Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 17 to 32 of 32

Thread: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

  1. #17
    Long member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,745
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked
    303 times in 215 posts
    • philehidiot's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Father's bored
      • CPU:
      • Cockroach brain V0.1
      • Memory:
      • Innebriated, unwritten
      • Storage:
      • Big Yellow Self Storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Semi chewed Crayola Mega Pack
      • PSU:
      • 20KW single phase direct grid supply
      • Case:
      • Closed, Open, Cold
      • Operating System:
      • Cockroach
      • Monitor(s):
      • The mental health nurses
      • Internet:
      • Please.

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    Quote Originally Posted by 3dcandy View Post
    The other reviews out there are much less forgiving than the Hexus review...
    320 watts draw from the cpu in a test there... 320 watts JUST from the cpu. Expensive coolers that cannot keep the chip cooled sufficiently and it was running at 100 degrees c. The latest BIOS updates mean that the power draw is just crazy to give it a lead in benchmarks at any cost
    And I thought my 3900X was power hungry and hot. Even with an old AIO it never breached 77C under constant load.

  2. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,573
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked
    73 times in 64 posts

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    It would be nice to get a bit more information on how many cores each of these games are using etc in the benchmarks, not that I'd be buying a cpu based on game performance but still...

    I did some rudimentary googling and it seems that most of the games used for testing don't really use more than 4 cores, so it would be nice to include some games that make use of more than 4 cores to see if that actually makes a real world difference, especially seeing as that is the likely direction for games in the future.

  3. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    334
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    I love how you guys use stuck to get a new mobo... it tells quite a bit about the mobility of Intel in general...

    Am happy that here is competetion in the field.

  4. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    181
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    6 times in 5 posts

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    Quote Originally Posted by 3dcandy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Helios451 View Post
    So, Intel have a range of pretty capable CPUs built on old technology, squeezing out all they can at the expense of high manufacturing costs and power hungry processors. A bit like the 1970 Ford Capri brought out to compete against the Porsche 911. Certainly very good in some areas, but under the bonnet not ground breaking or innovative and just not of the same world. With Zen 4 at 5nm coming maybe 2022, this is surely underwhelming from this mighty company?
    All they have. It's a factory overclocked old style processor compared to Ryzen.

    I'd be more worried they're falling behind on things like features despite a brand new ecosystem of motherboard needed - and the prices of those motherboards that I've seen so far are a lot more than an equivalent AMD setup. Circa £150 v £90 for example and the processor is more as well doesn't bode well and the reviews I've read so far, though thin on the ground are mainly meh
    IN mITX the price is
    £290 for a ROG STRIX Z490
    &
    £270 for a ROG STRIX x570
    Not a huge delta, although you get much better USB on the z570, but much better LAN (2.5Gigabit (via (Intel® I225-V 2.5Gb) vs 1Gigabit (via Intel® I211-AT)) on the z490

  5. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wonderful Warwick!
    Posts
    3,053
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    117 times in 100 posts

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    Quote Originally Posted by will19565 View Post
    IN mITX the price is
    £290 for a ROG STRIX Z490
    &
    £270 for a ROG STRIX x570
    Not a huge delta, although you get much better USB on the z570, but much better LAN (2.5Gigabit (via (Intel® I225-V 2.5Gb) vs 1Gigabit (via Intel® I211-AT)) on the z490
    I said so far...
    There are always going to be differences but with AMD currently the lower end chipset B450 gives you almost as much as the z490 at much lower costs... factor in that the cpu's are also lower costs and you get the cooler thrown in (you need a very very good cooler to cool the Intel solution) and it stretches your argument a fair bit. You need a water cooler to use the i9 to the best of its ability while the Ryzen is fine on the included air cooler
    Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!

  6. #22
    Senior Member spacein_vader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Darkest Northamptonshire
    Posts
    1,566
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked
    447 times in 275 posts
    • spacein_vader's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus B85M-G
      • CPU:
      • i5 4460 3.2GHz
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Crucial DDR3 1600
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Crucial MX100, 500GB Crucial MX100, 1TB Crucial MX200
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus RX 480 Dual OC 4GB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX 520W modular
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Meshify C
      • Operating System:
      • Pop!_OS 19:10 / Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • BenQ GW2765, Dell Ultrasharp U2412
      • Internet:
      • Zen Internet

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    If Intel can stay in touching distance with this kind of stuff then when they get their next node working we should have a very competitive CPU race, that can only be good for the end customer.

    I don't want AMD pulling as far ahead as Intel were 5 years ago, pricing tends to get horribly inflated.

  7. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    151
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    • deepblue08's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z170X Ultra Gaming
      • CPU:
      • i7 6700K @ 4.2 + Noctua D15
      • Memory:
      • Corsair Vengeance 4x8GB @ 3000mhz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 950 PRO 256GB, Crucial MX500 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080Ti FTW3
      • PSU:
      • EVGA Supernova G2 850W
      • Case:
      • Corsair 750D
      • Operating System:
      • Win10 Pro
      • Internet:
      • DSL 50D/10U

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios451 View Post
    So, Intel have a range of pretty capable CPUs built on old technology, squeezing out all they can at the expense of high manufacturing costs and power hungry processors. A bit like the 1970 Ford Capri brought out to compete against the Porsche 911. Certainly very good in some areas, but under the bonnet not ground breaking or innovative and just not of the same world. With Zen 4 at 5nm coming maybe 2022, this is surely underwhelming from this mighty company?
    They mismanaged their fabs, so they are way behind on the die shrink. They cannot really do too much at this point, not until they get their fabs in order.

  8. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wonderful Warwick!
    Posts
    3,053
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    117 times in 100 posts

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblue08 View Post
    They mismanaged their fabs, so they are way behind on the die shrink. They cannot really do too much at this point, not until they get their fabs in order.
    I'd swap mismanaged fabs for got complacent
    Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!

  9. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    ATLANTIS
    Posts
    953
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    23 times in 21 posts

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    PCIE4 use same power as 3 but with higher data rates?

  10. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wonderful Warwick!
    Posts
    3,053
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    117 times in 100 posts

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    Quote Originally Posted by lumireleon View Post
    PCIE4 use same power as 3 but with higher data rates?
    Yes but those data rates are harder to implement and cost more plus bring the added disadvantage of more heat
    Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!

  11. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Sussex
    Posts
    1,100
    Thanks
    88
    Thanked
    143 times in 130 posts
    • kompukare's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77-V LX
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5-3570K
      • Memory:
      • 2 x 8GB Crucial Ballistix Elite PC3-14900
      • Storage:
      • Crucial MX200 | Sandisk Extreme 120GB SSD | WDC 1TB Green | Samsung 1Tb Spinpoint
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290 VaporX 7950
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650 Gold TruePower (Seasonic) or Seasonic SII-330
      • Case:
      • Aerocool DS 200 (silenced, 53.6 litres)l)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10-64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell P2414H

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    Quote Originally Posted by 3dcandy View Post
    I'd swap mismanaged fabs for got complacent
    Money has a lot to do with it, and back before smartphones really got going Intel basically said they couldn't be bothered with low-margin stuff.
    Those billions of revenue TSMC get from all this low-margin stuff has a lot to do with their advances.
    Remember, Intel also deliberately crippled Atom for years so as not to cannibalise Core sales. In the end, they then poured billions into 'contra-revenue' (which apparently is not the same as below cost dumping...).
    A lot of poor decision lead to this.

  12. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wonderful Warwick!
    Posts
    3,053
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    117 times in 100 posts

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    Quote Originally Posted by kompukare View Post
    Money has a lot to do with it, and back before smartphones really got going Intel basically said they couldn't be bothered with low-margin stuff.
    Those billions of revenue TSMC get from all this low-margin stuff has a lot to do with their advances.
    Remember, Intel also deliberately crippled Atom for years so as not to cannibalise Core sales. In the end, they then poured billions into 'contra-revenue' (which apparently is not the same as below cost dumping...).
    A lot of poor decision lead to this.
    No argument with that but add in they didn't think AMD would come back as strong and this is the result
    Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!

  13. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where you are not
    Posts
    719
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked
    56 times in 45 posts
    • Iota's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus Hero XI
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 9700K
      • Memory:
      • CMD32GX4M2C3200C16
      • Storage:
      • 1 x 250GB / 1 x 1TB Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia RTX 2080 FE
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HXi 850
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-X500B
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 40Mbps SKY Fibre

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    Priced at around £500, the Core i9-10900K's clear competitor is the Ryzen 9 3900X, which is still 15 percent cheaper
    Honestly, the R9 3900X would be my clear choice, it can be found at more than £100 cheaper than the i9-10900K and the difference is marginal between them from what I've seen in reviews. Aside from the choice of AMD also gives other improvements such as PCI-E 4 etc, which the Intel still lacks.

    I'm still glad I got the i7-9700K though, it's held up well in those gaming benchmarks.

  14. #30
    Senior Member Xlucine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,772
    Thanks
    242
    Thanked
    151 times in 118 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus TUF B450M-plus
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @ 3.2 Gt/s
      • Storage:
      • Crucial MX500 1TB, Crucial MX100 512GB, 2TB hard disk
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic S12G-550
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E
      • Operating System:
      • W10 pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic vx3211-2k-mhd, Dell P2414H
      • Internet:
      • Plusnet 70 Mb/s

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    The 10600K performs well for a 6 core chip, but it's almost 8 core money - you could free up a lot of budget for your GPU going down to a 3600, or trade up to a 3700X (cut back on the cooler to free up the £25 needed) and get a more future-proof system (ready for games designed for the nest gen of consoles that expect 8 zen cores)

  15. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    It's interesting to see boost up the clock speed to 5Ghz, which is telling that Intel cannot compete in other areas. The TDP on the 10900k is 125W versus AMD's 3900X only at 105W with 2 more cores. Not to mention that Intel is running on a 14nm lithography vs. AMD's 7nm. I think this is a telling time and Intel will struggle unless they can make the shift to a similar lithography. They may have the crown for fastest clock, but that battle was fought many years ago. Now it's about efficiency, lower TDP, maximum Cores. And ultimately, where AMD will shine through is on VALUE. Intel's diversification into discreet GPUs is another nod in the direction of a need to compete.

  16. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Wonderful Warwick!
    Posts
    3,053
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    117 times in 100 posts

    Re: Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

    Quote Originally Posted by vanillasky View Post
    It's interesting to see boost up the clock speed to 5Ghz, which is telling that Intel cannot compete in other areas. The TDP on the 10900k is 125W versus AMD's 3900X only at 105W with 2 more cores. Not to mention that Intel is running on a 14nm lithography vs. AMD's 7nm. I think this is a telling time and Intel will struggle unless they can make the shift to a similar lithography. They may have the crown for fastest clock, but that battle was fought many years ago. Now it's about efficiency, lower TDP, maximum Cores. And ultimately, where AMD will shine through is on VALUE. Intel's diversification into discreet GPUs is another nod in the direction of a need to compete.
    TDP is 125? Should be but it can easily hit 225W as tested by many people
    Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •