Madison Heights Microcenter has 10600K in stock (x6) $319.99 + tax SOLD OUT

jameslr

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
71
No price in title.
Madison Heights, MI (Detroit Metro) Microcenter has Intel i5 10600K in stock (x6) for $319.99.

Edit: pretty sure these were gone the day after I posted this and are now OOS. Can lock thread.
 
Last edited:

legcramp

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
11,020
...who is buying those? Isn't the 3600X $200?
People who want to squeeze every FPS as possible for their high res monitors. This chip is pretty much the same as my 8700K, I can definitely tell the difference in games like BFV vs. my 3600 if you're playing competitive settings.

But then 3600 is half the price of this chip... so really only people who needs every fps possible for their monitors otherwise the Ryzen is a no brainer.
 

mazeroth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
363
It's nuts. The 3600 is half the price, and it comes with a cooler. Once you factor in buying a cooler, and around $70 more for a decent Z490 motherboard (over a decent B450), you're paying around $250 more for a combo with the 10600K. At that price, you can get a 3900X combo for a similar price.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
4,218
It's nuts. The 3600 is half the price, and it comes with a cooler. Once you factor in buying a cooler, and around $70 more for a decent Z490 motherboard (over a decent B450), you're paying around $250 more for a combo with the 10600K. At that price, you can get a 3900X combo for a similar price.
Gotta get those 10 extra frames at 720p when you already over 240 for competitive play!
 

Mav451

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
4,652
Yeah I have a hard time paying more than $200 for a i5 SKU - not about to change my policy now. The i5 10600KF being $237 in 1k units - well we'll see when that eventually happens. B&H's pre-order shows that as $278 lmao. If I'm paying $2xx, honestly, I expect an i7 SKU at that price.

My perspective - since taking advantage of Microcenter pricing in the past:
(e8400 = $199, i5 750 = $149, i5 4670k = $199, i5 6600k = $199...i5 10600K = ???)
 

/dev/null

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 31, 2001
Messages
14,693
$320.. for like $80 more for 3900x....or 3700x for $260.
 
Last edited:

Eshelmen

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
4,851
You know, I don’t mind shelling out the cash for this CPU as benchmarks and reviews alone are pretty solid. It’s better than the i7 9700k in most gaming benchmarks and it’s ultimately cheaper. So not sure about the comment above about that as it’s a solid performer.

Additionally, this appears to spank the 3700X in a lot of gaming marks too.

twtk-campaign-1080.jpg

However, if budget and value is a concern coming from AM4 then this is clearly not the CPU for you. Clearly. Or if editing is your top priority. It’s a gaming CPU, and a fine one too.

But need to upgrade from some older cpu? It’s not a bad choice at all.
 
Last edited:

legcramp

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
11,020
You know, I don’t mind shelling out the cash for this CPU as benchmarks and reviews alone are pretty solid. It’s better than the i7 9700k in most gaming benchmarks and it’s ultimately cheaper. So not sure about the comment above about that as it’s a solid performer.

Additionally, this appears to spank the 3700X in a lot of gaming marks too.

View attachment 253922

However, if budget and value is a concern coming from AM4 then this is clearly not the CPU for you. Clearly. Or if editing is your top priority. It’s a gaming CPU, and a fine one too.

But need to upgrade from some older cpu? It’s not a bad choice at all.
Clearly you have too much reasoning and the ability to be objective on choosing processors. You don't belong here it's either AMD all hail Dr. Su or you're an intel fanboi
 

Ranulfo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
1,988
You know, I don’t mind shelling out the cash for this CPU as benchmarks and reviews alone are pretty solid. It’s better than the i7 9700k in most gaming benchmarks and it’s ultimately cheaper. So not sure about the comment above about that as it’s a solid performer.

Additionally, this appears to spank the 3700X in a lot of gaming marks too.

View attachment 253922

However, if budget and value is a concern coming from AM4 then this is clearly not the CPU for you. Clearly. Or if editing is your top priority. It’s a gaming CPU, and a fine one too.

But need to upgrade from some older cpu? It’s not a bad choice at all.
A gaming cpu that is what, $50 cheaper than a 2+ year old 8700k? Color me impressed.
 

T4rd

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
17,641
You know, I don’t mind shelling out the cash for this CPU as benchmarks and reviews alone are pretty solid. It’s better than the i7 9700k in most gaming benchmarks and it’s ultimately cheaper. So not sure about the comment above about that as it’s a solid performer.

Additionally, this appears to spank the 3700X in a lot of gaming marks too.

View attachment 253922

However, if budget and value is a concern coming from AM4 then this is clearly not the CPU for you. Clearly. Or if editing is your top priority. It’s a gaming CPU, and a fine one too.

But need to upgrade from some older cpu? It’s not a bad choice at all.
Pffft... 1080p?! I play 480p with my 2080ti for maximum CPU bottleneck and framerate in super fast-paced twitch RTS or adventure games like that Total War game or Tomb Raider. :p
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,258
You know, I don’t mind shelling out the cash for this CPU as benchmarks and reviews alone are pretty solid. It’s better than the i7 9700k in most gaming benchmarks and it’s ultimately cheaper. So not sure about the comment above about that as it’s a solid performer.

Additionally, this appears to spank the 3700X in a lot of gaming marks too.

View attachment 253922

However, if budget and value is a concern coming from AM4 then this is clearly not the CPU for you. Clearly. Or if editing is your top priority. It’s a gaming CPU, and a fine one too.

But need to upgrade from some older cpu? It’s not a bad choice at all.
The problem is it is overpriced at $320. This is the Hot Deals section after all, not a discussion about processors in general.

If you're already on Intel, you probably already have an 8700k or better. This is just a repackaged 8700k with a higher boost. Everything that can be said about the comparison between a 8700k and 9700k is still relevant to this discussion. If you have either or those, there's no point to buying this processor. You're not even gaining all that much with the platform upgrade to Z490.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,258
Clearly you have too much reasoning and the ability to be objective on choosing processors. You don't belong here it's either AMD all hail Dr. Su or you're an intel fanboi
That's not really the point of a hot deals discussion. As I've noted at least twice so far, $320 is too much for what you're getting. The 3700x at $60 cheaper is a better all around processor. If you're sold on Intel's gaming "prowess" then you probably already have an 8700k or better (which has also been available since 2017), which makes this processor redundant.

This whole Intel launch is redundant with the exception of adding HT on lower end SKUs.
 

/dev/null

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 31, 2001
Messages
14,693
That's not really the point of a hot deals discussion. As I've noted at least twice so far, $320 is too much for what you're getting. The 3700x at $60 cheaper is a better all around processor. If you're sold on Intel's gaming "prowess" then you probably already have an 8700k or better (which has also been available since 2017), which makes this processor redundant.

This whole Intel launch is redundant with the exception of adding HT on lower end SKUs.
Agreed 100%. People should be turning off HT these days anyways due to unfix-able security issues.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,651
Agreed 100%. People should be turning off HT these days anyways due to unfix-able security issues.
Why? This is absolutely absurd silliness. One, you should NEVER EVER do online banking on your PC. Your phone is 10000000% more secure. Second, the people using these exploits do not want or care to use these exploits on your PC and steal the Big Juicy Wet Asses #3 porn that you downloaded over the weekend.

Seriously, some of you need to get it together. The Government is not targeting you, the hackers are NOT targeting you. Chances are, you're a very unremarkable and boring target for them.

Also, you guys can image your drive and restore it in a matter of minutes and should be doing this a few times a week to eliminate any chance whatsoever of people infecting your PC thru a web browser or game crack or whatever the case may be. Any modern PC game should be installed to D: and you can install those game installers / front-ends / loaders ( for example Battle.net or Steam ) and they will find those games in seconds and re-add the desktop launch icons without you having to re-download 130GB's of COD Warzone or 90GB's of World of Warcraft, etc etc.

Use your heads, don't be lazy and def do not feed into any of this security BS that the news likes to scare you with. I mean, it's laughable.
 

Zinn

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,592
Ya phones are more secure, ignoring the android malware that spreads via text messages and completely compromises phones which will never receive security updates. Much, much more secure.
 

scobar

.
Joined
Jan 2, 2001
Messages
34,365
FWIW, I won't touch AMD for another year/gen. Between both CPU and GPU issues/quirks I'll take Intel/Nvidia combo. I do not want to use special drivers nor roll back GPU drivers 'until it works'.

Intel/Nvidia costs more but there is something to be said about system stability when stock, and overclocked. Love my 9900k at 5ghz all core. I bought an AMD 5700xt, what a pile of trash. All it did was lead to hard locks even after a fresh win10 install. Firm pass on AMD as a whole currently.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,258
FWIW, I won't touch AMD for another year/gen. Between both CPU and GPU issues/quirks I'll take Intel/Nvidia combo. I do not want to use special drivers nor roll back GPU drivers 'until it works'.

Intel/Nvidia costs more but there is something to be said about system stability when stock, and overclocked. Love my 9900k at 5ghz all core. I bought an AMD 5700xt, what a pile of trash. All it did was lead to hard locks even after a fresh win10 install. Firm pass on AMD as a whole currently.
The alternative "FWIW" might be that you can get 6C/12T for HALF the price of this "Hot Deal" from the competition if you want to take the time to overcome "user error" issues.

I've had Skylake based Intel's from the i5 6400 to a 9900k and Ryzens from the 2400G up to 3900x. There is nothing inherently unstable about the AMD platforms if you take the time to ensure complete memory stability. Ryzen is far more memory stability sensitive than Intel.
 
Last edited:

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,678
It's nuts. The 3600 is half the price, and it comes with a cooler. Once you factor in buying a cooler, and around $70 more for a decent Z490 motherboard (over a decent B450), you're paying around $250 more for a combo with the 10600K. At that price, you can get a 3900X combo for a similar price.
Ya but no one wants a b450
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2002
Messages
2,436
FWIW, I won't touch AMD for another year/gen. Between both CPU and GPU issues/quirks I'll take Intel/Nvidia combo. I do not want to use special drivers nor roll back GPU drivers 'until it works'.

Intel/Nvidia costs more but there is something to be said about system stability when stock, and overclocked. Love my 9900k at 5ghz all core. I bought an AMD 5700xt, what a pile of trash. All it did was lead to hard locks even after a fresh win10 install. Firm pass on AMD as a whole currently.
I can agree with everything you mention here. AMD still has a long road before their video cards are near NVidia level. I however have joined the AMD bandwagon again for CPU's and so far have not been disappointed. Have a 2600, 2600x and a 1920x, which is mainly just to throw some dollars at AMD to continue improving. The systems are not for gaming so they are a perfect price to performance sweet spot for what they do. My next gaming system will be a Zen system. Currently on a 7600k. I'm not a FPS elitist with my 1660 Super so a 3x00/4x00 will be just fine.
 

/dev/null

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 31, 2001
Messages
14,693
Just built my first AMD system (3900x, X370). Works flawlessly and desktop sleep/suspend even works. I have been impressed so far. Games great. Nice upgrade from my 4770k.
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
17,932
10600K is the best of the recent Intel CPU's from a price/performance standpoint but I'd still go with AMD 3600 or 3700X over it...Intel CPU's run too hot, have more issues as far as vulnerabilities like Spectre/Meltdown and no PCIe 4 support
 

SPARTAN VI

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
7,560
People who want to squeeze every FPS as possible for their high res monitors.
I think the opposite, this CPU is stronger at lower resolution (e.g. 1080P) + high refresh rate gaming use cases relative to comparable Ryzen parts. At 1440P and higher, CPUs have plateaued across the board.

From Techspot's review:

For those of you exclusively gaming, I can see how the Core i5-10600K makes sense. I should point out that under realistic gaming conditions, it's ~6% faster than the 3700X as seen in our 1080p data with the RTX 2080 Ti across 7 games. That margin is reduced to just 3% at 1440p
 
Last edited:

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,258
Good catch, I meant high-refresh :D
The only caveat is where your high refresh monitor caps out. If you play a lot of a certain game that runs at 180FPS on Ryzen and 200FPS on Intel, but you have a 144Hz monitor, you're not going to see a difference. If you have one that runs at 160FPS on Intel and 130FPS on Ryzen, you might.

*These are just made up numbers. They don't represent any game or the relative benchmarks of any game in particular.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
4,218
The only caveat is where your high refresh monitor caps out. If you play a lot of a certain game that runs at 180FPS on Ryzen and 200FPS on Intel, but you have a 144Hz monitor, you're not going to see a difference. If you have one that runs at 160FPS on Intel and 130FPS on Ryzen, you might.

*These are just made up numbers. They don't represent any game or the relative benchmarks of any game in particular.
That's why they got 240hz and 360hz monitors now!
 
Top