UPDATE: Intel i5-10600K review is now live: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iQVBlCfb72M.html Back-order a GN mouse mat here: store.gamersnexus.net Watch our CPU testing methodology: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sg9WgwIkhvU.html Written article: www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3587-intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-review-benchmarks Article version of test methods: www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3577-cpu-test-methodology-unveil-for-2020-compile-gaming-more
When you bench CPU's you always use the RTX 2080TI Which I understand why. But it would be very helpful if you added a midrange card as well, even better a mid-lower end card as well. This will let us all get a much better understanding than just the top card does. If you do not think it will please put a poll up to find out. Thanks to you all at Gamers Nexus!
@@hardergamer How? The understanding comes from knowing its full power. Look at a gpu chart, with mid to low range gpu's you could probably expect to get every last fps from those cards.
@@hardergamer Asking for them to show a lower end GPU is just asking for a GPU benchmark. Go watch a GPU benchmark, or learn to understand what the use of a CPU benchmark is.
Steve, I suggest it's better to just call them ten ninety okay and ten sixty okay. As far as I know people in the USA spell 0 (zero) as an "oh", so 0K should be fine as oh-K. I'm just guessing here, English is my second language.
Both manufacturers is goofing up their bios launch... AMD (new tech) and Intel (trump tech) coming w/... let me pull another BS rabbit outta your hat,.. trick. 🐰🤐
I would imagine all these failures at launch are from a stumbling race by Intel to attempt to try to poach amd's consumer base with clock frequency gains 😑 I think it's too little too late. When AMD launches there Zen 3 we are promised *AT LEAST* 100MHz gains to each series of CPU vs last generation of that same series ie: 3700X vs 4700X. We are also looing at a 17-20% IPC gain as well. So even though the clock frequencies may not be a massive jump between Generations the manner in which complications are handled and how quickly they're handled is completely different and a massive Improvement in performance. So we will see massive games in benchmarks of games and workloads for editing and production software regardless the minut jump in clock frequencies 👍 Fingers crossed they deliver what is promised.
Man, I love linus, I've been following him for I don't know, around 10 years ? But his reviews don't hold a candle to yours. I mean, I watch almost every other tech youtuber, but for fun. Gamers Nexus is where I come to have actual facts. And this has been repeatedly proved times and times again.
to be fair even linus has said that multiple times that there are other sites/youtubers that do a better job with the launch day reviews. what they prefer to do is give a general base line because they know their viewers tend to fall in the casual PC user space and would otherwise not understand or lose interest in the more in-depth stuff and leave that to other reviewers. people always want to make it some sort of competition between reviewers but the reality is there isn't one. each has their own viewer base that they cater toward for how they give information.
Knowing how much time goes into the review cycles, I seriously applaud you guys for doing multiple in depth videos on the AMD 400 series fiasco. Keep up the great work, it's very much appreciated by all of us.
Switzerland here, it was supposed to be available on launch day but in the end only the 10900 vanilla can be ordered and delivery is in a week...even the 3900x and 3950x had better availability on launch days for me...
@@TheXlen but i guess it is jusy down time for intel right now. If i am AMD, i will put in tons of R&D and continously improve upon my cpu for the Return of the empire 1 or 2 years later.
@@Mekaniac He likes the engineers there working on the CPUs and their attention to detail and how much more difficult switching to AMD for their video server was.
I'm excited for the day where intel is over their 14nm hurdle. They can squeeze a lot of performance out of an old node and assuming that AMD keeps up the competition i think in a few years we will have some crazy cpus
this is exactly what im looking forward to. im an admitted amd fanboi, still holding on to my heavily overclocked FX chip, but it's this sudden burst from AMD that is pushing both the hardware and software to new extremes. once intel figures out its desktop 10nm or 7nm, the ball will be slapped back at AMD with some force, and it may be up to Ryzen 4 to smack it back. its a great time to be a techy.
@@ghomerhust do remember that since now AMD can get a much higher budget for R&D, both the companies might now go head to head. (after Intel gets their 10nm of course)
@@ushdhyxywb, Intel abandoned their 10nm program, since there's no point to invest any resources into it when the competitor is beyond 7nm. Next gen of Intel desktop processors will be on 7nm chips (or maybe even 5, but this is unlikely).
GN: Intel Core i9-10900K CPU Review & Benchmarks JayzTwoCents: The Intel i9 10900K is here... But is it enough? LTT: yOuRe sTiLl gOnNa bUy iNteL Huh, they changed the titles. also GN is the gold standard for Reviews for me.
LTT’s analysis is right though. Some features that Intel has simply just work. AMD is good but Intel does some things great. Did you even watch that video? He is an entirely different league of user than you or I.
@@redrumze The only Intel feature that's really useful is Quick Sync if you do encoding. But you can use use NVEC and whatever AMD alternative there is for this if you don't mind a slight quality difference vs Quick Sync.
@@FatterTony Probably because comets become very, very hot when passing through atmosphere 4head. Kinda like how comet lake is cold until it actually starts doing work.
I love how the 3300x from AMD is rendering 85% of the frames for 20% of the price (CPU alone..not counting extra motherboard and CPU cooler costs, which would make it more like, for under 15% of the cost you can reach 85% of the frames). Insane value right there for anyone wanting a chip for only gaming. Of course if you wanna have those extra 15% frames, you'll have to pay an extra £400-500 for it, CPU/Motherboard costs alone....
@Franku Doge Does it overclock that well though? I've read you can get the 3600 up to the same speeds with overclocks. I'm an undervolter though. Jsut gonna wait for the zen3 series at this point. Seeing Intel's pricing, nothing is coming down like I thought it would. I shouldn't be surprised though.
@Nismo what a load of crock! I've never experienced this instability you speak of. It's a CPU man..meant to tick billions of times over and over reliably..and it always has for me. Intel, on the other hand, I've experienced many overheating issues.
This was exactly like I expected. Production still loses, 1080p gaming/CPU bottleneck wins, thermals mean you don’t have to pay for heat in the upcoming winter so hey you got that going for you. Jokes aside, more great work, thanks Steve and GN crew!
I recently built a 3900x with a 2080 ti and paired it with 4k monitor. I ain't going back to 1080p ever again. I honestly think Intel will be in deep shit once 4k is mainstream and monitor prices come down. 1080p will become obsolete (In a sense) and I think Ryzen will shine more, since gaming at 4k is mostly GPU bound.
@@josuegutierrez3457 Went the same route with first gen RYZEN and a 1080Ti. Was a big mistake! 4K is achievable in the beginning but a short time later with newer games the framerates are too low on ultra and 1440p on ultra often looks better than 4K high. If it wasn't for the BIOS updates I would have been pretty fucked with RYZEN on 1440p and in retrospect a 7700K would still have been better. Expect to upgrade that 2080Ti very soon if you want to keep playing on 4K Ultra with decent framerates (60fps+). Lesson I learned from this is if you go high end get the stuff that performs best at that moment in time for the purpose in mind. So if I had to buy a PC for gaming today it would be a combination of a 10900K and a 2080Ti. However both those parts will probably be bumped off the throne within 10 months (max) so I wouldn't buy either. But a better performing CPU could mean you can upgrade the GPU in the future without problems bottlenecking. So if it had to be today I would pick the 10900K.
@OneAboveAll you know we are talking about the 10900X not 10900k in that comment right? Which gets eked out by the 3950x, 3900x, and 3700x(sometimes) in gaming benchmarks which are incredibly cheaper than it, granted this is a workstation CPU, though if you go that route.. it get's absolutely dunked on by AMD counter parts in thread optimized workloads.
Amazing how these guys are able to cover both Intel new products and AMD chipset controversy with such a deep insight in this short period of time. #RESPECT💯
It would be a cool statistic, but I think you would have to be in an extremely unique scenario to have this be a factor when selecting a CPU, especially for gaming purposes.
@@coopercummings8370 Yes, that is correct. That is literally something I deal with on a daily basis. However, as you mention, that is entirely irrelevant for our discussion.
I've gotta say I'm fairly impressed with what Intel has managed to pull off with this old 14nm node. No one from 2015 would have ever guessed that their same 14nm node would eventually be able to reach 5.2GHz.
I think that the cooling solution should be discussed a bit more. The 3900X comes with a very capable cooler to handle it, where it looks like the 10900K needs a CLC to perform as expected, and it doesn't come with it, therefore it should be added to its price.
This. Comparing only the CPU prices is not exactly fair. Not even mentioning how much you can save on the motherboard, especially if you plan to upgrade the CPU later on...
tbh i want to look into Ryzen gen 4 for nextgen since i'm getting a whole new computer with a nvidia 3xxx GPU but i'm afraid of the software. AMD has the worst software out of any PC part company from drivers to bios. So I'll have to watch out for those issue months after release to see if it's even worth it. My 6700k OCed has never caused me a problem. AMD has bad software rep and they need to fix it. It's cool that they are getting some good hardware for a cheaper price but if i'm going to be crippled due to buying that hardware then i'm going to look the other way. For me it's like buying cheap chinese ripoff tech (phones/phone cameras/android TV/ TVs/ drones), the specs are great but the software makes it not worth it. As a PC gamer, I already waste time with: game mods, getting the best possible settings, and badly utilized games. I don't want to start messing with computer software too. I have never had a CPU/GPU software issue while owning intel/nvidia for the past 10+ years and I have the drivers setup as auto-download/install giving me the latest drivers the day of release. My girlfriend uses my computer on the main TV. This needs to be running 100% of the time. I'll hear about it if it crashes for whatever reason.
@TheGoat yea it sucks. Most reviewers don't tell you the software issues just the benchmarks from their short term testing. I want to keep my PC for multiple years.
Intel is really trying to bring the names of these products to life. They wanted to simulate the temperature of a comet as at blasts along through space. And so the Intel i9-10900K was born, with realistic thermal output.
@@GamersNexus This is on my personal box that primarily does Usenet and 60hz gaming. It used to be the case that you could download archives quicker then you could PAR and 7ZIP them. Now thanks to the core wars we are back to the Internet speed being the bottleneck. Unfortunately in my professional life (IT Security) there is a monopoly and we still pay $200k for servers with sandy bridge CPUs in them!!
Great video, but @25:14 I believe you made a mistake, the 10900k may have used less power, but I do believe that the 3900x is still more efficient at least for this test since Stock to stock, the 3900x runs the Blender benchmark 18.6% faster for 14.3% higher power consumption, there isn't a massive difference since even though it's 14nm vs 7nm, it's intel's best possible binning vs AMD's worst binning. Besides that this was a very great video, I would like to see more testing on the efficiency aspect though, it's got me intrigued now.
Really wanted to preorder this CPU. But I waited for this video. I will wait and see if BIOS issues gets fixed first. So glad this channel exists! Saved a lot of headache.
Every new release comes with BIOS issues, usually Intel's are minor and last a few days to a week maybe a little longer, AMD's have lasted months on some. Rocket lake is rumored at the end of the year or beginning of next year
Ya but in their case, they need the nose shrink to push a new architecture... They have literally reached the limits of what the silicon at that level can do
I bought a 10-9-Hundo, though, to be honest, I probably would have bought a 3950x or 3900x if I could have found a damn x570 motherboard that I wanted in stock anywhere on earth. I have no time to wait, as my daily driver build went kaput on me about a week and a half ago - so Im in dire need of a new build asap. With that said, I'm sure I'll be quite happy with the 10900k.
@25:14 "In this regard, Intel is running below AMD's power consumption, and so has an efficiency advantage". Stock to stock, the 3900x runs the Blender benchmark 18.6% faster for 14.3% higher power consumption. Doesn't this mean the 3900x is the more power efficient cpu in this particular test?
that is kind of insane considering intel is still on 14nm. and that is only in blender specifically, pretty sure for most other benchmarks it wasn't the case.
because his numbers are totally off.. no idea what his doing.. kit guru got 297 watt during blender while 3900x got 225.. and 3900x is faster so yeah..
@@elon6131 Nope I think Steve got this one wrong, maybe just bad wording there so I will let it pass, also looking at the next chart shows how power consumption shoots up, because of intel's crazy turbo's so your assumption is most likely wrong for most tests, especially lightly threaded ones. (I take this part of the review with a grain of salt and would like Steve to do more testing on this, also I normally watch many reviews and take an average from 10+ reviews since sample size actually matters here)
@@Tc4ify Calm down fanboy there are much more at play here, especially in terms of binning, The best 7nm chips go to Epyc and mobile so desktop gets the worst of the worst and pitting the 3900x vs the 10900k is literally intel's best binning vs AMD's worst, it has been confirmed that one of the CCD's in the 3900x is absolutely terrible silicon and that's why the 3950x is using less power, but getting higher clocks with much more performance, also as has been pointed out, Steve actually made a mistake here even by his own numbers. (Steve probably meant lower power consumption, but still less efficient)
The x299 is a great value. Boards are cheap! Just over clock the cpu and ram really high with tight timings. The better value now. Friend of mine got the 10 core for 350$ brand new at micro center. I would not say it’s trash, but if you over clock the cores, mesh and get fast ram, it shines and even the EVGA x299 dark went on sale for 200$ at once point. It is just shy of 10% in single threaded games. Don’t understand why people bash x299. Seems like devs can’t program multi threaded render works loads like 3Dmark did.
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-D1bTr96ZHrc.html seems like devs are still single threaded or 2 core limited in DX12 of Vulkan. Seems like bad programming to me and gamers can’t understand this.
I would love to see a performance per energy and performance per cost comparison for individual workloads. If the CPU draws max power all the time during the test you could compute this from the information you have given, but that is not necessarily true. Certain workloads (such as avx heavy ones) might have different behavior. Conversely I would expect the compiler test to have lower energy usage due to a larger number of cache misses making the CPU idle part of the time waiting for data. This would be relevant information to determine which cpu would give the most bang for the buck.
Yeah. If not pulling max power this might work out cheaper on powerload than AMD. If pulling full power all the time then it's worse. As AMD occasionally drew more power than this chip if I read the graphs correctly.
I'm not sure if it was at Anandtech or Tomshardware "a while ago" they compared the total energy required to complete a workload, for example to convert a movie or to render an animation as a real world power measurement, if a platform had a high maximum power but complete the job fast enough it will consume less power than a competing low power and much slower platform.
@@TechyBen Well, if you tried to find the sweet spot for performance/watt by underclocking/undervolting both AMD and Intel CPUs, TSMC's 7nm node would win - look at Zen2 in laptops...
Thanks for not only giving very accurate results but for also interpreting them and applying them to the real world! I'm missing that in a lot from other reviewers
Elon61 yeah but something like this would be in upper thousand dollar range if AMD hadn’t showed up. Intel got beat down back to earth concerning go their ridiculous mark ups.
@@elon6131 Both of you are correct. Intel had inflated prices in the past AND did an actual new investment to improve the CPUs. Not a simple black or white case.
Anyone else laughing about the hype about CPUs/MBs that can't be found at retail? Steve seems to be the most realistic - others keep talking about AMD 3100, 3300x, and new Intel CPUs like you can just expect them to be in stock at Amazon, Microcenter, and NewEgg...
@@fred290e does Microcenter let you build PCs in their stores? I have one not too far from me, but I've always ordered stuff to my home and built it there.
@@honzaklos Also let alone the fact that as Steve mentions, only really applies for gaming if you're an FPS snob using a 2080TI eliminating the GPU bottleneck, which is a very small percentage of people.
@@spectre722 Do you know that userbenchmark is so shit that even Intel subreddit banned it? This has nothing to do with being Intel or AMD fanboy its just fact that UB is not trustworthy website.
I sincerely hope that the people running UserBenchmark are on Intel's payroll or something like that No one would be sad enough to waste their life pushing such misinformation for free right?
I think my 8700k is safe until DDR5 and PCIe 4.0. My 1080 will hopefully be looking like worth swapping out by the end of the year depending on how Nvidia and AMD deliver on GPU’s this year.
@@KT-04zx10r-Gap dude you have a i9 9900k you're fine.. you wanna buy a new system for 10 more fps at 1080p medium settings with a 2080 ti? Save your money wait for nvidias Amper Cards and upgrade to a 3080 ti
@@HollowRick well games like csgo and I would imagine fortnite the 10th gen had literally 100 more fps than the 9900k and the 3900x...that's not every game I know..but I should probably just wait for pcie 4 and ddr5
@@KT-04zx10r-Gap not really gonna be that much of Jump in them games I'd say as the 10900k is essentially i9 9900k with 2 more cores 4 more threads and 200mhz more frequency i9 9900k is good for while get a better GPU
Salt Maker the only one worth the price of upgrade would be 2080 TI and that’s minimum 900 for a used one. 3080 ti supposed to be cheaper and far faster so I’ll be looking for that.
It'll be interesting to see if Ryzen 4000 series is able to match or even pass these Intel chips in gaming. Intel's lead isn't huge, and the rumoured IPC increases for new Ryzen could make it a really close run thing. Either way, in all seriousness, the frame rates you get these days from mid-range chips like an R5 3600 are all 99% of gamers will ever need. There seems less and less point spending top dollar with each new generation. (edit: grammar)
Guys, you're amazing, the essential information, brought objectively, without unnecessary bad acting and puns, in a very short notice can't be beaten by anything else when it comes to hardware news!
@thatonedaveguy As long as you have a really strong cooling solution. In performance per watt, AMD wins hands down (and older Intel CPUs probably beat these as well, unless you downclock/undervolt). Imagine that if AMD spent 5 years mastering and overclocking Zen2...
Zen 2 CPUs are still faster than these Intel CPUs at the same frequency. And it was the case too during the Pentium 4 vs Athlon era: The Athlon was faster at the same clock speed (Athlon 2800+ running at 2.1GHz vs Pentium 4 2.8GHz for example)
14nm++++++++ power! this is what happens when you limit resources, you get creative. I salute Intel's engineers for squeezing that 14nm++++++++++++++++++ really surprised for the performance, I guess this is still the best gaming(only) CPU? But hey Intel, you may wanna get that 7nm in check before our electricity bills get too high. Still going for AMD though, for productivity and some stuff.
I enjoy how embarrassingly difficult it was to find gaming scenarios that benefitted from the clock speed. Like who with a 2080ti is playing at medium or "just" high settings? And where is the fortnite bench?!
I know plenty of people who play shooters that run at the most potato settings for performance with a 2080ti at 1080p to try to push 240hz and keep those min frames as high as possible.
3900x is a monster, and will continue to grow with the new consoles. in real world gaming it's about the same fps wise if playing ultra (like I do) Not only this, you can pverclock 6 of the cores to 4.6ghz and 6 to 4.3. it's such a great cpu.
@@no_thing_378 Yeah, Intel is still very strong on the market, you are absolutely right. For me as a customer is very important thing and it is "bang for the buck". I had always Intel, I did choose Ryzen 3900x and I know I wont go back. I would really like to see this with Amd vs Nvidia. There is only one thing sure for me, I wont buy AMD gpu after the experience I had before. Ofc every customer can have different experience with different brands or products. I am speaking just for myself. If somebody is happy with Intel, go for it, if somebody is happy with AMD, go for it. I am just very happy for being AMD around, otherwise Intel would charge arm, leg and a kidney for 2 Core Cpu. If there is no competition, you can charge as much as you want.
well I mean if your competing with yourself you kind of set the bar I guess? glad amd is doing so well now. have no excuse for intel to fck our wallets with quad cores now
Gamers nexus and digital foundry once again with the spectacular review. Other more popular tech you tubers poo the bed, with their click bait thumbnails, lack of benchmarks and facts, just payed off my amd to tell their viewers the intel platform isn’t comparable.
I'll just not waste my life, and purchase parts and and after a half of year I'll sell the the system and only need to pay the same I've paid now if I want the latest and greatest. That's what real smart people do.
24:22 The i9-10900K will be a perfect heater for my apartment this winter. I'd buy a big external radiator and put it outdoors in minus 10°C. Nice and quiet indoors. 🥶
Honestly, this is the first time since they introduced the I9 line that intels entire line up naming scheme makes sense, at least on the desktop. I3 4c/8t, I5 6c/12t, I7 8c/16t and I9 10c/20t. As annoying as it might be to SAY the names for the first time in a LONG time this all makes sense in a way someone wouldn't need to spend a while deciphering wth the differences between chips are and if it's worth the money. Now their mobile line...holy shit that's a different story.
Costs at least $350 more compared to 3900x: at least $150 for a decent AIO to get similar temps to what can be achieved with 3900x's box cooler + $100 more on mb to get a b450 or b550 which delivers similar or better features (you will able to get some pcie gen.4 support on b550) + at least $100 price difference for the cpu itself (assuming it is not a paper launch), and I am not even counting the upgraded PSU cost. That is a pretty tough sell even for gamers, for $350 you would be able to upgrade the GPU a whole tier up.
It's around if you buy 1000 at one time. That is the price retailers would buy it for. MSRP would be a rough % above that. The real cost also includes motherboards.
Watching Gamer Nexus's video on the Core i9-10900K made me feel proud and as an avid gamer, that I made the right decision in getting the 10900K over both the 3900X and the 3950X in terms of gaming. The only way I would get the 3900X or the 3950X is if I was either a media professional (which I am not) or a licensed computer engineer which I am not yet. I am in college now learning Electric and Computer Engineering. Love the competition AMD Ryzen and Intel Core are bringing to the tech enthusiasts!!!!!! I am suped-up and ready for the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Series to come out!!!!!!
My 10900k still runs as good as it did the first day i got it, its actually INSANE what a beast it is and i dont see a need of change until atleast 5-6 years especially since im playing in 3440x1440p. my girls 9600k is starting to slack and i really notice the difference between the 9600k and then jumping on my 10900k directly after lmao. Still today worth getting if you can get one for 300-350 bucks. absolute BEAST CPU.
What gpu do you have? I got a 10900k recently for $250 and an rtx 3080, and I get micro stutters In quite a few games. Tried all sorts of troubleshooting, ddu, drivers, bios updates/tweaks, xmp, etc.
@@q-_-p.d-_-b yes, I ended up switching to an 11600k and it has solved all my issues. I have it oc'd and it's roughly 5% faster than my 10900k was at gaming, without the stuttering issue. It still has lows like every other chip but my 10900k was exceptionally bad.
This is some high quality work. Good shit. If I had one nitpick it would be to just have comparisons of stock CPUs in most charts, maybe that's because after the 3700X being such a terrible overclocker, I don't really care about OC anymore and just run stock.
@@TheWatchdogtutorials Not really because Intel is known for a stable release while this isn't. Intel is still the gaming king but the release does seem rushed. Wouldn't be surprised if they release something better within a year. If AMD had nothing good they probably wouldn't have released these CPUs just like Nvidia doesn't release the RTX3000 series because AMD has nothing high end right now. As a result Intel has the disadvantage of being the fastest but there aren't GPUs that are fast enough for it to really matter. They do have the advantage of the recent AMD faux pas being just a few days before this release. I myself am looking a lot more interested at Intel products now because AMD doesn't support Zen3 on X370. If it wasn't for that I would have gotten a Zen3 R9 no question but now ehhh I'm thinking a stopgap Zen2 CPU and buy a new motherboard with DDR5 and the fastest gaming CPU for that generation. So if Intel manages to stay ahead by then I'll buy Intel (even if the advantage is 2% when overclocked). If my motherboard died tomorrow I'd use an old PC till Zen3 comes out but if Zen3 would still be behind Intel I'd buy Intel.
Still probably not quite good enough, I am aware of the security flaws and the numerous other disadvantages that have been beaten to death, but fair's fair, not as bad as I'd expected. Pleasantly surprised.
the security flaws are massively overhyped, and most of them are fixed by now (i think the latest two might still be exploitable but like local access so who cares.)
@@renmcmanus I have a couple. venturebeat.com/2019/05/14/intel-zombieload-flaw-forces-os-patches-with-up-to-40-performance-hits/ www.techpowerup.com/264676/intel-processors-hit-with-lvi-security-vulnerabilities-mitigation-hits-performance-hard
@@Tc4ify The funny thing about your comment is that he isn't even lying, and it shows that you're just too dumb to do a quick info check. Here are a couple of sources for you. venturebeat.com/2019/05/14/intel-zombieload-flaw-forces-os-patches-with-up-to-40-performance-hits/ www.techpowerup.com/264676/intel-processors-hit-with-lvi-security-vulnerabilities-mitigation-hits-performance-hard
Similar situation. i7-5930K, not really feeling the pinch yet, I'm about to drop my 3rd GPU upgrade since i built this rig 5 years ago and nothing is really taxing it. Intel stuff might be pricey, but I seem to be able to go quite a number of years between upgrades.
10900K thermals on mine are fantastic...the ridiculous worry over thermals was a joke..360 AIO and I am running just fine at my FPS are better than anything AMD has to offer. Clock speed >core count..
@@zoltanbartha5352 Poor people lol. I just bought me a 3900x, and a 2080 super. Cause I have a job and calculate bills and make smart choices. The system will do anything latest consoles will do, and when I want better by that time I can sell the pc, and pay the extra half for the new stuff. you people who "wait" months, to sometimes a year lol. So much time wasted away while life is already short enough.
@@crazytech5755 I cashed my i7 6700k, mobo, ram in for a ryzen 3600, good x570 mobo and 16gb 3200mhz ram. Only paid £150 to "upgrade" the new 4th gen is literally around the corner that's why I got the 3600. I'm looking to get a 4700x or 4900x. Honestly though I'm loving the 3600..the extra 2 cores and 4 threads have actually made quite a difference.. Might keep it for a while
Thanks for this 10900k review, I was having trouble sleeping. Going to use all the tech youtubers reviews of this one as nyquil for the next few weeks.
Fantastic indepth review. I saw everyone elses videos up earlier but I knew GN would go deeper than a couple of thrown together benchmarks v 3900X & 9900K. 317W for 5.3ghz though! what in the actual fuck?
lol a i5 smokes your AMD trash in every game. 14nm > 7nm lol if Intel was just on 10nm it would TOAST AMD, core to core Intes still smokes AMD, value is the only way that's on AMDs side.
@@AdiiS but the problem is intel have tried to move to 10nm and failed so, you just seem salty some reason, this is lined up for AMD to take the lead at the end of the year... oh wait they ready do have it :)
@@AdiiS I love how people are like "If Intel was on 10nm, AMD would be smoked LOL", but a large reason as to why Intel has not moved over to 10nm on desktop is because the average clock speed of 10nm is much lower then 14nm so any IPC gain from a new micro architecture will have to overcome a potentially massive clock speed decrease (10 maybe even 20 percent decrease). What AMD and TSMC pulled off with Zen 2, where the clocks either stayed the same or a slight increase, was one hell of a engineering feat.
@@Cheese-n-Cake16 lol even a i5 smokes the AMD trash, also the only reason why AMD is on 7nm is because of TSMC while Intel has an in house development. It's funny how the AMD junk gets wrecked in single core for more than a decade now.
If you only game and you don’t care about price and or certain additions on motherboards, then the 10900k is what you need. 360mm AIO recommended. If this was released a year ago, I would have gone intel but the 3900x showed up with a better value for my workloads.
After watching linus's review, then reading some more articles on these chips, I think this is Intels Hail Mary and I don't think its going to stick the landing
Hail Mary what? So far the number seems to be that Intel is better than expected with just 14 nm. If AMD somehow slips up on Zen 3, they'll lose the ground made by Zen 2. So horray for competition.
