The extra cache will automatically improve performance at a given clock speed over the 9900k, even in those games that only use 1-2-3 cores etc.
-
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.
Intel 10th Gen Comet Lake thread
- Thread starter AthlonXP1800
- Start date
The extra cache will automatically improve performance at a given clock speed over the 9900k, even in those games that only use 1-2-3 cores etc.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,458
- Location
- Planet Earth
Well I hope so,as it means AMD will have to reduce prices,and also keeps them "real" too,otherwise they might get complacent too.
Higher FPS means higher average FPS, and higher minimum FPS. Freesync/Gsync smooth these out, but of course the higher the better. Think of a 2080 vs a 2080 Super, both will be smooth with Gsync, but the 2080 Super will net you a better experience.
Before the fanboys pounce on my post, I'm not suggesting the difference between a 9900k and 10900k to be the same as between a 2080 and 2080 super, It will probably be 3-5% faster.
How AMD can be "complacent" when we have Zen 3 this year, Zen 4 and Zen 5, each one pushing the boundaries?
Intel is complacent still selling an overclocked Skylake 5 years later.
Cinebench is not a game. Games will never max all 10 cores / 20 threads, so you'l never see close to that power draw when gaming.
At most, the most complex modern games will use -8 cores, and will not come close to fully utilising them.
That means FPS needs to drop bellow 40 on the significant majority of Freesync & Gsync monitors. So kinda stupid to cry for 1% low when you compared products doing 84 and 70 fps at that bracket.
Funny how 5 year old Skylake still beats Ryzen in gaming though
What gaming? 1080p with RTX2080Ti? Last time checked the 3960X was beating a 5Ghz all core clocked 9900K even at 1080p
What gaming? 1080p with RTX2080Ti? Last time checked the 3960X was beating a 5Ghz all core clocked 9900K even at 1080p
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-3950x-review/3
9900K beating Ryzen 3950x in pretty much all games there, and is cheaper. 10900k will extend this further.
Ahh Toms Hardware why not use WCCFTech which is better shill?
Get me a review with AGESA 1004 and 3600C16 ram.....
https://youtu.be/oKYY37ss3lY?t=732
Then buy a 6 or 8 core CPU, don't need 10 cores for gaming as you say. The 10900k is Intel's competitor to the 3900x, a CPU meant for people who work and game but can't afford a 10980xe. And as you may be aware, work usually maxes out all your cores and threads so power draw is totally relevant. If you are buying a 10900k just for gaming to have those extra cores sitting idle doing nothing that's on you man, you could have just got the 10700k and overclocked it for cheaper
What gaming? 1080p with RTX2080Ti? Last time checked the 3960X was beating a 5Ghz all core clocked 9900K even at 1080p
Yeah but the 3970x gets auto excluded from "gamer" convo's cause its on HEDT, except of course if it was the 10980xe winning then everything would be about the 10980xe, cause double standards and all. The 3970x and 3960x's extra cache make quick work of games that can use it, allowing it to beat a overclocked 9900k in those games, like Battlefield V, Shadow of the Tomb Raider are ones off the top of my head
Last edited:
The people who will fully utilise a 8, 10, 12 etc core CPU for 'work' are in the vast minority. Those doing it professionally will usually be logging onto their office/lab's VPN and using their instanced visualised resources. Of course there are some self employed/freelancers/enthusiasts who will use all the cores they can get, though again these are in the vast minority.
There are many gamers out there who want the best for gaming. £500, £600, £700 isn't too high a price for them to get the best. Of course they won't use all 10 cores, but their games will benefit from the extra cache and increased overclock-ability that these will allow.
Top 10 CPU review sites for gaming all show 9900k being on top for gaming. Are they all shills? Sure.
Gamers nexus are a non biased resource, they admit 9900k is the best gaming CPU, go view their videos, you may get some hair tips for free.
I'm off to play some games on my 6700k/RadeonVII PC at 4k.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,458
- Location
- Planet Earth
Sandbagging - AMD has done that before. They did it during the Athlon,Athlon XP and Athlon 64 era when they thought they had a leg up over Intel,and in the end it's what undid them(Phenom was artificially held back by months,as A64 made more money).
An example is the B550 which they probably held back exactly until Intel refreshed its range this month,even though reviewers have said,OEMs wanted to launch them earlier. Then you had an OEM rebadged B450(B550A) which was allowed to have proper PCI-E 4.0 support since last year,and even the post Zen2 launch B450 enthusiast motherboards with revised specifications were blocked by AMD from having it. This is because OEMs don't want to spend X570 money for their systems,but still wanted PCI-E 4.0 branding on their systems for a lower price. It makes you question the whole point of the post Zen2 launch B450 motherboards.
If Intel does not compete,AMD will sandbag more and more,because its profitable to drag out generations. Yields get better and production costs drop.
Last edited:
It's quite simple for desktop, my 6 year old niece is able to understand that the number increases by 1000 for each generation:
10900k = 10th gen
9900k = 9th gen
8700k = 8th gen
7700k = 7th gen
6700k = 6th gen
5775C = 5th gen (Broadwell, pretty much skipped)
4700k = 4th gen
3700k = 3rd gen
2700k = 2nd gen
i7 980 = 1st gen
A simple google of the name of the CPU also takes you to the intel ARK website, where you can view the exact specifications of the chip, including number of cores/threads, cache, features etc.