Intel 10th-gen Core CPUs get big price cuts: would you pick more cores or better single...

Adi6293

Posts: 797   +1,062
I feel the Ryzen 7 5800X is an outlier here. This chip probably runs the hottest in the entire Ryzen 5000 series because its utilizing a CCX with a tiny surface area to cool, compared with the monolithic design used by the Intel chip. A better comparison should be the 5900X in my opinion.

Well I paid £419 for the Ryzen CPU and £409 for the i9 so comparing it to the £550 Ryzen 9 is not exactly fair

I don't disagree that AMD chips are on the pricier side now, but I feel people should not consider the prices of CPU in silo. In order to overclock say an Intel i9 10850K, you will need to invest in an expensive Z490/590 board, whereas you can make do with a less expensive B550 board for AMD chips. So whatever savings you get from buying the Intel processor, its basically negated by the cost of the motherboard.

Hmm £150 Z490 board is already good enough for a 5.0Ghz overclock so in total Intel might still be cheaper
 

ScottSoapbox

Posts: 76   +99
The problem with Intel (besides heat) is the new motherboard every chip. I already have a 5900x ready mobo once I can get one to replace my 3900x.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,437   +2,318
10850k is 320 bucks. that is a steal tbh
amd cpus are overpriced right now, basically the tables have turned, which everyone said it wouldn't happen, but it did.

Not sure if Intel likes being the bargain brand that you pick because it‘s cheaper and in return accept less good metrics. That‘s not where a premium company wants to be.

That said, those are EOL prices and if Intel were the way I‘d go, I would definitely pick a reduced CML CPU over RKL.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 200   +178
Well I paid £419 for the Ryzen CPU and £409 for the i9 so comparing it to the £550 Ryzen 9 is not exactly fair



Hmm £150 Z490 board is already good enough for a 5.0Ghz overclock so in total Intel might still be cheaper
Performance aside, I think we are comparing power consumption vs heat output here. So trying to factor price in this comparison is somewhat off topic to me. Is £409 the MSRP of the Intel i9 10850K? I don't stay in UK, so I really don't know what is the MSRP there, so its not a trick question.

As for motherboard, I am not sure which board you are using. I believe you are also aware that not all Z490 boards are build the same even though they all offer you the option to overclock.
 

Tantor

Posts: 130   +168
Temperature does not equal power draw. Ryzen 7 5800X has a smaller die area so its harder to cool it even though it has a smaller power draw and with PBO the voltage can go as high as 1.5v to boost to 4850Mhz, I was getting on average 10C higher temperature on the R7 vs the overclocked i9 and in some games it would be 16C. This 14nm i9 is a pretty large chip and it doesn't need crazy high voltage to OC to 5.0Ghz so its actually way easier to cool and while gaming I haven't seen higher power draw than 150 watts

Good going. There are some advantages to 14nm, sometimes bigger is better.

Did you try undervolting your 5800x using the voltage curve offset? I did so and gained about 4% performance and a cooler processor.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,446   +3,596
In the $300 range the i9 is a steal. Much like how ryzen 3000 earned accolades for being good enough for gaming, and often being cheaper, the same now applies to intel. 99% of users wont see the difference between intel and AMD in games, and with AMD jacking up prices and limited availability a cheap intel chip sounds great.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,256   +1,385
TechSpot Elite
I've always been one to choose more cores over single-core performance. You can always overclock to increase single-core performance but you can't increase the number of cores in a CPU. I guess that I should quantify that because it's actually the number threads that are most important to me but I would take 8 physical cores over 4 physical cores with SMT which, in turn, I would take over 6 physical cores without SMT.

As software improves to use more and more threads over time, a CPU with more cores will give you that "fine wine" style of aging like the FX-8350 did. My old FX was actually a better CPU when I retired it than it was when I bought it because more programs were able to make proper use of its architecture. I knew that for $170CAD, it was an absolute bargain and was perfectly usable for everything I threw at it for five years, without overclocking it.

Hell, for non-gamers, the FX-8350 would still be more than fine today. It really was a fantastic purchase back in 2012.
 

Adi6293

Posts: 797   +1,062
I've always been one to choose more cores over single-core performance. You can always overclock to increase single-core performance but you can't increase the number of cores in a CPU. I guess that I should quantify that because it's actually the number threads that are most important to me but I would take 8 physical cores over 4 physical cores with SMT which, in turn, I would take over 6 physical cores without SMT.

As software improves to use more and more threads over time, a CPU with more cores will give you that "fine wine" style of aging like the FX-8350 did. My old FX was actually a better CPU when I retired it than it was when I bought it because more programs were able to make proper use of its architecture. I knew that for $170CAD, it was an absolute bargain and was perfectly usable for everything I threw at it for five years, without overclocking it.

Hell, for non-gamers, the FX-8350 would still be more than fine today. It really was a fantastic purchase back in 2012.

I shop like this as well and I also got the FX8350 over the i5, actually I had the 8320, 8350 and 9590 :joy:
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,256   +1,385
TechSpot Elite
I shop like this as well and I also got the FX8350 over the i5, actually I had the 8320, 8350 and 9590 :joy:
Yeah, and they were actually really good CPUs. I don't understand the hate that they got. Sure, they didn't perform as well in gaming as the i5-3570K but they were way less expensive. For me, it was the difference between "good" and "good enough":

On the day I bought my FX-8350, these were the prices at Tiger Direct:
i5-3570K in 2012: ~$350CAD
FX-8350 in 2012: ~$180CAD

Performance-wise, it's clear that the FX-8350 was a better deal just based on the price alone. The reason I only paid $170CAD was because Tiger Direct screwed up (it was the same one I had worked at years earlier). It was supposed to be $180 but they gave me the American price by mistake. I had already paid $200 for a motherboard and 16GB of DDR3 so I ended up with a complete platform for only $20 more than the i5.

Truth be told, I actually went in looking for an FX-6300 because those were on for $150 (also an incredible bargain) but I couldn't say no to two more cores at 4GHz for $30 and I ended up getting them for $20. And of course it came with a Wraith cooler.

How ANYONE could think that the i5-3570K was a better buy is completely beyond me. There's just no comparison in this case.
 
Last edited: