# 10700 vs 3700x which one if both priced almost the same ?



## raptori (Jul 25, 2020)

Hello everyone,

My friend want to upgrade his PC going from i7 860 to either 10700 or 3700x, MBs narrowed to the options mentioned below with no OC intended.. so what do you suggest if the available parts and prices as follows :

i7 10700 @ *$418*  with MSI Z490-A PRO @ _*$*_*203*
R7 3700x @ *$404*  with ASUS TUF Gaming B550M-PLUS @ *$208*

Prices are crazy sure but that's what available at the local market.

EDIT: The PC is for Gaming/Capture in game footage , and lots of video encoding


----------



## dir_d (Jul 25, 2020)

Whats does he do with his computer? Game only?


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 25, 2020)

100% 10700k, it's basically a faster 3700x core for core. Also runs cooler.

The 3700x has a slight IPC advantage but the 10700k is almost 1ghz faster so it doesn't matter.


----------



## hat (Jul 25, 2020)

Seems like the Intel setup is the better one at these prices.


----------



## droopyRO (Jul 25, 2020)

Intel if you only game. AMD if you game and do some sort of work on that PC.


----------



## raptori (Jul 25, 2020)

dir_d said:


> Whats does he do with his computer? Game only?


The PC is for Gaming and lots of video encoding



dgianstefani said:


> 100% 10700k, it's basically a faster 3700x core for core. Also runs cooler.
> 
> The 3700x has a slight IPC advantage but the 10700k is almost 1ghz faster so it doesn't matter.



10700 non K version


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 25, 2020)

Even so, it's still better than the 3700x. With the non K version all you have to do is delimit the power from 95w to unlimited and it's the same frequency as the k.


----------



## Vario (Jul 25, 2020)

It is important to consider the cooling.  I am not sure how well the 10700 stock heatsink fan performs.   I didn't see that point mentioned above, so I will mention it here.


----------



## xman2007 (Jul 25, 2020)

raptori said:


> lots of video encoding


3700x is quite a bit faster at video encoding so unless he is playing esports and chasing every last fps then 3700X would be my choice, not too mention ryzen 4000 series is round the corner and due to Intel issues with 10nm they likely don't have anything in the pipeline to counter, so no upgrade path for Intel


----------



## raptori (Jul 25, 2020)

Vario said:


> It is important to consider the cooling.  I am not sure how well the 10700 stock heatsink fan performs.   I didn't see that point mentioned above, so I will mention it here.



Currently he is using DEEPCOOL FROSTWIN-CPU Cooler on his LGA 1156 and it's suppose to be compatible with LGA1200, maybe not upto the task of fully cooling 10700 but still a good initial solution.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jul 25, 2020)

Vario said:


> It is important to consider the cooling.  I am not sure how well the 10700 stock heatsink fan performs.   I didn't see that point mentioned above, so I will mention it here.



Not great, but most higher end Comet Lake SKUs (read: not the 10400 6-core die) run insanely cool, there's that die thinning and 65W TDP/PL1 coming into play:





Less so if going to remove PL1 limits, in that case it gets about as toasty as Ryzen. But with that dual-stack cooler, won't have any problems whatsoever with power limits removed.

But removing PL1 limits doesn't really net any in-game performance improvements, only to all-core productivity workloads. In which case, you can't have content to edit without playing a game first    and in that respect, there's no question about which one is better.

I do happen to have that *exact* Ryzen setup in the original question, and it's solid on both the CPU and board front in everything I do, which is mostly 1440p60 gaming. Unless you have a 2080 Ti on hand and a 1080p high refresh monitor, I don't think you'll find Ryzen lacking in any way. If it was a $50 difference in favour of the 3700X as it is in my country, I'd probably lean towards the Ryzen, but with just $15 between the two I'd take the Comet Lake for this workload, hands down.

For anyone bringing up the promising overclockability of late production Matisse Ryzens, 3700X doesn't seem to share in the silicon quality success that the new 3600/3800X/XT SKUs are enjoying.


----------



## raptori (Jul 25, 2020)

xman2007 said:


> 3700x is quite a bit faster at video encoding so unless he is playing esports and chasing every last fps then 3700X would be my choice, not too mention ryzen 4000 series is round the corner and due to Intel issues with 10nm they likely don't have anything in the pipeline to counter, so no upgrade path for Intel



No upgrade intended anytime soon, he is using a 10 years old i7 860 , but yea I get the idea, actually I used to advise friends to go with AMD if the prices are near MSRP but in this case I'm collecting suggestions because I think it's a close call.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jul 25, 2020)

@raptori , did you read the review of the i7-10700 here on TPU?








						Intel Core i7-10700 Review - Way to Overclock without the K
					

In our Intel Core i7-10700 review, we're taking a look at one of Intel's most affordable 8-core/16-thread processors. Its low TDP of 65 W makes it power-efficient, but also limits performance. We unlocked that limit and gained up to 30% real-life performance without ever risking an unstable system.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## raptori (Jul 25, 2020)

thebluebumblebee said:


> @raptori , did you read the review of the i7-10700 here on TPU?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, great and rare review for 10700, not many reviews if any available on the non-k 10700 on popular tech sites.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jul 25, 2020)

raptori said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> My friend want to upgrade his PC going from i7 860 to either 10700 or 3700x, MBs narrowed to the options mentioned below with no OC intended.. so what do you suggest if the available parts and prices as follows :
> 
> ...



Whichever floats your boat.  Not much difference in real world to stress about it.  Maybe the buy one that looks more cool?  Or the cheaper one?


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> Also runs cooler.



Why exactly would that matter ?


----------



## xman2007 (Jul 26, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> Why exactly would that matter ?


And the 10700 uses about 90w more power than a 3700X but he didn't mention that


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 26, 2020)

3700X fits the encoding requirements better, whilst still gaming nicely. I have a 3800X and an i9-9900K here and both of them are pretty awesome.

Both will do for your narrow needs, and both will be as smooth as butter doing it.


----------



## Lionheart (Jul 26, 2020)

Either would be perfectly fine, since your friend is doing both gaming & video encoding, 3700X. The AM4 platform also has a better upgrade path with Ryzen 4000 support.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 26, 2020)

i'd go the 3700x for the much lower power consumption and heat output - also has an option of 4000 series CPU support, where the intel will be dead in the water with zero upgrades


----------



## silkstone (Jul 26, 2020)

I'd go with the Ryzen as not only is it faster for video production, it draws less power, runs cooler and it provides a better upgrade path. PCIE4 will be nice to have when doing video editing, he can later upgrade to a fast NVME drive and it will fly.

The Ryzen is plenty fast enough for any games that the bottleneck will be the GPU.


----------



## birdie (Jul 26, 2020)

Mussels said:


> i'd go the 3700x for the much lower power consumption and heat output - also has an option of 4000 series CPU support, where the intel will be dead in the water with zero upgrades



This is false.

The 400 series motherboard will support Rocket Lake CPUs which are going to have a much higher IPC.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 26, 2020)

birdie said:


> This is false.
> 
> The 400 series motherboard will support Rocket Lake CPUs which are going to have a much higher IPC.



I haven't seen that mentioned yet, but intels got a really bad track record so far for backwards support


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Jul 26, 2020)

Honestly you can just flip a coin.... maybe go with whatever platform is more familiar.










						I scored 15 266 in Time Spy
					

Intel Core i9-9900K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




					www.3dmark.com
				













						I scored 11 390 in Time Spy
					

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




					www.3dmark.com
				




I've got experience with a similar CPU to the 10700 and a 3700X and in real world usage they're hard to tell apart.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

Mussels said:


> I haven't seen that mentioned yet, but intels got a really bad track record so far for backwards support


do you read TPU ?


----------



## tabascosauz (Jul 26, 2020)

Mussels said:


> I haven't seen that mentioned yet, but intels got a really bad track record so far for backwards support



I really am not trying to be argumentative, but each mainstream socket since LGA1156 has received at least 2 generations of CPU, and there's no indication that LGA1200 will be any different. Both will require a BIOS update, through flashback or other means.

I don't think AMD can claim the high ground there since what happened over Vermeer compatibility for B450. Intel has at least personally been much more no-frills in providing backwards socket compatibility through BIOS updates - AGESA for Matisse has taken a lot of time to get to where it is now. Though that may be a moot point, given Rocket Lake is shaping up to be the biggest departure in CPU uarch on a single socket since the LGA775 days, Intel may have its work cut out for it in firmware.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> I really am not trying to be argumentative, but each mainstream socket since LGA1156 has received at least 2 generations of CPU, and there's no indication that LGA1200 will be any different. Both will require a BIOS update, through flashback or other means.


leave it,hopeless



oxrufiioxo said:


> maybe go with whatever platform is more familiar.


imo best advice here.



raptori said:


> EDIT: The PC is for Gaming/Capture in game footage


what GPU and monitor ?



raptori said:


> and lots of video encoding


is he using gpu accelerated software ?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 26, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> do you read TPU ?



I also have a life, and i've seen intel delaying and backflipping on a lot of tech promises, so i wouldnt hold to anything about upcoming intel CPU's and their compatibility and performance.

At least with AMD's upcoming CPU's, we do have a fair bit of info.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

Mussels said:


> I also have a life, and i've seen intel delaying and backflipping on a lot of tech promises, so i wouldnt hold to anything about upcoming intel CPU's and their compatibility and performance.
> 
> At least with AMD's upcoming CPU's, we do have a fair bit of info.


that is your outlook on intel,don't know if it's relevant.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 26, 2020)

Ryzen is the best choice for efficiency, PCIE4.0, upgradeability and security.


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

raptori said:


> The PC is for Gaming/Capture in game footage , and lots of video encoding


What graphics card will he use? If it's anything less than a high end card, the Intel argument is gone.



raptori said:


> Prices are crazy sure but that's what available at the local market.


Is buying locally a requirement? For that money he could get 12 cores online.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

Mats said:


> What graphics card will he use? If it's anything less than a high end card, the Intel argument is gone.
> 
> 
> Is buying locally a requirement? For that money he could get 12 cores online.


that would include a next gen upper mid range



Mats said:


> Is buying locally a requirement? For that money he could get 12 cores online.


and a much better board


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> that would include a next gen upper mid range


Honestly, I don't know where to draw the line here, where exactly the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

On the other hand, we don't know the display resolution..


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

Mats said:


> Honestly, I don't know where to draw the line here, where the GPU becomes the bottleneck.
> 
> On the other hand, we don't know the display resolution..


imo over 75hz with a decent gpu
this is a lot


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> and a much better board


Dunno if he needs a better board if not OC'ing. Lower price tho.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

Mats said:


> Dunno if he needs a better board if not OC'ing. Lower price tho.


doesn't matter if he's ocing or not better boards are not only for better vrm
better audio,more connectors of every possible type (usb,m.2,fan etc.) and better features overall


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> this is a lot


Yup, it's also a €1500 card. It's unlikely at this point that he'll go for that, especially since it wasn't even mentioned which GPU he wants.



cucker tarlson said:


> doesn't matter if he's ocing or not better boards are not only for better vrm
> better audio,more connectors of every possible type (usb,m.2,fan etc.) and better features overall


You mean it doesn't matter* for you.*
There are a lot of people coming to this forum looking for decent prices. We don't know his priorities yet.



raptori said:


> My friend want to upgrade his PC going from i7 860 to either 10700 or 3700x,


Can you find out what kind of display he'll be using, which graphics card (model or budget), and is he going for a high end SSD?


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

Mats said:


> You mean it doesn't matter* for you.*


no,it means that better board has better features all around not just for overclocking



Mats said:


> Yup, it's also a €1500 card.


fantastic.the better the cpu does with a card like that,the better it will do with next generations


----------



## jayseearr (Jul 26, 2020)

404$ dollars for a 3700x?  Yikes, that's highway robbery. I only paid $270 for mine.

At $404 dollars you can pretty much buy a 3900x here in the states


----------



## aQi (Jul 26, 2020)

Ask your friend to wait a bit for Ryzen 400000000 series. Trust amd’s per dollar edge over Intel and leaping performance. After amd threadripper pro and 4000g performance measures. The 4th gen is going to surprise as amd learnt alot from 3rd gen as well.


----------



## raptori (Jul 26, 2020)

Mats said:


> What graphics card will he use? If it's anything less than a high end card, the Intel argument is gone.
> 
> 
> Is buying locally a requirement? For that money he could get 12 cores online.



GPU : he will upgrade later probably Nvidia 3000 series , currently GTX 1060 3GB , yes it's far from ideal but the budget now is for CPU+MB+RAM+M.2
Buying locally maybe the only available option, *buying online then add shipping cost + tax =~ local prices* 
--------------------------
Just to clarify :
This CPU and MB will be used for the next at least 5 - 7 years with no intention to upgrade nor OC whatsoever. 
GPU : upgrade later, probably Nvidia 3000 series mid-high range.

RAM will be  32GB (16x2) HyperX Fury 16GB RGB 3733 MHz DDR4 Memory ( cheaper option available is 2666 ).
SSD according to available products and prices will be Kingston A2000 1TB NVMe.
------------
PSU he has Corsair HX850 Gold


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

10th gen intel does much better framerates than any ryzen 3000 when paired with a high end GPU that lets it stretch its legs. Doesn't matter if you're comparing a 3600 or a 3950x, the 10400f blows them both out of the water for pure fps. 10700 is even better obviously. Considering your friend is going to pair the CPU with a next gen GPU. It's likely he will be getting 2080/2080ti levels of performance, which means it's braindead to pair that with a CPU that will limit FPS. To all those raving about "muh AMD futureproof socket" the guy isn't going to touch the CPU/Mobo for the next 5-7 years...

"muh AMD _featuresssss" _ PCIe 4.0 SSDs offer literally zero real world advantages to normal system usage and gaming over a good PCIe 3.0. Current gen GPUs don't get bottlenecked by PCIe 3.0 x8, and I seriously doubt next gen GPUs are literally twice as fast. 

AMD has marginally better productivity for the 3700x, Intel has significantly better FPS.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

tabascosauz said:


> But removing PL1 limits doesn't really net any in-game performance improvements, only to all-core productivity workloads. In which case, you can't have content to edit without playing a game first    and in that respect, there's no question about which one is better.


you wanna have pl1/pl2 removed
avg performance is same,but if you hit PL one of the cores will drop frequency and you may get a frametime spike

believe,this happens even on my 10500


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> no,it means that better board has better features all around not just for overclocking
> 
> 
> fantastic.the better the cpu does with a card like that,the better it will do with next generations



Money seems to be an object in this case, we can't just forget that. Otherwise I'm all in for a dream build.



dgianstefani said:


> Considering your friend is going to pair the CPU with a next gen GPU. It's likely he will be getting 2080/2080ti levels of performance, which means it's braindead to pair that with a CPU that will limit FPS.


Just no. We still don't know his budget, and that kind of performance doesn't come for cheap. Will Ampere be really fast? Yes. Will Nvidia dump the prices for the first time ever? No.

The chances of him going for faster than 2070 sounds unlikely because it will cost too much. Be realistic here, the gains when gaming isn't really there with such GPU.

You can't just let the gaming part decide, when it will be used for other things as well.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

if he uses cuda/opengl accelerated gpu video encoding he should only care about gaming performance



Mats said:


> Will Nvidia dump the prices for the first time ever? No.


what are you talking about
they always drop last gen x80Ti performance down to next gen x70 levels
a new rtx3000 that performs like 2080Ti will not cost the same as 2080Ti


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

raptori said:


> GPU : he will upgrade later probably Nvidia 3000 series , currently GTX 1060 3GB , yes it's far from ideal but the budget now is for CPU+MB+RAM+M.2


What games does he play currently?



cucker tarlson said:


> they always drop last gen x80Ti performance down to next gen x70 levels
> a new rtx3000 that performs like 2080Ti will not cost the same as 2080Ti


I wouldn't call that dumping. You'll obviously get more performance for the same price.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

Mats said:


> The chances of him going for faster than 2070 sounds unlikely because it will cost too much. Be realistic here, the gains when gaming isn't really there with such GPU.


you correct us every time yet you know exactly what he will get

buddy,the faster it runs in gaming on 2080Ti,the better you're spending that 400 as far as buying a gaming cpu goes
3700x performs like 10400 in gaming
10700 performs much better than 3600 in productivity

imo if going for ryzen either get a 3600 or a 3900x.3700x price to perf is stupid frankly.
10700 is a good middle of the road solution.high end gaming performance,and still very capable for productivity.


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> you correct us every time yet you know exactly what he will get


I said " sounds unlikey" because I was implying that I don't know for sure. If he bought a 1060 in the past, that's an indicator for me at least. Add the high local prices and it's easy to understand that even that card could have cost over $300 or so.



cucker tarlson said:


> buddy,the faster it runs in gaming on 2080Ti,the better you're spending that 400 as far as buying a gaming cpu goes


We just have a different point of view, you think gaming matters a lot for the OP, while I don't.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

Mats said:


> There's pretty mucg
> 
> I said " sounds unlikey" because I was implying that I don't know for sure. If he bought a 1060 in the past, that's an indicator for me at least. Add the high local prices and it's easy to understand that even that card could have cost over $300 or so.
> 
> ...


that's not "my point of view",that's what he said.
it's your point of view that for a build that will last 5-7 years he will only need a match for a 2070,which is delusional imo but you've a right to speak and have opinios
no one is going to spend 400 on a cpu,200 on a board,and then when buying a gpu for 5-7 years go budget


----------



## jayseearr (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> 100% 10700k, it's basically a faster 3700x core for core. Also runs cooler.
> 
> The 3700x has a slight IPC advantage but the 10700k is almost 1ghz faster so it doesn't matter.


He's looking at the 10700, not the 10700k



dgianstefani said:


> 10th gen intel does much better framerates than any ryzen 3000 when paired with a high end GPU that lets it stretch its legs. Doesn't matter if you're comparing a 3600 or a 3950x, the 10400f blows them both out of the water for pure fps. 10700 is even better obviously. Considering your friend is going to pair the CPU with a next gen GPU. It's likely he will be getting 2080/2080ti levels of performance, which means it's braindead to pair that with a CPU that will limit FPS. To all those raving about "muh AMD futureproof socket" the guy isn't going to touch the CPU/Mobo for the next 5-7 years...
> 
> "muh AMD _featuresssss" _ PCIe 4.0 SSDs offer literally zero real world advantages to normal system usage and gaming over a good PCIe 3.0. Current gen GPUs don't get bottlenecked by PCIe 3.0 x8, and I seriously doubt next gen GPUs are literally twice as fast.
> 
> AMD has marginally better productivity for the 3700x, Intel has significantly better FPS.



Better fps, but worse value

Both give you a great gaming experience but your upgrade path on AM4 with a b550 is MUCH more promising. You have a wide open path all the way up to 16+cores plus the ryzen 4000 series. That upgradeability is something you simply can't get from intel, and since your buddy does alot of video encoding it's something that could potentially benefit him in the future. It's unfortunate you are looking at such skewed prices wherever you are from because the $60 dollar difference in msrp (should) make the decision much easier.

go with Intel if your buddy is super concerned with a couple of extra frames here and there, and go with Amd if your buddy values his money and wants his system to be useful to him for longer


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> it's your point of view that for a build that will last 5-7 years he will only *need* a match for a 2070,which is delusional imo but you've a right to speak and have opinios


Need???
I never said that.
I said it doesn't sound like he's about to put more money than that into a graphics card.

We're done here.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

jayseearr said:


> He's looking at the 10700, not the 10700k
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no upgrading.read the thread.

no one is going to spend 400 on a cpu,200 on a board,and then go budget when buying a gpu for 5-7 years

imo if he's using or planning high refresh rate gaming then 10700 is the obvious choice.
for 60fps he's fine with 3700x,but may save BIG on 3600

and how is 3700x better "value"
you're getting same gaming performance as lowest locked i5s
not exactly great value to me



Mats said:


> We're done here.


suit yourself if you don't wanna participate


----------



## jayseearr (Jul 26, 2020)

cucker tarlson said:


> no upgrading.read the thread.
> 
> no one is going to spend 400 on a cpu,200 on a board,and then go budget when buying a gpu for 5-7 years
> 
> ...



Im confused, why no upgrading? I saw where he said he doesn't plan on upgrading (anytime soon) but why not in the future? 
As far as spending 400 on the cpu, the guy wouldn't be doing that by choice, evidently he has no choice but to pay well over msrp. 
as far as buying budget gpu for the next X years, where did that come from? b550 has pcie gen 4 right? why would he have to buy budget gpus?
lastly, i said AM4/B550 was the better value, not the 3700x.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> It's likely he will be getting 2080/2080ti levels of performance, which means it's braindead to pair that with a CPU that will limit FPS. To all those raving about "muh AMD futureproof socket" the guy isn't going to touch the CPU/Mobo for the next 5-7 years...



In 5-7 years both CPUs and whatever GPU he buys are going to be worthless, I just love how you Intel fans speak with such passion about a 5% difference and how how you pretend that it's somehow orders of magnitude better.


----------



## jayseearr (Jul 26, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> In 5-7 years both CPUs are going to be worthless, I just love how you Intel fans speak with such passion about a 5% difference and how how you pretend that it's somehow orders of magnitude better.



"worthless" is strongly worded although, i get your point. But it only strengthens the amd value propostion even further. with tech moving as fast as it does nowdays you would be silly not to take better value and upgradeability options where you can get them. Since they are both going to be "worthless" as you say in 5 or so years, why not take the one that will help mitigate that (even if it's just a small amount)

As far as the bit about the intel fans blowing frame rate differences out of proportion, i whole heartedly agree with you there.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> In 5-7 years both CPUs and whatever GPU he buys are going to be worthless, I just love how you Intel fans speak with such passion about a 5% difference and how how you pretend that it's somehow orders of magnitude better.


170+ fps instead of 130fps is not a 5% difference buddy, and that's on current gen GPUs.

Learn to read, the guy is not changing his CPU/Mobo for next 5-7 years, and is planning on buying a next gen GPU. This means "upgrade path" is worthless.

"AMD value" both options he's looking at are the same price, and all the "advantages" you rave about are relevant to your needs not to what the OP has said. Once again, learn to read.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> In 5-7 years both CPUs and whatever GPU he buys are going to be worthless, I just love how you Intel fans speak with such passion about a 5% difference and how how you pretend that it's somehow orders of magnitude better.


just like 6700K is worthless now,right 
lol.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> 170+ fps instead of 130fps is not a 5% difference buddy.



It certainly isn't, in whatever made up example you got there.



dgianstefani said:


> Learn to read, the guy is not changing his CPU/Mobo for next 5-7 years, and is planning on buying a next gen GPU. This means "upgrade path" is worthless.



It will be as worthless as whatever difference between these two CPUs will be after 7 god damn years, you are clutching at straws. Again, you're pouring your heart and soul over single digit differences, that's the only braindead thing on here if you ask me.


----------



## raptori (Jul 26, 2020)

His current CPU is i7 860 ( 10 years old cpu ) lets say it's worthless or not up-to the task anymore, his next upgrade if any will be when the 10700 or 3700x is worthless too or struggle to do the job.

We didn't count in the 6 cores CPU because we want more future proof and it's a one time buy for the CPU/MB .

*Thank you everyone for your suggestions and any further opinions are very much appreciated*, we will continue researching and monitoring the local prices in the coming few days and then we'll pull the trigger, I will keep you updated.


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

raptori said:


> No upgrade intended anytime soon..


New AMD CPU's, GPU's, and Nvidia GPU's are expected to launch within three months or so. I'd say it's next to impossible to say now what to buy after that.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

raptori said:


> his next upgrade if any will be when the 10700 or 3700x is worthless too or struggle to do the job.



They'll both become useless at the same time, the 3700X will hold on a bit longer probably because it has 2 more cores. But this debate is a waste of time, he should just buy whatever is cheapest.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> It certainly isn't, in whatever made up example you got there.
> 
> 
> 
> It will be as worthless as whatever difference between these two CPUs will be after 7 god damn years. Again, you're pouring your heart and soul trying over single digit differences, that's the only braindead thing on here if you ask me.







The majority of games played at 1080p with a 2080ti reflects these trends, and next gen GPUs will allow further distancing.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> They'll both become useless at the same time, the 3700X will hold on a bit longer probably because it has 2 more cores. But this debate is a waste of time, he should just buy whatever is cheapest.


lol  
they're both 8c and both cost the same for the OP

most clueless piece of advice in the thread


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Jul 26, 2020)

Core i7-6700K is a 4-core/8-thread Skylake processor fabricated on a 14 nm process with dual-channel memory.  It was released five years ago.  Core i3-10320 is a 4-core/8-thread Skylake processor fabricated on a 14 nm process with dual-channel memory.  It was released less than three months ago.  For Intel, _plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose._


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> They'll both become useless at the same time, the 3700X will hold on a bit longer probably because it has 2 more cores. But this debate is a waste of time, he should just buy whatever is cheapest.


Braindead. Arguing a topic when you can't even count. Both the 10700 and 3700x have the same core count.


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> They'll both become useless at the same time, the 3700X will hold on a bit longer probably because it has 2 more cores. But this debate is a waste of time, he should just buy whatever is cheapest.


That's why he's asking us. He doesn't want the $9 decide.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

JustAnEngineer said:


> Core i7-6700K is a 4-core/8-thread Skylake processor fabricated on a 14 nm process with dual-channel memory.  It was released five years ago.  Core i3-10320 is a 4-core/8-thread Skylake processor fabricated on a 14 nm process with dual-channel memory.  It was released less than three months ago.  For Intel, _plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose._


Comparing a $400 cpu to a $140 cpu and saying there's no progress lmfao.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> Braindead. Arguing a topic when you can't even count. Both the 10700 and 3700x have the same core count.



I got them mixed up, chill down. Anyway, keep spamming this thread about single digit percentages.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

"single digit percentages"


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> The majority of games played at 1080p with a 2080ti reflects these trends, and next gen GPUs will allow further distancing.


1080p with a 2080Ti isn't really a common combination, and judging by the Lynnfield he's rocking he's probably not gaming for a living.

Next gen GPU's.. you forgot to mention next gen CPU's.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

1080p and below is the resolution where you are limited by the CPU. I guess room temperature IQ would have you do CPU reviews in resolutions where the GPU is the bottleneck?


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

Yep, single digits.





But go ahead and scour the internet to find those few edge cases when the difference is bigger than that, that's how it works right ? You find the biggest gap between the two and claim that's the case across the board. Top 10 brainded argumentation techniques brought to you by your average Intel fans.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Hahahaha ok. You asked for it.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 26, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> Yep, single digits.
> 
> View attachment 163546
> 
> But go ahead and scour the internet to find those few edge cases when the difference is bigger than that, that's how it works right ?


that's 9.6% on average
means less in gpu bound scenarios and more in cpu bound,ac odyssey shows 15%


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Compiling it now. But just to get the cognitive dissonance right, you're still comparing two same priced options, one of which is demonstrably 10% faster, and arguing for the slower.


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> 1080p and below is the resolution where you are limited by the CPU. I guess room temperature IQ would have you do CPU reviews in resolutions where the GPU is the bottleneck?


Yeah, I measure in Kelvin.  
Still, if he won't play his spanking $1200 2080 Ti at 1080p he'll never see those gains you're talking about.



dgianstefani said:


> But just to get the cognitive dissonance right, you're still comparing two same priced options, one of which is demonstrably 10% faster, and arguing for the slower.


It's only that much faster in the benchmarks you pick.
He's not only gaming.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> and arguing for the slower.



I never argued for the slower, I said buy whichever is cheapest, the differences are inconsequential in the long run. But the burning fanboy inside of you thought I dared recommend something without a blue sticker.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

I'd refer you back to the OP's actual post, where he says that they are pairing it with a next gen GPU. Hence the 2080ti comparisons. But that would require some reading comprehension on your part, so I'll let it slide.


----------



## jayseearr (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> 170+ fps instead of 130fps is not a 5% difference buddy, and that's on current gen GPUs.
> 
> Learn to read, the guy is not changing his CPU/Mobo for next 5-7 years, and is planning on buying a next gen GPU. This means "upgrade path" is worthless.
> 
> "AMD value" both options he's looking at are the same price, and all the "advantages" you rave about are relevant to your needs not to what the OP has said. Once again, learn to read.



fair enough, I missed the most recent post about not upgrading cpu for 5-7 years. I'll agree to learn to read if you do as well  




raptori said:


> His current CPU is i7 860 ( 10 years old cpu ) lets say it's worthless or not up-to the task anymore, his next upgrade if any will be when the 10700 or 3700x is worthless too or struggle to do the job.
> 
> We didn't count in the 6 cores CPU because we want more future proof and it's a one time buy for the CPU/MB .


I don't understand why it's only a one time buy for the cpu if "future proofing" is a concern then locking yourself into 1 hardware config for the next 5-7 years seems like a strange way to go about it. Regardless, If that's your/his approach and the 3700x costs $400+ dollars where you are from, at that point you can basically kiss everything good about Amd goodbye. also at that point, the choice really doesn't even matter does it?  Intel for slightly better gaming, amd for slightly better workloads since they both cost the same in your neck of the woods.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> I'd refer you back to the OP's actual post, where he says that they are pairing it with a next gen GPU. Hence the 2080ti comparisons. But that would require some reading comprehension on your part, so I'll let it slide.



Who the hell cares, the CPUs perform the same irrespective of the GPU used. The "next-gen" GPUs aren't going to be orders of magnitude faster like you believe for some inexplicable reason.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

9900k being the closest analogue to the 10700k (10700k actually has a slight frequency advantage), on average around 30 more FPS on the high end and 20 on the minimum 1%, which matter a lot, since your 1% lows are when you notice your nice average framerate start to stutter.

Next gen GPUs will have 2080ti level performance at a price point of around $450 so it's a very relevant comparison. Despite your attempts to dissuade comparison where the CPU is the bottleneck and not the GPU.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

What's laughable and pathetic is that those charts don't even contain a 10700. What the hell are you even trying to do, this is embarrassing. Did you really try and disprove those TPU percentages with this ? Holy crap. 

Someone stop this spamming troll.


----------



## jayseearr (Jul 26, 2020)

^ I don't see the 10700 anywhere on those graphs?

I see the 3700x though


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> But that would require some reading comprehension on your part, so I'll let it slide.


Speaking of slide, how come you post pics of graphs that doesn't include the 10700?


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

"Who the hell cares", and "cpu's perform the same". Nice logic.


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

TPU has their own reviews, you know.


----------



## jayseearr (Jul 26, 2020)

your graph with a bunch of intel cpus that nobody was talking about is somehow better logic though, right?


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Jul 26, 2020)

We seem to have dropped into a strange alternate universe where someone pairs a $1320 graphics card with an $85 monitor and a $280 CPU.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

jayseearr said:


> ^ I don't see the 10700 anywhere on those graphs?
> 
> I see the 3700x though


10700 is a 9900 with a updated solder and thinner die for better cooling. So anything the 9900 does, the 10700 does slightly better. I wouldn't complain, using the 9900 instead of the 10700 is giving your AMD preference an even easier ride. It's why most reviewers didn't even test the 10700, since it already exists as the 9900, they all did 10600 and 10900 reviews since they're both new.



JustAnEngineer said:


> We seem to have dropped into a strange alternate universe where someone pairs a $1320 graphics card with an $85 monitor and a $280 CPU.


How about a universe where someone is going with either a 10700 or a 3700x, and pairing it with a next gen GPU? That simple enough and easy enough for you to understand?


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

Mats said:


> TPU has their own reviews, you know.


He is in denial forget about it, he searched for games like Far Cry that have the worst engines to try and somehow convince us that this is the norm and those TPU charts must be garbage. Next level braindead.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Mats said:


> TPU has their own reviews, you know.
> View attachment 163553


TPU doesn't compare 1% lows yet, they're looking into getting the equipment.



Vya Domus said:


> He is in denial forget about it, he searched for games like Far Cry that have the worst engines to try and somehow convince us that this is the norm and those TPU charts must be garbage. Next level braindead.


Coming from the guy who can't count or apparently read  .


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> 1080p and below is the resolution where you are limited by the CPU. I guess room temperature IQ would have you do CPU reviews in resolutions where the GPU is the bottleneck?


You know, I'm pretty sure the OP's friend will play games, not review and benchmark them. Letting the CPU be the bottleneck when gaming sounds like a bad idea. 

It's a whole different thing when doing reviews tho.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> Coming from the guy who can't count or apparently read



I said I had them mixed up, doesn't compare to your 4D hyperspace chess trying to prove a 10700 is so much better with charts that don't contain a 10700. That's staggeringly bad and hilarious.


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> TPU doesn't compare 1% lows yet, they're looking into getting the equipment.


Well you're not looking into the 10700, so I can't see how that matters. You know there are 10700 reviews out there, right? Yeah you have to look for them yourselves, don't ask me.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Mats said:


> You know, I'm pretty sure the OP's friend will play games, not review and benchmark them. Letting the CPU be the bottleneck when gaming sounds like a bad idea.
> 
> It's a whole different thing when doing reviews tho.


CPU bottleneck tests are useful for determining long term choice in CPU. They artificially stress the CPU, which is objectively the point of testing. You're using high refresh rate gaming to find out where each CPU tested runs out of steam. Once again, why would you be interested in a review where the part in question is being bottlenecked by some other part of the system?


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

JustAnEngineer said:


> We seem to have dropped into a strange alternate universe where someone pairs a $1320 graphics card with an $85 monitor and a $280 CPU.


Don't bother.
It's the only combination that makes it possible to pick the _right _winner. 



dgianstefani said:


> CPU bottleneck tests are useful for determining long term choice in CPU. They artificially stress the CPU, which is objectively the point of testing. You're using high refresh rate gaming to find out where each CPU tested runs out of steam. Once again, why would you be interested in a review where the part in question is being bottlenecked by some other part of the system?


You missed my second line.


> It's a whole different thing when doing reviews tho.


You're saying one CPU is 10 % faster, I'm saying that's just for reviews and he'll never see that gain when gaming, realistically.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

You're right, two 14nm++ skylake chips that have the same core count, speed and architecture, with the updated version having slightly better cooling characteristics due to a revised IHS design are incomparable and any testing is irrelevant. Nice logic. But comparing an i3 10320 to a 6700k is totally fine right? Same CPU.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

Mats said:


> It's the only combination that makes it possible to pick the _right _winner.


If he buys something mid range then he's potentially looking at 2070-2080 performance at best for about 300$. All of these benchmarks are done with a 2080ti though, so in practice the differences are going to be even lower.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Mats said:


> You're saying one CPU is 10 % faster, I'm saying that's just for reviews and he'll never see that gain when gaming, realistically.



"realistically" he will see the benefits of a CPU that is 10% faster _minimum _in CPU bottlenecked games when he is going to keep the system for 5-7 years. The 140-160FPS on current gen game benchmarks will drop to half that in 7 years time, and in that case, running at 60fps instead of 45fps will certainly be noticeable even if you don't have a high refresh rate monitor by then.

It's like the haswell i5 vs i7 all over again. At the time the games didn't really need 8 threads and the gains were minimal, but 5 years later, the i5's are worthless due to most AAA games running like shit on a 4t cpu, whereas the i7s can actually hold their own and sustain above 60fps most of the time. Saying a clear performance advantage is pointless because there's no way to notice higher FPS "realistically" is moronic.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

60/45 = 1.33, I may not know how to count but you can't figure out division and percentages.

That's not even close to 10% but nice try, if these CPUs would maintain that 10% (which isn't accurate nor realistic even today) which they probably wouldn't you'd be looking at 60 vs 54 worst case, wow, colossal.

I bet you'll say to yourself, "man am I glad I made the right decision 7 years ago, now I'm getting 5 more frames".


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Jul 26, 2020)

Motherboard pricing and availability are bonkers right now, so it's challenging to figure in the difference between Intel and AMD on that front.  Would the OP be shopping H470 vs. B450 motherboards?

Are there any import options that would save the OP money over the local prices?  In the U.S., Ryzen 7 3700X is $280 while Core i7-10700 is $329, which puts it head-to-head against the $330 Ryzen 7 3800X.


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> Same CPU.


Just get better comparisons, that's all I'm saying.


dgianstefani said:


> "realistically" he will see the benefits of a CPU that is 10% faster _minimum _in CPU bottlenecked games when he is going to keep the system for 5-7 years. The 140-160FPS on current gen game benchmarks will drop to half that in 7 years time, and in that case, running at 60fps instead of 45fps will certainly be noticeable even if you don't have a high refresh rate monitor by then.


You're right. IF he gets a 2080 TI or similar, which he won't. You know, reading comprehension.

He won't be buying before Ryzen 4000, we don't even know what that's capable of. Maybe Comet Lake will continue to be the fastest in gaming, but it sure as hell won't be compared to Ryzen 3000, which makes this whole thread pointless.

And don't give me the next gen nividia argument. You can't go there without acknowledging that the prices go up a lot for each generation, so 2080 TI performance for 2070 price isn't a given.
980 TI $650
1080 TI $700
2080 TI $1000


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

10% is average gain according to TPU. Plenty of games out there show 150fps compared to 110, which is more in the region of 20%. Suddenly though you actually have some data you care about when I make a small mistake lmfao.



Vya Domus said:


> 60/45 = 1.33, I may not know how to count but you can't figure out division and percentages.
> 
> That's not even close to 10% but nice try, if these CPUs would maintain that 10% (which isn't accurate nor realistic even today) which they probably wouldn't you'd be looking at 60 vs 54 worst case, wow, colossal.
> 
> I bet you'll say to yourself, "man am I glad I made the right decision 7 years ago, now I'm getting 5 more frames".





JustAnEngineer said:


> Motherboard pricing and availability are bonkers right now, so it's challenging to figure in the difference between Intel and AMD on that front.  Would the OP be shopping H470 vs. B450 motherboards?
> 
> Are there any import options that would save the OP money over the local prices?  In the U.S., Ryzen 7 3700X is $280 while Core i7-10700 is $329, which puts it head-to-head against the $330 Ryzen 7 3800X.


If you read the actual OP, you'll see they have CPUs and Mobos already picked out. Let's not move the goalposts.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> 10% is average gain according to TPU. Plenty of games out there show 150fps compared to 110



But the average is still 10% (not actually 10% but I see that you try and pass an OC'd 10700 as the baseline, sneaky) no matter how hard you try and ignore that, still can't get you're head around that ? Or everyone is just going to play Far Cry or something ? The way your brain functions, it's fascinating.

If "plenty" of games show 150 vs 110, then the average difference couldn't possibly be 10% mathematically.



dgianstefani said:


> Suddenly though you actually have some data you care about when I make a small mistake lmfao.



Hold on a second I am compiling some charts, they don't contain a 3700X though. Is that OK ?


----------



## Vario (Jul 26, 2020)

raptori said:


> Currently he is using DEEPCOOL FROSTWIN-CPU Cooler on his LGA 1156 and it's suppose to be compatible with LGA1200, maybe not upto the task of fully cooling 10700 but still a good initial solution.
> 
> View attachment 163493


Should be fine, so I would say 10700.  In fact thats a bonus as LGA1156 is the same hole spacing as the LGA1200.  I would rather a 10700 + Deepcool versus the 3700X + Stock AMD HSF.  Might be a different story if he didn't have a compatible heatsink, because I really don't recommend the stock Intel HSF unless you are doing a seriously low power build (i3 or i5).


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> But the average is still 10% (not actually 10% but I see that you try and pass an OC'd 10700 as the baseline, OK fine) no matter how hard you try and ignore that, still can't get you're head around that ? Or everyone is just going to play Far Cry or something ? The way your brain functions, it's fascinating.
> 
> If "plenty" of games show 150 vs 110, then the average difference couldn't possibly be 10% mathematically.
> 
> Hold on a second I am compiling some charts, they don't contain a 3700X though. Is that OK ?


TPU doesn't test for 1% lows, which are basically the gold standard for CPU testing in games. The average is 10% according to TPU, other review sites have it very different. You asked for examples, I provided three current generation 2020 AAA games. Not enough? Find evidence proving me wrong then.

If you're contradicting my claims, the onus is on you to provide evidence. Noone anywhere will make the argument that the 3700x is better for gaming than the 10700, and it's a toss up between the two for productivity, yet you are the one suggesting that the 3700x should be the preferred choice.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> You asked for examples, I provided three current generation 2020 AAA games.





> But go ahead and scour the internet to find those few edge cases when the difference is bigger than that, that's how it works right ? You find the biggest gap between the two and claim that's the case across the board. Top 10 brainded argumentation techniques brought to you by your average Intel fans.



I said this as a joke but you still insist on this, not only that you actually tried and went ahead to do that, you couldn't even find benchmarks with a 10700. You provided three benchmarks *without a 10700 in them.*

You didn't provide anything buddy, and even if you did the average still remains at about 6% actually by the way not 10%. Stop trying to pass an OC'd 10700 as the baseline here.



dgianstefani said:


> you are the one suggesting that the 3700x should be the preferred choice.



You are literately imagining things.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Listen "buddy" a 8700k _10600 _does better in gaming than both your prized 3700x and even a 3950x, a 9900 _10700_ does better than that, and a 10900 is better still. Get your head out of your ass.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

This is so bad, you can't even come up with anything worthwhile to say, that's what happens when you keep spamming nonsense. The 3700X is "prized" in your head solely, again you can't help but think only like a fanboy.


----------



## Mats (Jul 26, 2020)

This thread is over.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> Hold on a second I am compiling some charts, they don't contain a 3700X though. Is that OK ?



Use a 3800x if you like, still going to get beaten by a 8700k, 9900k, 10600k, 10700, 10700k, 10900, 10900k


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> Use a 3800x if you like, still going to get beaten by a 8700k, 9900k, 10600k, 10700, 10700k, 10900, 10900k



I am going to use what I want, you still can't get over the fact that I haven't actually recommended any of these CPUs ? Holy crap, it's like you live in a parallel universe.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> Does arguing with someone suggesting the superior option make you feel smart?



Who knows but I bet that posting charts that have nothing to do with anything and not knowing how averages and percentages work probably do make you feel smart.

You are still convinced I am suggesting that OP should definitely buy a 3700X, wow. Man you must really hate that red sticker.


----------



## jayseearr (Jul 26, 2020)

Your still arguing with him Vya? He told others to learn to read after mistaking the 10700 for the 10700k and then proceeded to post a graph with no 10700 on it. And now he's following it up by comparing the 3800x with the i9 9900k and 10900k which are nowhere near the same price point. any credibility he had in the discussion has been slowly evaporating and now he's just starting to come off like a shitty intel salesman hurting for commission at this point. safe to say you're taking him too seriously


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Buy the best product for your needs. In this case it's the 10700. But yeah, keep throwing around shill accusations when you can't make a convincing argument lmfao.

If you had at least average reading comprehension you could easily see I own both a 3900x and a 8700k system... _but muh intel shill_


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

dgianstefani said:


> keep throwing around shill accusations when you can't make a convincing argument lmfao.



Or just just keep posting charts that are missing the main object of the discussion.

Yeah, I am never gonna let that go because it was soooo bad coming from someone who was so vehement about showing "data".


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Go and look at two benchmarks comparing the 9900 and the 10700, then get back to me with what you see.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

No thanks, it's of no use, you had your chance to prove whatever it was you wanted to and you blew it. You looked at a chart comparing these two CPUs where there was clearly just a 6% difference across the board and yet you kept claiming "plenty of games are 150 vs 110" and whatnot. Basically you only cared about whatever benchmarks you found and ignored everything else, I am not the one than needs to look at anything, you are.

No one cares about a 9900 or whatever else you try and plop into this discussion, I have no idea why you keep trying.


----------



## Totally (Jul 26, 2020)

Well this thread no longer seems to be going anywhere but anyway don't mind me


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> No thanks, it's of no use, you had your chance to prove whatever it was you wanted to and you blew it. You looked at a chart comparing these two CPUs where there was clearly just a 6% difference across the board and yet you kept claiming "plenty of games are 150 vs 110" and whatnot. Basically you only cared about whatever benchmarks you found and ignored everything else, I am not the one than needs to look at anything, you are.
> 
> No one cares about a 9900 or whatever else you try and plop into this discussion, I have no idea why you keep trying.






I circled it to help with your reading comprehension


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

My reading comprehension is fine, I am flattered that you care so much about me to be this concerned about it.

I don't care enough about you though to  say the same. We're not that close.


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 26, 2020)

Is that why you keep responding to my posts? Because you don't care?


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 26, 2020)

I said I don't care that much to be concerned about your reading issues like you are about mine. I can talk to anyone I want.


----------



## 95Viper (Jul 26, 2020)

This thread has gone sideways.
Thread closed...


----------

