You’re Still Gonna Buy Intel… - Core i9 10900K & i5 10600K Review

[AnonymousGuy]

I like the high clocks but ooof having to do a motherboard replacement...no thanks.   (well...maybe...since I don't pay retail for these things anyways, but I really don't need more than the 8 cores I have currently awyways)

[GDRRiley]

6 hours ago, Arika S said:

maybe you should have watched the video, literally the first 2 minutes shows the temps

temps not power consumption.

 

okay so we are talking about a 140+ dual 140 or tripple 120mm rad or maybe a high end air cooler at 80+

just add that to any intels chip price and they look like a horrible buy. you are going to need that to tame these chips

 

These 3000 chips aren't the main chips intel has to fight that is the upcoming 4000 chips and given right now there is a 10-15% IPC gain+ clockspeed boost from 7nm EUV I don't see intel holding onto this for long.

I was kinda wishing AMD would soon come out with a teaser video showing how fast their R7 chip is

Edited May 20, 2020 by GDRRiley

[pApA^LeGBa]

@GDRRiley Tbh i don´t see Intel having any ground vs AMD right now. Considering the i5 10600K costs 294€ in the tray version (yes it is in stock already, at least they claim that on their site) vs the R5 3600 for 180€ in the boxed version, i don´t see why anyone would pay that much more for around 15% more performance, rather pay 330€ and get a 3700X. And then there is the R3 3300X for 130€...

[GDRRiley]

28 minutes ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

@GDRRiley Tbh i don´t see Intel having any ground vs AMD right now. Considering the i5 10600K costs 294€ in the tray version (yes it is in stock already, at least they claim that on their site) vs the R5 3600 for 180€ in the boxed version, i don´t see why anyone would pay that much more for around 15% more performance, rather pay 330€ and get a 3700X. And then there is the R3 3300X for 130€...

because people are blind or intel holds that advantage+ the are more "trusted" and "premium", gamers nexus has reported bios issues which means at least at launch intel is less stable then zen 2 chips out

[pApA^LeGBa]

Well i see more and more people buying AMD. Like i said before, the times where everyone mindlessly bought intel for gaming are over, . And if i look at most forums and gaming groups, most people can´t afford to pay extra for "premium" and if you just do a bit of research because you are on a budget, you will end up with a lot of people suggesting you AMD. Actually i don´t think that anyone suggests Intel these days, even when you have a budget of 1500+. Just look trough a few PC forums and several gaming groups on FB. AMD everywhere.

[mach]

1 minute ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

Like i said before, the times where everyone mindlessly bought intel for gaming are over, . 

Well, the small proportion of people who actually ask on forums are going to get well informed suggestion and opinion.

But the majority of people (i.e. ignorant mainstream consumers) are going to watch some "review videos on youtube", and find out these Intel cpu are better at gaming.

They won't realize it's only at 1080p and at a more realistic resolution (1440p and above) the performance becomes gpu limited. Seriously who buy the latest high end unlocked cpu to game on 1080p screen?

Some reviewers conveniently ignored this, perhaps because Intel employees are so friendly to them. Or they think they're "promoting healthy competition", by desperately defending bad products.

So the mainstream consumers are going to jump to the conclusion that "Intel is for gaming, AMD is for productivity", no matter how insignificant the difference is. All they want is a gaming PC. You bet which one they're gonna choose? Intel's gaming brand marketing is going to succeed once again.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, mach said:

 

They won't realize it's only at 1080p and at a more realistic resolution (1440p and above) the performance becomes gpu limited. Seriously who buy the latest high end unlocked cpu to game on 1080p screen?

 

Probably the same people using TN panels when gaming IPS panels are a thing. They don't know what they're missing, and don't care about the visual fidelity to begin with.

 

There are people, who will mod games to remove 90% of the textures just to make the game never drop below the maximum refresh rate of the monitor.

 

I've met (online) two extreme ends. The gamer who buys all the top-of-the-line hardware and then plays games that don't even make the hardware sweat (eg 3 or 4 GPU's on a workstation board, but then playing something built in Unity on it) and the gamer who tries to max out the frame rate as an advantage over other players by stripping the game of textures or even environmental models just so they can clear the game stage as fast as possible.

 

 

[Inkz]

1 hour ago, mach said:

Seriously who buy the latest high end unlocked cpu to game on 1080p screen?

 

A lot of people actually do, 240 Hz is still usually only at 1080p. I am considering it since I do competitive with 240hz, there is still a market for it. 

[GDRRiley]

2 hours ago, mach said:

Seriously who buy the latest high end unlocked cpu to game on 1080p screen

pro gamers is really the only market left that does that.

everyone else should have long moved on to 1440p 144 for the much better quality

[Tristerin]

12 hours ago, TofuHaroto said:

I completely agree with this 

Pcie 4.0 will not be utilized for a couple of years and at this level pcie 4.0 is just something that amd can flex with but has no meaning

Like when they announced the FX 9590 as the worlds first commercial CPU to be able to hit 5.0ghz...

 

 

 

 

[Nystemy]

Per core selectable hyperthreading is honestly a feature I wished Intel had years ago to be fair.
Since it is such a commitment when it comes to single thread performance. (Though, having operating systems tossing the very serial thread at the wrong core is still a potential issue. _{Who knew poorly implemented software can make any hardware under perform...})
So hearing that were suddenly a feature, well I don't usually go, "YES!!!", but I did.....

Would be nice if the allocation could be changed while the system is running, though I also guess this would risk confuse some kernels.

Now if only Intel could implement 4x hyperthreading as well.... Since some applications can benefit from it, and one can also do a bit more fancy out of order execution more easily as a result, giving better resource utilization and overall better performance for multi threaded applications. Though, if one wants to do this properly, it is easiest to make those cores "hyperthreading only", ie, able to run in current 2x, or 4x mode (or 8x if one wants to be crazy). Main reasons to do this is firstly to increase the number of instruction streams feeding the execution units, giving us more non dependent instructions that we can execute in a given cycle, and also to lessen the need for thread switching when handling background tasks like IPC, increasing overall system responsiveness. _{(Since currently, if a thread asks for the system to do something, then the relevant system thread needs to be switched in, since thread switching isn't free, than the system instead queue up the requests for when that system thread finally do get loaded (that can be thousands or millions of cycles later). So an application can be bottlenecked by simply waiting on system calls that could have been answered sooner if such background system threads had a place to call their own. Though, offering a whole core to the OS might be a bit steep as far as most people are concerned, offering half a core or less is more reasonable.) Then there is also a few L2 caching advantages as well that can save the thread from stalling, though with 4 or 8 threads per core, if one stalls, the other three or seven just runs a bit faster, so the performance will even out there as well. It also makes timing attacks through SMT resource utilization harder to pull off in practice. An "SMT" only core can also have a larger L1 cache, not that this is majorly important, here I would honestly decrease the size of L1, and instead spend that on L2 where it can give us more useful memory. Since if we run SMT only, then each thread handler will not spit out as many instructions per cycle as a normal non SMT core would need to. After all, we do not have more execution resources than normal, we are just sharing it with a bunch of other threads, so no need to be able to decode the same amount of instructions per cycle per thread as a normal core. Though, the biggest advantage is that we can leave "system critical" threads like IPC loaded into a core at all times, since if it stalls due to having nothing to do, then that core still has plenty of other threads to run. And when IPC gets something to do, it can instantly start working on it and hand back a response far sooner than our normal queuing solution would be able to on average. And even 1/8th of a core is a lot of performance, so IPC will likely never become a bottleneck in this case. Unless we have a ton of cores, but then one gives it a 1/4th or 1/2th core instead...}

[pApA^LeGBa]

9 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

pro gamers is really the only market left that does that.

everyone else should have long moved on to 1440p 144 for the much better quality

Well everyone who is not a pro gamer or has PC building as a hobby likes to get a new monitor plus a new expensive GPU plus a new PSU. The average income in NA and EU doesn´t allow the big masses to just go WQHD 144Hz that easy. I am in a FB group for 7 days to die. Most people asking for help with a new PC are around 600$-800$ budget (without monitor that is). Same for pretty much ever PC forum that i know. Most people ask for PC´s under 1000$.That´s also the usual price range within the people i know from work and friends. Good luck with WQHD for that price.

[Windows9]

20 hours ago, asumkovski said:

Who knows what kind of monstrosity they got for cooling that chip down. Not disclosing the cooler is a bad move by ltt.

Probably LN²

 

 

[Nystemy]

46 minutes ago, Windows9 said:

Probably LN²

 

 

Or a Corsair H115i as stated in LTT's pinned comment in the comment section of the video on Youtube at least.
Though, personally, I would have put it in the description, not to mention be more careful about ensuring that such information is actually included in the video. Though, mistakes happen.

Though, LN2 cooling would keep this cool relatively easily, though a bit overkill and not really all that practical for most people.

[Zberg]

10600k is interesting and I think a good option to have.  Sits at a pretty decent price and can hit some good clocks.  Interested to see the all core turbo OC people get on some 280/360 AIO's.  Good to see an i5 as a viable option.

 

10900k is a rough one.  Seems that it is the best best now (likely due to those couple threads hitting 5.3), but looking like not a lot of people having good luck getting high all core boosts so far.  A 9900KS looks more appetizing if you could get it to 5.2 or 5.3 all core on water (I haven't seen a reviewer with a stable 5.2 all core yet on the 10900k but that might be coming).

 

 

[Mamonos]

5 minutes ago, Zberg said:

10600k is interesting and I think a good option to have.  Sits at a pretty decent price and can hit some good clocks.  Interested to see the all core turbo OC people get on some 280/360 AIO's.  Good to see an i5 as a viable option.

 

Honestly as a first impression for gaming the 10600KF (aka boosted 8700K) looks like the best choice and totally kills the 3600/3600X.

 

If you are productivity-oriented you would get something with more cores like the 3700X or even 3900X and I think in that niche is better to go with Ryzen.

 

Ok the 3600 comes with a cooler and at the moment you can get a way cheaper motherboard to run it but at that point if I want to save money I would rather get a 3300X (or an i3).

[Zberg]

Another thing I really want to see is a comparison of OC'd top line gaming stuff.  So far most of what I am seeing is stock 10900 vs 9900 vs 3900.  Im assuming GN went into it but its been busy and havent had time to watch steve do the deep dive yet.

 

But a max OC 9900k (def can all core 5.2, have heard of some folks getting 5.3 but who knows how stable that is) vs a max OC all core 10900, 10700 etc.  Who knows it might be easier to get higher clocks on the 10700 with 2 less cores?  But that's the big comparison I want to see.  

[spartaman64]

why did they change the title and thumbnail. I defended them before for clickbait since a lot of other channels i watch had to resort to it also but this is just weird and not the first time they did it

[GDRRiley]

2 hours ago, Mamonos said:

Honestly as a first impression for gaming the 10600KF (aka boosted 8700K) looks like the best choice and totally kills the 3600/3600X.

given it needs a good cooler it really is an extra 100-150$ over a 3600x which puts you in 3700x territory.

[Haro]

10 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

given it needs a good cooler it really is an extra 100-150$ over a 3600x which puts you in 3700x territory.

And you would need the overclockable ready  chipset which usually will cost more than the b series from AMD 

Edited May 21, 2020 by TofuHaroto

[EChondo]

This year and next year seem like the weirdest times to buy any PC parts.

 

Intel is still on 14nm(though it's cool they were able to dissipate the heat better, though the wattage is insane). But we won't know for sure what 2021 will bring with 11th gen, will it still be 14nm? DDR5 may come in 2021, are they skipping that and waiting for 2022? Either way this will require another motherboard purchase...and if 11th gen is just another 14nm refresh, then it's a dead platform in a 1-1.5 years from now.

 

Same thing on AMD's side, they messed up severely with the B550 release. If you buy B550/X570 right now, you may only get Ryzen 4000 as an upgrade this year. And then the question is about B650/X670, will that even release with Ryzen 4000? Will it be late to the game and release with Ryzen 5000? Will it support DDR5?

 

Personally, with DDR4 coming to an end, I see zero reason to buy into a new platform right now. I would get a budget B450/X470 and plop in a Ryzen 2600 or Ryzen 3600 and wait for Ryzen 4000 since AMD will be supporting it, then just ride that until 2022/2023 when DDR5 will be cheaper and more adopted.

 

Either that or buying something brand new knowing you probably won't have a reasonable upgrade for the next 2-3 years from either side due to DDR5.

 

Anyway, thank AMD for CPU competition. Now if you could up your efforts in the GPU department...that'd be great.

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, EChondo said:

This year and next year seem like the weirdest times to buy any PC parts.

 

Intel is still on 14nm(though it's cool they were able to dissipate the heat better, though the wattage is insane). But we won't know for sure what 2021 will bring with 11th gen, will it still be 14nm? DDR5 may come in 2021, are they skipping that and waiting for 2022? Either way this will require another motherboard purchase...and if 11th gen is just another 14nm refresh, then it's a dead platform in a 1-1.5 years from now.

 

Same thing on AMD's side, they messed up severely with the B550 release. If you buy B550/X570 right now, you may only get Ryzen 4000 as an upgrade this year. And then the question is about B650/X670, will that even release with Ryzen 4000? Will it be late to the game and release with Ryzen 5000? Will it support DDR5?

 

Personally, with DDR4 coming to an end, I see zero reason to buy into a new platform right now. I would get a budget B450/X470 and plop in a Ryzen 2600 or Ryzen 3600 and wait for Ryzen 4000 since AMD will be supporting it, then just ride that until 2022/2023 when DDR5 will be cheaper and more adopted.

 

Either that or buying something brand new knowing you probably won't have a reasonable upgrade for the next 2-3 years from either side due to DDR5.

 

Anyway, thank AMD for CPU competition. Now if you could up your efforts in the GPU department...that'd be great.

i dont think amd will ever be able to compete both in cpu and gpu. will they be able to make compelling budget options sure but to take the crown they would need to focus their rnd on one or the other since both nvidia and intel is bigger than amd

[Zberg]

2 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

i dont think amd will ever be able to compete both in cpu and gpu. will they be able to make compelling budget options sure but to take the crown they would need to focus their rnd on one or the other since both nvidia and intel is bigger than amd

I hope they put up something awesome specifically to compete with Nvidia halo range.  They have gone wild with top end pricing, the 2080S and ti are crazy right now.  There was a brief time some MSRP priced cards were available (mainly the EVGA Black) but otherwise it is nuts.  A real "Big Navi" at the high end could be a huge shake up and cause Nvidia to get back to normal pricing (like the 5700XT did with the mid range RTX stuff)

 

But if the leaks are true, it looks like ampere is going to be very tough to compete with.  For AMD's sake (and ours!) I hope they can come up with an attractive high end option to keep Nvidia in purchasable territory.  

[probE466]

Pretty disappointed with the title change and the general timing of this video (right after that last one?) I know you guys arent bought by Intel, but it sure does look weird. Not sure if I will continue paying for floatplane if this trend continues.

[spartaman64]

16 minutes ago, probE466 said:

Pretty disappointed with the title change and the general timing of this video (right after that last one?) I know you guys arent bought by Intel, but it sure does look weird. Not sure if I will continue paying for floatplane if this trend continues.

yeah theres clickbait and then theres antagonistic clickbait