which one is better for gaming ??? i7 10700f or i7 10700k

[gtx_gecko]

guys !!! which one is better for gaming

   i7 10700f or i7 10700k    / my GPU: RTX 3080

also will i get i7 10700(f)(k) or ryzen 5 5600x for 1080 gaming??? because i think ryzen 5600x will be bottleneck with 3080

thank!

[Skiiwee29]

... the 5600x has better IPC than the 10700k... soooo, it most DEFINITELY will NOT bottleneck a 3080

[SavageNeo]

5600x is better than 10700k

[Fasauceome]

I recommend the 5600X instead of an i7. The 10700 family of CPUs has shown to be pretty poor value to gamers this generation, and Intel's 10th gen has overall worse gaming performance than AMD's 5000 series.

[porina]

Without overclocking, 10700k will be faster than 10700f.

 

The other alternative of 5600X is harder to balance. To me the 5600X as a product doesn't make much sense, unless for some reason you have to have the highest performing 6 core CPU, which might help in some older games to reach slightly more insane fps. I'd take the 8 core Intel for general forward looking gaming.

 

52 minutes ago, Skiiwee29 said:

... the 5600x has better IPC than the 10700k... soooo, it most DEFINITELY will NOT bottleneck a 3080

Higher IPC should not be looked at in isolation.

 

18 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

I recommend the 5600X instead of an i7. The 10700 family of CPUs has shown to be pretty poor value to gamers this generation, and Intel's 10th gen has overall worse gaming performance than AMD's 5000 series.

On a per-core basis Zen 3 is currently purely aiming at highest performance, and isn't even on speaking terms with value. It is a decision to be made if that ultimate performance at a core count is worth it. For 8 cores I think it is justified but fast 6 cores is a tougher sell.

[Fasauceome]

11 minutes ago, porina said:

On a per-core basis Zen 3 is currently purely aiming at highest performance, and isn't even on speaking terms with value

compared to the i7 it is better value, in a gaming PC. similar price, better gaming performance

 

11 minutes ago, porina said:

It is a decision to be made if that ultimate performance at a core count is worth it. For 8 cores I think it is justified but fast 6 cores is a tougher sell.

8 cores are not yet the optimal performance in games yet. very few games benefit from the extra cores, and in most benchmarks they uplift from 6 core CPUs is pretty negligible.

[porina]

8 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

compared to the i7 it is better value, in a gaming PC. similar price, better gaming performance

Value is always one of those areas where people quantify it differently, leading to different conclusions. Roughly speaking a 5600X is same price as 10700F, with 10700K slightly more. Not enough different at a system level. 

 

8 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

8 cores are not yet the optimal performance in games yet. very few games benefit from the extra cores, and in most benchmarks they uplift from 6 core CPUs is pretty negligible.

I find this so amusing. Not aimed at yourself, but the forum in general seems to converge on whatever AMD is doing is the right choice. I did put in my comment for forward looking performance, not having the absolute highest numbers today could result in better overall performance over the life of the system. A CPU like this isn't some minimal entry level build that will get replaced sooner.

 

Of course it would be up to the OP to decide what is more important to them. No doubt the 5600X can be faster today in many games if you purely look at it from a fps perspective, but I'd argue it isn't a big enough difference to make it worth it, outside of those who do focus on chasing fps numbers.

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, porina said:

I find this so amusing. Not aimed at yourself, but the forum in general seems to converge on whatever AMD is doing is the right choice

AMD also sells an 8 core, I would not say that this is AMD's choice to be recommending a 5600X as a gaming CPU instead of an i7 due to it being a 6 core.

 

as for future performance, I tend to avoid recommending a system that might be better in a few years time and focus on the here and now. But like you said, if OP wants to prioritize more cores on the possibility that it will provide an overall better experience in the coming years, that's their choice.

[Mister Woof]

The Ryzen 4th gen is a good option if you can get one for MSRP or if you just need maximum performance.

 

As it stands, Intel is the same position that AMD was a few years ago.

 

The 10600k/10700k are a bit slower than the 5600x/5800x, but they are cheaper even at MSRP (not to even mention mark up). Additionally, they are nowhere near as slow as the 1600 was to the 8700k, or the 2700x to the 9900k.

 

People talked shit about expensive Intel at that time, yet now that the roles are reversed, it seems a lot of those same folks are coming around promoting parts that aren't even commonly available while trashing the parts that actually are. I seem to recall lots of "at 1440p you won't notice the difference between a 2700x/9900k" which remains true even now with a 3090/6900xt and 10700k/5800x. Lots of hypocrites here (not specifically anyone in this thread, mind you, Just generally.)

 

As Ryzen was in the first three generations, Intel is now fine as a lower-cost alternative. It won't be as good at 1080p (kind of odd to pair a 3080 at 1080p....240hz I guess?), but as stated it will be fine at higher resolutions. But that said, unless you're willing to pay a scalper, often Ryzen 5000 isn't even an option at this point.

[porina]

7 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

as for future performance, I tend to avoid recommending a system that might be better in a few years time and focus on the here and now.

That's a bigger problem in the GPU wars, but back on CPU my point remains that even if for now 5600X might be the highest performance of the options, an 8 core is not significantly different and the tables are more likely to turn within the life of the system. There are already some games that do scale to 8 cores, even if they are far from the majority. If someone wants to look up the numbers, there might also be something in the lows offering a smoother experience.

 

For sure, 6 cores is fine for now. My main two gaming systems both have 6 core CPUs in them, but when they start lagging behind I'll consider replacing them. However I'm not aiming for the best fps numbers, once it gets good enough it doesn't matter.

[Mister Woof]

25 minutes ago, porina said:

That's a bigger problem in the GPU wars, but back on CPU my point remains that even if for now 5600X might be the highest performance of the options, an 8 core is not significantly different and the tables are more likely to turn within the life of the system. There are already some games that do scale to 8 cores, even if they are far from the majority. If someone wants to look up the numbers, there might also be something in the lows offering a smoother experience.

 

For sure, 6 cores is fine for now. My main two gaming systems both have 6 core CPUs in them, but when they start lagging behind I'll consider replacing them. However I'm not aiming for the best fps numbers, once it gets good enough it doesn't matter.

Even modern 6/12 chips sometimes teeter on 90%+ in new games like CP2077. Even on the 5600xt is 60%+ saturated. I'd personally go with an 8/16 chip.

 

Edit: wow typo city

[porina]

I actually went and looked up some test results for 5600X vs 10700F vs 10700K.

 

I'll present two sites since they happened to pop up near top in search and are well known.

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/2135-amd-ryzen-5600x/

Techspot are the written equivalent to Hardware Unboxed. I find it easier to just go straight to the charts without the endless waffling that is in the videos.

11 game average at 1080p: 5600X faster than 10700k by about 2.5%. 

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/22.html

Techpowerup tested 10 games at various resolutions. I'll only present 1080p upwards

1080p: 10700k 3.0% faster, 10700F 3.6% faster than 5600X

1440p: 10700k 1.4% faster, 10700F 1.9% faster than 5600X

4k: 10700k 0.7% faster, 10700F 1.0% faster than 5600X

 

Doesn't make sense to me the F is faster than the k, but I'll let someone else work that one out if they're so motivated. Take away point is that the overall differences between them are slim, and may vary as much depending on the specific game, rest of the system and settings chosen. Given that, I feel having 8 cores would be of benefit in the life of the system.

[Mister Woof]

1 hour ago, porina said:

I actually went and looked up some test results for 5600X vs 10700F vs 10700K.

 

I'll present two sites since they happened to pop up near top in search and are well known.

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/2135-amd-ryzen-5600x/

Techspot are the written equivalent to Hardware Unboxed. I find it easier to just go straight to the charts without the endless waffling that is in the videos.

11 game average at 1080p: 5600X faster than 10700k by about 2.5%. 

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/22.html

Techpowerup tested 10 games at various resolutions. I'll only present 1080p upwards

1080p: 10700k 3.0% faster, 10700F 3.6% faster than 5600X

1440p: 10700k 1.4% faster, 10700F 1.9% faster than 5600X

4k: 10700k 0.7% faster, 10700F 1.0% faster than 5600X

 

Doesn't make sense to me the F is faster than the k, but I'll let someone else work that one out if they're so motivated. Take away point is that the overall differences between them are slim, and may vary as much depending on the specific game, rest of the system and settings chosen. Given that, I feel having 8 cores would be of benefit in the life of the system.

To be fair, those were tested with a 2080 ti - now granted at 1080p it's likely even the 2080ti isn't the limiting factor, but i'd expect some of the performance equalization at 1440p with the 2080ti to shift upwards to 4k on a 3080 or better. Perhaps looking at TPU's 720p benchmark for the 2080ti would better represent 1080p on a 3080, etc.

 

That said, anywhere between 10-15% difference in performance even at 1440p isn't going to be really noticeable outside of a benchmark. As long as there's no stuttering, the real world experience will be about the same on all of these CPUs.

 

This one's a little more representative, as it used a 3090:

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-5950x-5900x-zen-3-review/5

 

 

5900x was 19% faster than the 10700k at 1080p stock for stock, and 8% faster when both were overclocked.

 

 

And only 9% faster at 1440p stock for stock, and 2% faster when both overclocked.

 

I image at 4k the difference is nil.

 

Keep in mind this isn't really a like-for-like, as the 5900x is a 12 core chip. So compared to a 5600x, the differences will be even less. But it's close. Rarely anyone is going to be playing at 1080p with a 3090, and at 1440p, the difference between 144fps and 140fps is....impossible to detect.

 

This isn't even CLOSE to the performance gap that the first and second generation of Ryzen chips had in deficit to Intel's counterparts at the time, and still isn't even as big as the gap between Intel and Zen 2. People were readily recommending 3600-3700x's all over the place, despite this.

 

If you were okay with recommending Zen 2 chips before Zen 3 launched, I see no reason to not recommend Intel chips given they're cheaper and actually available.