10900k/10850k vs 5900x: Future proof and 4K gaming

Nirad9er

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
2,549
What's the verdict on these 2 CPU's in terms of gaming? I'm planning to upgrade my CPU/Mobo and GPU (likely 6800XT) and am currently gaming on a 4k 120hz monitor.

The 5900x is sold out of course and TBD when most of us will be able to get one however the 10900k/10850k is readily available.
One thing to consider is the 10850k can be had for $399 at microcenter which is cheaper than the 5800x ($450). (10core vs 8core)

For primarily gaming, do you recommend waiting for 5900x to come in stock or do you think the 10900K or 10850k is an OK buy?
I'm water cooling and usually overclock everything to the max possible. With Intel overclocking to 5.2 - 5.3ghz does that make up for the slower IPC?

Not sure if I'd kick myself not going with AMD considering the 5900x pairs well with the 6800XT and gets a boost with Smart Access Memory.

Let me know your thoughts

Thanks
 
Last edited:

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,133
Well, we don't know how much gains will be realized by SMA, so it's hard to know whether or not it would be worth it. Probably best to wait for a review.

I don't think one is necessarily more future proof than the other since AM4 is a dead socket now. LGA1200 will get RKL at some point in Q1'21 (plus new 5XX series motherboards). I would guess that RKL is going to be a better strictly gaming processor, but it's top end is 8C/16T. If you think you need 12C/24T for other tasks other than gaming, then obviously wait for the 5900x to come back in stock.
 

D-EJ915

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
1,248
I'd go for 10850k in your scenario, cheaper, easier to OC and you can actually buy it and the performance will be awesome still.
 

LukeTbk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
453
Not sure if I'd kick myself not going with AMD considering the 5900x pairs well with the 6800XT and gets a boost with Smart Access Memory.
By the time where it is possible to buy a 6800xt you will already have a better idea than now about that question, if you are to upgrade the cpu and gpu at the same time it feel like it is a no brainer to wait for people to test that feature before deciding on the cpu because you will have no choice to wait anyway.
 

zandor

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
3,338
The pricing on the new AMD chips does complicate Intel v. AMD, especially if you have a Microcenter around. AMD took the high end, but the way the pricing lines up the 5600X is going up against the i7-10700k and the 5800X is squaring off against the 10-core i9s.

I spent some time staring at benchmarks on 11/5 my takeaway from that is any of those will do nicely. The 5800X is generally right there with them, and if you want to cheap out a 5600X or i7-10700k will do just fine. Which chip wins varies from game to game. Sometimes the dual CCX AMD chips (5900X and 5950X) get beat by the single CCX (5800X and 5600X) ones and sometimes they come out on top. Then some games run better on Intel. Usually the 5xxx AMD chips are a little ahead, but there's not some giant yawning gap like comparing Bulldozer and kin to whatever Intel chip it was up against during the years AMD was stuck with that architecture or if you go back a little farther Netburst (P4) getting smacked around by Athlon 64s. The slower chip will do almost as well and costs less. So, basically, I wouldn't sweat it.

Given what you're running (rig in your sig) I think I wouldn't bother buying an Intel chip until you get your hands on a vid card. The Intel chips are easy to get and since it sounds like you have a Microcenter around you can just drop by the day the vid card arrives and get a proc, board, etc. if you want. The harder question is do you jump on a 5900X if you get the chance to buy one even if it looks like you're not getting the vid card until sometime next year? If I got the vid card first I'd just say fuck it and buy an Intel chip if the 5xxx Ryzens were still unobtanium... or just keep what you have for a bit and see how you like it with a new vid card.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
30,504
“Yes”.
At that resolution, it almost doesn’t matter, and we just don’t know how much smart memory access will matter. But whichever you can find or feel like building.
 

Nirad9er

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
2,549
I'm also reading that Nvidia is working on their version of Smart Access Memory that'll work on both AMD and Intel CPU's so that's a win win I guess. From what I gather, a max overclocked 10850k / 10900K and 5900x have similar single threaded performance based on CPU-Z scores.

Has anyone found any review done at higher resolutions? Maybe I'm the minority gaming at 4k /120hz where the GPU is more the bottleneck. Either way, I'm sure I couldn't go wrong with an Intel system and it'll actually run me about $150 less considering Microcenter has the 10850k for $400 vs the 5900x at $550.
 

Nirad9er

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
2,549
Answered my own question at 4k. Per below review, looks like at 4k the 10900k and 5900x are within a few frames of each other in most modern GPU bound games which I kind of assumed.
For 90% gaming, maybe I should consider the 10850k and wait it out until AM5 or whatever Intel can pull out of their ass if they can even stay competitive.

https://techgage.com/article/amd-ryzen-5950x-in-gaming/

Any idea how my CPU would compare at 4K?
 

vjhawk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2016
Messages
323
The 5900X is strictly better, for all tasks, even games. But if you can't find it in stock a 10850k is a good deal at the $450 pricepoint that Amazon is selling at right now.
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2020
Messages
8
yeah, similar situation here. I recently built a 10900k w/Asus Hero Z490, got an all core OC of 5.2 stable. I have a 5900x w/Asus Crossf570 coming. I guess I will build that, run exact same games and benches and decide. I currently have a 3080 FE, but have not ruled out grabbing the 6900XT if I can get one to try for the AMD synergies.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,752
What's the verdict on these 2 CPU's in terms of gaming? I'm planning to upgrade my CPU/Mobo and GPU (likely 6800XT) and am currently gaming on a 4k 120hz monitor.

The 5900x is sold out of course and TBD when most of us will be able to get one however the 10900k/10850k is readily available.
One thing to consider is the 10850k can be had for $399 at microcenter which is cheaper than the 5800x ($450). (10core vs 8core)

For primarily gaming, do you recommend waiting for 5900x to come in stock or do you think the 10900K or 10850k is an OK buy?
I'm water cooling and usually overclock everything to the max possible. With Intel overclocking to 5.2 - 5.3ghz does that make up for the slower IPC?

Not sure if I'd kick myself not going with AMD considering the 5900x pairs well with the 6800XT and gets a boost with Smart Access Memory.

Let me know your thoughts

Thanks
If you want future proof, Zen 3 is the current choice. With each GPU upgrade, the limitation at 4K will get lower and lower. And the Ryzen will start distancing itself at that res, just as it does at 1080p and 2K. Also, support PCI-E 4.0 for your future storage.

Indeed, you could just upgrade again. But, your thread title does say "future proof". And this is a forum where people try to keep CPUs a lot longer than GPUs.

Yes, a 10850 is cheaper. But its also slower than a 5800x in basically every meaningful test. Check out the reviews.

IMO, if you want to settle for an 8 core intel, get a 10700 non-k and then tweak the turbo behavior. Its a value winner, for sure.
 
Last edited:

Spartacus09

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Messages
1,577
I don't think one is necessarily more future proof than the other since AM4 is a dead socket now.
Just because AMD guaranteed they'd be on AM4 end of 2020 doesn't necessarily mean its dead and they're going to immediately switch to a new socket.
We're safe until the Zen 4 architecture that is set for arrival 2022 at the earliest, my bet is there will be at least one more Zen 3 refresh I imagine late next year.
 

thecold

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
424
If you want future proof, Zen 3 is the current choice. With each GPU upgrade, the limitation at 4K will get lower and lower. And the Ryzen will start distancing itself at that res, just as it does at 1080p and 2K. Also, support PCI-E 4.0 for your future storage.

Indeed, you could just upgrade again. But, your thread title does say "future proof". And this is a forum where people try to keep CPUs a lot longer than GPUs.

Yes, a 10850 is cheaper. But its also slower than a 5800x in basically every meaningful test. Check out the reviews.

IMO, if you want to settle for an 8 core intel, get a 10700 non-k and then tweak the turbo behavior. Its a value winner, for sure.

I just looked into this, and it seems a bit false (but not entirely wrong since pci-e 4 does exist and the 5900x does have 12 cores). You can replace the 10850k with 10900k and get the same results with 2-3 percent. In games the 5800x and 10900k are pretty much equal depending on which games/reviews you use

Also... you can easily get the 10850k for 430-450.

Or

*at the time of this posting it's $390*

Intel Core i9-10850K 3.6 GHz Ten-Core LGA 1200 BX8070110850K B&H (bhphotovideo.com)


*I'm tired sorry for all the edits lol*
 
Last edited:

MaxHughes

n00b
Joined
Nov 24, 2020
Messages
32
What's the verdict on these 2 CPU's in terms of gaming? I'm planning to upgrade my CPU/Mobo and GPU (likely 6800XT) and am currently gaming on a 4k 120hz monitor.

The 5900x is sold out of course and TBD when most of us will be able to get one however the 10900k/10850k is readily available.
One thing to consider is the 10850k can be had for $399 at microcenter which is cheaper than the 5800x ($450). (10core vs 8core)

For primarily gaming, do you recommend waiting for 5900x to come in stock or do you think the 10900K or 10850k is an OK buy?
I'm water cooling and usually overclock everything to the max possible. With Intel overclocking to 5.2 - 5.3ghz does that make up for the slower IPC?

Not sure if I'd kick myself not going with AMD considering the 5900x pairs well with the 6800XT and gets a boost with Smart Access Memory.

Let me know your thoughts

Thanks
If the Intel 10900 only offers GEN3 cpu lanes, It's history from the get go. 'Future proof" The present is GEN4 PCIe bandwidth. GEN4 GPUs and NVMe drives are here right now. AMD has offered 64/128 cpu lanes on 8/12/16 core processors for three years. Is a new HDD "future proof"? GEE! Only $399 for old tech. "Let me know your thoughts?"
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,490
The 10850k is at $390 on amazon. How low does it have to be?
IMO, it would have to be in the low $300s. Basically where the 3700x was for a long time. I get that there isn't much incentive for Intel to do so, especially if they are still moving chips.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,133
Just because AMD guaranteed they'd be on AM4 end of 2020 doesn't necessarily mean its dead and they're going to immediately switch to a new socket.
We're safe until the Zen 4 architecture that is set for arrival 2022 at the earliest, my bet is there will be at least one more Zen 3 refresh I imagine late next year.

I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see a refresh and we jump right into Zen 4. If they were planning on keeping these around for a while they would have released a new motherboard chipset also.
 

Spartacus09

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Messages
1,577
I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see a refresh and we jump right into Zen 4. If they were planning on keeping these around for a while they would have released a new motherboard chipset also.
As long as Intel is still on the 14nm bandwagon, not sure they need to innovate that much to stay ahead.
I'd like to think that they try to avoid the backlash switching sockets always seems to cause (even if they give notice ahead of time).

What I'd like to see personally is they do one more cycle of improved Zen3 then official announcement that there will be no further chips for AM4.
Then move to AM5, DDR5, and PCIE 5.0 with Zen4 for the 5nm process, but that might be too optimistic.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,133
As long as Intel is still on the 14nm bandwagon, not sure they need to innovate that much to stay ahead.
I'd like to think that they try to avoid the backlash switching sockets always seems to cause (even if they give notice ahead of time).

What I'd like to see personally is they do one more cycle of improved Zen3 then official announcement that there will be no further chips for AM4.
Then move to AM5, DDR5, and PCIE 5.0 with Zen4 for the 5nm process, but that might be too optimistic.

It sounds like rocket lake won't be long for this world even upon release. The second half of 21 is looking like the launch for alder lake. I would think AMD would be getting a comparable part ready around that time.
 

MaxHughes

n00b
Joined
Nov 24, 2020
Messages
32
It sounds like rocket lake won't be long for this world even upon release. The second half of 21 is looking like the launch for alder lake. I would think AMD would be getting a comparable part ready around that time.
As long as Intel is still on the 14nm bandwagon, not sure they need to innovate that much to stay ahead.
I'd like to think that they try to avoid the backlash switching sockets always seems to cause (even if they give notice ahead of time).

What I'd like to see personally is they do one more cycle of improved Zen3 then official announcement that there will be no further chips for AM4.
Then move to AM5, DDR5, and PCIE 5.0 with Zen4 for the 5nm process, but that might be too optimistic.
AM4 needs more pins and more cpu lanes. 24 lanes is a choked chicken. It's UTUBE that was holding AMD's feet to fire for 4 years of AM4. New comers to AMD didn't care if that new X570 had a new socket. Existing customers that wanted a Ryzen ZEN3 with GEN4 cpu lanes that bought it for a mobo with GEN3 lanes killed the best reason to buy a GEN4 5000 series CPU. That X470/B450 board can't run GEN4 NVMe drives or use an X8 PCIe lane for a new gen4 GPU.
 

chithanh

Gawd
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
825
The 10850k is at $390 on amazon. How low does it have to be?
You have to also factor in that Z490 mobos are more expensive than B550.

I'd say around $300 (like in the Black Friday deal mentioned by the other post) would be an ok price, given the competition from the 5800X (faster in games) and 3900X (faster in productivity) at the current price point, and the lack of PCIe 4.0.
 

ochadd

Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,021
I've been eyeballing the 10850k as well. If stock were no issue I'd have a 5900x but I'm not sure I want to wait for TBD. $658 shipped for a 10850k, Asus Z490 prime, and cooler. It's hard to resist. I used to build a new computer every Christmas and now I've build two in 9 years. Must scratch the itch.
 

somebrains

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
1,425
I like hardware unboxed last q&a where they gave their take on the fallacy of future proofing driving cpu $ overshoot for gaming.
 

LukeTbk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
453
I like hardware unboxed last q&a where they gave their take on the fallacy of future proofing driving cpu $ overshoot for gaming.
It would be interesting (for someone that make that type of content, maybe it exist) to make an history of success (I imagine the 1080Ti buyer would fit there)/failure/ended up not losing-nor winning attempt of future proofing.

Let say a gamers that bought a 3900x $499 instead of a 3600 at $199 for future proofing himself. It seem that the 3600+5600 combo at the same price (but money spend later being an advantage) already beat it, we do not have to even wait it seem, by the time the extra core of the 3900 become quite significant, a $300 CPU will be much faster at gaming than it for sure, it will be already the case the moment it become possible to buy a 5600.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
30,504
It would be interesting (for someone that make that type of content, maybe it exist) to make an history of success (I imagine the 1080Ti buyer would fit there)/failure/ended up not losing-nor winning attempt of future proofing.

Let say a gamers that bought a 3900x $499 instead of a 3600 at $199 for future proofing himself. It seem that the 3600+5600 combo at the same price (but money spend later being an advantage) already beat it, we do not have to even wait it seem, by the time the extra core of the 3900 become quite significant, a $300 CPU will be much faster at gaming than it for sure, it will be already the case the moment it become possible to buy a 5600.
Buy what you need - future proofing is only if you plan on keeping the system for a LONG time and doing potentially other things with it later (eg: if I build a 3600X system, knowing I could put a 3950x or a 5950x in it as a server later on in its life). I did a 10700K for my gaming system because at 1440P/4k, CPU doesn't matter - and that had the right price point I wanted. Plus, I could always drop in a 10900K later on if I need more cores for it to play as a server. I tend to keep hardware till it has almost no use left in it.
 

somebrains

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
1,425
It would be interesting (for someone that make that type of content, maybe it exist) to make an history of success (I imagine the 1080Ti buyer would fit there)/failure/ended up not losing-nor winning attempt of future proofing.

Let say a gamers that bought a 3900x $499 instead of a 3600 at $199 for future proofing himself. It seem that the 3600+5600 combo at the same price (but money spend later being an advantage) already beat it, we do not have to even wait it seem, by the time the extra core of the 3900 become quite significant, a $300 CPU will be much faster at gaming than it for sure, it will be already the case the moment it become possible to buy a 5600.
The issue with broad scope content is whether your environment conforms to their test results.
1080ti works fine for my use case of competitve graphics settings with an output target of 1440p 165hz with no-limited real time content creation.
Other graphics settings are a per game case, their resolution if 1080p & cpu bound or 4k & gpu bound should be considered different build paths than mine.

We didn't have to consider much in the 4c/4t 4c/8t era of gaming builds.
Now there's a nebulous "cpu performance" that you have to take into account that's relative to gpu performance with feature intensity caveats.
 
Top