Comparing these processors focuses on performance for video editing and photo editing tasks, not rendering speed.
Comparing these processors focuses on performance for video editing and photo editing tasks, not rendering speed.
The board reaches a 3700x and works with 3900x, though it struggles with high powerdraw. A 3700(x) would still be a significant improvement and likely more efficient than a 10600k. Upgrading to a 3700(x) seems like the optimal choice here—better performance, faster rendering, and comparable editing speed at a lower cost.
Also, for gaming, the CPU handles over 144fps in any title as long as the GPU can support it.
I mentioned the Ryzen price is crazy here. The MSI Mag B460M + 10600K is ten dollars cheaper than the 3700X, why does the 3700X cost so much more? Yet 3600 seems fair at around fifty bucks. Adding a 10600K and a B460 brings you to about fifty-three dollars. The 3700X is still a pretty steep price.
The GPU is what truly counts, as it handles rendering in real time, allowing smooth scrolling. These CPUs perform adequately on their own.
Between the 6th and 10th generations, IPC remains fairly consistent across similar clocks. Each new generation brings improved refinement and more accurate timing at any voltage, allowing later models to reach higher speeds more consistently. Thermal management also evolves, with earlier generations using basic cooling methods while newer ones adopt more advanced designs. Hardware optimizations for security issues affect later chips more than older ones. Within each generation, individual SKUs often offer unique advantages—such as better binning or enhanced caches and faster GPUs—for their respective core counts. Overall, despite minor differences, 6th through 9th generation Intel CPUs are essentially comparable in performance, especially when clock speeds stay the same. The 11th generation introduces a new architecture and memory controller, building on a 10nm to 14nm foundation. This means comparisons aren't perfectly straightforward. For example, a 6700k at 5.2ghz versus a 10900k at 5.2ghz would likely show similar results in applications that don’t leverage higher core counts. A 10900k will probably run more smoothly and deliver better performance, while a 6700k won’t reach its full potential. If your workload doesn’t take advantage of additional cores, you might see a 100-200MHz gap in overclocking or a 200-300MHz difference in base speed.
I’m still unsure. Should I opt for the 3600 or stick with the 1700? It seems like a noticeable improvement, and it might save more money overall.
Tell me about your current motherboard. This will assist in suggesting options, since a robust board can support a 3900X (12 cores, 24 threads, on AM4).
I'll include it in the post, thanks. Gigabyte AB350M Gaming 3
You should consider a more powerful option—modern standards make this board feel outdated. I recommend the 10850K + Z490-P. Its 10 cores and 20 threads will last for many years, and the price has been reasonable recently. The 10600K offers 6 cores and 12 threads, which is acceptable now but may become insufficient as games evolve to use more cores.