With prices in the UK I don't think the 10600K is a good buy, it's way too expensive for a 6-core CPU. With the platform costs involved I would rather buy a 10700 non-K and unlock the power limits like TPU did in their review. If I was content with a 6-core CPU then I'd buy the Ryzen 3600 which is way cheaper and perfectly capable of powering the 2080 Ti in their test.
Replacing the 4770K - Build Advice Needed - Intel V AMD?
- Thread starter JGBR
- Start date
Im starting to lean towards the 10900K if I am going to keep the machine for a few years and instead maybe next year get a new 370 or 380.
Whats thoughts on 10900K v 10700K,
Looking at the new MS flight sim, its really going to push the machines.
Whats thoughts on 10900K v 10700K,
Looking at the new MS flight sim, its really going to push the machines.
Hard to know if Flight Sim is made by same incompetents as buggy Wintoys10 upgrades...
But future of games is in heavy multithreading:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/the-age-of-highly-threaded-games-has-arrived.18893510/
Yeah... that's 12 core CPU there.
If wanting longer in high end lasting PC wouldn't be satisfied at least without upgrade path to such.
Before Christmas next-gen consoles bring 8 core/16 thread CPU as base level for future games.
And can't see Microsoft not wanting to make new Flight Sim also with new console in mind.
Looks like the "ideal" spec recommended for fs is 8 core, they quote Ryzen 7 Pro 2700X / Intel i7-9800X although that looks a little dated. Radeon VII / Nvidia RTX 2080 and 32gb ram, also Bandwidth: 50 Mbps. I would find the FS thread on this site, sure i have seen one, see whats being said. My experience of FS is its the ultimate PC test, you can never have enough frames,and frames cost money.take the "ideal as the minimum and buy the best you can afford. traditionally its the terrain loading and addons/mods that cause the FS to struggle, this new weather, mapping system etc now really brings the Bandwidth into play. Could be the Mbps is the GHz for FS Mecca.
Seems on the FS forum that GPU more than CPU is important. I have my doubts as I still feel the core system needs to be as best as possible. Also changing the graphics card and core system is costly. With new graphics cards on horizon it’s also worth waiting.
This raises the question of 10700K versus 10900k. is it worth the premium or just OC it?
This raises the question of 10700K versus 10900k. is it worth the premium or just OC it?
Well if zen 3 isn’t appearing to far later in the year, and as it’s purely FPS rather than core count for productivity that matter than intel appear to have the lead. For now.You seem quite set on what you want already with Intel (which is fine) - but you're not really taking in other people's opinions or suggestions either, so just get what you've already decided on and enjoy it
Yet just three short years ago people were saying that very thing about AMD having any impact at all on the market place, now look where we are. The 10900K and 10700K would not exist had it not been for AMD, and every generation they have become faster in every single way, and every usecase.
As I said at the start of the thread, buy a 10700K, Z490, 32GB DDR4 RAM and you are done, don't worry about losing out on performance in the long term, or look at the longevity of the system just concentrate on what matters to you now! It's not going to get any slower once you've bought it, just other things will come out that are faster, cheaper etc.
Intel cpus do actually end up losing performance over their lifetime...or have been doing recently.
Not sure why you keep coming back to the topic and repeating yourself. As @Sparx said, you know what you want so go and buy it. Or come back "the last week of" September (8-9 weeks from now) when you are ready to buy, and ask again, but for now it's just pointless continuing the thread.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,223
My 9700k was a great upgrade from my old 4770k. Too many games that I play were struggling with it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 2,649
a stock 4770k I find inaccurate for comparison because after Haswell you basically got some small IPC gains, more cores and binned parts so a modern Intel CPU is more on parity with an overclocked Haswell but with a bit more IPC and more cores.
What they should have done imho is run the stock 4770k @4.5GHz
but either way imho get the GPU you want first, then look at everything else you might for example have the Samsung 980 Pro/QVO M2 storage out by then in which case you'll definitely want a PCIe 4 solution
What they should have done imho is run the stock 4770k @4.5GHz
but either way imho get the GPU you want first, then look at everything else you might for example have the Samsung 980 Pro/QVO M2 storage out by then in which case you'll definitely want a PCIe 4 solution