Learn how Intel power budget works, including Thermal Velocity Boost: ruclips.net/video/4th6YElNm5w/видео.html Intel i5-10600K Review: ruclips.net/video/iQVBlCfb72M/видео.html Intel Cache Ratio & RAM Tuning: ruclips.net/video/vbHyF50m-rs/видео.html Support us and get a high-quality PC-themed mouse mat in return! store.gamersnexus.net/products/gn-wireframe-mouse-mat TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - Recapping 10600K, 10900K, & Pricing of 10700K 03:10 - Intel i7-10700K Temperatures & Core-to-Core Delta 04:13 - Intel i7-10700K Intel Boost Settings 05:00 - Single-Thread & All-Thread Boosting Behavior 06:03 - Three Kingdoms Campaign 10700K Gaming Benchmark 07:10 - Hitman 2 CPU Scaling for 10700K vs. 10600K, 3900X, etc 07:45 - F1 2019 1080p & 1440p CPU Gaming Benchmarks 09:27 - The Division 2 CPU Benchmarks & GPU Bind 10:35 - Shadow of the Tomb Raider CPU Benchmark 12:18 - Red Dead Redemption 2 CPU Benchmark (2020) 13:09 - GTA V CPU Benchmarks 14:00 - Best CPUs for Blender Cycles 3D Rendering (Benchmarks) 16:15 - Adobe Premiere Rendering CPU Benchmarks 16:56 - 7-Zip Compression & Decompression CPU Benchmarks 18:52 - Code Compile CPU Benchmark (Chromium) 19:38 - Handbrake Transcoding CPU Benchmarks 20:07 - Chaos Group V-Ray CPU Benchmarks 20:44 - Intel i7-10700K Power Consumption 21:25 - Conclusion of if Intel i7-10700K is Worth It Find our CPU testing methodology for 2020 over here: ruclips.net/video/sg9WgwIkhvU/видео.html&feature=emb_title Article version of CPU testing methodology: www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3577-cpu-test-methodology-unveil-for-2020-compile-gaming-more
@@unlimiteduploads2971 Please email our support team for an update and for help. That's what they're there for. Check your order email for more information or email support at gamersnexus (dot net).
I would really like to see a Video of the comparative difference in gains for the 600K, 700K, and 900K when tuned like you did with the 600, before I make a decision on a new CPU. I'm really interested to know if the 600 having less cores will let it clock high enough vs more cores to out perform the other two in gaming. Thanks GN.
Wow. It's almost getting to the point where you'd need multiple chips and motherboards to do concurrent testing. As if it takes around 1 day with 1 chip, you could do 2 chips and two testers and take half a day? Embargos make this the hard thing I guess, as long previews and early samples would give you all more time.
You probably don't get this often, but thanks for the fading blue bars on the side of your slides, makes a quick scim alot more effective. Also thanks for the piping hot review on short notice. I just wanted to see what you guys were getting out of this "new gen" to see how fairly my 8700k is getting along; quite well.
I would have seriously considered the i9/i7s if they were $100 cheaper as I need CPU that can handle media creation and 3D rendering for work plus games, alas they're so expensive where i am that i got a 3900X + X570 board for the price of just the i9 lol.
When i was buying a 9700k or 9900k, the 9900k was way over msrp and the 9700k was just slightly over (before amd's x3000 were released). I bet the same thing will occur here. So is a 10900k worth $100 over an 10700k for sure. What if its like 180-200?
I wish users could give channels hearts on their videos, just how channels can heart a comment. I honestly don't understand much in terms of in depth detail and its implications for my needs; however, it's nice for learning since it throws a lot of terminology at me that I can look up and read about in detail. Slowly but surely I can become a more educated consumer m, and hopefully build my own pc when i can afford it!
Building a computer is easy now or days. Linus, Gary Holtzman, BitWit and others have step by step steps to help you out. BitWit is who I watched and I've had no problems whatsoever!!!
I have just built a 10700K 32gb ram 1tb NVMe system from scratch and it's the most satisfying feeling coming home from work and spitting 144 smooth QHD frames at Metro Exodus Caspian Desert. Haven't felt this kind of gaming joy in years. I can't wait to pair this system with RTX 3080 come september.
Perfect Steve. Once again you have shown exactly why we all trust you, I think you nailed your conclusion perfectly as always. You always deliver solid buying advise. Thanks so much for the review Steve, I have enjoyed all your 10th gen content (and all your other content as well, same as always), and I look forward to your next uploads. Stay safe and I will catch you on the next one.
@@3rdGenGuy still buying a 400$ cpu for fps is dumb.... Buy a R5 3600 instead and save those 200 for the gpu....unless you need the cores for productivity... 3600 is the best all rounder.
I'm guessing future games 2021 2022 will require more cores as we are going to the next generation of consoles. Since optimisation for PC is rubbish for some games, like the latest assassin's creed games using 100% cpu on 4c/8t
Well waddup this is ur update from the future I just gotta say intel prices have gone down from the amd craze and I was able to get the 10700kf for $240 woweeeeeeeeee
came accross this video while looking to upgrade from a 10700K, and I have to say that the 2 extra cores from the 10600K mattered for all the time I had this CPU for, it's not useful in gaming, but gaming isn't all you do on a PC
When I saw the a bit of relieved when Steve said: "I will see you all next time." I see a man work his ass of, knowing his work is mostly done but not quite. Hats off to the GN team for providing informative yet timely video.
I watched several reviews, not just this one and I don't see how i7 10700k isn't the best gaming CPU, being the only CPU besides the i9 to never bottleneck the cpu even slightly, while at much lower prices than the i9. The i5 has been shown over 10 fps lower than the i7 in many cases so has any AMD chip. But the i7 never was significantly lower than any other CPU (i9) in any gaming benchmark. So how does gamer nexus recommend i5 and i9, but not i7? Makes NO sense!
I refer to realistic tests using current games at high settings, where fps usually are capped by the GPU. Even when the gpu is at 100%, the i7 can make a difference over the i5, but it's always equal to the i9.
@Chad Reynolds It hurts my soul but I am getting the i9 10900 now for my planned rtx 3080 or - ti upgrade. I don't really care about pci 4.0 as there is going to be such a major leap in CPU technology within the next years so that it will be worth getting a new board and cpu anyways and I don't see pci 3x16 bottleneck the 3000 series yet, when 3x8 is enough for the 2080Ti.
@Chad Reynolds what does pcie 4.0? can i find something to be an alternative to this and is it really necessary to have? im trying to building my own pc in a few months so im trying to find what i dont know about
@Chad Reynolds What NVIDIA says and what the tech folk are saying are at a cross, because most tech folk are saying it's unlikely you'd see a tangible difference between 3.0 and 4.0 with such an early adoption of the technology, much like RTX's first iteration itself.
@@cosmins3268 Problem... there is no more single digit numbers above 9 other than the i0, an "i zero". So they will have to go duodecimal and release an iB.
10600K is very nice. But if you want 8 cores (maybe for future performance, console has 8 cores, maybe game has better optimizationfor for 8/16) go to 10700k.
This is going to be a tight one. The Intel part stays ahead by around 5-10% in games, but I would like to see if the 3600 catches up with OC and memory optimizations which the 10400 doesnt support (on non Z490 boards at least).
@@rdmz135 you are completely wrong the i5 10600k is where it's at I've got one it's a fucking beast. So you're statement is not correct in anyway shape or form.
@@bbqpat1 there will be no 12core xt version, they stop at 8 cores, because they are, from what i know, on the cpu side like an apu, but with the graficsunit disabled, without IO die and up to 2000mhz IF clock
I've been using Intel in my last two builds over the last 5 years, and I really want AMD to come out with a higher GHz processor that can compete in games. I'm going to wait for Zen 3 to come out before building my next computer, but a big part of me wants to buy AMD even though I won't because Intel is better for gaming.
they are behind games because of IO and memory latency, not single core perf (which isn't exactly tied to just frequency). Single core Zen 2 is the same/better than current intel offerings. Zen 3 will fix some of the latency issues and bump IPC majorly, it's going to be much better in gaming.
@@UAE1712 ? Rocket lake is going to be chiplet based too so Intel will have the same issues with separate CCXs and latency now too, their 10nm isn't a monolithic design anymore
@@sonysergey The thing I'm scared about with Zen 3 will be the relatively high price jump that we'll probably see for them to pull it off. AMD has had to jump to much more efficient, smaller nm chips to even approach Intel in single threaded throughput, frequency while lacking in memory latency and IO. Intel for a very long time has been very successful with the much more expensive monolithic chip versus the sectioned/partitioned cheaper, chip that AMD has been putting out. AMD is getting much better with each generation, but I'm afraid we'll be seeing the cost go up again with Zen 3. I feel the long term R&D that AMD has dumped into chiplets which allowed them to basically sum fewer chips into a single larger chip is paying off. They're getting much better interfacing the chiplets as the jump from threadripper gen 1 to gen 3 is staggering already where threadripper takes the whole chiplet system to the relative extreme.
I’m hearing similar conclusions to the 6600k and 6700k. 4 years later the difference in FPS between these heavily justifies $100 price difference 4 years ago.
Agreed. $100 over 4 years is nothing, 6.8 cents a day. For that price, even a small boost in FPS is worth it to me. If it was 2X the price I'd skip it, but $100 is like whatever.
What about the future-proof argument? All next-gen consoles are going to have 8 core CPUs, so most of the next-gen games are going to be better optimized for 8 cores. Therefore, 10600K with its 6 cores will be under-performing against 10700K. Would like to hear your opinion on that.
@@peachesasmr9366 that's not how it worked when we had 8 core jaguar consoles ps4/xbox one with literal athlon 64 tier IPC; desktop chips from intel could keep up with half the cores. The gap is not so big now, 8 cores is the safest amount. 10700k owners will not be disappointed anytime soon.
Dude my 8700k with 6c/12t is just fine for games. Even a 4790k with 4c/8t would be alright, if someone hasn't upgraded. The limitation for games is really the GPU, not the CPU.
@Chad Reynolds Don't get aggressive with me boy, I'm not your buddy. I needed to upgrade my PC back in May, not in whenever the F AMD decides to roll out their Zen 3 CPUs. Besides, I don't care about PCIE 4.0 as even the next gen Nvidia 30 series won't max out PCIE 3.0 speeds! And don't start telling me about $1000 SSDs... Intel is better for gaming period.
Would be nice to see the 10700k OC'd + Memory, like the 10600k. From these results it almost seems like the 10700k wouldn't scale with those improvements, not quite fair to the 10700k... Still great info and love what you guys do
I am wondering if the 6 cores of the 10600k are going to hold up for a long time without framedrops in games where 8 real cores are actually needed. This could be a buying consideration.
I feel like if you are going to invest in new components, you need to get the best available due to your exact comment, shit is obsolete in 2 or 3 years, in 2022 the average cpus will probably all be 16+ cores
I would love to see some more CPU heavy strategy/builder games included in the benchmarking, turn times in CIV are great, but don’t really affect playability. Whereas games like Cities Skylines, Planet Zoo/Coaster, and Transport Fever 2 can become heavily cpu limited at higher population/map sizes. I understand that’s difficult as they don’t have any built in benchmarking, but for me the difference between 120-160fps in Tomb Raider means very little, but an extra 10 frames in Skylines could be the difference between being playable and not.
@@Cuthalu 120fps isn't a "stuttery mess" whatever monitor you are viewing it on. Whereas 20/30fps is easily achievable late game on some of the games I mentioned, especially on midrange hardware, whatever graphics settings you choose. 20fps is most certainly becoming a "stuttery mess" and input lag even on builder games starts to become a significant issue at those sort of frame rates. I haven't yet played Anno 1800, so I couldn't comment on how that is, but start to get 5000+ guests on a Planet Zoo/Coaster save and you start to really see some slowdowns.
With the "next gen" games coming, will any of them become 'core bound' with only the 6 cores vs the 8 cores of the i7. Looking to buy something soon and wondering what to commit too.
I upgraded from the i5 4690k and its a major improvement obviously and at the time I did not want to wait for the new AMD stuff although its pricey I still believe it will last me a very long time and im happy with my purchase. Hope all the other 10700k owners are happy as well!
i mean, i know a lot of people are about to comment hate about your choice, but the thing is... if you like the processor, IT'S FINE! I'm glad you were able to get a processor that showed performance improvements as expected, and that you are enjoying the improvement. The 10700k/10900k/10600k-(you get it) is still the best at gaming (even though it's expensive AF), after all, so no shame.
I just noticed the bars at the corners of the screen that slide down based on the time the slide stays onscreen which is a small but a very nice touch! keep it up!
Hard to justify? The 9900k is now the second best gaming cpu compared to the 10900k... and the 10700k is basically a faster 9900k, with better thermals/can be easily overclocked. It's also less than $400. Okay, GN.
Hard to justify in that most enthusiasts are going to upgrade to new hardware for better single thread performance (~4 years) before the difference between the 10600K and 10700K is really going to be appreciated in gaming. If riding the build out as long as possible, the 10700K might make sense (GPU upgrade at the 4 year mark, ride the build another 4 years). The 10600K should have headroom enough for the next 5-6 years before it starts to fall behind enough to make a difference.
Your reviews are really beneficial as you put the hardware in perspective not only against its current competitors, but also against past hardware. I know that in this particular video you are only looking at what is on market currently, but there is so much wealth of knowledge available in your channel and website that the overview on the market is created. So this was a long and convoluted way to say thanks for all the reviews you have done and for the comparison frameworks you and your team have created :-D
"Why get an i7 when an i5 will do the job?" This discussion has been going on for a decade. An i5 will do a great job for today's applications and games, but an i7 will age better and be more future proof. In 2-3 years once game developers start taking advantage of more cores and threads, the i7 and i9 will still hold their own whereas the i5 will become obsolete.
For us VR users who need to super-sample as much as we can, need very high resolution and use a game that is CPU bound like iRacing which utilizes only two cores, what cpu should we get? This might be a stupid question but I dont understand why we cant get an i5 with 5.3 boost for us who dont care about the number of cores and threads and all about max frequency per core we can reach! Just sold my old good i7 6700k 4.9Ghz and RTX 2080S that could barely hold 120FPS on very low VR settings and looking to get i(x?) to match an RTX 2080ti when they come down in price or maybe a 3080? The quality and attention to details in your videos are highly appreciated ;)
25 minutes and no mention of the 10700 non-k? Same price (almost $283 vs $309 on amazon this morning) as the 3700x but faster on a lot of benchies? Seriously undecided between these two CPUs (3700x/10700 non k) for gaming/photography non-overclocked and Gamers Nexus is Failing me! :(
I just purchased one of your really awesome shirts from your web store to support you. Thanks for the awesome content. I recently purchased a 3900X when the price dropped.
I justified it just fine, upgrading to a 10700k from a 4790k, lol. Time to put the Devil's Canyon to rest finally. To be honest, it STILL holds up well.
Chad Reynolds 1. PCIE is backwards compatible. That means you can use 4 to 3. 2. PCIE 3 provides MORE than enough bandwidth still, even for the latest graphics cards. The only real advantages that a PCIE 4 is the gen 4 ssds; but is pointless AT THE MOMENT for a graphics card. It would take years for 3 to be phased out in favour of 4. 3. Z490 boards can however use PCIE 4 - next gen of intel chips. Gigabyte has confirmed this on livestream and even have PCIE 4 specs built in their 3.0. AMD caught you good with their marketing
@Chad Reynolds How is your comment holding up now? Haven't seen a single benchmark where AMD was ahead of the 10900k with the rtx 3080. Apparently for GPUs PCIe 4.0 is still not as important. The NVMe 4.0 ssds are a different story though.
@Chad Reynolds not really. I'm just saying not everyone cares about PCIE 4.0 ssds, if we're talking about gaming advantage Intel is still better, and there isn't a single Tech youtuber I've heard saying otherwise. So no, for the while I don't think your comment is holding up very well, I don't personally care if Intel or AMD sells the most, I'm not a fanboy, I'm just stating what I'm seeing right now.
@Chad Reynolds Well, I wasn't talking about Zen 3 nor laptops or OEMs market I was talking about desktop PCs, because that was the point being discussed. I'm talking about what can be bought right now and no one knows what's the next gen of Intel desktop processors are gonna be like, if they end up sucking, that's Intel's problem , not mine . I like what AMD is doing with Ryzen, I never said otherwise, that's why I said I'm not a fanboy, but you have to give credit where it's due, that's the only thing I'm saying. Don't be a fanboy man, there's a lot of reasons people are still using Intel for lots of applications other than gaming, the 15 year old virgin is a very silly and childlish comment.
Thank you for an instructive video. I'm interested to see you're still recommending the Ryzen 3600; have you tested the 10400 against it? Secondly, in your section on Total War, I couldn't quite make out if you said you were RAM limited or VRAM limited. If it's the former then why not just upgrade the RAM? 64 GB isn't uncommon at the higher end. Actually, if you cannot just upgrade the RAM, you have an excuse for a test: where should you place your page file? What is the difference between placing it on a SATA SSD, a PCIe v3 M.2 drive, a PCIe v4 M.2 drive, or an Intel Optane drive? BTW thanks for slowing down a little. You still have a tendency to gallop, especially when going through charts, but I can see you're making an effort.
Building a flight simulator pc definitely complicates things. I agree on the 10600, but the ideal specs posted show an 8 core cpu. Without hobby specific benches, makes the choice very hard!
Same, waiting on the 4000 series to replace my 2700x, but the itx build now has the 3600 its very good and solved memory speed issues on the 3466mhz ram on a b350.
Why is the 3800X non-existent in every video he makes? I have one, it was only $20 more than the 3700X and it constantly hits 4570mhz on all cores. It is the most underrated AMD chip on this channel!
The average cost of the 3900x is $400 also it uses 4 (3+3) chipsets providing more latency issues. The average cost of the 3800x is $320 and it uses 2 (4+4) chiplets for a smoother experience. The average cost of 3700x is $290. I agree there is similarities but the base and boost capabilities for someone who isn't going to overclock continuously is a win for $30 cost. If you cant afford that in a build then go to college and get a degree. In my opinion the 3900x is the joke chip. Lol. Might as well opt for the 3950x.
As a dev the difference in compile time is pretty significant between the 1070k and 1060k, but not as significant between the 1070k and the 1090k. Might still get the 1070k lol
The way I see it future proofing is a waste of money. If every upgrade cicle you spend more money to buy something beyond what you need you're locking money on excess, let's say you buy the 3600 and save ~$150, in the 2/4 years necessary for game development to catch up demand for 8c/16t there'll be a much better version of R7, or even 3900x for much cheaper. Getting as much as possible within what you need feels more optimal to me as it allows you to do incremental upgrades that'll fit your needs at any time.
No. An 10700K will beat a 3700X in all gaming scenarios because of its superior cockspeed and latency. That will still be the case five years from now.
Thanks for this review, I got a 10700k for the wife's video editing (and potential mild gaming), still waiting on the board, but I feel like it's near 9900k performance will be good enough for her for a while.
Thanks for the great content, Steve! I think in my application the 3900X is looking like the best choice. Especially so when my local Micro Center has it for a price well below that of the 10700k.
As somebody aiming to play games at 1080p lowest settings and achieve as close to 300 FPS as possible (240Hz display), is this CPU a good choice? In the UK the 10900k works out at around £120 more expensive for very marginal gains?
i think you'll like this part. most gamers at this moment won't use more than 6-7ish cores heavily (maybe 8-10 threads for a game, then the rest for background programs), and the 10900k might generate too much heat unnecessarily anyways
i cant believe you guys recommend the 3600 still over the 3700x! the 3700x needs a deeper look from you guys. it can out run the 3900x in most games and hangs right with it in production. for 290$ its best bang for $ imo. i may be lucky as well my 3700x OC's like a CHAMP 4.4-5 just tuning PBO, and at 1.35v not to mention it takes like HALF the power to run as the big boys it keeps up with.
Mostly because the 3600 is about $100 or more cheaper, which means that it's $100 that you can slide up a GPU tier, and the 3600 performs almost the same as the 3700X in just about all games. And that's a fairly good 3700X, since most are supposed to be 4.3-4.4 I thought.
Is it too late to pick up a 3900x? Should I wait for the near term 3900XT, or ultimately wait for the Ryzen 4000 series? I'm looking at price per value for some gaming but mostly workstation/server workload and computing.
SinglSrvngFrnd SsF Of all the reviewers on RUclips i trust this one the most, besides the sarcasm. I'm almost sure Steve isn't getting paid by anyone where as some other channels i can't say the same.
If one was to do a "light" overclock as you suggest, It'd still be a good idea to ensure voltage is manually set in case your motherboard plays loose with voltage spec when set to auto right?
If you’re on an old platform an need a whole upgrade including a mew motherboard, and not in a hurry. Maybe wait for the release of zen 3? Rumors claim that it will surpass Intel in gaming. But again, those are rumors so we shall see.
@@GreatUchiha123 I want to upgrade my 7600k 5ghz, and amd in gaming is quite disappointing, bad frametime and low avg fps, hope zen 3 can make a step with this, if not, I not gonna wait anymore, 10600k and move on
@@JomarsYT amd disappointing in games, wtf! You clearly don't own one, zen & zen+ were still quite a way behind Intel, zen 2 sure as hell isn't. I have zero frame rate issues in any game I play on my 3900x, silky smooth gameplay on everything so how can that be disappointing!??
I feel like this launch was in a rough spot, even if it's obvious to say lol. #1: This product stack is pretty tight, Intel would have NEVER released products this close together in performance with such a price difference until AMD put some pressure on, that shows how Intel felt they really needed products to compete. #2: They can't REALLY do the classic Intel thing, and rely on the people who already have the top end Intel CPUs to just replace them with the new one for around a 6% uplift, like they had for years. If you already have a 5GHz 9900k, there is practically no reason to have to buy a new mobo AND CPU here. Maybe when new Z490 CPUs come out. #3: Which means they need to rely on basically taking back marketshare from AMD, and the only thing that comes close is the i5. Which you can damn near equal with a $130 3300x. TL;DR: Yikers
El Prezzy Intel might be concerned, but worried about AMD....HA! I don't think so. Intel makes almost nothing on enthusiasts and Gamers. It's the company spin offs and server that make them money, and lots of it! If you are so confident in AMD why would you need to write a novel that says nothing other than to discredit Intel?
Intel is majorily a semiconductor company rather than processors, so it's but hard to say that their company will be ruined by AMD. Though, you are not wrong that it surely is making them push a bit. As said Intel usually gets more out of other areas, non-related to general consumer purchases Which is kinda reason why Intel adopted IEEE's suggested nm specs. 10nm of Intel is thinner than 7nm of AMD. Matters to AMD maybe for marketting, not to Intel. Intel's engineering culture and their target just makes that fake nm tag useless. Fluid dynamics/gaming enthusiasts are ready to pay for that experimented, pushed to limit, still far from physics limit processor
@@cortexauth4094 10nm is not a great example even if it's the intel's equivalent to 7nm from TSMC. It doesn't perform as it should. However, you are correct that most of the intel's market share is on the server side. That may change however, slowly and it really depends on what happens from now on with each company on that segment because.. well server and DC markets don't just update hardware over and over again, it's estimated they update almost every 10 years. The important thing for DCs and Servers is matured technology, stability, and of course, security... the first two intel already has and the third one is kind of lacking with all the sec vulnerabilities out there. I'm sure if AMD keeps innovating like this they will at least bite a nice chunk of that segment for sure.
While 4000 MHz Cl15 is an expensive kit, there are cheaper kits that overclock well too. I picked up some 3000 CL15 Crucial Micron E-Die kit and it has clocked to 3733 CL17 with just 50 mvolts of encouragement. I'm hoping to push higher with a little further effort.
Good goodness, seems u folks busted ur asses to provide this information. Thank u, for working this through for me and the other folks that’d get good information from this review.
@@chadbrick67 4.8 is to go w/o delidd, 5ghz with it. Anyhow even 4.8 is 0.5 ghz above all core specs and would show a lot in those charts. I also would like to see what real intel progress is after 3 years, if any ;]
@@gacekbd well they've run the course on 14NM without question so will it be 10NM or 7NM next. They are so behind its unreal but they still sell shit tons of stuff so they actually are not bothered. It was nice to see AMD backtrack on the motherboard compatible thing. Very refreshing in my book
@@chadbrick67 There were very good reasons to backtrack b450/x470 zen3 comp. One is It happened literally 1 day before comets for marketing purpose. The second is if 90% of sold zen2 is with older MB and ppl who want upgrade would seriously consider intel option if you needed to change basically whole system with new MB. It would put zen3 sales at risk and potentially increasing intels.
Why are various AMD CPUs randomly left out of these graphs? Sometimes the 3700x and 3800X appear, sometimes not. Sometimes the 3950x appears, sometimes not.
When I see the 9900k and 9700k performing better than the 10700k in some test, they only thing that comes to mind is that the fact that you have some cores disabled means there's higher latency in core to core communications for some of the cores. It also fits with the fact that the 10900k doesn't not perform under the 9900k, and that the 10600k can perform so well when increasing Ring frequency.
That's a really good price. The prices have changed since this video and now it's kinda hard to justify anything else in the mid high end range when 10700ks are in stock, at or even below msrp.
@Chad Reynolds maybe so but it's not holding me back at the moment so i'm not really missing it. I'm sure my next build will. So it's no biggie...bottom line I got the loot if I want it I can. No rush here.. anything else?
@Chad Reynolds its only a board and a chip bro thats easily replaceable, when I need to that can be swapped, for now i'm enjoying my games, appreciate the advice.
I do wonder 5 years from now, when you do a "looking back at 10600, 10700 and 10900 performance" recap video, if you will see a similiar trend to 6700k vs 6600k. (i5 vs i7) where the i7 ended up stomping the 6600k in time, but at the time of launch the 6600k was the recommended "Gamer cpu". It did not hold up over time (6600K)
Funny how the i5 6600k just became the 'Gamer CPU' I bought it just because thats how everyone put it. Now that im in the position to upgrade i really want to make sure i get the best cpu i can (within reason lol)
yeah i agree i got the 6600k because it was considered the gaming CPU at the time. 4 years later it didn't age well, it now struggles with most CPU intensive apps. looking into buying a 10700k or 10850k, but idk if i should wait or buy.
If you only care about gaming and you can afford a 10700k but not a 10900K then it is a good buy. That is the situation I was in that made me get a 9700K it beats AMD in gaming and the 9900K was too expensive.
ya... not realy, if u can´t afford a 10900k, then the 10600k is still the better choise and spend the extra money for better gpu, better or more ram or more ssd space...
Learn how Intel power budget works, including Thermal Velocity Boost: ruclips.net/video/4th6YElNm5w/видео.html
Intel i5-10600K Review: ruclips.net/video/iQVBlCfb72M/видео.html
Intel Cache Ratio & RAM Tuning: ruclips.net/video/vbHyF50m-rs/видео.html
Support us and get a high-quality PC-themed mouse mat in return! store.gamersnexus.net/products/gn-wireframe-mouse-mat
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - Recapping 10600K, 10900K, & Pricing of 10700K
03:10 - Intel i7-10700K Temperatures & Core-to-Core Delta
04:13 - Intel i7-10700K Intel Boost Settings
05:00 - Single-Thread & All-Thread Boosting Behavior
06:03 - Three Kingdoms Campaign 10700K Gaming Benchmark
07:10 - Hitman 2 CPU Scaling for 10700K vs. 10600K, 3900X, etc
07:45 - F1 2019 1080p & 1440p CPU Gaming Benchmarks
09:27 - The Division 2 CPU Benchmarks & GPU Bind
10:35 - Shadow of the Tomb Raider CPU Benchmark
12:18 - Red Dead Redemption 2 CPU Benchmark (2020)
13:09 - GTA V CPU Benchmarks
14:00 - Best CPUs for Blender Cycles 3D Rendering (Benchmarks)
16:15 - Adobe Premiere Rendering CPU Benchmarks
16:56 - 7-Zip Compression & Decompression CPU Benchmarks
18:52 - Code Compile CPU Benchmark (Chromium)
19:38 - Handbrake Transcoding CPU Benchmarks
20:07 - Chaos Group V-Ray CPU Benchmarks
20:44 - Intel i7-10700K Power Consumption
21:25 - Conclusion of if Intel i7-10700K is Worth It
Find our CPU testing methodology for 2020 over here: ruclips.net/video/sg9WgwIkhvU/видео.html&feature=emb_title
Article version of CPU testing methodology: www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3577-cpu-test-methodology-unveil-for-2020-compile-gaming-more
Hi, i bought the mod mat signed for 120usd over a week ago and it has still not started shipping.
@@unlimiteduploads2971 Please email our support team for an update and for help. That's what they're there for. Check your order email for more information or email support at gamersnexus (dot net).
I would really like to see a Video of the comparative difference in gains for the 600K, 700K, and 900K when tuned like you did with the 600, before I make a decision on a new CPU. I'm really interested to know if the 600 having less cores will let it clock high enough vs more cores to out perform the other two in gaming. Thanks GN.
Wow. It's almost getting to the point where you'd need multiple chips and motherboards to do concurrent testing. As if it takes around 1 day with 1 chip, you could do 2 chips and two testers and take half a day? Embargos make this the hard thing I guess, as long previews and early samples would give you all more time.
Thanks for the flood of info your giving us on Comet Lake... wait there a pun in there somewhere 🤔
You probably don't get this often, but thanks for the fading blue bars on the side of your slides, makes a quick scim alot more effective. Also thanks for the piping hot review on short notice. I just wanted to see what you guys were getting out of this "new gen" to see how fairly my 8700k is getting along; quite well.
Yeah the blue bars are very useful.
Thanks for noticing!
Yeah, that's a great idea. I'm wondering why other channels don't use these bars.
@@GamersNexus What plug-in do you use for them?
I also got an 8700K and with a 5.2 Ghz oc it def holds up.
I love the 'lets just go through the numbers, we have a lot to get through today' like im in one of my old engineering lectures.
Slightly slower would be better especially for those with ESL
Maurice Walshe you can download the video and run it through slower speed on vlc
@@areufkingkiddingme you could do that, or use YT's built in speed control. though vlc can handle slower speeds a little more legibly i think
As a third year EE right now I feel the pain
I hate exact thing you like because it reminds lecture. I really like gn intros though and brief explanation
"this was all done in 24 hours"
*visible pain*
@EthnoEuropean's CountriesAreBeingInvaded yeah, you know typing on a keyboard is a difficult thing to do sometimes
under 24 hours, listening is also difficult, sometimes
Watching a year later...
A $100 reduction in price across the board would change all of these reviews significantly.
MrDaChicken
That could happen.
I would have seriously considered the i9/i7s if they were $100 cheaper as I need CPU that can handle media creation and 3D rendering for work plus games, alas they're so expensive where i am that i got a 3900X + X570 board for the price of just the i9 lol.
@John Hooper is the different worth 100 dollars? Especially when you can get two parts for the price of just one?
@@laststep56 3900 is faster than i9 in content creation and 3d rendering.
When i was buying a 9700k or 9900k, the 9900k was way over msrp and the 9700k was just slightly over (before amd's x3000 were released). I bet the same thing will occur here. So is a 10900k worth $100 over an 10700k for sure. What if its like 180-200?
I wish users could give channels hearts on their videos, just how channels can heart a comment. I honestly don't understand much in terms of in depth detail and its implications for my needs; however, it's nice for learning since it throws a lot of terminology at me that I can look up and read about in detail. Slowly but surely I can become a more educated consumer m, and hopefully build my own pc when i can afford it!
Tons of good stuff coming out this year! Some years are slower than others, but 2020 is looking exciting. Great time to start learning!
we call those likes and subscriptions :P
Trying that right now!! haha
Building a computer is easy now or days. Linus, Gary Holtzman, BitWit and others have step by step steps to help you out. BitWit is who I watched and I've had no problems whatsoever!!!
Its called the like button
I have just built a 10700K 32gb ram 1tb NVMe system from scratch and it's the most satisfying feeling coming home from work and spitting 144 smooth QHD frames at Metro Exodus Caspian Desert. Haven't felt this kind of gaming joy in years. I can't wait to pair this system with RTX 3080 come september.
Bought an R5 3600x when it launched and apart from some bios growing pains at first have been absolutely thrilled with it to this day.
The last time I was this early, GN Mats were still in stock.
Perfect Steve. Once again you have shown exactly why we all trust you, I think you nailed your conclusion perfectly as always. You always deliver solid buying advise. Thanks so much for the review Steve, I have enjoyed all your 10th gen content (and all your other content as well, same as always), and I look forward to your next uploads. Stay safe and I will catch you on the next one.
Its that a AdoredTV reference?
22:24
The amount of work you guys can accomplish in such a short time is amazing
I think they're workaholics!
So for a lot of budget/value PC gamer, it probably make sense to just get the 3300X and use the saving for a better GPU.
buying a CPU with 4 cores in 2020 is dumb, very dumb.
4 cores was obsolete like 3 years ago
@@3rdGenGuy define obsolete
agree, I would atleast get a 3600 or one of the new i5's (10400/10500/10600/10600K). 4 cores isn't enough in 2020.
@@3rdGenGuy still buying a 400$ cpu for fps is dumb.... Buy a R5 3600 instead and save those 200 for the gpu....unless you need the cores for productivity... 3600 is the best all rounder.
I'm guessing future games 2021 2022 will require more cores as we are going to the next generation of consoles. Since optimisation for PC is rubbish for some games, like the latest assassin's creed games using 100% cpu on 4c/8t
Hi, I'm here from the future to let you know the pricing and availability have gone more nuts than you could have ever imagined.
Well waddup this is ur update from the future I just gotta say intel prices have gone down from the amd craze and I was able to get the 10700kf for $240 woweeeeeeeeee
@@BulgeUhBasic I got it for 215
@@islandvibez tf how
@@BulgeUhBasic Micro center near me had a grand re-opening sale.
@@islandvibez oof nice
came accross this video while looking to upgrade from a 10700K, and I have to say that the 2 extra cores from the 10600K mattered for all the time I had this CPU for, it's not useful in gaming, but gaming isn't all you do on a PC
When I saw the a bit of relieved when Steve said: "I will see you all next time." I see a man work his ass of, knowing his work is mostly done but not quite.
Hats off to the GN team for providing informative yet timely video.
I watched several reviews, not just this one and I don't see how i7 10700k isn't the best gaming CPU, being the only CPU besides the i9 to never bottleneck the cpu even slightly, while at much lower prices than the i9.
The i5 has been shown over 10 fps lower than the i7 in many cases so has any AMD chip. But the i7 never was significantly lower than any other CPU (i9) in any gaming benchmark.
So how does gamer nexus recommend i5 and i9, but not i7? Makes NO sense!
I refer to realistic tests using current games at high settings, where fps usually are capped by the GPU.
Even when the gpu is at 100%, the i7 can make a difference over the i5, but it's always equal to the i9.
@Chad Reynolds It hurts my soul but I am getting the i9 10900 now for my planned rtx 3080 or - ti upgrade. I don't really care about pci 4.0 as there is going to be such a major leap in CPU technology within the next years so that it will be worth getting a new board and cpu anyways and I don't see pci 3x16 bottleneck the 3000 series yet, when 3x8 is enough for the 2080Ti.
@Chad Reynolds what does pcie 4.0? can i find something to be an alternative to this and is it really necessary to have? im trying to building my own pc in a few months so im trying to find what i dont know about
@Chad Reynolds What NVIDIA says and what the tech folk are saying are at a cross, because most tech folk are saying it's unlikely you'd see a tangible difference between 3.0 and 4.0 with such an early adoption of the technology, much like RTX's first iteration itself.
@Chad Reynolds You mean am I going to trust marketers versus market trend watchers?
Message from Snowflake: Come to bed I want my heated pillow
just waiting for the 3300X to come into stock, but still, like watching the videos as a new PC builder
Bought 3300x last 2 weeks, that thing is a freaking beast. Upgrade from i5 4690k
@@dzikputih Great upgrade! Room to upgrade to higher core counts once games start relying on more than 8 threads.
@@dzikputih LMAO IF IT MAKES YOU HAPPY WHO CARES IF YOUR A LOSER!
Took AMD 3 years to turn an i7 to an i3
facts
LOL
And because of that , the core i9 was born , something i used to joke that Intel will never do with their naming scheme .
@@cosmins3268 start making jokes about i11 now.
@@cosmins3268 Problem... there is no more single digit numbers above 9 other than the i0, an "i zero". So they will have to go duodecimal and release an iB.
10600K is very nice. But if you want 8 cores (maybe for future performance, console has 8 cores, maybe game has better optimizationfor for 8/16) go to 10700k.
Notification woke me up checked it seen that Tech Jesus posted something I had to get up and like it.
"3600 the new sandy bridge"
That aged like milk.
10400 next please! The Computerbase review looks really promising :D
It's ok nothing more nothing less. Hyperthreading is a bonus
Would also like to see the 10400 up against the 3600 and 3300X
This is going to be a tight one. The Intel part stays ahead by around 5-10% in games, but I would like to see if the 3600 catches up with OC and memory optimizations which the 10400 doesnt support (on non Z490 boards at least).
10400F is the only Intel part with decent value
@@rdmz135 you are completely wrong the i5 10600k is where it's at I've got one it's a fucking beast. So you're statement is not correct in anyway shape or form.
3900x on sale at microcenter at time of filming for 389
Wow what a deal!!
just in 3900x is outdated 3900xt incoming
@@bbqpat1 there will be no 12core xt version, they stop at 8 cores, because they are, from what i know, on the cpu side like an apu, but with the graficsunit disabled, without IO die and up to 2000mhz IF clock
Man I wish I live near microcenter, the closest one from me is around 9000 miles away
bbqpat1 You just ruined my day.. bought a 3800x 3 weeks ago
Steve, please give us your "1 hour" overclocking guide.
I've been using Intel in my last two builds over the last 5 years, and I really want AMD to come out with a higher GHz processor that can compete in games. I'm going to wait for Zen 3 to come out before building my next computer, but a big part of me wants to buy AMD even though I won't because Intel is better for gaming.
they are behind games because of IO and memory latency, not single core perf (which isn't exactly tied to just frequency). Single core Zen 2 is the same/better than current intel offerings. Zen 3 will fix some of the latency issues and bump IPC majorly, it's going to be much better in gaming.
@@UAE1712 ? Rocket lake is going to be chiplet based too so Intel will have the same issues with separate CCXs and latency now too, their 10nm isn't a monolithic design anymore
@@sonysergey The thing I'm scared about with Zen 3 will be the relatively high price jump that we'll probably see for them to pull it off. AMD has had to jump to much more efficient, smaller nm chips to even approach Intel in single threaded throughput, frequency while lacking in memory latency and IO. Intel for a very long time has been very successful with the much more expensive monolithic chip versus the sectioned/partitioned cheaper, chip that AMD has been putting out. AMD is getting much better with each generation, but I'm afraid we'll be seeing the cost go up again with Zen 3.
I feel the long term R&D that AMD has dumped into chiplets which allowed them to basically sum fewer chips into a single larger chip is paying off. They're getting much better interfacing the chiplets as the jump from threadripper gen 1 to gen 3 is staggering already where threadripper takes the whole chiplet system to the relative extreme.
27 cpus all differing by 1 fps, do they release a new cpu everytime they acheive another fps?
it's gpus work do icrease fps in games
@@michakrzyzanowski8554 no its the rig in general
I’m hearing similar conclusions to the 6600k and 6700k. 4 years later the difference in FPS between these heavily justifies $100 price difference 4 years ago.
Agreed. $100 over 4 years is nothing, 6.8 cents a day. For that price, even a small boost in FPS is worth it to me. If it was 2X the price I'd skip it, but $100 is like whatever.
What about the future-proof argument? All next-gen consoles are going to have 8 core CPUs, so most of the next-gen games are going to be better optimized for 8 cores. Therefore, 10600K with its 6 cores will be under-performing against 10700K. Would like to hear your opinion on that.
you realize thats not how it works right.....
@@peachesasmr9366 that's not how it worked when we had 8 core jaguar consoles ps4/xbox one with literal athlon 64 tier IPC; desktop chips from intel could keep up with half the cores. The gap is not so big now, 8 cores is the safest amount. 10700k owners will not be disappointed anytime soon.
Dude my 8700k with 6c/12t is just fine for games. Even a 4790k with 4c/8t would be alright, if someone hasn't upgraded. The limitation for games is really the GPU, not the CPU.
@Chad Reynolds I will get a console, but I also got 10700K because I still believe it is a better value over 10600K in a long run.
@Chad Reynolds Don't get aggressive with me boy, I'm not your buddy. I needed to upgrade my PC back in May, not in whenever the F AMD decides to roll out their Zen 3 CPUs. Besides, I don't care about PCIE 4.0 as even the next gen Nvidia 30 series won't max out PCIE 3.0 speeds! And don't start telling me about $1000 SSDs... Intel is better for gaming period.
Would be nice to see the 10700k OC'd + Memory, like the 10600k. From these results it almost seems like the 10700k wouldn't scale with those improvements, not quite fair to the 10700k... Still great info and love what you guys do
I was looking for a " before bed story " good catch.
I dont get how you can start the video off by saying "it's a i9 9900k for 100 dollars cheaper" and then go on to say that it isnt justifiable to buy.
heeeey, my 3700X almost got some love there
It's still a good CPU mate :)
@John Smith not if your gaming at 1440p or no difference at all if your gaming at 3440x1440 like me :)
I am wondering if the 6 cores of the 10600k are going to hold up for a long time without framedrops in games where 8 real cores are actually needed. This could be a buying consideration.
I feel like if you are going to invest in new components, you need to get the best available due to your exact comment, shit is obsolete in 2 or 3 years, in 2022 the average cpus will probably all be 16+ cores
I would love to see some more CPU heavy strategy/builder games included in the benchmarking, turn times in CIV are great, but don’t really affect playability. Whereas games like Cities Skylines, Planet Zoo/Coaster, and Transport Fever 2 can become heavily cpu limited at higher population/map sizes. I understand that’s difficult as they don’t have any built in benchmarking, but for me the difference between 120-160fps in Tomb Raider means very little, but an extra 10 frames in Skylines could be the difference between being playable and not.
Anno 1800 would be perfect for this. get a save file from someone very late into the game and fart around for 10-15 minutes.
Difference between 120 and 160 fps on 144 Hz is the difference between a stuttery mess and a fairly fluid experience.
@@Cuthalu 120fps isn't a "stuttery mess" whatever monitor you are viewing it on. Whereas 20/30fps is easily achievable late game on some of the games I mentioned, especially on midrange hardware, whatever graphics settings you choose. 20fps is most certainly becoming a "stuttery mess" and input lag even on builder games starts to become a significant issue at those sort of frame rates. I haven't yet played Anno 1800, so I couldn't comment on how that is, but start to get 5000+ guests on a Planet Zoo/Coaster save and you start to really see some slowdowns.
@@BassRacerx the problem is repeatability, it's better to use a game with a built in benchmarking tool as it means every run is repeatable.
So Lit mobile just sent me this solar wireless battery pack.
so i muted my browser
seriously these ads are stupid af
That's a scam product... Just fyi... Total garbage product, flooding the market with garbage ads...
@@William-Morey-Baker since when was such a heavily advertised product NOT a scam? good products sell themselves (with a little help).
@@William-Morey-Baker i'm not buying it until it's tested by tech jesus anyway
Effff.... I'm hating that ad.
Seems like the best gaming cpu right now. Thanks. I'm definitely getting one.
I would never thought that I'll be watching and fully understand everything in this video. The Information I gat here is amazing .
@1:50 The 10700k is clearly the superior processor of the generation since it doesn't need the good ol' roll of dried up epoxy to hold it upright
Best streaming 3900x? or 10700k?
Last time I was this early, retailers still had most PC parts in stock
I cannot find a motherboard or an aio cooler. This is madness
@@ramonfrankarizaga9878 try finding a PSU
Should have just re-uploaded your 9900k review and called it a day... Just kidding, kinda, great work as always!
But this is on 14++++ instead of just 14+++ /s :-)
@@MichaelPohoreski "the plus is all that matters. each plus improves fanboyism by 15%"
@@MichaelPohoreski You'er forgetting 2 more cores and more cash.
With the "next gen" games coming, will any of them become 'core bound' with only the 6 cores vs the 8 cores of the i7. Looking to buy something soon and wondering what to commit too.
Chris Barnett this is something I’m wondering as well
@Puppet master 8 weak jaugar cores. Next gen is 8 ryzen cores.
@@Distress. Yeah those jaguar cores didn’t even have simultaneous multithreading.
Great review as always! Thank you, man!
I upgraded from the i5 4690k and its a major improvement obviously and at the time I did not want to wait for the new AMD stuff although its pricey I still believe it will last me a very long time and im happy with my purchase. Hope all the other 10700k owners are happy as well!
i mean, i know a lot of people are about to comment hate about your choice, but the thing is... if you like the processor, IT'S FINE! I'm glad you were able to get a processor that showed performance improvements as expected, and that you are enjoying the improvement. The 10700k/10900k/10600k-(you get it) is still the best at gaming (even though it's expensive AF), after all, so no shame.
What i dont agree with is the 9900k is still the same price while the 10700 is less. Stupid if u ask me!
is 10700k better if it is same price with 3800x? here in the philippines 10700k and r7 3800x are same price
I just noticed the bars at the corners of the screen that slide down based on the time the slide stays onscreen which is a small but a very nice touch! keep it up!
I understand about 30% of what goes on around here. But I am learning. PLEASE KEEP IT COMING.
#IMNEWTOTHIS
Hard to justify? The 9900k is now the second best gaming cpu compared to the 10900k... and the 10700k is basically a faster 9900k, with better thermals/can be easily overclocked. It's also less than $400. Okay, GN.
Sometimes people have bigmouths and little money :)
Hard to justify in that most enthusiasts are going to upgrade to new hardware for better single thread performance (~4 years) before the difference between the 10600K and 10700K is really going to be appreciated in gaming. If riding the build out as long as possible, the 10700K might make sense (GPU upgrade at the 4 year mark, ride the build another 4 years). The 10600K should have headroom enough for the next 5-6 years before it starts to fall behind enough to make a difference.
Your reviews are really beneficial as you put the hardware in perspective not only against its current competitors, but also against past hardware. I know that in this particular video you are only looking at what is on market currently, but there is so much wealth of knowledge available in your channel and website that the overview on the market is created. So this was a long and convoluted way to say thanks for all the reviews you have done and for the comparison frameworks you and your team have created :-D
"Why get an i7 when an i5 will do the job?" This discussion has been going on for a decade. An i5 will do a great job for today's applications and games, but an i7 will age better and be more future proof. In 2-3 years once game developers start taking advantage of more cores and threads, the i7 and i9 will still hold their own whereas the i5 will become obsolete.
Loong Lo I hope so. Just finishing my shopping list for a 10700k build... 🙈
yes, see 6600k vs 6700k.. the 6700k aged far better.
Well, I have an 6600k @ 4,5GHz since 2016. Still very happy with that, but I am upgrading for the RTX 30XX.
@@PeterPan-jd9lu just got my i7 10700k with a rtx 3080 today hopefully ill be set for next 5 years
@@PeterPan-jd9lu just bought one myself haha....oh well, was on special.
This is the best review I have ever seen. Also the presentation (Verbally and visually) are superior.
It's tech jeezuz! He's talking about the 9900k er I mean 10700k or whatever
For us VR users who need to super-sample as much as we can, need very high resolution and use a game that is CPU bound like iRacing which utilizes only two cores, what cpu should we get? This might be a stupid question but I dont understand why we cant get an i5 with 5.3 boost for us who dont care about the number of cores and threads and all about max frequency per core we can reach! Just sold my old good i7 6700k 4.9Ghz and RTX 2080S that could barely hold 120FPS on very low VR settings and looking to get i(x?) to match an RTX 2080ti when they come down in price or maybe a 3080?
The quality and attention to details in your videos are highly appreciated ;)
25 minutes and no mention of the 10700 non-k? Same price (almost $283 vs $309 on amazon this morning) as the 3700x but faster on a lot of benchies? Seriously undecided between these two CPUs (3700x/10700 non k) for gaming/photography non-overclocked and Gamers Nexus is Failing me! :(
I just purchased one of your really awesome shirts from your web store to support you. Thanks for the awesome content. I recently purchased a 3900X when the price dropped.
Nice!! Thanks for the fantastic review!🤩
under 24 hours and not a hair out of place :) thx you your hard and super quick work is always welcome :)
Seems like Intel should have only released the 10600 and this would have been their best release ever. Oh and Steve - sleep.
yeah Steve, go to sleep, please.
I have to say, you guys are very, very informative. Top of the line!
I justified it just fine, upgrading to a 10700k from a 4790k, lol. Time to put the Devil's Canyon to rest finally. To be honest, it STILL holds up well.
How do you like it I am coming from 4670k
Chad Reynolds 1. PCIE is backwards compatible. That means you can use 4 to 3.
2. PCIE 3 provides MORE than enough bandwidth still, even for the latest graphics cards. The only real advantages that a PCIE 4 is the gen 4 ssds; but is pointless AT THE MOMENT for a graphics card. It would take years for 3 to be phased out in favour of 4.
3. Z490 boards can however use PCIE 4 - next gen of intel chips. Gigabyte has confirmed this on livestream and even have PCIE 4 specs built in their 3.0.
AMD caught you good with their marketing
@Chad Reynolds How is your comment holding up now? Haven't seen a single benchmark where AMD was ahead of the 10900k with the rtx 3080. Apparently for GPUs PCIe 4.0 is still not as important. The NVMe 4.0 ssds are a different story though.
@Chad Reynolds not really. I'm just saying not everyone cares about PCIE 4.0 ssds, if we're talking about gaming advantage Intel is still better, and there isn't a single Tech youtuber I've heard saying otherwise. So no, for the while I don't think your comment is holding up very well, I don't personally care if Intel or AMD sells the most, I'm not a fanboy, I'm just stating what I'm seeing right now.
@Chad Reynolds Well, I wasn't talking about Zen 3 nor laptops or OEMs market I was talking about desktop PCs, because that was the point being discussed. I'm talking about what can be bought right now and no one knows what's the next gen of Intel desktop processors are gonna be like, if they end up sucking, that's Intel's problem , not mine . I like what AMD is doing with Ryzen, I never said otherwise, that's why I said I'm not a fanboy, but you have to give credit where it's due, that's the only thing I'm saying. Don't be a fanboy man, there's a lot of reasons people are still using Intel for lots of applications other than gaming, the 15 year old virgin is a very silly and childlish comment.
Thanks for the fast and detailed benchmarks!
Just got the i7-10700K and LOVE IT. Such a great CPU. Also... anybody else thinking Steve's hair looks a tad more frizzy today?
RIP
Thank you for an instructive video. I'm interested to see you're still recommending the Ryzen 3600; have you tested the 10400 against it? Secondly, in your section on Total War, I couldn't quite make out if you said you were RAM limited or VRAM limited. If it's the former then why not just upgrade the RAM? 64 GB isn't uncommon at the higher end.
Actually, if you cannot just upgrade the RAM, you have an excuse for a test: where should you place your page file? What is the difference between placing it on a SATA SSD, a PCIe v3 M.2 drive, a PCIe v4 M.2 drive, or an Intel Optane drive?
BTW thanks for slowing down a little. You still have a tendency to gallop, especially when going through charts, but I can see you're making an effort.
@@Kamellion Thanks.
Building a flight simulator pc definitely complicates things. I agree on the 10600, but the ideal specs posted show an 8 core cpu. Without hobby specific benches, makes the choice very hard!
I built a system for MSFS 2020 with the 10700k and it's smooth as butter.
So in australia the 3900x is actually cheaper than the 10700k for about 50 aud
You know what I would choose
Saving 50AUD on the CPU and some 50-70AUD on the cooler... and, what, 70AUD on the mobo.. aye, that lets you move up a class or two on the GPU.
@@andersjjensen 70 aud on mobo if not z version, which has the necessary higher ram frequenzy support, so its more than 70 right ?
Brasil: 10700K(420 U$) 3700X(440 U$), Z490 and B550 MSI Gaming Edge = Same Price
I just bought a 3600, But i'm here to support your efforts.
Zoomzabba I got my 10700K 2 days ago and it’s awesome.
Same, waiting on the 4000 series to replace my 2700x, but the itx build now has the 3600 its very good and solved memory speed issues on the 3466mhz ram on a b350.
@@venividivici4253 you basically rewarded them for basically selling the 9900K a 3rd time
@@DeosPraetorian basically.
@@DeosPraetorian Maybe you should watch the video again and actually listen.
This video should be in the local pc stores and looped.
PS: Thanks for the advice about the 10-700k. That was a crate of beer saved. :D
Why is the 3800X non-existent in every video he makes? I have one, it was only $20 more than the 3700X and it constantly hits 4570mhz on all cores. It is the most underrated AMD chip on this channel!
At MSRP it is a joke chip. Almost the price of a 3900x for almost the performance of a 3700x.
The average cost of the 3900x is $400 also it uses 4 (3+3) chipsets providing more latency issues. The average cost of the 3800x is $320 and it uses 2 (4+4) chiplets for a smoother experience. The average cost of 3700x is $290. I agree there is similarities but the base and boost capabilities for someone who isn't going to overclock continuously is a win for $30 cost. If you cant afford that in a build then go to college and get a degree. In my opinion the 3900x is the joke chip. Lol. Might as well opt for the 3950x.
As a dev the difference in compile time is pretty significant between the 1070k and 1060k, but not as significant between the 1070k and the 1090k. Might still get the 1070k lol
@Machine Mechine As a dev I can also afford it lol. I also love mini iTX builds and the intel support is much better for those boards.
Isn't the R7 3700 the most "future proof" for gaming, since next-gen consoles have basically slightly underclocked 3700?
I hope so because I bought one last week lol
They're using the enhanced 7nm (aka 7nm+) node, the same one powering the upcoming Ryzen processors. So in actuality they have an underclocked 4700
The way I see it future proofing is a waste of money. If every upgrade cicle you spend more money to buy something beyond what you need you're locking money on excess, let's say you buy the 3600 and save ~$150, in the 2/4 years necessary for game development to catch up demand for 8c/16t there'll be a much better version of R7, or even 3900x for much cheaper. Getting as much as possible within what you need feels more optimal to me as it allows you to do incremental upgrades that'll fit your needs at any time.
@@nouryy It's using Zen 2 architecture, and since node doesn't affect IPC, it's more 3700
No. An 10700K will beat a 3700X in all gaming scenarios because of its superior cockspeed and latency. That will still be the case five years from now.
Thanks for this review, I got a 10700k for the wife's video editing (and potential mild gaming), still waiting on the board, but I feel like it's near 9900k performance will be good enough for her for a while.
Thanks for the great content, Steve! I think in my application the 3900X is looking like the best choice. Especially so when my local Micro Center has it for a price well below that of the 10700k.
I’m getting the 10700k since it is on sale for 200 dollars less now at MC!!!!! Not only that but it’s better than almost all mid tier Ryzen cpus
Covering so many use cases with the benchmarks it's crazy
I got at Ryzen 3700x last year and it's an awesome CPU. Handles everything I need like a boss.
Good choice imo :)
As somebody aiming to play games at 1080p lowest settings and achieve as close to 300 FPS as possible (240Hz display), is this CPU a good choice? In the UK the 10900k works out at around £120 more expensive for very marginal gains?
i think you'll like this part. most gamers at this moment won't use more than 6-7ish cores heavily (maybe 8-10 threads for a game, then the rest for background programs), and the 10900k might generate too much heat unnecessarily anyways
then i think 10600k is a better go.
@@hoangd4132
Agree
Orrrr just get a ryzen 3800x
i cant believe you guys recommend the 3600 still over the 3700x! the 3700x needs a deeper look from you guys. it can out run the 3900x in most games and hangs right with it in production.
for 290$ its best bang for $ imo. i may be lucky as well my 3700x OC's like a CHAMP 4.4-5 just tuning PBO, and at 1.35v not to mention it takes like HALF the power to run as the big boys it keeps up with.
Mostly because the 3600 is about $100 or more cheaper, which means that it's $100 that you can slide up a GPU tier, and the 3600 performs almost the same as the 3700X in just about all games. And that's a fairly good 3700X, since most are supposed to be 4.3-4.4 I thought.
Is it too late to pick up a 3900x? Should I wait for the near term 3900XT, or ultimately wait for the Ryzen 4000 series? I'm looking at price per value for some gaming but mostly workstation/server workload and computing.
The amount of subtle sarcasm in this video is hilarious. Fwiw I will scew test results to form my own warped "reviews" if I want to!!!!
SinglSrvngFrnd SsF
Of all the reviewers on RUclips i trust this one the most, besides the sarcasm. I'm almost sure Steve isn't getting paid by anyone where as some other channels i can't say the same.
Would the performance of the 9900k and the 10700k be equal if they both shared the same power limits and clock speed?
i have a i7-10700k with a 6800 XT and 16 gigs of 3200 mhz mem and it's a beast all in a meshify 2 xl
Excellent insight Mr Steve. Thank you
If one was to do a "light" overclock as you suggest, It'd still be a good idea to ensure voltage is manually set in case your motherboard plays loose with voltage spec when set to auto right?
Yep.
Thanks Steve, great as always.
Loving my Mouse Mat too :)
Price to performance?
AMD
10600k mostly
If you’re on an old platform an need a whole upgrade including a mew motherboard, and not in a hurry. Maybe wait for the release of zen 3? Rumors claim that it will surpass Intel in gaming.
But again, those are rumors so we shall see.
@@GreatUchiha123 I want to upgrade my 7600k 5ghz, and amd in gaming is quite disappointing, bad frametime and low avg fps, hope zen 3 can make a step with this, if not, I not gonna wait anymore, 10600k and move on
@@JomarsYT amd disappointing in games, wtf! You clearly don't own one, zen & zen+ were still quite a way behind Intel, zen 2 sure as hell isn't.
I have zero frame rate issues in any game I play on my 3900x, silky smooth gameplay on everything so how can that be disappointing!??
10400f will be even better when cheaper motherboards arrive.
this is my next processor. I have a i7-7700k now
I feel like this launch was in a rough spot, even if it's obvious to say lol.
#1: This product stack is pretty tight, Intel would have NEVER released products this close together in performance with such a price difference until AMD put some pressure on, that shows how Intel felt they really needed products to compete.
#2: They can't REALLY do the classic Intel thing, and rely on the people who already have the top end Intel CPUs to just replace them with the new one for around a 6% uplift, like they had for years. If you already have a 5GHz 9900k, there is practically no reason to have to buy a new mobo AND CPU here. Maybe when new Z490 CPUs come out.
#3: Which means they need to rely on basically taking back marketshare from AMD, and the only thing that comes close is the i5. Which you can damn near equal with a $130 3300x.
TL;DR: Yikers
El Prezzy Intel might be concerned, but worried about AMD....HA! I don't think so. Intel makes almost nothing on enthusiasts and Gamers. It's the company spin offs and server that make them money, and lots of it!
If you are so confident in AMD why would you need to write a novel that says nothing other than to discredit Intel?
Intel is majorily a semiconductor company rather than processors, so it's but hard to say that their company will be ruined by AMD. Though, you are not wrong that it surely is making them push a bit.
As said Intel usually gets more out of other areas, non-related to general consumer purchases
Which is kinda reason why Intel adopted IEEE's suggested nm specs. 10nm of Intel is thinner than 7nm of AMD. Matters to AMD maybe for marketting, not to Intel. Intel's engineering culture and their target just makes that fake nm tag useless. Fluid dynamics/gaming enthusiasts are ready to pay for that experimented, pushed to limit, still far from physics limit processor
@@cortexauth4094 10nm is not a great example even if it's the intel's equivalent to 7nm from TSMC. It doesn't perform as it should. However, you are correct that most of the intel's market share is on the server side. That may change however, slowly and it really depends on what happens from now on with each company on that segment because.. well server and DC markets don't just update hardware over and over again, it's estimated they update almost every 10 years. The important thing for DCs and Servers is matured technology, stability, and of course, security... the first two intel already has and the third one is kind of lacking with all the sec vulnerabilities out there. I'm sure if AMD keeps innovating like this they will at least bite a nice chunk of that segment for sure.
you can really feel steve's conviction in recommending the 3600 for those who need a significant performance with an affordable price.
and boys, that OC'ed i5 10600k at the top of the charts has a $300 ram kit in it. Not a exactly realistic scenario.
Robert Dunlop
What did the AMD systems have for memory?
@@wysetech2000 3200hz. The OC i5 10600k has the 4000hz $300 good stuff. So the ram costs more than the CPU.
While 4000 MHz Cl15 is an expensive kit, there are cheaper kits that overclock well too. I picked up some 3000 CL15 Crucial Micron E-Die kit and it has clocked to 3733 CL17 with just 50 mvolts of encouragement. I'm hoping to push higher with a little further effort.
@@joefowble And there are "cheap" DDR4 4000mhz kits. For example the Viper Steel 4000mhz ( B-Die ) at around 110 USD.
@@ItsMeLeo Buildzoid approved!!
Good goodness, seems u folks busted ur asses to provide this information. Thank u, for working this through for me and the other folks that’d get good information from this review.
I’m just curious as to why we never see the 8700k oced to 5.0ghz in the charts
Prob to much to put up. I know Steve likes to go in the middle so ppl with phones can see as well. Put the last 2 cpus along with the new one.
It's to much 4.8 is the go to overclock its completely stable there. I had mine at that level. Great cpu. Sold it for 290 English pounds
@@chadbrick67 4.8 is to go w/o delidd, 5ghz with it. Anyhow even 4.8 is 0.5 ghz above all core specs and would show a lot in those charts. I also would like to see what real intel progress is after 3 years, if any ;]
@@gacekbd well they've run the course on 14NM without question so will it be 10NM or 7NM next. They are so behind its unreal but they still sell shit tons of stuff so they actually are not bothered. It was nice to see AMD backtrack on the motherboard compatible thing. Very refreshing in my book
@@chadbrick67 There were very good reasons to backtrack b450/x470 zen3 comp. One is It happened literally 1 day before comets for marketing purpose. The second is if 90% of sold zen2 is with older MB and ppl who want upgrade would seriously consider intel option if you needed to change basically whole system with new MB. It would put zen3 sales at risk and potentially increasing intels.
Why are various AMD CPUs randomly left out of these graphs? Sometimes the 3700x and 3800X appear, sometimes not. Sometimes the 3950x appears, sometimes not.
I came here for info about the intel i7-10700k, not about some AMD bullshit
When I see the 9900k and 9700k performing better than the 10700k in some test, they only thing that comes to mind is that the fact that you have some cores disabled means there's higher latency in core to core communications for some of the cores. It also fits with the fact that the 10900k doesn't not perform under the 9900k, and that the 10600k can perform so well when increasing Ring frequency.
I wonder why can't you do ring multiplier with the 10700, 10850, and 10900? Seems like such a tremendous boost.
bought a 10700k for $270 and a 3070 for msrp.. worth the wait
very nice find
I have been AMD fan forever, but I just couldn't pass up one of these for $280 on CM. Did I make a mistake?
I did the same thing. At that price point, I felt like it was a no brainer.
That's a really good price. The prices have changed since this video and now it's kinda hard to justify anything else in the mid high end range when 10700ks are in stock, at or even below msrp.
No, the 10700k is brilliant
I just bought one for $349 at micro center.
same and happy with it, even though the salesman at microcenter kept trying to sell me amd
@Chad Reynolds doubt that, since I will be doing gaming mostly so I have no need for an amd system. 👍
@Chad Reynolds maybe so but it's not holding me back at the moment so i'm not really missing it. I'm sure my next build will. So it's no biggie...bottom line I got the loot if I want it I can. No rush here.. anything else?
@Chad Reynolds Duly noted
@Chad Reynolds its only a board and a chip bro thats easily replaceable, when I need to that can be swapped, for now i'm enjoying my games, appreciate the advice.
I do wonder 5 years from now, when you do a "looking back at 10600, 10700 and 10900 performance" recap video, if you will see a similiar trend to 6700k vs 6600k. (i5 vs i7) where the i7 ended up stomping the 6600k in time, but at the time of launch the 6600k was the recommended "Gamer cpu". It did not hold up over time (6600K)
Funny how the i5 6600k just became the 'Gamer CPU' I bought it just because thats how everyone put it. Now that im in the position to upgrade i really want to make sure i get the best cpu i can (within reason lol)
yeah i agree i got the 6600k because it was considered the gaming CPU at the time. 4 years later it didn't age well, it now struggles with most CPU intensive apps. looking into buying a 10700k or 10850k, but idk if i should wait or buy.
If you only care about gaming and you can afford a 10700k but not a 10900K then it is a good buy. That is the situation I was in that made me get a 9700K it beats AMD in gaming and the 9900K was too expensive.
ya... not realy, if u can´t afford a 10900k, then the 10600k is still the better choise and spend the extra money for better gpu, better or more ram or more ssd space...
@@georgwarhead2801 10700k is a better future investment
The Universe would fall apart without you. Don't get that which cannot be named and keep up the Great Work!