CobainDepends if you consider 25watts more to be "noticeable higher".

It's 25W and fair enough I see your point. For me it is noticeably higher for you it may not be. That's an individual perspective I suppose. If it were 3W or 5W, I wouldn't even mention it and that difference would have been irrelevant.

Well, the 10900K can be had now for A$699, it's used to be A$999 or more. At this price it's A$80 cheaper the The 5800X. If you are looking for gaming CPU, you cannot go pass the 10900K.

ratirtIt's 25W and fair enough I see your point. For me it is noticeably higher for you it may not be. That's an individual perspective I suppose. If it were 3W or 5W, I wouldn't even mention it and that difference would have been irrelevant.

Ok, you care paying 1€ more a year, even if it means a 10 degrees cooler CPU. Up to you. I dont think anyone Cares about 25w on a high performance system, oh well... The kind of stuff I have to deal with on tech forums

ratirtYes runs cooler. Considering the 10700k is bigger in size than a 5800x so it is obvious, the heat dissipation is better for the 10700k (more surface to exert heat) and yet 10700K still uses more energy for multi-thread and single thread than 5800x and by a noticeable margin. Heat is not everything you know and you shouldn't stick just to one variable here. Even in gaming the difference in power usage is noticeable between the two.

Spot on.

Second; Intel has to. More and more enterprise, supercomputers and all that are being build on Epyc platforms due to the amount of cores, PCI-E 4.0 advantage and what not.

CobainOk, you care paying 1€ more a year, even if it means a 10 degrees cooler CPU. Up to you. I dont think anyone Cares about 25w on a high performance system, oh well... The kind of stuff I have to deal with on tech forums

Talking about irrelevant. It is higher nonetheless and do not introduce another variable which is money saying it doesnt matter anyway so why bring it up even? It also doesn't matter if it is 10 Degrees cooler. Just like it doesn't matter for you if it uses more power. 5800x will run at its full capacity even if the temp is 70degrees vs 10700K 60 degrees. What's the point here? Are you trying to prove that 10700K is better because it runs cooler than 5800x? It would seem so. If you do introduce other variables in the equation, make sure you introduce all spectrum not something that runs with your argument. Either all are relevant or none is.

ratirtTalking about irrelevant. It is higher nonetheless and do not introduce another variable which is money saying it doesnt matter anyway so why bring it up even? It also doesn't matter if it is 10 Degrees cooler. Just like it doesn't matter for you if it uses more power. 5800x will run at its full capacity even if the temp is 70degrees vs 10700K 60 degrees. What's the point here? Are you trying to prove that 10700K is better because it runs cooler than 5800x? It would seem so. If you do introduce other variables in the equation, make sure you introduce all spectrum not something that runs with your argument. Either all are relevant or none is.

No One Said it is better. But it costs 280€ while the 5800x costs 480€. Is the performance difference enough to justify 200€ more? Ok...

CobainNo One Said it is better. But it costs 280€ while the 5800x costs 480€. Is the performance difference enough to justify 200€ more? Ok...

Remember cobain, using "variables" to break down your logic is illegal... :laugh: strictly univariate analysis here... Multivariate is too complex and causes too much of the big think apparently lmao.

CobainIs the performance difference enough to justify 200€ more?

Depends on what you do ~ just like 1000fps gaming. Moreover the 5800x is more efficient than anything Intel has currently on the market.

Personally I wouldn't buy AMD at this price, nor recommend it, but then I'm not everyone (else) out there who's going DIY.

CobainNo One Said it is better. But it costs 280€ while the 5800x costs 480€. Is the performance difference enough to justify 200€ more? Ok...

Oh so it is about value now?

I on the other hand have 2700x and x470 board which supports 5800X no problem. Why would I want to buy 10700K because it runs 10 deg lower than 5800x? That's my situation
If you are building a new PC and you can get it cheaper and you are satisfied with the performance go for the 10700K. Just don't buy it because it runs cooler than other CPU from the competition.

At least value makes sense here, because the argument " 10700K runs 10deg C lower than 5800X does" is downright the most stupidest argument I've ever heard.

CobainNo One Said it is better. But it costs 280€ while the 5800x costs 480€. Is the performance difference enough to justify 200€ more? Ok...

Where do you live to get a 10700k for 280€ ?

dyonoctisWhere do you live to get a 10700k for 280€ ?

Didnt even bother to look for the cheapest ones. Plus even 10850k is 370€ now, shocking cheap

www.globaldata.pt/processador-intel-core-i7-10700kf-8-core-38ghz-51ghz-16mb-skt1200-bx8070110700kf?utm_source=kuantokusta&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=catalogo

www.pccomponentes.pt/intel-core-i7-10700f-29ghz?utm_source=kuantokusta

CobainDidnt even bother to look for the cheapest ones. Plus even 10850k is 370€ now, shocking cheap

www.globaldata.pt/processador-intel-core-i7-10700kf-8-core-38ghz-51ghz-16mb-skt1200-bx8070110700kf?utm_source=kuantokusta&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=catalogo

www.pccomponentes.pt/intel-core-i7-10700f-29ghz?utm_source=kuantokusta

Portugal price are with taxe included ? Your prices are so much lower than what we have in France. The K sku are a fair comparison, but in productivity the 10700/F is behind the 5800x by 20% on average. It's actually competing with the i9 in that domain.
(Right now Intel is the best buy for gaming though)

From a price perspective, in the US the 10700K is currently a solid $120US below the MSRP of a 5800X - and that's mail order. If you live near a microcenter in the US, it's $180US less. That's if you can get a 5800X for MSRP.

$180 is significant. Lets see what we can do with that.

Samsung 970 Evo m.2 1TB = $139 @ Newegg
WD Blue 2TB M.2 = $183 @ Newegg
Asus RT-AX3000 Wifi 6 Router is $179 @ Newegg

My guess is that any of the above would give the vast majority of users a more significant bump in actual performance than the CPU will. I think if people ran something like PerfMon for a few days (I have done this), if they have a modern midrange or higher CPU released in the last couple of years, they'd find that they barely make use of their current CPU.

In Canada from one of our local stores.

Intel 10700k = $439
Intel 10850k = $539
Intel 10900k = $599

Ryzen 5800X = $639

Legacy-ZANow, this is what I call a waste of resources. Shortages everywhere, but hey, let's make a "stop-gap" until the end of the year. /facepalm

If anything, this will help the shortage situation.
And even if Alder Lake do ship this year, do you honestly think there will be great availability?

watzupkenHere we go, 10nm ++= SuperFin. 10nm+++ = Enhanced SuperFin. I think Intel should really consider making the branding less complicated and drop the very cheesy SuperFin naming. I wonder if they continue on this naming convention, would 10nm++++ = Further enhanced SuperFin?

Node names are not branding, they are specifying distinct node iterations. Node names are switched whenever they do significant improvements to the node, not when they make a new CPU on it.
There are two generations of 10nm so far;
1st gen "10nm" - Used for Cannon Lake and Ice Lake-U/-Y
2nd gen "10nm SuperFin" (previosuly known as "10nm+") - Tiger Lake and upcoming CPUs.

qubitReleasing a product that's already in the shadow of its successor in a few months time sounds more like it's to help Intel's bottom line, rather than a compelling proposition for the customer. My advice therefore, is not to upgrade to RL unless you really need a gaming PC right now.

RL has something like a 19% IPC performance improvement over its predecessor and AL will be another similar amount over RL, so by waiting it out, you're looking at a 40-50% improvement over the current generation. That's well worth the wait in my book.

This depends totally on the intention of the buyer. Those wanting value will appreciate having Rocket Lake in the market. Even today, Comet Lake offers tremendous value, is stable and is widely available. It will be far into 2022 before you'll see Alder Lake on the cheap.

As for those wanting to upgrade when it's worth it, Alder Lake is likely to be a good generational uplift, but I would like to point out a couple of considerations;
- The launch window is not confirmed, and wide availability is not guaranteed this year.
- Secondly, Alder Lake's big and little cores will require some OS changes (and probably tweaks to a few applications too) for optimal performance, so don't expect a cakewalk from day one. (Or perhaps you enjoy being a beta tester?)

MakaveliIn Canada from one of our local stores.

Intel 10700k = $439
Intel 10850k = $539
Intel 10900k = $599

Ryzen 5800X = $639

Indeed, looking at Amazon the lowest price for 5800X in the US is $534. Most prices are at $569.

Meanwhile the 10850K is $409 and and the 10900F (5.2Ghz single core) is $387.

For 8 core Intel, 10700K is $345 (amazon). At Newegg, the 10700KF is $328.

Now you are talking about a $206 to $241 USD price difference.

The 5600X is going for around $394-$420. Given that the 5600X has no iGPU, the correct comparison part is the $328 10700KF. The 5600X does not come out quite so well in such a performance comparison, and even at that the 10700KF is $70USD cheaper.

So Intel is basically slaughtering AMD in price / performance. You can actually get a 10850K for about the same cost as a 5600X, and the performance comparison of a 5600X vs 10850K is not favorable to AMD. So you basically wind up paying more, for less.

It's still just at the 5900X and higher level where Intel doesn't yet have a counter to AMD in desktop. However those chips (5900X/5950X) are still in the realm of unobtainium.

efikkanThis depends totally on the intention of the buyer. Those wanting value will appreciate having Rocket Lake in the market. Even today, Comet Lake offers tremendous value, is stable and is widely available. It will be far into 2022 before you'll see Alder Lake on the cheap.

As for those wanting to upgrade when it's worth it, Alder Lake is likely to be a good generational uplift, but I would like to point out a couple of considerations;
- The launch window is not confirmed, and wide availability is not guaranteed this year.
- Secondly, Alder Lake's big and little cores will require some OS changes (and probably tweaks to a few applications too) for optimal performance, so don't expect a cakewalk from day one. (Or perhaps you enjoy being a beta tester?)

Sure, it depends on the buyer's needs, as I said. I'm not convinced of tremendous value when there's a new model just round the corner though.

I don't think we'll have to wait an unreasonable amount of time for AL, either. Assuming it launches in September, then by the following January or February, maybe? As you say, the launch isn't cast in stone, but I still think it's worth waiting if one can. That's why I gave the example of even my ancient CPU still being good enough to tide one over. The only reason to upgrade it really is to achieve cutting edge performance again, otherwise it's good enough.

dyonoctisPortugal price are with taxe included ? Your prices are so much lower than what we have in France. The K sku are a fair comparison, but in productivity the 10700/F is behind the 5800x by 20% on average. It's actually competing with the i9 in that domain.
(Right now Intel is the best buy for gaming though)

Yes, let's pick the most expensive stores I can find. Took me 10 seconds to find a 10850k 100€ cheaper from a French store.

Also you do realise Amazon ships for free to other countries, right?

400€ for a 10850K
www.amazon.nl/dp/B08CGT7T32/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me=

The 10700F is 259€ on there.

It depends of what you are buying. Electronics item are harder to get from cheaper countries. European France really like their taxes.
Amazon is also cheaper in France (but still not as cheap as portugal and netherland)...but just a few weeks ago, amazon wasn't THAT cheaper, you usually get price 10-20€ below the LDLC group.

I used the LDLC group as a reference point since it's the biggest and more popular computer retailer in France. Out of the 4 shop with a good a reputation, 3 are owned by them (don't ask me why the french gov allowed them to buy nearly all their competitors) Some of the cheaper store have a terrible customer service... their store are also telling you if there's a know compatility issue between parts, and they can even offer to make a bios uppgrade for you. They are usually slightly pricier, but got a top notch service.
But I guess that they didn't get the memo about the price drop :wtf:

dgianstefaniWrong again. Lower temperatures correlate with lower voltage leakage and better component longevity, as well as higher overclock potential. Additionally, lower component temperatures in a less sensitive component can positively affect nearby components, for example ram, which is very temperature sensitive.

Additionally Zen cpus have been shown to boost adaptively based on temperatures even without manual oc.

Right, but it is not true that Intel is having absolute lower temps per core or working on the same task. Per CPU perhaps, but not in any normal, real life workload that loads the cores with variable loads.

What that linked temp from TPU tells you is what the CPUs will run at on full continous loads. Let's not speak of the resulting performance ;)

While I agree with the premise that Intel's 14nm is just a very strong node that manages to last, its also way beyond any semblance of normality in terms of behaviour. What you're getting now is a peak burst followed by a drop to abysmal clocks, IF you like to do full continuous loads. Therefore it loses everything against a slightly warmer productivity scenario on Ryzen. At the same time, Ryzen seems to have found a sweet spot between temps/load and clock behaviour where it doesn't go into extremes but still performs admirably under all circumstances.

You, yourself said these variables are all linked and bring great arguments for it, but they certainly don't apply to Intel's current offering. Intel's spec is about playing benchmarks, not real scenarios, for their performance parts, and the customer suffers by getting something that always performs way below expectations unless you slap a massive heatsink on it and take off all safety measures (long term power limit and max current draw etc.).

The fact that Intel is even today marketing K-CPUs with massively extended TDP budgets (on the spec list, nvm they're a straight up lie, but ok) against almost similarly clocked non-K versions is the writing on the wall. They still sell the 'OC' moniker for things that simply won't OC because they're already pushed over the edge.

Vayra86Right, but it is not true that Intel is having absolute lower temps per core or working on the same task. Per CPU perhaps, but not in any normal, real life workload that loads the cores with variable loads.

What that linked temp from TPU tells you is what the CPUs will run at on full continous loads. Let's not speak of the resulting performance ;)

While I agree with the premise that Intel's 14nm is just a very strong node that manages to last, its also way beyond any semblance of normality in terms of behaviour. What you're getting now is a peak burst followed by a drop to abysmal clocks, IF you like to do full continuous loads. Therefore it loses everything against a slightly warmer productivity scenario on Ryzen. At the same time, Ryzen seems to have found a sweet spot between temps/load and clock behaviour where it doesn't go into extremes but still performs admirably under all circumstances.

You, yourself said these variables are all linked and bring great arguments for it, but they certainly don't apply to Intel's current offering. Intel's spec is about playing benchmarks, not real scenarios, for their performance parts, and the customer suffers by getting something that always performs way below expectations unless you slap a massive heatsink on it and take off all safety measures (long term power limit and max current draw etc.).

The fact that Intel is even today marketing K-CPUs with massively extended TDP budgets (on the spec list, nvm they're a straight up lie, but ok) against almost similarly clocked non-K versions is the writing on the wall. They still sell the 'OC' moniker for things that simply won't OC because they're already pushed over the edge.

I appreciate what you're saying, but with adequate cooling those k cpus certainly will OC. 10900k at 5.4 all core is doable with a custom loop. Or per core OC lets you do even more.

dgianstefaniI appreciate what you're saying, but with adequate cooling those k cpus certainly will OC. 10900k at 5.4 all core is doable with a custom loop. Or per core OC lets you do even more.

Yes, but then we have to also factor in the cost of all that cooling.

Not the point, point is the chips are certainly capable of being OCd for appreciable gains.

Pushed past the efficiency sweet spot, sure. But definitely not past the limit.

dgianstefaniNot the point, point is the chips are certainly capable of being OCd for appreciable gains.

Pushed past the efficiency sweet spot, sure. But definitely not past the limit.

Appreciable, it does 5.3 out of the box! Come on!

Vayra86Appreciable, it does 5.3 out of the box! Come on!

On one core, assuming temperature is below a threshold. All core boost is 4.9, therefore an all core OC of 5.4 is a 500mhz more than 10% OC. Which is appreciable.