安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
It runs a little warm when idle, but when gaming or when the chip is under load, I have never seen my CPU hit over 70c for extended periods of time, even on the stock cooler with the fan maxed out.
I wouldn't pick up any intel CPUs until they switch to 7nm or lower. The 10th gen intel CPUs are rather power hungry from what I have heard, and would need a good cooler to cool them. While the Ryzen CPUs are often cheaper and perform better than the new intel CPUs.
Overall it depends on what you do, and what your budget is. You want to stream and record videos, or do tasks that required good multi-core performance? Go with a Ryzen chip, they often beat the new intel CPUs in multi threaded applications. If you just game, the intel CPU is better but you'll have to buy a good and expensive cooler for it.
I don't have to buy an expensive cooler
https://www.evga.com/products/product.aspx?pn=400-hy-cl11-v1
I don't know a whole lot about the Core i7 10700T, but it seems to boost to between 4.38 GHz and 4.5 GHz, depending on the source. It costs ~$310 as opposed to ~$400 to $410 of the Core i7 10700K (for comparison, the "vanilla" Core i7 10700 boosts to 4.8 GHz and costs ~$335), so offhand it seems to be a better value than it's K counterpart, but it still seems a bit of an awkward CPU. Reason being, at least from a gaming perspective, typically you'd choose Intel over AMD for the small IPS advantage and eat the cost premium, but with the lower clock speeds of this T model, the IPS difference between it and the AMD equivalents likely shrinks even more (and it's already rather small to be honest as it is). I haven't seen any benchmarks that often include anything but the K variants.
Unless you have a workflow that you already know vastly benefits on Intel CPUs, in which case they definitely make sense, then I typically wouldn't bother with them unless you're going for the K variants or above. Else, an AMD equivalent will give you too close to the same thing for much less cost.
Needless to say, pricing may be different where you are, which will obviously totally change how "worth" some things are relative to others.
Plus rumour is that intel has an announcement on Sep 2. A few 11th gen intel benchmarks have been spotted plus rumours of a new mobo generation with extra pcie lanes. But unlikely to be released this year. Intel announcements have been underwhelming in the past. Nonetheless it's worth waiting to see what zen3, ampere and intel are doing late September.
Gpus are still likely to bottleneck cpus at the top end.
T series are low power which means less heat, less performance, targeted at smaller pc's.
P for Potato
the future of gaming right now is in GPU more so than CPU 9900k and the 10700k are basically the same thing. 8 core w/16 threads are advisable to future proof just in case
B550 board with decent VRM
Ryzen 3700X or better cpu
Better after market cooling
2x 8gb ddr4 3200, minimum
Gold certified modular psu, 650w minimum
Price-wise though (at least in the US), there's little reason to buy a 9th generation CPU over a 10th generation CPU unless you're getting it at a far reduced price or your motherboard is limiting your options. For example, the Core i7 10700K is typically a slightly cheaper and better Core i9 9900K (this actually seems to have come down slightly in price, probably because of the 10700K), the Core i5 10600K is a better Core i7 8700K, etc.
10th gen draws more power than 9th gen, but does have slight die change (sanded/lower die height) so it tranfers heat better.
That's marginal improvement though couple hundred watts of heat is still a couple hundred watts of heat.