10900k vs 11900k
10900k vs 11900k
The speculation around a $100 price increase and weaker performance compared to the previous generation suggests the 10900k could match or surpass the 11900k in value. It seems there might be a compelling shift where the 10900k offers similar or greater worth due to its dual-core advantage over the 11900k. The transition from 10th to 11th generation appears to align with the performance of earlier generations, around the 6th to 7th gen level. If the 12th generation falls short, Intel's desktop division could face significant challenges. Should Intel secure strong gaming performance leadership in the 11th gen, they might retain an edge against AMD until the next major release. What are your thoughts on this outlook?
The AnandTech review claims the 11700k underperforms compared to the 10700k. The trend may continue with the 11900, though I might be mistaken. Several aspects are still not considered.
Looking for thorough evaluations as well. Additionally, updated BIOS releases that offer improved stability and performance.
I believe things will get worse. Raising prices while cutting core count won’t help. Those who rely on more than eight cores won’t be satisfied. They should stick with AMD instead. Even gamers shouldn’t pay over $500 for an 8-core, 16-thread processor. Intel can’t outdo AMD with their latest chips. On the 11900k, it won’t be worth much to most people.
Intel lost their single benefit with the 10th generation, offering more cores at a lower cost. The i5 10400f was more affordable than the 3600, while the i7 10700 was cheaper than the 3700x and 5800x. They are eliminating that minor edge they once had.
Anandtech isn't always the most trustworthy source. I still treat their early 11700k review with caution. They’re part of the group that received misleading outcomes in their Ryzen 5000 series tests—using 10th gen chips on 2933mhz RAM and Ryzen at 3200mhz. I know those numbers are based on Intel’s specs for 2933 and Ryzen’s for 3200, but usually only OEM buyers would pair the newest i7 or i9 with such slow RAM. They probably don’t care much about the gap between a 10900k and a Ryzen 5800x at 1080p. On the other hand, many enthusiasts use 3200mhz or higher. In most reviews I’ve read, the same RAM speeds are used for both platforms—TPU, GN, HUB, Jarrod’s Tech, etc.—and gaming results at 1080p and even 720p stay within a small margin of error, with just a few exceptions. Some articles even highlight the 10900k as a top choice. The takeaway is that when tested fairly, performance differences are minimal, so any wins or losses are essentially a tie. That said, I agree with @curiousmind34 about moving to an 8-core configuration. While cores might not be crucial for raw speed, there’s a psychological edge to having more cores, which feels better for the average consumer. I chose the 10900K for $400 with 10 cores, compared to $600 for the newer 11th-gen 8-core and $450 for the Ryzen 5800x. I might be mistaken—I also had a Z590, so I could upgrade later if it suits my needs better.
I see it as "is it an upgrade" and it doesn’t seem right for me. Currently I’m running an i7 8086k (2018), an i9 9900k (2019) and an i9 10900k (2020). From a gaming perspective, neither of these models adds up to six cores. Based on my setup, the i9 10900k stands out. After testing, I’m confident an 8-core processor would suffice, so I’m opting for a R7 5800X with my tax return since I already have the i9 10900k.