Is it worth it?

[iCoNrant]

The last thread I just posted will be closed so come here.

The i7 10700 is $301 without the box, only the cpu (ignore this) 

 

i7 10700k is $362 .

i9 10850k just got a price bumb from $398 to $425.

 

Is is worth the $63 apart for not getting the i9. I'm not in US or Canada. 

 

 

 

[dizmo]

Only you can know that. Do you need the extra cores? Is it worth it for you?

Worth is entirely subjective and will change from person to person.

 

Personally I wouldn't pay the extra, as I'd never need the extra cores.

[iCoNrant]

Just now, dizmo said:

Only you can know that. Do you need the extra cores? Is it worth it for you?

Worth is entirely subjective and will change from person to person.

 

Personally I wouldn't pay the extra, as I'd never need the extra cores.

@dizmo okay. From my personal use case is gaming 1080p 240hz, streaming, multitasking, 2 monitor and secondary pc for later. 

[ForwardVoltage]

$30 saved could net you a better cooler to overclock. 

[dizmo]

Just now, iCoNrant said:

@dizmo okay. From my personal use case is gaming 1080p 240hz, streaming, multitasking, 2 monitor and secondary pc for later. 

Probably not worth it then. I'd even argue the 10700k isn't that necessary, but I'm not sure what kind of overhead streaming needs.

[iCoNrant]

2 minutes ago, ForwardVoltage said:

$30 saved could net you a better cooler to overclock. 

@ForwardVoltage Cooler doesn't interfere my Budget because I'm getting Scythe Fuma 2. 

Plus no overclocking by me because intel have turbo boost thing. 

[iCoNrant]

2 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Probably not worth it then. I'd even argue the 10700k isn't that necessary, but I'm not sure what kind of overhead streaming needs.

@dizmo Because I really don't know why the 10700 is so high demand right now. I thought only 10700k is high demand in my country but turns out is both of them is out of stock pretty often 

[iCoNrant]

@dizmo @ForwardVoltage what is your conclusion about it? Which processor do you think is the better buy for my needs and purpose. 

[ForwardVoltage]

I don't see a reason for the 10850k.

[iCoNrant]

Just now, ForwardVoltage said:

I don't see a reason for the 10850k.

@ForwardVoltageyour choice would be a 10700k or 10700, right? 

[dizmo]

Just now, iCoNrant said:

@dizmo Because I really don't know why the 10700 is so high demand right now. I thought only 10700k is high demand in my country but turns out is both of them is out of stock pretty often 

Low stock doesn't necessarily mean high demand, could just be supply issues.

Just now, iCoNrant said:

@dizmo @ForwardVoltage what is your conclusion about it? Which processor do you think is the better buy for my needs and purpose. 

Like I said, I'd go 10700k, if not a 10600k.

 

[iCoNrant]

9 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Low stock doesn't necessarily mean high demand, could just be supply issues.

Like I said, I'd go 10700k, if not a 10600k.

 

@dizmothat's fair enough, thank for your time. Appreciated your help

[Mister Woof]

I would get a 10600k over a 10700

 

but i am that guy who got the 10900k instead just because

[iCoNrant]

48 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

I would get a 10600k over a 10700

 

but i am that guy who got the 10900k instead just because

You didn't bought 10900k but a 10900kf

[Mister Woof]

5 hours ago, iCoNrant said:

You didn't bought 10900k but a 10900kf

Right, but it's not any different since I was never going to use igpu anyway.

 

Actually based on silicon lottery, the KF variants OC better.

 

My point was that I don't always make the most logical choices for me lol.

 

10600k makes more sense for gaming than the 10700 because it can be overclocked to a higher frequency.

 

The 10700k/f is a good choice as well.

 

10850k/10900kf also make sense in that $ per core is good value, but you'll probably never need the extra cores anyway.

[iCoNrant]

1 hour ago, Mister Woof said:

Right, but it's not any different since I was never going to use igpu anyway.

 

Actually based on silicon lottery, the KF variants OC better.

 

My point was that I don't always make the most logical choices for me lol.

 

10600k makes more sense for gaming than the 10700 because it can be overclocked to a higher frequency.

 

The 10700k/f is a good choice as well.

 

10850k/10900kf also make sense in that $ per core is good value, but you'll probably never need the extra cores anyway.

Plus one thing I can't find a gpu either so the the igpu will come in handy. 

[Mister Woof]

17 minutes ago, iCoNrant said:

Plus one thing I can't find a gpu either so the the igpu will come in handy. 

This is gonna sound nuts but if you can't find a GPU, you may want to just preorder an 11600k or go with the 11400. They have the new upgraded Intel XE graphics, which are a lot better than the old graphics. They also support PCIE4 for SSD and graphics.

 

Price wise, they aren't bad.

 

$269 for the i5-11600k, which should offer on-par performance to the Ryzen 5 5600x in most scenarios, and better than the Ryzen 5 3600 which is overpriced right now. It's also $30 less, but will need a cooler.

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-11600k-core-i5-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118235?Description=i5-11600k&cm_re=i5-11600k-_-19-118-235-_-Product&quicklink=true

 

$188 for the i5-11400, which might be a bit slower than the Ryzen 5 5600x, but costs over $100 less.

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-11400-core-i5-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118241?Description=i5-11400&cm_re=i5-11400-_-19-118-241-_-Product

 

Alternatively, if you can afford it, the i7-11700k isn't terrible either when compared solely against the 5800x. It's only $399 which is still $50 less than the 5800x.

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i7-11700k-core-i7-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118233?Description=i7-11700k&cm_re=i7-11700k-_-19-118-233-_-Product

 

You can pair both of these with a B560 motherboard that allows memory overclocking.

Can't speak specifically for this, but ballpark pricing $100-150

https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813157979?Description=b560&cm_re=b560-_-13-157-979-_-Product&quicklink=true

 

At the i5 level and lower, it's hard to recommend the Ryzen 5 5600x because of the huge price gap. The i7 becomes more difficult to recommend because the Ryzen parts clearly out-class it without it being significantly less expensive, but it's defensible. It's only really the i9-11900k that makes no sense.

[iCoNrant]

5 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

This is gonna sound nuts but if you can't find a GPU, you may want to just preorder an 11600k or go with the 11400. They have the new upgraded Intel XE graphics, which are a lot better than the old graphics.

 

Price wise, they aren't bad.

 

$269 for the i5-11600k, which should offer on-par performance to the Ryzen 5 5600x in most scenarios, and better than the Ryzen 5 3600 which is overpriced right now.

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-11600k-core-i5-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118235?Description=i5-11600k&cm_re=i5-11600k-_-19-118-235-_-Product&quicklink=true

 

$188 for the i5-11400, which might be a bit slower than the Ryzen 5 5600x, but costs over $100 less.

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-11400-core-i5-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118241?Description=i5-11400&cm_re=i5-11400-_-19-118-241-_-Product

 

You can pair both of these with a B560 motherboard that allows memory overclocking.

Can't speak specifically for this, but ballpark pricing $100-150

https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813157979?Description=b560&cm_re=b560-_-13-157-979-_-Product&quicklink=true

 

 

It's only really the i9-11900k that makes no sense.

11900k is just stupid pricing. Just get the 11700k because is cheaper and still 8 cores 16 thread. 

The problem is that I want 8 cores for future games too. 11700k is insanely high price is like on par pricing with 10850k but more power draw. 

[Mister Woof]

31 minutes ago, iCoNrant said:

11900k is just stupid pricing. Just get the 11700k because is cheaper and still 8 cores 16 thread. 

The problem is that I want 8 cores for future games too. 11700k is insanely high price is like on par pricing with 10850k but more power draw. 

The 11700k isn't really horribly priced - it's $399 right now compared to the 5800x which is $450. Both will need decent motherboards and cooling solutions. It's just that for only $50 more, you're gaining a small amount of gaming performance and a bigger chunk of productivity performance at lower power consumption with the 5800x.

 

The i9-10850k/10900KF are probably going to perform about the same in games, but they lack PCIE4 and are older platforms. They have the virtue of being less expensive than either, though. Often you can get the 10850k for $320, which makes it a harder choice vs. either the 11700k or the 5800x. They also appear (from the GN video) to be able to overclock much more effectively compared to the 11700k. It can go either of three ways here, and I don't think any would be the wrong choice.

 

The real standouts are the i5-11600k and i5-11400, which both are basically uncontested in their price point. They're unequivocally better than the i5-10600k/10400 because beyond their frequency performance which can be easily assumed based on the 11700k data, and they also have PCIE4 and the new B-series motherboards support memory overclocking. Further, there is nothing from AMD in that price range to compete against them. Sub $300 5000 series CPUs don't exist, and their old model, the Ryzen 5 3600, is in low supply, often overpriced, and not significantly faster than even the old 10400, and slower than the 10600k.

 

I think that while 11th gen seems to suck from a flagship perspective, their low-end and mid-range options will be very solid choices. So much so that I think the 5600x will get a price cut soon, or possibly a 5600 non-x will be released at a lower price point.

 

That said, Intel fell flat of their faces in the high-end for this generation, even farther behind than they did in the previous one. At least with the 10th gen vs. 3000 series, Intel still held the crown in gaming/single thread tasks to offset their lack of multi-core performance that chips like the 3900x/3950x offered. This time around, they have absolutely nothing and actually regressed in a way by having to drop down to only 8 cores to physically fit the cores onto the die. AMD deserves a lot of credit for their platform and CPU design. The 5900x and the 5950x are outstanding products, and if you are a high end user, there's no reason to look at the Intel offerings when these are finally widely available.

 

As far as needing 8 cores for games - I don't disagree. There are already scenarios where we see the same IPC chips with 8 cores pull ahead of their lower-cored counterparts (even an equally clocked 10600k will fall behind a 10700k, and then the 10700k will fall behind the 10900k, in some games when not GPU limited). But I would say most users aren't going to be putting themselves in the resolutions or scenarios where this will be perceivable. 

 

Personally, moving from a 5ghz 8700k to a 5.1-5.3ghz 10900KF, I saw some situations where in the past I would see GPU usage drops that I no longer see, but I do not believe it actually changed my gameplay experience specifically from that. I did notice some minimum FPS improvements from the increased frequency, lessened security mitigation impact, and the ability to run faster memory, in specific situations such as in MMOs. But those games typically don't care about more cores.