• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Best value Intel CPU for Gaming and Performance

rixx

rixx

rixx

Associate
Joined
22 Sep 2008
Posts
127
Hi all,

The AMD vs Intel controversy has been maddening. I had decided to go the 3700x route, but because I want to play around with Hackintosh, I have decided on Intel.

Can anyone spec me a 9th gen or 10th gen build please? I’m look to install Windows for Gaming and Mac for video editing. What’s the most reasonable build? 10900K seems very overpriced for the benefit it has over e.g. 10700K (correct me if I’m wrong here). Is there a meaningful difference between 9th gen and 10th? Or is taking advantage of the lower prices on 9th gen the wiser choice?

I would also like a recommendation on how to create a silent as possible PC. I heard that 9th gen ran much hotter than 10th - so was thinking that the 10700K would be the best bet.

As you can tell, I’m quite confused. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!
 
Whilst a Ryzen would be cooler, I'm not sure they play as nicely with a Hackintosh. So that said, I'd go for a 10700k. You won't get silence on air cooling though, those chips still run hot. Some people won't even put an air cooler on one.
 
The 10400 seems to suffer horribly from the low clock speed. The 10600K is definitely overpriced for a 6 core even though it has decent gaming performance. The 10700 non-K can be unlimited from the low-TDP) so it's probably the best value from a price per core perspective. The 10700K is alright, but if you pay a lot for it the 3900X is laughing at you (for workstation usage). The 10900F is not bad value for 10 cores, but the 10900K is too expensive (like £200 for 2 more cores expensive).

For editing, value for money does depend a lot more on your usage profile.
 
heatonpkmassive said:
Whilst a Ryzen would be cooler, I'm not sure they play as nicely with a Hackintosh. So that said, I'd go for a 10700k. You won't get silence on air cooling though, those chips still run hot. Some people won't even put an air cooler on one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you're right. I've pretty much decided that the Intel route = water-cooling. Period. :/
 
Tetras said:
The 10400 seems to suffer horribly from the low clock speed. The 10600K is definitely overpriced for a 6 core even though it has decent gaming performance. The 10700 non-K can be unlimited from the low-TDP) so it's probably the best value from a price per core perspective. The 10700K is alright, but if you pay a lot for it the 3900X is laughing at you (for workstation usage). The 10900F is not bad value for 10 cores, but the 10900K is too expensive (like £200 for 2 more cores expensive).

For editing, value for money does depend a lot more on your usage profile.
Click to expand...

This is a great summary, thanks. It seems there is no good option in terms of value where Intel is concerned. It is plagued with trade offs.
 
In terms of the transition to ARM - that is less of a concern. All that will mean is that in two years, future OS will exclusively support ARM architecture. OS till then will support Intel, and apps will continue to support Intel for at least 5 years to support Intel architectures being sold even today via the Apple store.

I'm okay with 5 years before re-evaluating and purchasing another Macbook Pro.
 
On a separate note - is it worth waiting till September when Intel are supposedly releasing 11th Gen? Is this a reality or just hype?
 
rixx said:
On a separate note - is it worth waiting till September when Intel are supposedly releasing 11th Gen? Is this a reality or just hype?
Click to expand...
It's extremely unlikely that it'll be in September. There'd be a lot more leaks by now if it was a month away. Q1 2021 is a more realistic launch window for Rocket Lake, though Q4 of this year isn't impossible.

As for the question in the OP, the 10600K is by far the best value if gaming is your concern. With some overclocking it matches the 10900K.


Plus it's less of an investment to make now if you'll be wanting to upgrade to Rocket Lake when it comes out anyway. I don't see the point in the 10700K. You could make some sort of case for the 10900K given its better binning and the fact that it has ten cores, whereas Rocket Lake tops out at eight, but it's so ridiculously overpriced that it's a tough recommendation.
 
The 9100F can be had for about £60~, paired with a GTX 1650 Super i'd imagine that would be as good as bang for buck as you're gonna get for 1080p gaming/hackintosh.
 
I ran a Hackintosh little over a decade ago, based on an E4200 C2Duo clocked to 3.2GHz. it was a brilliant machine. Performance was up there with the Mac Pro of the day for a tiny fraction of the price. Run it for around a year, was pretty much the last desktop I had before moving 100% to MBP.

It it eaiser or harder these days?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom