Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i5 10600K + Core i9 10900K

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Competition is good for consumer prices. I'm not happy with all security issues though.

    Comment


    • #22
      Michael

      1080p gaming tests lack of other ryzen cpus, only test 3950X and this cpu stay far away in cost compared i7 and i5

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
        This is the competition I was hoping for the last decade. We as consumer can only win. Finally ca. 20% better then the previous gen and way cheaper.
        Amen brother. Remember when intel was charging $1000 for a 4-core i7 chip? Was only a few years ago. I think we all can take a collective deep breath and shout "Thank You AMD!!!"

        Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
        ...ok peak wattage is concerning.
        intel is having to really put the juice to their 14nm parts, in order to better compete with AMD on performance. The side effect is massive power consumption and heat load. We're back to the P4 Prescott days again. Even if price and performance were identical, Ryzen is still the better buy. Unless maybe you want your home office to double as a sauna, lol.
        Last edited by torsionbar28; 20 May 2020, 11:48 AM.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
          intel is having to really put the juice to their 14nm parts, in order to better compete with AMD on performance. The side effect is massive power consumption and heat load. We're back to the P4 Prescott days again. Even if price and performance were identical, Ryzen is still the better buy. Unless maybe you want your home office to double as a sauna, lol.
          There's nothing similar between Comet Lake and Prescott. Prescott was not only power hungry it was also slower than Athlon 64 in pretty much all workflows. Comet Lake loses to Ryzen 3000 only when it hits power limit contrains.

          Speaking of a sauna. People who buy top desktop CPUs like 10900K/3950X can and should install water cooling, so they are not particularly concerned with power consumption. Dissipating over 200W of power using air cooling is just stupid.

          Overall Comet Lake is a great iteration of Sky Lake but Intel definitely needs to fix their node(s) and move forward with Tiger Lake. There's nowhere to push Sky Lake going forward and its iGPU is absolutely pathetic.

          Comment


          • #25
            Power consumption numbers are a bit different:



            because the PL2 state has been pushed a lot more farther than 9000 series:



            Long story short: the processor is allowed to draw 250Watts itself (despite being a 125W part) for one minute of sustained load. That's a trick that makes all the short benchmarks skewed in Intel's favor.

            Comment


            • #26
              Bird boy handing y’all L’s.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by blackshard View Post
                Long story short: the processor is allowed to draw 250Watts itself (despite being a 125W part) for one minute of sustained load. That's a trick that makes all the short benchmarks skewed in Intel's favor.
                Nothing is particularly "skewed". A six core 10600K runs circles around 3600X. Again, AMD fans didn't particularly care about power hungry extremely underperforming Phenom CPUs but suddenly they've become concerned about pretty fast Comet Lake CPUs. Double standards any day of the week.

                Again AMD sect followers never disappoint with their "reasoning". They have even "persuaded" AMD to extend Ryzen 4000 compatibility to previous gen X470 and B450 motherboards. The poor company is a slave to their insane extremely vocal fans.
                Last edited by birdie; 20 May 2020, 01:38 PM.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by birdie View Post
                  Nothing is particularly "skewed". A six core 10600K runs circles around 3600X. Again, AMD fans didn't particularly care about power hungry extremely underperforming Phenom CPUs but suddenly they've become concerned about pretty fast Comet Lake CPUs. Double standards any day of the week.
                  False. Yes Phenom was power hungry and less powerful than top-tier i7's. But it also cost less. A lot less. The value proposition was there for cost sensitive buyers. In those days, a 4 core i7 was a $thousand bucks. Phenom was an attractive alternative for all but the wealthiest shoppers. Now that the tables have turned, Comet Lake being power hungry and not a real performance winner, intel ought to be selling them at bargain prices. But they're not. They're still more expensive than the competing AMD parts. This is not a double standard by any definition. It's called value. Performance per dollar. Getting the most for your hard earned money. Try reading some of the Phoronix CPU articles paying attention to the performance-per-dollar graphs, and see who consistently comes out on top.

                  Originally posted by birdie View Post
                  Again AMD sect followers never disappoint with their "reasoning". They have even "persuaded" AMD to extend Ryzen 4000 compatibility to previous gen X470 and B450 motherboards. The poor company is a slave to their insane extremely vocal fans.
                  The intel sect followers happily paid $1000 for a 4 core i7, which was later found to be riddled with critical security flaws baked into the silicon. And yet the most fervent of intel fanboys are still defending them, after all that. Why? Paying more to get less is suddenly cool? Hardware based vulnerabilities are in fashion? Maybe that 14 nm process node has become old enough now that it's vintage retro-cool? LMAO
                  Last edited by torsionbar28; 20 May 2020, 02:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
                    False. Phenom was power hungry and less powerful than top-tier i7's. But it also cost less. A lot less. The value proposition was there for cost sensitive buyers. In those days, a 4 core i7 was a $thousand bucks. Phenom was an attractive alternative for all but the wealthiest shoppers. Now that the tables have turned, Comet Lake being power hungry and not a real performance winner, intel ought to be selling them at bargain prices. But they're not. They're still more expensive than the competing AMD parts. This is not a double standard by any definition. It's called value. Performance per dollar. Getting the most for your hard earned money. Try reading some of the Phoronix CPU articles paying attention to the performance-per-dollar graphs, and see who consistently comes out on top.
                    Ah, the last metric where AMD is consistently better than Intel/NVIDIA, right. If not for performance our value proposition is better, right. Tell that to tens of thousands of people burnt by numerous criticial issues in Navi (black screens, sudden reboots, extremely low performance in certain games, compatibility issues, flickering in some games, broken fan curves). Such a great value proposition! I still hate myself for buying an RX 5600 XT GPU a month ago - already found five huge issues with it while I had zero with NVIDIA for the past 10 years. At least I don't have to install proprietary drivers in Linux. What a relief!

                    Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
                    The intel sect followers happily paid $1000 for a 4 core i7, which was later found to be riddled with critical security flaws baked into the silicon. And yet the most fervent of intel fanboys are still defending them, after all that. Why? Paying more to get less is suddenly cool? Hardware based vulnerabilities are in fashion? Maybe that 14 nm process node has become old enough that it's now vintage retro-cool? LMAO
                    The most expensive Intel CPU I've ever bought was the Intel Core i5 2500 which cost me $250. The most expensive AMD CPUs I've ever bought were/are Athlon X2 5600 EE for ~$400 (over 10 years ago, which adjusted for inflation would be like $450 today) and Ryzen 7 3700X (my current CPU) for $330. Keep calling me an Intel fan, LMAO.

                    Speaking of vulnerabilities, which is a second coming of Christ for AMD fans to blame Intel for. ARM and IBM have been found to be affected by Meltdown as well, and all OoE CPUs are vulnerable to the Spectre class vulnerabilities. LMAO. Again, AMD sect followers reasoning is always extremely fine-tuned to show AMD is excellent where it's semi-decent and to show Intel is outright bad when their old 2015 Sky Lake uArch still ... beats AMD hands down in many workflows. And Comet Lake has fixed in HW most of the previously found HW vulnerabilities.

                    Again, when AMD performance or reliability sucks, AMD fans prefer to switch to whatever arguments to draw people's attention away from it.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by birdie View Post

                      Nothing is particularly "skewed". A six core 10600K runs circles around 3600X. Again, AMD fans didn't particularly care about power hungry extremely underperforming Phenom CPUs but suddenly they've become concerned about pretty fast Comet Lake CPUs. Double standards any day of the week.
                      Truth is in your words... A six core 10600K runs circles around a six core 3600X, that's hard to explain how a 10 core 10900K runs faster than a 12 core 3900X.
                      Also, if you paid attention to the links I posted, only the high-end Intel 10900K has a PL2 boost state with 250W TDP, not the 10600K.

                      That's the trick to appear faster in benchmarks, with a great expense of power and heat, but not in sustained workloads. That's just Intel playing dirty, once again.

                      edit: I'm reading just now that the 10600K has a PL2 of 182 Watts, and motherboard manufacturers can change this values at their pleasure. So, benchmarks will be even more useless on the Intel side...
                      Last edited by blackshard; 20 May 2020, 04:57 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X