• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Review Intel Core i9 10850K Review (TechPowerUp)

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,322
408
126
I'm not sure how that's rebuttal, but okay? Nice of you to dredge up Phoronix numbers again though. Do we have to go around again about why citing those numbers out of context is essentially useless? Meanwhile, there are plenty of other review sites that follow more-conventional benchmark routines that show the 10900k in a much worse light, but you won't be citing those, will you?
Are you not paying any attention at all?!?!
This is from the opening post, again purely CPU workloads games are seperate.
Any bench that shows a sum up of all benches will show them to be very equal.
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,321
929
106
Be it 2016, 1976 or 2256 work done by how many times you can do it in set time, it's called work activity or power.

It's instructions and it's per cycle
If you have low instructions and high clocks it's not that good,
If you have high instructions and low clocks it's not that good,
having both being high is the best you can do and if you can do that with low power draw even better.

GHZ does not equal processing power but GHZ times instructions does.
Bingo. I cant believe the intense effort by a few posters in this forum to claim otherwise.
 

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,676
1,725
136
I was going to respond to a few of the posts, but sadly I remembered the forum has rules....Dang!

Sorry about the off topic!
There should be a rule against buffoonery ;) .

Not to go too OT, but I started being a computer enthusiast when I overclocked a 286 using a crystal.

On-topic....The point that keeps getting twisted is that GHZ is not equal to processing power. Yes, Intel currently has a small lead in most (not all) games, but a 3950x is not a gaming chip. Gaming is faster IMO on Intel due to latency, not the 5 ghz number. And the 10850k might very well be a decent gaming chip

Now in anything BUT gaming, meaning desktop, HEDT and server uses, Intel is NOT competitive, look at all the benchmarks out there. Gaming is just a different scenario, you can't compare the 2.

Without valid numbers, let me just throw up a scenario for you. DON'T quote my numbers, just trying to make a point.

So with both at 4 ghz, single core, a 10900k vs a 3900x lets say, the 3900x wins be a decent margin, so its more efficicient and faster in anything. Now in reality the 10900k can go to 5 ghz, so it more than makes up for that loss in speed in gaming, but looses in everything else. But the next gen Intel ? Most likely will not go that fast from what I have read.

So keep this discussion to gaming or total computing speed, don't mix cases. Otherwise its trolling IMO.
I'm interested to see how Intel's gaming performance works with their new cache hierarchy. The (IMO curious) move to a larger but non-inclusive L2, as well as a non-inclusive L3. They still have the ring bus going for them, but they'll have to move on from that soon enough. Also curious to see the new L2 latency. Probably won't be bad overall since they clock higher, but surely cycles suffered.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,001
710
136
Are people still dropping $500+ on 5 year old architecture and a 6 year old node?
And yet its somehow still the best CPU for gaming? That's probably who will buy these chips, or diehard Intel fans.

I mean yeah you can get away with a 10600K for half the price and get 95% the performance in games, or any Ryzen chip and get 90-95% the gaming performance, but people who buy these pair them up with RTX 3080s... It's a niche but there you go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,001
710
136
Not to go too OT, but I started being a computer enthusiast when I overclocked a 286 using a crystal.

On-topic....The point that keeps getting twisted is that GHZ is not equal to processing power. Yes, Intel currently has a small lead in most (not all) games, but a 3950x is not a gaming chip. Gaming is faster IMO on Intel due to latency, not the 5 ghz number. And the 10850k might very well be a decent gaming chip

Now in anything BUT gaming, meaning desktop, HEDT and server uses, Intel is NOT competitive, look at all the benchmarks out there. Gaming is just a different scenario, you can't compare the 2.

Without valid numbers, let me just throw up a scenario for you. DON'T quote my numbers, just trying to make a point.

So with both at 4 ghz, single core, a 10900k vs a 3900x lets say, the 3900x wins be a decent margin, so its more efficicient and faster in anything. Now in reality the 10900k can go to 5 ghz, so it more than makes up for that loss in speed in gaming, but looses in everything else. But the next gen Intel ? Most likely will not go that fast from what I have read.

So keep this discussion to gaming or total computing speed, don't mix cases. Otherwise its trolling IMO.
Aren't you contradicting yourself by saying it's not the clock speed advantage but latency that makes Intel faster for gaming, yet at the end of your post you're saying AMD has better IPC and it's the higher clocks of Intel that makes it come out ahead in games? So what is it?

That's a rhetorical question because I already know the answer, and it's a combination of higher clocks and lower latency. I own both platforms and this is plain to see, and it's why manually tuning Ryzen memory timings can also erase half that deficit compared to XMP memory profiles, but that's beyond the scope for even most 'enthusiast' gamers.

FWIW, I don't believe it's as clear cut as you make it out to be re: productivity vs gaming. AMD doesn't have a clean sweep on all apps, and neither does Intel for gaming for that matter.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,586
9,657
136
Aren't you contradicting yourself by saying it's not the clock speed advantage but latency that makes Intel faster for gaming, yet at the end of your post you're saying AMD has better IPC and it's the higher clocks of Intel that makes it come out ahead in games? So what is it?

That's a rhetorical question because I already know the answer, and it's a combination of higher clocks and lower latency. I own both platforms and this is plain to see, and it's why manually tuning Ryzen memory timings can also erase half that deficit compared to XMP memory profiles, but that's beyond the scope for even most 'enthusiast' gamers.

FWIW, I don't believe it's as clear cut as you make it out to be re: productivity vs gaming. AMD doesn't have a clean sweep on all apps, and neither does Intel for gaming for that matter.
Actually, I agree with you. Its a combination. But the big deal is that the Intel fans go on about frequency, and that's only a small part of the equation.
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,082
1,295
126
FYI here in UK the prices are as follows:

10850k - £420
10900k - £530
There is a 25% price increase between the two.
the 10600k is £250, 10700k is £350.

The 10900KF is an insane £590 ($780)


also, to get an idea of what it actually costs to save & buy these, you need to functionally double the prices, as our wages are waaaaay lower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,503
2,244
136
FYI here in UK the prices are as follows:

10850k - £420
10900k - £530
There is a 25% price increase between the two.
the 10600k is £250, 10700k is £350.

The 10900KF is an insane £590 ($780)


also, to get an idea of what it actually costs to save & buy these, you need to functionally double the prices, as our wages are waaaaay lower.
Can you really blame Intel for charging more if people are still willing to buy them?

Microcenter has some of the best CPU prices in the US. They punish those buying the 10900k's by selling them at $699.99 and they still sell out....They know those guys have more $'s then (common) ¢'s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and scannall

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
12,082
1,295
126
Can you really blame Intel for charging more if people are still willing to buy them?
No, i can't. I am *sure* they have some excuse as to "different size markets" or other BS that warrants the price change. And probably taxes pay a part as well.

Unrelated, this does however screw with the benchmarks; it's even worse for GPUs, here in Europe you can't seem to be able to get a good deal on a GPU, if AMD or Nv bring out a GPU in the US that gives you more power per $$ than the competition, in Europe the price will go up almost as if it was on a EURO-per-Passmark-point basis.

.. i mean .. look at the f* 10900KF.
It's literally the same as the 10900K, but with the iGPU disabled. WHY is there a £60 price hike? ("because we know CAN GUESS that Intel is going to bin them slightly better than the 10900K, so PAY UP IDIOT")


.. so .. TLDR: if you are a Euro, you need to do one more step after you check the benchmarks, which is to check the IRL prices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
24,240
1,866
126
Yeah, I don't understand why there are is a big market for overpriced "premium" gaming processors like this. Most smart Anandtech members like Brianmanahan and myself would never buy something like this.
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,503
2,244
136
Yeah, I don't understand why there are is a big market for overpriced "premium" gaming processors like this. Most smart Anandtech members like Brianmanahan and myself would never buy something like this.
Intel trying to keep in the game and providing competition will maybe get me a better deal on my Zen 3 upgrade. Here's hoping it works!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY