120W in The Witcher 3 just from the CPU is too much already IMO. As for the performance yes it's still enough for casual stuff. And still that's a Ryzen 5 5600X level of performance and it draws twice as low watts than the 10700K.
What i find crazy is how close in some games they are in cpu usage...that diffirence even in average is quite little in comparison to the core and thread diffirence.
The i7-10700K and RTX 3080 combo is still great in 2024. Intel 15th Gen and GeForce 50 will be the time that most will upgrade. Cant wait to run the Core Ultra 7 265K and RTX 5080! I've been saving up since 2020 for it. The i7 + 80 tier combo for the last 10 years has been simply the best for gaming. No need for an i9 and a 90 tier. Back then, they were Xeons and Titans.
@@fpshunter Since 2016 ive been on a 4 year upgrade cycle, with the i7 as my main choice. Both my 10700K and 6700K with my 1080 served me well, I dont think i'll be getting the 9800X3D when it launches.
A theoretical Ryzen 3 with 3D cache could still be a helluva budget gaming CPU. Generally, the last Ryzen 3 that weren't strapped off cache were 3100 / 3300x (with the latter doing pretty impressibly upon launch in 2020).
6 to 8 cores with at least 4.4GHz clock speed is the best for gaming. Some games are optimized to utilize certain number of cores and some games run very poorly with 16+ cores.
I think i3 might lead on some games but mostly on average. while i7 leads on % lows even if i3 generate good average frames. Better also looking on consistency. i7-10700k still holds up today
У меня i7 11700k я его ещё даже не думаю менять, я его поменяю когда почувствую что мне лично не комфортно с ним. Но явно не буду судить его по цифрам в бенчмарках разных.
@@saricubra2867 Really? At launch in a number of tests the 5600x was faster than the 10700K in a lot of games, the majority in fact. Productivity was a win for the 10700K, but for gaming the 5600x was faster, probably still is for games that can't leverage more than 6 fast cores or doesn't dip heavily into HT. Was the 5600X over priced, yes it should have been no more than $250, but I also thought the 10700K at an MSRP of $387 was also about $50 too expensive. I would rather have a 10700K myself, but I'm curious why you think the 5600x was overrated? For a 6 core gaming CPU, it was actually better than what Intel had on offer until the 12600K arrived 14 months later, and then it wasn't that far off.
@@saricubra2867 Nope, not in the test results i've seen. Compared to 10700K over a 10 game selection it was neck and neck for average and 1% lows, the 5600x was about 5% faster than a 10700k for average FPS, so about within margin of error. For 1% lows, the 5600x had a 20% spread between 1% lows and the average FPS. The 10700K about a 22% spread. So really nothing between the 2 CPUs in that regard. The 5600x actually has twice the L3 cache as the 10700K and more L2 cache. You don't seem to know what you are really talking about here. What is your evidence for your opinion, and if you mention Frame Chasers, I will laugh my @ss off. LOL 😉
Intel 15th gen be like: refreshed refresh! i9 15900k will have 6.3 ghz turbo, compared to i9 14900k, which had 6.0 ghz We don't care if your cooler won't handle this power! And also we prepared a special edition i9 15900ks with 6.5ghz turbo! We are still in the same stone age 10nm process **people laughing**
How is intel lithography stoneage? U have literally 24 cores thats impressive maybe not as much as 10 core 14nm but still. Amd still stuck on 8 core cpus
The 12700K has far more perfomance per watt than that i3, the power consumption on the 14100F doesn't look impressive for the process node and the smaller transistors it uses.
I love my 10700k but it cannot maintain consistent 144fps in many games. In CSGO it gets lower fps than other newer cpus and starts to bottleneck with top tier gpus.
I would say its incorrect to compare it on two different ddr platforms. ddr 4 against ddr 5 . Otherwise we need to see price comparicement. Im pretty sure that 1200 cheaper, and if we speak not only gaming , 10700k platform is better choice especially for 4090
10700k for low price OK, for fair price - choice 12400f. Also 12100f is good, but 13100f and 14100f, 13400f and 14400f waste of money(50% more average price for 1-6% better perfomance) )
The I3 has better single core performance compared to the I7 10700k. I also guess being on DDR5 help with performance versus DDR4. One of the reason why the I3 lose to the I7 in certain games, it because of the lack of core
@@Daniel-oc8sx its not about that it's about the difference a 4 years can make , anyway I'm buying a new pc i7 14the gen DDR5 4080 super I need to play at 4K see you in 4 years Insha'Allah when @TestingGames compare my pc to a low tear one lol
nobody ever does that obviously but since this is a benchmark testing, they wanted to make sure that there will be no gpu bottlenecking whatsoever - if they did this with a budget card, both cpu would give the same result in every title selected and render the whole purpose of the testing meaningless - for example, both cpu would give you 90 FPS in a title with a budget card because the gpu would be the limiting factor not the cpu
What I'm about to say explains everything all at once, yet explains nothing at all, in terms of how a computer actually functions. Okay, are you ready for it? Electricity follows the path of least resistance. . . 💀😂😂😂
I do not understand this testing and results, like Hogwarts for example - both cpu and gpu doing nothing and still fps is only 47-49 - so there's obviously a bottleneck somewhere, where exactly?
Looking at all these video. It seem its nonsensical to buy those costly i7 and i9 for just buy a cheap i3 or cheap i5. Put it on a cheap board game on it for 1-2 years than buy another. These cheaper i3 and i5 are priced really low so their resale value is actually very good. Much better than a i7 and i9. So basically this should be very affordable.