I sort of feel the 10900k is a bridge too far in practical terms for desktop on 14nm.
I just have a big air cooler, and get 5.3Ghz on a 9900KS. And for gaming, basically the only reason to have an Intel system in the age of Zen+/Zen2, 10C is no better than 8C once frequency is accounted for (stock 10th gen K turbo is higher along with slightly higher stock 'official' ram speeds, which is moot for tuner OC crowd anyway).
You just end up with extra heat and expenses, and STILL lose handily to 3900X, to say nothing of 3950X in basically any heavy MT work tasks, both of which will be monumentally more efficient than a maxed out 9900/10700/10900 rig.
The only interesting 10th gen parts to me are the 10400f (need a little price cut imho, but a good, efficient CPU surprisingly) and the 10600k (once OC'd and tuned, is up with 9900/10700/10900 gaming performance). The 10700k is ok, but is basically a 9900k with very slightly better stock turbo behavior. The 10900k is just an expensive, hot waste (IMHO). I guess I could give a nod to the i3 models as a cheap option, but also feel the price of a 3300 makes that a better option, particularly with Intel's HORRIBLE decision to limit non Z boards to 2666 Ram (notwithstanding some renegade bioses out there). 3600 Ram is cheap, so a combo of H series board, i3 maybe $20 cheaper than current MSRP, and non kneecapped Ram support for sub $100 mobos, and the i3 wouldn't be such a 'ehhh' option.
It's just so .. stupid 😑