Deal for a Intel i9-10850K, a slightly cheaper alternative to the 10900K for those looking at that CPU.
Performs pretty much identically to the 10900K in gaming. Performance difference to the 10900K overall is minimal once both have been overclocked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk33veV_ZRs
Probably not the best bang for buck CPU going. But if you were already set on buying a 10900K then this willl at least save you some money and you get pretty much the same product.
don't know why people care about overclocking stuff. For me, I don't care!
I think you need a cooler anyway, these sort of processors don’t come with a stock cooler.
Well, sometimes you can get some free performance for minimal effort. It's not as common as it used to be though.
I tried making an order for the 10900kf from skycomp and wait times were like 6-8 weeks. perhaps check if this is still the case. i couldn't wait that long and opted for the 10700kf for 200 less, but if stock wasn't an issue i would've gotten the i9 - both are incredible.
It's a nice price, but it's also an indicator than Zen 3 is just going to roll in and dunk on it. There have been rumours of a 10-core Ryzen 4000, as due to the change of two 4-core CCXs per full chiplet, it's now one 8-core CCX, allowing for more granular binning.
Plus, this has a peak power draw in the range of 250W, compared to 125W for equivalent AMD gear, with Ryzen 4000 likely offering the same or better performance at the same or better price points.
If you can afford to wait, and you're buying a board regardless, this still doesn't work out to be a great deal, especially if you're rocking a <700W PSU and are looking to combine with a high-end 30 series or RX6000 GPU.
Are you suggesting that Ryzen 3000 was a failure against 9th gen Intel? It's still not really getting put to shame by 10th gen Intel.
4000 series is the one that takes AMD over the top. Intel are rumoured to be planning an 11th gen desktop chip that uses its post-Skylake architecture backported to their old 14nm process, but that isn't going to save them from how power hungry it will be to offer worthwhile performance at high core counts.
So at the end of this year (or early next), Intel might take back the single-core crown just, but AMD's already known architectural changes will see that it will not matter for gamers and most users. Basically, until the end of 2021, if you don't need AVX512 support, don't buy Intel if you value money, and you even remotely value energy efficiency.
End of 2021 sees Intel finally moving consumer desktop to some form of 10nm process, and also a heterogeneous architecture that additionally provides low-power cores for always-on and low-end task work. At that point, their power budget comes back down, and their minimum power draw goes through the floor (think mobile phone-level power sipping).
But conversely, AMD will move to their next process: TSMC's 5nm, which again puts them at a node advantage for at least a year, and presumably with the same forays into heterogeneous architectures.
That's nice but I also care about emulation and AMD CPUs and GPUs for that matter simply aren't as well optimised for that as they are on Intel CPUs and Nvidia GPUs especially when it comes to more recent emulators like CEMU, Yuzu and Ryujinx, Xenia, RPCS3 etc.
@merajaan: Where am I talking about AMD GPUs? They're still in the bin.
Zen 2 and Zen 3 both have AVX2, if that's your concern.
@merajaan: Until you can define architecturally or extension wise why this is a problem, I'm going to pin the issue on the devs.
@merajaan: that's a software based optimisation issue rather than AMD's hardware. It would be smarter to expect the software to make use of AMD's multi threaded performance insanity in coming years than to expect team blue and team red to design their products around software.
Also you can thank intel for staying at 4 cores for way too long and at way too high a price point for all the poorly optimised software written from 2000-2010
@merajaan: I tried to run RPCS3 on my 3500X and it just bugged out constantly, sound glitches all around. Not a good experience. Intel is a must for emulation. Good thing I was just doing it for the novelty.
End of 2021 sees Intel finally moving consumer desktop to some form of 10nm process
Hmmm maybe not. Give them 2 more years.
@MagicMushroom: The original goal was their 7nm process (read: similar to TSMC 5nm initially before competing with TSMC 3nm over time) at the end of next year, leapfrogging 10nm altogether, but that's hit a roadblock.
They'll be putting forth an improved 10nm process (which is appearing in Tiger Lake mobile and server this year), and that should see them far more within touching distance than they are right now, and average power usage with the new design will be impressive compared to what's existing.
Are you suggesting that Ryzen 3000 was a failure against 9th gen Intel? It's still not really getting put to shame by 10th gen Intel.
No, not at all.
Your original comment compared power-efficiency and pricing, what about the rest?
There's always going to be rumours of 'AMD will beat Intel', or vice-versa. How about we just wait and see, rather then speculating and instilling false hope for potential buyers?
@magic8ballgag: What I'm saying is that from Ryzen 4000 on, it's at least going to be a seesaw, and people will just go with what works at that point in time.
But there's good reason to think that AMD might hold a lead for a bit. If Intel get into a big.LITTLE design for a generation before AMD, then we're a good chance to be in a completely reversed situation to that of 2 years ago: AMD will be for gamers, Intel will be for every other budget use case.
And I'm not speculating, you can see instruction sets and drivers being seeded online, and AMD have managed to confirm some architectural elements. Journalists also have sources, but that's more hit and miss. There's also only so many directions an architecture can take too, especially if you already have some of the puzzle pieces at your disposal.
Well there's an uninformed comment….
How so?
They are different products for different needs, you can't just compare pricing, choose the cheaper product and call it a day.
Amd hype bois out in force
If that's what you think I wrote, you're living in a fantasy of your own making. Read the comment tree.
but it's also an indicator than Zen 3 is just going to roll in and dunk on it.
until you overclock any intel even slightly lol. AMD are trash at that
9th and 10th gen Intel haven't had as much overclocking headroom because that's how Intel's been getting that performance, hence why their top chip's power draw has doubled over 3 generations.
Clock speed is only one factor in performance, and AMD is about to basically catch up on that while keeping things in a much more reasonable power budget. Another component is architecture, summarised in instructions per clock (IPC). As of right now, AMD is ahead there, and will go ahead again next month.
Intel may catch-up on IPC at the end of the year, but because they're not moving onto better silicon processes, it's still going to need 200+ W to run at peak, and their new design isn't able to clock as high. Where people used to call AMD 'hot and loud', that's now Intel.
Even as you overclock (where you can overclock), you eventually hit performance walls that have nothing to do with temperatures and voltages: you can also hit snags with cache limits and I/O bandwidth issues, all while power scales up exponentially.
I've gone back and forth between AMD and Intel over the years, and it's best to pick the one that's going to do a better job for you over the life of the chip, and within your budget. AMD turned heads with the Ryzen 3000 series, and the 4000 series truly is on track to push into a complete lead.
End of 2021 is when it might even up, but there's a lot to play out.
If you only need it for gaming then 10600K is a better buy, but if you need the cores then this is basically a 10900k, little to no diff between them (not noticeable anyway)
no point in the 10900k if this is cheaper
I think the 10700 is the go and what I bought recently. Unlock the power limit and it performs very similar to a 10700K at stock (which is basically a 9900K). ~$499 isn't too shabby at all for 8 cores, 16 threads.
Will need a good cooler. More info here: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-10700/22.ht…
Unlock the power limit and it performs very similar to a 10700K at stock (which is basically a 9900K). ~$499
I got my 9900k for ~$650 almost 2 years ago and it's been zipping away @5.1 from day dot. A $150 discount 2 years later for the same performance isn't too exciting.
Technically i used discounted paypal giftcards to get it that cheap but still…
Edit: not shitting on your CPU, it's still basically equivalent top dog for games and better than anything AMD has released thus far for games. Zen 3 on the other hand…
I agree with you intel is still a monster in gaming, btw zen 3 still cant compete in gaming, the latest video from gamer nexus shown all top dog with highest fps is intel
curious do you replace the old and add the new chip?
Nice price, but if you don’t need things like video editing this is overkill for gaming. A 10700f is already overkill for gaming tbh. Save the $300 difference and get a decent card like 3080 for gaming instead.
Great price for a i9 basically but with intel tiger lake (upcoming 11th gen) still not supporting pcie 4.0 AMD is really the only option for those that are going to run 3080's or above especially at higher resolutions that make full use of the RTX and tensor cores.
I found that with a 2080 super I had some issues with lower end motherboards which set nvme drives to use the same pcie lanes as my gpu (for my coffee lake processor and for PCIE 3.0).
All in all no I wouldn't go with intel right now, the next time they'll truly be competitive is when they finally go to TSMC's 7nm process in 2-3years.
I would expect the new 10 core 20 thread ryzen 4th gen desktop chip to be the be all end all at this price point (coming out next month).
Have to agree. Have always had intel and recently switched to amd 3900x. The system is more responsive in my work tasks and no difference in hi res gaming for me at 3440x1440. And the build was cheaper and includes pcie4. Was wanting to stay intel but the logic didn't add up, my system also runs 10 degrees cooler with the same case and cooler. No regrets.
Is the 3900x or at least a 3700x worth it over the 3600? Is the OS more snappy? I play games at 1440p and run 2*27" screens. Games are played in borderless windowed and on the second screen is usually twitch, youtube, chrome, discord, etc. So I guess a touch of multitasking. I typically only upgrade every 4-5 years. 3600 seems like a great buy but is more cores worth paying for with the new consoles been 9c.
The difference for gaming isn't huge which is why most people went for the 3600. You should wait for the 4600 though next month. If your doing video editing maybe you want a 4700x for the extra cores or etc.
But yeah for gaming what you want to do is best the current console so you can stay ahead for the whole gen.
IMO the 10th gen will have a short life as it doesn't support pcie4.0 but the motherboard does.
All in all no I wouldn't go with intel right now, the next time they'll truly be competitive is when they finally go to TSMC's 7nm process in 2-3years.
Are you implying they will cancel their own 7nm (equiv to TSMC 5nm)?
Their own 10nm should be approaching TSMC 7nm too. At this point it still seems fairly unlikely that they'd abandon their own fabs.
Rocket lake is the next upcoming desktop and whats this bs about it not supporting pcie 4.0, no info has been released.
I still say AMD YES!
doesn't really make sense for gaming pretty much identical to the 10700k
Intel can suck eggs!
Synergy smiles.
10 cores only, add $400 and get amd 16 core Ryzen 9 3950X.
16 cores only, add $1400 and get amd 24 core Ryzen Threadripper 3960X.
Intel Core i9 10850K =$72.6 a core, Ryzen 9 3950X = $68 vs Threadripper 3960X = $91 a core.
Nice price thanks.
Please note you need a fairly beefy cooler if overclocking