10900k and 10700k options available with Ryzen processors.
10900k and 10700k options available with Ryzen processors.
I've been switching between the 10900k and 10700k recently, but I'm still unsure which one to choose. Both are handling gaming well, especially with high frame rates, though the 10700k and 10900k excel in editing. They perform better with a SLI configuration, and I won't be purchasing another 2080 because I don't plan to edit 8K videos. The extra performance gain in games isn't worth the cost, and it's quite pricey. The additional cores and threads seem valuable, but I'm not sure if they justify the extra expense for a 10900k or a stronger motherboard. I'm leaning toward the 10700k with a Gigabyte VISION G or an Asus MAXIMUS XII APEX/HE Wi-Fi if I go with the 10900k, since they offer strong VRM cooling and overclocking potential. I might wait for the Ryzen 4000 instead.
You can wait or purchase immediately. These items don’t drop in games, and you typically see 10% price hikes.
They can be much more effective for editing if you're setting up a gaming rig, especially when dealing with high-end CPUs. For top-tier processors, relying on Intel's encoding might not give you the best results, as Nvidia's encoding can outperform it. My Ryzen 9, even with its many cores and overclocked setup, still gets significantly boosted by Nvidia's encoding. I’m not sure you need to worry about this right now. It might be wise to keep an eye on the Ryzen 4's capabilities before deciding.
I believe many overlook how Intel stands out significantly when it comes to overclocking. I’ve felt let down by the 3900x in terms of this aspect—otherwise it’s a powerful machine. I prefer the 3900x over the 9900k, not because of other factors, but since overclocking it feels like a waste. Compared to my old i7-4790k, you could easily push it to its limits, whereas the 3900x doesn’t justify the effort. While some might say the 10900k only improves by about 10% over the Ryzen 3900x, that’s not much. The 3900x is stuck, and even with extra cooling, I doubt the VRMs will handle it well. On the other hand, the 10900k could reach around 5k with overclocking, which would keep it competitive in gaming longer. This is just something I’ve been thinking about recently.
Sure, I can wait a bit. The price gap between the 3900X and the 10700K is significant, and the latter seems to perform much better while being more affordable. I’ll get the new chip paired with my current Aorus RTX 2080, but for now I’m running it alongside my overclocked i5-3550 at 3.9GHz to stay competitive.
intel is really pushing the limits with their CPU options. I’ve got my old i5 3550, which runs at 3.3GHz by default and can be boosted to 3.7GHz, then up to 3.9-4.0GHz for overclocking. It helps me keep up with my Aorus 2080 and I mainly play games on my PC: CS:GO, Need for Speed Payback, Heat, GTA V with high settings, and GTA V with Extreme graphics. RTX gives me around 100 FPS at 1080p when maxed out, but even then it struggles. My little brother sometimes plays Fortnite and the CPU just can’t keep up anymore. I also edit videos, but it still gets slow even at 1080p 60fps. I’m looking for a stronger CPU that will last me at least six to seven years, especially with a GPU upgrade in the future.
I waited until now, which is why I only purchased a new GPU and I’m comfortable with the delay of another month or two. My i5 3550 still offers solid performance for many games, though it feels a bit outdated in editing tasks. Do you have an idea of how long we should expect to wait before seeing the new Ryzen 4000 series?
This trend has faded with modern processors. Stock is nearly exhausted, and manual overclocking usually leads to reduced performance since peak speeds drop. The Ryzen 4000 is expected soon, but if you can afford it, the 10th generation isn't too bad and better parts are always coming.
They won't be available soon, it seems the update is scheduled for September.