Need to upgrade PC soon, go for 10600K or 10700k for gaming?

Ladic

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
1,232
I am giving my older parts (3570K, 16gb ram, r9 290x) to my wife so she has a PC for school. I don't plan to upgrade again for another 6-7 years.
I already bought a gigabyte 5700xt for the GPU.
I game at 1440p.
I have seen all benchmarks online and sweet spot seems to be the 10600K and that playing at 1440p or 4k it really is the GPU that matters more.
However since I won't be upgrading again for 6-7 years, is it worth it to spend those $100 to get the extra 2 cores and 4 threads, as the might be more used down the line?
Or should I just go for the 10600K and call it a day?

The rest of the new parts that I am considering are:

  1. CORSAIR - Vengeance RGB PRO 32GB (2PK 16GB) 3.2GHz PC4-25600 DDR4
  2. MSI - MPG Z490 GAMING EDGE WIFI
 
i'd go 700k. more cache, more cores and higher boost freq will make it last longer.
 
+1 on the i7-10700k. Given the new consoles coming out this year, 8 cores is going to be the new target for game producers.

I'd reconsider getting 32 GB RAM unless you have some specific game or non-gaming application that can actually make use of it. Worst case, you can upgrade in a few years if things do change.
 
+1 on the i7-10700k. Given the new consoles coming out this year, 8 cores is going to be the new target for game producers.

I'd reconsider getting 32 GB RAM unless you have some specific game or non-gaming application that can actually make use of it. Worst case, you can upgrade in a few years if things do change.
good point. unless he plans on running the new flight sim i havent seen anything game wise that needs more than 16GB.
 
Does it have to be Intel? I thought AMD's offerings were that much better than this joke of a 10 series intel just released?
 
Does it have to be Intel? I thought AMD's offerings were that much better than this joke of a 10 series intel just released?
Well, it depends on the specific CPU. Of the entire 10-series line, the only ones that are worthy enough are the 6-core/12-thread i5-10600K and the 10-core/20-thread i9-10900K, under some circumstances. The lower-level i5's might be crippled by a significantly lower maximum memory clock speed when used on anything other than a Z490 chipset, while the i3 CPUs fail to convince themselves sufficiently against AMD's Ryzen 3 3300X to justify their prices. The i7-10700 series, despite hyperthreading, still cost too much money for performance that's no better in most cases than a Ryzen 7 3700X.

In other words, the Intel 10th-Generation desktop CPU lineup is, generally speaking, still quite a bit overpriced for such lackluster performance against its AMD Zen2 competition. In fact, Intel really needs to ditch both the Celeron- and Pentium-branded CPUs in this 10th-Generation desktop lineup (reserving those two brands exclusively to the Atom-derived lineup of low-performance, low-power-consumption CPUs), and make the i3 CPUs priced where the current Pentiums are, then move the i5 CPUs into the $150-$200 price point and the i7 CPUs into the $250-$300 price point to even be worth buying (in other words, cut out the fat within the mainstream desktop CPU segment). And part of the reason for this lackluster improvement in the performance-to-price ratio for Intel with this 10th Generation is that Intel is still saddled with 2-core CPUs at the lower end. AMD does not currently offer CPUs with fewer than 4 cores at any price. Simply put, Intel has way too many different CPU parts within its mainstream desktop CPU lineup.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top