Best and Worst PC Hardware of 2020

[Scorpus]

Let's do a brief recap of 2020's best and worst PC hardware products. We have 5 categories to work through covering mostly PC hardware components like CPUs, GPUs and motherboards, as well as laptop hardware and monitors.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/article/2180-best-and-worst-hardware-2020/

 

[hahahanoobs]

Can't buy any of this stuff.

 

[nodfor]

<<and with AMD able to neutralize Intel’s lead in gaming, there's essentially no reason to buy a 10th-gen Intel processor after the launch of Ryzen 5000.>>

There is a big reason and it is price.
10700KF sells for 350 eur in my region
5800X sells for 514 eur (prices checked through an indexing service for shops)

Basically Intel parts are way cheaper per core. They are also much easier to find.

And you can save even more if you opt out from overclocking and go for non K, without actually noticing much of a difference in most gaming scenarios.The 10700f sells for 311 eur. And you can still kinda of overclock the 10700f through power draw adjustments on plenty of motherboards

 

[Manuel Diego]

<<and with AMD able to neutralize Intel’s lead in gaming, there's essentially no reason to buy a 10th-gen Intel processor after the launch of Ryzen 5000.>>

There is a big reason and it is price.
10700KF sells for 350 eur in my region
5800X sells for 514 eur (prices checked through an indexing service for shops)

Basically Intel parts are way cheaper per core. They are also much easier to find.

And you can save even more if you opt out from overclocking and go for non K, without actually noticing much of a difference in most gaming scenarios.The 10700f sells for 311 eur. And you can still kinda of overclock the 10700f through power draw adjustments on plenty of motherboards

Intel might be cheaper per core (what a strange thing to say, I might add, how tables have turned!), but the 10700K rather compares in performance terms to the 5600X. And there, price advantage, although slim, is for the 5600X. Seems like the old bulldozer days' AMD mantra when they had the worst architecture: yeah, but I'm cheaper per core (if you don't care about performance...)

 

[Irata]

<<and with AMD able to neutralize Intel’s lead in gaming, there's essentially no reason to buy a 10th-gen Intel processor after the launch of Ryzen 5000.>>

There is a big reason and it is price.
10700KF sells for 350 eur in my region
5800X sells for 514 eur (prices checked through an indexing service for shops)

Basically Intel parts are way cheaper per core. They are also much easier to find.

And you can save even more if you opt out from overclocking and go for non K, without actually noticing much of a difference in most gaming scenarios.The 10700f sells for 311 eur. And you can still kinda of overclock the 10700f through power draw adjustments on plenty of motherboards

Can get the 10700KF for € 344.81 (tray) and the 5800x for €469 (boxed) in my country.

Yes, the 10700KF is cheaper, but it‘s also less good in every respect (IO, ST and MT performance, power consumption), so you do get what you pay for.

But if you want cheaper, you can always go for the 3700X that costs €305 (boxed) and even comes with a useable HSF and works just fine on cheaper B450 boards. So combined that‘s pretty much the same amount saved as going for a 10700KF over a 5800X.

Not saying the 10700k(f) is a bad buy.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Can get the 10700KF for € 344.81 (tray) and the 5800x for €469 (boxed) in my country.

Yes, the 10700KF is cheaper, but it‘s also less good in every respect (IO, ST and MT performance, power consumption), so you do get what you pay for.

But if you want cheaper, you can always go for the 3700X that costs €305 (boxed) and even comes with a useable HSF and works just fine on cheaper B450 boards. So combined that‘s pretty much the same amount saved as going for a 10700KF over a 5800X.

Not saying the 10700k(f) is a bad buy.

The 3700x May be cheaper, but I’d you are building a computer with gaming as the biggest intensive task the 10700k is Better then the 3700x. The 5000 series equals the 10 series in games, but is simply a non option for these crazy prices

 

[kimo1]

Oh no ASRock, why have you become corrupted? Now you're worse than MSI!

 

[Irata]

The 3700x May be cheaper, but I’d you are building a computer with gaming as the biggest intensive task the 10700k is Better then the 3700x. The 5000 series equals the 10 series in games, but is simply a non option for these crazy prices

So, 10700k is better *in gaming* than the 3700x, so it is more expensive, but that‘s OK.
The 5800x is better than the 10700k in everything - why is it more expensive, that‘s not worth it...

Yes, makes sense. And this is not taking platform costs into consideration, since both the 3700x and 5800x will run just as fast on cheap boards as they will on expensive boards.

10700k - if you want the benchmark performance with higher memory speeds and on constant PL2, you will need to pick up a premium Z490 board.

If you want to see performance at advertised PL1, PL2 and boost behavior like you would get on more reasonably priced boards, do check out Gamers Nexus reviews. In this case, even the 5600x beats the 10900k in many games.

 

[Shadowboxer]

In my opinion the XT series was released so that AMDs 5xxx series heinous price increase wouldn’t look as bad. The 3600XT was only £50 less than a 5600X at £250 however throughout the summer the 3600 was readily available for £150 so the 3600XT helps to hide the fact that AMD have nearly doubled their pricing on their new CPUs.

I don’t exactly blame Asrock for blacklisting Techspot. They can’t exactly recall or change their products at this point so it makes sense that they would do their best to stop bad reviews going out. It’s a **** move but I can totally understand why they would do it. But it’s important that Techspot and other tech press still cover the product and they have so as to let potential buyers know of their failures, let’s hope Asrock will learn. No reviewer is entitled to free or early samples and actually with everything that has come to light this year I trust reviewers who have no affiliation more those who get free or early samples.

Also surely the best budget CPU pick has to be the i5 10400F or the i7 10700K. A friend of mine purchased a 10400F and a half decent B460 board for about £220 in the summer and it’s rather impressive for the money save for the fact that everything, even memory overclocking is locked down. Also the 10700K has been frequently coming in cheaper than the 3700X, which is a great buy and makes the 5800X (my purchase) look really rather overpriced.

 

[Nobina]

Intels laptop CPU names look like a randomly generated password.

 

[Tyrchlis]

The article claims it won't name the best GPU, and then goes on to do exactly that, LMAO!!!!

"Those that just want the best should go for the RTX 3090, leaving the 6900 XT without a home."

So then, by direct implication, RTX 3090 is the best. Well, no surprise there.

 

[Bob2525]

<<and with AMD able to neutralize Intel’s lead in gaming, there's essentially no reason to buy a 10th-gen Intel processor after the launch of Ryzen 5000.>>

There is a big reason and it is price.
10700KF sells for 350 eur in my region
5800X sells for 514 eur (prices checked through an indexing service for shops)

Basically Intel parts are way cheaper per core. They are also much easier to find.

And you can save even more if you opt out from overclocking and go for non K, without actually noticing much of a difference in most gaming scenarios.The 10700f sells for 311 eur. And you can still kinda of overclock the 10700f through power draw adjustments on plenty of motherboards

I'm tired of hearing about how great Ryzen 5000 parts are; for the vast majority of us they don't even exist. The "more stock coming" promises of AMD haven't happened. At least Intel can produce parts.

 

[Todd Sauve]

The 3700x May be cheaper, but I’d you are building a computer with gaming as the biggest intensive task the 10700k is Better then the 3700x. The 5000 series equals the 10 series in games, but is simply a non option for these crazy prices

I doubt if you or anyone else could tell the difference when gaming or doing productivity tasks. The 3700X is an absolutely excellent CPU!

 

[Revrant]

I'm not sure why any human being would buy a b550 over x570? Hard pass, inferior audio, less features, basically the same price, like what a paperweight.

The 3090, again what? Why would I pay 500 more to use ugly DLSS 2.0 and an inferior encoder? You're talking nonsense, that RAM is the only reason to go for it as future proofing, terrible and irrational worst card choice. The 3090 is a hair faster than the 3080 and dramatically more expensive, as expensive as a used car. No, just to dismiss this preemptively, withholding features from the 3080 is not an argument for the 3090 either.

The 6900 XT is rather overpriced and completely unavailable, but it's a real joke to put it over something as arrogant as the 3090.

 

[jelabarre59]

Can't buy any of this stuff.

Certainly don't have the money for them. Then again, I haven't built a system from (nearly) all-new parts since 2004.

 

[Squid Surprise]

The article claims it won't name the best GPU, and then goes on to do exactly that, LMAO!!!!

"Those that just want the best should go for the RTX 3090, leaving the 6900 XT without a home."

So then, by direct implication, RTX 3090 is the best. Well, no surprise there.

Best performance.... not the best buy ... that would be the 3080, 3070 or the 6800...

 

[Bulllee]

I do enjoy reading the "best of" articles on Techspot.
Todays had a classic in the GPU section which deserves a re-quote.
"Best:None you can buy."

 

[AudoBell]

GPU
"Best: None you could buy"

Lol, nice

 

[nnguy2]

Wait how is 6900 XT the worst buy when 3090 cost 50% more for marginally few % faster?!?!

 

[Lew Zealand]

Wait how is 6900 XT the worst buy when 3090 cost 50% more for marginally few % faster?!?!

Didn't read the article did ya? But still had the time to post a question.

For people with money to burn and who simply want the best product… well the RX 6900 XT isn’t that either. Gaming at 4K, the 6900 XT is slower than the RTX 3090 on average, and roughly even at 1440p. In addition, the RTX 3090 enjoys a larger VRAM buffer (24GB vs 16GB), better ray tracing performance, and a more feature rich platform with access to stuff like DLSS and Nvidia’s NVENC encoder. Those that just want the best should go for the RTX 3090, leaving the 6900 XT without a home.

 

[nnguy2]

Didn't read the article did ya? But still had the time to post a question.

And in the previous section he shitted on the Ryzen 3xxx XT for giving a few % more performance for $50 more... But ignores thay 3090 giving a few % more performance for 50% cost

 

[Lew Zealand]

He acknowledged that there was at least something you get from a 3090: knowledge that you have the actual best GPU available (also with RT and DLSS), if only by a bit and at a ridiculous price. There are a lot of people out there for whom $1500 is a small price to pay for The Best.

The XT CPUs were never the best at anything as Intel could out game them by a few % and the 3950X was still faster at multicore than all of them.

The 3090's niche is a very small one but it does exist, if mostly as a vanity item.

 

[nnguy2]

He acknowledged that there was at least something you get from a 3090: knowledge that you have the actual best GPU available (also with RT and DLSS), if only by a bit and at a ridiculous price. There are a lot of people out there for whom $1500 is a small price to pay for The Best.

The XT CPUs were never the best at anything as Intel could out game them by a few % and the 3950X was still faster at multicore than all of them.

The 3090's niche is a very small one but it does exist, if mostly as a vanity item.

If a gamer wants the best rasterization performance (all games does rasterization) at 1440p without the fluff that is RT and/or DLSS (lowering your resolution) then the 6900XT is hands down a better performer. The market for the 6900xt is much bigger than 3090 (almost 5x, according to steam). Right now the support for RT and DLSS is not there. 6900XT consumes less power (always a knock against AMD cards) has better cost per frame at a 3:2 ratio than 3090.

6900XT review

1440p performance summary:
" The 1440p gains are ever so slightly improved. The 6900 XT is on average 8% faster than the 6800 XT and just 2% faster than the 3090. "

Power Consumption:
"Using Nvidia’s PCAT we also see that the 6900 XT uses slightly more power than the 6800 XT -- about a 1% increase in power usage -- which may be down to the 6900 XT using higher quality silicon. When compared to the RTX 3090, the 6900 XT consumed 14% less power "

Cost Per frame:
"Things don’t improve much for the 6900 XT at 1440p, where it’s 43% more costly per frame when compared to the 6800 XT, despite being 35% better value per frame than the RTX 3090. "



Steam Survey (not 100% representative but largest sample we have)
2560 x 1440 9.69%

3840 x 2160 2.09%

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Definitely the 3090 FTW3.

Nvidia screwed up with the 3080. Not enough VRAM.

Nvidia screwed up with the 3070. Not enough VRAM.

Obviously these were soft launches which were snapped up by coin miners and scalpers and the next set of revisions will offer more VRAM.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Zen XT pricing is a joke, I'm seeing well over $100 more expensive than regular X CPU's in Australia, with 3600XT easily seen for well over $400. Talk about smoking crack.

As someone else said can hardly buy any of this stuff either due to rip-off pricing or zero stock, so I give a worst product to nearly main every PC component.