Intel Core i9-10900K Review: Can It Beat Ryzen 9?

Arbie

Posts: 55   +56
The *only* reason to buy this chip is for its performance at the limits I.e. you care only about those last few FPS.

To run it at the limits will dissipate absurd power and tax even top-end water cooling.

So the rational market will be limited to pro gamers and day traders. Which is probably the number of chips Intel can produce.

Anyone else gloating over Intel's "supremacy" is living in some alternate universe and - if they do buy this thing - will regret it.

And yes the title is clickbait - again.
 
Last edited:

Evernessince

Posts: 5,081   +5,316
From what I've seen of the 10900K - the only processor I'd be building a computer with now, it wins in gaming - something I actually do...but loses in "benchmarks" something I absolutely don't.
Well it wins in gaming benchmarks, as show above. You don't do benchmarks though eh? Or perhaps you cherry pick the benchmarks you like?


In case you didn't know, making a fixed and repeatable test of a game, like every professional reviewer does, is in fact a benchmark, as demonstrated by this HardwareUnboxed video.

In addition, many of the application benchmarks provided in this 10900K review were regular applications like Adobe, 7-Zip, DaVinci Resolve, blender, ect. Not to mention, applications like Cinebench R20 are as accurate as any gaming benchmark, the results translate directly to Maxon's own Cinema4D software used by professionals. In effect, both a game benchmark and Cinbench are taking a repeatable section of work that represent a broader set to give us an idea of performance while eliminating variables. Name one application tested above where the performance shown is not representative of the performance you will see in use.


7-15 FPS @ 1440p in certain titles is a massive difference, especially if your LCD is locked in at 120/144hz.
The data is inarguable.
And more importantly those resolutions, 1440p and higher have the GPU doing the work, covering Ryzens shortcomings.
I think Ryzen is right there, but 15-30FPS is getting spanked, and 7-15 FPS is getting beat, pretty decisively.
The review above clearly shows a 6 FPS difference at 1440p between the 10900K and the 3900X over a 7 game average and a 5 FPS 1% low difference. The frame range advantage you gave above is nothing more then cherry picking, on average you will not see 7-15 more FPS, you'll see less then even the minimum of 7 you quoted according to TechSpot's own numbers.

In addition, whether or not a certain FPS advantage is a spanking or a beating is going to depend entirely on that advantage's proportion to the total number of frames. If I'm getting 538 FPS on CSGO on one processor and 510 on another, that is neither a spanking nor a beating.

And really, there's nothing more to argue about this processor when it comes it gaming performance. It provides nothing over the 9900K / 8700K, 2 frames at best and well within margin of error. Might as well put a post it note "see amstech 9900K/8700K posts", we all know it's the exact same.
 
Last edited:

pcnthuziast

Posts: 806   +410
Had the 9900k been a higher tier i7 instead of an i9, there would be zero utility of a '10th gen'. Intel managed to squeeze a couple more cores in a ravenously hungry desktop chip and had to arbitrarily create a gen around it for a full product launch. The 10700 is just a weaker and cheaper 9900k, the 10600 is just a weaker 9600 with hyper threading and everything lower are skus that could have and should have existed within previous generations product tiers, but shady intel routinely arbitrarily locks or limits parts to create a deeper product stack or stretch a single gen or iteration over multiple launches.
 

krizby

Posts: 372   +250
TechSpot Elite
GamersNexus just showed that a 8700K @ 5.1Ghz (or 10600K, same thing) with seriously good RAM can take over a 10900K @ 5.2ghz any day.


Rather than buying the 10900K + Mainboard just spend that money on RAM or custom liquid cooling and wait for at least Intel 12th gen for any noticeable performance improvements :D

The kit used by GamersNexus cost 280usd, though I have a suspicion that a 4x8GB 3600mhz cas 14 would have performed better due to the quad ranks advantage.
 
Last edited:

meric

Posts: 249   +187
Too little, too late. Also irrelevant BUT fanboys will still pay the premium. This "generation" of intel CPUs doesn't bring anything new. Same old architecture and process, little pimped. High platform costs, higher heat, higher power consumption, expensive.

"10900k is Better in gaming" argument is nonsense because spending this much for the CPU in a gaming PC is not right. Could get a 9700k/3700x/9600k/3600 for much cheaper and spend rest of the budget for better GPU and other components. Now, that's a gaming PC done right, for the same amount of money or even less.

"Budget is not an issue" is not a valid argument because: 1- it almost always is; 2-even if it is, it is only valid for <0,5% of the consumers, for the rest of us: resources are limited (more or less). There's a reason why Ryzen 3600 is the best selling CPU in Amazon.
 

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,801
Too little, too late. Also irrelevant BUT fanboys will still pay the premium. This "generation" of intel CPUs doesn't bring anything new. Same old architecture and process,
There is nothing fanboyish about buying the best gaming CPU.

"10900k is Better in gaming" argument is nonsense because spending this much for the CPU in a gaming PC is not right.
Unless you want max performance gaming.

Could get a 9700k/3700x/9600k/3600 for much cheaper and spend rest of the budget for better GPU and other components. Now, that's a gaming PC done right, for the same amount of money or even less.
Thats fine if you want value.
If you want the best gaming experience there is to offer, and have something that gets 12-20FPS more then the competition, your getting Intel.
 

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,801
g, on average you will not see 7-15 more FPS,
But in many games you will.
You AMD guys say 'here come the Intel fanboys to say Intel is better', then get defensive over every little detail.
All I see if Intel owning the top 5-10 spots, and AMD owning the bottom 5-10 spots in all of those gaming benchmarks. It's ALL INTEL.
Thats fine if its 4 FPS difference, or 14 FPS difference.
Doesn't matter, Intel is the better chip to get for someone wanting to build a gaming rig, even if they want value, the 9700K is faster then AMD's best offering and cost much less. The 8700K is still better then anything AMD has and its going on 4 years old.
So yeah, same old architecture, same old results for gaming, Intel at the top, AMD at the bottom, and AMD fans defending with a shield and sword, because god for bid, Ryzen is just soo great, how can it still be losing to architecture that released 10 years go?
Don't like it? Well, no offense, but tough sh!t.

And lastly, and most importantly if you take away price, whether it favors AMD or Intel, and you compare direct and comparative core counts, for example the 6 core 12 thread 8700K against the 6 core 12 thread 3600, or the 8 core 16 thread 9900K against the 8 core 16 thread 3800X in gaming, they get whooped 10-25 FPS across the board.
 
Last edited:

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,828   +1,056
But in many games you will.
You AMD guys say 'here come the Intel fanboys to say Intel is better', then get defensive over every little detail.
All I see if Intel owning the top 5-10 spots, and AMD owning the bottom 5-10 spots in all of those gaming benchmarks. It's ALL INTEL.
Thats fine if its 4 FPS difference, or 14 FPS difference.
Doesn't matter, Intel is the better chip to get for someone wanting to build a gaming rig, even if they want value, the 9700K is faster then AMD's best offering and cost much less. The 8700K is still better then anything AMD has and its going on 4 years old.
So yeah, same old architecture, same old results for gaming, Intel at the top, AMD at the bottom, and AMD fans defending with a shield and sword, because god for bid, Ryzen is just soo great, how can it still be losing to architecture that released 10 years go?
Don't like it? Well, no offense, but tough sh!t.

And lastly, and most importantly if you take away price, whether it favors AMD or Intel, and you compare direct and comparative core counts, for example the 6 core 12 thread 8700K against the 6 core 12 thread 3600, or the 8 core 16 thread 9900K against the 8 core 16 thread 3800X in gaming, they get whooped 10-25 FPS across the board.
You are a broken record and its getting boring, as soon your points are challenged you have nothing to back your claims.

I'm still waiting for you to provide the data????
 

jpuroila

Posts: 190   +99
Not coming with a cooler and the high TDP really hurt the K-SKUs when it comes to value proposition(especially considering that to match benchmarks, you have to spend at least $100 on a cooler). I'd be interested in seeing how the 10400 and 10700 (and maybe the i3s)compare when it comes to price/performance
 

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,801
You are a broken record
And you are unwilling to accept what your seeing because it doesn't comply with your bias.
No where did I say Ryzen isn't great, or a good choice for a gaming build, it absolutely is.
But Intel is better, and when you compare them core for core and thread for thread, in gaming, significantly better.
It's not a knock on Ryzen, those are the results.
The 7% overall difference is taking into account AMD's best performing options.
No one is buying a 3900X to game, its a waste of money.
The 8700K rick rolls the 3600, the 9900K rick rolls the 3800X, and the 9700 bests AMD's fastest offering for much less when talking gaming. Take any one of those three examples and try to argue against it. You cannot, because your opinion won't change the truth.
 
Last edited:

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,828   +1,056
And you are unwilling to accept what your seeing because it doesn't comply with your bias.
No where did I say Ryzen isn't great, or a good choice for a gaming build, it absolutely is.
But Intel is better, and when you compare them core for core and thread for thread, in gaming, significantly better.
It's not a knock on Ryzen, those are the results.
The 8700K rick rolls the 3600, the 9900K rick rolls the 3800X, and the 9700 bests AMD's fastest offering for much less when talking gaming. Take any one of those three examples and try to argue against it. You cannot, because your opinion won't change the truth.
Please provide the data and not your opinion?

I need numbers friend!

The only bias is coming from you. No one is arguing intel leads in gaming. My point is the leads in fps mean nothing when both cpus are providing tipple digits frames. So in a nut shell playable vs non playable performance. And that is where your argument falls apart. You are too blinded by your Brand Loyalty to team blue to admit it.

You make it blatantly obvious with how you construct your points and word choice.

"But Intel is better, and when you compare them core for core and thread for thread, in gaming, significantly better."

"The 8700K rick rolls the 3600, the 9900K rick rolls the 3800X"

"Also, some of Intel's basic i7's and older i7's are roasting by Ryzen for gaming."


If you are going to go this hard for team blue surely you can provide the data to back it.
 
Last edited:

amstech

Posts: 2,643   +1,801
Please provide the data and not your opinion?
I need numbers friend!
Gladly!
https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/

Battlefield 5: 8700K faster by 11FPS/18FPS
8700K:114/167
3600: 103/149

Tomb Raider: 8700K faster by 10FPS/19FPS
8700K: 78/114
3600: 68/95

Far Cry: 8700K faster by 10FPS/7/FPS
8700K: 84/110
3600: 74/103

World War Z: 8700K faster by 34FPS/25FPS
8700K: 169/201
3600: 135/176

Rage 2: 8700K faster by 4FPS/8FPS
8700K: 122/168
3600: 118/160

Hitman 2: 8700K faster by 12 FPS/13FPS
8700K: 94/118
3600: 82/105

Most importantly, this is before the 8700K is overclocked, it will easily hit 5.1 - 5.2GHz on air, and 400-500Mhz gains another 3-7 FPS across the board. So that means any game the 3600 got within a few FPS or matched, its now behind, or farther behind. These results are almost identical when you compare the 9900K to the 3800K, its about 7-20FPS across the board, and still 5-10 FPS faster across the board at 1440p.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,828   +1,056
Gladly!
https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/

Battlefield 5: 8700K faster by 11FPS/18FPS
8700K:114/167
3600: 103/149

Tomb Raider: 8700K faster by 10FPS/19FPS
8700K: 78/114
3600: 68/95

Far Cry: 8700K faster by 10FPS/7/FPS
8700K: 84/110
3600: 74/103

World War Z: 8700K faster by 34FPS/25FPS
8700K: 169/201
3600: 135/176

Rage 2: 8700K faster by 4FPS/8FPS
8700K: 122/168
3600: 118/160

Hitman 2: 8700K faster by 12 FPS/13FPS
8700K: 94/118
3600: 82/105

Most importantly, this is before the 8700K is overclocked, it will easily hit 5.1 - 5.2GHz on air, and 400-500Mhz gains another 3-7 FPS across the board. So that means any game the 3600 got within a few FPS or matched, its now behind, or farther behind. These results are almost identical when you compare the 9900K to the 3800K, its about 7-20FPS across the board, and still 5-10 FPS faster across the board at 1440p.
I don't see anything there that shows a noticeable difference while gaming that is going to equal significantly better ,rick rolls or roasting. And using both machine side by side with a fps counter off with provide the same gaming experience.

Is that it?
 

candle_86

Posts: 305   +220
Ohh cmon now, don't be so upset.
Ryzen is still the chip to get....if your not gaming. :D
You mean the chip to get if you do anything else ever other than gaming. Intel is a joke, the Intel fanboys made the same arguments in 2000, Intel dominates Quake 3 so AMD sucks to justify why they bought a Pentium 4. While the rest of us went hmm 200fps vs 210fps doesn't really matter.
 

meric

Posts: 249   +187
There is nothing fanboyish about buying the best gaming CPU.


Unless you want max performance gaming.


Thats fine if you want value.
If you want the best gaming experience there is to offer, and have something that gets 12-20FPS more then the competition, your getting Intel.
I'm sorry but you proved that you are an intel fanboy. Because for these 10k series you need a new motherboard, an expensive one with beefy VRMs to handle this much stress. Need for a good cooling is already mentioned. Whereas for (lets say) AMD 3900 these don't apply, can be used on a B450. Thus, if you still insist on choosing these over more "logical" choices, it would be a behaviour that's hard to explain. Also whoever spends this much for a system won't play at 1080p low-med settings, that would be insane. Would you spend so much for a 2080 Ti and play at 1080p low-mid?
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 2,871   +2,600
Workstation dominant CPU vs. a GAMING dominant CPU

It's like comparing a Lamborghini URUS to a Lamborghini Aventador.

The Urus is more practical, cheaper and performs well at fun.
The Aventador performs better at fun, but is way more expensive.
 
I dont care about what everyone says. seeing how the 3900x that I built for my gf performance for photoshop is a big no no. intel still wins at photoshop ive been rocking 3770k for almost 8 years clocked at 4.7 without any issue. this will last me a good 5 years if not more. ill be only upgrading my gpu... ps. you dont need 350 dollars liquid cooler to run this. and even if I go amd route ill still buy a triple 360 liquid cooler regardless
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 1,828   +1,056
I dont care about what everyone says. seeing how the 3900x that I built for my gf performance for photoshop is a big no no. intel still wins at photoshop ive been rocking 3770k for almost 8 years clocked at 4.7 without any issue. this will last me a good 5 years if not more. ill be only upgrading my gpu... ps. you dont need 350 dollars liquid cooler to run this. and even if I go amd route ill still buy a triple 360 liquid cooler regardless
All of AMD's Zen 2 cpus come with a cooler except for the 3950.

Getting a 360 AIO is a bonus not a requirement for those chips.
 
All of AMD's Zen 2 cpus come with a cooler except for the 3950.

Getting a 360 AIO is a bonus not a requirement for those chips.
well actually. its a must if I am being honest with you. its better to go that route. your cpu stays cooled. my gf 3900x is about 70c with the included cooler.
 

Reehahs

Posts: 886   +564
MCE should stand for "Meat Cooking Enabled", people can get rid of their George Foreman grills.
 

Ludak021

Posts: 184   +137
There is JayZ's 2cents video up, showing this CPU reaching 80+ C temps only when operating incorrectly, his did ~63C @5.2GHz with NZXT dual fan radiator, looping Cinebench 20...watter temps were ~26C. It reached 90ish C with MCE and everything left at auto, because CPU was running at
>1.5V, when he lowered it to 1.36V it was ~63C, same clocks.
It's not really a hot chip, unless you REALLY want it to be a hot chip to look that bad.
In fact, it's cooler than 9900K* by ~10C easy
 
Last edited:

Strawman

Posts: 278   +175
In addition, many of the application benchmarks provided in this 10900K review were regular applications like Adobe, 7-Zip, DaVinci Resolve, blender, ect. Not to mention, applications like Cinebench R20 are as accurate as any gaming benchmark, the results translate directly to Maxon's own Cinema4D software used by professionals. In effect, both a game benchmark and Cinbench are taking a repeatable section of work that represent a broader set to give us an idea of performance while eliminating variables. Name one application tested above where the performance shown is not representative of the performance you will see in use.
You know what the problem is with these applications? People that actually use them, and actually need the 32 threads of the 3950x, don't really care that much about gaming performance. Sure the 3950x is a very good gaming CPU, but for these people, even if they game, it doesn't really matter that much. Even if it was a mediocre gaming chip they would still buy it, cause they NEED it for their work.

For everyone else, the 10c of the 9900k is way more than plenty. I mean come on, we are talking about rendering etc. Does it matter if a project run overnight will take 1 hour more? No, not really. I prefer the LIVE measurable performance in gaming, cause gaming doesnt run overnight, I see the results right in front of me. And again, 10/20 threads is not a slouch in productivity. It's actually extremely fast. So for everyone that doesn't NEED the higher core count, the 10900k is the better option performance wise. Most applications that the average joe uses probably run better on the 10900k. The only (major) downside is the power consumption, and everything that comes along with it (expensive cooling and mobo).

You need to realize that more cores don't make a processor faster. If your applications don't use those cores, and if the applications that do don't have a deadline (ie. you need to finish the project at 8 in the morning), I don't see the point of a 3950x over a 10900k other than the power consumption difference.For my use case, and I would argue for 90% of consumers out there, the 10900k is faster than 3950x, even if it is for a couple of percentage points. So if you don't care about the consumption, there you go. If you do, then yeah, ryzen is the obvious choice
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,081   +5,316
You need to realize that more cores don't make a processor faster.
This argument works as well against the 10900K and 9900K as it does the 3950X ironically.

If your applications don't use those cores
You do realize that the Ryzen processors win in many lightly threaded applications like the adobe suite correct? You must be living under a rock, it's been this way since the 3000 series launched. It's also in this review, which you seemingly ignored to spout your opinion here.

If your applications don't use those cores, and if the applications that do don't have a deadline
/faceplam

Yes, we all know professionals don't like saving time.

You are hard trolling. Pretty clear at this point.

I don't see the point of a 3950x over a 10900k other than the power consumption difference.For my use case, and I would argue for 90% of consumers out there, the 10900k is faster than 3950x
Yes, because we all know 90% of people buying a PC need $500 processors :joy:

Aside from you ignoring the fact that a majority of CPU sales are going to be lower on Intel/AMD's product portfolios, you also seem to ignore the fact that you can get a faster, higher core count AMD CPU that's much cheaper and consumes less power, supports PCIe 4.0 and isn't a dead platform. I digress through, I'm sure you have your arbitrary standard of what constitutes performance.