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

[bit_user]

Architecture wise, its still the same old Sky Lake chip. So factually, this and i7 8700K are no different.

I think you mean to say "practically, it's 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.

That's not what I took issue with. @vov4ik_il didn't say "it's effectively an overclocked i7-8700K". I don't particularly disagree with that. What concerns me is when people claim it's a different peiece of silicon than it actually is.

 

[AlistairAB]

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.

Sandy Bridge didn't run at 5ghz, and wasn't 6 cores. IPC is much higher with modern Comet Lake. I obviously meant any of the current gen running at 5ghz is great.

 

[vov4ik_il]

Do you have any evidence to support this?

No. Just a guess, based on the specs and benchmarks. For Intel, I hope to be wrong. The only difference I see is the memory support. They seemingly factory overclocked and enlarged previous architecture with some facelifting and changed the packaging. Obviously the power draw went up. Sad.

Or am I missing something? Any new technologies involved? Any new instructions? Larger cache? Faster cache? Most 8700k will hit those clocks any time and yield comparable if not same results in benchmarks and power draw... from 2 generations back.

I should be adding “seems to be” to my statement though

 

[Flayed]

It's on sale here in the UK at £280!

 

[bit_user]

One thing this review really highlighted is just what a performance bargain the 3300X is! Not great for power-efficiency (not bad, either), but it would top the performance/$ chart, if they'd bothered to make one.

 

[bit_user]

Sandy Bridge didn't run at 5ghz,

It's been done.

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/79475-how-to-overclock-cpu-to-50-i7-2700k/​

Yes, not every chip will hit it, but you seem to get the point.

and wasn't 6 cores.

Uh, Sandybridge-EP?

IPC is much higher with modern Comet Lake. I obviously meant any of the current gen running at 5ghz is great.

Okay, now you're starting to make more sense.
; )

However, having better IPC, Ryzen 3k doesn't need to hit 5 GHz to match Comet Lake. Just wait 'till AMD releases the rumored 3750X. That will be interesting.

 

[bit_user]

Obviously the power draw went up. Sad.

Agreed.

Or am I missing something? Any new technologies involved? Any new instructions? Larger cache? Faster cache?

Just a few more in-silicon security mitigations, but that's all I know of.

I should be adding “seems to be” to my statement though

Yes. Thank you.
: )

 

[Olle P]

If you're building a gaming rig, going with a Ryzen 5 3600 & B450 ... saves you enough money to go up an entire GPU tier...

Depends on the total budget. At the low end you can either have a "gaming computer" with an overclocked i5-10600K using the IGP or a Ryzen 5 paired with a $200 video card which is way more than one tier ahead of the Intel UHD 630...

 

[dish_moose]

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

I've had an i7-8700k OC at 5GHz on all cores since the day I set up my "new" computer. I would like to see an OC 8770k benchmarked against the new champ. Look how far Intel has come - or NOT.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

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

Thanks for the comment. I didn't include the 3700X with PBO settings because at the time of writing it was priced in the $290 to $300 range, and we keep the test pools to 15 processors so there was a squeeze on the number of included processors. I see that retailers have reduced pricing to the $270 range over the last few days, probably to position the 3700X more competitively against the Core i5 series. This highlights some of the difficulties with predicting test pools based on retail pricing.

AMD's official price list has the chip at $329, but they never change the official pricing, for whatever reason that may be. However, pricing will often be far lower at retail. I have inquired with the company about these differing prices in the past. AMD says it doesn't lower pricing, that this is done at the discretion of the retailer. That makes it very hard to nail test pools when there is a wild pricing swing.

In the past, we went strictly by AMDs official price list for this very reason, but that list now has zero relation to reality, so we switched to using retail pricing. This problem certainly isn't confined to AMD and has created problems with several companies, such as 'retailers' running sales right before the launch of competing products, which then skews recommendations in reviews, and pricing goes back up later (several outlets have complained about this tactic in the past).

It's a tough call. I've considered using a 30-day average to reduce the impact of this. Volatile pricing really puts us in a spot with these types of situations, as a retailer can chop off $50 the day after the review, which then throws everything off. As always, I'm open to suggestions.

 

[mrv_co]

1080P gamers w/ ~$1300 GPUs... rejoice? How does the FPS lead scale at 2k and 4k? How does the i5 10600K compare in more balanced system where the CPU and GPU prices aren't so incongruous?

 

[King_V]

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.

I'd guess overall that #1 is more important, but #2 would be the purpose of testing CPU vs CPU.

Well, unless you believe the supposed armies of True Believers™ - these clearly superhuman beings who absolutely KNOW that they have the ability to see frame rates in the 120, 144, 165 and 240 range, and thus enthusiastically support the ever increasing monitor refresh rates. Then maybe #2 is important (sorry, pre-caffeine Friday morning sarcasm).

Or maybe it's me - I do like knowing the performance envelope of the CPU, but am also aware that this isn't the defining factor for "is this right for the system I want?"

 

[envy14tpe]

Intel has its struggles. And we haven't seen this in years... FX was terrible and Ryzen is amazing... and Intel can't even get to 10nm.

Intel can't offer performance without extreme heat and price. But the 2 comments that got my attention:

1. You can't buy the new 10th gen anywhere. True! And it will be a while. Don't wait.
2. No one buys an Intel overclockable K to use stock cooler. But that makes me think, Ryzen provides a $20-30 cooler with Ryzen CPUs, so take that into account.

 

[crimson117]

AMD's Ryzen 7 3700X puts up a good show with comparable performance at stock settings, but at a higher price point.

Focusing on the price-comparable Ryzen 5 3600X and 3600, the Core i5-10600K enjoys a comfortable lead

This is completely wrong. In fact:

The Ryzen 7 3700X and i5-10600KF are price-comparable.

3700X is currently $2 CHEAPER than the KF preorder price, and $32 cheaper after you purchase a suitable $30 cooler for the 125W Intel chips. Once the Intel chips start to sell for MSRP, then the KF would enjoy a $7 lead after CPU cooler. Either way the -$2 or +$7 difference is negligible. The K model is $22 worse off. Availability of K vs KF remains to be seen. The $32 difference with cooler may be substantial for some, but I will still call these price-comparable, giving Intel a bone due to this being limited-availability pricing.

The Ryzen 5 3600 and 3600X are significantly cheaper than the i5-10600KF.

3600X/3600 offer savings of $72 ($102 after cooler) and $110 ($140) respectively! The Ryzen chips offer 5-10% lower gaming performance but at a 25-50% savings over the i5-10600KF. (That's enough to upgrade to a better GPU, if desired.)

Please correct your article's conclusions.

Numbers:

CPU	MSRP	Street Price	Diff from KF	Diff with cooler	Notes
i5-10600K	$263	$299 (B&H preorder)	+$22​	+$22​	Need $30+ cooler
i5-10600KF	$238	$277 (B&H preorder)	$0​	$0​	Need $30+ cooler
Ryzen 7 3700X	$329	$275	-$2​	-$32​	Includes cooler
Ryzen 5 3600X	$249	$205	-$72​	-$102​	Includes cooler
Ryzen 5 3600	$199	$167	-$110​	-$140​	Includes cooler
Ryzen 3 3300X	$120	$130 (OOS)	-$147​	-$177​	Includes cooler

I did not consider the value of overclocking, as it requires technical knowledge, more expensive motherboards, and a more expensive ($60+) cooler to reach substantial overclocks. If you are into overclocking and willing to pay for it, the i5-10600K/KF has much more OC potential than the Ryzen 3700X.

Separately, the 3300X offers substantial value, but fewer cores, so I'm not focusing on it. Prices included above for reference only.

 

[RodroX]

I think this CPU would be a great option if there wasnt a Ryzen 5 3600 avialable. You have a ~U$60 diference vs the i5 10600KF and a ~U$80 vs the i5 10600K. According to the review, at stock settings, the i5 10600K is less than 10% stronger" in gaming performance than the Ryzen 5 3600, but thats when playing at 1080p@High/Ultra using the top high end RTX 2080TI.

On the other hand, content and productivity wise the Ryzen 5 3600 at stock gets a higher score/rank on most tests/benchmarks, including most adobe and premiere benchs that are not included in this particular review.

So as I see it the i5 10600K is plain and simple The Beast for high speed gaming and you can probably get about the same performance (tweaking a few settings in BIOS) as the i9 10900K, but for a cheaper price and less heat and power consumption.
Now, if you don't care about fast paced gaming and esports, and you rather play at 1440p, or just can't spend that much money on a CPU+Motherboard+Cooling solution because that will reduce the budget for the GPU, then Ryzen 5 3600, or even better the Ryzen 5 3600X seems to keep the budget crown to me.

Too bad intel keep the H and B motherboards with the memory locked. Otherwise this i5 10600K/F (a bit cheaper) at stock with a decent cooler and some DDR4 3200/3600MHZ RAM could be a really good option for the budget consumer.

Cheers!

 

[GenericUser]

Well, unless you believe the supposed armies of True Believers™ - these clearly superhuman beings who absolutely KNOW that they have the ability to see frame rates in the 120, 144, 165 and 240 range, and thus enthusiastically support the ever increasing monitor refresh rates. Then maybe #2 is important (sorry, pre-caffeine Friday morning sarcasm).

I can't speak for higher than 144hz, but at that refresh rate there is most definitely a noticeable difference over a 60hz monitor.

Though spending hundreds of extra dollars on a CPU for an extra frame or two I agree is pretty frivolous.

 

[King_V]

I can't speak for higher than 144hz, but at that refresh rate there is most definitely a noticeable difference over a 60hz monitor.

Oh, 144 versus 60Hz, absolutely agreed there. But what about 144 vs 120? Or 144 vs 100? etc.

I'm fairly certain that it's a little before hitting triple digits that humans cannot distinguish the frame rate changes, and most certainly cannot physically respond that fast.

 

[rtoaht]

This looks like a solid mainstream chip. Looks like it will be killer for gaming specially if overclocked. I will get the K version for the iGPU since I use quicksync. But anyone who don't need quicksync or iGPU and wants to save some money can get the KF version.

 

[Awev]

Lets remember one rule of thumb that has served us well over the years. It is, quite simply, if you need to do something quicker you get a faster CPU, don't overclock until there is nothing faster. So in this case don't look at the overclocked speeds, look at the 7 series of CPUs - such as the i7 or Ryzen 7. You will end up spending more to overclock that CPU, with liquid cooling, a better mother board, larger case to handle the radiators, etc, than stepping up to the next level and going with stock everything, including a stock air cooler.

Also, this is just for gaming, not streaming while you are gaming.

 

[Specter0420]

Most overclockers already have aftermarket coolers and are on Intel, so their cooler is still compatible. No need to factor in cooler costs unless you're a first time builder. FTBs are what, 10% of the market? A cooler is one of those things that can be passed from build to build for many generations (virtually unlimited with new brackets\adapters), you should just get a quality one anyway and put the "decent" one that comes with your CPU on ebay.

Userbenchmark already shows the i5-10600K beating the 3700X by 7-12% in gaming (1-4 core) with only 78 people that have checked in, none with a great overclock yet (the Ryzen has 200K people that have checked in, so max overclock is already represented). When we start seeing those 5.3-5.4Ghz overclocks I'd expect to see another 5-10%, extending the lead even more.

I'm a unique user, VR flight simulators. AMD has a VR tax proven by the VR Test Suite here on toms and all of my flight simulators (and all modern flight sims) use two cores max. They are horribly optimized and require very high end rigs on the CPU side.

For example my current rig-
i7-8086K@4.9Ghz
32Gb RAM@3.6Ghz
and 1080 founders@stock
-is held back by my CPU in X-Plane 11 VR. I have among the best 1-6 thread CPU power on the planet fueled by lots of fast ram, and my mid-range video card is asking me for something to do while it waits on them... Hell, a 6th gen Intel with a max overclock stomps all over anything AMD has even after overclocking for my use.

This new i5 is still getting beat by my 8086K, but not by much. It is basically my CPU with a soldered heat spreader, thinner die, thicker heat spreader, more current available, that has built in mitigations for much less money. When the peak overclocks roll in my CPU will probably finally lose its crown. My CPU hits 5.3Ghz so I expect this one to possibly hit 5.4Ghz with the upgrades.

Ryzen is often the better choice for old fashioned casual gaming. Intel is the choice for more serious gaming or modern VR gaming especially for those like me that are sensitive to ASW artifacts and need the full refresh rate of their VR HMD. But this CPU, with what I am seeing on Userbenchmark, is the far better choice for gaming in general vs anything Ryzen has.

Another thing to consider, your video card limitations may hide your CPU's limitations, but I'll get to upgrade my video card twice and still not worry about my CPU being a limitation. You may be looking at a platform bottleneck during your next video card upgrade. I kept my i7-920@3.8Ghz for 10 years, it took 8 years before AMD could match it. Ryzen 3700X ties my cousin's i7-6700K from 5 years ago in gaming after overclocking both.

 

[bit_user]

Well, unless you believe the supposed armies of True Believers™ - these clearly superhuman beings who absolutely KNOW that they have the ability to see frame rates in the 120, 144, 165 and 240 range,

If you're complaining the framerates are too high, then it sounds like you agree with me that it's not very useful to test all of these games at only 1080p?

I just don't imagine a lot of people buying a RTX 2080 Ti for the purpose of strictly 1080p gaming.

Or maybe it's me - I do like knowing the performance envelope of the CPU, but am also aware that this isn't the defining factor for "is this right for the system I want?"

Most of us do, but reviews shouldn't only be designed to accentuate the differences between CPUs. They should ultimately answer the question: "Should I buy this CPU?" If you're a gamer, this review falls far short of that mark.

 

[bit_user]

most certainly cannot physically respond that fast.

Ultra high-framerates aren't about reaction time. Their main benefit is smooth, natural motion of fast-moving objects.

 

[PapaCrazy]

I'm a unique user, VR flight simulators. AMD has a VR tax proven by the VR Test Suite here on toms and all of my flight simulators (and all modern flight sims) use two cores max. They are horribly optimized and require very high end rigs on the CPU side.

This is a hard thing to get across to many gamers, who don't realize there are still people out there dealing with sub-60fps, or even sub-30fps because of CPU bottlenecks. You don't need 1080p to choke a CPU... just give it XP11 at any resolution and a few mods.

 

[bit_user]

You will end up spending more to overclock that CPU, with liquid cooling, a better mother board, larger case to handle the radiators, etc, than stepping up to the next level and going with stock everything, including a stock air cooler.

That used to be true, but the last couple generations of Intel CPUs are so taxing at even stock settings that you won't get the most out of your CPU unless you invest in better cooling.

And if you really skimp on your mobo, I assume it could bite you, as well.

 

[bit_user]

You don't need 1080p to choke a CPU... just give it XP11 at any resolution and a few mods.

That's one datapoint, though. I don't doubt there are others, but 5 of the 9 gaming benchmarks (i.e. just those listing fps) have > 100 fps @ 99th percentile!

So, yeah, you can be CPU limited, but that doesn't mean everyone is!