Range from 10600K to 10850K or 10900K—worth considering?
Range from 10600K to 10850K or 10900K—worth considering?
I’m seeing a solid deal to move up from 10600K to either 10850K or 10900K, depending on what’s in stock. I’m using an Asus Prime Z490-M Plus and cooling it with a Lian Li Galahad 240. For now, I’m not running a GPU, but the shop owner thinks this motherboard can handle the processors. They even joked about selling it as a monkey, which isn’t very trustworthy. Since my main needs are Blender and some light gaming, this upgrade seems reasonable.
Consider a non-K CPU if you can find them at a lower price than a K CPU, because a 240mm chip isn’t suited for heavy overclocks, especially with Intel processors that behave like powerful reactors.
If your tasks require more cores and you can afford these processors at a fair cost, it would be a good investment.
The issue is still unclear to me. I'm frequently switching between Photoshop, Illustrator and Blender. Some say adding more cores doesn't really help with Photoshop, it's more about clock speed. I'm not sure how accurate that is. Others claim more cores improve Blender, particularly for rendering. With my 10700K and 10600K, it's hard to tell the difference. I guess a few seconds or minutes might make a big difference depending on the scene files. Since it's only a two-core gap, I wonder if increasing to ten cores would really help?
I’d go straight for a 11700K. It aligns closely with the multicore benchmark results for 10850K/10900K, especially with fewer cores, since the processors are more efficient. You’ll also see improved single-core performance afterward.
For top performance, consider the 10850k. It's an excellent CPU; I'm reverting to a single core and moving away from the 11700f soon.