Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
Interesting.
Now if we look at everything else, it's 5-9% faster, which is a marginal difference, at best.
Worth paying 2x the price for? For litterally ~10FPS (at best)?
No, it's really not.
You are paying almost double the cost per frame. And you get the same core and thread count.
Now, I'm a huge Intel fanboy, I would love nothing more than to reccomend an Intel CPU, but 10th gen is litterally just the same ♥♥♥♥ shoveled into our face (except for a few outliers.)
So really, if someone is going to spend their hard earned cash on something I recommend, how can I recommend something that even I wouldn't buy for myself?
The Ryzen 3600/x is still a better buy than the 10600k, and when you put the money you saved into a stronger GPU, or slightly faster RAM, or even an SSD, you get better gains (not so much in the case of RAM), in FPS, 1% lows, and/or loading times.
So really, with that into conderation, how can YOU still recommend the 10600k?
(Genuine question, I'd actually like to know a decent reason, because I can't see one.)
For starters, I'm seeing five games, and not ten (am I missing the other five, or are those synthetic benchmarks?). Either way, five or ten, that is not at all close enough of a representation of "across the board" to be making claims like that. That being said, let's look at this sample anyway. I will be rounding to the closest half of a percent in all cases. I will also be comparing stock to stock, so don't bother coming at me with "the Core i5 10600K will more readily overclock and the latter is one people don't often bother with". If you have a source of both overclocked, then it'd be more apt to compare, but until then, like for like, and overclocking is never a guarantee.
First up is Shadow of the Tomb Raider.
https://i.imgur.com/WrEHLj7.jpg
Comparing the 1% low of 97.3 FPS of the 10600K to the 87.6 FPS to the 3700X, there is a gain of ~11%. Comparing the average FPS of 139.2 of the 10600K to the 123.6 FPS of the 3700X, there is a gain of ~12.5%.
Next up is Total War Three Kingdoms.
https://i.imgur.com/baiWhJj.jpg
Comparing the 1% low of 75.1 FPS of the 10600K to the 69.8 FPS to the 3700X, there is a gain of ~7.5%. Comparing the average FPS of 109.8 of the 10600K to the 103.4 FPS of the 3700X, there is a gain of ~6%.
Next up is Grand Theft Auto V.
https://i.imgur.com/figH7YX.jpg
Comparing the 1% low of 104 FPS of the 10600K to the 96 FPS to the 3700X, there is a gain of ~8%. Comparing the average FPS of 166 of the 10600K to the 158 FPS of the 3700X, there is a gain of ~5%.
Next up is Overwatch.
https://i.imgur.com/5c8FJ9q.jpg
Comparing the 1% low of 222 FPS of the 10600K to the 217 FPS to the 3700X, there is a gain of ~2%. Comparing the average FPS of 256 of the 10600K to the 250 FPS of the 3700X, there is a gain of ~2.5%.
Next up is Civilization VI.
https://i.imgur.com/OZNRWcr.jpg
Unless you compare the overclocked to the stock, they are the same.
So, in ONE game, one known to favor Intel as far as I know (?), you actually break into a double digit percent difference. Let alone a sample size of 5 games, heck even 25, is really far too small to make sweeping statements as you did. It looks closer to 5% to 10% to me, and I wouldn't had argued if you said 7% to 12% or up to 15% in a few biased situations considering the overclocking, but not 20% across the board.
This is all also before you factor these are the raw numerical PERCENTAGES and when you get diminishing returns of perceptible differences at frame rates as high as some of these, it's going to, in practice, be less as far as perception goes.
Also worth mentioning some of these differences may shrink if you're more GPU bottlenecked than the test configuration there is.
I'd say a fairer statement is you're paying a 50% to 75% premium for what amounts to closer to a ~5% to ~10% difference. That's before factoring in the higher cooling demands of recent high end Intel CPUs once you start really overclocking them, so if you want the upper end of that advantage, you're paying closer to, like, what ~200%+ (at least at the price points of the 10600K and 10700K) premium for it? How much are Z390/Z490 boards to really push those chips costing compared to decent ~$200 X570/B550 boards too?
Old v. current results:
10900k - 3154 - 3184
3950k - 3150 - 2746
etc
Real gaming tests try to use the entire pc pipeline. Two of the gaming tests were just compute tests with minimal graphics activity. About as useful as testing the fps in the game menu and calling that a gaming test.
Also importantly the level of gpu usage needs to be presented as without it you don't know if it's the cpu or gpu determining the fps. Hopefully when the rtx 3090 lands youtubers will retest everything.
Any value/performance comparison depends on the price that you need to pay. In my country the 10700k and 3700X are almost the same price. The difference between 10700k and 10600k is about 50 USD.
All of that is before you even get to cooling requirements; I think Intel has actually stepped up and done something about this point with Comet Lake. It seems like their scheme sanding the die and thickening/trueing the IHS is paying off. You still need adequate cooling to hit the top clocks, and every extra mV required to stabilize an OC translates to more heat. You're not doing 5GHz on a Hyper 212.
AMD includes adequate cooling in the box for stock operation, and depending on the chip, you can even get a little extra out of them and maintain sane temperatures.
If you can up the budget for at least a 3600x / b550 / 2x8g 3600 ram, with your 2070 it will rock.
My bad if these comments are repetitive in the thread I didn't read through it all lol
I5 10600k is actually $260 and Ryzen 3700x is $330 Listed price.
Then i5 10600k makes total sense and is a GOOD buy.
But AMD is trolling intel by their price cuts. They Cut their CPU prices so low after few months And right before intel's new release that intel can't compete.
Intel can't lower their CPU prices because of their 14 nm design. Intel CPUs need more silicon to produce. So AMD is taking full advantage of the situation.
It's all because of that ''Lisa Su''.
It's all her idea.
She is destroying intel.
Also, Intel caused its own destruction indirectly. It was a long time coming.
They also have much better tooling to create better quality silicon (hence that high frequencies.)
Intel don't HAVE to price their CPUs so high, but they do.
Intel is NOT stupid. They know they have to give their best to stay in the market against AMD. No point of asking more money for their CPU when people are already leaning towards AMD.
I'm pretty sure intel 10 gen production cost is much higher than the SELLING PRICE.
Intel is probably selling 10 gen for a loss. That's why the production is limited.
1. Intel's prices have always been like this, this is nothing new. They've always been greedy and charging as much as they can get away with.
2. Intel's prices need to be LOWER, not higher. If their prices were lower, more people would be buying Intel, and they would get more profit. That's exactly how AMD is winning.
3. They wouldn't sell their CPUs at a value lower than the production cost. That makes zero sense and no business would thrive on that.
I would rather get the 10600k over 3700x which is more suited for me but in OPs situation he would be best off with a B450 and a R5 3600 which is well into his budget.
CPU for £170, mobo for £120 odd.