Mistake? 10900K over 5950/5900/5800?

[Cavallino]

Folks, Ive come to this thread with my tail between my legs, unsure if I have made a mistake or not.

Long story short, Ive purchased some bits and bobs to make a new rig and upgrade from my trusty 4770k which has served me well for the past 7 years.

Ive purchased a 10900K CPU but several people have told me Ive made a mistake.

Now let me make clear that I am not doing any editing or anything CPU intensive, but primarily gaming and general MS office/browsing/email etc.

I can see a 5950 is now being sold on OCUK for £850, 5900 for £550 and the 5800 for £450 ish.

The 10900 I purchased was £600, which puts it up against the 5900 and 5800.

I also know that you can get PCIe Gen 4 with the new Ryzens, again which is not something Im fazed about.

Looking at benchmarks the 5950 seems to be a little bit better than the 10900 and the 5900/5800 seem to be in the same ballpark (perhaps lower) in FPS terms in games.

Plus if I were to order the Ryzens now, I am not sure when I would receive them. And I would like to game over the Xmas period.

And as mentioned Im coming from a 4770K, so going from that to a 10900K will seem almost similar to going from 4770K to a 5950X.

So my question folks, and I would be grateful for your candour on this, in the context of what I mentioned above... is going for the 10900K a mistake I will regret?

I would be grateful for your comments. Thanks folks.

 

[Cavallino]

I don’t think you’ve made a mistake for your use cases. Enjoy it and try not to worry too much about it.

PCIe 4.0 doesn’t make any difference for games (both in terms of storage and GPU).

Thanks bud. Appreciate the sentiment.

It's not a mistake, just a different path taken. Intel is still a safe choice. CPU choice depends on your GPU choice to a degree - Ryzen 5000 and RX6000 unlocks SmartMemory which is worth a small performance boost. There's no benefit to PCIe 4.0 at the moment. The benchmark improvements are within the margin of error for graphics, and game load times don't improve more than a second from a SATA SSD to any NVMe drive.

Cheers bud, again appreciate the sentiment and comments.

Out of interest, why didnt you look at Ryzen 5000 series benchmarks / reviews before buying?
You can get a new 5800X delivered next day for about £550 inc delivery.
5800X appears to beat the gaming and benchmarks for single core and almost multi against the 10900k. Less cores, less heat, less power, less cost and more performance

Cheers for your response G2. You must be sick of seeing my questions
I did check benches actually, its the first thing I did. Which is why I went with the 10900 because the 10900 was available and the 5950 was not.
And the 10900 appears to beat the 5800 in most benchies Ive watched on YT. (albeit not by much but a gap nonetheless).
5800 available now? Where ? I know OCUK have them in stock but are only supplying them for builds due to being OEM versions.

Not the ones I’ve seen. The gap is almost non-existent at 1440p and actually is 0 at 4K too.

Yep this is what I saw as well when watching lots of YT clips and reviews.

And this leads me to the point right now....the way that a lot of people are talking about Ryzens make it sound like they have taken a dump all over Intel and are trouncing on them.

But in gaming terms at least, the difference is quite marginal and can be easily matched with a bump/increase in clock speeds etc?

 

[Cavallino]

^^^ There is definitely an advantage to Ryzen for video editing, code compilation, etc. In fact, it’s a bargain for those uses but that doesn’t really apply for you.

The Ryzen also does have an advantage in energy usage and thermals.

Fully understood. Although I thought I saw a bench showing the Ryzens drawing more power than the 10900.

And regarding video editing/coding do you have a video showing the difference? It doesnt apply to me but nonetheless it would be good to understand.
Thanks Stu!

 

[Cavallino]

10900k is an absolute beast, zero mistakes have been made enjoy it ^^
I bought mine a few month ago and have nil regrets.

Nope be absolutely fine. Would have also been fine if you had bought an AMD CPU.

Cheers folks

Yep there’s one here for the 5900X

The productivity benchmarks are in the first half of the video then games. They’ve reviewed the other new Ryzen processors recently too.

Cheers Stu999. Not as bad as I thought.
Clear that the AMDs trounce the Intels in the rendering stuff.
(Also didnt know compression was CPU intensive which is kinda obvious tbh!)
But coming from a 4770 to this Im sure I will be impressed regardless of AMD or Intel.

Interesting to see the Intel are faster than 5950 in some games and vice versa.

Also there were some slides on power consumption, one slide in particular showing the 5950 @ 4.7GHZ about 370W vs the 10900 @ 300W ish. Not sure if that is stock though....

 

[Cavallino]

Folks. I dont wish this to be an AMD vs Intel calamity but

I think I have managed to get what I want from this thread.

Here is my summary

• 10900 seems to be priced higher today compared to what it was some months ago. Supply and Demand has made an impact on this. Nature of the economy and the beast. I am prepared to swallow the extra 200 notes.
• The Zens are clearly ahead of Intel for things like Cinebench and other CPU multicore intensive stuff. Thats given.
• Intel seems to be slightly ahead on single core I believe?
• Both points above do not affect me be because I am predominantly gaming on this new rig.
• The 10900 seems to edge the 5900 and 5800 on most games but not all (similarly price CPUs)
• The 5950 edges the 10900 in most games but not all (5950 200-300 more expensive than the 10900)
• PCIe Gen 4 on Ryzens not on Intel, again not something Im personally fussed over, I think the rig I have (will have a 3080 inside it) is plenty for me for gaming at 3440 x 1440.
• Appreciate comments on Direct Storage, but as of today I dont think this is a bottle neck for any games currently available or upcoming?

Thats pretty much what I have extrapolated from the comments made here, research on the internet (articles/YT) etc.

Fair summary?

 

[Cavallino]

Cheers Vince. Apologies about the incorrect points.

Regarding the benchmarks, I should rephrase, the 5800 on some games is ahead and others its not. Check some youtube vids.
Also it is very subjective it seems since some review show the 10900 down in the dumps whilst others not.

I quickly checked videso of 10850/700 vs 10900, yes you are right about your comment. The difference between a 700 and a 900 is perhaps 5-10fps?
For a couple of hundred quid I dont mind, especially considering there are some people paying over a grand, going from 3080 to 3090 to get the same increase in FPS.

I think in my mind I am quite happy with the setup

If I was doing any of the stuff mentioned above, then no brainer I will cancel my order right now.

But what I am intending to use it for, its good for me.

 

[Cavallino]

you got those two points wrong.

- 10900K is miles below Zen3 on single core performance. like 10-15% lower than any of the zen 3 cpus

- on gamings, even the 5600X is better than 10900K. let alone 5800x 5900x.

Please see my response to this above to Vince.

 

[Cavallino]

Thank you all and especially Haka for your constructive comment and I am on the phone to OCUK right now to try and get the KF version for £150 less.
Thanks for the tip once again!

 

[Cavallino]

Sorry dont follow you pcguy... you are saying it is or isnt good to go down the KF route?

 

[Cavallino]

Not even familiar with Quicksync up until now.

 

[Cavallino]

Ah gotcha pc-guy sorry I read your post wrong. My fault.

Tbh, I want to go with the 10900K
OCUK have the 10850 in stock @ £500 so similar price to the KF.

And the 10900 has performance advantage against the 10700 by some 5-10fps which Im willing to pay for.

 

[Cavallino]

Been around since 2nd Gen Sandy Bridge. Uses the iGPU for video encode/decode and it's very efficient. It still works if the iGPU is disabled as a graphics card.

Understood.
Have never used it so will not be missed!

 

[Cavallino]

Vince/Dg perhaps take it to a direct conversation ?

Switched from 10900K to KF. Saved £150 notes. Can go towards another m.2 drive later

Thank you all for your insights. Happy for the healthy discussions.

 

[Cavallino]

Cheers all Much appreciated your advice.

 

[Cavallino]

Honestly integrated graphics is not a deal breaker for me which is why I went with the KF version thanks to Hakanese for pointing that out.

Besides, dont some motherboards have integrated graphics sometimes?

 

[Cavallino]

Cheers Sedgey, good to know! Thanks for your experiences, sounds like you were definitely in the same boat as me!

May I ask why you went with the 10900K as opposed to the 10900KF? Maybe the K was cheaper back then? May I ask how much you got it for?

 

[Cavallino]

I have no explaination really as to why i went K and not KF , i just know the price was £539 when i got it.

No worries, tbh I was oblivious to the KF version as well.

 

[Cavallino]

phil-k Ive gone with an MSI Ace alongside the 10900KF.