The Core i7-10700K is an 8-core, 16-thread CPU which is essentially a Core i9-9900K at a 25% discount, as Intel has set the MSRP at $375. It's a reasonable discount over the previous gaming king, but will that be enough?
The Core i7-10700K is an 8-core, 16-thread CPU which is essentially a Core i9-9900K at a 25% discount, as Intel has set the MSRP at $375. It's a reasonable discount over the previous gaming king, but will that be enough?
That's basically where I'm at as well. The main problem with intel right now is how much power you have to push through the silicon. The 3700x comes with a cooler that is good enough if not spectacular.It looks like a good gaming part, if your aim is solely to game. I would probably go for this if all I wanted in life was 1080p frames.
But for most you will look at a 3700x costing $80 less and think......well that gets me a class up in GPU, from a 5700 to an XT, much more impact on my gaming.
Unless your gaming.AMD still have the better overall performance.
If your not gaming.There is literally no reason to buy into this dead-end architecture.
A cheaper 9900K with a new MoBo. Check.
i3 and i5 please. Super curious about i3 vs R3 3300X for a budget banger.
You guys are funny, buying Intel will not change your gaming performances if you only buying mid-range or high cards, you need the enthusiasm products at 1080p.It looks like a good gaming part, if your aim is solely to game. I would probably go for this if all I wanted in life was 1080p frames.
But for most you will look at a 3700x costing $80 less and think......well that gets me a class up in GPU, from a 5700 to an XT, much more impact on my gaming.
I think the i5 is where it'll be strongest. All the i3s are locked, so they can't OC to 5GHz. The i5 10600k will be a monster.
1440p = GPU bottleneckI think taking a 10700k over a 3900x in gaming would be a mistake. What do you guys think?
My reasoning is the following:
4 extra cores means all the back ground crap you may have running these days, will have an impact on the 9900k/10700k but virtually zero impact on the 3900x. I know this usually reflects as 1% lows, but benchmark systems are not real world systems, they are best case scenarios without crap in the back ground. Crap = Discord, Steam, Epic, UbiSoft, Origin, etc, etc, etc. They all have spikes or worse, even in gaming mode in my experience, where extra cores will be better.
Anyways,"up to 5%" at 1440p is not noticeable. Other YouTube benchmarks show 9900k/3900x as virtually the same for 1440p.
I do expect 1440p benchmarks to widen with new AMD and nVidia GPU's though.
Somebody tried to tell me last night on Reddit that a 3900x is a huge down grade to a 9900k. sigh.
Unless your gaming and use a 2080 TI at 1080p...
If your not gaming.
You guys are funny, buying Intel will not change your gaming performances if you only buying mid-range or high cards, you need the enthusiasm products at 1080p.
We understand well enough. We know. That's why I emphasised the extra $80 is better spent on a GPU than a CPU.
The question is whether you realise and understand that RTX2080Ti performance will also only be midrange in two years anyway.
People will replace their GPU long before they ditch the board and CPU, if they bought smart enough. Possibly multiple GPU upgrades.
Which is another reason why these tests are run with the fastest cards at relatively low resolutions like 1080p, to stretch the CPU as much as possible and see where it might end up for a lot of people.
Basically, going with Intel is stupid.
Let me explain.Unless your gaming.
If your not gaming.
Its $80 plus the cost of a good CPU cooler to cool that Intel cpu
You over estimate the "back ground crap" and if it needs an extra four cores to run then it should be closed or your processor is rather weak.I think taking a 10700k over a 3900x in gaming would be a mistake. What do you guys think?
My reasoning is the following:
4 extra cores means all the back ground crap you may have running these days, will have an impact on the 9900k/10700k but virtually zero impact on the 3900x. I know this usually reflects as 1% lows, but benchmark systems are not real world systems, they are best case scenarios without crap in the back ground. Crap = Discord, Steam, Epic, UbiSoft, Origin, etc, etc, etc. They all have spikes or worse, even in gaming mode in my experience, where extra cores will be better.
Anyways,"up to 5%" at 1440p is not noticeable. Other YouTube benchmarks show 9900k/3900x as virtually the same for 1440p.
I do expect 1440p benchmarks to widen with new AMD and nVidia GPU's though.
Somebody tried to tell me last night on Reddit that a 3900x is a huge down grade to a 9900k. sigh.
The point is, the stock cooler on a 3700x is perfectly functional. Adding an aftermarket premium cooler is only necessary if you plan to stress the chip. AND it is still cheaper than the Intel equivalent.Have fun with AMD stock cooler on 3700x. I didn't.
There are some very cheap people around here. Paying ~$700 for mobo cpu and ram, but will stick with box cooler to SAVE money. This tells me (I am projecting, I know) they can't afford either, or they are just fanbois.
and yes, 10xxx is a waste of money at this point, so don't get me wrong there.
You are right. It is a good gaming CPU. But I went with an 3700x last year and if 10th gen was available at the time, I still would have made the same choice. I do spend more time working nowadays (rendering and converting) but I still have a great gaming experience in my downtime.It looks like a good gaming part, if your aim is solely to game. I would probably go for this if all I wanted in life was 1080p frames.
But for most you will look at a 3700x costing $80 less and think......well that gets me a class up in GPU, from a 5700 to an XT, much more impact on my gaming.