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

Strawman

Posts: 280   +176
This argument works as well against the 10900K and 9900K as it does the 3950X ironically.
Sure, but 8c/16t isn't way over the limit of diminishing returns for the average Joe like 16c/32t is.


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.
In this review? Really? The 10900k was even winning against the 3950x in after effects and photoshop and was really close to the 3900x in corona and premiere.

/faceplam

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

You are hard trolling. Pretty clear at this point.
I wasn't talking about professionals though. A professional that's going to save time by using a higher core CPU is not going to bother with the gaming benchmarks in the first place. Even if he games, it's not going to be something he cares about



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.
But that's the point, most people do not need a CPU with more cores.How is z490 a dead platform? Its going to support as many CPU upgrades as the x570 . But nice try.

I just ordered a 10900k. You know why? Cause even as a "heavy" user, there is nothing that the Ryzens are faster at what I want them to be faster. Even for my professional work I run a couple of databases with 3 clients, and sure as hell I don't need 32 threads for that. And ofc it's top dog for gaming. Even if I somehow need some work that requires more cores, it sure as hell is PLENTY fast. Anyone arguing otherwise is just being dishones. The only downside is the power consumption, and that's about it. Generally speaking the only downside for the average consumer is the price and the consumption. The performance is there and it's great.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,103   +5,359
Sure, but 8c/16t isn't way over the limit of diminishing returns for the average Joe like 16c/32t is.




In this review? Really? The 10900k was even winning against the 3950x in after effects and photoshop and was really close to the 3900x in corona and premiere.



I wasn't talking about professionals though. A professional that's going to save time by using a higher core CPU is not going to bother with the gaming benchmarks in the first place. Even if he games, it's not going to be something he cares about





But that's the point, most people do not need a CPU with more cores.How is z490 a dead platform? Its going to support as many CPU upgrades as the x570 . But nice try.

I just ordered a 10900k. You know why? Cause even as a "heavy" user, there is nothing that the Ryzens are faster at what I want them to be faster. Even for my professional work I run a couple of databases with 3 clients, and sure as hell I don't need 32 threads for that. And ofc it's top dog for gaming. Even if I somehow need some work that requires more cores, it sure as hell is PLENTY fast. Anyone arguing otherwise is just being dishones. The only downside is the power consumption, and that's about it. Generally speaking the only downside for the average consumer is the price and the consumption. The performance is there and it's great.
1. The 10900K is 10 core FYI
2. Sure if you cherry pick a single bench. Other benchs tell a different story
3. Weren't tallking about professionals you say? You said " Does it matter if a project run overnight will take 1 hour more? ". Someone who's running projects overnight is a professional, whether they are in the employ of a company or just doing it themselves. You can spin this anyway you want, either way you clearly indicated that people who require a large amount of CPU power should not buy a CPU that will cut down their work time, which is completely BS regardless of what you decide to label them. You are so in love with your shifting goal posts after all.
4. No, the point wasn't that people don't need that many cores. The point was that you said you'd recommended a $500+ CPU to 95% of people. In addition, you are assuming Z490 will last long. AMD still has 1 generation to go before switching to DDR5, which means it's entirely possible their next CPUs are AM4, which by extension means it's entirely possible X570 supports 3 generations, just like previous AMD motherboard chipsets. You sure do like drawing conclusions to events that haven't occurred.
5. You haven't described a single thing that would require a 10900K. What I'm seeing is, like your original post, that you are making a stronger case for the 8700K. Margin of error gaming performance to the 10900K and enough threads for most people. Much cheaper too. I guess you have to defend your purchase though, even another Intel processor would have been a better choice by the standards you yourself have layed out here.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,103   +5,359
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.
Makes sense, less cores to cool. It being cheaper as well means you can afford to buy a few and send back the one's that OC poorly and eat the restocking cost. I guess it really depends on far you want to OC.
 

Strawman

Posts: 280   +176
I "cherrypicked" 3 benches. Same as you. Mine is cherrypicking, your isn't. K, you are being really honest pal ;)

3. Weren't tallking about professionals you say? You said " Does it matter if a project run overnight will take 1 hour more? ". Someone who's running projects overnight is a professional, whether they are in the employ of a company or just doing it themselves. You can spin this anyway you want, either way you clearly indicated that people who require a large amount of CPU power should not buy a CPU that will cut down their work time, which is completely BS regardless of what you decide to label them. You are so in love with your shifting goal posts after all.
I used sony vegas to edit a video and upload it to youtube, for my own personal pleasure. Was using an R5 1600. I didn't care whether it took 10 minutes or 500 minutes, cause I was sleeping while it was doing it. So yeah, if you don't have professional deadlines, doesn't matter. Especially when we are talking about CPU's that are plenty fast already. This isn't a 4c/4t kabylake. It has 20 freaking threads.
4. No, the point wasn't that people don't need that many cores. The point was that you said you'd recommended a $500+ CPU to 95% of people. In addition, you are assuming Z490 will last long. AMD still has 1 generation to go before switching to DDR5, which means it's entirely possible their next CPUs are AM4, which by extension means it's entirely possible X570 supports 3 generations, just like previous AMD motherboard chipsets. You sure do like drawing conclusions to events that haven't occurred.
NoI wasn't recommending a 500$ CPU. Was just saying that 10900k is faster than a 3950x for most tasks the average joe does.

How will x570 support 3 generations? It's just the zen3000 and the upcoming 4000. Same as the z490.

5. You haven't described a single thing that would require a 10900K. What I'm seeing is, like your original post, that you are making a stronger case for the 8700K. Margin of error gaming performance to the 10900K and enough threads for most people. Much cheaper too. I guess you have to defend your purchase though, even another Intel processor would have been a better choice by the standards you yourself have layed out here.
I have to defend my purchase? I have an 8700k bud. Yes, sure the 10600k / 8700k is the better option if you are on a budget. Not all of us are on a budget though. I just wanted the fastest processor for the tasks I'm doing, and sadly the 10900k is the one that is. I really wanted AMD but I don't see anything they offer as an upgrade to a 5.1ghz 8700k with 4kc16 ram.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,406   +1,380
TechSpot Elite
How will x570 support 3 generations? It's just the zen3000 and the upcoming 4000. Same as the z490.
Small detail but X570 supports Ryzen 2000, 3000, and 4000. It means you can buy a 2600 or 2700 now if budget limited but with bigger CPU use aspirations in the future and upgrade to a 3900 or 4950 if you want. But really, how many people are buying X570 to pair it with a Ryzen 2000 CPU? IMO a better choice in that situation would be a Tomahawk Max B450.
 

Strawman

Posts: 280   +176
Small detail but X570 supports Ryzen 2000, 3000, and 4000. It means you can buy a 2600 or 2700 now if budget limited but with bigger CPU use aspirations in the future and upgrade to a 3900 or 4950 if you want. But really, how many people are buying X570 to pair it with a Ryzen 2000 CPU? IMO a better choice in that situation would be a Tomahawk Max B450.
Yeah sure it supports older CPU's but it's kinda pointless. Zen2 is a huge leap forward from the zen+, there is no point in buying such a mobo for an old CPU
 

krizby

Posts: 375   +250
TechSpot Elite
I have to defend my purchase? I have an 8700k bud. Yes, sure the 10600k / 8700k is the better option if you are on a budget. Not all of us are on a budget though. I just wanted the fastest processor for the tasks I'm doing, and sadly the 10900k is the one that is. I really wanted AMD but I don't see anything they offer as an upgrade to a 5.1ghz 8700k with 4kc16 ram.
Neither 10900K nor 3950X are worthy upgrade from 8700K gaming-wise though :D, especially if the 8700K has already been pushed to 5.1-5.2ghz...

Furthermore I think the 10900K is a boring chip, there is barely any overclocking headroom left and the efficiency is just pathetic. Sure the chip is cool but your room in the summer is not, my 9000 BTU/h AC can barely keep the room at constant temperature with a 8700K + undervolted 2080 Ti already...

Anyways the money is better spent elsewhere, like good RAM, custom liquid loop or a new monitor (I just got myself the LG 34GN850-B, probably the best ultra wide gaming monitor right now)
 

Strawman

Posts: 280   +176
Neither 10900K nor 3950X are worthy upgrade from 8700K gaming-wise though :D, especially if the 8700K has already been pushed to 5.1-5.2ghz...

Furthermore I think the 10900K is a boring chip, there is barely any overclocking headroom left and the efficiency is just pathetic. Sure the chip is cool but your room in the summer is not, my 9000 BTU/h AC can barely keep the room at constant temperature with a 8700K + undervolted 2080 Ti already...

Anyways the money is better spent elsewhere, like good RAM, custom liquid loop or a new monitor (I just got myself the LG 34GN850-B, probably the best ultra wide gaming monitor right now)
I got a superultrawide 49 inch from samsung so yeah, no upgrading monitors anytime soon šŸ˜‹