It looks like Intel still can't catch AMD's 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X.
Leaked Core i9-10900K Review Shows it Barely Surpassing the Ryzen 9 3900X : Read more
Leaked Core i9-10900K Review Shows it Barely Surpassing the Ryzen 9 3900X : Read more
The said CPU is the 3900x which is roughly in the same price tier and itBarely surpassing said 3950x in gaming, while getting roflstomped in every other category.
Quel Surprise!
The R9 3900X is NOT in the same price tier as the i9-10900K... The R9 is $410 atm WITH a cooler, whereas the i9-10900K will be over $500 (significantly so if the i9-9900K was anything to go by; the $488 price on Intel's slides is only for a tray of 1000), and with no cooler. The R9 3900X is going to be at LEAST 25-30% cheaper in total (you're gonna need quite the cooler for that i9). As far as actual, real-world pricing goes, the i9-10900K is going to fall right into the no-man's land in-between the 3900X and 3950X (I'd be expecting $520-550 for the chip and $100 for a good enough cooler, so like $630ish total).The said CPU is the 3900x which is roughly in the same price tier and itbeatsbarely surpasses it in both gaming and "productivity" while the 3900x has 20% more cores....
Nobody is saying that AMD is so bad that 16 cores are going to match only 10 cores.
You mean that cheap AMD Wraith Prism air cooler that throttles performance and that everyone that cares about performance is trying to dump on E-bay to help fund buying a decent AIO water cooler? LOLThe R9 3900X is NOT in the same price tier as the i9-10900K... The R9 is $410 atm WITH a cooler, whereas the i9-10900K will be over $500 (significantly so if the i9-9900K was anything to go by; the $488 price on Intel's slides is only for a tray of 1000), and with no cooler. The R9 3900X is going to be at LEAST 25-30% cheaper in total (you're gonna need quite the cooler for that i9). As far as actual, real-world pricing goes, the i9-10900K is going to fall right into the no-man's land in-between the 3900X and 3950X (I'd be expecting $520-550 for the chip and $100 for a good enough cooler, so like $630ish total).
This CPU is barely beating a much cheaper CPU in gaming (at least at 1440p), while losing everywhere else, and with significantly worse power & thermals to boot (reviewer says a 360mm² AIO is the minimum you need). Not a good look for Intel.
Are you talking about the 10900K or the 3900X? The stock cooler will run a 3900X at 80C+, but it won't throttle it.You mean that cheap AMD air cooler that throttles performance and that everyone that cares about performance is trying to dump on E-bay to help fund buying a decent AIO water cooler?
https://www.ebay.com/sch/131486/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=Ryzen+9+3900X+Wraith+PRISM+RGB+CoolerAre you talking about the 10900K or the 3900X? The stock cooler will run a 3900X at 80C+, but it won't throttle it.
Yes, 5% performance difference is indeed a huge difference /s
It doesn't matter if it's AMD or Intel. What matters is whether it's a a bad, cringy, click-baity journalist or a normal one.I wonder what this article’s spin would be if the 10900K was an AMD cpu and the 3900X and 3950X were Intel cpus. Probably the headline would read like this:
“AMD extents their single-threaded performance dominance”
“All bow down to the new gaming king. The 10900K succeeds the 9900K in the gaming throne leaving Intel further in the dust!”
“A true ultra-fast moving comet. Meet the new blazing fast AMD cpu clocking at up to 5.3GHz out of the box!”
“The 10900K demonstrates meaningful gaming performance gains in 1440p, not just 1080p”
“Who said the choice of cpu mattered in 1080p gaming only? AMD now offers higher frame rate than Intel by 20% in 1440p resolution!”
“WOW. AMD’s 10-core outmatches Intel’s 12-core”
“This new AMD 10-core $500-dollar cpu DEMOLISHES Intel’s 16-core $750 flagship in a multitude of workloads”,
“Not even Intel’s flagship 16-core can keep up with AMD’s new 10-core processor”
“Power wizardry! AMD’s 14nm process somehow manages to defy the laws of physics and is more efficient than Intel’s 7nm! Look at those low idle powers! Also more efficient in regular workloads 107W vs 124W. WOW how did they do it?!”
The cheapest deal you can find on a CPU is not the average price most people are going to buy it for,the list price is 499 so it's close.The R9 3900X is NOT in the same price tier as the i9-10900K... The R9 is $410 atm WITH a cooler
But it is beating it,even at 1440 where the GPU is limiting intel's speed by a bunch,even with the zen CPU having 20% more cores.This CPU is barely beating a much cheaper CPU in gaming (at least at 1440p), while losing everywhere else, and with significantly worse power & thermals to boot (reviewer says a 360mm² AIO is the minimum you need). Not a good look for Intel.
If you want to run it overclocked to hell,do you truly believe everybody has to,or will, do that?!10900K with its inflated price in the first 3 months + very strong VRM equipped mobo + water cooling will easily exceed $1000.
The 10900k is horrible for gaming alone,true that.As I expected. Intel is a horrible choice. EVEN FOR GAMING. See all the same intel shills kicking around in here.
So what is it good for then?The 10900k is horrible for gaming alone,true that.
The i3-10300 will come close enough to 10900 FPS to be a far better choice.