# Intel Core i5-10600K



## W1zzard (May 26, 2020)

The Core i5-10600K is Intel's biggest upgrade in the mid-range for years. Driven by strong competition from AMD, Intel is now giving us a 6c/12t CPU with 125 W TDP and the full compliment of 12 MB cache. Our Core i5-10600K benchmarks show it to be a formidable performer, especially in gaming.

*Show full review*


----------



## kajson (May 26, 2020)

Based on these results you'd think the 10600 non k at 40-50$ less seems like the best way to go as oc has become obsolete somewhat and you still get the 4.8ghz max clock. The platform costs sort of ruin the greatness of the whole gen though.  Because the i5's are mostly greatly priced it seems. When Intels version of the B550 comes out they might be in business. But now it seems like big mismatch the whole line-up. The B450 option that AMD does have, bios size issues aside, makes them much better placed in the market.


----------



## Daven (May 26, 2020)

Competition is really heating up. The main problem might be availability and of course extra component costs to upgrade. Comparison of Intel and AMD (released/rumored) without IGP:


3900XT4.1/4.812/24$480​10900KF3.7/5.110/20$480​3900X3.8/4.612/24$430​10900F2.8/5.010/20$430​3800XT4.2/4.78/16$380​10700KF3.8/5.08/16$350​3800X3.9/4.58/16$330​10700F2.9/4.78/16$300​3600XT4.0/4.76/12$280​10600KF4.1/4.86/12$240​3600X3.8/4.46/12$230​10400F2.9/4.36/12$160​
Edit: I'm estimating pricing and only using Turbo 2.0 on the Intel chips. I still don't believe many will see Turbo 3.0 clocks much less TVB clocks. Also Core i5 and lower don't have turbos beyond 2.0.


----------



## ThrashZone (May 26, 2020)

Hi,
Yeah this is a wild thing chip 
GN showed it beating a 10900x oc'ing lol


----------



## Legacy-ZA (May 26, 2020)

What I don't need is a new socket with every new CPU released.


----------



## ppn (May 26, 2020)

It's worse, a new socket with old CPU released, I7-8700K in disguize. The die is probably only the 6 core full fat underneath when delided, 0.44mm instead of 0.58. not carved out of the 10 core at all.

just get the 10700K or better yet 10700F instead. that is what intel is saying. first get the 10600K and get bottlenecked and disappointed, then sell and buy the 8 core.
So why make the extra hoop. (all my friends went 9900K already for a reason. looks like I'm stuck with Xeon 32nm until 3nm..)

10600K 12MB 4.8GHz @ 1.4V is preposterous. 10700F 16MB 4.6GHz  @ 1.2V,  I would pick the 2^3 core every time.


----------



## GreiverBlade (May 26, 2020)

mhhh still nope ... 

given the solid price i got spot on mentioning how i thought it would be, 320chf/$/eur i see atm at my retailer ... and given the mobo pricing which is close to a X570 and given that i will probably never see the 350$ new price for a 3900X (which, if it was, would be the best option for me) a 3600X still is the best option (even the 3700X and 3800X are almost the same price than the 10600K for me ...  ) 

"but you would get higher overall FPS with Intel.... just saying..." .... mhhhh alright i do need those 0.2-10fps more indeed... not! at 1440p75 i would be fine even with a 3300X @130chf 


10th gen core is a big bag of "meh" to me


----------



## Noztra (May 26, 2020)

I still don’t get how a product that have more negatives, than positives can get highly recommended?

Yeah they are unlocked and have HT, but how is that a positive? Just because Intel is finally not artifical limiting their product stack, they don’t deserve praise.

And Reasonably priced is another false positive. If you take in the Account of the platform. With MB and cooler its pretty expensive.


----------



## Darksword (May 26, 2020)

kajson said:


> Based on these results you'd think the 10600 non k at 40-50$ less seems like the best way to go as oc has become obsolete somewhat and you still get the 4.8ghz max clock. The platform costs sort of ruin the greatness of the whole gen though.  Because the i5's are mostly greatly priced it seems. When Intels version of the B550 comes out they might be in business. But now it seems like big mismatch the whole line-up. The B450 option that AMD does have, bios size issues aside, makes them much better placed in the market.



I think you're right.  Overclocking the 10600K isn't worth it.  You'd be better off saving a few bucks and putting it towards other parts of your system.

However, a 10600K + $35.00 HSF = *$300.00*. For that price, you could get a 3700X on a much better platform.


----------



## hat (May 26, 2020)

kajson said:


> Based on these results you'd think the 10600 non k at 40-50$ less seems like the best way to go as oc has become obsolete somewhat and you still get the 4.8ghz max clock. The platform costs sort of ruin the greatness of the whole gen though.  Because the i5's are mostly greatly priced it seems. When Intels version of the B550 comes out they might be in business. But now it seems like big mismatch the whole line-up. The B450 option that AMD does have, bios size issues aside, makes them much better placed in the market.


Disappointing... isn't it? But we always want faster products that OC well. Normally, I suppose both Intel and AMD in the past have left a lot of headroom on the table to make future products more powerful if they have to, and to keep chips nice and efficient. Now that they're competing pretty fiercely, efficiency and headroom go out the window in the name of raw speed... unfortunately, with that, that means guys like you and me don't get to do much to make it go faster when we get one. These chips are basically overclocked out of the box... just look at the cooling requirements today compared to the cooling requirements 10 years ago. Even the notorious Pentium 4 could be cooled effectively by this... don't try it on one of these new chips!


----------



## Berfs1 (May 26, 2020)

Saw this in the introduction, 125W is not the power limit.... it is the TDP. Power limit for the 10600K is 182W, 10700K is 229W, and 10900K is 250W.



ppn said:


> It's worse, a new socket with old CPU released, I7-8700K in disguize. The die is probably only the 6 core full fat underneath when delided, 0.44mm instead of 0.58. not carved out of the 10 core at all.


Not true, the 10600K/F runs on the Q0 die, which is the 10c variant. Aside from the 8/10 core processors, MOST of the other processors use the G1 die, which is the 6 core die.


----------



## moob (May 26, 2020)

Darksword said:


> However, a 10600K + $35.00 HSF = *$300.00*. For that price, you could get a 3700X on a much better platform.


It's even worse if you have a Micro Center near you since the 3700X is $270. But even on amazon, the 3700X is down to $295 with a cooler (as listed on the chart on the first page). Not that any of that really matters since you can't find the 10600k in stock anywhere anyway. If this chip launched at $200, even without the cooler, I think it'd be the recommendation for a lot of people, but like Wizz wrote in the conclusion, the value proposition of this chip isn't there right now.


----------



## Totally (May 26, 2020)

oof, you need not one but two nuclear reactors and with a mild OC even lets you open the windows in the dead of winter.


----------



## Berfs1 (May 26, 2020)

kajson said:


> Based on these results you'd think the 10600 non k at 40-50$ less seems like the best way to go as oc has become obsolete somewhat and you still get the 4.8ghz max clock. The platform costs sort of ruin the greatness of the whole gen though.  Because the i5's are mostly greatly priced it seems. When Intels version of the B550 comes out they might be in business. But now it seems like big mismatch the whole line-up. The B450 option that AMD does have, bios size issues aside, makes them much better placed in the market.


Intel has B460, H410, H470, W480, and Z490. There are some others but these are the simple ones. H410 supports DMI 3.0, so I could actually recommend getting an H410 motherboard for budget builds; in the past, the Hx10 chipset was DMI 2.0 while the B chipset was DMI 3.0, which can affect the performance of the CPU. As for the 10600, you get 4.4 GHz all core. 10500 is 4.2 GHz all core, and 10400 is 4.0 GHz all core. Looking back at the MSRP Box prices, 10600 would be quite competitive, but do remember you can't go past 4.4 GHz on all cores unless you BCLK overclock it.


----------



## mechtech (May 26, 2020)

Has intel worked out all the sercutiy flaws and performance impacts from security mitigation's with this generation?


----------



## Berfs1 (May 26, 2020)

moob said:


> It's even worse if you have a Micro Center near you since the 3700X is $270. But even on amazon, the 3700X is down to $295 with a cooler (as listed on the chart on the first page). Not that any of that really matters since you can't find the 10600k in stock anywhere anyway. If this chip launched at $200, even without the cooler, I think it'd be the recommendation for a lot of people, but like Wizz wrote in the conclusion, the value proposition of this chip isn't there right now.


The 10600KF exists too, that one is 238$ boxed, while the 10600K is 263$ boxed. I think a lot of people are forgetting that the F variant CPU is cheaper as it does not include the iGPU, which for gaming you don't need. While this review obviously can carry over to the 10600KF, the PRICING is actually quite different. Also, while yes the current pricing of the 3700X is much lower, I'm not sure if it is fair to compare a new CPU with x$ MSRP to an older CPU with the same sale price of x$,



mechtech said:


> Has intel worked out all the sercutiy flaws and performance impacts from security mitigation's with this generation?


TBH I don't really care about those security flaws as they don't affect me. There is something really cool called not updating your BIOS  That's how my 9750H can stay undervolted. They always say, if it isn't broken, don't fix it, and I have not had anything broken with my system, so yeah, I'll keep my undervolting privileges 



Mark Little said:


> Competition is really heating up. The main problem might be availability and of course extra component costs to upgrade. Comparison of Intel and AMD (released/rumored) without IGP:
> 
> 
> 3900XT4.1/4.812/24$480​10900KF3.7/5.110/20$480​3900X3.8/4.612/24$430​10900F2.8/5.010/20$430​3800XT4.2/4.78/16$380​10700KF3.8/5.08/16$350​3800X3.9/4.58/16$330​10700F2.9/4.78/16$300​3600XT4.0/4.76/12$280​10600KF4.1/4.86/12$240​3600X3.8/4.46/12$230​10400F2.9/4.36/12$160​
> Edit: I'm estimating pricing and only using Turbo 2.0 on the Intel chips. I still don't believe many will see Turbo 3.0 clocks much less TVB clocks. Also Core i5 and lower don't have turbos beyond 2.0.


All core turbos for the Intel chips in respective order (all core turbo/TVB all core turbo): 4.8/4.9, 4.5/4.6, 4.7, 4.6, 4.5, 4.0


----------



## Shatun_Bear (May 26, 2020)

1. These prices are not the same as listed online. Which are even more expensive
2. Total system cost is still far too expensive as motherboards are costly compared to Ryzen AM4 and you need to buy a cooler. An extra ~$150 compared to Amazon's best selling CPU, the 3600.


----------



## moob (May 26, 2020)

Berfs1 said:


> The 10600KF exists too, that one is 238$ boxed, while the 10600K is 263$ boxed. I think a lot of people are forgetting that the F variant CPU is cheaper as it does not include the iGPU, which for gaming you don't need. While this review obviously can carry over to the 10600KF, the PRICING is actually quite different. Also, while yes the current pricing of the 3700X is much lower, I'm not sure if it is fair to compare a new CPU with x$ MSRP to an older CPU with the same sale price of x$,


Of course it's fair. What else would you compare? All that matters is what these CPUs cost today, not what they will cost, nor what the AMD chips launched at. Prices need to be adjusted to the current market conditions.


----------



## ThrashZone (May 26, 2020)

Hi,
Not many gougers on amd side seeing amd flooded the market 
Intel on the other hand is dripping samples out so high retail prices everywhere then gougers really test the seas


----------



## ARF (May 26, 2020)

Mark Little said:


> Competition is really heating up. The main problem might be availability and of course extra component costs to upgrade. Comparison of Intel and AMD (released/rumored) without IGP:



Someone who reads tech news for the first time would think that Intel has released something competitive. Lols, they didn't.
If the XT Ryzens ever get released, it will be after July, with September announcement of Zen 3 based Vermeer with 20% IPC improvement and even higher clocks.






			PassMark - Intel Core i9-10900K @ 3.70GHz - Price performance comparison
		







			PassMark - AMD Ryzen 9 3900X - Price performance comparison


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (May 26, 2020)

this might be a 2nd option for me, but the current availability of Intel 400 Series boards makes this a hard pass. Perhaps a 3600 + B550 combo is still up in the air for me. =/


----------



## phanbuey (May 26, 2020)

ppn said:


> It's worse, a new socket with old CPU released, I7-8700K in disguize. The die is probably only the 6 core full fat underneath when delided, 0.44mm instead of 0.58. not carved out of the 10 core at all.
> 
> just get the 10700K or better yet 10700F instead. that is what intel is saying. first get the 10600K and get bottlenecked and disappointed, then sell and buy the 8 core.
> So why make the extra hoop. (all my friends went 9900K already for a reason. looks like I'm stuck with Xeon 32nm until 3nm..)
> ...



It is a 8700K, but im not sure about the bottlenecking and dissapointment, as it games within 5% of the 8 highest end 8 core for gaming and is a 3 year old chip (this is just a tuned refresh).  

A bit of memory and cache OC to make up for that missing 4mb of cache and you're there.


----------



## heflys20 (May 26, 2020)

Disappointing product, IMHO; particularly when you factor in the additional costs. This just reminds me of what an incredible value the 3600 is.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (May 26, 2020)

Yeah kinda disappointing at it's current pricing.... You can either go 3600 with a mobo for cheaper or a 3700X for around the same price........ I don't doubt that some people will pair these with 2080 ti or faster next gen gpu to get their 5-10% extra performance at 1080p but my guess is most people buying these are more in the $300-400 gpu range if not lower and for them its sorta silly vs what the competition offers at a lower price. 


Hopefully rocket lake brings some nice improvements..... looks like I will be doing mostly ryzen builds in the meantime.


----------



## ReD-EyeD (May 26, 2020)

Is this a sponsored review? Because having *"All You Need for Gaming"* and *"World's Fastest Gaming Processor"* for 10900k review seems very inapropriate and biased.
Specifically checked AMD cpu reviews and none of them had anything like that in the title (while being much more innovative and better value). Seems fishy.


----------



## ppn (May 26, 2020)

Alder lake in 18 months. that is the way to go, what little improvement rocket lake brings like m.2 slot and if any IPC at all,
are not worth it for a trivial short therm fun and will be dwarfed by whatever intel can make on 7nm and AMD on 5nm.
DDR4 is clearly bottlenecking the CPUs, and I'm not very enthusiastic about using overvolted stretched to the limit DDR4 at 1.35V, when the norm is 1.2V.
When they can run at 5000Mhz 1.2V I take. both CPU and DDR at 1.2V yeah.

2080Ti is 50% faster than 2060super. next gen RTX 30 is expected 50% faster, actually 60% more performance at 60% the size the current chips, so 2080Ti is in a way the new 3070 and down to earth. pretty average stuff starting the end of this year.

HT brings 20-25% improvement, stuttering gone. but it just can't work for 5 and 3nm GPUs, it is not future proof enough.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (May 26, 2020)

I don't really pay attention to any rumors as far as what chips are expected to perform at.... I wait till they're actually launch to judge performance and any sorta release schedule for future products is always subject to change. At this point I really can't take any intel road maps seriously as they were suppose to have 10nm out the door ages ago. I do hope they get their shit together though because my preference is to have one system from each chip maker to show people I do builds for the difference between them in more real world stuff vs looking at graphs etc.


----------



## QUANTUMPHYSICS (May 26, 2020)

All you need for gaming is a Core i9 9900k.

What you WANT for gaming is a Core i9 10900K.

Thank you TechPowerUp for completely gaslighting the AMD fanboys LOL.


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 26, 2020)

hat said:


> Disappointing... isn't it? But we always want faster products that OC well. Normally, I suppose both Intel and AMD in the past have left a lot of headroom on the table to make future products more powerful if they have to, and to keep chips nice and efficient. Now that they're competing pretty fiercely, efficiency and headroom go out the window in the name of raw speed... unfortunately, with that, that means guys like you and me don't get to do much to make it go faster when we get one. These chips are basically overclocked out of the box... just look at the cooling requirements today compared to the cooling requirements 10 years ago. Even the notorious Pentium 4 could be cooled effectively by this... don't try it on one of these new chips!



You don't get to overclock the CPU much if at all, true.

Overclock the memory instead.

Gamers Nexus used OC'd RAM on a 10600K and were able to beat a 10900K in multiple games:

GN Video "Intel i5-10600K Cache Ratio & RAM Overclock Beats 10900K: How Much Memory Matters" :










Here's German computerbase.de using the fastest memory they could (AIO cooler)  in a 9900k vs 3900X comparison.  I circled the ones where the CPU was not overclocked, except the top with the max memory speed (they got to 4133 on the 9900k).  The 3600 one is easily achievable with Intel Z390 / Z490.


----------



## heflys20 (May 26, 2020)

oxrufiioxo said:


> I don't doubt that some people will pair these with 2080 ti or faster next gen gpu to get their 5-10% extra performance at 1080p but my guess is most people buying these are more in the $300-400 gpu range if not lower and for them its sorta silly vs what the competition offers at a lower price



I imagine most folks, with 2080ti money, are likely to pair it with a 10900k. There will be some, but it doesn't mesh with "bragging rights".


----------



## oxrufiioxo (May 26, 2020)

heflys20 said:


> I imagine most folks, with 2080ti money, are likely to pair it with a 10900k. There will be some, but it doesn't mesh with "bragging rights".




I agree, you tend to see people more often with $350+ cpu and sub $300 gpu vs sub 300 cpu and and $1000+ gpu....... Just pointing out that this chip is still pretty niche on why you would spend a decent chunk more on the platform and cooling it vs a 3600.


Either way intel will likely sell out of 10th gen chips as fast as they can make them which given their limited 14nm fab capacity isn't likely to be very many. The best selling 10th gen chip on amazon US couldn't even crack the top 20 likely due to very limited quantities.


----------



## Vario (May 27, 2020)

Nice to see the 8700K still relevant.


----------



## mechtech (May 27, 2020)

> TBH I don't really care about those security flaws as they don't affect me. There is something really cool called not updating your BIOS  That's how my 9750H can stay undervolted. They always say, if it isn't broken, don't fix it, and I have not had anything broken with my system, so yeah, I'll keep my undervolting privileges



That's an option for older stuff, I would assume newer motherboards would come with an updated BIOS, also I thought there were windows 10 updates to address them?

Was just curious if they had fixed them at the source with this new gen?


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 27, 2020)

For gaming still are the best CPUs by far, as much as I hate Intel. Definetly will going to wait for the 10nm CPUs with PCI-E 4.0.
I'm not even considering upgrading to those overly power hungry crap CPUs, even if they are the fastest.
AMD are also not an option, since my overclocked 3770K can match them in Games without any issues...


----------



## Fourstaff (May 27, 2020)

Well done Blue team, putting pressure on Red team for the next few months. Narrative doesn't change though: Red team wins in parallel tasks, its neck to neck in gaming, and Red team's platform cost will be slightly cheaper at each pricepoint.


----------



## MAXLD (May 27, 2020)

Well, much better for gaming at 1080p with a top big beefy GPU, as expected.
At 1440p, where the GPU gets more relevance, a 10600K has a mere 0~5 fps gain for $65 more (vs an R5 3600, same cores same threads). That's a lot of green already only on the CPU alone.

And with a more affordable GPU would be interesting to see how things would shape. I think guru3D kinda provided a clearer scenario for the regular enthusiast Joe out there:



> As far as gaming goes, the pure raw wins are mostly for Intel, but everything is relative when it comes to gaming as 98% of the time your actual limitation is the GPU, and not CPU. For gaming, GPUs matter more than CPUs. *You can measure the effect of CPU performance with games, but only when you steer away from GPU limitation, that's why we use a 1000+ USD graphics card as in the lower resolutions you'll see differences. But with a Radeon RX 5700 or GeForce RTX 2070 these differences would be much closer towards equal for one another.* Hey, everything is relative.
> 
> The vast majority of you guys have a far more GPU limited graphics card. [...] the reality absolutely and unequivocally is that you can game pretty darn well with a lower-cost processor as well. However, if you need 144 FPS at Full HD, the symbiosis of a faster processor and GPU can make a difference (at great cost). Currently, I find 8-core processors a sweet spot in relation to gaming, 6-cores for value.



So, to get such performance advantage/difference at 1080p, as showed by most reviews, you need to spend more on both the CPU and the GPU. AKA: with a more humanly affordable GPU, the potential advantage provided slims down, denying the justification for the price premium of the CPU even more. So basically, the money saved on the cpu can be much better invested on a better GPU for more FPS (specially if planing on upgrading later to a 1440p monitor, since the GPU grunt will already be there and is much more important than the CPU).


----------



## W1zzard (May 27, 2020)

ReD-EyeD said:


> Is this a sponsored review? Because having *"All You Need for Gaming"* and *"World's Fastest Gaming Processor"* for 10900k review seems very inapropriate and biased.
> Specifically checked AMD cpu reviews and none of them had anything like that in the title (while being much more innovative and better value). Seems fishy.


The subtitle capability was added a few weeks ago, it's used in various reviews, including recent amd CPUs


----------



## Caring1 (May 27, 2020)

The 10600K has already proven itself as more than capable, then along come Intel with their dodgy as hell marketing trying to upsell.


----------



## bug (May 27, 2020)

Decent performance, but at this point you just can't lose in both perf/W and perf/$ to the 3600.


----------



## InVasMani (May 27, 2020)

AMD should switch to a soldered on copper heatspreader for Ryzen. I mean even if Intel turn copies and does the same AMD thus far is ahead in the overall core count race anyway. It wouldn't cost much extra to make that change and would maybe eek out another 25-50MHz overclock, but the more important part of that equation is how that impacts a chip like a the 3950x 25MHz x16 cores or 50MHz x16 cores equals 400MHz to 800MHz combined clock speed gain not so bad ehh!? Meanwhile Threadripper that would be 800MHz to 1600MHz combined on the 32 core behemoth. AMD would be almost crazy not to do that and release it as a new SKU above it's current top end lineup and then they can continue it onward with Zen 3 chips. It should actually not only allow the chips to eek out a bit more high end clocking headroom, but also of importantance more efficiency per clock in turn because with less heat comes less excess voltage requirements due to better stability. Besides that they should be doing that anyway on the mobile chips in particular for that matter keep them running cooler and possibily improve and extend battery life.


----------



## biffzinker (May 27, 2020)

InVasMani said:


> AMD should switch to a soldered on copper heatspreader for Ryzen.


AMD is already is using solder for Ryzen between the die, and nickel plated copper heatspreader unless you get a Ryzen APU then it's paste. The lower clockspeeds has always been tied to the fabrication process for the dies. There's also variation in the quality of the die depending on where it comes off the silicon wafer.


----------



## InVasMani (May 27, 2020)

MAXLD said:


> Well, much better for gaming at 1080p with a top big beefy GPU, as expected.
> At 1440p, where the GPU gets more relevance, a 10600K has a mere 0~5 fps gain for $65 more (vs an R5 3600, same cores same threads). That's a lot of green already only on the CPU alone.
> 
> And with a more affordable GPU would be interesting to see how things would shape. I think guru3D kinda provided a clearer scenario for the regular enthusiast Joe out there:
> ...


 Not just upgrading to 1440p you can downsample from 1440p or close to it on a 1080p display and still see a huge benefit on the GPU side and negate the CPU bottleneck necessity. The CPU situation is only important at ultra high refresh rates and that are easily sustainable. Polling rates on mouse/keyboard also are part of the issue as well because you increase the polling rate you decrease lag, but it isn't linear just as raising refresh rate's impact on lag isn't linear either. You want a best compromise balance between GPU and CPU followed by refresh rate and peripherial polling rates.



biffzinker said:


> AMD is already is using solder for Ryzen between the die, and nickel plated copper heatspreader unless you get a Ryzen APU then it's paste. The lower clockspeeds has always been tied to the fabrication process for the dies. There's also variation in the quality of the die depending on where it comes off the silicon wafer.


 I hadn't even realized they were nickel plated copper, but that makes sense the fact that it escaped me bothers me now.


----------



## vlad.coolish (May 27, 2020)

I ask again...
Please, add to next CPU test Civilization VI AI benchmark  (Average turn time, s).


----------



## ferakiller (May 27, 2020)

HAHAHAHA Why do test using DDR-3200????????? INTEL say "YOU CAN NOT USE MORE THEN DDR4-2666"








						Especificações do produto
					

guia de referência rápida, que contém especificações, recursos, preços, compatibilidade, documentos de design, códigos de solicitação de pedidos, códigos de especificações e muito mais.




					ark.intel.com


----------



## bug (May 27, 2020)

ferakiller said:


> HAHAHAHA Why do test using DDR-3200????????? INTEL say "YOU CAN NOT USE MORE THEN DDR4-2666"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can use it in overclocked mode, same as you use DDR4-3600 on Zen2.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 27, 2020)

ferakiller said:


> HAHAHAHA Why do test using DDR-3200????????? INTEL say "YOU CAN NOT USE MORE THEN DDR4-2666"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Base spec without xmp enabled.


----------



## 1d10t (May 27, 2020)

These actually good CPU from blue team.
However, in my sight, many i5 user paired their CPU with H or B motherboards, obviously they will not have Z board feature. Coupled that with extra cost for good cooler, I kinda agree this is another disappointment from budget to performance ratio.


----------



## ferakiller (May 27, 2020)

Intel recommends not to use the memory above the indicated frequency as it can damage the memory controller thus causing the loss of its warranty, so you cannot use a technology created by Intel itself at the risk of losing your warranty, however you have an option , which is to PAY for "INSURANCE" against damage due to OC.


----------



## bug (May 27, 2020)

ferakiller said:


> Intel recommends not to use the memory above the indicated frequency as it can damage the memory controller thus causing the loss of its warranty, so you cannot use a technology created by Intel itself at the risk of losing your warranty, however you have an option , which is to PAY for "INSURANCE" against damage due to OC.


You happen to have source for that? Because if you don't, you're two posts into TPU and already trolling.


----------



## ferakiller (May 27, 2020)

you know read de rules of product USE? if you do not respect it you are wrong user to INTEL.








						Product Specifications
					

quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.




					ark.intel.com


----------



## bug (May 27, 2020)

ferakiller said:


> you know read de rules of product USE? if you do not respect it you are wrong user to INTEL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A simple "no" would have sufficed.


----------



## EarthDog (May 27, 2020)

Tatty_One said:


> Base spec without xmp enabled.


max spec for the platform is 2933.

Anything above this is considered overlooking the IMC, indeed. 

As far as the warranty, Intel offers an additional warranty that includes overlooking. So if you feel bad about overlooking the imc (you shouldn't), get the additional coverage and go to town.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 27, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> max spec for the platform is 2933.
> 
> Anything above this is considered overlooking the IMC, indeed.
> 
> As far as the warranty, Intel offers an additional warranty that includes overlooking. So if you feel bad about overlooking the imc (you shouldn't), get the additional coverage and go to town.


Naaa, I have tried my hardest for years to break one and failed miserably


----------



## ferakiller (May 27, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> max spec for the platform is 2933.
> 
> Anything above this is considered overlooking the IMC, indeed.
> 
> As far as the warranty, Intel offers an additional warranty that includes overlooking. So if you feel bad about overlooking the imc (you shouldn't), get the additional coverage and go to town.



You really don't know how to read specifications bro? 2666 for Core i3 / i5, 2933 i7 / i9 platform and warranty only if you overpay(you shouldn't HAHAHA), it is already charged when buying a "K" CPU.

-Bring valid arguments and stop being FANBOY!!!


----------



## EarthDog (May 27, 2020)

ferakiller said:


> You really don't know how to read specifications bro? 2666 for Core i3 / i5, 2933 i7 / i9 platform and warranty only if you overpay(you shouldn't HAHAHA), it is already charged when buying a "K" CPU.
> 
> -Bring valid arguments and stop being FANBOY!!!


yes...indeed. it varies by cpu. You don't like overclocking. We get it.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (May 28, 2020)

Caring1 said:


> The 10600K has already proven itself as more than capable, then along come Intel with their dodgy as hell marketing trying to upsell.
> View attachment 156819



Couldn't agree more. To me anyway, that slide makes it sound like if you don't buy the i9 strictly for gaming, then you must be peasant even though the 10700K and 10600K would be just as good and you'd save some money (on the CPU purchase at least). Like, if you use your rig mostly for gaming (not considering other everyday average user tasks like web browsing, watching videos, etc. because even a potato could do those, quite frankly) and you either have no use/budget for an i9 or even i7 and don't want to go AMD for whatever reason (it happens people. Get over it) then there's nothing wrong with going with the 10600K. If it's what you can afford, it's what you can afford. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## EarthDog (May 28, 2020)

Gmr_Chick said:


> To me anyway


I don't read it that way. The i5 has Seamless AAA gaming checked off... just not competitive gaming. You do get peak performance with the faster cpu.. is the difference big? No... but I don't think it infers pleb status either.


----------



## haxzion (May 28, 2020)

Still 14nm and High power draw compared to a 8700k or  3600 and you need a new board to run it.
So.....no.


----------



## Tartaros (May 29, 2020)

Sounds like a fine cpu if it could benefit from 7nm


----------



## JRMBelgium (May 30, 2020)

1% lows in game benchmarks please... Especially when you post catching titles like "All you need for gaming".


----------



## AddSub (May 30, 2020)

On a modern Win10 based bench 1% lows are pointless, since Win10 is still plagued with bizzare DPC issues and the entire WDDM is hot garbage on top of it all.

As for the 10600k, it's a perfect tweaker/OC'er chip. For the average person building an ultimate top fps gaming machine without too much tinkering or OC knowldege a 10900k makes sense. I literally got a 9600k vs 9900k from MicroCenter along with a OC friendly Z390 Aorus Master because the first thing I would have done with a 9900k is disabled the HT (or SMT, as I do on all my pure gaming machines) and probably dropped a core or two to help along with the heat (something I did on a voltage hungry Ryzen gaming machine), ending up with a 9600k anyway.

If I was a "newbie" to OC ing or just didn't care or even never entered a BIOS or UEFI in my life (like many newcomers these days, who wouldn't even know how to disable HT with a Youtube instructional video holding their hand) then 9900k/10900k makes sense. Otherwise, 10600k is probably the best gaming chip you can get now.

...
..
.


----------

