Review Intel Core i5-10600K Review: The Mainstream Gaming Champ

[Admin]

Intel's Core i5-10600K comes to market with excellent gaming performance at an ultra-reasonable price point.

Intel Core i5-10600K Review: The Mainstream Gaming Champ : Read more

 

[Diddly]

I would still rather get the 3700X than the 10600K

 

[sizzling]

Great review but a big shame PBO is only recorded against the 3600X when based on price the alternative is the 3700X or 3800X.

 

[vov4ik_il]

That seems to be the 8700k overclocked in a new package and a new price tag. 🙃

 

[lastmessiah]

Too bad you can't actually buy it anywhere.

 

[thGe17]

Too bad you can't actually buy it anywhere.

Why not? For example the two biggest online shops in DE alread sell them and also have the 10400, 10500, 10600 and 10700K available. Only the 10900 models seem to be rare.

 

[waltc3]

Yawn...Wake me when Intel finally launches a new architecture on a decent process node...ZZZZz-z-z-z-zzz

 

[jimmysmitty]

I assume in the "Against" column you mean "No PCIe 4.0"? Pretty sure this has 3.0.

 

[Chris Fetters]

It's official then I guess... Paul has completely lost the plot at this point. Don't get me wrong, it's a really solid chip, but the pricing (ESPECIALLY if you consider the entire platform, ala board+CPU+cooler) is absolutely freaking TERRIBLE!

If you're building a gaming rig, going with a Ryzen 5 3600 & B450 (to save as much as possible, but you could spring the +$20 for B550 if you wanted) saves you enough money to go up an entire GPU tier (meaning better gaming performance!!!), and if you're building it for ANYTHING else, a Ryzen 7 3700X machine absolutely roflstomps it AND is cheaper (cheaper board + free cooler).

The only situation where this i5K makes any sense is if you're building a flagship gaming rig w/ an RTX 2080 Ti (where there's no point to saving money on the CPU for a better GPU), but at that point, why the hell are you buying an i5? You're building a mondo expensive flagship machine with 8c/16t consoles imminent, put a damn i9 in there.

TL;DR - The only kinds of builds that would benefit from buying this chip are the same kinds of builds that no sane person would ever put an i5 in...

 

[seanwebster]

I'm just shocked at how an i5 now costs $300...and without a cooler. Wow, go Intel.

 

[King_V]

It's official then I guess... Paul has completely lost the plot at this point. Don't get me wrong, it's a really solid chip, but the pricing (ESPECIALLY if you consider the entire platform, ala board+CPU+cooler) is absolutely freaking TERRIBLE!

If you're building a gaming rig, going with a Ryzen 5 3600 & B450 (to save as much as possible, but you could spring the +$20 for B550 if you wanted) saves you enough money to go up an entire GPU tier (meaning better gaming performance!!!), and if you're building it for ANYTHING else, a Ryzen 7 3700X machine absolutely roflstomps it AND is cheaper (cheaper board + free cooler).

The only situation where this i5K makes any sense is if you're building a flagship gaming rig w/ an RTX 2080 Ti (where there's no point to saving money on the CPU for a better GPU), but at that point, why the hell are you buying an i5? You're building a mondo expensive flagship machine with 8c/16t consoles imminent, put a damn i9 in there.

TL;DR - The only kinds of builds that would benefit from buying this chip are the same kinds of builds that no sane person would ever put an i5 in...

Generally agreed, EXCEPT for the "lost the plot" part. This is supposed to mostly be testing the performance of the CPU itself.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the cost of the motherboard, cooler, etc., are definitely important considerations, but, as yo usaid, the CPU is solid.

It's a great chip with some lousy baggage in terms of cooler and motherboard. Uh, and it does run hot.

 

[dannyboy3210]

There's an error in this graph:
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/5QVMsKcGs5xf3dJawRaWrY-650-80.png
It says 10900k Max/Min at the bottom when its supposed to be 10600k.

 

[AlistairAB]

Generally agreed, EXCEPT for the "lost the plot" part. This is supposed to mostly be testing the performance of the CPU itself.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the cost of the motherboard, cooler, etc., are definitely important considerations, but, as yo usaid, the CPU is solid.

It's a great chip with some lousy baggage in terms of cooler and motherboard. Uh, and it does run hot.

Exactly. It is a terrible price for the overall performance, especially at launch. But if your goal is maximum fps, it is the best chip for the money there, with an OC. 8 and 10 cores doesn't improve that fps meaningfully, it is about the clock speed. Any chip at 5.1ghz is a thing to behold. I'd love Ryzen 3600 to hit 5ghz, that would be a game changer, until that time, if you buy a 144hz or 280hz monitor, the 10600k is your best option. The gap has narrowed so much though, that you could just buy a Ryzen 3900x instead. The 3900x is ridiculously cheap in the U.S.

 

[AlistairAB]

I'm just shocked at how an i5 now costs $300...and without a cooler. Wow, go Intel.

Also the stock Intel cooler is not handling 6 or more cores well. I was really sad to see the i5's not get the newer cooler. Actually the i5-10400 can hit 90 degrees on the stock cooler... I wanted the black cooler for the i5's.

 

[dave.jeffers]

$262? Excuse me while I laugh at this paper launched vaporware. Now, to actual reality. You will pay, today, $410 for this chip. So, how would you like a 3900X instead, that will give you TWICE the number of cores and threads, about the same gaming performance and DOUBLE the rendering performance? Or, you can wait until it comes back into stock, and then buy a 3700X, with two more cores, about the same gaming performance, much better rendering performance, for the same price.

 

[spongiemaster]

Exactly. It is a terrible price for the overall performance, especially at launch. But if your goal is maximum fps, it is the best chip for the money there, with an OC. 8 and 10 cores doesn't improve that fps meaningfully, it is about the clock speed. Any chip at 5.1ghz is a thing to behold. I'd love Ryzen 3600 to hit 5ghz, that would be a game changer, until that time, if you buy a 144hz or 280hz monitor, the 10600k is your best option. The gap has narrowed so much though, that you could just buy a Ryzen 3900x instead. The 3900x is ridiculously cheap in the U.S.

You seem to be under the assumption that some significant part of the the population owns a Ryzen compatible motherboard. That's not the case. The vast majority of the market will be buying a completely new system, not upgrading a Ryzen system. $30-50 for a heatsink is not that big a deal when compared to the total cost of a decent new system.

 

[randomizer]

Please keep the comments about this article.

 

[bit_user]

That's the 8700k overclocked in a new package and a new price tag. 🙃

Do you have any evidence to support this?

Comet Lake is supposed to have new in-silicon mitigations, which wouldn't be true if it really were an i7-8700K.

 

[watzupken]

Also the stock Intel cooler is not handling 6 or more cores well. I was really sad to see the i5's not get the newer cooler. Actually the i5-10400 can hit 90 degrees on the stock cooler... I wanted the black cooler for the i5's.

Its sad to see Intel persisting with their cost cut measures by just providing cosmetic changes to the stock cooler. The Comet Lake series runs how, and Intel knows it. Even at the low end, the stock cooler is not ideal and it can never perform well because the heat will cause it to throttle whenever it tries to boost.

Having said that, there is very little value with the i5 series with Ryzen 7 3700X which is superior in almost every way except some weakness in gaming at 1080p or lower.

 

[watzupken]

Do you have any evidence to support this?

Comet Lake is supposed to have new in-silicon mitigations, which wouldn't be true if it really were an i7-8700K.

Architecture wise, its still the same old Sky Lake chip. So factually, this and i7 8700K are no different. I do agree that there are hardware mitigations of some of the security flaws found on previous gen chips, but I don't think that will drasically change the difference between the 2. The reality is that this product from Intel is unattractive for existing i7 8700K, and poor in value vs performance against the better all rounder Ryzen 7 3700X that is priced very closely if not better since the price shown by Intel is the tray price.

 

[jmc]

If you're building a gaming rig, going with a Ryzen 5 3600 & B450 (to save as much as possible, but you could spring the +$20 for B550 if you wanted) saves you enough money to go up an entire GPU tier (meaning better gaming performance!!!), and if you're building it for ANYTHING else, a Ryzen 7 3700X machine absolutely roflstomps it AND is cheaper (cheaper board + free cooler).

Intel also has cheap chipsets, you can get a low cost lga1200 boards as low as 60€ and at 100€ with decent VRM for overclocking. The most you could save by going with an 3600x and a B450 (that have a terrible VRM in general) is 25€ because of the cooling solution that intel lacks and that is nothing for a cost of a mid/high end GPU.

for someone who is buying a PC mainly for gaming this 10th gen family is the best architecture you can get but for general porpuse the Ryzen 2 tops that.

also both sides will have a short future compatibility.

 

[sizzling]

Great review but a big shame PBO is only recorded against the 3600X when based on price the alternative is the 3700X or 3800X.

Having seen other benchmarks now with OC’d 3700x performing near identically in games having PBO missing is actually skewing the results of thus article in the favour of Intel when it’s not justified.

 

[AlistairAB]

This website has been going downhill for a long time, what with the politics, and just buy it, and attacking hardware unboxed etc... now removing my posts for no reason, because I said I'd prefer an apolitical website then commenting about the 10600k. I'm gone. Cya around the internet.

 

[bit_user]

Generally agreed, EXCEPT for the "lost the plot" part. This is supposed to mostly be testing the performance of the CPU itself.

Is it?

It seems to me that these reviews should try to answer two questions:

1. Should I buy this CPU for purpose X?
2. What's the performance envelope of the CPU?

I hope we can all agree that #1 should be the priority, yet for some reason, the Gaming benchmarks test all games at 1080p with a RTX 2080 Ti. That's really not helping the average gamer decide whether this CPU is a suitable choice for them. It only serves the second goal, which is to tease out the extremes. And, even for those who bother to read the text, I see no discussion of the rationale for the 1080p settings.

So, one really has to ask: what's the point of this review? It certainly does show Intel in its best light. For another example, why wasn't the 3700X run in PBO mode?

I don't want to focus on intent, here. Let's just stick to the facts. This review wasn't terribly useful in helping gamers pick the best CPU for their needs. The non-gaming coverage was better, though the lack of 3700X PBO is still a relevant question.

 

[bit_user]

Any chip at 5.1ghz is a thing to behold.

Really? Any chip? Why not just go back and use a Sandybridge, then? I'm pretty sure people got them up to 5.1 GHz. You could save a lot of money that way.

You don't need a Ryzen 3000 to hit 5.1 GHz to beat this thing, in a lot of cases. It's a shame the article didn't test the 3700X with PBO.