# Intel Core i7-10700K



## W1zzard (Jun 5, 2020)

The Core i7-10700K is Intel's second strongest overclockable Comet Lake CPU, with a powerful 8c/16t configuration. We saw pretty amazing tweaking potential from the 10700 non-K, so we'll definitely compare against that in the Core i7-10700K review, and of course against AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X.

*Show full review*


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jun 6, 2020)

Not real surprised after the excellent showing of the 10700, that with a good OC, the 10700k is a monster.  Still a bit pricey vs the 3900X but if you're in this range I doubt $70 one way or the other matters much. 

Still, I tend to think the 10700 (non-K) with some fast DDR4 is a better fit for most people since using the OC on the 10700K to its fullest will require expensive cooling and such. 

Looks like Intel has a weak midrange (i5) excepting the 10600K, OK but slightly overpriced low end (i3), and really strong top end (i7+) in their lineup vs AMD.  Also, looks like the 10900K has little reason to exist, except for bragging rights.  Status quo is restored.


----------



## heflys20 (Jun 6, 2020)

Good luck getting this thing at the suggested retail price. LOL. I've seen it almost $200-250 more than the 3700x. Atrocious price/performance. IMHO.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jun 6, 2020)

heflys20 said:


> Good luck getting this thing at the suggested retail price. LOL. I've seen it almost $200-250 more than the 3700x. Atrocious price/performance. IMHO.



The 10700K is wiping the floor with the 3700X. It’s also beating the 3900X in almost everything except some rendering workloads. In many cases, it’s a significant difference. 
None of the high end cpus are cost effective when looked at as a single component in isolation.  But if you are building a new system for say $1200, I think it would be foolish to leave a 10% performance gain on the table to save $70.  In the context of a new build, it’s very cost effective.


----------



## heflys20 (Jun 6, 2020)

Wiping the floor with the 3700x?  It's only between 8-9% faster than the 3700x at base clocks,  yet costs nearly $200-250  more (before factoring in additional costs) in the wild . Of course it dominates in single-threaded productivity, no surprise there.


----------



## timta2 (Jun 6, 2020)

heflys20 said:


> Good luck getting this thing at the suggested retail price. LOL. I've seen it almost $200-250 more than the 3700x. Atrocious price/performance. IMHO.



This happens with just about all new hardware. Give it a few weeks.


----------



## heflys20 (Jun 6, 2020)

timta2 said:


> This happens with just about all new hardware. Give it a few weeks.


True. Part of me is skeptical these pieces will ever retail for the suggested price. I imagine it'll always hover around $180-200 (even including heatsink) more than the 3700x. I digress though.


----------



## 1d10t (Jun 6, 2020)

Kinda agree with GN, while 10300 doing great for office PC, 10600K is best bang for buck, 10900K for bragging rights, these 10700K serves no purposes.


----------



## silapakorn (Jun 6, 2020)

1d10t said:


> Kinda agree with GN, while 10300 doing great for office PC, 10600K is best bang for buck, 10900K for bragging rights, these 10700K serves no purposes.



In a few years the gaming performance gap between 10600k and 10700k could grow wider, as  more games will fully use 8 cores after the release of new consoles. The gaming tests that we are doing right now are all based on current generation games, most of which are optimized to run on 6-7 years old hardware.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jun 6, 2020)

heflys20 said:


> Wiping the floor with the 3700x?  It's only between 8-9% faster than the 3700x at base clocks,  yet costs nearly $200-250  more (before factoring in additional costs) in the wild . Of course it dominates in single-threaded productivity, no surprise there.



Yes, that $200 premium will likely last all of 2-4 weeks.  It's a new release, it'll have a premium for a while.  The 10700 non-k did too for about a week, but right now you can get them for $335.  The MSRP of the 10700K is $75 more than the 3700X and with the 3700X discounted to $275 right now it's $100 more.  Your "argument" is a total red herring.

Like I said before, if you are building a system that costs ~$1200, you'd be at parity for price performance forking up $100 (8.3% of the total system cost) to get a definitive 8-9% boost in performance.  At +$75 you'd be spending 6.2% more to get 8-9% more performance.  If the system costs more than $1200 as many do, it gets even dumber not to pay that small premium for that boost.

Of course, if you aren't building a new system you may not spend that, but then you probably have other bottlenecks and would be better served looking at the low end CPUs where the price/perf ratio on the individual component beats everything else.  

Frankly using your logic of price/perf above all at a component level, you will probably wind up with an APU and a grenerally crap system that you won't be happy with in short order.  You can buy 3 Kia Rios for the price of one well equipped Toyota Camry or Honda Accord too you know.


----------



## heflys20 (Jun 6, 2020)

The MSRP for the 10700k is $75 more? Are you talking about the 10700 non-k? The current MSRP (non-inflation) for the K edition is $400. $135 more. The 3700x has been around $270-280 for months now , and it's unlikely to go anywhere near $300 again. Not to mention you'll likely spend $20-30 more for a competent cooler. Sure the 3700x Wraith cooler is nothing spectacular, but it's free. So even if you're going by the MSRP price, the 10700k is nearly $160 more expensive. All for a whopping 8-9% performance advantage. I actually think most people would do I fine with 3600. I have no what your Kia vs Camry reference is alluding to, entirely. Oh, well.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jun 6, 2020)

Product Specifications
					

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




					ark.intel.com
				




"

Processor Number                                                                                 i7-10700K 
 Recommended Customer Price$374.00 - $387.00
"
Techspot also noted the $375 MSRP.

Given that the MSRP and going price for the i7-10700 is $335 that is in line.  

The MSRP for the 3700X is actually $320.  It is discounted to $275 online.  

So as I said, $75-$100 difference once the release pricing settles down.   Unless they have to fire-sale more of those 3700X's and lower the price more...

Learn to use google to do your own research.


----------



## heflys20 (Jun 6, 2020)

Lol. You seriously believe retailers are only going to only charge a $40 -50 premum between the 10700 and 10700k (2.90 ghz vs 3.80, not the the standard .5-.6 dif). Got you bud. To your other point,  no duh the msrp for the 3700x is over $300. I never said it wasn't.  I said price currently, which is all that matters. In terms of where I got the Msrp for the 10700k. Try reading the review on the site that you're currently on. Why go to Google when the review already provides the price? Lol. Makes no sense initially.  Only when a point needs to be argued.


----------



## 1d10t (Jun 6, 2020)

silapakorn said:


> In a few years the gaming performance gap between 10600k and 10700k could grow wider, as  more games will fully use 8 cores after the release of new consoles. The gaming tests that we are doing right now are all based on current generation games, most of which are optimized to run on 6-7 years old hardware.



Yeah, "could". Is it though ? 
Nextgen console will implement some sort of RTRT in its core engine, and here's some example of core scaling in DXR title














						CONTROL PC Performance Explored - All In On RTX
					

Keith firmly believes that Control is best played and enjoyed on PC with all of the ray trancing NVIDIA features enabled.




					wccftech.com
				




As you can see in "this generation", CPU already irrelevant, it will become "obsolete" when RTRT become standard


----------



## tfdsaf (Jun 6, 2020)

Too little too late. I'd give it to Intel that their 14nm process has proven to be golden, but they need to make their cpu's run at extremely high out of the box frequencies, which increases power consumption massively, interestingly heat doesn't appear to be that bad, but some reviewers have found higher temps using heat measurement tools, rather than software monitoring apps, so qurious to see if Intel are cheating somehow and reporting lower temps on purpose! 

Anyways these cpu's require yet another new motherboard, require you to purchase a cooler, are way too expensive for what they offer and where their competition is at. Intel is pricing these as if we are 6-7 years back in time where they had no competition, reality is AMD is ahead in almost every metric, offer more value, have a longer and cheaper chipset, have more upgradibility and are more future proof with more cores for less money! 

I think if Intel reduces prices on these new cpu's by about 20% on average they can be competitive once again, but as it is with very expensive Z490 motherboards, with cooler costs, with the high msrp its an expensive choice to own Intel. 

Considering next gen consoles use Zen 2 architecture and 8 cores, I expect literally ALL next gen games to perform better on Zen 2 and future Zen processors.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jun 6, 2020)

1d10t said:


> Kinda agree with GN, while 10300 doing great for office PC, 10600K is best bang for buck, 10900K for bragging rights, these 10700K serves no purposes.



and yet for TPU, like just about any product they review: "Highly recommended""


----------



## wolfsen (Jun 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> The 10700K is wiping the floor with the 3700X. It’s also beating the 3900X in almost everything except some rendering workloads. In many cases, it’s a significant difference.
> None of the high end cpus are cost effective when looked at as a single component in isolation.  But if you are building a new system for say $1200, I think it would be foolish to leave a 10% performance gain on the table to save $70.  In the context of a new build, it’s very cost effective.



Well the price difference is much higher than $70, Ryzen 3700x costs $275 and its new MSRP is $285 and Z490 MB are much more expensive than B450 (you get a decent one for $120).

At the end of the day, you pay $400 for 3700x+MB+ stock cooler while the 10700k option costs you $400 for cpu, $200 for MB, at least $30 for cooler. It's a $200 price difference that you could have spent on a better GPU that performs better all the time instead of giving you a 10% boost in the rare CPU limited situations (which might often be irrelevant, when you're above 150 fps you don't really mind about increasing fps in most situations).

You really have to need those extra cpu performance to chose 10700k over 3700x (and I'm not saying that nobody does)


----------



## coozie78 (Jun 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> The 10700K is wiping the floor with the 3700X. It’s also beating the 3900X in almost everything except some rendering workloads. In many cases, it’s a significant difference.
> None of the high end cpus are cost effective when looked at as a single component in isolation.  But if you are building a new system for say $1200, I think it would be foolish to leave a 10% performance gain on the table to save $70.  In the context of a new build, it’s very cost effective.


I would n't say it's " wiping the floor " with the 3700X except in the academic 720 rez gaming benchmarks, sure it's a fair bit faster in known Intel favouring games but elsewhere the <>10 FPS difference isn't really that significant.


1d10t said:


> Yeah, "could". Is it though ?
> Nextgen console will implement some sort of RTRT in its core engine, and here's some example of core scaling in DXR title
> 
> View attachment 158012
> ...



I'll get interested in RTRT when it doesn't require a >£1000 GPU to make it work without a savage FPS drop.


----------



## Vader (Jun 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Like I said before, if you are building a system that costs ~$1200, you'd be at parity for price performance forking up $100 (8.3% of the total system cost) to get a definitive 8-9% boost in performance.  At +$75 you'd be spending 6.2% more to get 8-9% more performance.  If the system costs more than $1200 as many do, it gets even dumber not to pay that small premium for that boost.



Considering the total cost of the system in order to justify incremental costs of one specific piece of hardware is flawed logic IMO.
You could see how someone might want a more expensive case, or need a higher storage capacity, or want a more efficient psu... suddenly these people should be buying i9 or R9 because the percentual increase over base spending is lower? What does cpu performance has to do with aesthetics, storage, or power efficiency?
If your focus is performance, you should only factor in your calculation the base price of the hardware that has influence in that metric, in the specific task(s) you're budgeting for.
Although having said that, i think a quick and fair way of calculating cpu value is to consider the cost of cpu+motherboard+ram and go from there.


----------



## nguyen (Jun 6, 2020)

Basically an 9900K for 50usd cheaper but requires a new and expensive motherboard. Not to mention the 9900KF can reach 5.2-5.3ghz more readily too...


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 6, 2020)

intel's been to a good pretty start to 2018 this year.


----------



## Vario (Jun 6, 2020)

Just 9900K all over again with new socket.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Jun 6, 2020)

Vader said:


> Considering the total cost of the system in order to justify incremental costs of one specific piece of hardware is flawed logic IMO.
> You could see how someone might want a more expensive case, or need a higher storage capacity, or want a more efficient psu... suddenly these people should be buying i9 or R9 because the percentual increase over base spending is lower? What does cpu performance has to do with aesthetics, storage, or power efficiency?
> If your focus is performance, you should only factor in your calculation the base price of the hardware that has influence in that metric, in the specific task(s) you're budgeting for.
> Although having said that, i think a quick and fair way of calculating cpu value is to consider the cost of cpu+motherboard+ram and go from there.


I can get a good performing Z490 for $150, right noe.  How much can you get an X570 for?

Oh and if you want to talk B450, I can get an H470 for $110 and a B460 for $80.  

If anything, the high end Intel motherboards are cheaper.


----------



## Bee9 (Jun 6, 2020)

@W1zzard can you fix this?


----------



## heflys20 (Jun 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Oh and if you want to talk B450, I can get an H470 for $110 and a B460 for $80.



Neither the H470 or B460 support ram over 3000mhz, nor ram overclocking. The B450, on the other-hand....Some models support up 4000mhz, plus OC. Like the $120 ASUS Tuf-Pro.


----------



## Bee9 (Jun 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> I can get a good performing Z490 for $150, right noe.  How much can you get an X570 for?
> 
> Oh and if you want to talk B450, I can get an H470 for $110 and a B460 for $80.
> 
> If anything, the high end Intel motherboards are cheaper.



Pricing varies by regions and governed by the supply / demand law. I just got another asus x570 prime pro for $150. 
I don’t know why the intel lower chipset cannot support the higher frequency RAM... quite unfortunate. 
The pandemic doesn’t help us, consumers, at all. High demand for x570 around my area makes a lot of the board go out of stock quickly. 
So, right now it is true that intel boards are generally easier and cheaper to buy. 
AMD has gotten the much needed growth to compete against intel. The future is bright with healthy competition.


----------



## coozie78 (Jun 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> I can get a good performing Z490 for $150, right noe.  How much can you get an X570 for?
> 
> Oh and if you want to talk B450, I can get an H470 for $110 and a B460 for $80.
> 
> If anything, the high end Intel motherboards are cheaper.



Pairing this calibre of CPU with a restricted ' H ' or ' B ' chipset MB takes away most of its performance and overclocking advantages, and I'd be extremely reluctant to run these i7s with the power limits removed off either without some very careful research into their VRM quality.
Many Z490 motherboards don't support PCI-E 4.0, I'll agree this isn't exactly a huge selling point ATM but it DOES make them cheaper to build.


----------



## yeeeeman (Jun 6, 2020)

10700 with max turbo is within 6% of 10700k at 5.1ghz which is a realistical average max frequency that people will achieve. that is something to think about since 10700 is about 75$ cheaper. Heck, for 425$ you can get 10900 which is considerably better than the 10700k, even oced.
I think this generation K parts are pretty much bad deals just because non k parts are already very high clocked and the limit of 5-5.1-5.2Ghz requires a lot of cooling, a lot of voltage and power and the gains are very small. And frankly, non K parts are pretty well priced. 10700 is 300-350$. Should be more like 275-300$. 10900 is 425-450$. Again, should be more like 350-375$. Prices will drop in time for sure.


----------



## tfdsaf (Jun 6, 2020)

coozie78 said:


> Pairing this calibre of CPU with a restricted ' H ' or ' B ' chipset MB takes away most of its performance and overclocking advantages, and I'd be extremely reluctant to run these i7s with the power limits removed off either without some very careful research into their VRM quality.
> Z490 motherboards don't support PCI-E 4.0, I'll agree this isn't exactly a huge selling point ATM but it DOES make them cheaper to build.


Actually its a pretty big deal, since pci-e 4.0 SSD's are a thing. 2500mb/s SSd's are insanely fast, in fact almost double over previous generation pci-e 3.0 SSD's.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 6, 2020)

tfdsaf said:


> Actually its a pretty big deal, since pci-e 4.0 SSD's are a thing. 2500mb/s SSd's are insanely fast, in fact almost double over previous generation pci-e 3.0 SSD's.


that's just sequentiaL


----------



## xSneak (Jun 6, 2020)

I think one of the common scenarios that you are not testing and are discounting in your review is gaming while streaming performance. It is a very common use now days and I know that I was getting dropped frames using my 8700k vs the 9900k i use now. If you were find a way to benchmark that objectively, showing game fps and stream quality, it would improve review qualities for a lot of people. Software x264 encode, 6k bitrate, medium preset, 720p, 60 fps or a 1080p setting. 
Also, I'm disappointed you didn't overclock the cache on the cpu. It has been documented to improve performance and uses the same voltage as the core. My 9900k does 4.7 on the cache compared to your 4.3 stock setting.


----------



## Dirtdog (Jun 6, 2020)

coozie78 said:


> Pairing this calibre of CPU with a restricted ' H ' or ' B ' chipset MB takes away most of its performance and overclocking advantages, and I'd be extremely reluctant to run these i7s with the power limits removed off either without some very careful research into their VRM quality.
> Z490 motherboards don't support PCI-E 4.0, I'll agree this isn't exactly a huge selling point ATM but it DOES make them cheaper to build.



Some Z490 boards say they are PCIE-4 ready when the next gen of CPUs supports it, FWIW.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 6, 2020)

All Intel H5 LGA 1200 socket (400 Series) are PCIe 4.0 with Bios update and a 11th gen Rocket Lake has Intel first PCIe 4.0 memory controller and updated Willow Cove cores design.

Both "Rocket Lake" and "Alder Lake" are PCIe 4.0

I'm pretty happy with my 9900KS @5.2GHz AVX2 Cooled By EK

I'm waiting for Intel Ryzen Killer architecture coming from the guy that invited your AMD Ryzen Zen architecture!.....AMD top engineer "Jim Keller" is now building Intel new 16/32 cores Ryzen Killer with Intel new "Ocean Cove" cores design thats in Intel upcoming 13th gen "Meteor Lake" (7nm+)

Intel 13th gen 16/32 cores big.Little with Ocean Cove has more than 80% IPC Gain over Intel 10th generation (SkyLake 4) now.

By the way all Intel 7nm are PCIe 5.0 DDR5 USB4 WiFi-6E 5G from the start!

Intel Meteor Lake is Intel first PCIe 5.0 on second generation 16/32 cores big.Little architecture.

Pretty hard buying a new PC at the moment knowing in two years PCIe 5.0 with DDR5 and USB4 WiFi-6E 5G all standard on new sockets from both Sides AMD AM5 and Intel H6 LGA 1700 sockets.

That's all your going to hear about from Intel Ocean Cove with "Jim Keller" Ryzen Killer architecture once again.

Thank you Jim Keller for making Ryzen AMD people happy and thank you Jim Keller for making Intel Ryzen Killer making Intel people happy

Intel 10th generation is short lived... 

14nm++ (Samsung help) 
11th gen (Q1 2021)
Rocket Lake PCIe 4.0 
Willow Cove 
H5 LGA 1200 socket 

New 16/32 Cores big.Little 

10nm++
12th gen (Q4 2021)
Alder Lake PCIe 4.0 
Golden Cove 
H6 LGA 1700 socket 

7nm+ (from new Fab42 in America) 
13th gen (Q4 2022)
Meteor Lake PCIe 5.0 
Ocean Cove 
H6 LGA 1700 socket 

Pretty interesting next two years Intel has.....


----------



## heflys20 (Jun 6, 2020)

Uhhh....Alrighty then. LOL.


----------



## vMax65 (Jun 6, 2020)

Not bad at all and I am more than happy with my 10700K which is primarily for gaming and some productivity for the next 3 to 4 years with 8 cores and 16 threads...It is £100 cheaper than the 9900K in the UK and I quickly got it to 5.1GHz all core at 1.285v and that is running the cache at 4.7Ghz ...and it will probably go lower on the vcore as I test some more. Temps are great with Cinebench R20 hitting a max temp of 74 degrees C on the hottest core though I am running the Arctic Freezer II 360 AIO on it.

An FYI quiet a few boards do support PCIe Gen 4 like my Aorus Z490 Ultra and are ready for when Rocket Lake releases...

Also It has been on sale in the UK since launch with the 10900K and at the retail price...

And just in case the AMD fans come out swinging, AMD are great and more than lead on productivity and price and Intel are great and lead on the gaming front...bottom line buy what ever makes you happy..


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 6, 2020)

Bee9 said:


> @W1zzard can you fix this?


Bah, fail, how did we all miss this. Fixed now


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 7, 2020)

Honestly, this generation of Intel's CPU is a waste of silicon and specially money. I would only "upgrade" to this pos CPU if I get it for free, since otherwise it's a completely waste of money. Overly power hungry, mediocre performance gain, super hot, very expensive mobos, NO PCI-E 4.0,etc
And that's coming from a girl still owning and kicking a 3770K CPU with DDR3 and no reason to upgrade so far...


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 7, 2020)

Prima.Vera said:


> Honestly, this generation of Intel's CPU is a waste of silicon and specially money. I would only "upgrade" to this pos CPU if I get it for free, since otherwise it's a completely waste of money. Overly power hungry, mediocre performance gain, super hot, very expensive mobos, NO PCI-E 4.0,etc
> And that's coming from a girl still owning and kicking a 3770K CPU with DDR3 and no reason to upgrade so far...



I wouldn't waste your time on anything out there at the moment! 

PCIe 4.0 is very short lived!... You're better off waiting a bit longer for.... PCIe 5.0 will be out! If you're concerned about PCIe? 

PCIe 4.0 is only on two generations of CPUs... 

AMD PCIe 4.0 
3000 series (Zen2) AM4
4000 series (Zen3) AM5 

Intel PCIe 4.0 
11th gen (Rocket Lake) H5
12th gen (Alder Lake) H6

AMD PCIe 5.0 
5000 series (Zen4) AM5 

Intel PCIe 5.0 
13th gen (Meteor Lake) H6

Meteor Lake is very similar to your Ivy Bridge was.....4/8 cores Ivy Bridge (3770K) was Intel first PCIe 3.0 and 22nm.....16/32 Cores Meteor Lake (13th gen) is Intel first PCIe 5.0 and 7nm+. 

I wouldn't buy anything right now especially if you waited this long already. Intel Fab42 factory is almost ready for an Ryzen Massacre.


----------



## tfdsaf (Jun 7, 2020)

Honestly its a decent effort by Intel and their CPU's are not all crap in terms of performance, BUT they are way too expensive! Again the 10700k is $400, in Europe they sell for like 450 euros, plus you have the cost of a new and very expensive Z490 motherboard and additional cooler costs. A good cooler would set you back $50, good mobo would set you back $180-200 and we aren't even talking about high end mobo here, just a middle of the pack one, plus $400+ for the cpu, so a cost of about $650 for your cpu combo basically, where is the PSU, ram, GPU, HDD, SDD, etc...

Konwing also that AMD's Zen 3 generation is only several months away, there is no reason at all to buy this gen Intel's cpu's.


----------



## coozie78 (Jun 7, 2020)

Dirtdog said:


> Some Z490 boards say they are PCIE-4 ready when the next gen of CPUs supports it, FWIW.


Blast, That should have read as ' Many Z490 ' corrected the post.



tfdsaf said:


> Actually its a pretty big deal, since pci-e 4.0 SSD's are a thing. 2500mb/s SSd's are insanely fast, in fact almost double over previous generation pci-e 3.0 SSD's.



Trouble is that right now none of that advantage is actually helping, all of the reviews of PCI-E 4.0 SSDs I have read show them to have a small performance advantage over PCI-E 3.0 drives in real world load/save/transfers but certainly not enough to make me rush out and upgrade my current 970 Evo.


----------



## Iluv2raceit (Jun 7, 2020)

No matter how well the 10700K performs, it’s still an antiquated architecture, is still 14nm, requires a new motherboard,  only performs a hair better than the two year old 9900K, and is missing key new generation features (missing PCI-E 4.0)..  And it costs too much.  A 3800X costs almost $150 less and performs just as well in most applications and games, already has new generation features, uses less power, and runs cooler.  Winner AMD.


----------



## apoklyps3 (Jun 7, 2020)

i7-10700K is DOA.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 7, 2020)

apoklyps3 said:


> i7-10700K is DOA.



Yes! 
Dead on arrival! 

The hole Intel H5 LGA 1200 socket platform is DOA and this is coming from a Intel guy. 

Yes! 
Intel 11th gen Rocket Lake with new Cores design (Willow Cove) on 14nm++ (Q1 2021) will have 8/16 cores but with PCIe 4.0 

Both 10th and 11th gen are just a 18 months filler until H6 LGA 1700 socket is ready..... (Q4 2021) 10nm++ Alder Lake (Golden Cove) on new 16/32 Cores big.Little architecture. 

You people need to do your research and not live in the moment. 

Buying a PC should be a few years investment and you as a buyer should be investigating what coming in the next 3 years! 

All of you should be asking yourself will current technology be future driven? Or PCIe 4.0 DDR4 USB3 will be replaced by PCIe 5.0 DDR5 USB4 with more than 80% IPC over current Intel 10th generation with in two years. 

Jim Keller the guy who developed Ryzen is now developing the Ryzen Killer "Ocean Cove" is the game changer.


----------



## kapone32 (Jun 7, 2020)

ToxicTaZ said:


> Yes!
> Dead on arrival!
> 
> The hole Intel H5 LGA 1200 socket platform is DOA and this is coming from a Intel guy.
> ...


If Intel allowed him as much control of design as AMD then sure but even then where will AMD be vs Intel at that point 10nm vs refined 5nm does not seem fair at this point.


----------



## coozie78 (Jun 7, 2020)

@ ToxicTaZ:

The ' H ' and ' B ' motherboards aren't bad per se just not suitable for enthusiast users, they are for those who want to build something cheaper but still capable of running home/office apps or HTPCs or even small ITX systems on a budget, where absolute top performance isn't really a requirement. ( and this is from an AMD guy  )

" You people need to do your research and not live in the moment. " I disagree, unless a user or builder can or will wait for the Next Coming all they can do is live for the moment and purchase the most suitable hardware for their requirements NOW, if I had that kind of attitude I'd still have my Slot1 PIII 500!

Agree about a system being a long term purchase, get it right and it'll last for some time, and the less demanding the needs of a user are, the longer the system will remain viable. Even demanding gamers can usually keep the core system -CPU/MB/RAM- for several years, upgrading only the GPU  when it starts to struggle. 

 " Jim Keller the guy who developed Ryzen is now developing the Ryzen Killer "Ocean Cove" is the game changer. " We'll see when the benchmarks arrive.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 7, 2020)

kapone32 said:


> If Intel allowed him as much control of design as AMD then sure but even then where will AMD be vs Intel at that point 10nm vs refined 5nm does not seem fair at this point.



Yes...

AMD is not going to stand still by no means.... I'm just saying buyer's beware at the moment with major technology leaps ahead.

AMD has new socket coming! AM5 and with this new socket AMD will have DDR5 and USB4 and like Intel second generation AMD AM5 has PCIe 5.0 on 5nm.

Intel Meteor Lake is on second generation 7nm+ from Intel new Fab42 factory in America.

Intel 7nm EUV + ++ is made with Graphene will be far ahead of TSMC 5nm......it would be on power with TSMC 3nm....


----------



## kanecvr (Jun 7, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> I can get a good performing Z490 for $150, right noe.  How much can you get an X570 for?
> 
> Oh and if you want to talk B450, I can get an H470 for $110 and a B460 for $80.
> 
> If anything, the high end Intel motherboards are cheaper.



Where? I had a quick look on my favorite local e-talier and from what I see, x570 and z490 boards cost the same. Source:

https://www.pcgarage.ro/placi-de-baza/filtre/general-chipset-z490/ and https://www.pcgarage.ro/placi-de-baza/filtre/general-chipset-x570/

As for h470 and b460..... they are of no interest whatsoever and do not compare to the b450 in any way because of their limitations (ram speed, no or limited OC). As for the B450, a decent board goes for about 95$ and cheap boards can be had for as little as 60$ - tax included. The cheapest H470 is not even close.


----------



## Lindatje (Jun 8, 2020)

A DOA product just like the rest of the 10th series. If you want to buy Intel you have to wait until 2022, then they are at 7nm.


----------



## ppn (Jun 8, 2020)

10700F nonK 4.6GHz @ 125W DDR4 2993 can last for another 10 years until 1,4nm. the same way 2600K was just fine until recently. I'm still using it.

RKL is probably a better idea, too close to Alder and then skip that, have to wait until 5nm.

When you say 7nm this means simething different, 7nm is what TSMC calls their 10nm or what is essentially 100Mtr/mm². 50-60 for ZEN, 40 for NAVI.

Now with 7nm intel we have 237Mtr/mm², so I can't even imagine what TSMC substitues that for, probably 1,4nm.


----------



## Dirtdog (Jun 8, 2020)

Lindatje said:


> A DOA product just like the rest of the 10th series. If you want to buy Intel you have to wait until 2022, then they are at 7nm.



This seems like a hyperbolic statement to me.  They would be DOA if they were an FX 9590 situation where they used tons of power, were mega hot and crucially were still far from competitive.  The 10700K is reasonably cool, reasonably power efficient and has very competitive performance, beating the AMD equivalent handily in many cases.  As I haven't bought a new Intel chip since 2014 I am tempted to pull the trigger on one of these, if/when they are in stock for a reasonable price, ie. not the current inflated price due to shortages.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 9, 2020)

Dirtdog said:


> This seems like a hyperbolic statement to me.  They would be DOA if they were an FX 9590 situation where they used tons of power, were mega hot and crucially were still far from competitive.  The 10700K is reasonably cool, reasonably power efficient and has very competitive performance, beating the AMD equivalent handily in many cases.  As I haven't bought a new Intel chip since 2014 I am tempted to pull the trigger on one of these, if/when they are in stock for a reasonable price, ie. not the current inflated price due to shortages.



Buying Intel 10th generation is a bad idea....

10th generation is extremely short-lived with 8 to 9 months life only. 

Even if you could hold out until January 2021 (7 months from now) and pick up Intel 11th gen Rocket Lake with Willow Cove cores design update "25%" IPC Gain over 10th generation (SkyLake) architecture and 11th gen has PCIe 4.0 working! Your all around better off than buying garbage 10th generation. 

The only thing that Intel 10th generation is good for is Intel will use 10th generation as their benchmarks for their future CPUs generations as a baseline for performance.

Example 

Q1 2021 
Willow Cove is 25% IPC Gain over 10th Gen... Rocket Lake (14nm++)

Q4 2021
Golden Cove is 50% IPC Gain over 10th Gen... Alder Lake (10nm++)

Q4 2022
Ocean Cove is over 80% IPC Gain over 10th Gen... Meteor Lake (7nm+)

And so on....

Major changes are coming soon....you're better off with 11th gen Rocket Lake only months away.


----------



## Dirtdog (Jun 9, 2020)

I'm on Haswell which dates back to 2013 (or 2014 for 4790K).  You can always wait longer for something better, ad infinitum.

I highly doubt Rocket Lake will have a true 25% or anywhere near it IPC gain over 10th gen.  But even if it does: the Z490 boards support it anyway so I can just sell the 10700K and put an 11th gen CPU in the same system.

Intel IPC has barely improved by 25% over the last 7 years and you think it will go up by 25% in one fell swoop, and then again the next two times within a year of each other?

It's also swings and roundabouts: I might get more for my 4th gen parts now than I would in a year.  Or the price of RAM might shoot up in a year due to shortages or whatever - it is currently relatively cheap.


----------



## Vader (Jun 9, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> I can get a good performing Z490 for $150, right noe.  How much can you get an X570 for?
> 
> Oh and if you want to talk B450, I can get an H470 for $110 and a B460 for $80.
> 
> If anything, the high end Intel motherboards are cheaper.



Clearly my point is applicable to both cpu makers. No need to pull this amd vs intel bs.


----------



## ToxicTaZ (Jun 9, 2020)

Dirtdog said:


> I'm on Haswell which dates back to 2013 (or 2014 for 4790K).  You can always wait longer for something better, ad infinitum.
> 
> I highly doubt Rocket Lake will have a true 25% or anywhere near it IPC gain over 10th gen.  But even if it does: the Z490 boards support it anyway so I can just sell the 10700K and put an 11th gen CPU in the same system.
> 
> ...



That's were your wrong..... 

That's the hole point about any of those Cove cores updates is IPC Gain!

You're 10th Gen is still and the last of SkyLake architecture. Very short lived... 

Intel first desktop Cove Cores update is 11th gen Rocket Lake with "Willow Cove" cores design... 

Please research Willow Cove 25% IPC Gain!

2021 Finally Intel starting to do there big push back......with most important thing is start fixing IPC and then Power next.... With extreme Ultra low power big.Little architecture and on 10nm++ and 7nm+ in 2022.

I gave you guys what's coming... Do your research before doubts about true IPC Gain telling others. 

SkyLake is is officially done.... Now it's all about Cove cores design.... 

Get ready for the Intel storm.... The next 3 years is going to be very interesting...


----------



## Dirtdog (Jun 9, 2020)

10th gen is ready today, I am on 4th gen.  The fact something better is coming out in a year is moot, I can't use it today.  It isn't like the value of the 10th gen chip will become worthless in a year and tbh even if it does I'm not that hard up that I'd lose sleep over it.


----------



## ppn (Jun 9, 2020)

In fact you will lose sleep if you don't buy it. Trust me I have tried this. I mean imagine the torture and the wait for years until DDR5-4800-6400.

Willow Cove with DDR4 is like Coffeelake with DDR3. It would work but the memory would waste 20-30% of the CPU time just skipping over cycles to get the data doing nothing.

DDR5 is like a quad channel upgrade. Add L3 and Big Core design that is mostly where 80% IPC comes from.


----------



## coozie78 (Jun 9, 2020)

Dirtdog said:


> 10th gen is ready today, I am on 4th gen.  The fact something better is coming out in a year is moot, I can't use it today.  It isn't like the value of the 10th gen chip will become worthless in a year and tbh even if it does I'm not that hard up that I'd lose sleep over it.


At the risk of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs: Looks like your overall system is pretty well balanced, unless you're seeing significant and consistent CPU related slowdowns swapping to the current CPU gen won't do much, the 75Hz 1080 display is far more likely to be a restriction than the CPU or GPU.



ToxicTaZ said:


> That's were your wrong.....
> 
> That's the hole point about any of those Cove cores updates is IPC Gain!
> 
> ...



Who really cares about the next, next gen? We can't purchase them, they haven't been reviewed or benchmarked, and their performance gains are just claims until they are.


----------



## Dirtdog (Jun 9, 2020)

coozie78 said:


> At the risk of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs: Looks like your overall system is pretty well balanced, unless you're seeing significant and consistent CPU related slowdowns swapping to the current CPU gen won't do much, the 75Hz 1080 display is far more likely to be a restriction than the CPU or GPU.



You're right, my system feels fast and the games I play (at 1080p60 in fact because it better ensures minimums don't drop below my refresh rate) are good.  

I do some video encoding which is pretty slow and would benefit a lot from an upgrade, probably be 100%+ faster.  And I was planning to upgrade the GPU too down the line.  Also get a 1440p monitor.  

We'll see.  Maybe a 10700F would be better than the K in terms of bang for buck.  As you can get most of the K performance from upping the power limit, and I don't need the iGPU.  Prices currently are a bit silly though.


----------



## heflys20 (Jun 9, 2020)

Yep, I got a good run on this 4670k. I'm likely upgrading to 3700x and calling it day. Should be fine for another 3-4 years.


----------



## coozie78 (Jun 10, 2020)

Dirtdog said:


> You're right, my system feels fast and the games I play (at 1080p60 in fact because it better ensures minimums don't drop below my refresh rate) are good.
> 
> I do some video encoding which is pretty slow and would benefit a lot from an upgrade, probably be 100%+ faster.  And I was planning to upgrade the GPU too down the line.  Also get a 1440p monitor.
> 
> We'll see.  Maybe a 10700F would be better than the K in terms of bang for buck.  As you can get most of the K performance from upping the power limit, and I don't need the iGPU.  Prices currently are a bit silly though.


As always, mate, it's horses for courses and it's your decision but if you want/need faster video encoding well, the i7 will definitely do that and, of course you'll have a far stronger platform to support those future upgrades.
From the reviews it looks like the ' F ' chip is the way to go.
Good luck and, good hunting.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 12, 2020)

When I see that OC temp I just can't resist

Language barrier be damned, I think you'll get the gist


----------



## Anymal (Aug 17, 2020)

1d10t said:


> Kinda agree with GN, while 10300 doing great for office PC, 10600K is best bang for buck, 10900K for bragging rights, these 10700K serves no purposes.


Havent you read the conclusion? It fulfills the void in price gap between 3700x and 3900x. JFC, FFS!


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 29, 2020)

Great review as always! Just picked this chip up and a asus maximus z490. Should be here in a few days. Time for the 6700k to retire from my gaming rig and replace my 4790k HTPC.


----------

