![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Madison Heights Microcenter has 10600K in stock (x6) $319.99 + tax SOLD OUT
- Thread starter jameslr
- Start date
Centauri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 2,469
...who is buying those? Isn't the 3600X $200?
legcramp
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 12,401
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.
All I know is demand is pretty high for 10th gen unlocked chips. I'm sure they'll sell out quickly.
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!
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
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 = ???)
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
- 15,182
$320.. for like $80 more for 3900x....or 3700x for $260.
Last edited:
p3sty
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2006
- Messages
- 2,557
fire sale?
Eshelmen
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 6,632
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.
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.
Additionally, this appears to spank the 3700X in a lot of gaming marks too.
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
- 12,401
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
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
- 20,109
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.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
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
- 30,693
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.
/dev/null
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Messages
- 15,182
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
- 5,825
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.
Uh, what? You got a link or reasons for this belief?
/dev/null
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Messages
- 15,182
Has to be....so agreed.
Zinn
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,430
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.
D
Deleted member 12106
Guest
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.
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
- 30,693
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
- 8,704
Ya but no one wants a b450
/dev/null
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Messages
- 15,182
There are some nice B550s out...
That_Sound_Guy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Messages
- 3,076
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
- 15,182
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.
SPARTAN VI
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Messages
- 8,760
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:
Last edited:
legcramp
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 12,401
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
Good catch, I meant high-refresh
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!