10700k vs 10900
10700k vs 10900
I noticed the 10900 non K model appears less reported, making it a potentially better value. If pricing was $10700 at $300 and $10900 at $350, the 2.8 base might seem off—but that doesn’t sound right. You probably won’t want to overclock, focusing mainly on coding. Any advice?
If you don't plan on overclocking there's no point in getting a K scew. Spec wise the 10700K boosts up to 5.1ghz but has 2 fewer cores while the 10900 boosts up to 5.2. So realistically it's the same CPU but with 2 more cores if you're not going to overclock. I'd go with the 10900 especially if you're compiling often than those cores might be put to better use ( not sure what you mean by coding it's a broad term)
The 10900 would actually reach 4.6Ghz across all cores, making it a more attractive option whether you choose to overclock the 10700K or not, provided the price difference is only around $50.
At $350 I think it's a solid offer compared to the $700k. The 5600x at $300 seems close but won't surpass the $10,900; it's probably around the $10,700k.
The main difference is just 100MHz, and if it matches the 10700K’s performance, it would also fit the 10900. The extra $50 wouldn’t be worth it—it would add only two more cores that won’t be used. Even my 8086K with just six cores delivers top-tier gaming performance.