Intel Core i9-10850K

[Vayra86]

Do I smell..... bacon?

"No, its my CPU!"

 

[RedelZaVedno]

Please add Microsoft Flight simulator 2020 to the test.

 

[Vayra86]

Please add Microsoft Flight simulator 2020 to the test.

Its an interesting one because the performance seems related to download speed/bandwidth and quality of the service as well. I'm curious how W1zz will add that if he even could. But its an interesting bench nonetheless because it does present some new tech.

 

[newtekie1]

It's always dollars to performance.

For me, it isn't always dollars to performance. For the most part, Intel and AMD are pretty close to the same price/performance. It's really hard to say one always gives the best price/performance.

On the other hand, in my experience owning several systems from both platforms, I'll say the Intel systems have been less hassle. The Intel platform is just more mature(obviously because the Intel platform hasn't really changed in 7+ years). The AMD platform isn't terrible, I've just had more minor annoying problems(and one major) issues.

 

[VulkanBros]

Do I smell..... bacon?

"No, its my CPU!"

..or you have a GTX480

 

[Amite]

Well have learned what "popular" games tend to be single threaded.

 

[dirtyferret]

Praise the gods! The long suffering nightmare of 9900k owners having to play Rainbow six at a peasant like 275 FPS is now over! They can move up to the sweet sweet frame rate of 285 FPS with the availability of the 10850k (with mobo upgrade). Truly the gods work in wondrous ways!

 

[W1zzard]

But its an interesting bench nonetheless

imo it's a bad simulation that uses outdated technology paired with subpar programming. At 10k Steam reviews it's also not that popular, I'm really not sure whether this is worth caring about at all

I feel like this part of a Steam review (from an actual airline pilot) summarizes it very well

All in all I can't figure out who the ideal user of this game could be, it's way too simplified for professional use or to run any sort of realistic simulation, too pointless for your typicall gamer, since there are no objectives, campaign, or goals to achieve, and too distant from reality for a student pilot or an amateour to get acquainted with flying.
As it stands right now I can't recommend it due to the aforementioned issues, I suggest the developers to focus a bit more on nailing the essential mechanics and less on polishing the droplets of water on the windshield.

 

[newtekie1]

imo it's a bad simulation that uses outdated technology paired with subpar programming. At 10k Steam reviews it's also not that popular, I'm really not sure whether this is worth caring about at all

I feel like this part of a Steam review (from an actual airline pilot) summarizes it very well

I have to agree. Flight Simulator 2020 is a niche game that is really only played by the few people that were still playing Flight Simulator X because they thought it made them a real pilot.

 

[Makaveli]

A real Air bus pilot tried the game and liked it. So to each his own I guess.

 

[Lateshow]

You are talking about the difference between 200 and 210 fps... it really isn't that important (and you need a GPU that hits 200fps, the 2080 ti is not even hitting 100fps at 1440p in many of the newest games at highest settings, and RT features will make it even worse). I'm always running out of GPU performance but frankly I can game with an overclocked 10100 if Intel would offer it. Same as the Ryzen 3300x if I could actually buy them.

You have to take your local pricing into consideration. AMD went from 40 percent behind to 4 percent behind. But the Ryzen 3600 is $240 CAD in Canada and the 10600k is $400. Intel raised the price on the 6 core so high it is disgusting ($100 more than the 9600k for example), so no one wants to buy it. Your mileage may vary based on your country.

I've been curious about what the 10100 would perform like, or if it's replicable on a B, or H series mobo. It's a $100 down here, and actually comes out to less than the 3100/3300x after B/H mobo, and ram.

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

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

www.techpowerup.com

The pricing on the 10600k is definitely high for a 6/12. I believe MSRP was already high at $260, but it's always $280-$300+ down here, and sold out lol. Demand is crazy high. Idk how it will hold up in 2-3 years, and I wouldn't go that route even at MSRP, but lots are. 9600k is on sale for $160, and would be decent, but 6/6 makes less future proof than the newer version. Dollars to performance is way better though. I'm leaning towards the 10700. I don't plan to oc, but it should be plenty for gaming, and any 8/16 is going be fairly future proof IMO.

For me, it isn't always dollars to performance. For the most part, Intel and AMD are pretty close to the same price/performance. It's really hard to say one always gives the best price/performance.

On the other hand, in my experience owning several systems from both platforms, I'll say the Intel systems have been less hassle. The Intel platform is just more mature(obviously because the Intel platform hasn't really changed in 7+ years). The AMD platform isn't terrible, I've just had more minor annoying problems(and one major) issues.

Correct there is more to picking a platform, but for me it's simple. Gaming is the most stressful thing I put my pc through besides stressing when I set it up, or to troubleshoot. Both (8/16) 3700x, or 10700 are close enough that either would work fine for me so it comes down to price. Here, certain Intel chips like the 10100, and 10700 actually come out a little less than their AMD counterparts, or you get a little more on the mobo at around the same price. If that trend continues, I'll go Intel this round. Just waiting for AMD to show their new chips.

You nailed the other part about a mature, and stable platform. Intel has a well oiled machine from their consumer products to their pro stuff. It's one of the reasons there are not as many decent AMD laptop options yet, and more companies are not moving over to AMD on the server side. Reputation, and infrastructure that works is why AMD hasn't caught up in the 2 areas they are arguably better than Intel. Reminds me of when Dell featured those crappy Intel pentiums when AMD had those sweet Athlons, and Opterons. Well except this trend will continue, and we'll be seeing a lot of AMD for the foreseeable future.

Competition is good.

 

[TheMysticWizard1]

I had purchased one, right before they "officially" came out, mainly because they were "in stock." Delivered on 8/16.

I can confirm, first hand. It is a HOT chip. I put it under a Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme and about 30 seconds into Prime95, it started throttling, reaching 100*C on several cores. Obviously not gonna work out, long term.

I now have it under water (360 Rad in push/pull configuration) and with tweaking settings I can keep it in the high 80's - low 90's while boosting to 4.8 GHz on all cores. Still no easy feat. Intel is clearly at the limits of the 14nm process, there's no practical way to keep it cool enough to get more out of it.

Side Note, I feel a lot of the boards out there are still running "beta" bios'es. My Board (Gigabyte Z490 Vision G) set to "Optimized Defaults" removed the CPU Power Limit, thus running the CPU right up to the thermal throttling wall. I was seeing 325+W power draw until it hits 100*C

 

[Selaya]

[ ... ]

Side Note, I feel a lot of the boards out there are still running "beta" bios'es. My Board (Gigabyte Z490 Vision G) set to "Optimized Defaults" removed the CPU Power Limit, thus running the CPU right up to the thermal throttling wall. I was seeing 325+W power draw until it hits 100*C

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

 

[newtekie1]

Correct there is more to picking a platform, but for me it's simple. Gaming is the most stressful thing I put my pc through besides stressing when I set it up, or to troubleshoot. Both (8/16) 3700x, or 10700 are close enough that either would work fine for me so it comes down to price. Here, certain Intel chips like the 10100, and 10700 actually come out a little less than their AMD counterparts, or you get a little more on the mobo at around the same price. If that trend continues, I'll go Intel this round. Just waiting for AMD to show their new chips.

If I was only gaming, then I'd have either a 10100 or 3300X. I mean, that's really I'd need for 1440p gaming. Beyond that, there is very marginal improvement in performance, but huge price increases. Because games still just aren't really benefiting from more than 4 cores, despite people saying that's going to change any minute for the past 8 years or so.

 

[kiriakost]

the boxed cooler is missing .............. Yea I would love to see with what air-cooling system INTEL was happy with this CPU at full load.

 

[John Naylor]

1. Wishful thinking 1 - Since the CPU doesn't sit on its desk and to the job by itself, the cost comparison is red herring. If you are buying a $450 - 500 CPU, your system cost is gong to be in the $1800 - $2000 range. If $2k, that's a 2.5% cost increase

2. Wishful thinking 2 -Since we doing the direct comparison with the 10900k, it would be nice to see a comparison of overclocked perfomance side by side, especially when the conclusions state "Reaches highest multipliers only rarely" and "Overclocking barely worth it". The "For general applications, the improvement is 6.6% " ... that is significant for a 2.5% oncrease in system proce.

3. One would think that the way you carefully articulated the performance of the AMD / Intel CPUS each being the better choice for the applications they excel in, would erase the mindset that produces posts like "I just don''t see a reason to buy Intel.. ". As you careful have pointed out in this and other reviews.

a) The Intel 10400 puts up better gaming numbers than any CPU in AMDs entire lineup.

b) In Application performance, the 10850k beats the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and 3900XT by 1.2% and 0.2% respectively.

c) In the most common "time is money" applications, the 10850k is 16% faster in photo editing than the 3900XT and 6% faster than video editing

d) "Professionals working with rendering and simulation apps, or other similarly demanding apps, should definitely consider AMD for their rig" Agreed ... In the architectutal / engineering / industry .... I recommend Intel CPUs / Nvidia RTX cards for 2D / CAD, Office Apps and Gaming (Given the nerd personna of most A/Es, LAN parties are not unusual after hours in small to mid size firms. For home iusers, I can point out many things that the AMD CPUs do better ... rendering, game design, software development, etc .... and would recommend AMD for thoise applications, but 98.5% of home users don't have those apps. But occasionally, the client will want to see rendering made form those drawings and for this the best tool is an AMD CPU. In an A/E office, the need for drafting boxes to renedering boxes might be between 10 and 20 to 1. The reason to buy the 1 is the same as the reason to buy the other 9 ... it's the best tool for the primary application(s).

 

[Tiffinslice]

I have purchased the i7 10700k and can get this for £65 more. Should I return my i7? I am kind of wishing I had it but someone told me it’s the poor mans 9900k. Would the i7 overclocked be as good as this stock but not run as hot as the OC i9 ?

 

[W1zzard]

Should I return my i7?

Probably not, depends on what you do with it

Would the i7 overclocked be as good as this stock but not run as hot as the OC i9 ?

Check my 10700K review, it has OC results that can be directly compared to the numbers in this review

 

[Tiffinslice]

Probably not, depends on what you do with it


Check my 10700K review, it has OC results that can be directly compared to the numbers in this review

I am gaming and doing some light video editing. I need something that can last a fair while though as I probably wont upgrade for another 5 years ( old PC has i5 3470)

 

[Raendor]

I am gaming and doing some light video editing. I need something that can last a fair while though as I probably wont upgrade for another 5 years ( old PC has i5 3470)

You can get a mid-range mobo and cpu now and upgrade in a few years to a midrange new platform (if needed) for the same money or even less than going for i7/i9 now. And the future mid-range will likely outperform decently. Look at 10400f. Costs around €150 right now, while 10700 is twice more. Both beat amd in gaming and the latter is not miles beyond the former in all cases, but doubles the cost.

 

[Selaya]

I am gaming and doing some light video editing. I need something that can last a fair while though as I probably wont upgrade for another 5 years ( old PC has i5 3470)

Unless you really care about every single last fps, you're probably better off with something AMD. You will hit the thermal barrier with this CPU when you render your videos. Speaking of that, I really wish there was some kind of thermal (throttle) testing, like with M.2 SSDs:

There is no way the average consumer will be able to build a system that can dissipate 250W of heat - that is basically Threadripper levels of thermals. (Oh and, I'd be curious how toasty the VRMs get ...)

 

[Searing]

There is hundreds, probably thousands of 10600K CPUs available in Europe, for € 240 including VAT = USD 245 without tax

So I went ahead and bought a 10600k for my second computer (first one is using the 10900f I imported at a good price, $550 CAD). $400 CAD plus tax equals $448 here. IT IS TERRIBLE. I had to go from 1.250V to 1.320V to get it to go from 4.7ghz to 4.8ghz all core fully stable, already at thermal limits BEFORE I GOT TO 4.9 GHZ!!! A long way from my old 8086k that ran at 5ghz all cores with the same Noctua cooler (golden sample, but still). [also the Gigabyte Gaming X was terrible, the VRM overheats at less than 200 watts also]

It's going right back to the store and being swapped for the $250 dollar more 10850k. No silicon quality with this 10600k.

 

[W1zzard]

Speaking of that, I really wish there was some kind of thermal (throttle) testing, like with M.2 SSDs:

Thermal throttle works the same on all CPUs, not much point testing it: you hit 100°C, it will throttle clocks enough to not go above 100°C

Or maybe you are looking for a power throttling test like on this page? https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900k/18.html

 

[Raendor]

So I went ahead and bought a 10600k for my second computer (first one is using the 10900f I imported at a good price, $550 CAD). $400 CAD plus tax equals $448 here. IT IS TERRIBLE. I had to go from 1.250V to 1.320V to get it to go from 4.7ghz to 4.8ghz all core fully stable, already at thermal limits BEFORE I GOT TO 4.9 GHZ!!! A long way from my old 8086k that ran at 5ghz all cores with the same Noctua cooler (golden sample, but still). [also the Gigabyte Gaming X was terrible, the VRM overheats at less than 200 watts also]

It's going right back to the store and being swapped for the $250 dollar more 10850k. No silicon quality with this 10600k.

Well, that's what the silicone lottery is after all. Doesn't mean another 10600k won't be better than your sample. I personally see no pint in OCed cpus in this day and age at all. More headache, hardly any performance improvement, more cost. Getting high enough clocked memory at this stage is all you need.

 

[Selaya]

Thermal throttle works the same on all CPUs, not much point testing it: you hit 100°C, it will throttle clocks enough to not go above 100°C

Or maybe you are looking for a power throttling test like on this page? https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900k/18.html

Yes well obviously, what I'm interested in is how well different kinds of mainstream cooling solutions are capable of dealing with the 250W of heat those 14nm++++++++++++++++++s generate - that graph is just default Intel behavior with PLs because even they realised that the average joe consumer is unlikely to install a cooling solution that can deal with 250W of thermals for an extended period of time ...

Of course that would require quite a bit of extra testing/benching, with different tiered air coolers, AIOs and maybe even a custom loop ...