Hard to Justify: Intel Core i7-10700K CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 3900X, 3700X, 10600K
video description
Date: 2020-05-24
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Offduty
A comparison between this CPU and a 9900k is an effective demonstration of precisely how much (or little) additional IPC performance Intel has managed to extract from Comet Lake. Having quickly scanned through the charts it appears that the two chips are basically tied overall - the 10700 very slightly quicker for multi-threaded and the 9900 faster for most games (with a couple of exceptions in each case! However, (at 20:50) the 10700k is shown to consume significantly more power than the 9900k at STOCK, despite having the exactly same number of cores and only very slightly higher default frequencies. Frankly, I'm surprised Intel even bothered releasing it since it essentially amounts to a giant billboard inscribed with the phrase Look this really is just Coffee Lake in new box...with a WORSE power/performance ratio . Regardless of the debate over value compared to AMD, choosing this chip over either the 10900k or 10600k two would boarder on madness.
reply
A comparison between this CPU and a 9900k is an effective demonstration of precisely how much (or little) additional IPC performance Intel has managed to extract from Comet Lake. Having quickly scanned through the charts it appears that the two chips are basically tied overall - the 10700 very slightly quicker for multi-threaded and the 9900 faster for most games (with a couple of exceptions in each case! However, (at 20:50) the 10700k is shown to consume significantly more power than the 9900k at STOCK, despite having the exactly same number of cores and only very slightly higher default frequencies. Frankly, I'm surprised Intel even bothered releasing it since it essentially amounts to a giant billboard inscribed with the phrase Look this really is just Coffee Lake in new box...with a WORSE power/performance ratio . Regardless of the debate over value compared to AMD, choosing this chip over either the 10900k or 10600k two would boarder on madness.
reply
Rozzbourn
so the real problem is the price, not the performance. the price structure for intel to compete would be something like 200 for 10600k, 300 for 10700k, and 375 for 10900k. the problem is that intel always has high demand for its cpu's because of system makers. so because there is such a demand, and intel can sell everything it makes at the prices they have established, a price cut wont be likely. everyone says the 5-15% performance advantage intel has in games wouldn't be noticeable to the average user, you could make the same argument about production loads for amd. I think the difference will be when new video cards come out, and we see that advantage in 1080p move to 1440p. the only cpu's that look compelling from intel right now are the 6 core parts, mainly the 10400f due to the price.
reply
so the real problem is the price, not the performance. the price structure for intel to compete would be something like 200 for 10600k, 300 for 10700k, and 375 for 10900k. the problem is that intel always has high demand for its cpu's because of system makers. so because there is such a demand, and intel can sell everything it makes at the prices they have established, a price cut wont be likely. everyone says the 5-15% performance advantage intel has in games wouldn't be noticeable to the average user, you could make the same argument about production loads for amd. I think the difference will be when new video cards come out, and we see that advantage in 1080p move to 1440p. the only cpu's that look compelling from intel right now are the 6 core parts, mainly the 10400f due to the price.
reply
Dan
Intel's 10 series is still on PCI-E Gen 3 and both the new consoles will be designing games from the ground up utilizing and optimized for PCI-E Gen 4 SSD's people might want to reconsider Intel as their choice of platform for this reason. Before you say that games have no noticeable difference between SSD's as far as load times or what have you. I have to point out games have been developed around HDD's this entire time and now for the first time ever they will be developed from the ground up around the new PCI-E Gen 4 SSD's and with this, we really have no clue what we can expect to see going forward with this new generation of games and what benefits we will see with this new tech being utilized as the base spec in development of next-gen games.
reply
Intel's 10 series is still on PCI-E Gen 3 and both the new consoles will be designing games from the ground up utilizing and optimized for PCI-E Gen 4 SSD's people might want to reconsider Intel as their choice of platform for this reason. Before you say that games have no noticeable difference between SSD's as far as load times or what have you. I have to point out games have been developed around HDD's this entire time and now for the first time ever they will be developed from the ground up around the new PCI-E Gen 4 SSD's and with this, we really have no clue what we can expect to see going forward with this new generation of games and what benefits we will see with this new tech being utilized as the base spec in development of next-gen games.
reply
Quentin
Thank you for an instructive video. I'm interested to see you're still recommending the Ryzen 3600; have you tested the 10400 against it? Secondly, in your section on Total War, I couldn't quite make out if you said you were RAM limited or VRAM limited. If it's the former then why not just upgrade the RAM? 64 GB isn't uncommon at the higher end. Actually, if you cannot just upgrade the RAM, you have an excuse for a test: where should you place your page file? What is the difference between placing it on a SATA SSD, a PCIe v3 M.2 drive, a PCIe v4 M.2 drive, or an Intel Optane drive? BTW thanks for slowing down a little. You still have a tendency to gallop, especially when going through charts, but I can see you're making an effort.
reply
Thank you for an instructive video. I'm interested to see you're still recommending the Ryzen 3600; have you tested the 10400 against it? Secondly, in your section on Total War, I couldn't quite make out if you said you were RAM limited or VRAM limited. If it's the former then why not just upgrade the RAM? 64 GB isn't uncommon at the higher end. Actually, if you cannot just upgrade the RAM, you have an excuse for a test: where should you place your page file? What is the difference between placing it on a SATA SSD, a PCIe v3 M.2 drive, a PCIe v4 M.2 drive, or an Intel Optane drive? BTW thanks for slowing down a little. You still have a tendency to gallop, especially when going through charts, but I can see you're making an effort.
reply
ajm8127
Obviously modern CPUs are complex and game workloads are different than multi-threaded production workloads, but what about the Intel CPUs make them more optimized for gaming while scoring practically the same as (and often lower than) comparable AMD parts in the production workloads? Does it have to do with intercore communications and CCXs, like how the Ryzen 3300X is faster than the 3100? is there some sort of memory latency increase? Speculative execution optimizations? Does anyone do benchmarking at such a low level as to tease out these differences? I would be interested to see these kind of comparisons between two processor like the I7 10700K and the R7 3700X or the i5 10600K and the R5 3600.
reply
Obviously modern CPUs are complex and game workloads are different than multi-threaded production workloads, but what about the Intel CPUs make them more optimized for gaming while scoring practically the same as (and often lower than) comparable AMD parts in the production workloads? Does it have to do with intercore communications and CCXs, like how the Ryzen 3300X is faster than the 3100? is there some sort of memory latency increase? Speculative execution optimizations? Does anyone do benchmarking at such a low level as to tease out these differences? I would be interested to see these kind of comparisons between two processor like the I7 10700K and the R7 3700X or the i5 10600K and the R5 3600.
reply
shane
G'day Steve, You bought the i7-10700K for 410USD, here in Australia the i5-10600K is 499AUD & the cheapest M/B at the moment is Gigabyte Z490M 279AUD, so 778AUD, Compared to R5 3600 329AUD & a MSI B450M MORTAR MAX 179AUD 508AUD (there are B450 starting at 119AUD but thought I'd compare a good one), 270AUD for Intel over AMD is a ridiculous amount for competing performance, I was hoping the 10th gen i5 was going to be a worthwhile purchase but I have now finally given up on upgrading my i7-3770K with another Intel which I use for gaming with my GTX1080Ti at 1440p & some hobby Video Editing & making DVD/Bluray for family & friends, R5 3600 & B450/B550 later this year is now my plan
reply
G'day Steve, You bought the i7-10700K for 410USD, here in Australia the i5-10600K is 499AUD & the cheapest M/B at the moment is Gigabyte Z490M 279AUD, so 778AUD, Compared to R5 3600 329AUD & a MSI B450M MORTAR MAX 179AUD 508AUD (there are B450 starting at 119AUD but thought I'd compare a good one), 270AUD for Intel over AMD is a ridiculous amount for competing performance, I was hoping the 10th gen i5 was going to be a worthwhile purchase but I have now finally given up on upgrading my i7-3770K with another Intel which I use for gaming with my GTX1080Ti at 1440p & some hobby Video Editing & making DVD/Bluray for family & friends, R5 3600 & B450/B550 later this year is now my plan
reply
Ew
In sweden the 10700K costs the same as an 3700X , and is cheaper than the 9700K. 3900X costs more than 10900K. Pricing changes ones view a lot, Ryzen gives less performance at a higher price. Unless you do nische pure CPU-multithreaded things exclusively. Not to mention AMD are still withholding the B550 motherboards, so the cheapest X570 motherboards are featureless. The normal motherboards start at around 250. Meanwhile, avail Intel motherboards with better VRMs and the same features costs 200. With the cheapest still being cheaper and better than the X570 equivilents. AMD must charge a Lot of money for the X570 chipset.
reply
In sweden the 10700K costs the same as an 3700X , and is cheaper than the 9700K. 3900X costs more than 10900K. Pricing changes ones view a lot, Ryzen gives less performance at a higher price. Unless you do nische pure CPU-multithreaded things exclusively. Not to mention AMD are still withholding the B550 motherboards, so the cheapest X570 motherboards are featureless. The normal motherboards start at around 250. Meanwhile, avail Intel motherboards with better VRMs and the same features costs 200. With the cheapest still being cheaper and better than the X570 equivilents. AMD must charge a Lot of money for the X570 chipset.
reply
Dan
to short recap: for maximum gaming you need a 6 core Intel CPU (their per core performance is almost identical); add some streaming and you have the 10700K (8 core); if you aren't an FPS snob, look into AMD-s superior lineup with the 3700X (8 core) and futureproof 12 core 3900X; if you are a casual, the 3600 is perfect; if you're looking to have a gaming / workstation, nothing beats the 3900X and 3950X and they will also game at a very high level (usually above 100 FPS); the ONLY case where you might want the Intel CPUs is with a high refresh monitor at 1080p with a 2080 Ti
reply
to short recap: for maximum gaming you need a 6 core Intel CPU (their per core performance is almost identical); add some streaming and you have the 10700K (8 core); if you aren't an FPS snob, look into AMD-s superior lineup with the 3700X (8 core) and futureproof 12 core 3900X; if you are a casual, the 3600 is perfect; if you're looking to have a gaming / workstation, nothing beats the 3900X and 3950X and they will also game at a very high level (usually above 100 FPS); the ONLY case where you might want the Intel CPUs is with a high refresh monitor at 1080p with a 2080 Ti
reply
Daniel
I would love to see some more CPU heavy strategy/builder games included in the benchmarking, turn times in CIV are great, but don t really affect playability. Whereas games like Cities Skylines, Planet Zoo/Coaster, and Transport Fever 2 can become heavily cpu limited at higher population/map sizes. I understand that s difficult as they don t have any built in benchmarking, but for me the difference between 120-160fps in Tomb Raider means very little, but an extra 10 frames in Skylines could be the difference between being playable and not.
reply
I would love to see some more CPU heavy strategy/builder games included in the benchmarking, turn times in CIV are great, but don t really affect playability. Whereas games like Cities Skylines, Planet Zoo/Coaster, and Transport Fever 2 can become heavily cpu limited at higher population/map sizes. I understand that s difficult as they don t have any built in benchmarking, but for me the difference between 120-160fps in Tomb Raider means very little, but an extra 10 frames in Skylines could be the difference between being playable and not.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
