Intel Core i9-10900K, Core i5-10600K Review

System · May 2020

Intel Core i9-10900K, Core i5-10600K Review

The CPU Wars are heating up. Today, Intel releases their new 10th generation Comet Lake processors. We've had the Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K in hand for two weeks and can finally share how it stacks up. Read on for our official review.

Read the full story here

Morfo2 · May 2020

How can you give an Intel Core i9 9900K with another name a positive score?
I don't get it...
If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

Quizzical · May 2020

Morfo2 said:

How can you give an Intel Core i9 9900K with another name a positive score?

I don't get it...

If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

He didn't. The nearest "new" equivalent to the Core i9-9900K is the Core i7-10700K that he didn't review.

Quizzical · May 2020

One key question to ask is not merely how one product compares to another, but on an absolute scale, are these number large? When the lowest frame rate on the entire chart is 91, the answer to that is "yes". The difference between 50 frames per second and 40 matters a lot. The difference between 500 and 400, not so much.

Does the difference between 90 and 100 frames per second matter? Eh, a little. But you know what else matters? A PL2 (max power consumption allowed at stock turbo) of 250 W. Better get a liquid cooler with a huge radiator, or at least an enormous air cooler designed for outlandish loads.

GameByNight · May 2020

Morfo2 said:

How can you give an Intel Core i9 9900K with another name a positive score?

I don't get it...

If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

Are either of these processors bad? Dropping to 10nm at least is a necessary move, but that doesn't change the fact that both of these still offer solid performance in their brackets. Moving to a new process will be exciting, especially in power and thermal overhead. I'm with you. That doesn't make these bad or necessarily warrant a bad score.

As I say in the review, which is the right choice between AMD and Intel depends pretty highly on what you plan to do, your budget, and frankly, which side you lean toward anyways.

emperorhades1 · May 2020

Um, so what the charts are showing is that the fps is nearly the same on games, yet AMD outperforms on every bench with less power consumption? This looks like a shameless ad that actually if you read it says buy AMD.

I could tear all the wording up in the article but I don't think anyone is going to buy from Intel until they start making processors that perform. If you do manage to get a chip even close to the 5.3Ghz I am guessing you will burn down your house.

Quizzical · May 2020

emperorhades1 said:

Um, so what the charts are showing is that the fps is nearly the same on games, yet AMD outperforms on every bench with less power consumption? This looks like a shameless ad that actually if you read it says buy AMD.

I could tear all the wording up in the article but I don't think anyone is going to buy from Intel until they start making processors that perform. If you do manage to get a chip even close to the 5.3Ghz I am guessing you will burn down your house.

If your house wiring can't handle a CPU pulling 250 W, then you really should get that fixed. Plenty of appliances will draw something in excess of 1000 W. Of course, ovens are also allowed to get a lot hotter than CPUs.

emperorhades1 · May 2020

Quizzical said:

emperorhades1 said:

Um, so what the charts are showing is that the fps is nearly the same on games, yet AMD outperforms on every bench with less power consumption? This looks like a shameless ad that actually if you read it says buy AMD.

I could tear all the wording up in the article but I don't think anyone is going to buy from Intel until they start making processors that perform. If you do manage to get a chip even close to the 5.3Ghz I am guessing you will burn down your house.

If your house wiring can't handle a CPU pulling 250 W, then you really should get that fixed. Plenty of appliances will draw something in excess of 1000 W. Of course, ovens are also allowed to get a lot hotter than CPUs.

Its not the processor that is the issue with the power consumption. Its the 2 ton AC hooked to it to cool it down. Edit for comparison: AMD FX-9590 4.7GHz Socket AM3 Plus 220 watts vs Intel 250 Watts. We all know how big of pos that processor was. It single handedly brought liquid cooling to be a necessity in computers.

Quizzical · May 2020

Morfo2 said:
If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

Obviously, we'd prefer to see a new architecture on a new process node that moves the industry forward. But refreshes are better than nothing. Imagine that Intel hadn't done any refreshes of Sky Lake, but only filled out the lineup, later added the first generation of HEDT parts, and that was it. Their lineup would look something like this (all clock speeds are max turbo):

Core i7-7900X (10 cores, 4.3 GHz, $989)
Core i7-7820X (8 cores, 4.3 GHz, $589)
Core i7-7800X (6 cores, 4.0 GHz, $383)
Core i7-6700K (4 cores, 4.2 GHz, $339)
Core i5-6600K (4 cores, 3.9 GHz, $242, no hyperthreading)

If that were Intel's modern lineup, then what stops AMD from doubling the prices on third gen Ryzen across the board? Their entire lineup would still be a compelling value as compared to what Intel had to offer. AMD would be able to offer higher performance with much lower power consumption at any given price point.

We sometimes say that we need AMD to have a competitive product to force Intel to give us better deals. But that goes in the other direction, too. AMD has often offered competitive pricing not because they're nice people, but because they had to in order to get sales. Most of the time, AMD hasn't had as good of CPUs as Intel, so if they didn't undercut Intel's prices, hardly anyone would buy from AMD.

You know what stopped AMD from charging twice as much as they did for third gen Ryzen? Intel's refreshes. A Ryzen 3 3300X for $240 or a Ryzen 5 3600 for $400 would look like a great deal as compared to the original Sky Lake and Sky Lake-X. They would look like a terrible deal as compared to a Core i5-10600K for $260.

Slapshot1188 · May 2020

Since my first 486DX I have exclusively used Intel chips. Habits die hard but I am trying to force myself out of the comfort zone and looking at all chips for my next upgrade.

Quizzical · May 2020

emperorhades1 said:

Quizzical said:

emperorhades1 said:

Um, so what the charts are showing is that the fps is nearly the same on games, yet AMD outperforms on every bench with less power consumption? This looks like a shameless ad that actually if you read it says buy AMD.

I could tear all the wording up in the article but I don't think anyone is going to buy from Intel until they start making processors that perform. If you do manage to get a chip even close to the 5.3Ghz I am guessing you will burn down your house.

If your house wiring can't handle a CPU pulling 250 W, then you really should get that fixed. Plenty of appliances will draw something in excess of 1000 W. Of course, ovens are also allowed to get a lot hotter than CPUs.

Its not the processor that is the issue with the power consumption. Its the 2 ton AC hooked to it to cool it down. Edit for comparison: AMD FX-9590 4.7GHz Socket AM3 Plus 220 watts vs Intel 250 Watts. We all know how big of pos that processor was. It single handedly brought liquid cooling to be a necessity in computers.

Unless you're doing something exotic like a water chiller, your CPU cooler won't use more than a few watts. If you're referring to the air conditioner needed to keep your house cool, then there is a valid concern there, but you've surely got other appliances in your house that use far more power than that CPU will. For that matter, most of the people who buy a Core i9-10900K will pair it with a GPU that uses more power than the CPU does.

Asm0deus · May 2020

I want to see how the ryzen 4k cpu's will compare to intel newest refresh.

Morfo2 · May 2020

GameByNight said:

Morfo2 said:

How can you give an Intel Core i9 9900K with another name a positive score?

I don't get it...

If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

Are either of these processors bad? Dropping to 10nm at least is a necessary move, but that doesn't change the fact that both of these still offer solid performance in their brackets. Moving to a new process will be exciting, especially in power and thermal overhead. I'm with you. That doesn't make these bad or necessarily warrant a bad score.

As I say in the review, which is the right choice between AMD and Intel depends pretty highly on what you plan to do, your budget, and frankly, which side you lean toward anyways.

Not bad overall performance. But this new gen particularry is bad as a product consumption. It's just a resell with more TDP. There is no actual purpose on this, just an easy marketing for a dead product to sell again to those who don't get it.
It's exactly the same as iPhone, they're not selling a product, their selling marketing plus status.
The same price/performance teory should be applied to all sectors including automotive, electronics and other tech. When a client understands the basis of this theory, the anti-consumer products shall not be an option. That's why companys who cannot sell anymore performance or price need to find a solution for this. Naming shematics and over promotion are easy ways to deal with the problem of a bad product. If you have money, you'll create more money even if you sell crap.

botrytis · May 2020

People waiting will still just wait. The reason being how fast AMD is rolling out the new generation of CPU's and Intel playing catch up. I have used both, now on a Ryzen 2600 and will not go back. The CPU with air cooling only runs at 45C when playing games, like GW2 which is all on the CPU.

Until Intel rethinks their design, AMD is the way to go for now.

GameByNight · May 2020

DMKano said:

GameByNight said:

Morfo2 said:

How can you give an Intel Core i9 9900K with another name a positive score?

I don't get it...

If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

Are either of these processors bad? Dropping to 10nm at least is a necessary move, but that doesn't change the fact that both of these still offer solid performance in their brackets. Moving to a new process will be exciting, especially in power and thermal overhead. I'm with you. That doesn't make these bad or necessarily warrant a bad score.

As I say in the review, which is the right choice between AMD and Intel depends pretty highly on what you plan to do, your budget, and frankly, which side you lean toward anyways.

If you ONLY care about gaming - and don't do anything else - 10600K is not a bad choice at all.

if you do productivity and need more than just top gaming performance - Ryzen is a no brainer.

Ryzen4000, Ryzen AM5 processors and Rocket Lake will change all of this in a huge way

bottom line - right now 10600K is decent gaming option IMO

Just adding here that AMD is sticking with AM4 for Ryzen 4000. They confirmed this around the time of 3300X but it hasn't gotten a ton of attention.

GameByNight · May 2020

Asm0deus said:

I want to see how the ryzen 4k cpu's will compare to intel newest refresh.

Me too. If 10nm is still a year or more out, AMD could gain a significant lead.

Quizzical · May 2020

Morfo2 said:

GameByNight said:

Morfo2 said:

How can you give an Intel Core i9 9900K with another name a positive score?

I don't get it...

If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

Are either of these processors bad? Dropping to 10nm at least is a necessary move, but that doesn't change the fact that both of these still offer solid performance in their brackets. Moving to a new process will be exciting, especially in power and thermal overhead. I'm with you. That doesn't make these bad or necessarily warrant a bad score.

As I say in the review, which is the right choice between AMD and Intel depends pretty highly on what you plan to do, your budget, and frankly, which side you lean toward anyways.

Not bad overall performance. But this new gen particularry is bad as a product consumption. It's just a resell with more TDP. There is no actual purpose on this, just an easy marketing for a dead product to sell again to those who don't get it.
It's exactly the same as iPhone, they're not selling a product, their selling marketing plus status.
The same price/performance teory should be applied to all sectors including automotive, electronics and other tech. When a client understands the basis of this theory, the anti-consumer products shall not be an option. That's why companys who cannot sell anymore performance or price need to find a solution for this. Naming shematics and over promotion are easy ways to deal with the problem of a bad product. If you have money, you'll create more money even if you sell crap.

Think of this as a way for Intel to cut prices while hewing to their usual "we never cut prices" philosophy. (Yes, I'm aware that sometimes they actually do cut prices, but not very often and not on very many products.)

The new Core i7-10700K is nearly a rebranded Core i9-9900K. Likewise, the new Core i5-10600K is nearly a rebranded Core i7-9700K. But in both cases, the "new" part has a considerably lower MSRP than the "old" part. And lower prices are a good thing.

Slapshot1188 · May 2020

Quizzical said:

Morfo2 said:

GameByNight said:

Morfo2 said:

How can you give an Intel Core i9 9900K with another name a positive score?

I don't get it...

If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

Are either of these processors bad? Dropping to 10nm at least is a necessary move, but that doesn't change the fact that both of these still offer solid performance in their brackets. Moving to a new process will be exciting, especially in power and thermal overhead. I'm with you. That doesn't make these bad or necessarily warrant a bad score.

As I say in the review, which is the right choice between AMD and Intel depends pretty highly on what you plan to do, your budget, and frankly, which side you lean toward anyways.

Not bad overall performance. But this new gen particularry is bad as a product consumption. It's just a resell with more TDP. There is no actual purpose on this, just an easy marketing for a dead product to sell again to those who don't get it.
It's exactly the same as iPhone, they're not selling a product, their selling marketing plus status.
The same price/performance teory should be applied to all sectors including automotive, electronics and other tech. When a client understands the basis of this theory, the anti-consumer products shall not be an option. That's why companys who cannot sell anymore performance or price need to find a solution for this. Naming shematics and over promotion are easy ways to deal with the problem of a bad product. If you have money, you'll create more money even if you sell crap.

Think of this as a way for Intel to cut prices while hewing to their usual "we never cut prices" philosophy. (Yes, I'm aware that sometimes they actually do cut prices, but not very often and not on very many products.)

The new Core i7-10700K is nearly a rebranded Core i9-9900K. Likewise, the new Core i5-10600K is nearly a rebranded Core i7-9700K. But in both cases, the "new" part has a considerably lower MSRP than the "old" part. And lower prices are a good thing.

Are there any significant differences in the motherboard functionality for each? Because normally when a new generation comes out, systems based on prior units go on sale. I'm still rocking an overclocked 3570k which quite honestly still runs games fine but the time has come for an upgrade.

Quizzical · May 2020

Slapshot1188 said:

Quizzical said:

Morfo2 said:

GameByNight said:

Morfo2 said:

How can you give an Intel Core i9 9900K with another name a positive score?

I don't get it...

If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

Are either of these processors bad? Dropping to 10nm at least is a necessary move, but that doesn't change the fact that both of these still offer solid performance in their brackets. Moving to a new process will be exciting, especially in power and thermal overhead. I'm with you. That doesn't make these bad or necessarily warrant a bad score.

As I say in the review, which is the right choice between AMD and Intel depends pretty highly on what you plan to do, your budget, and frankly, which side you lean toward anyways.

Not bad overall performance. But this new gen particularry is bad as a product consumption. It's just a resell with more TDP. There is no actual purpose on this, just an easy marketing for a dead product to sell again to those who don't get it.
It's exactly the same as iPhone, they're not selling a product, their selling marketing plus status.
The same price/performance teory should be applied to all sectors including automotive, electronics and other tech. When a client understands the basis of this theory, the anti-consumer products shall not be an option. That's why companys who cannot sell anymore performance or price need to find a solution for this. Naming shematics and over promotion are easy ways to deal with the problem of a bad product. If you have money, you'll create more money even if you sell crap.

Think of this as a way for Intel to cut prices while hewing to their usual "we never cut prices" philosophy. (Yes, I'm aware that sometimes they actually do cut prices, but not very often and not on very many products.)

The new Core i7-10700K is nearly a rebranded Core i9-9900K. Likewise, the new Core i5-10600K is nearly a rebranded Core i7-9700K. But in both cases, the "new" part has a considerably lower MSRP than the "old" part. And lower prices are a good thing.

Are there any significant differences in the motherboard functionality for each? Because normally when a new generation comes out, systems based on prior units go on sale. I'm still rocking an overclocked 3570k which quite honestly still runs games fine but the time has come for an upgrade.

Off hand, I think that the most significant difference in motherboards between the original Sky Lake and the new Comet Lake is that the latter needs more power delivery to the CPU. There are surely a lot of minor things, such as newer motherboards tending to offer newer versions of USB. And if you're going to buy one, you also have to consider that Intel changed their socket at various points, so you have to get the right socket.

Slapshot1188 · May 2020

Quizzical said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Quizzical said:

Morfo2 said:

GameByNight said:

Morfo2 said:

How can you give an Intel Core i9 9900K with another name a positive score?

I don't get it...

If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

Are either of these processors bad? Dropping to 10nm at least is a necessary move, but that doesn't change the fact that both of these still offer solid performance in their brackets. Moving to a new process will be exciting, especially in power and thermal overhead. I'm with you. That doesn't make these bad or necessarily warrant a bad score.

As I say in the review, which is the right choice between AMD and Intel depends pretty highly on what you plan to do, your budget, and frankly, which side you lean toward anyways.

Not bad overall performance. But this new gen particularry is bad as a product consumption. It's just a resell with more TDP. There is no actual purpose on this, just an easy marketing for a dead product to sell again to those who don't get it.
It's exactly the same as iPhone, they're not selling a product, their selling marketing plus status.
The same price/performance teory should be applied to all sectors including automotive, electronics and other tech. When a client understands the basis of this theory, the anti-consumer products shall not be an option. That's why companys who cannot sell anymore performance or price need to find a solution for this. Naming shematics and over promotion are easy ways to deal with the problem of a bad product. If you have money, you'll create more money even if you sell crap.

Think of this as a way for Intel to cut prices while hewing to their usual "we never cut prices" philosophy. (Yes, I'm aware that sometimes they actually do cut prices, but not very often and not on very many products.)

The new Core i7-10700K is nearly a rebranded Core i9-9900K. Likewise, the new Core i5-10600K is nearly a rebranded Core i7-9700K. But in both cases, the "new" part has a considerably lower MSRP than the "old" part. And lower prices are a good thing.

Are there any significant differences in the motherboard functionality for each? Because normally when a new generation comes out, systems based on prior units go on sale. I'm still rocking an overclocked 3570k which quite honestly still runs games fine but the time has come for an upgrade.

Off hand, I think that the most significant difference in motherboards between the original Sky Lake and the new Comet Lake is that the latter needs more power delivery to the CPU. There are surely a lot of minor things, such as newer motherboards tending to offer newer versions of USB. And if you're going to buy one, you also have to consider that Intel changed their socket at various points, so you have to get the right socket.

OK thanks. My main question was whether there would be a significant difference between a 9700 vs 10700 system outside of the CPU itself and it sounds like just minor differences. So I can feel good if a see a good value 9700 system pop up.

Vrika · May 2020

Slapshot1188 said:

Quizzical said:

Morfo2 said:

GameByNight said:

Morfo2 said:

How can you give an Intel Core i9 9900K with another name a positive score?

I don't get it...

If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

Are either of these processors bad? Dropping to 10nm at least is a necessary move, but that doesn't change the fact that both of these still offer solid performance in their brackets. Moving to a new process will be exciting, especially in power and thermal overhead. I'm with you. That doesn't make these bad or necessarily warrant a bad score.

As I say in the review, which is the right choice between AMD and Intel depends pretty highly on what you plan to do, your budget, and frankly, which side you lean toward anyways.

Not bad overall performance. But this new gen particularry is bad as a product consumption. It's just a resell with more TDP. There is no actual purpose on this, just an easy marketing for a dead product to sell again to those who don't get it.
It's exactly the same as iPhone, they're not selling a product, their selling marketing plus status.
The same price/performance teory should be applied to all sectors including automotive, electronics and other tech. When a client understands the basis of this theory, the anti-consumer products shall not be an option. That's why companys who cannot sell anymore performance or price need to find a solution for this. Naming shematics and over promotion are easy ways to deal with the problem of a bad product. If you have money, you'll create more money even if you sell crap.

Think of this as a way for Intel to cut prices while hewing to their usual "we never cut prices" philosophy. (Yes, I'm aware that sometimes they actually do cut prices, but not very often and not on very many products.)

The new Core i7-10700K is nearly a rebranded Core i9-9900K. Likewise, the new Core i5-10600K is nearly a rebranded Core i7-9700K. But in both cases, the "new" part has a considerably lower MSRP than the "old" part. And lower prices are a good thing.

Are there any significant differences in the motherboard functionality for each? Because normally when a new generation comes out, systems based on prior units go on sale. I'm still rocking an overclocked 3570k which quite honestly still runs games fine but the time has come for an upgrade.

No, the motherboards have some small upgrades but nothing significant.

This launch is more about Intel doing refresh to better match what AMD already has on the market rather than bringing in any new tech. If you're looking to build a new computer, more significant launches should be at the end of the year when likely both AMD and NVidia will bring new GPUs to the market.

Slapshot1188 · May 2020

Vrika said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Quizzical said:

Morfo2 said:

GameByNight said:

Morfo2 said:

How can you give an Intel Core i9 9900K with another name a positive score?

I don't get it...

If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

Are either of these processors bad? Dropping to 10nm at least is a necessary move, but that doesn't change the fact that both of these still offer solid performance in their brackets. Moving to a new process will be exciting, especially in power and thermal overhead. I'm with you. That doesn't make these bad or necessarily warrant a bad score.

As I say in the review, which is the right choice between AMD and Intel depends pretty highly on what you plan to do, your budget, and frankly, which side you lean toward anyways.

Not bad overall performance. But this new gen particularry is bad as a product consumption. It's just a resell with more TDP. There is no actual purpose on this, just an easy marketing for a dead product to sell again to those who don't get it.
It's exactly the same as iPhone, they're not selling a product, their selling marketing plus status.
The same price/performance teory should be applied to all sectors including automotive, electronics and other tech. When a client understands the basis of this theory, the anti-consumer products shall not be an option. That's why companys who cannot sell anymore performance or price need to find a solution for this. Naming shematics and over promotion are easy ways to deal with the problem of a bad product. If you have money, you'll create more money even if you sell crap.

Think of this as a way for Intel to cut prices while hewing to their usual "we never cut prices" philosophy. (Yes, I'm aware that sometimes they actually do cut prices, but not very often and not on very many products.)

The new Core i7-10700K is nearly a rebranded Core i9-9900K. Likewise, the new Core i5-10600K is nearly a rebranded Core i7-9700K. But in both cases, the "new" part has a considerably lower MSRP than the "old" part. And lower prices are a good thing.

Are there any significant differences in the motherboard functionality for each? Because normally when a new generation comes out, systems based on prior units go on sale. I'm still rocking an overclocked 3570k which quite honestly still runs games fine but the time has come for an upgrade.

No, the motherboards have some small upgrades but nothing significant.

This launch is more about Intel doing refresh to better match what AMD already has on the market rather than bringing in any new tech. If you're looking to build a new computer, more significant launches should be at the end of the year when likely both AMD and NVidia will bring new GPUs to the market.

Yeah I have been telling myself that each year

That is why I still run the 3570k. There is always something on the horizon better. But I think I have pushed this as far as I can. For an unknown reason Win 10 refuses to install, and I think it's been about 7 years since I built this one which is ridiculous. pretty much everything has been swapped out except the MB/CPU but the time has come.

If I can get good prices I would prefer to build but Ill look at pre-built as well. With the new chips hitting the market I hope there are some good sales on 9700 based systems around the corner.

botrytis · May 2020

With AMD repositioning the Ryzen 9 3900x to 410 USD and some of the new B550 MB's coming out will be at 100 USD or or there about, Intel needs to get off it's laurels and start competing.

Quizzical · May 2020

Slapshot1188 said:

Vrika said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Quizzical said:

Morfo2 said:

GameByNight said:

Morfo2 said:

How can you give an Intel Core i9 9900K with another name a positive score?

I don't get it...

If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

Are either of these processors bad? Dropping to 10nm at least is a necessary move, but that doesn't change the fact that both of these still offer solid performance in their brackets. Moving to a new process will be exciting, especially in power and thermal overhead. I'm with you. That doesn't make these bad or necessarily warrant a bad score.

As I say in the review, which is the right choice between AMD and Intel depends pretty highly on what you plan to do, your budget, and frankly, which side you lean toward anyways.

Not bad overall performance. But this new gen particularry is bad as a product consumption. It's just a resell with more TDP. There is no actual purpose on this, just an easy marketing for a dead product to sell again to those who don't get it.
It's exactly the same as iPhone, they're not selling a product, their selling marketing plus status.
The same price/performance teory should be applied to all sectors including automotive, electronics and other tech. When a client understands the basis of this theory, the anti-consumer products shall not be an option. That's why companys who cannot sell anymore performance or price need to find a solution for this. Naming shematics and over promotion are easy ways to deal with the problem of a bad product. If you have money, you'll create more money even if you sell crap.

Think of this as a way for Intel to cut prices while hewing to their usual "we never cut prices" philosophy. (Yes, I'm aware that sometimes they actually do cut prices, but not very often and not on very many products.)

The new Core i7-10700K is nearly a rebranded Core i9-9900K. Likewise, the new Core i5-10600K is nearly a rebranded Core i7-9700K. But in both cases, the "new" part has a considerably lower MSRP than the "old" part. And lower prices are a good thing.

Are there any significant differences in the motherboard functionality for each? Because normally when a new generation comes out, systems based on prior units go on sale. I'm still rocking an overclocked 3570k which quite honestly still runs games fine but the time has come for an upgrade.

No, the motherboards have some small upgrades but nothing significant.

This launch is more about Intel doing refresh to better match what AMD already has on the market rather than bringing in any new tech. If you're looking to build a new computer, more significant launches should be at the end of the year when likely both AMD and NVidia will bring new GPUs to the market.

Yeah I have been telling myself that each year

That is why I still run the 3570k. There is always something on the horizon better. But I think I have pushed this as far as I can. For an unknown reason Win 10 refuses to install, and I think it's been about 7 years since I built this one which is ridiculous. pretty much everything has been swapped out except the MB/CPU but the time has come.

If I can get good prices I would prefer to build but Ill look at pre-built as well. With the new chips hitting the market I hope there are some good sales on 9700 based systems around the corner.

If you're happy with the computer you already have, then my usual advice is to stay happy. Keep it until you're not happy with it. If it's old enough that you don't trust it to be reliable anymore, then that would be a reason to upgrade, even if the performance is fine.

If you do want to wait, then AMD has promised that Zen 3 CPUs will launch sometime this year. On the GPU side of things, AMD has promised that Navi 2X will launch sometime this year. Nvidia has talked about their upcoming Ampere architecture, but I haven't seen any promises of when it will launch. So far, the only Ampere card that Nvidia has talked about publicly is this weird compute device that is half GPU and half machine learning ASIC, comes with a TDP of 400 W, and seems likely to have a price tag over $10k.

Ozmodan · May 2020

DMKano said:

GameByNight said:

Morfo2 said:

How can you give an Intel Core i9 9900K with another name a positive score?

I don't get it...

If you buy this you must love remakes and refreshs.

Are either of these processors bad? Dropping to 10nm at least is a necessary move, but that doesn't change the fact that both of these still offer solid performance in their brackets. Moving to a new process will be exciting, especially in power and thermal overhead. I'm with you. That doesn't make these bad or necessarily warrant a bad score.

As I say in the review, which is the right choice between AMD and Intel depends pretty highly on what you plan to do, your budget, and frankly, which side you lean toward anyways.

If you ONLY care about gaming - and don't do anything else - 10600K is not a bad choice at all.

if you do productivity and need more than just top gaming performance - Ryzen is a no brainer.

Ryzen4000, Ryzen AM5 processors and Rocket Lake will change all of this in a huge way

bottom line - right now 10600K is decent gaming option IMO

If you want to heat your house while you game

)

Ozmodan · May 2020

DMKano said:

botrytis said:

People waiting will still just wait. The reason being how fast AMD is rolling out the new generation of CPU's and Intel playing catch up. I have used both, now on a Ryzen 2600 and will not go back. The CPU with air cooling only runs at 45C when playing games, like GW2 which is all on the CPU.

Until Intel rethinks their design, AMD is the way to go for now.

For 100% pure gaming - Intel is still the king, as benchmarks clearly show:

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3587-intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-review-benchmarks

Look at the game benchmarks - Intel is at the top for every single one.

Again - we are talking 100% gaming only - for most users AMD makes more sense because many do other stuff than just gaming - and the price point is just much better. But if someone came to you and said - build me the fastest gaming PC and don't worry about how much it costs - Intel is still the way to go.

Nope I have to disagree with that. Even with a 2080ti GPU many games are still bottlenecked by the GPU, not the CPU, and with AMD dropping the 3900x to $410 that makes any Intel a silly decision. Just my opinion of course.

Howdy, Stranger!

Intel Core i9-10900K, Core i5-10600K Review

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Intel Core i9-10900K, Core i5-10600K Review

Comments