Intel's tenth generation processor series
Intel's tenth generation processor series
The 10th generation is now available in my country. I'm checking if the new i7 and i9 models (10700k and 10900k) are a good investment compared to the older 9th gen. The price gap between the 9700k and 10700k i7 is five dollars, while the 9900k and 10900k i9 differ by fifteen dollars. For heavy editing at 1080p/1440p at 60 fps and future-proofing for big games, the 10900k seems justified. The 10700k still has its place, especially if you prefer AMD's 3700x or 3900x for better value. Overall, the 10900k appears to offer better performance and longevity, though the 10700k remains a solid choice depending on your priorities.
Well, if it were my budget... unless finances were tight, I wouldn’t hesitate to opt for the 10th generation model. The price change would likely be minimal—just a few dollars. It also doesn’t appear there’s a big cost difference between the Z390 and Z490 boards.
The 10th generation Intel chips aren't ready yet, possibly just for preorders. Official releases haven't happened. Newer 10th gen CPUs offer better performance compared to older models like the i7 10700K, which has more threads than the 9700K. The 10900K adds two extra cores and four extra threads, boosting speed further. However, the 10900K uses the 14nm+ architecture, which can overheat easily—some reports mention it reaches 90°C even with strong cooling. Right now, it's not advisable to buy 10th gen Intel; consider AMD or hold off until the 11th generation when Intel might adopt 10nm.
I'll just wait for feedback and comparisons before deciding. Even a small price difference matters to me.
The review highlights potential Intel alternatives for the I9-10900K, pointing to a strong option from Intel itself.
On paper the i7 offers HT while the i9 provides 25% more cores, which is beneficial given the modest CPU price rise. However, Z490 boards may remain costly even for budget models. Their true value remains uncertain until they hit the market, and it’s unclear how they’ll surpass Zen 2. Plus, Zen 3 is already on the horizon.
It seems like aiming for around 325w is likely, and everything should work fine. My setup leans more toward a 2700x versus an 8700K, depending on what you need. Intel processors can be overclocked beyond what AMD turbo can handle, but they don’t offer much voltage flexibility. The current chips reach their maximum boost from the box, so neither system shines in every area. I can’t push performance further without extra cooling, which is becoming a challenge with newer 14nm designs. We’re stuck with lots of cores but limited scalability—overclocking feels like a dead end despite BIOS options. Maybe it’s time to consider A320 chipsets for better results. And in about 15 years, this stuff will look super outdated.
Most people don't go there. You know that. I guess what I meant by overclocking, is actually getting performance gains. Like extra FPS. Even the video cards boost, no head room. Maybe on the v-ram, but that can get sketchy really quick. Some people must forget that average 800mhz OC headroom we'd get. Not, little to none. So here's my take. Give me that 3.7ghz base clock. Then let me overclock it manually to 4.2ghz and then we can call me an overclocker again.