Review Intel Core i7-10700K Review: Taking the Gaming Shine Off Core i9

[Admin]

Intel's Core i7-10700K comes with eight cores, 16 threads, and a whole lot of overclocking headroom.

Intel Core i7-10700K Review: Taking the Gaming Shine Off Core i9 : Read more

 

[jgraham11]

Wow that's high power consumption! Good thing you are running liquid cooling! Compare that to the AMD 3700X at half the power!

Look at the shorter tests, the Intel systems seems to do better until their turbo runs out. AMD seems to do better with anything that takes more time.

I realize that both AMD and Intel systems are overclocked but the AMD systems seem to do better with memory tuning, maybe instead of just using PBO (a one click solution), take the same time you use for the Intel processors and put that into the memory. AMD would show even better in games and anything that was memory intensive.

1440p gaming would be more relevant! I do realize it doesn't make for good looking graphs but 1080p is not the typical use case for this CPU and comparable GPU.

Good review overall. Pretty fair way of presenting the information. Good memory choices. Efficiency focus was great to see.

Way better than the typical casting AMD CPUs in bad light, for example where Toms put the 3400G ($159) against the Intel 9700k($379.00)[Notice how the graphs don't say the 9700k with the 1050].

 

[RodroX]

Good review, too bad at this price point you only show 1920x1080p game results.

I understand thats the only way to keep GPU from been a "bottleneck", but if I was to spend this much money I would aim for playing at 1440p High details.

I still think that no matter what you wana play, the resolution and/or refresh rate, at this point in time the best bang for the buck for ultrafast FPS is the Core i5 10600K + high speed memory, and you feel like it some quick brainless overclocking.

Other than that just pick the Ryzen your wallet can buy and be happy.

 

[DrDrLc]

Look... Can we actually get gaming benchmarks with modern games and at higher resolutions?

Intel keeps on saying that they are better for gaming because of single-threaded 1080p benchmarks, but we don't game like that with 2080ti cards. We don't build $2000 machines with one of the most expensive gaming cards to run 1080p ffs.

Are you going to give us next gen graphics card benchmarks only at 1080p?

If not, can we actually see what this new CPU will look like in comparison to others at resolutions that we use? We've been watching all the review sites doing this for three or four years now... It's Intel's marketing strategy, and you are letting them do it, and playing along! It's a problem, because we don't have any reviews that actually show us what to buy for the way that we actually play games. These are reviews are actually useless for gamers.

 

[barryv88]

I find it downright shocking to see that popular hardware review sites such as Tom's are still harping so much on HD gaming results.
Yes, game results at HD are less GPU bound, but it only paints Intel in a good picture while hiding a rather shocking truth - that AMD is incredibly gaming competitive at the world's sweet spot for gaming resolutions. Q H D. (Typically 2560x1440).
Tom's explicitly stated in the past that QHD is the best area for gaming given that screens today with G/Fsync/144hz+ options cost less than $500 and are very affordable in general, today. 4K is still too high for most GPU's to handle, meaning that QHD fills a good middle ground at the end of the day, beating HD at higher image quality.

Really Tom's, get your act straight. It's time to nudge your audience towards higher gaming echelons.
Start publishing QHD CPU results in addition as this will entice people to make the switch towards higher res gaming but also this - AMD Ryzen CPU's in general are less than 5% slower than Intel chips at QHD or 4K FPS. Intel is therefore NOT the indisputable king as no god given person can tell such a small difference in high res FPS. Enough with the gaming myths! Ryzen CPU's tend to pack more cores that actually makes them far more future prove. If most of those cores sit idle in today's gaming, who cares? Wouldn't you rather have enough cores in reserve for more future demanding games and enjoy streaming/recording quality with extra muscle under the hood to enjoy less stutter? Call me stupid, but to me this actually makes Ryzen a better gaming choice.

Your article adds to this whole HD stagnation thing that's been going on for over 10 years. Over 90% of steam players still game at HD. It's time to give em reason to make the next push - QHD and then 4K.
Make a start. I challenge Paul Alcorn to do a "world sweet spot QHD CPU FPS" article. Get around 10 people or so to game on both Intel and AMD machines. Gather the results and lets see if Intel still holds the crown.

 

[Drunk Canuck]

The only downside is how hot the 10700K gets. When I got mine, I ran a stress test at stock and it hit 74 degrees with a Fractal Celsius S24 AIO with my case open (Define R6) for maximum airflow and all fans running. It gets into the mid 80's when the case is closed. I'd assume I'd get those temperatures with the case open when overclocking and that's a bit much.

I will say this though, my new system runs Doom Eternal really well. Basically everything cranked to high or ultra at 2K resolution with a GTX 1070.

 

[milleron]

This year, many will be building new computers mostly dedicated to Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020. In the past, flight sims were more likely to be CPU-bound than GPU-bound, but it's not clear that that's any longer the case. Is there any way to predict before final release of this much-anticipated game whether it will benefit more from single-core clock speed or multi-threading? Would anyone hazard a guess on whether to plan an Intel or Ryzen build?

 

[RodroX]

This year, many will be building new computers mostly dedicated to Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020. In the past, flight sims were more likely to be CPU-bound than GPU-bound, but it's not clear that that's any longer the case. Is there any way to predict before final release of this much-anticipated game whether it will benefit more from single-core clock speed or multi-threading? Would anyone hazard a guess on whether to plan an Intel or Ryzen build?

You should wait for reviews when its launched.

Other than that this is the best you can check right now: https://www.pcgamer.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-system-requirements/

Im guessing any Ryzen 5/7 3xxx will play nice, probably thye Ryzen 7 3700X could be a cheaper, yet very good option vs the i7 10700K.

And if rumors becomes true the new Ryzen 4xxx could be a new jewel for gaming. But that wont be out till atleast the end of september.

 

[st379]

There are still 1080p 240hz monitors that are being sold.
1080p ultra is very realistic, Paul did not test it at 1080p low he tested it on max settings.
It is not like some review sites that test at 720p low or even worse at 480p.
This is a cpu review not a gpu.
In gpu review I would expect it to be tested in 1080p up to 4k, maybe even 8k.

 

[RodroX]

There are still 1080p 240hz monitors that are being sold.
1080p ultra is very realistic, Paul did not test it at 1080p low he tested it on max settings.
It is not like some review sites that test at 720p low or even worse at 480p.
This is a cpu review not a gpu.
In gpu review I would expect it to be tested in 1080p up to 4k, maybe even 8k.

True, but it does not change the fact that there are also more and more 1440p monitors sold everyday. And when you spend this amount of money for a CPU many people will also consider a high end GPU with a 1440p monitor for gaming, thus it will be very nice to have those results.

 

[barryv88]

This year, many will be building new computers mostly dedicated to Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020. In the past, flight sims were more likely to be CPU-bound than GPU-bound, but it's not clear that that's any longer the case. Is there any way to predict before final release of this much-anticipated game whether it will benefit more from single-core clock speed or multi-threading? Would anyone hazard a guess on whether to plan an Intel or Ryzen build?

DX12 should remove alot of CPU bottleneck and hopefully we'll see great core scaling if all pans out for the engine. I for one would like to see how the engine handles scenery draw and how smooth everything will translate to FPS.

 

[techy1966]

Nice review thank you.

I see all of these comments on you used 1080p res and today's gamer's do not use that. Or who would game on a 2080Ti at 1080p.

This is a CPU review guys not a GPU review and with that said using 1080p even on the high end GPU like a 2080Ti allows each of the CPU's to work at their best without maxing out the GPU and causing all of the CPU's to look like they all perform the same because the GPU is holding some of them back by being a bottleneck.

Just for info 1080p is the most used res in the world of gaming still even in 2020 and 1440p is catching up but still not there yet. No people who buy a 2080Ti most likely would not be gaming at only 1080p but for a CPU review using 1080p on a GPU as powerful as a 2080Ti makes 100% sense as I stated it removes the GPU as a bottleneck for the CPU's being reviewed. Now they can also include 1440p benchmarks in the same review for those that want to see how the new CPU's compare at a bit higher res but the charts will be a lot closer together than the 1080p benchmarks.

If all they did was include 1440p benchmarks and no 1080p charts it would muddy the waters and make all CPU's look like they are all the same for performance which as I said muddies the waters and makes the review useless to most everyone.

Maybe with Nvidia Ampere cards and AMD's RDNA 2 or 3 card 1440p will finally become the go to res for CPU reviews but current GPU's just do not have enough power under the hood to make 1440p the only option to use for a CPU only review. If you want to see 1440p & 4K benchmarks then maybe go to a GPU review which is when you want to see those higher resolutions used and no 1080p benchmarks on the highest end cards being tested. Man I wish people would stop and think for a second and see why 1080p is still being used for a CPU review in games. Fact is current GPU's do not have the grunt to let each of the CPU's excel to their very best at anything higher than 1080p.

 

[techy1966]

The only downside is how hot the 10700K gets. When I got mine, I ran a stress test at stock and it hit 74 degrees with a Fractal Celsius S24 AIO with my case open (Define R6) for maximum airflow and all fans running. It gets into the mid 80's when the case is closed. I'd assume I'd get those temperatures with the case open when overclocking and that's a bit much.

I will say this though, my new system runs Doom Eternal really well. Basically everything cranked to high or ultra at 2K resolution with a GTX 1070.

Yea Doom Eternal is great both as a game in general and how well it runs on pretty much anything. I only have a i7 2600K@5.1GHz and a Vega 56 bios flashed to Vega 64 bios for the extra HBM2 and core clock speed. I max out Doom ET and only use 1080p it hits some very high frame rates on the system and is silky smooth. My CPU temps in Doom ET hit around 54c-62c depending what is happening on the screen at the time. Easy game to run for sure just like Doom 2016 where the FPS counter was always stuck at 200FPS..well 199-200 when it blipped..lol

 

[RodroX]

Nice review thank you.

I see all of these comments on you used 1080p res and today's gamer's do not use that. Or who would game on a 2080Ti at 1080p.

This is a CPU review guys not a GPU review and with that said using 1080p even on the high end GPU like a 2080Ti allows each of the CPU's to work at their best without maxing out the GPU and causing all of the CPU's to look like they all perform the same because the GPU is holding some of them back by being a bottleneck.

Just for info 1080p is the most used res in the world of gaming still even in 2020 and 1440p is catching up but still not there yet. No people who buy a 2080Ti most likely would not be gaming at only 1080p but for a CPU review using 1080p on a GPU as powerful as a 2080Ti makes 100% sense as I stated it removes the GPU as a bottleneck for the CPU's being reviewed. Now they can also include 1440p benchmarks in the same review for those that want to see how the new CPU's compare at a bit higher res but the charts will be a lot closer together than the 1080p benchmarks.

If all they did was include 1440p benchmarks and no 1080p charts it would muddy the waters and make all CPU's look like they are all the same for performance which as I said muddies the waters and makes the review useless to most everyone.

Maybe with Nvidia Ampere cards and AMD's RDNA 2 or 3 card 1440p will finally become the go to res for CPU reviews but current GPU's just do not have enough power under the hood to make 1440p the only option to use for a CPU only review. If you want to see 1440p & 4K benchmarks then maybe go to a GPU review which is when you want to see those higher resolutions used and no 1080p benchmarks on the highest end cards being tested. Man I wish people would stop and think for a second and see why 1080p is still being used for a CPU review in games. Fact is current GPU's do not have the grunt to let each of the CPU's excel to their very best at anything higher than 1080p.

Most of us know how a CPU review works thank you.

And no one is asking to stop testing 1080p, just if its posible to add 1440p for those that do/want/need/like to play at 1440p and are looking for a CPU upgrade.

 

[techy1966]

Most of us know how a CPU review works thank you.

And no one is asking to stop testing 1080p, just if its possible to add 1440p for those that do/want/need/like to play at 1440p and are looking for a CPU upgrade.

Actually in my own post I stated they could also post 1440p results for those that want to see how a given CPU scales up and performs. It is extra work for the tester but probably worth it in the long run. Judging from a few of the comments it looks like there are quite a few that don't understand how CPU testinig should go hence the long winded post by me before on the subject.

 

[Phaaze88]

Intel keeps on saying that they are better for gaming because of single-threaded 1080p benchmarks, but we don't game like that with 2080ti cards. We don't build $2000 machines with one of the most expensive gaming cards to run 1080p ffs.

Some people actually do this though, as illogical as it is...

 

[Gurg]

TechPowerUp ran its gaming test suites at 1080, 1440 and 2160. 10700k OC beat best AMD by 8.3% at 1080, 3.6% at 1440 and 1.6% at 2160. 10600k OC beat best AMD by 7% at 1080, 3.9% at 1440 and 1.9% at 2160.

As the reviews indicate, want to game at fastest FPS and use MS Office buy Intel. Use workstation multi-threaded applications for pay, only game in spare time and OK with lower FPS gaming buy AMD.

At Microcenter today 10600k @$270 and Z490 MSI gaming plus (2 M.2 slots) @$170

May 2020 Steam survey: 70% use 4 cores or less, 93% use 6 cores or less. only 4% use a 1080ti, 2080 or 2080ti GPU capable of reasonable gaming FPS on a 4K PC. Only 0.8% have a 2080ti.

 

[st379]

TechPowerUp ran its gaming test suites at 1080, 1440 and 2160. 10700k OC beat best AMD by 8.3% at 1080, 3.6% at 1440 and 1.6% at 2160. 10600k OC beat best AMD by 7% at 1080, 3.9% at 1440 and 1.9% at 2160.

As the reviews indicate, want to game at fastest FPS and use MS Office buy Intel. Use workstation multi-threaded applications for pay, only game in spare time and OK with lower FPS gaming buy AMD.

At Microcenter today 10600k @$270 and Z490 MSI gaming plus (2 M.2 slots) @$170

May 2020 Steam survey: 70% use 4 cores or less, 93% use 6 cores or less. only 4% use a 1080ti, 2080 or 2080ti GPU capable of reasonable gaming FPS on a 4K PC. Only 0.8% have a 2080ti.

Unless I am missing something I do not remember any problems with MS Office since the days of Pentium 4. I still have A4-5300 that runs perfectly fine MS Office.

 

[RodroX]

TechPowerUp ran its gaming test suites at 1080, 1440 and 2160. 10700k OC beat best AMD by 8.3% at 1080, 3.6% at 1440 and 1.6% at 2160. 10600k OC beat best AMD by 7% at 1080, 3.9% at 1440 and 1.9% at 2160.

As the reviews indicate, want to game at fastest FPS and use MS Office buy Intel. Use workstation multi-threaded applications for pay, only game in spare time and OK with lower FPS gaming buy AMD.

At Microcenter today 10600k @$270 and Z490 MSI gaming plus (2 M.2 slots) @$170

May 2020 Steam survey: 70% use 4 cores or less, 93% use 6 cores or less. only 4% use a 1080ti, 2080 or 2080ti GPU capable of reasonable gaming FPS on a 4K PC. Only 0.8% have a 2080ti.

One of the problems with your text is that you are not having in consideration that the reader and later cpu buyer may not have the same Motherboard, GPU, RAM and coolings solutions that the one TechPowerUp used for testing.

And so all your percentage numbers becomes only a theoretical indication of performance, and does not tell the whole story about the "advantage" or "disadvantage" for buying Intel or AMD.

Beyond that you forget about what FPS firgure represent. At 1440p, 3.6% diference if for example: Intel gets: 158 FPS, for AMD will be: ~152 FPS, now please name me someone that can really notice the diference between 158fps and 152fps?

Lets do the math at 1080p, said AMD gets: 177FPS, now Intel gets ~191FPS, you can tell thats a huge 14FPS more, but at this already high FPS level, Do you really think everyone will notice this?

Once again, keep in mind this is using the numbers you provided from TechPowerUp, not everyone buying a 10700K or 10600K will be able to OC it the same (silicon lottery), or will have the same memory tuning they had, same motherboard, cooling solution, etc. So results will probably be "close" at best.

And Im not saying you shouldn't buy Intel, in fact I recommended a few forum user to get the 10600K which for me is the best option right now. Heck if I had the money and it was at a reasonable price I would have gone intel too (it was not the case back then, and its not the case now).

Benchmarks are usually a nice indication of the best case scenario, thats all. What do I mean with this?, best in slot parts, best cooling solution, with a clean installation of windows, no antivirus software nor Windows update runing in the back, no discord, no OBS, no 10 chrome tabs, etc.

Cheers!

 

[Gurg]

And so all your percentage numbers becomes only a theoretical indication of performance, and does not tell the whole story about the "advantage" or "disadvantage" for buying Intel or AMD.
Benchmarks are usually a nice indication of the best case scenario, thats all.
Cheers!

In three posts above you decried that TH didn't run at 1440 and others that there weren't 2160 resolution. I posted a site Techpowerup review that ran gaming tests at actually four different resolutions for ten games as well as overall performance percentages. Intel Ks topped the lists for overall gaming results at all resolutions.

What becomes evident from reading the posts is that many are simply having buyers remorse for having bought AMD setups strictly for pricing and are now looking for some justification for AMD's lower gaming FPS. Thus the attacks/nitpicks of the messenger(reviewers) for the resolutions, detail settings, the games run, motherboard, RAM , PSU or cooler used, prices of components, silicon lottery or overclocking results.

Every Tech site does their own reviews and they all use basically the same methodology, same setup and have similar results and conclusions. The numerical test review results for equipment are what they are with minor variations.

For major CPU/GPU releases, VideoCardz.com has links to 30-40 reviews from around the world.

 

[RodroX]

In three posts above you decried that TH didn't run at 1440 and others that there weren't 2160 resolution. I posted a site Techpowerup review that ran gaming tests at actually four different resolutions for ten games as well as overall performance percentages. Intel Ks topped the lists for overall gaming results at all resolutions.

What becomes evident from reading the posts is that many are simply having buyers remorse for having bought AMD setups strictly for pricing and are now looking for some justification for AMD's lower gaming FPS. Thus the attacks/nitpicks of the messenger(reviewers) for the resolutions, detail settings, the games run, motherboard, RAM , PSU or cooler used, prices of components, silicon lottery or overclocking results.

Every Tech site does their own reviews and they all use basically the same methodology, same setup and have similar results and conclusions. The numerical test review results for equipment are what they are with minor variations.

For major CPU/GPU releases, VideoCardz.com has links to 30-40 reviews from around the world.

I really haven't saw anyone having remorses of buying AMD over intel in any thread I posted.

Im 100% sure I don't have any remorse at all from buying my AMD cpu.

In fact is great for gaming and I can tell the same from all those I have recommended AMD over intel, lots of clients, friends and co-workers, AMD right now simple have the best price-performance relationship.

And the diference in gaming between Intel and AMD is soo small (have you heard of diminishing returns?, something TH used to write a lot on thier reviews, but lately its no where to be found) that it doesn't matter what you get cause in the end you have and want to spend more on the GPU.

Im runing my setup with AMD PB disable (yeah thats right Im runing the CPU at base speed no turbo) and I haven't encounter 1 single issue playing most games I tried at avg 75+ FPS and 1% low at around 65+ FPS.
Keep in mind those results are for 1440p all details maxed out (thats how I like to play). The R5 3600 at base speed is more than enough for me, for now. If I need it more FPS I would just into BIOS and enable PB.

Im not saying don't buy intel for fastest FPS number, please go ahead and do buy it if you can.
In my case I choosed to go with the best GPU I could affford at the time, and the best CPU for the job was the Ryzen 5 3600. It was that or a crappy core i3 9100. Yeah that how stupid price are where I live.

Theres no way where I live that someone will spend between U$75~U$100 extra for an unlocked intel cpu and mobo, when they can get basically the same performance from AMD and put that extra cash on a better the GPU.

So yeah for people like me, that are no FPS freaks, 1440p ultra details results are important.