Intel Core i9-10900K

[HenrySomeone]

AMD fans are just butthurt because for all the hum-hum about Ryzens, they still trail behind in gaming, in many cases very significantly

 

[ThrashZone]

AMD fans are just butthurt because for all the hum-hum about Ryzens, they still trail behind in gaming, in many cases very significantly

Hi,
Yeah maybe so
I was bummed when I saw 3960x price was double 3950x price was
I didn't blow gasket on the amd party threads about it though I just didn't buy a 3960x

 

[HenrySomeone]

Yup, 3960x and 3970x are great examples that AMD isn't giving out any favors to consumers or at least no more than Intel. They are more or less their first two very good cpus in a long, long time (for their use cases of course) and immediately they are priced accordingly (=quite high). Ryzens are cheap (or at least cheaper than Intels) because they are still inferior core per core. They know very well that if say 3800x was priced the same as 9900k, nobody would buy it (except perhaps some of their most hardcore fanboys, but there wouldn't be many, especially not those that would be willing to dish out 500$ )

 

[chrcoluk]

Man I thought the exact same thing when Coffee Lake refresh emerged. If they had so much of this 14nm silicon lying around, why did they not just make the 9900KS a not-so-special-edition chip and bump everything that didn't make the bin down to 9700K? I mean, it's not much of a self-inflicted gunshot wound all by itself but now that we see what Comet Lake is made of, hindsight is really showing how bad of a strategic decision that was.

They should have carried it on up until 9 series was EOL, by the time I got my 9900k, the 9900ks was out of supply in most places, the one store that had it gouged it up to mount everest levels. I did get my 9900k super cheap though so I cant complain that much. But I think the way it as priced people probably were snapping them up vs basic 9900k's. So I expect also 9900k sales nosedived whilst it was available.

The new Intels are always sold out immediately (which I don't understand since this is Skylake 5.0, but I guess Intel's milking works), takes a while that you can really buy them.

I'm kicking with 2600K as I sold my R5 2600 + B450, this runs RE games and that's fair enough.

Easy to understand, the supply numbers are really low, its happened in so many generations now I believe it to be deliberate to keep prices high.

If you short supply, it can make consumers think demand is high rather than supply is low, and with how the human mind works it also makes them more sought after.

Hmm. I've got time to wait since none of them are in stock, but I still feel like the i7 is the best option.

What do people think about overclocking now? BACK IN MY DAY... there wasn't all this turbo boosting and stuff. Per the review, it seems like this vague 2nd tier of turbo boost does the work, and you see very minimal gains from OC? When I overclocked my current chips it was just a massive increase in the floor for FPS on games.

These new chips have "preferred cores" enabled, this to me means if you running a new OS, the values of overclocking are now very low.

What this new feature does is if the chip only can run top clocks on 1-2 cores, which is the case on intel turbo clock, then the OS will make sure low threaded apps "always" use those cores. So the benefit on pushing all cores to top clocks (which would previously ensure that) is now more limited.

On top of this high end intel chips are pushed close to their limit now in terms of power and heat out of the box. It can be seen on the OC and asus tuned bios results the temperatures were stupid high and not practical. All for a mere 100-200mhz boost.

On my 9900k which is previous gen, I decided to stop pushing vcore up to silly levels for small gains, instead I actually reduced the voltage and still managed to get an all core 4.8ghz. My 8600k needed 1.37v for an all core 4.7, my 9900k runs an all core 4.8 at 1.25v. That feels much better than I would if I perhaps set it to run 5ghz at 1.4v. The temps and power draw are now very respectable.

So my suggestion for 10 series chips is to either not tinker, or just reduce voltage, I would also disable any board manufacturer tuned modes as they likely just giving minor improvements for huge heat gains.

The K chips will still have some value as they are better binned chips and do still come with higher out of the box specifications than non K chips.

 

[newtekie1]

@W1zzard I just noticed on the 2nd page, it is referred to as the i5-10900K twice.

 

[W1zzard]

@W1zzard I just noticed on the 2nd page, it is referred to as the i5-10900K twice.

Fixed, thanks!

 

[gregorypeck]

The Core i9-10900K is the fastest gaming chip available, but not by much considering the cost and platform trade-offs. Intel's own $370 Core i7-9700K is plenty for most gamers.

 

[Ruru]

Intel's own $370 Core i7-9700K is plenty for most gamers.

Getting a chip for an EOL socket is pointless (unless it's cheap and you have a motherboard already). I did that mistake with 7700K about three years ago.

 

[Makaveli]

Getting a chip for an EOL socket is pointless (unless it's cheap and you have a motherboard already). I did that mistake with 7700K about three years ago.

I agree but if they don't upgrade often and don't mind sitting on older hardware for couple years it maybe worth it still. Will really come down to your needs on the machine, however if the budget is there I always say go brand new.

 

[Vayra86]

Oh right - you're linking non 1%/0.1% low CPU testing in 1440p... Right...

Wow what a surprise high resolution testing results in you actually testing the GPU far more than the CPU. Big think.

So in your mind a chart showing the r3 3300x as being within 5% of the gaming performance of a 10900k is accurate and not misleading at all. Disregard an average/1% low discrepancy of almost 90 FPS when actually in a CPU limited scenario .

Nah you have to understand, game testing that fully loads the CPU and doesn't fully load the GPU, is not actually testing the game or the CPU performance, see. Real gamers load that GPU in such a way that they never feel CPU bottlenecking. You can also disregard every topic about stutter, we barely have them on TPU anyway as it is. Competitive gaming also doesn't exist, people clearly prefer 30 FPS over 60 and definitely over 120.

Its not a real life situation so its not relevant. Rather, its much easier to get colored bars force fed to your brain and stop thinking This goes especially if the CPU in question is the one you want or have bought.

(I reckon you get the ./s here)