Video removed: this thread is about the Guru3D review.

metagamer:

I'm talking more about the build quality and features of Z490. The $200 Z490 boards all boast around 12+2 VRM phases, have 6 layer PCBs, all the bells and whistles you would expect. You would have to go to $300 with Z390 to get those things. Sure, you can spend a lot more on Z490 boards, but you don't need to.

This is true. The power delivery and board layers are all top tier. I simply went with the Asus Extreme cause I can afford it and since this is like my only hobby and I don't drink or smoke or gamble, I justify it 😎

jwb1:

This is true. The power delivery and board layers are all top tier. I simply went with the Asus Extreme cause I can afford it and since this is like my only hobby and I don't drink or smoke or gamble, I justify it 😎

It's a great board, no doubt.

Borys:

Sorry but, I cant agree with the Guru3D recomendation of this product. Ryzen 3900x has two more cores, 15% more multitasking performance and cost 20% less. No more!

I don't think the Guru3D recommendation badge is meant to be against (compared to) something else. I believe it merely means if the product itself is fine and the price isn't outrageous compared to what you'd expect from the manufacturer. Of course if the product made no sense whatsoever when matched up against a competing product, it would probably affect the recommandation, but it's not like this CPU wouldn't have some merits if you are a HC gamer or all you do is use an application with extreme Intel optimisation and no AMD optimisation.

It seems like across the board, reviewers are saying MSI, Gigabyte are having some BIOS issues on launch. It seems like ASUS is having a smoother launch and even Intel is saying that and for those who got review kits from Intel they are providing ASUS boards as their preference for testing.

10900k tested with RAM 3600Mhz 9900ks tested with RAM 3200Mhz Small increase in gaming because of faster RAM?

reflex75:

10900k tested with RAM 3600Mhz 9900ks tested with RAM 3200Mhz Small increase in gaming because of faster RAM?

Memory speed doesn't really do much for games on Intel.

reflex75:

10900k tested with RAM 3600Mhz 9900ks tested with RAM 3200Mhz Small increase in gaming because of faster RAM?

10600k boosted higher. I think. The board tested with the 10900k doesn't have MCE enabled in bios by default, resulting in lower boost clocks. Not sure what board was used for the 10600k review because Hilbert doesn't specify. If it's the same board, it could possibly still mean that the 10600k boosted higher, resulting in better gaming performance.

Its quite sad really that this is all Intel has to offer. Sure the gaming performance is best in class but its such a small lead and the price difference is quite large, then there is the power draw and the heat issue too. Plus the motherboards are not cheap, but at least they don't seem to require a fan for the chipset which is nice as my X570 C8H chipset likes to run at high 50C near all the time. This CPU also has double the PCIE lanes it seems, 40 v 20 for Ryzen. Not sure how many of those 40 lanes are on the CPU though. I know Ryzen has 20 lanes on the CPU then I am sure 8 lanes on the chipset. To be honest though the average gamer would probably never need 40 lanes anyway but its a nice addition. Zen 2 seems to mitigate the massive clock differences between it and 10th gen Intel by its improved IPC over previous gens, stock access to higher clockspeeds (3200MHz V 2933MHz), and larger cache size as well leading to it not having to swap out into system memory so such. I don't see me upgrading anytime soon from my 3900X it serves me well enough. I just want a new GPU that beats my 1080Ti by at least 50-80% so I can then finally move onto 4K@120Hz. I don't even see me upgrading to Zen 3 either. Will probably just skip it and wait for Zen 3+ or better yet Zen 4. But by that time Intel should be on 5nm along with AMD too which should be the time when this war really begins 😀

CPC_RedDawn:

. I just want a new GPU that beats my 1080Ti by at least 50-80% so I can then finally move onto 4K@120Hz. I don't even see me upgrading to Zen 3 either. Will probably just skip it and wait for Zen 3+ or better yet Zen 4. But by that time Intel should be on 5nm along with AMD too which should be the time when this war really begins 😀

I'm in a similar boat with my 1080TI, but sorry to burst your bubble but 50% over a 1080TI (which is kinda close to an OC 2080ti) would not cut it...unless you're on old games then even a 1080ti can hit it on games 😀 Still i'm hoping the 3080Ti to be getting 4k maxed settings ultra 60-100fps, that is my hope anyway. Would love more but rumours say i shouldnt get my hopes too high. Prices in UK seem a bit much, AMD has decreased their 3XXX series mind you since they have been out awhile and most likely due to intels coming out. But price sadly not as competitive as it should be. And anyone in the top end going for 4k games somecases even 1440p that gaming performance just is not there anymore. Heat is also way too much, as someone who knows they will have horrible luck with liquid cooling and chooses to keep on air, this just means I could never look to purchase an i9 in its current state, hitting 90+ degrees is insane, would need some AC fitting in my house

Not great,not terrible.

Oof, that power consumption. Being stuck on 14nm is really hurting Intel.

Did some more digging and apparently Intel is allowing mobo makers to release updated BIOSs that allow for more adjustments to let the boosts last longer so future BIOSs will probably see more performance increases.

Nice review. If you're into gaming 100% at 1080p -1440p this is one likely the way to go. I don't like the heat, but then again you can easily keep this one at "stock" since it's more than enough horsepower, and it's not so bad power/heat really (+you will get some longevity out of it). Running it on 5200+ on all cores for 2-3 years, at these temps might lead to some degradation. I really think Intel squeezed the most of it out of the box, sure you can push some more, but the power/heat cost outweigh the benefits, imho. I still think something like a 3900x is the better "allround" option (also another example where I wouldn't advice to do any OC, since it's best balanced out of the box), but I won't deny that from a pure gaming perspective the 10900k has the edge. I for one am stuck at 99% GPU usage with my 1080Ti & 3900k in pretty much all modern games at 1440p. Things may be different with a 2080Ti and at 1080p, but with "next gen" games like Cyberpunk coming out, I'm sure that even with the new GPUs we'll be rather fast back at GPU limitations, even at 1440p, not to mention 4k.

Ricepudding:

I'm in a similar boat with my 1080TI, but sorry to burst your bubble but 50% over a 1080TI (which is kinda close to an OC 2080ti) would not cut it...unless you're on old games then even a 1080ti can hit it on games 😀 Still i'm hoping the 3080Ti to be getting 4k maxed settings ultra 60-100fps, that is my hope anyway. Would love more but rumours say i shouldnt get my hopes too high. Prices in UK seem a bit much, AMD has decreased their 3XXX series mind you since they have been out awhile and most likely due to intels coming out. But price sadly not as competitive as it should be. And anyone in the top end going for 4k games somecases even 1440p that gaming performance just is not there anymore. Heat is also way too much, as someone who knows they will have horrible luck with liquid cooling and chooses to keep on air, this just means I could never look to purchase an i9 in its current state, hitting 90+ degrees is insane, would need some AC fitting in my house

2080Ti is only like 20-25% faster than a 1080Ti and overclocked its around 30-35% at best. Sure it has RT features but we all know that this is a beta test basically. I don't know what rumours you have been hearing but I have heard the complete opposite. I've heard minimum of 40% better than a 2080Ti and 4x better RT performance. Couple this with DLSS2.0 and probably 3.0 support for when its released. 4K gaming should be a breeze on the 3000 series. Apparently the new consoles have gotten Nvidia in a stir, as they didn't expect AMD to improve on RDNA1 so much with RDNA2 and to be able to fit such powerful cards inside a console is no easy task. So apparently Nvidia are going all in on the 3000 series. Rumours point to us getting another 8800GTX-like legend. Whilst AMD seem to be onto another 7970GHz-like legendary card. Take look here.... OBVIOUSLY TAKE EVERYTHING WITH A PINCH OF SALT! [SPOILER] [youtube=oCPufeQmFJk] [/SPOILER]

and we back to era when i5 beat top amd processor in games even with half of threads

squalles:

and we back to era when i5 beat top amd processor in games even with half of threads

Go back to your cave. Old cpu vs new. Zen 3 comes later this year. See you then. Bye. 🙄

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

Intel today launches the new 10th Core series of desktop processors. Guru3D has two reviews ready for you today, the six-core Core i5 10600K as well as the flagship Core i9 10900K with its ten cores. Alongside the processor reviews we of course, have a nice selection of Z490 motherboard reviews ready to be released in the next few days. For now, you can read the articles here. Core i5 10600K review Core i9-10900K review

they need a new naming scheme cause 10xxxk is mouth full now

@CPC_RedDawn hehe i would argue that the real legend was the 8800gt 512mb since you could sli 2 of those puppies for not much more than an 8800gtx price 😛 112 cuda cores for the gt 128 for the gtx 😛 both on 256 bit bus ...... The 7970 is still gaming capable to thus day the 3gb vran cane to play not about medium details 1080 p 60fps in a lot modern games is doable not bad for an 8 years old gpu ! :/ Why do i remember those numbers to this day .... Should i worry ???

itpro:

Go back to your cave. Old cpu vs new. Zen 3 comes later this year. See you then. Bye. 🙄

yeah, the old cpu i5 10600k on 14nm beating the new 7nm ryzen 3900x in games 😀:D:D go cry running cinebench 24/7, i´m will play games