10700k vs 10900

[duckypath]

I was curious as the 10900 non k seems very underreported, which would be a better buy? If it was 10700k at $300 and 10900 at $350 I’ve heard the 10900 at 2.8 base being “slow” but feel like that’s wrong. Don’t plan on over clocking, gaming primarily with coding.

 

any insight?

[Tanaz]

If you don't plan on overclocking there's no point in getting a K scew. Spec wise the 10700K boosts up to 5.1ghz but has 2 fewer cores while the 10900 boosts up to 5.2. So realistically it's the same CPU but with 2 more cores if you're not going to overclock. I'd go with the 10900 especially if you're compiling often than those cores might be put to better use ( not sure what you mean by coding it's a broad  term)

[.Apex.]

9 minutes ago, duckypath said:

I was curious as the 10900 non k seems very underreported, which would be a better buy? If it was 10700k at $300 and 10900 at $350 I’ve heard the 10900 at 2.8 base being “slow” but feel like that’s wrong. Don’t plan on over clocking, gaming primarily with coding.

 

any insight?

the 10900 would actually boost to 4.6Ghz on all cores, so it would be an overall better deal regardless if you were going to overclock the 10700K or not, though that's assuming the price between them is only 50$

[Fasauceome]

24 minutes ago, duckypath said:

Don’t plan on over clocking, gaming primarily with coding.

The extra cores of the i9 won't really benefit you then, and a non-k 10700 or even 10600 will offer the highest end gaming performance

 

That is, until ryzen 5000 comes out

[duckypath]

13 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

The extra cores of the i9 won't really benefit you then, and a non-k 10700 or even 10600 will offer the highest end gaming performance

 

That is, until ryzen 5000 comes out

At $350 tho I feel like it’d be a good deal over the 700k. And I feel like the 5600x at $300 would be close but not beat the 10900, most likely be on line with the 10700k. 

[Fasauceome]

7 minutes ago, duckypath said:

the 5600x at $300 would be close but not beat the 10900, most likely be on line with the 10700k

The single core boost is only 100MHz difference, if it is in line with the performance of the 10700K it would also be in line with the 10900

 

The extra $50 would not be well spent, it would only give you 2 more cores that will not be engaged. Even my 8086K with only 6 cores offers top end gaming performance.

[duckypath]

1 hour ago, Tanaz said:

If you don't plan on overclocking there's no point in getting a K scew. Spec wise the 10700K boosts up to 5.1ghz but has 2 fewer cores while the 10900 boosts up to 5.2. So realistically it's the same CPU but with 2 more cores if you're not going to overclock. I'd go with the 10900 especially if you're compiling often than those cores might be put to better use ( not sure what you mean by coding it's a broad  term)

Thank you! And by coding, simply mean that ok broad terms because I won’t be compiling heavy c++ code. Very light html, css, and python for my sys admin/backend dev at work. Makes sense too, since those 2 extra cores will most likely help, especially since my 1065 in my blade is pinned at 100 for most of the day at work.