Good price drop for a CPU only a couple of weeks old!
I wonder if this price drop is to compete with new AMD stuff being released next week (B550 motherboards and MAYBE refreshed XT CPUs?)
Intel i7-10700K CPU $668 + Shipping (Was $749) @ Skycomp
711
p3t0r on 10/06/2020 - 06:11 skycomp.com.au (1145 clicks)
Last edited 10/06/2020 - 10:13 by 2 other users
Last edited 10/06/2020 - 10:13 by 2 other users
Related Stores
closed Comments
- 1
- 2
Agreed. 1070 seems DOA and not in a sweet spot for any category. Either get 10600k for gaming or 10900k for epeen/gaming or thread count.
absoloutely no idea why you were downvoted for stating what most of the benchmarks and reviews are saying.. lol and on an intel deal thread .. lol have a +1 :)
another 14nm CPU? did 2015 call?
thanks but no thanks
*14nm++++
I'm waiting for Intel 18th gen, 14nm+++++++++++++++++++++++
Does it really matter what the manufacturing process is for any chip if it performs?
The "nm" used to label process nodes is almost irrelevant when comparing two different manufacturing processes as well. Hence why TSMC themselves are pushing for a standardised naming convention. Intel processes tend to yield better value as well, hence their 14 nm process is equivalent to TSMC's 10 nm process and so on.
exactly, people that come out comparing nm numbers generally simply don't understand what they mean. You can't compare and haven't been able to for a decade or more now, Intel are definitely behind in this area but the gap is not as large as what a straight nm comparison indicates.
@gromit: It doesn't help when you have tech journalists that don't understand this and end up comparing processes that aren't comparable. Even when they do understand it, they try to simplify it to an extent where viewers/readers will end up comparing the "nm" between two processes anyway. It's why I try pointing people towards JayzTwoCents as a starting point and GamersNexus for more detailed info.
no, the nm is width of tracks, and is more about power consumption and how much can be packed onto a wafer and hence CPU yield for each wafter. Heat is still the issue if you pack too much into the chip.
It is the fabrication process, it is actually a meaningless number nowadays and should not be used for comparison. Instead you should be looking at transistor density.
it does for cooling, and for the top frequency it can run at.
and it's not like I am expecting something impossible, Intel's 10th gen mobile processors are 10nm, so why not desktop?
yields have apparently been too low to produce higher clocked desktop units, hence it doesn't make sense for them to jump ahead to something that is going to make them bleed money. their 10nm process is higher density than the TSMC 7nm density but with much lower yields.
Ah man, why do AMD fanboys remind me of Android fanboys?
They go on any intel deal and gloat about how amazing the specs on their AMD's are. What they never seem to get their heads wrapped around is, people are willing to pay a premium for something they trust/rely on.
Same with Apple products, you always have that group that go on the deals and say 'omg expensive junk why wouldn't you get an android phone fo 30% of the cost' bla bla
or like the apple guy who keeps posting "iphone better" in every android deal?… lol neither fan boy is better than the other ;)
believe me, far less apple guys raiding android deals here and gloating, it's mainly the android guys that have this syndrome and need to talk about specs.
full disclosure, i'm neither, have both a macbook and a windows gaming pc, both have their purposes.
best not to let any of it get to you :) im whatever tech makes sense for the purpose kinda guy…
Im actually an android user. I just post iphone better to troll people
Worth changing from an 8700K?
are you experiencing cpu bottleneck in gaming or need the extra threads in edditing/productivity tasks? :)
Don't need to upgrade, just want to.
I'd wait for next gen unless that money is burning a hole in your pocket.
Have you tried overclocking the 8700K? I've seen 5Ghz from that chip!
well the 10600K is the 8700K basically :) so if its gaming then definitely no need to change from the 8700K, for productivity best to switch over to AMD rather than this :)
Yeah I already do a mild OC at 4.7Ghz on default settings.
No not at all. For gaming just no difference. For anything else (High core count) your probably better off with ryzen anyway
Only if you are gaming professionally at 1080p and have a 2080ti. Otherwise you are burning a hole in your wallet. Save the money and upgrade your GPU.
Yeah only have a 1080. I'll probably wait.
I'm considering this because I'm tempted to move from ITX to ATX mobo, so I need a new motherboard anyway and no point buying a Z370/Z390 atx mobo now..
worth changing from a 2770k? - lol….no really Its time and I just cant make up my mind.
Mostly a casual gamer with 1060 still and everyday desktop tasks/music/backingup/file transfer.Then get an R5 3600 or the upcoming R5 3600XT but at this price you can get the R9 3900X for the same cost, if you use mid-range GPU's for gaming the difference in FPS is only 1-5%, plus the motherboards aren't locked like Intels can be (memory speeds on non-Z boards). If you casual game the AMD parts are massively outperforming Intel in productivity tasks and you'll see the difference.
Just seconding the 3600. especially as a "casual gamer" the intel premium is a waste. It is for those who really want that extra 5% FPS but when youre always talking 100+ with ryzen unless youre serious about it its a waste
Honestly. No. 2700k is still a solid product. (I assume 2700k is what you meant)
The only reason i would upgrade in 2020 is if you were moving into high end games with a high refresh rate monitor and $800 GPU to boot.
Ahhh yes: 2700. It’s rare it reboots. I forgot the actual model number.
Form what a have read the 10th series is not moving fast and a retailer here has said that they sold more Ryzen 3600s than the entire 10th series last month.
Well given they came out on May 21st and had a limited release/product lineup and stock….
They have been out for just on 2 weeks with limited stock. I would be absolutely floored if they had outsold anything Ryzen in just a week or so of availability last month.
I currently have an Intel system, you would be silly to build an Intel based system now.
Do we think it's likely 9700K and 9900K will get big discounts before phased out, or in too high demand compared to these 10th Gen chips. I've got a 9600KF and waiting for a good deal to upgrade to max my upgrade path before sitting on it with my Hackintosh for ~5 years.
historically not something that happens with intel… also i would say they may even go up in price or the used market will cost what the new does, they are the last of the 1151 socket chips so most of the users who want to upgrade without a mobo change will only have these as an option…
Highly doubt it.
7700Ks still go for over $400 on ebay.
Too many people like you wanting to upgrade without the motherboard change makes demand for the top chips on an intel platform practically infinite.yep, upgrade usually means new MB if the CPU has been around more than 2 years ….I've given up an hoping for a cheap I9 two years after release and re-use old MB.
Not really no. Intel do not discount. Retailers may discount but don't expect massive savings
Good one Intel, waking up to the competition.
Who knows, it might even be ARM vs AMD in the near future.$668 for me… not $660.
Shipping prices are ridiculous if you want Express Post (code nowadays for standard post timings).
Look I mean, it's a 9900K on the 10th gen platform, since a 10600K is sold out, this isn't that bad a deal, I think it's fairly, fair. Sure a 3700X is only $444 and I would rather get that, but if you must must have Intel because you play at 1080p low settings in a competitive environment (or just have a 2080ti because you're made of money), then this isn't horrible.
well said.. its also getting close to the price of a ryzen 3900x
Unless you're aiming for the moon for maximum FPS, this is a waste of money compared to the 10600k or even 10600 if you never planed to overclock (they are identical performance at stock)
(This is just Intel to Intel comparasin, ryzen is generally a better value purchase at all price/performance points)Zen 3 will make anyone buying one of these cry in a few months.
Agreed, ryzen 3 will probably wipe the floor with these by the end of the year.
anyone: hey look an intel processor
amd fan army: well ackshually!!!!Any amd people here.
Or intel people buyers no more then the last 5 years.
I think the wishfull though of of high % price drops is optimistic. The production lines can only process a certain amount of wafers, they can then only package a certain number of chips, and they adjust what the lines do to where demand is … e.g i5 instead i9.
Performance improvements are marginal from one gen to the next and nobody wanst to canabalise a new chip by dropping prices too much on old ones, more money in pahsing out old chips and use the production lines for other things.
I'm still waiting for that Samsung 1TB 970 Evo pro to get to $150, or the 2TB for $200 …. won't happen, they will bring our new model and use the production line for that as it's more profitable.
Best to wait for Rocket Lake (11th gen) which is a whole new architecture. This 10th gen is really just the same old thing as the last few generations. In other words, keep what you already have because it's likely good enough. It all comes down to the GPU these days anyway.
Considering that Rocket Lake is still supposed to be based on "14nm to infinity" architecture I'm not expecting much. The other issue is that if you buy 10th gen now, you could be forced with another motherboard upgrade.
Rocket Lake will use the same motherboard, so that's not an issue. And since it's a new architecture, performance will improve quite a bit without the need to move to 10nm or higher clock speeds. Anyway, the 10nm die shrink (12th gen) after Rocket Lake will be the best option, imo, but 2022 is likely too long for most to wait. Anyway, we shall see, but I definitely wouldn't be dropping $600+ on an "old school" 10th gen Intel at the moment. At least wait 6 months or so, by then we will have more news about Rocket Lake, and if it's not all it's hyped up to be, you can fork out on a Comet Lake (which will prob be cheaper by then anyway).
Unless Intel goes cheaper than AMD with very similar overall performance, it is just a waste of time.
"Similar Performance"
https://i.imgur.com/O5L5eXj.png
I dunno I'm seeing 40% increased FPS here…could you explain your reasoning behind calling them similar? Strictly for gaming the choice is clear.
AMD people don't like when you point out that 40% more FPS is not "similar performance". Then they talk about workload as if we're all encrypting and decrypting everything all the time.
Yeah I don't get where this dogmatic approach to worshipping brands comes from. As consumers we should be well-informed of our purchasing decisions which means looking at reviews, testing, benchmarks etc. Not burrowing our heads in the sand when a discussion or counter-argument occurs.
AMD did an excellent job with Ryzen, but I can't recommend it to people who want the best game performance.
@h047j9fg9j83p: Exactly. I'll probably buy Ryzen 4000 at the end of the year, but I'm so sick of these AMD fans moving the goal posts everytime someone mentions that Intel processors generally perform better in gaming at the high-end.
Where are you getting the 40% from and increase from what? That graph doesn't show what you're saying. Showing this CPU vs a 3700x with maybe 25% gain at most in one area, with nothing to compare an increase… Pure gaming Intel still wins but if you're multitasking while gaming or basically doing any other thing Intel loses.
Even in the new graph you just posted this CPU isn't even on it!?What I find ironic is that if you actually look at the complete reviews of the benchmarks you have cherry picked from Hardware Unboxed and Gamer Nexus. Steve from Hardware Unboxed conclusion is both CPUs are achieving over 300fps in titles and that you will not be able to tell the difference.
1 - 427/307 = 39% increase.
Minimum FPS is a crucial statistic when gaming because it'll indicate how bad of a micro-stutter you can expect. For those consumers getting the newest 360hz monitor (or whatever) even this obscure-ish benchmark makes clear what CPU they should consider buying.
You are right I did not post the i7, this is just a benchmark I saw that I had to post to address misinformation like the original post I replied to that is being spread.
@h047j9fg9j83p: In the end it still comes down to if you are a competitive Esports FPS gamer who plays at 1080p with a 2080ti. Even though Asus made a headline about a 360hz monitor in the works, it's not out there in the market. You only have a choice of 144 and 240hz. If you are not a competitive gamer, your money is better spent elsewhere than Intel 10th gen as a whole package.
@shellshocked: I fully disagree. In the benchmark above:
(1% LOW Minimum FPS)
R9 3950X Stock = 91.6 FPS
i9-10900K Stock = 101 FPSThis makes the difference for 120hz users such as myself and many others who are at 144hz. This is not just for eSports, you will results like this in almost ALL games.
@h047j9fg9j83p: Who are these people buying these 240Hz monitors (awful quality TN panels), multiple 2080Ti GPUs, water cooling, flagship CPUs, AAA games, huge amounts of RAM, high end keyboards, mice, headsets, etc,etc. There'd be a handful of people around the country updating to have the best equipment to reach those FPS figures you claim to be so important. That's not even considering playing games in 4K. Maybe you forgot we're on Ozbargain…
@Whisper Quiet: That's not the point. The point is that Intel CPUs most of the time will provide superior game performance over AMD in almost all games.
To reiterate: https://i.imgur.com/YqCkhT5.jpg
AMD makes excellent CPUs but the original poster "alenpelin" saying that they provide similar game performance is lying. I just want to make this clear for people who are looking into buying a CPU.
@h047j9fg9j83p: Because one person said they are similar when everyone else admits Intel is better with gaming you put up random stats. Like I said before multitasking when gaming and AMD will give you better performance. I think I have a fair point when hardly anyone is getting the hardware and accessories to reach those specs, that it becomes pointless in some way. Especially as 1080p is dying and more people want to move to 4K, skipping 1440p.
I switched to AMD since 1st Gen Ryzen. Very happy and won't go back till Intel release something that has siginificant performance advantage.
This whole topic opened my eyes to the AMD/Intel 'fit for purpose' debate, so thank you everyone!
Considering I might be looking to build a new gaming beast in the near future and I'm happy to sink about $3-4k into it, what would be the best CPU/GPU combo for that build.
I will not be using the PC for productivity other than the occasional production of music. 90% gaming / 10% productivity.
I'd recommend CPU/GPU based on what monitor you plan to use i.e. what refresh rate and resolution you expect to game on.
Current powerful hardware you can't go wrong in buying, generally speaking:
CPU (AMD) - R7 3700X, R9 3900X, R9 3950X
CPU (Intel) - i5-10600K, i7-10700K, i9-10900KGPU (AMD) - RX 5700
GPU (Nvidia) - RTX 2070 Super, RTX 2080 Super, RTX 2080 TiIf you can wait AMD's Zen 3 CPUs will come out soon along with Nvidia 3xxx series GPUs.
Thanks for the advice.
I would likely aim to use a 1440p as I currently have an ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q 27".
However, in a couple years time would like to upgrade to 2160p gaming.
Happy to wait as well so will look into next gen AMD cpus and Nvidia 3xxx series.That's a really good monitor you have there. It supports G-Sync so you 'should' only choose Nvidia. Depending on what game you're playing, in CSGO RTX 2070 Super would suffice I expect to achieve a locked 165 fps at 1440p and even at 4K.
But if you're playing the latest and most demanding games, you would benefit from RTX 2080 Ti and upcoming RTX 3080/3090 at 1440p/165hz. I would go as far to say those GPUs are mandatory if you want 60+ fps at 4K high settings.
@h047j9fg9j83p: Would a 10th gen Intel CPU benefit gaming now and in the future perhaps more so than an AMD CPU such as the R9 3900X?
I've read in this thread and on some sites that Intel has generally higher clock speeds per core which seems to achieve higher effective FPS in current games over and above AMD CPU's which are more geared towards and excel at multi-threaded applications.
Wouldn't next generation gaming be expected to more efficiently utilize CPU's therefore making AMD a better long term choice due to higher core count? Don't know the answer, just questioning.
@JellylegsAU: It looks like the next gen consoles use 8c/16t CPUs so I can't guarantee there will be any benefit in next gen gaming if using a 16c/32t CPU at all.
@h047j9fg9j83p: The other thing to take into consideration that both next generation consoles will be powered by AMD Ryzen based CPUs and Radeon Navi architecture. This would lead to many console to PC ports being built from the ground up with AMD in mind versus just Intel in the past.
@shellshocked: I don't follow consoles very much but don't PS4, PS4 Pro, Xbox One and Xbox One X already use AMD hardware? If that's the case any benefit that you're implying is supposed to carry over has never been shown in this generation.
And here I am still running a 3770k.
- 1
- 2
According to techpowerup 10700 non K for $546 on amazing is a beast