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

[Deleted member 134608]

Just because they are different doesn't mean they don't accomplish the same exact goal (which in this case was playing the same fucking game and comparing results). But what the hell do I know? Evidently, I'm just a consumer .

"paying top dollar for Cas 14 when Cas 16 would likely be indistinguishable outside of benchmarks"

So when exactly did you change your entire design to save $50? Your example was cheaper RAM.

You just changed what you said to make me wrong. Whats this really about?

 

[kirbyrj]

"paying top dollar for Cas 14 when Cas 16 would likely be indistinguishable outside of benchmarks"

So when exactly did you change your entire design to save $50? Your example was cheaper RAM.

You just changed what you said to make me wrong. Whats this really about?

By "platform" you made it sound like you meant AMD vs. Intel. The major differences being the motherboard and CPU. $50 difference in just the motherboard and CPU could be 5-25% of the budget (ranging from insignificant in the high end HEDT to much more significant in the budget gaming build. With the CPUs we are discussing (sub-$200), $50 is a lot.

 

[Derangel]

Right now on Newegg.com I am seeing $200 for the 3300X. Launch gouging happens to AMD as well, it's actually a few bucks more than the 10400 right now.



What if I don't want a crappy $100 MB anyway? What if I want to keep my upgrade options open for a future better processors.

You're looking at 3rd party sellers. I was quoting prices from the actual stores, even though it's out of stock right now. You can't buy either the 10400F or the 3300X right now, at least in the US. At $200 I wouldn't recommend either, spend the extra $20 on the 3600

What if I don't want a crappy $100 MB anyway? What if I want to keep my upgrade options open for a future better processors.

Then go with AMD and a B450 board because there are excellent B450 boards under $150 that will provide an upgrade path and you can put the savings towards a better GPU that will provide a bigger performance difference than spending $100 more on a CPU and motherboard. Depending on the budget we're looking at, that $100 could take you from a 1660ti to a 5700 (or 2060 Super, if you must have Nvidia) and that will provide a much bigger difference than going from a 3300X to a 10400F on a Z-series board.

When we're talking about budget builds you have to optimize where you spend your money. The goal should be to get the best over-all performance for your budget. Why would you spend that much more money on the CPU when you could instead spend it on the GPU and get better performance?

 

[Deleted member 134608]

By "platform" you made it sound like you meant AMD vs. Intel. The major differences being the motherboard and CPU. $50 difference in just the motherboard and CPU could be 5-25% of the budget (ranging from insignificant in the high end HEDT to much more significant in the budget gaming build. With the CPUs we are discussing (sub-$200), $50 is a lot.

I was talking about Intel vs AMD. And yeah, $50 isn't insignificant on a upgrade/build in the $300-$500 range. But I'm willing to bet that $50 isn't your primary deciding factor when choosing between a brand new Intel or AMD. There's endless ways of saving money without having to switch out platforms. And there is lots of reasons to switch platforms other than saving $50.

If you are doing a $350 upgrade, would you get what you don't want, to save $50? In my experience, making decisions like that often leads to buyers remorse. I've designed and built thousands of PCs for people retail, and sold countless millions of dollars worth of pre-builds over decades. I don't do that anymore, but that's my experience. Don't buy what you don't want to save a relatively small percentage of money. YMMV

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Better than I expected. With just 3200 Memory, it hangs right with the 8700K in most games, while sipping power. As you said above, the 10400F version is a reasonably compelling option, once out and assuming it settles near ARK pricing.

I don't get the argument that you wouldn't use this in an OC board to get faster memory and significantly boost performance. There are lower end OC boards that are that badly priced. Heck this could serve as a nice holdover CPU till Rocket Lake ships, which is also supposed to fit these boards.

The same reason why people buying 10900K's or 3900X's don't buy 1080P monitors, it is illogical to put a CPU designed for low power operations on a MCE hoodwinked board that runs it at 4.3ghz under load. It is not surprising to see how it can perform well when you put it in the real situations of mid and low level boards, it fails to perform well, in gaming and production runs it barely wins or loses to the 3300 which is less threaded.

Anyways if the rumored spec on the XT range are true the 200-300mhz bumps on base and max turbo for the Ryzen parts should pull the results back a bit, the only limiting factor is clockspeed differential with AMD seeming to be around the 4ghz mark

 

[Snowdog]

When we're talking about budget builds you have to optimize where you spend your money. The goal should be to get the best over-all performance for your budget. Why would you spend that much more money on the CPU when you could instead spend it on the GPU and get better performance?

The goal is to meet my needs, which include keeping options open for Rocket Lake. How does an AMD MB do that?

 

[Derangel]

The goal is to meet my needs, which include keeping options open for Rocket Lake. How does an AMD MB do that?

So you want to go Intel for.....Reasons? It seems like a huge waste of money in a budget build.

 

[Deleted member 89137]

Yes, I understand. It's just that the game looks so good and also 4K max settings at high refresh, 189 fps w/ OC. OMG.

Something 98% of devs have failed to do (ID being like the only other one that has accomplished this).

Honestly shadow of the tomb raider is one of the most fun single player games I've played in a loooong time. And it ran amazingly well and the graphics were superb. That game is very underrated IMO

 

[ManofGod]

Honestly shadow of the tomb raider is one of the most fun single player games I've played in a loooong time. And it ran amazingly well and the graphics were superb. That game is very underrated IMO

I agree but, Red Dead Redemption 2 is even better than that.

 

[cybereality]

Well, this is [H], I doubt most people here at too concerned about $50. Pretty sure most people here are spending more than that on RGB fans or something.

Also, re: Tomb Raider, I loaded the game on highest settings with 8700K and 2080 Ti. Even at 1080p ultrawide, it is GPU limited.

I was getting in the 120 - 140 fps range with GPU at 100%. So good performance, yes, but no way 4K would be CPU limited.

 

[Deleted member 89137]

I agree but, Red Dead Redemption 2 is even better than that.

RDR2 is the most boring game I've played in years... And it runs like crap even on high end hardware. It's like the polar opposite of shadow of the tomb raider..
back on topic - the 10 series chips look pretty competitive for their price points.

 

[ManofGod]

RDR2 is the most boring game I've played in years... And it runs like crap even on high end hardware. It's like the polar opposite of shadow of the tomb raider..
back on topic - the 10 series chips look pretty competitive for their price points.

That is your opinion but, I found it impossible to not be emotionally invested in that game. Also, it does not run like crap, it is a game that has future capability. Also, it is a game that needs a good processor to perform reasonably well. SOTTR looks great but, it is also pretty much maxed out on what it can do and once the game is done, it is done.

 

[Ranulfo]

RDR2 is the most boring game I've played in years... And it runs like crap even on high end hardware. It's like the polar opposite of shadow of the tomb raider..
back on topic - the 10 series chips look pretty competitive for their price points.

I can get RDR2 to run at 60fps (generally 40-60fps) at 1080p on an FX8350 with rx570 4gb. It looks pretty good considering. Lots of hitching and screen tears as it goes over 60fps but it is playable. It just takes tweaking the graphics settings. Hardware Unboxed's video on that helped greatly.

I've mostly played online mode with friends but the game is damn fun.

 

[Ready4Dis]

Exactly. $50 isn't $50 (or even $100) when you are comparing platforms, which is what I was originally referring to. It's $50 difference.

When is the last time you went out to do a $1000-$5000 upgrade and went, well I'm buying an entirely different CPU and motherboard setup than I planned because I'll save $50? Possible, yes. Likely, no. You are much more likely to just get a cheaper case, motherboard, CPU, less RAM, or slower GPU on the design you intended. If I change the entire setup, its because of other reasons or hundreds of dollars in savings.

This is not genuine, who builds like that? I find the best performance I can for the $ I'm willing to spend. It's not like you do all of this work to come up with a build and then at the end figure out if something is faster for cheaper... You do that up front and then for the build. But that $50 difference could be the reason you based your build off of what you did (aka, I chose Intel for the performance/$ for gaming, or AMD for $/core for compiling). This isn't something that you start looking into after you start picking parts. That being said if something else comes out before I pull the trigger that is cheaper and will perform as well or better, I will for sure swap parts around again before spending $. Heck, I often spec out multiple machines from both Intel and AMD before deciding which one makes the most sense. My last 4 builds, 3 where Intel and 1 was AMD. It was just what met my needs at the time. I really hope you don't put a build together and then start comparing how it performance against other platforms and say "well this is more expensive than what I could have done, but I alread have a list so no turning back now". The logic is so backwards I apparently don't even know what you're trying to argue.

 

[Deleted member 134608]

This is not genuine, who builds like that? I find the best performance I can for the $ I'm willing to spend. It's not like you do all of this work to come up with a build and then at the end figure out if something is faster for cheaper... You do that up front and then for the build. But that $50 difference could be the reason you based your build off of what you did (aka, I chose Intel for the performance/$ for gaming, or AMD for $/core for compiling). This isn't something that you start looking into after you start picking parts. That being said if something else comes out before I pull the trigger that is cheaper and will perform as well or better, I will for sure swap parts around again before spending $. Heck, I often spec out multiple machines from both Intel and AMD before deciding which one makes the most sense. My last 4 builds, 3 where Intel and 1 was AMD. It was just what met my needs at the time. I really hope you don't put a build together and then start comparing how it performance against other platforms and say "well this is more expensive than what I could have done, but I alread have a list so no turning back now". The logic is so backwards I apparently don't even know what you're trying to argue.

So you have personal preference in design, performance metric targets for a given task or software, physical size constraints, quality standards, known good parts and known poor components to avoid, etc. You start with a platform because it fits the metrics. Not because its $50 less. Then you choose parts to best cover those needs as a best guess for pricing within budget. You arrive at a build and then fine tune for an exact budget if it comes in a bit high or there is extra, but don't budge on areas that affect quality. Such as the power supply, VRM design, cooling or chassis stiffness. Parts pricing is live and prices change. That's where that needing to cut out $50 or whatever may come into play. You don't throw out the baby with the bath water if you are $50 dollars over. Switching platforms for nearly the exact same price may lead to poor components, because you are trying to shoehorn the budget, instead of focusing on the quality and fit of the design.

TL,DR:

You choose a CPU design and GPU design which best fits all of the various needs and you don't change that to save $50. You get rid of the tempered glass side of the case or something else that doesn't affect the quality or performance metric targets.

 

[Ready4Dis]

So you have personal preference in design, performance metric targets for a given task or software, physical size constraints, quality standards, known good parts and known poor components to avoid, etc. You start with a platform because it fits the metrics. Not because its $50 less. Then you choose parts to best cover those needs as a best guess for pricing within budget. You arrive at a build and then fine tune for an exact budget if it comes in a bit high or there is extra, but don't budge on areas that affect quality. Such as the power supply, VRM design, cooling or chassis stiffness. Parts pricing is live and prices change. That's where that needing to cut out $50 or whatever may come into play. You don't throw out the baby with the bath water if you are $50 dollars over. Switching platforms for nearly the exact same price may lead to poor components, because you are trying to shoehorn the budget, instead of focusing on the quality and fit of the design.

TL,DR:

You choose a CPU design and GPU design which best fits all of the various needs and you don't change that to save $50. You get rid of the tempered glass side of the case or something else that doesn't affect the quality or performance metric targets.

So we agree, you decide these things up front... Based on it's price/performance.... Which could be even less than a $50 difference or more than $50 difference. That was my point. $50 is just a random # and is not some magic # for everyone. And yes, people DO/WILL chose a platform or GPU based on $50 differences. I agree you have some idea of performance and you have a budget in mind (or at least a roundabout) and you start piecing together. If it's over budget you see where you can trim. My point was, $50 can make people reevaluate their choices. Hopefully they catch it before they start ordering. I'm not sure what your point was, or why $50 was some magic # for everyone to go by. My point was simply some have different tolerances of what amount their willing to accept. I don't set a hard budget when I upgrade or build, but I do try to get the most performance for my $... And I will find comparable CPUs for my tasks in the same price bracket and cost out both systems. It's not like the case, PSU, GPU, SSD (except if you're going pcie 4.0) have any real bearing on the CPU chosen. So I try to keep them mostly similar and swap between parts (like what cooler do I need for each, how sensitive to ram speeds, etc). I then pick the one I think does the job for th cheapest cost. For my kids it was Intel due to single core performance, for me it was AMD for thread count... For my server it was dual xeons at the time (AMD wasn't competitive), next server will most likely be AMD unless Intel comes up with something crazy soon. Do you honestly pick your CPU first then just build around it and hope the rest of the budget matches? I mean, I try to map out all the options and put more than 1 together just to see what I like best. Then I pick the one that gives me more per/$. So y s, I can get easily change my mind (make up my mind?) over $50. I actually started both of my daughter's builds thinking I was going to get an AMD CPU, but the price/$ wasn't there once I mapped it all out.

 

[Deleted member 134608]

So we agree, you decide these things up front... Based on it's price/performance.... Which could be even less than a $50 difference or more than $50 difference. That was my point. $50 is just a random # and is not some magic # for everyone. And yes, people DO/WILL chose a platform or GPU based on $50 differences. I agree you have some idea of performance and you have a budget in mind (or at least a roundabout) and you start piecing together. If it's over budget you see where you can trim. My point was, $50 can make people reevaluate their choices. Hopefully they catch it before they start ordering. I'm not sure what your point was, or why $50 was some magic # for everyone to go by. My point was simply some have different tolerances of what amount their willing to accept. I don't set a hard budget when I upgrade or build, but I do try to get the most performance for my $... And I will find comparable CPUs for my tasks in the same price bracket and cost out both systems. It's not like the case, PSU, GPU, SSD (except if you're going pcie 4.0) have any real bearing on the CPU chosen. So I try to keep them mostly similar and swap between parts (like what cooler do I need for each, how sensitive to ram speeds, etc). I then pick the one I think does the job for th cheapest cost. For my kids it was Intel due to single core performance, for me it was AMD for thread count... For my server it was dual xeons at the time (AMD wasn't competitive), next server will most likely be AMD unless Intel comes up with something crazy soon. Do you honestly pick your CPU first then just build around it and hope the rest of the budget matches? I mean, I try to map out all the options and put more than 1 together just to see what I like best. Then I pick the one that gives me more per/$. So y s, I can get easily change my mind (make up my mind?) over $50. I actually started both of my daughter's builds thinking I was going to get an AMD CPU, but the price/$ wasn't there once I mapped it all out.

My point is, if you followed the conversation from the start, people were bickering over a $50 savings can be had to switch platforms in a specific performance bracket. Based on my experience and building, selling and servicing machines every business day for almost 20 years, you shouldn't make decisions like that before you even get started. You design what's best for the scenario then adjust for budget without compromising important design goals. Period. Start out with the mind set of pinching pennies, you end up with the flaky/dead/failed/defective/slow builds I repaired and rebuilt every day that other people designed. But that's my experience, which I think is helpful because I have done this thousands of times and was responsible for fixing my own mistakes. If you don't care, do whatever you want. Doesn't affect me at all.

 

[Ready4Dis]

My point is, if you followed the conversation from the start, people were bickering over a $50 savings can be had to switch platforms in a specific performance bracket. Based on my experience and building, selling and servicing machines every business day for almost 20 years, you shouldn't make decisions like that before you even get started. You design what's best for the scenario then adjust for budget without compromising important design goals. Period. Start out with the mind set of pinching pennies, you end up with the flaky/dead/failed/defective/slow builds I repaired and rebuilt every day that other people designed. But that's my experience, which I think is helpful because I have done this thousands of times and was responsible for fixing my own mistakes. If you don't care, do whatever you want. Doesn't affect me at all.

My point was simply $50 was arbitrary. I agree you should have a clue as what you need and how much you are willing to spend at the get it. If you know what your doing then you have a pretty good idea on what range of performance you can get with a limited budget. I don't pick a platform then start pricing, I find what is in the range of budget and use case of the machine then look at what will give the most bang for the buck (I'm not putting a 3950x on a b350, or a $20 PSU). I don't understand where this magical $50 came from. It's not like I start with a goal of 48fps on high quality on GTA V @ 1440p... I start with a goal of I want to play these games reasonably for a specific budget and then I pick parts that'll run them the best within the constraints. Whether it's Intel or AMD doesn't matter (unless something like forward compatibility is important for the build, but these are all details you should know before you pick parts out) if it gets you into the price bracket and performance. If it doesn't you either need to save more money or lower your expectations.

 

[odditory]

I'll pay $50 to everyone that shuts up. PayPal F&F

 

[OrangeKhrush]

The arguments of a 5.something ghz CPU marginally doing better than 4ghz CPU's in 90% of games at 1080P is as pointless as even thinking that people today don't build systems around Graphics cards and 2K or 4K monitors. 1080P is what 720P was in 2007, old outdated poor image quality, anyone using 2K or 4K will never go back to 1080P because it is now garbage and we are to spoilt. The only people using it still are the kind of people that buy 3300X's and 2060's to fill their needs and expected performances.

While 1080P benching may serve the only purpose of showing what outright clockspeed can net or how intercore latency may impact some performance, most reviewers testing these higher end parts are moving to1440 and 4K testings now as more realistic case points. The truth of it though is that CPU's are less important in gaming than ever before, even Steve from GamersNexus says a 3300X and 2080 Super at 1440P was still doable (though not advisable). At this point if gaming is your obsession then graphics cards are your focus.

 

[cybereality]

anyone using 2K or 4K will never go back to 1080P because it is now garbage and we are to spoilt.

Not true. I ran Surround 7680x1440 for a while, then got a 4K TV and used that for a bit, now I am at 1080P ultrawide, and I like it.

Mainly because I wanted to play the new ray tracing games at high refresh, and it worked out. I got like 90 fps in Control with RT high other settings medium. And it looks great.

I can also play older games with DSR 5K at 166Hz and it looks really nice. I mean 4K *does* look good, but the performance penalty was too much and it was a struggle for 60 fps.

 

[Deleted member 134608]

My point was simply $50 was arbitrary. I agree you should have a clue as what you need and how much you are willing to spend at the get it. If you know what your doing then you have a pretty good idea on what range of performance you can get with a limited budget. I don't pick a platform then start pricing, I find what is in the range of budget and use case of the machine then look at what will give the most bang for the buck (I'm not putting a 3950x on a b350, or a $20 PSU). I don't understand where this magical $50 came from. It's not like I start with a goal of 48fps on high quality on GTA V @ 1440p... I start with a goal of I want to play these games reasonably for a specific budget and then I pick parts that'll run them the best within the constraints. Whether it's Intel or AMD doesn't matter (unless something like forward compatibility is important for the build, but these are all details you should know before you pick parts out) if it gets you into the price bracket and performance. If it doesn't you either need to save more money or lower your expectations.

I do not make a PC design decision of a major component solely or primarily because brand "x" is a bit cheaper. That's where the magical $50 came from. For example: I will not buy an RX580 over a GTX 1650, just because they perform similar and the RX580 is $50 less.
Which is is the same as the bickering here about CPUs. I would choose an i5-10400 because that's what I decided on. I would choose a Ryzen 5 because I intended to choose it. Because I evaluate single every single component and choose those components for a long list of reasons. I do not find the "hey I know you wanted that, but you should buy this instead BECAUSE ITS $50 less" a very good method to design PCs.

That's my philosophy and its done me extremely well. I hope that experience is helpful to people.

If you disagree, that's cool.

 

[ManofGod]

The arguments of a 5.something ghz CPU marginally doing better than 4ghz CPU's in 90% of games at 1080P is as pointless as even thinking that people today don't build systems around Graphics cards and 2K or 4K monitors. 1080P is what 720P was in 2007, old outdated poor image quality, anyone using 2K or 4K will never go back to 1080P because it is now garbage and we are to spoilt. The only people using it still are the kind of people that buy 3300X's and 2060's to fill their needs and expected performances.

While 1080P benching may serve the only purpose of showing what outright clockspeed can net or how intercore latency may impact some performance, most reviewers testing these higher end parts are moving to1440 and 4K testings now as more realistic case points. The truth of it though is that CPU's are less important in gaming than ever before, even Steve from GamersNexus says a 3300X and 2080 Super at 1440P was still doable (though not advisable). At this point if gaming is your obsession then graphics cards are your focus.

Oh, I don't now, I have a 1080p 144hz monitor at 27 inches on my Vega 56 and it runs and looks great. I also have a 1440p 144 hz monitor at 27 inches on my RX5700 and then a 43inch 4k Samsung 60hz TV on my Vega 64 and I like them all. I have a 3700X, 3600 and 3700X accordingly and they run great. That said for a competitive gamer that makes money, the cost of a 10900K is probably peanuts and worth it.

 

[erek]

The NDA on performance reviews has finally lifted today and there's going to be a scattering of 10900K, 10600K and possibly other chips reviewed across the web. I'm working to get them all listed here - post 'em if you have 'em and I'll add them during the day.

The FPS Review - 10900K | 10600K | Z490 Overview

PC Perspective - 10900K & 10600K

Legit Reviews - 10900K & 10600K

Guru3d - 10900K | 10600K

Hot Hardware - 10900K & 10600K

OC3D - 10900K & 10600K

Tom's Hardware - 10900K

AnandTech - 10900K, 100700K & 10500K

Kit Guru - 10900K

Phoronix - 10900K & 10600K

GamersNexus - 10900K Video | Written

no need for 10900k, https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-10600k/17.html

 

[kirbyrj]

no need for 10900k, https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-10600k/17.html

I think that's a pretty popular argument. If you're buying one of these because they are better gaming processors, buy the 10600k. Because if you're buying a high core count for productivity, you're better off with AMD.

That being said, I'd probably get the 10700k myself if I were buying one, but I'm not because I saved $50 in buying something else .

 

[IdiotInCharge]

I think that's a pretty popular argument. If you're buying one of these because they are better gaming processors, buy the 10600k. Because if you're buying a high core count for productivity, you're better off with AMD.

Or if you want both...

Flip a coin?

If I needed cores today, I'd be tossing between a 3950X and a Threadripper. Yes, my 9900K would be faster in games, and yes, that might actually matter to me -- but if it weren't fast enough for whatever work I needed to do?

Out it would go.

 

[staknhalo]

Or if you want both...

Flip a coin?

If I needed cores today, I'd be tossing between a 3950X and a Threadripper. Yes, my 9900K would be faster in games, and yes, that might actually matter to me -- but if it weren't fast enough for whatever work I needed to do?

Out it would go.

My main uses are gaming and video encoding, so as I mentioned earlier I'll be getting an AMD Ryzen 4K series probably, cause it seems I'll gain more in encoding performance than I'll loose in gaming performance. But still, it feels like 'six of one, half a dozen of another' no matter what I'd choose.

 

[cybereality]

For pure 100% gaming, yeah Intel wins. I don't think anyone can contest that.

But for non-gaming multi-thread workloads, AMD wins by a large margin.

So if you do more work than gaming, the huge gains from AMD would offset the smaller loss in gaming FPS.

Though if you are 100% gaming, or you don't do any kind of programming, editing, etc. then you probably don't need a Ryzen chip right now.

 

[Snowdog]

My main uses are gaming and video encoding, so as I mentioned earlier I'll be getting an AMD Ryzen 4K series probably, cause it seems I'll gain more in encoding performance than I'll loose in gaming performance. But still, it feels like 'six of one, half a dozen of another' no matter what I'd choose.

NVenc GPU encoding has surpassed video encoding on the CPU. If you have a NVidia turing GPU, you can have faster gaming with Intel, and do faster Video encoding on your GPU (and use less power while doing it as well).

In fact most workloads that scale well to 10+ cores are often better done on GPUs. Video encoding, and and now with RTX, 3D rendering(that synthetic Cinebench benchmark), which is Ray Tracing, is gaining support on RTX cards, and where it has support it is again much faster to do it on the GPU.

 

[Ready4Dis]

I do not make a PC design decision of a major component solely or primarily because brand "x" is a bit cheaper. That's where the magical $50 came from. For example: I will not buy an RX580 over a GTX 1650, just because they perform similar and the RX580 is $50 less.
Which is is the same as the bickering here about CPUs. I would choose an i5-10400 because that's what I decided on. I would choose a Ryzen 5 because I intended to choose it. Because I evaluate single every single component and choose those components for a long list of reasons. I do not find the "hey I know you wanted that, but you should buy this instead BECAUSE ITS $50 less" a very good method to design PCs.

That's my philosophy and its done me extremely well. I hope that experience is helpful to people.

If you disagree, that's cool.

Wait, you buy just based on what brand you like then?? Wow, now it makes sense. I buy the parts that will do the best job for the least $. If I want to do programming on my desktop (which is my primary use) then compiling speed is important. I find benchmarks and see what each CPU can do, then I say what else do I do? Ok, some mild gaming which I won't be CPU limited, so I couldn't care less. I do some video encoding and transcoding for my Plex library once in a while, so not hugely important. I then find benefits of each CPU in my budget and buy what will work. If Intel and AMD perform the same (or close enough to not matter), I will buy the cheaper one. I'm not sure what logic you use that you first choose your CPU then figure out how to make it fit a budget and hope it'll do what you want? Maybe I'm missing the WHY you intended to choose a 10400 or 3600, if it wasn't due to price/performance what was the reasoning? Your completely skipping the actual decision making step then acting confused when some asks how the decision was made. You just wake up and decide I'm going to build a 10600k this time without a single thought or reason? The $ doesn't come into play nor it's performance? That really seems like an odd way of buildings glad it's been working for you, I just don't get it.

 

[Auer]

 

[pillagenburn]

Performance increases in this generation essentially come from taking the old generation, stripping security features and then re-launching as a totally new product. Enjoy!

 

[Ranulfo]

HWUB gives it to the Ryzen based on price and multicore app performance. Ram speed increases didn't make a big deal in some cases and in others the 2666 speed limit hurt the 10400 10-20%. The z490 mobo prices were the top factor as Steve said he doesn't think the $150 z490 boards were worth it.

 

[ManofGod]

It was also HW who said that the all aluminum cooler that Intel ships is terrible. Yeah, the Wraith Stealth is not great but, it is better than the Intel one by far.

 

[kirbyrj]

It was also HW who said that the all aluminum cooler that Intel ships is terrible. Yeah, the Wraith Stealth is not great but, it is better than the Intel one by far.

I wouldn't say "by far." They are both equally terrible on the low end where the CPUs don't draw over 80W at load. AMD's Wraith Prism isn't bad for what it is. Intel obviously doesn't include anything with unlocked CPUs. I think it's because Intel WANTS the ridiculously non-stock boosting so their product looks better. I can't see them including a $50+ cooler just to use their product without thermal throttling.

 

[OrangeKhrush]

HWU just re-enforced GN's findings that the 10400 is pretty much a no go. You need a Z490 for it to even have a lick of a chance. It is buried anywhere from 10-20% in productivity benches and can only marginally beat a stock 3600 with fastest RAM it can handle, not good when a B450 tomahawk can OC the 3600 and run higher spec RAM for a lot less money.

I think the 3600 remains the champion of mainstream systems where only the 10600K if you are considering only gaming factors in again at a much higher cost. Basically it is only Gaming for intel right now and that is on the Caveat that you are not running 1440 or up. 10th Gen is like 6 months to late to be a factor, if you are need a system now, may as well wait for the XT series to come out and make the selection on use cases.

 

[Dayaks]

View attachment 248500

HWU just re-enforced GN's findings that the 10400 is pretty much a no go. You need a Z490 for it to even have a lick of a chance. It is buried anywhere from 10-20% in productivity benches and can only marginally beat a stock 3600 with fastest RAM it can handle, not good when a B450 tomahawk can OC the 3600 and run higher spec RAM for a lot less money.

I think the 3600 remains the champion of mainstream systems where only the 10600K if you are considering only gaming factors in again at a much higher cost. Basically it is only Gaming for intel right now and that is on the Caveat that you are not running 1440 or up. 10th Gen is like 6 months to late to be a factor, if you are need a system now, may as well wait for the XT series to come out and make the selection on use cases.

The new Intels seem to do ridiculously well with minimums which helps at lower framerates. I think Toms has an OC vs OC review that shows it. Crushes everything else. Which minimums are what I focus on.

So if I didn’t have a 9900KF my market would be a 10900K.

For budget builds I’d go AMD still.

 

[kirbyrj]

The new Intels seem to do ridiculously well with minimums which helps at lower framerates. I think Toms has an OC vs OC review that shows it. Crushes everything else. Which minimums are what I focus on.

So if I didn’t have a 9900KF my market would be a 10900K.

I think the point being made earlier was that there have been plenty of reviews showing an OC'd 10600k is essentially equal to an OC'd 10900k for gaming, similar to how the 9700k and 9900k have often very similar performance numbers. Additionally, the 10400 is NOT the equal of the 10600k. Most reviewers (from what I've seen) say the 3600 is a better budget option than the 10400, but obviously, the 10600k is a better pure gaming processor than either but at a ~$100-150+ premium depending on the board/RAM. OrangeKrush is pointing out the silliness required to make the 10400 palatable, namely highly clocked RAM and a motherboard that allows memory overclocking.

If the B460 boards allow memory overclocking, that might skew things to more of a toss up depending on your needs rather than an AMD win in the budget 6 core market.

Edit: Also, obviously Intel's 10400 (non-F) has an IGP which the 3600 does not. Personally, I would like to see what the Renoir APUs look like (performance AND cost) before buying because the motherboards should be somewhat cheaper and allow higher memory speeds (I'm sure 3600Mhz will be the sweet spot again). Cost could also be a big determining factor if they are significantly more expensive than the non-APU parts.

 

[lopoetve]

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.

I build a specific gaming system just for this - nothing on it except games - steam/epic/origin/discord and that is ~it~.

But my workstation games too, and is Ryzen.

 

[staknhalo]

NVenc GPU encoding has surpassed video encoding on the CPU. If you have a NVidia turing GPU, you can have faster gaming with Intel, and do faster Video encoding on your GPU (and use less power while doing it as well).

In fact most workloads that scale well to 10+ cores are often better done on GPUs. Video encoding, and and now with RTX, 3D rendering(that synthetic Cinebench benchmark), which is Ray Tracing, is gaining support on RTX cards, and where it has support it is again much faster to do it on the GPU.

CPU/SW encoding is superior in IQ (even if a layman can't notice) than GPU/HW encoding, even with modern GPUs/NVENC - that's why that's not an option for me. That's the trade-off for the increased speed HW encoding brings. If I was encoding something to just watch on a plane, sure. I'm encoding for archival purposes though, want the best quality I can get. Appreciate the suggestion though