Compare the i5-10600K and i7-10700 to see which performs better.
Compare the i5-10600K and i7-10700 to see which performs better.
Considering my setup with an MSI Z490, a Z-series board, and the i5-10600K with NH-DS15 matching the i7-10700’s price with stock cooler, the distinction lies in the extra two cores and four threads, plus turbo boost 3.0. It’s worth thinking about whether the effort is worthwhile or if choosing an i7 would be easier. What are your thoughts?
Absolutely, the 10600K is a solid choice with a cooler setup. Stock cooling options are usually more effective than locked chips.
I believe the 10700 offers significant worth. You can surpass its power ceiling to bypass the 65W restriction and achieve a sustained boost clock. In Canada, a 10600k (with cooler) is priced similarly to a 10700. Purchasing one at 130$CAD makes it considerably more affordable. If you plan to maintain the setup for a few years and later upgrade to an i7 11th gen, it could be a wise choice too.
Looking ahead two years, the latest consoles offer eight cores and sixteen threads. If you plan to keep your CPU for three to six years, it could be beneficial to opt for more cores and threads than the 10600k. I picked that route with my 4790k, and it paid off—people recommended an i5, but I chose an i7 and got extra years of top performance.
Choose between the i5 10600k or i7 10700 based on your preference. A Z490 with a NH-DS15 5ghz supports all cores. I recommend the i7 10700 because it runs smoothly at 5ghz and offers extra cores for future needs.
Modern systems feature 8/8 resolution, and a four-core setup remains adequate.
Beyond a Ryzen 3000 processor in two years, GPUs will still outperform it in two years, regardless of core count. You'll need to upgrade to maximize their potential. The 10600k and 10700k are the best choices if you don’t intend to replace your CPU soon. They may not fully utilize upcoming GPUs, but they’re significantly closer than today’s Ryzen options. For now, the Ryzen 5 3600 remains a practical option.
They already outperform 2080 Ti at 1080p more than Intel, which suggests what we might expect from the 3000 series even at 1440p. This highlights the importance of 1080p benchmarks when evaluating CPUs. It’s a prediction on how these processors will behave with more powerful GPUs in the future, since CPU data under GPU constraints isn’t very insightful. When the Nvidia 3000 is released, if it doesn’t surpass Intel’s performance better than the Ryzen 3000 at 1440p, I’ll consider switching to the L variant. However, I doubt I’ll need to change my mind. Back in 2017, similar concerns arose with the Ryzen 7 1700 versus 8700k; at that time, 1440p scores didn’t really differentiate much, and the 8700k turned out to be a poor investment. More cores on the 1700 eventually proved advantageous. Yet now, people—including you—are saying the extra cores in the 10700k won’t make a difference. Who’s right? It depends on what comes next. Those who upgraded their CPUs multiple times are already seeing results. And some still outperform a Ryzen 9 3950x in games. Of course, this is just speculation. Like any decision, it’s a gamble. I took one in 2017 and was correct. I might be wrong this time, but I’ll be open to losing if that happens. The evidence leans toward me. Benchmarks without GPU limits are key.
1. High refresh gamers. But that's not the point. The 1080p results represent CPU limited testing. This provides insight on how future GPUs will perform on the same CPUs, or GPU scaling with existing GPUs. 2. This is always the case. But then again, we only have the games we have to test. We are predicting future behavior, but at the same time, we have existing data that already proves my point. Obviously some games prefer some architectures more than others. But right now, even with AMD being the influence on consoles for the past decade, it hasn't changed anything. And by and large, low-latency fast cores give better performance than more higher latency slower cores. You yourself say that 6/12 is more than enough. 3. I personally do not find value in CPU upgrades in place. It is almost always better to upgrade your whole system and with much larger jumps in performance for your best bang for your buck. If you are upgrading often anyways, then it would seem maximum performance is your focus, not cost. Personally, I am not upgrading to anything (AMD or Intel) without at least a 20% bump in gaming performance, if not more. As it stands, I don't think that will happen. But even if it does, I would then ask myself if even without that bump, are my games still enjoyable? 3. It's not only 5%, as evidenced by my last data screenshot. It's closer to 20% in the SotTR GPU unlimited scenario. EDIT: I edited for clarify and good fellowship.