Intel Core i7-10700K processor review

vMax1965

2020-07-09 19:16

My 10700K does 5.1GHz all core at 1.295v..with a 360mm AIO temps are great and more than pleased to pick up a 9900K in disguise with better cooling for a 100 bucks less...

#5807267

wavetrex

2020-07-09 19:20

rdmetz:

Not my job to know your entire post history. You made a comment and didn't even mention the relevant (and ironic) facts and I just thought it should be acknowledged.

Then don't start blaming people for stuff they did or not do. That was your mistake, not the lack of knowledge of my post history. If you want to attack somebody, then at least make sure you have a good reason to do so and your flaming is justified.

#5807273

MegaFalloutFan

2020-07-09 19:36

wavetrex:

And you are a total noob on these forums, too lazy to even bother checking something before you say it: 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.

Well unlike AMD Intels CPU have value on second hand market, I paid for 10700K same sum of money I got from selling my 9900K 2 months earlier. Also this is going to be my NAS [unRAID] CPU, my gaming rig has 3960x, ill see next year how ZEN3 TR going to be and if it keeps the fake turbo boost and low clocks it will be my last AMD build ever.

#5807282

0blivious

2020-07-09 20:16

MegaFalloutFan:

Well unlike AMD Intels CPU have value on second hand market

Didn't Intel have a $1,000 CPU drop to $500 overnight because AMD kicked it's ass? I'll bet the people who spent $1,000 aren't feeling this value you speak of.

#5807296

Ambient

2020-07-09 20:56

How much intel paid for this review? When is AMD with much lower prices and much better performance !?

#5807298

nizzen

2020-07-09 21:05

0blivious:

Didn't Intel have a $1,000 CPU drop to $500 overnight because AMD kicked it's ass? I'll bet the people who spent $1,000 aren't feeling this value you speak of.

I bought 7980xe day one. That is soon 3 years ago. It' s delidded and running 4.7 ghz with 4000mhz c16 memory. Faster in every workload than 3950x, even it's a "ancient" cpu. For me it has been great value and still it is one of the best cpu's overall out there. Should work great for many more years to come 🙂 Overclocking the cpu and memory is the key to performance on this platform. At stock it's a average cpu.

#5807302

nizzen

2020-07-09 21:09

Ambient:

How much intel paid for this review? When is AMD with much lower prices and much better performance !?

Show us youre benchmarknumbers, if you don't like the numbers provided by The Boss 🙂

#5807304

H83

2020-07-09 21:11

Just read the review and i found very interesting how close the 10700K and 3800X are in terms of performance, with the first having a small advantage in single thread scenarios and the last being better in multi-threaded. The only area where the difference was more noticable was on gaming with Intel still having a decent advantage. I was expecting worse from the 10700K because the 3800X is made of a better node and a more recent arch but that didn´t happen so i think this counts as a victory for Intel , in a certain way. The problem is the price, because the 10700K costs around 425€ and the 3800X costs around 340€! So the 3800X remains a better buy despite the 10700K´s showing. Great review as always Hibert!

#5807307

favelle75

2020-07-09 21:16

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?

That's the silliest anecdotal reference I've seen on a PC forum in ages. I also recently sold my Ryzen 1700X to upgrade to a 3900X system and I got within 15% of what I paid for that B350 motherboard and 1700X CPU. Who made the right choice? See...anyone can do that.

#5807308

kakiharaFRS

2020-07-09 21:20

Devid:

5.1GHz@1.51V? 😱 I've thought only I've got unlucky hands when it comes to silicon lottery...

You know I defended Intel a lot but only recently realized how bad silicon lottery was which changes my point of view, while I still think AMD have no clue what they are doing with power management on low usage...at least...you get what you pay for, which is also the case with Intel but.....we expect to be able to oc them unlike AMD and I found out I was fooled by "luck" all those years - 1st 9900k almost day1 buy 5.1@1.36v@180watts (hot with aio 85-95° better with custom loop +-85°) 5.0@1.26@140watts (fine with aio 70-75°) so was very happy with it - 2nd 9900k i just bought recently cause I had a 2nd "broken" motherboard that I fixed (bent cpu pins) 5.0 required 1.46v and was 220watts O_O which was "hell no" for me so I'm running it with stock settings in a server and it's ok like that now that one is basically non-overclockable I never realized how bad it was, even derbauer video with loads of 10900k tested didn't really go into my head but now I understand you can have a really weak Intel cpu and I'm now suspicious about their process quality going way down which would explain why they have no stock for 10900k

#5807313

nizzen

2020-07-09 21:29

kakiharaFRS:

You know I defended Intel a lot but only recently realized how bad silicon lottery was which changes my point of view, while I still think AMD have no clue what they are doing with power management on low usage...at least...you get what you pay for, which is also the case with Intel but.....we expect to be able to oc them unlike AMD and I found out I was fooled by "luck" all those years - 1st 9900k almost day1 buy 5.1@1.36v@180watts (hot with aio 85-95° better with custom loop +-85°) 5.0@1.26@140watts (fine with aio 70-75°) so was very happy with it - 2nd 9900k i just bought recently cause I had a 2nd "broken" motherboard that I fixed (bent cpu pins) 5.0 required 1.46v and was 220watts O_O which was "hell no" for me so I'm running it with stock settings in a server and it's ok like that now that one is basically non-overclockable I never realized how bad it was, even derbauer video with loads of 10900k tested didn't really go into my head but now I understand you can have a really weak Intel cpu and I'm now suspicious about their process quality going way down which would explain why they have no stock for 10900k

Many 10900k in Norway: https://www.netonnet.no/art/datakomponenter/prosessor/intel-socket-1200/intel-core-i9-10900k/1012745.17292/?utm_source=prisjakt.no&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=prospecting_conversion_prisjakt-prisjamforelse_no&dclid=CjgKEAjwgJv4BRCbqbjv4aPq0zwSJAB48fsXOMUAhND153oH9qoWVTBzABv6WdFSxWPXKaWkAcBIJPD_BwE https://www.elkjop.no/product/data/pc-komponenter/prosessor-cpu/190292/intel-core-i9-10900k-3-7-ghz-20mb-socket-1200-no-cooler-incl https://www.multicom.no/intel-core-i9-10900k-37ghz-53ghz-20mb/cat-p/c/p1001030399

#5807320

Kaarme

2020-07-09 21:48

rdmetz:

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.

What's the point of preaching to people about how they aren't getting the objectively best available option for their free time entertainment purposes? They should get whatever they want and are happy with. Many people weren't happy with Intel for years because of their stubborn refusal to give more cores in the mainstream segment, thus stalling the PC technology development. Are you just supposed to forget all about it? That's brand allegiance if anything. It's a good thing folks sent a message to Intel by switching over to AMD. Although Intel already kicked out their old CEO (who was 100% greed and 0% technology vision), they could still use a few more messages. Intel is kind of a slow learner. Edit: weird typo.

#5807373

MegaFalloutFan

2020-07-10 01:02

0blivious:

Didn't Intel have a $1,000 CPU drop to $500 overnight because AMD kicked it's ass? I'll bet the people who spent $1,000 aren't feeling this value you speak of.

Nope never happened, people still sell ancient 4 cores for 300$ and people buy them.

#5807566

Venix

2020-07-10 13:33

@rdmetz there people stupid enough to pay 300 usd for a 7700k in 2020? oO you can get equal performing chips from both intel and amd or darn close +mb + 16 gb ram on this price ...and having a huge update path instead of a dead end platform with no update path ...

#5807591

asturur

2020-07-10 14:41

MegaFalloutFan:

Nope never happened, people still sell ancient 4 cores for 300$ and people buy them.

It happened. I can assure you someone buying a 7700k used for 300$ has either a system he wants to upgrade on that cpu or is crazy. With 300% he could have bought a 3700X or 3600X + mainboard.

#5807639

Venix

2020-07-10 17:04

Ambient:

How much intel paid for this review? When is AMD with much lower prices and much better performance !?

still makes no sense for 300 he can get a ryzen 3100 or 3300 or i3 10300 with motherboard + 16 gb ddr 4 ram ....and have a palatform that he can update up to 16 core or 10 core ..... and much much higher longevity ....even updating your old pc is just not worth the price

#5807643

MegaFalloutFan

2020-07-10 17:12

Ambient:

How much intel paid for this review? When is AMD with much lower prices and much better performance !?

Double up the tin foil.

#5807674

wavetrex

2020-07-10 18:57

I guess none of you know that Guru3D is giving "Recommended" award to anything that is not completely broken (so pretty much to anything reviewed). There is no award here for "Works but is totally not worth it because too expensive" Watch for this badge: https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=33321 Example: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/samsung_970_evo_plus_2tb_nvme_m_2_ssd_review,21.html It's the only one that means the product is exceptional (Something that Samsung 970 Evo Plus indeed is). It's the only badge which actually means anything ... (well, maybe the "Great Value" one as well, but that's somewhat rare these days)

#5807678

asturur

2020-07-10 19:11

Wavetrex the 10700k is just out. Price will adjust, is around 420 eur right now, that is a bit expensive compared to other 8 cores, but your comment is completely wrong. The 10700k is still a recommended cpu because is good and is fast. Is a better pick of the 9900k. So why it shouldn't be recommended?

#5807686

slyphnier

2020-07-10 19:33

Venix:

@rdmetz there people stupid enough to pay 300 usd for a 7700k in 2020? oO you can get equal performing chips from both intel and amd or darn close +mb + 16 gb ram on this price ...and having a huge update path instead of a dead end platform with no update path ...

just read and i also interested with pricing, seems kinda hard to believe based https://averagefinder.com/averageFinder.php?Search=intel%207700k as far the pricing seems not totally lie $280.10 (US) Average $182.54 Average for ryzen 1800x but that doesnt mean sell quick(high demand) either i think there tons intel platform that holding 2nd market price, considering back on 7700k, intel still leading might be different stories for last 2years cpu lineup