Intel Core i5-10600K

[W1zzard]

The Core i5-10600K is Intel's biggest upgrade in the mid-range for years. Driven by strong competition from AMD, Intel is now giving us a 6c/12t CPU with 125 W TDP and the full compliment of 12 MB cache. Our Core i5-10600K benchmarks show it to be a formidable performer, especially in gaming.

Show full review

 

[kajson]

Based on these results you'd think the 10600 non k at 40-50$ less seems like the best way to go as oc has become obsolete somewhat and you still get the 4.8ghz max clock. The platform costs sort of ruin the greatness of the whole gen though. Because the i5's are mostly greatly priced it seems. When Intels version of the B550 comes out they might be in business. But now it seems like big mismatch the whole line-up. The B450 option that AMD does have, bios size issues aside, makes them much better placed in the market.

 

[Daven]

Competition is really heating up. The main problem might be availability and of course extra component costs to upgrade. Comparison of Intel and AMD (released/rumored) without IGP:

3900XT	4.1/4.8	12/24	$480​	10900KF	3.7/5.1	10/20	$480​
3900X	3.8/4.6	12/24	$430​	10900F	2.8/5.0	10/20	$430​
3800XT	4.2/4.7	8/16	$380​	10700KF	3.8/5.0	8/16	$350​
3800X	3.9/4.5	8/16	$330​	10700F	2.9/4.7	8/16	$300​
3600XT	4.0/4.7	6/12	$280​	10600KF	4.1/4.8	6/12	$240​
3600X	3.8/4.4	6/12	$230​	10400F	2.9/4.3	6/12	$160​

Edit: I'm estimating pricing and only using Turbo 2.0 on the Intel chips. I still don't believe many will see Turbo 3.0 clocks much less TVB clocks. Also Core i5 and lower don't have turbos beyond 2.0.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Yeah this is a wild thing chip
GN showed it beating a 10900x oc'ing lol

 

[Legacy-ZA]

What I don't need is a new socket with every new CPU released.

 

[ppn]

It's worse, a new socket with old CPU released, I7-8700K in disguize. The die is probably only the 6 core full fat underneath when delided, 0.44mm instead of 0.58. not carved out of the 10 core at all.

just get the 10700K or better yet 10700F instead. that is what intel is saying. first get the 10600K and get bottlenecked and disappointed, then sell and buy the 8 core.
So why make the extra hoop. (all my friends went 9900K already for a reason. looks like I'm stuck with Xeon 32nm until 3nm..)

10600K 12MB 4.8GHz @ 1.4V is preposterous. 10700F 16MB 4.6GHz @ 1.2V, I would pick the 2^3 core every time.

 

[GreiverBlade]

mhhh still nope ...

given the solid price i got spot on mentioning how i thought it would be, 320chf/$/eur i see atm at my retailer ... and given the mobo pricing which is close to a X570 and given that i will probably never see the 350$ new price for a 3900X (which, if it was, would be the best option for me) a 3600X still is the best option (even the 3700X and 3800X are almost the same price than the 10600K for me ... )

"but you would get higher overall FPS with Intel.... just saying..." .... mhhhh alright i do need those 0.2-10fps more indeed... not! at 1440p75 i would be fine even with a 3300X @130chf


10th gen core is a big bag of "meh" to me

 

[Noztra]

I still don’t get how a product that have more negatives, than positives can get highly recommended?

Yeah they are unlocked and have HT, but how is that a positive? Just because Intel is finally not artifical limiting their product stack, they don’t deserve praise.

And Reasonably priced is another false positive. If you take in the Account of the platform. With MB and cooler its pretty expensive.

 

[Darksword]

Based on these results you'd think the 10600 non k at 40-50$ less seems like the best way to go as oc has become obsolete somewhat and you still get the 4.8ghz max clock. The platform costs sort of ruin the greatness of the whole gen though. Because the i5's are mostly greatly priced it seems. When Intels version of the B550 comes out they might be in business. But now it seems like big mismatch the whole line-up. The B450 option that AMD does have, bios size issues aside, makes them much better placed in the market.

I think you're right. Overclocking the 10600K isn't worth it. You'd be better off saving a few bucks and putting it towards other parts of your system.

However, a 10600K + $35.00 HSF = $300.00. For that price, you could get a 3700X on a much better platform.

 

[hat]

Based on these results you'd think the 10600 non k at 40-50$ less seems like the best way to go as oc has become obsolete somewhat and you still get the 4.8ghz max clock. The platform costs sort of ruin the greatness of the whole gen though. Because the i5's are mostly greatly priced it seems. When Intels version of the B550 comes out they might be in business. But now it seems like big mismatch the whole line-up. The B450 option that AMD does have, bios size issues aside, makes them much better placed in the market.

Disappointing... isn't it? But we always want faster products that OC well. Normally, I suppose both Intel and AMD in the past have left a lot of headroom on the table to make future products more powerful if they have to, and to keep chips nice and efficient. Now that they're competing pretty fiercely, efficiency and headroom go out the window in the name of raw speed... unfortunately, with that, that means guys like you and me don't get to do much to make it go faster when we get one. These chips are basically overclocked out of the box... just look at the cooling requirements today compared to the cooling requirements 10 years ago. Even the notorious Pentium 4 could be cooled effectively by this... don't try it on one of these new chips!

 

[Berfs1]

Saw this in the introduction, 125W is not the power limit.... it is the TDP. Power limit for the 10600K is 182W, 10700K is 229W, and 10900K is 250W.

It's worse, a new socket with old CPU released, I7-8700K in disguize. The die is probably only the 6 core full fat underneath when delided, 0.44mm instead of 0.58. not carved out of the 10 core at all.

Not true, the 10600K/F runs on the Q0 die, which is the 10c variant. Aside from the 8/10 core processors, MOST of the other processors use the G1 die, which is the 6 core die.

 

[moob]

However, a 10600K + $35.00 HSF = $300.00. For that price, you could get a 3700X on a much better platform.

It's even worse if you have a Micro Center near you since the 3700X is $270. But even on amazon, the 3700X is down to $295 with a cooler (as listed on the chart on the first page). Not that any of that really matters since you can't find the 10600k in stock anywhere anyway. If this chip launched at $200, even without the cooler, I think it'd be the recommendation for a lot of people, but like Wizz wrote in the conclusion, the value proposition of this chip isn't there right now.

 

[Totally]

oof, you need not one but two nuclear reactors and with a mild OC even lets you open the windows in the dead of winter.

 

[Berfs1]

Based on these results you'd think the 10600 non k at 40-50$ less seems like the best way to go as oc has become obsolete somewhat and you still get the 4.8ghz max clock. The platform costs sort of ruin the greatness of the whole gen though. Because the i5's are mostly greatly priced it seems. When Intels version of the B550 comes out they might be in business. But now it seems like big mismatch the whole line-up. The B450 option that AMD does have, bios size issues aside, makes them much better placed in the market.

Intel has B460, H410, H470, W480, and Z490. There are some others but these are the simple ones. H410 supports DMI 3.0, so I could actually recommend getting an H410 motherboard for budget builds; in the past, the Hx10 chipset was DMI 2.0 while the B chipset was DMI 3.0, which can affect the performance of the CPU. As for the 10600, you get 4.4 GHz all core. 10500 is 4.2 GHz all core, and 10400 is 4.0 GHz all core. Looking back at the MSRP Box prices, 10600 would be quite competitive, but do remember you can't go past 4.4 GHz on all cores unless you BCLK overclock it.

 

[mechtech]

Has intel worked out all the sercutiy flaws and performance impacts from security mitigation's with this generation?

 

[Berfs1]

It's even worse if you have a Micro Center near you since the 3700X is $270. But even on amazon, the 3700X is down to $295 with a cooler (as listed on the chart on the first page). Not that any of that really matters since you can't find the 10600k in stock anywhere anyway. If this chip launched at $200, even without the cooler, I think it'd be the recommendation for a lot of people, but like Wizz wrote in the conclusion, the value proposition of this chip isn't there right now.

The 10600KF exists too, that one is 238$ boxed, while the 10600K is 263$ boxed. I think a lot of people are forgetting that the F variant CPU is cheaper as it does not include the iGPU, which for gaming you don't need. While this review obviously can carry over to the 10600KF, the PRICING is actually quite different. Also, while yes the current pricing of the 3700X is much lower, I'm not sure if it is fair to compare a new CPU with x$ MSRP to an older CPU with the same sale price of x$,

Has intel worked out all the sercutiy flaws and performance impacts from security mitigation's with this generation?

TBH I don't really care about those security flaws as they don't affect me. There is something really cool called not updating your BIOS That's how my 9750H can stay undervolted. They always say, if it isn't broken, don't fix it, and I have not had anything broken with my system, so yeah, I'll keep my undervolting privileges

Competition is really heating up. The main problem might be availability and of course extra component costs to upgrade. Comparison of Intel and AMD (released/rumored) without IGP:

3900XT	4.1/4.8	12/24	$480​	10900KF	3.7/5.1	10/20	$480​
3900X	3.8/4.6	12/24	$430​	10900F	2.8/5.0	10/20	$430​
3800XT	4.2/4.7	8/16	$380​	10700KF	3.8/5.0	8/16	$350​
3800X	3.9/4.5	8/16	$330​	10700F	2.9/4.7	8/16	$300​
3600XT	4.0/4.7	6/12	$280​	10600KF	4.1/4.8	6/12	$240​
3600X	3.8/4.4	6/12	$230​	10400F	2.9/4.3	6/12	$160​

Edit: I'm estimating pricing and only using Turbo 2.0 on the Intel chips. I still don't believe many will see Turbo 3.0 clocks much less TVB clocks. Also Core i5 and lower don't have turbos beyond 2.0.

All core turbos for the Intel chips in respective order (all core turbo/TVB all core turbo): 4.8/4.9, 4.5/4.6, 4.7, 4.6, 4.5, 4.0

 

[Shatun_Bear]

1. These prices are not the same as listed online. Which are even more expensive
2. Total system cost is still far too expensive as motherboards are costly compared to Ryzen AM4 and you need to buy a cooler. An extra ~$150 compared to Amazon's best selling CPU, the 3600.

 

[moob]

The 10600KF exists too, that one is 238$ boxed, while the 10600K is 263$ boxed. I think a lot of people are forgetting that the F variant CPU is cheaper as it does not include the iGPU, which for gaming you don't need. While this review obviously can carry over to the 10600KF, the PRICING is actually quite different. Also, while yes the current pricing of the 3700X is much lower, I'm not sure if it is fair to compare a new CPU with x$ MSRP to an older CPU with the same sale price of x$,

Of course it's fair. What else would you compare? All that matters is what these CPUs cost today, not what they will cost, nor what the AMD chips launched at. Prices need to be adjusted to the current market conditions.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Not many gougers on amd side seeing amd flooded the market
Intel on the other hand is dripping samples out so high retail prices everywhere then gougers really test the seas

 

[ARF]

Competition is really heating up. The main problem might be availability and of course extra component costs to upgrade. Comparison of Intel and AMD (released/rumored) without IGP:

Someone who reads tech news for the first time would think that Intel has released something competitive. Lols, they didn't.
If the XT Ryzens ever get released, it will be after July, with September announcement of Zen 3 based Vermeer with 20% IPC improvement and even higher clocks.

Intel Core i9-10900K Benchmark

AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Benchmark

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

this might be a 2nd option for me, but the current availability of Intel 400 Series boards makes this a hard pass. Perhaps a 3600 + B550 combo is still up in the air for me. =/

 

[phanbuey]

It's worse, a new socket with old CPU released, I7-8700K in disguize. The die is probably only the 6 core full fat underneath when delided, 0.44mm instead of 0.58. not carved out of the 10 core at all.

just get the 10700K or better yet 10700F instead. that is what intel is saying. first get the 10600K and get bottlenecked and disappointed, then sell and buy the 8 core.
So why make the extra hoop. (all my friends went 9900K already for a reason. looks like I'm stuck with Xeon 32nm until 3nm..)

10600K 12MB 4.8GHz @ 1.4V is preposterous. 10700F 16MB 4.6GHz @ 1.2V, I would pick the 2^3 core every time.

It is a 8700K, but im not sure about the bottlenecking and dissapointment, as it games within 5% of the 8 highest end 8 core for gaming and is a 3 year old chip (this is just a tuned refresh).

A bit of memory and cache OC to make up for that missing 4mb of cache and you're there.

 

[heflys20]

Disappointing product, IMHO; particularly when you factor in the additional costs. This just reminds me of what an incredible value the 3600 is.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Yeah kinda disappointing at it's current pricing.... You can either go 3600 with a mobo for cheaper or a 3700X for around the same price........ I don't doubt that some people will pair these with 2080 ti or faster next gen gpu to get their 5-10% extra performance at 1080p but my guess is most people buying these are more in the $300-400 gpu range if not lower and for them its sorta silly vs what the competition offers at a lower price.


Hopefully rocket lake brings some nice improvements..... looks like I will be doing mostly ryzen builds in the meantime.

 

[ReD-EyeD]

Is this a sponsored review? Because having "All You Need for Gaming" and "World's Fastest Gaming Processor" for 10900k review seems very inapropriate and biased.
Specifically checked AMD cpu reviews and none of them had anything like that in the title (while being much more innovative and better value). Seems fishy.