Intel Core i7-10700K processor review
Click here to post a comment for Intel Core i7-10700K processor review on our message forum
Devid
5.1GHz@1.51V? ๐ฑ
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.
nizzen
Cheaper and faster in games than 3800xt.
Nice with competition
---
This review 10700k cpu must be the worst in the whole world ๐
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
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
MikeGR7
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.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
asturur
Kaarme
Not that different from my 3700X, except offering somewhat better fps in games (which would be useless for me personally but people with better screens and GPUs would enjoy it) at the expense of eating electricity like there's no tomorrow when taxed. Lacking PCIe 4.0 is the strange thing. The Ampere generation of Nvidia GPUs will be PCIe 4.0 cards, so it's not just M.2 SSDs anymore, even if you didn't care about the already PCIe 4.0 AMD GPUs.
SaiBork
Great looking review as always!
I do wish someone would review a 10900 (non-K) version. The base clock is lower, but the boost is almost as high as the K version. With the base clock of the non-K version being lower, the TDP has been set way lower by Intel and this makes me very curious about the difference in perfomance.
Most of the times we only get reviews of K CPUs, but sometimes I wonder how big the difference is when someone is not intending to run an overclock anyway.
Xuanzang
Very nice review HH.
wavetrex
So, a slightly faster and cheaper 9900K or just a 9900KS in new clothes ?
They could have just reduced 9900K price and be done with it.
schmidtbag
A little strange how the 9900K comes on top sometimes (maybe the results weren't compensating for security mitigations since they were recorded?). These 10th gen products seem to be the first reasonably-priced CPUs Intel has released since Sandy Bridge.
By that logic, isn't it a bit disingenuous to buy this CPU for such tasks? Wherever clock speed is the #1 concern, you might as well get a 10600K, where you can more easily maintain higher clock speeds at a lower price. When clock speed isn't the #1 concern, this CPU doesn't beat the 3800X in all tests. It's already very power-hungry as-is, so any overclocking advantage it may have is crippled by its heat output. I'm not saying it's bad, because its performance is competitive for the price, but gaming really is the only task it has a distinct advantage in, compared to the competition. It isn't the best option for heavily multi-threaded workloads and it isn't the best option if you care about super high clock speeds. But, I would say it makes for a healthy middle-ground.
rdmetz
MegaFalloutFan
wavetrex
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/review-ryzen-5-3600xt-ryzen-7-3800xt-and-ryzen-9-3900xt.433163/
See who is the person that first commented on how useless are those releases too, or the other few posts below accentuating the same idea.
I have no love for any of these mega-corporations, especially when they do sh|t releases like these.
Wow, you had a 9900K and "upgraded" to 10700K.
Amazing job, congrats !
Intel must love you deeply.
And you are a total noob on these forums, too lazy to even bother checking something before you say it:
rdmetz
The 10 series is best if gaming is your priority. But we have too many AMD fanboys who want AMD to "win" so bad that they ignore the fact that the "gains" they could see with AMD are never really going to be seen in their day to day. So many of the 99% gamer / 1% anything relevant to AMD types have jumped on the bandwagon for amd (mainly cause it's always been the "lower cost" option) and even though their choice is measurably getting them lower performance daily. They just go on accepting it as the "right" choice simply because a benchmark for use cases that never or barely apply to them looked better (and it allowed them to go cheap and still feel like they "won").
I have no problem admitting AMD got major leads in some cases and if I was doing that day 2 day regularly I would probably use one for it. But myself and many many others have shown that a majority of the people who do "discuss" this type of stuff online is also theyl type with 85% (or more) of their usage coming from games. And based on the growth of these processors vs the people actually using them for said tasks they excel in its quite clear that a lot of people are buying the wrong part for the job out of ignorance or brand allegiance.
I'm just saying too many gamers act like they are content producers without "producing" anything for these numbers to make sense.
Trust me a processor could be 25x faster in every other task but even if it's only 10% faster in 1 if that task is all I care about doing its the one I'm getting. What good is an advantage you never see?
There's also the fact that according to resale value (the only other value that matters to me beyond my own use case) Intel will almost always hold its value much better than AMD.
I recently sold my 7700k (paid $350 in 2017) for $300 while my bud who swore his ryzen 1800x (paid $500 in 2017 as well) and it's 8 core (vs my 7700k's 4) would become the better gaming chip in time, just tried to sell his after seeing what I got and he couldn't even get $150.
I lost $50 and had the better gaming cpu for 3 years meanwhile he lost $350 and NEVER saw better gaming whatsoever.
Who made the right choice?
rdmetz
schmidtbag
schmidtbag
lukas_1987_dion
Worse results than my 9900K at stock by around 3-5%.. I will stay with it for now. After I OC it to 5GHz and use 4000MHz RAM I'm close to 10900K so I won't bother, temps are not an issue with Dark Pro 4. Might jump to new Ryzen next year, will see xD