Intel Officially Launches the Core i9-10850K at $453

[EarthDog]

Context is important...

Indeed it is.... I've bolded the part where the OP explicitly states the conext.

$453 is a steal for the world’s fastest gaming CPU. Much better than $400 3800XT that’s slower than a 8700k from three years ago.

And from your own link, at 1080p it is 3% faster overall.

That out of the way, its clear that dude leans to one side and doens't want to hear shiza...I wouldn't call it 'much better', lol. Just TPU being TPU...

 

[dicktracy]

Indeed it is.... I've bolded the part where the OP explicitly states the conext.

And from your own link, at 1080p it is 3% faster overall.

That out of the way, its clear that dude leans to one side and doens't want to hear shiza...I wouldn't call it 'much better', lol. Just TPU being TPU...

10900k is 20-40 FPS faster than the competition if the GPU is fast enough. 8700k is still unmatched to this day. This is with the 2080 ti. Now imagine with flagship Ampere to reduce much of the GPU bottleneck.

Go ahead and keep being loyal to slow.

 

[EarthDog]

I mean technically, a 3% difference is "unmatched" (though it isn't "much better" - I'd call it closer to negligible than much better). But holy fucking shit man, bias much? Who wants to read this incessant drivel (and then you moved the goal posts to another CPU)? Won't be me moving forward! GL man... lulz.

 

[r9]

Expect models ending in .95.

 

[medi01]

Funny thing is, the midrange GPU segment looks about the same since Pascal onwards..

Yeah, as if 5700, 5700XT, 2060 KO, 2060super, 2070super, 2080super didn't happen.

20-40 FPS faster

I've heard there are people who could see the difference between 270fps and 290fps, if they take enough amphetamine.

Was about to make a joke about the need to test at 720p, once RDNA2/Ampere come, but, oh boy, we are there already.
Perhaps benchmarking ancient games on the latest obnoxiously priced card in SLI/Crossfire and at 480p should become norm.

 

[windwhirl]

I've heard there are people who could see the difference between 270fps and 290fps, if they take enough amphetamine.

Imagine people complaining about how a certain card can't reach 500 FPS, which is a completely different experience compared to 450 FPS /s

Frankly, I think going beyond 240 FPS is absolutely pointless even for the most competitive players out there.

Perhaps benchmarking ancient games on latest obnoxiously price card in SLI and at 480p should become norm.

So... how about Half-Life 2, then? 300 FPS on a RX 580 at 1080p even with all the bling turned to the max, would probably hit the 1000 FPS mark easily at 480p. Who knows, maybe you could hit 10000 FPS on a RTX 3080 or whatever will be the flagship for the RTX 3000 series

 

[kiriakost]

10900k is 20-40 FPS faster than the competition if the GPU is fast enough. 8700k is still unmatched to this day. This is with the 2080 ti. Now imagine with flagship Ampere to reduce much of the GPU bottleneck.

I do not care to receive a bullet in my body by saying that is insane some one to consider as logical, that you need 10 FAST cores for a damn game.
Any game engine which this is unable to run under four cores, this is a problematic trash.

 

[John Naylor]

Why all the fuss about die size ... to distract from performance comparisons ?

Intel Core i9-10900 Review - Fail at Stock, Impressive when Unlocked

In our Core i9-10900 review we're taking a close look at what can be gained from unlocking the power limit of this 65 W processor. Results are impressive: up to 40% faster apps and performance that rivals the Core i9-10900K at much lower pricing, but heat output is increased, too.

www.techpowerup.com

10900k​	=​	100.6 %​	$ 530​	​	​	​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​	$ 480​	3900XT​	=​	93.2 %​
10900​	=​	100.0 %​	$ 470​	​	​	​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​	$ 430​	3900X​	=​	93.1 %​
10700k​	=​	100.1 %​	$ 410​	​	​	​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​	$ 400​	3800XT​	=​	92.5 %​
10600k​	=​	98.1 %​	$ 370​	​	​	​	​	​
10700​	=​	100.7 %​	$ 310​	​	​	​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​	$ 280​	3700X​	=​	92.5 %​
10600​	=​	​	$ 260​	​	​	​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​	$ 240​	3600XT​	=​	91.3 %​
​	​	​	​	​	$ 210​	3600X​	=​	90.9 %​
10500​	=​	96.2 %​	$ 230​	​	​	​	​	​
10400F​	=​	95.7 %​	$ 220​	​	​	​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​	$ 160​	3600​	=​	89.7 %​
​	​	​	​	​	$ 135​	3300X​	=​	89.1 %​

Using this as a base build .... https://pcpartpicker.com/b/7Np8TW $1212.50

Lets look at CPU options ...

10400F increases performance by 3.5 % and reduces system cost by 4.9 %
10500 increases performance by 4,0 % and reduces system cost by 4.1 %
10700 increases performance by 8.9 % and increases system cost by 2.5 %

Same build with 3800XT = 1332.50 ....

10700k increases performance by 8.2 % and increases system cost by 0.8 %
10900 increases performance by 8.1 % and increases system cost by 5.2 %
10900k increases performance by 8.8 % and increases system cost by 9.8 %

In which of these comparisons is die size a factor in building a gaming box ?

On other other side, fps over the monitor's refresh rate is not a logical basis for comparison.

 

[kiriakost]

On other other side, fps over the monitor's refresh rate is not a logical basis for comparison.

This is true only when you are using AMD drivers.
Since when AMD did a serious drivers optimization? Their GPUs using by far more memory in contrast to NVIDIA on the same Game and settings.
I bet that NVIDIA they are some sort of magicians ... Or truly better as engineers.

Dear INTEL .. its me, you fan-boy since the 486 DX 100.
I have spent piles of money buying at least 17 CPU's as upgrade steps over years from you.
Q6600 this is a fantastic chip (360 dollars starting price .. do you remember ?
This it did boost productive computing allot, we have see the benefits at thousands 2D of software titles.

But I am unwilling paying even a single Euro cent for a CPU that benefits exclusively the gaming.
I am not complaining by having donating to you 3000 ~ 4000 Euro of my income so far, but the game is OVER from my end.

 

[Amite]

Think we all knew this about Intel.

What’s wrong with Intel, and how to fix it: Former principal engineer unloads

The principal engineer who worked on CPUs from the Pentium III to Core i7 says Intel has lost focus, and it's "lucky" AMD can't make enough CPUs to do more damage.

www.pcworld.com