Intel Core i9-10900K

[Radium69]

AMD marketing is pushing reviewers hard for that, because it's the only way their cores don't sit idle in games. Do really that many people game and stream at the same time?

That is a good question. Ill respond to that in a moment.
The question I ask myself is: Which way is the CPU industry heading and in what context does gaming fit into this.

PS5 development shows that we have moved to 8x Zen 2 Cores, maybe even with SMT enabled who knows. So they are aiming for 3700x performance (assumption)
Prediction and personal experience: Game development shows that games are getting more complex and use more cores. 2->4->6 core processors shows improvement in latest titles. (eg. Borderlands3)
So with Intel upping the core count together with AMD, applications will 'probably' show more scaling, this has been a trend for some time. Even Windows 10 shows improvement with core count increase.

Keeping in mind people tend to use their pc for >5years, and it becomes pretty logical (my understanding) to invest in 'moar corez'

So to (sort of) answer your question,
And this example is N=1

People tend to use all kinds of apps during gaming. Like I said, Spotify for music, and discord for user to user/community interactivity.
^is based on only having 1 monitor.

With two monitors becoming more popular these days (Sorry N=1) I myself use youtube / twitch to watch other players or view some hardware footage, browse the web, multiple tabbs open etc. etc...

Intel Core i5 10600K & Core i9 10900K review: de snelste gaming CPU die je niet moet kopen

In deze review van de Intel Core i5 10600K en Core i9 10900K, codenaam Comet Lake, lees je alles over de 10de generatie Intel Core-processors en vind je...

translate.google.com

See for yourself, and this is only using a 6mbit stream. (8mbit or higher is becoming the norm these days)
It's quite funny to see the 3600 'overtaking' the i9-10900K on that graph, by 3%.

I think AMD is on the right track. Let's hope it stays that way.

I've been using intel and Nvidia hardware for almost all of my systems, but for some reason (finewineTM) AMD hardware seems to have more longetivity.
PS: Intel got me good with the 6600K a processor which is just worthless for gaming nowadays. Next system will be AM4 based.
PS2: I can't predict the future, so my post is based upon the good 'ol glass orb.

 

[Shatun_Bear]

but frankly ones that you want to upgrade.
they get decimated by $30 dollar coolers,let's not make a big deal out of wraith prism.it looks super dope and is a decent stop gap solution.

Ok but you can cool a 3900X with one of these but no way can you tame a 10900K that gets to 85 degrees even with a Noctua NH-U12.

Overrall point is total system cost is prohibitively expensive, much more so than a 3900X that can run on a cheap X470/B450 even X370 board with a $30-50 cooler or the one included in the box. On top of that the review price of $500 for CPU itself is a unicorn i.e it doesn't exist. Here in the UK OverclockersUK has the price as £540. The 3900X is £440.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Ok but you can cool a 3900X with one of these but no way can you tame a 10900K that gets to 85 degrees even with a Noctua NH-U12.

Overrall point is total system cost is prohibitively expensive, much more so than a 3900X that can run on a cheap X470/B450 even X370 board with a $30-50 cooler or the one included in the box. On top of that the review price of $500 for CPU itself is a unicorn i.e it doesn't exist. Here in the UK OverclockersUK has the price as £540. The 3900X is £440.

point taken,I wasn't debating if you need a custom cooler to run 3900x,you don't.
I said you want one cause wraith prism is gonna be warm,loud and frankly there's low end coolers that would run circles around it.

 

[Shatun_Bear]

point taken,I wasn't debating if you need a custom cooler to run 3900x,you don't.
I said you want one cause wraith prism is gonna be warm,loud and frankly there's low end coolers that would run circles around it.

Oh sure.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Oh sure.

consult the chart I posted.
that's why I posted it - for you to read it.
look at the price of arctic freezer 34 and what it does to wraith prims temps/noise wise

 

[Radium69]

I guess you haven't done any benchmarking yourself?
The problem is that as soon as you introduce more variables, there's a huge risk of the testing environment throwing off the normally reproducible numbers. Then we're ending up in a situation where a lot of people are going to start questioning the benchmark results, as every time they come outside the normal 1-2% variance or less. Benchmarking for review purposes has to deliver reproducible results across several platforms, so you need to try to minimise variables that might affect the performance in a negative way, regardless of what you're testing.

Yes, a lot of people run at least something like discord alongside their gaming, but live streaming, not sure how many people really does that. That said, most of us probably don't turn off all the background services and what not when we game either, so you lose out a few percents performance there too.

I doubt PCIe 3.0 vs PCIe 4.0 would make any difference to idle power, at least not if no PCIe 4.0 devices are being used. It's more likely that Intel is simply better than AMD at the whole idle power end of things and it's something that have been for quite some time. AMD seems to be starting to catch up on the mobile side though, so maybe that'll be something that translates over to the next set of desktop CPUs as well.

Thanks for taking your time to respond.

The problem is that as soon as you introduce more variables, there's a huge risk of the testing environment throwing off the normally reproducible numbers.

You say, huge risk, I say more 'real world' results. I'm not saying that TPU is obligated to test these scenarios, but more to expand their testing or atleast shed some light on possible future testing.

That said, most of us probably don't turn off all the background services and what not when we game either, so you lose out a few percents performance there too.

Fair enough, and to add some of that to your list, think about AV software, chrome background app, adobe reader background app. Win updates running in the background. Lot of these things are already present in the background these days...

I doubt PCIe 3.0 vs PCIe 4.0 would make any difference to idle power, at least not if no PCIe 4.0 devices are being used.

Like you said, and to expand on your sentence, ryzen's mobile chips use a different io die (No pci-e4) and with additional optimizations they made a pretty big movement so far. It's quite astonishing really...

It's just a refresher to not stare yourself blindly at the FPS results, a lot more has changed.

 

[my_name_is_earl]

I'm sure some fanboi will plug their ears and say "lala lala la allalaaalala" .

 

[ratirt]

consult the chart I posted.
that's why I posted it - for you to read it.
look at the price of arctic freezer 34 and what it does to wraith prims temps/noise wise

It is better but that is also an additional cost. Wraith prism is not that bad. I had it for a while with my 2700x and it was pretty ok. The fact that you can go 3900x with it is a solid achievement.
No wonder, Intel didn't go with stock cooler with this 10900K. What would be the point if Noctua can barely keep up. If you consider stock for this Intel CPU , I'd suggest entry liquid solution.

 

[cucker tarlson]

It is better but that is also an additional cost. Wraith prism is not that bad. I had it for a while with my 2700x and it was pretty ok. The fact that you can go 3900x with it is a solid achievement.
No wonder, Intel didn't go with stock cooler with this 10900K. What would be the point if Noctua can barely keep up. If you consider stock for this Intel CPU , I'd suggest entry liquid solution.

Its an achievement for the 3900x tbh.not the cooler.

 

[ratirt]

Its an achievement for the 3900x tbh.not the cooler.

Yeah but my point was, you can fit that kind of a cooler and sell is as a box. No additional costs involved. You always can go better that's for sure.

 

[EarthDog]

Correction... 7.5% averages; not minimums which is what its all about. Nobody cares (read: should care) if games can peak to 240 FPS if the average is 150, but it still pushes averages up. Even with those monster scores all you really need is the CPU that will hold at least 120. And even then you will be dropping below it from time to time. Its a CPU. The load will vary and is still then limited by the GPU, and most people don't push 2080tis. Come next gen they might, but even then, you're in the safe zone with all of these cpus. None of them will be holding anything back in any notable way.

Correction? I never specified mins/avg. I went off of your post (which specifically stated average). But let me see if I understand this (I may need coffee, it's early here, lol)....

The top 1% is irrelevant because it pushes the average UP... but poor 1% lows is relevant because it pushes it down?? Wouldn't it carry similar levels of importance/difference to the average? I mean, I get the point...nobody cares about peak FPS as much as average and mins, but... did a soul here mention peaks? I thought this was average and mins?

EDIT: 1% lows isn't The Gospel (as some feel), but it does give users an idea of what the 'worst' can look like. The bigger the difference, the more potential there is to 'notice' such a difference. As I said, 7.5% average is almost an entire tier of card, and surely the difference between being able to raise multiple settings for higher IQ.

No wonder, Intel didn't go with stock cooler with this 10900K.

What I believe a lot of people are seemingly forgetting is that they haven't had a stock cooler included with thier K/X series CPUs in several years......that said, their locked CPUs do come with a cooler.

 

[Vayra86]

Correction? I never specified mins/avg. I went off of your post (which specifically stated average). But let me see if I understand this (I may need coffee, it's early here, lol)....

The top 1% is irrelevant because it pushes the average UP... but poor 1% lows is relevant because it pushes it down?? Wouldn't it carry similar levels of importance/difference to the average? I mean, I get the point...nobody cares about peak FPS as much as average and mins, but... did a soul here mention peaks? I thought this was average and mins?

EDIT: 1% lows isn't The Gospel (as some feel), but it does give users an idea of what the 'worst' can look like. The bigger the difference, the more potential there is to 'notice' such a difference. As I said, 7.5% average is almost an entire tier of card, and surely the difference between being able to raise multiple settings for higher IQ.

What I believe a lot of people are seemingly forgetting is that they haven't had a stock cooler included with thier K/X series CPUs in several years......that said, their locked CPUs do come with a cooler.

Maybe I should word it better... its just hard to, really. In my personal experience, above a certain threshold you simply don't really suffer anything from losing 10 FPS. For me personally that limit is around the 100 FPS mark. If it goes substantially below, I will 'feel' it in normal gaming. The difference in feeling, the higher you go above 100~120 FPS, becomes progressively lower.

In comparison, the 10 FPS gap between 60 and 50 FPS is huge. But 20 FPS above 100... I could care less. In addition, this is a CPU and not a GPU. Its not the primary performance limiter, although it might be over time going past several GPU upgrades.

Percentages don't tell the whole story that was my point. Above a certain level its just not really relevant, as much as 240hz isn't really relevant but high refresh rate gaming as a whole certainly is. Its also good to consider what kind of gamer you are, and what niche you're truly buying into. The vast majority of people parroting 'must have best cpu for gaming' are not even chasing that top end FPS, they chase IQ before FPS above a certain threshold.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Maybe I should word it better... its just hard to, really. In my personal experience, above a certain threshold you simply don't really suffer anything from losing 10 FPS. For me personally that limit is around the 100 FPS mark. If it goes substantially below, I will 'feel' it in normal gaming. The difference in feeling, the higher you go above 100~120 FPS, becomes progressively lower.

In comparison, the 10 FPS gap between 60 and 50 FPS is huge. But 20 FPS above 100... I could care less. In addition, this is a CPU and not a GPU. Its not the primary performance limiter, although it might be over time going past several GPU upgrades.

Percentages don't tell the whole story that was my point. Above a certain level its just not really relevant, as much as 240hz isn't really relevant but high refresh rate gaming as a whole certainly is.

That is how difference in percenage works 60 to 50 is more than 120 to 110.literally.
But a product isn't bad cause most people cant tell the difference,its niche.
10900k is what a CPU audiophile headphone would look like.
A whole bunch od money for a tiny difference,but still the best.
I think most pc enthusiasts would be fine with a 3600,and those who arent have options like 10600kf or 10700f.
Its ridiculous how people assume theres a tiny difference between the first and the second best,then between the third and fourth,so on and so on,therefore they come to a conclusion that the difference between say 10900k and 3700x is small.its actually pretty darn big when you add it up,regardless if the individual claims to see or not see it.

 

[Vayra86]

That is how difference on percenage works 60 to 50 is more than 120 to 110.literally.

I spoke of 20 above 100. Same percentage.

 

[ratirt]

What I believe a lot of people are seemingly forgetting is that they haven't had a stock cooler included with thier K/X series CPUs in several years......that said, their locked CPUs do come with a cooler.

So, because there was never any cooler included for several years, in your eyes it's OK and actually it is an added value that these don't have one included either for higher price? Stock cooler is good to start and after some time buy something better.
Either way I do get why Intel doesn't include one now. Which one would it be? Only liquid can fit the purpose.

 

[EarthDog]

Maybe I should word it better... its just hard to, really. In my personal experience, above a certain threshold you simply don't really suffer anything from losing 10 FPS. For me personally that limit is around the 100 FPS mark. If it goes substantially below, I will 'feel' it in normal gaming. The difference in feeling, the higher you go above 100~120 FPS, becomes progressively lower.

In comparison, the 10 FPS gap between 60 and 50 FPS is huge. But 20 FPS above 100... I could care less. In addition, this is a CPU and not a GPU. Its not the primary performance limiter, although it might be over time going past several GPU upgrades.

Percentages don't tell the whole story that was my point. Above a certain level its just not really relevant, as much as 240hz isn't really relevant but high refresh rate gaming as a whole certainly is. Its also good to consider what kind of gamer you are, and what niche you're truly buying into. The vast majority of people parroting 'must have best cpu for gaming' are not even chasing that top end FPS, they chase IQ before FPS above a certain threshold.

I get ya... but as I have described already, it's almost a whole tier of card or raising the settings for higher IQ. It is tangible. Obviously when talking lower FPS it doesn't matter as much by count, but you can still raise settings with that 'buffer' or reach your FPS goals.

So, because there was never any cooler included for several years, in your eyes it's OK and actually it is an added value that these don't have one included either for higher price?
Either way I do get why Intel doesn't include one now.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't mention nor allude to talking about value it adds (or doesn't).

I replied to you because you seem to believe they don't include a cooler because of the heat output..... which is patently FALSE. So, again, Intel, for several generations now, have NOT included a cooler with their unlocked chips. This is nothing new. The i9-10900 (non K) includes a heatsink, right?

EDIT: Generally, people who buy an unlocked Intel processor are overclocking in the first place. And with that, you need cooling that is notably better than Intel's stock heatsink in every case... I get why Intel did this so many years ago. Cheers on AMD for handing one out though.

 

[cucker tarlson]

So, because there was never any cooler included for several years, in your eyes it's OK and actually it is an added value that these don't have one included either for higher price? Stock cooler is good to start and after some time buy something better.
Either way I do get why Intel doesn't include one now. Which one would it be? Only liquid can fit the purpose.

Jesus,the cooler argument is fine for budget pc,can we not hear it again in the +$400 range ?
you need about $25 to match the value of a new wraith cooler temps/noise wise,how much do you need to match the value of a new igpu ?

 

[Shatun_Bear]

consult the chart I posted.
that's why I posted it - for you to read it.
look at the price of arctic freezer 34 and what it does to wraith prims temps/noise wise

No I meant literally 'sure' I was agreeing with you lol.

 

[cucker tarlson]

No I meant literally 'sure' I was agreeing with you lol.

lol,sorrry,I thought you were sarcastic

 

[Frick]

AMD marketing is pushing reviewers hard for that, because it's the only way their cores don't sit idle in games. Do really that many people game and stream at the same time?

AMD marketing is pushing reviewers hard for that, because it's the only way their cores don't sit idle in games. Do really that many people game and stream at the same time?

Obviously the number of people streaming is < than the numbers of gamers in the world but many, many people are into it. Twitch apperntly had over 5 million streamers april 2020. Obviously they're not all AAA game streamers but it's still a big market.

I'd be interested in those numbers, if nothing else because you can't get enough data when reading reviews.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Obviously the number of people streaming is < than the numbers of gamers in the world but many, many people are into it. Twitch apperntly had over 5 million streamers april 2020. Obviously they're not all AAA game streamers but it's still a big market.

I'd be interested in those numbers, if nothing else because you can't get enough data when reading reviews.

yup.it's a fair test.100%.
I heard from a person who reviews cpus/gpus that amd insisted on reviewers using imc specified ram for 3300x testing,e.g. to test 7700k on 2400mhz ram and 3300x on 3200mhz ram.and apparently many sites did,though the one I'm speaking of refused.now that is something that is just not cool.

 

[EarthDog]

Twitch apperntly had over 5 million streamers april 2020.

Wow... really? Link to that? I'm interested in seeing some numbers there!

Like I said earlier, I think this type of article is maybe good annually or something. But to test for it in each review sounds like a monumental PITA and not worth the time.

 

[ratirt]

I get ya... but as I have described already, it's almost a whole tier of card or raising the settings for higher IQ. It is tangible. Obviously when talking lower FPS it doesn't matter as much by count, but you can still raise settings with that 'buffer' or reach your FPS goals.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't mention nor allude to talking about value it adds (or doesn't).

I replied to you because you seem to believe they don't include a cooler because of the heat output..... which is patently FALSE. So, again, Intel, for several generations now, have NOT included a cooler with their unlocked chips. This is nothing new. The i9-10900 (non K) includes a heatsink, right?

EDIT: Generally, people who buy an unlocked Intel processor are overclocking in the first place. And with that, you need cooling that is notably better than Intel's stock heatsink in every case... I get why Intel did this so many years ago. Cheers on AMD for handing one out though.

I'm not pushing nor putting words in your mouth. Stop with this stupid phrase. I simply ask why there shouldn't be a stock cooler. Because there never was one? I simply disagree with you about what you said. Since there was never a stock cooler, meaning nobody should expect one or maybe because it is not needed.
I never said, cooler is not there due to heat output. Maybe Intel doesn't seem fit or has a reason to get a cooler for K version CPUs knowing people will OC those and the stock cooler will not make it.
What I said is, I'd see more value if the stock cooler was included anyway.

Jesus,the cooler argument is fine for budget pc,can we not hear it again in the +$400 range ?
you need about $25 to match the value of a new wraith cooler temps/noise wise,how much do you need to match the value of a new igpu ?

Great. Budget PC is a budget pc and you can get a better cooler despite a budget pc purchase. I still think a stock cooler would have been nice gesture for any CPU. No matter the K line of CPUs never had one (BTW 3770K had a stock cooler so as 4770K if I'm not mistaken about the last one).

 

[cucker tarlson]

Wow... really? Link to that? I'm interested in seeing some numbers there!

Like I said earlier, I think this type of article is maybe good annually or something. But to test for it in each review sounds like a monumental PITA and not worth the time.

lockdown is responsible for 70% of that probably

Great. Budget PC is a budget pc and you can get a better cooler despite a budget pc purchase. I still think a stock cooler would have been nice gesture for any CPU. No matter the K line of CPUs never had one (BTW 3770K had a stock cooler so as 4770K if I'm not mistaken about the last one).

for 10900k it's just plain stupid to include one.that'd have to raise the cost,better not to include it and let ppl decide what kind of cooling they wanna run with it.

btw 4790k and 5775c both had a cooler,I have both sitting in the cabinet,they smell brand new.also-they're bad.

 

[EarthDog]

I'm not pushing nor putting words in your mouth. Stop with this stupid phrase. I simply ask why there shouldn't be a stock cooler. Because there never was one? I simply disagree with you about what you said. Since there was never a stock cooler, meaning nobody should expect one or maybe because it is not needed.
I never said, cooler is not there due to heat output. Maybe Intel doesn't seem fit or has a reason to get a cooler for K version CPUs knowing people will OC those and the stock cooler will not make it.
What I said is, I'd see more value if the stock cooler was included anyway.


Great. Budget PC is a budget pc and you can get a better cooler despite a budget pc purchase. I still think a stock cooler would have been nice gesture for any CPU. No matter the K line of CPUs never had one (BTW 3770K had a stock cooler so as 4770K if I'm not mistaken about the last one).

You did seem to put words in my mouth. I told you why. It's there in plain English (though I believe you are ESL, sorry). No matter though. I was just clarifying the reason why Intel hasn't included a cooler on their unlocked chips for generations.

Maybe I was confused by these lines......

No wonder, Intel didn't go with stock cooler with this 10900K. What would be the point if Noctua can barely keep up

Either way I do get why Intel doesn't include one now. Which one would it be? Only liquid can fit the purpose.

This tells users that because a certain heatsink/intel stock can't keep up with the HEAT, Intel doesn't include a stock cooler.

Mean what you say... say what you mean, please.

Who in their right mind would think a cooler isn't needed because it isn't included? lolololololol



A cooler can add more value, but again, intel and AMD do things differently, clearly. All AMD chips are unlocked and come with coolers (9590 didn't though, did it?). Intel, few chips are unlocked and those that are do not include a cooler. It is what it is. If you don't plan on buying an aftermarket cooler to overclock an Intel, you're in the wrong line.