter later if they drop at the end of Q3'20 or slightly over one quarter later if they drop at the beginning of Q4'20. It seems the most plausible that they would hold out for 1H'21 giving the platform at least a little life and sales history before cannibalizing itself.
 
MrCaffeineX said:
While it's not impossible, I think you're right. We are in the middle of Q2'20. By the time inventory is readily available for the Intel 10th Gen CPUs, the quarter will be almost over. That would put Intel competing directly with themselves one quarter later if they drop at the end of Q3'20 or slightly over one quarter later if they drop at the beginning of Q4'20. It seems the most plausible that they would hold out for 1H'21 giving the platform at least a little life and sales history before cannibalizing itself.
Click to expand...

I do think that Q1'21 is most likely but there could be one exception. If 10th gen is a low volume run just as a stopgap, it would be in Intel's interest to bring forward Rocket Lake as much as possible especially if they thought that Zen 3 has any chance of beating them in gaming. From what we've heard, its been a paper launch so far. What if 10th gen remains that way? Then there would be no issue competing with itself. Z490 motherboards are compatible with both 10th and 11th gen so sales of those wouldn't be affected especially if they don't release a 500 series board right away.

I think it would hurt the Intel branding if AMD ever took the outright gaming crown even for a few quarters since that's their thing. My guess is they take a look at how Zen 3 performs and then react accordingly (assuming the new architecture is ready). Its not using a new node like 10nm or 7nm so the production capacity is already there. You could then imagine another follow up next year in 2H'21 with a node shrink to 10nm that they've been working on.
 
odditory said:
Huh? The glass cabinet at Microcenter was full of 10th gen when I was there a few days ago. Of course they quickly sold out, with only the 10400 there now. That's not a paper launch.
Click to expand...

If you cannot buy them and they are sold out everywhere, that is one definition of a paper launch.
 
ManofGod said:
If you cannot buy them and they are sold out everywhere, that is one definition of a paper launch.
Click to expand...

Only for Intel though. Same thing happened with some Ryzen 3000 parts after launch, that was just a sign of a great CPU, right??
 
Digital Foundry review. Shows a couple of points:
Canned benchmarks tend to be easier on the CPU.
Averaging a bunch of games together and then claiming Intel is only a few percent ahead in gaming misses the point, since individual games, especially when actually played can display much bigger differences.
Here differences of around 20% happened on some games (Intel over AMD). And big frame dips, and stutters were less pronounced on Intel as well.
As far as the 10900K itself, really no point getting one over the Intel 8 core parts for gaming.
 
Thanks, the video is helpful.

Though, I do wish there was actual gameplay. I'm not sure the canned benchmarks are good indication of gameplay performance.
 
I wasn't detailed enough.

DF does use actual game play to test, they just make note that canned benchmarks tend not to hit the CPU as hard, it may be a factor in why they use actual gameplay.
 
I skimmed through the video without sound just to check the benchmark parts. It does look honestly very good for Intel, much more than people let on.

I think the issue I have is that real gameplay can be more heavy on the CPU (for example, calculating AI, physics, dynamic loading of assets in an open world game, things that are potentially mulitthreaded, etc.)
 
cybereality said:
I skimmed through the video without sound just to check the benchmark parts. It does look honestly very good for Intel, much more than people let on.

I think the issue I have is that real gameplay can be more heavy on the CPU (for example, calculating AI, physics, dynamic loading of assets in an open world game, things that are potentially mulitthreaded, etc.)
Click to expand...

So they so, yes. Obviously, the results of what they did are real but, there is no possible way to reproduce the path taken in every single way on every single game, there will be various differences. Therefore, it is just another way to test to add with the others, not exclusively. Also, it does not matter whether it is AMD or Intel at the top in their tests, my point would remain the same.
 
cybereality said:
I think the issue I have is that real gameplay can be more heavy on the CPU (for example, calculating AI, physics, dynamic loading of assets in an open world game, things that are potentially mulitthreaded, etc.)
Click to expand...
Gotta take into account that very few users are actually going to run their games 'clean'; even the 'pros'. Most usually have other stuff running, few even bother turning stuff off unless the effects are obvious.
 
Derangel said:
Gamers Nexus put up a video on the 10400 using both 2666 and 3200 memory.

Click to expand...


So much for the 10400 even being a decent budget build on lower end mobos with slower ram requirements. AMD 3300X and 3600 the better budget buys. I guess if you have to go Intel its not too bad, at least once the cheaper $100 and under mobos show up.

In Hardware Unboxed's video on the 10600k, they said no cpus in stock until July.
 
Ranulfo said:
So much for the 10400 even being a decent budget build on lower end mobos with slower ram requirements. AMD 3300X and 3600 the better budget buys. I guess if you have to go Intel its not too bad, at least once the cheaper $100 and under mobos show up.

In Hardware Unboxed's video on the 10600k, they said no cpus in stock until July.
Click to expand...

Depending on how much cheaper the 10400f is, it could slightly change things but it would have to come in at pretty close to ARK price. The non-f seems kind of dead in the water, at least in the US. Especially if the 3300X keeps it's current $120 price going forward (when it's in stock)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top