MS Flight Simulator (2020): the 2021 PC graphics performance benchmark review
Radeon Series RX 6700 XT preview & analysis
Corsair MM700 & Corsair Katar Pro XT Review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - February 2021
ASUS GeForce RTX 3060 STRIX Gaming OC review
EVGA GeForce RTX 3060 XC Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming X TRIO review
PALIT GeForce RTX 3060 DUAL OC review
ZOTAC GeForce RTX 3060 AMP WHITE review
Fractal Design Meshify 2 Compact chassis review
Intel Core i7-10700K processor review
Posted by: on: 07/09/2020 12:04 PM [
60 comment(s) ]
A review that has been overdue is the 8-core Core i7-10700K processor from Intel. The 10th generation Intel Core desktop processors previously known as CML aka Comet Lake has been received with mixed feelings. Will the Core i7-10700K be a more attractive offer?
Read article
Advertisement
Tagged as:
intel,
review Core i7 10700K
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 1283
Senior Member
Posts: 1283
Posted on: 07/09/2020 12:46 PM
Cheaper and faster in games than 3800xt.
Nice with competition
---
This review 10700k cpu must be the worst in the whole world :p
Looks like 10900k got most of the best binned cores. I have 2x 10900k , and both do 5300mhz all 10 cores with 1.27v load and 1.28v load
Cheaper and faster in games than 3800xt.
Nice with competition
---
This review 10700k cpu must be the worst in the whole world :p
Looks like 10900k got most of the best binned cores. I have 2x 10900k , and both do 5300mhz all 10 cores with 1.27v load and 1.28v load
Dribble
Senior Member
Posts: 190
Senior Member
Posts: 190
Posted on: 07/09/2020 01:03 PM
Always think it's a bit disingenuous to say it's only gaming that these do well at. Basically if whatever you are doing doesn't need more cores then the Intel cpu provides it's faster. It's not just in single threaded tasks that the Intel chip is quicker at, it's also at any task that uses multiple cores up to the max cores of the intel chip, because the intel chip can clock all of those cores so high, where as the ryzen clocks down more.
Always think it's a bit disingenuous to say it's only gaming that these do well at. Basically if whatever you are doing doesn't need more cores then the Intel cpu provides it's faster. It's not just in single threaded tasks that the Intel chip is quicker at, it's also at any task that uses multiple cores up to the max cores of the intel chip, because the intel chip can clock all of those cores so high, where as the ryzen clocks down more.
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 1283
Senior Member
Posts: 1283
Posted on: 07/09/2020 01:24 PM
My 3900x "max oc" is 11% faster than my 10900k "max oc" in Cinebench r20. 3900x has 20% more cores.
10900k "max oc" is 12-30% faster in games than 3900x "max oc". It depend on the game.
10900k is faster in almost all photoshop tasks too VS 3900x, so it's not just gaming
So 10 series is pretty good in everything, not just gaming. If rendering is life, 3950x or threadripper is the best buy
Ps: I love my 3900x too. Using them for different tasks.
Always think it's a bit disingenuous to say it's only gaming that these do well at. Basically if whatever you are doing doesn't need more cores then the Intel cpu provides it's faster. It's not just in single threaded tasks that the Intel chip is quicker at, it's also at any task that uses multiple cores up to the max cores of the intel chip, because the intel chip can clock all of those cores so high, where as the ryzen clocks down more.
My 3900x "max oc" is 11% faster than my 10900k "max oc" in Cinebench r20. 3900x has 20% more cores.
10900k "max oc" is 12-30% faster in games than 3900x "max oc". It depend on the game.
10900k is faster in almost all photoshop tasks too VS 3900x, so it's not just gaming
So 10 series is pretty good in everything, not just gaming. If rendering is life, 3950x or threadripper is the best buy
Ps: I love my 3900x too. Using them for different tasks.
MikeGR7
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Posted on: 07/09/2020 01:51 PM
No idea why you had to use 1.5V for 5.1Ghz.
I have 2 10700Ks and one does 5.1@1.32V and the other 5.1@1.35V.
You either had bad luck with silicon or you left vcore on Auto and only changed the Frequency Multiplier which usually is stable but leads to extremely high Vcore being used.
No idea why you had to use 1.5V for 5.1Ghz.
I have 2 10700Ks and one does 5.1@1.32V and the other 5.1@1.35V.
You either had bad luck with silicon or you left vcore on Auto and only changed the Frequency Multiplier which usually is stable but leads to extremely high Vcore being used.
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 107
5.1GHz@1.51V?
I've thought only I've got unlucky hands when it comes to silicon lottery...
So far:
8700K 5GHz@1.36V stable
9700K 5GHz@1.34V stable
9900K #1 P0, terrible IHS, impossible to keep it cool delid->copper IHS 5GHz@1.34V stable and hot.
9900K #2 R0, nooope, 5GHz@1.39V-1.4 not stable.
9900K #3, P0, noooope, 4.9GHz@1.39-1.4V not stable...
Ok, back to number one, and since I've had it rather than more and more unsuccessful try.