• 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."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Question new upcoming intel cpu

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tushardehra

Senior member
Jul 24, 2013
560
1
81
thanks all for valuable replies i can wait 6 months for intel and i NEED intel only i would love to go with i7 10th generation and from my old pc i will use only asus gtx 1660ti 6gb i have
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
49,560
5,606
126
Once Vermeer launches, everything Matisse will go down in price.
Any sort of ETA on that? Looking to upgrade my 2x R5 1600 and 1x R5 3600 rigs to R7 3700X CPUs, if/when prices drop to nearly $250 or less on that
CPU. (Already hitting $283-284 @ Newegg, maybe I should snag some soon... well, if I didn't need my money to pay rent and continue my "bunkering" due to "Human Malware".)
 

SAAA

Senior member
May 14, 2014
471
80
91
With both new CPUs from Intel and AMD at the door betting on a 5 years old architecture now seems silly.
On the other hand used CPUs with several cores left and right, or discounted ones especially from AMD, there are some awesome deals if you look well... and really want to upgrade. Any 6 core would put you in a better position for a couple years if that Haswell turns out insufficient, that I doubt honestly. A video card update mid year will make your rig wonders.
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,504
1,927
106
What benefit would a gamer get from going LGA1200?
Maybe you got me wrong or didn't see my first post here. I said, IF he really wants to buy Intel for whatever reason, then he should definitely wait. The benefit in not buying an EOL product is always upgradeability. LGA1200 could be the first intel platform in many years where you could actually drop in a new CPU later. Do I think that either Comet or Rocket Lake be any more competitive with AMD? No. But wanting Intel is not a crime and since OP didn't want to convince anyone that its superior to AMD, after telling him my opinion about being better off buying AMD, I can give him my word of advice with good heart on the Intel side. For me, when sticking to Intel, LGA1200 is definitely a better option than to get CFL now and stare at tech news with regret for 3 years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

mopardude87

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2018
3,348
1,563
96
Any sort of ETA on that? Looking to upgrade my 2x R5 1600 and 1x R5 3600 rigs to R7 3700X CPUs, if/when prices drop to nearly $250 or less on that
CPU. (Already hitting $283-284 @ Newegg, maybe I should snag some soon... well, if I didn't need my money to pay rent and continue my "bunkering" due to "Human Malware".)
I keep hearing last quarter of this year, hoping like Ampere the human malware situation doesn't impact it. Kind of hoping they get smart and release them with Cyberpunk2077. If that game flops it might be quite a wait before i find another game possibly worth upgrading for. I was upset about Ampere then realized i am so cpu bottlenecked in half the stuff, a gpu upgrade is prob the last thing i need LOL. I could skip rt in newer titles perhaps, if i can turn on everything else in its place.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,650
5,659
136
Any sort of ETA on that?
Could be July earliest, October latest? I guess?

Maybe you got me wrong or didn't see my first post here. I said, IF he really wants to buy Intel for whatever reason, then he should definitely wait. The benefit in not buying an EOL product is always upgradeability. LGA1200 could be the first intel platform in many years where you could actually drop in a new CPU later.
Rocket Lake may or may not work in boards released this year. I'm assuming it'll be LGA1200, but remember, just because the pincount is the same, doesn't mean CPUs will be compatible.

thanks all for valuable replies i can wait 6 months for intel and i NEED intel only i would love to go with i7 10th generation and from my old pc i will use only asus gtx 1660ti 6gb i have
If you're only using a 1660ti then you don't really need anything that new. You'll be GPU-limited in most scenarios. 10th gen i7 won't be much (if any) faster in games than 9th-gen too so . . . make of that what you will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mopardude87

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,504
1,927
106
Rocket Lake may or may not work in boards released this year. I'm assuming it'll be LGA1200, but remember, just because the pincount is the same, doesn't mean CPUs will be compatible.
When and where have I ever stated otherwise?
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator and Elite Member
Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
22,176
2,781
136
6c/6t is not a great investment here in 2020. The i5 6 and 7 series are aging poorly. Don't fall into the same trap those buyers did. MOAR CORES!1! is not just a meme, it is a fact. There are already games where a 9400F struggles with frame times and stuttering, it will only get worse.
 

Khato

Golden Member
Jul 15, 2001
1,026
14
81
6c/6t is not a great investment here in 2020. The i5 6 and 7 series are aging poorly. Don't fall into the same trap those buyers did. MOAR CORES!1! is not just a meme, it is a fact. There are already games where a 9400F struggles with frame times and stuttering, it will only get worse.
If you wouldn't mind, would appreciate it if applicable reviews could be provided? Just taking the simple route of comparing Anandtech Bench results for the i5-9600k vs i7-8700k (almost same frequencies, 6C/6T vs 6C/12T) shows effectively no difference. Obviously the i5-9400F performance would be a bit lower in cases due to frequency, but I haven't found much evidence that it's behind due to lack of cores/threads. Same can't be said for 4C/4T, and even 4C/8T are showing signs of falling a bit behind.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator and Elite Member
Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
22,176
2,781
136
If you wouldn't mind, would appreciate it if applicable reviews could be provided? Just taking the simple route of comparing Anandtech Bench results for the i5-9600k vs i7-8700k (almost same frequencies, 6C/6T vs 6C/12T) shows effectively no difference. Obviously the i5-9400F performance would be a bit lower in cases due to frequency, but I haven't found much evidence that it's behind due to lack of cores/threads. Same can't be said for 4C/4T, and even 4C/8T are showing signs of falling a bit behind.
The AT Bench is lacking to be honest. And do not make the mistake people that bought the i5 6 &7 series made i.e trusting some bar graphs from the time period when they launched.The OP mentioned AAA MP gaming, and while a quad or hex core can play the vast majority of games great, the one mentioned, is not one of those. FarCry 5 is tough on them too. There are others titles that cause quad and hex to struggle too.

Tech Spot/Hardware Unboxed has shown 6c/6t struggling in BF V, and while fast ram helped, there were still stuttering issues. I have seen other reviewers, Tech Deals comes to mind immediately, that have shown even the 9700K being fully worked with no more overhead available. He pointed out that as new games designed for more than 8 threads hit, it will be riding the struggle bus.

I remember debating over 8GB v. 16GB and if quad core was enough, all around the 2016-17 time frame. People that touted 8GB and 4 core being enough, were on the wrong side of history. All the bar graphs they spammed were short sighted. The trend was clear then, it is clear now. Buy based on some inadequate bar graphs now, watch your stuff age poorly later. I say that in the context of people asking about it, that were doing new builds meant to last them for years. 8GB was not the way to go, nor were 4 cores. I was on the side of more ram and more cores then, and I am on the side that says 6c/6t is now in the same boat.

Just as there were games pushing quad cores then, to indicate where things were going. There are games now doing the same exact thing. Do what you want, but no way I would go less than 8C/8T right now. And personally, I think 6/12 or higher is the better choice to get years of smooth gaming out of a new build.

And I know not everyone will agree. They did not agree about 8GB or Quad cores, but time has borne them out to be wrong. I am of the opinion that they will wrong again.
 

mopardude87

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2018
3,348
1,563
96
Just as there were games pushing quad cores then, to indicate where things were going. There are games now doing the same exact thing. Do what you want, but no way I would go less than 8C/8T right now
Yeah my 7700k played BF5 just fine, outside of explosions that would cause big dips i still was staying above 60+ constantly. Not much in the way of hitching either, but the 7700k is strong for 4c/8t though. Much less fps overall then i would get with a 8700 for example, i had a 8700 but idk i wasn't using it honestly that much so friend swapped for his birthday and well HE abuses it lol. Most games just run fine on either, plus i plan to jump to 4000 series/Comet 8c/16t. Assuming a game warrants a upgrade, so many disappointments i almost consider quitting gaming if Cyberpunk2077 stinks. Not even kidding i think or taking a break till 2022? Sell off this thing while it has worth.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,650
5,659
136
When and where have I ever stated otherwise?
The implication from your statement is that LGA1200 isn't a dead-end socket. The only chip that Intel could drop into that socket would be Rocket Lake-S. Alder Lake-S will be LGA1700. Intel has had socket compatibility problems on the same socket between chipsets before, and it could happen again. I would not be so sure that investing in Comet Lake-S now would buy you into a platform for Rocket Lake-S later.
 

Khato

Golden Member
Jul 15, 2001
1,026
14
81
The AT Bench is lacking to be honest. And do not make the mistake people that bought the i5 6 &7 series made i.e trusting some bar graphs from the time period when they launched.The OP mentioned AAA MP gaming, and while a quad or hex core can play the vast majority of games great, the one mentioned, is not one of those. FarCry 5 is tough on them too. There are others titles that cause quad and hex to struggle too.

Tech Spot/Hardware Unboxed has shown 6c/6t struggling in BF V, and while fast ram helped, there were still stuttering issues. I have seen other reviewers, Tech Deals comes to mind immediately, that have shown even the 9700K being fully worked with no more overhead available. He pointed out that as new games designed for more than 8 threads hit, it will be riding the struggle bus.
Thanks for the detailed response, much appreciated. Checking the TechSpot BFV numbers I definitely see the correlation you're talking about between core/thread count and the 1% low minimum frame rates. eg, the i7-7700k, Ryzen 5 3500X, and i5-9400F all show comparable average of 140 and minimum around 80, whereas the 6C/12T or greater with comparable average of 140 are around 100 minimum.

I'll definitely agree that future games will move the target thread number upwards, in particular thanks to the next generation consoles providing more than 8T. It's likely the case that the behavior will be similar for most games in the next year or two for CPUs below the 'design' thread count: competitive average FPS, but falling behind on minimum. Definitely makes the Ryzen 5 2600 at the same $120 price as an i5-9400F a good choice if playing games that target 8T or more.

Slight aside regarding future proofing. For those who enjoy computer hardware and building their own systems, the merits of a system which will last for 3 years are questionable. A $300 CPU + $100 motherboard today costs more than a $120 CPU + $100 motherboard today that's sold for $120 in 1.5 years and replaced with the next generation $120 CPU + $100 motherboard. Similar argument works to some extent as you go up higher on the product stack, but more value tends to be lost. Point being that there's a good reason for building to current needs plus 10-25% rather than going overboard with something that may be needed in 2-3 years, but provides no benefit currently.

Edit: Going back and looking at the supposed configurations for comet lake it would appear that Intel's aware of the need for the additional threads as the entire lineup looks to be enabling SMT.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DAPUNISHER

mopardude87

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2018
3,348
1,563
96
Slight aside regarding future proofing. For those who enjoy computer hardware and building their own systems, the merits of a system which will last for 3 years are questionable.
If i had my 1080ti since day one, its still a very capable gpu and over 3 years old officially. As far as a cpu goes i think a 3700x/10700k/4700x will certainly last 3 years. Yeah something newer will prob smack it around in 3 years but its still gonna be that good enough for 60fps chip. Almost certain of it.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,892
9,083
136
thanks all for valuable replies i can wait 6 months for intel and i NEED intel only i would love to go with i7 10th generation and from my old pc i will use only asus gtx 1660ti 6gb i have
With this kind of a mindset, I am done with this thread. No open-mindedness here......
 

chrisjames61

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
677
410
136
With this kind of a mindset, I am done with this thread. No open-mindedness here......

I don't get why someone would ask a question about buying a cpu six months before he plans on buying one? That is like asking someone which car he should buy in five years. Unless someone here has a crystal ball......
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,504
1,927
106
If you wouldn't mind, would appreciate it if applicable reviews could be provided? Just taking the simple route of comparing Anandtech Bench results for the i5-9600k vs i7-8700k (almost same frequencies, 6C/6T vs 6C/12T) shows effectively no difference. Obviously the i5-9400F performance would be a bit lower in cases due to frequency, but I haven't found much evidence that it's behind due to lack of cores/threads. Same can't be said for 4C/4T, and even 4C/8T are showing signs of falling a bit behind.
Look up benches that measure min fps or 99th percentile as well. You'll be amazed, how the tables have turned in just a couple of years.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,650
5,659
136
With this kind of a mindset, I am done with this thread. No open-mindedness here......
I noticed we get a lot of new or newer members, where after starting threads and asking for advice, only Intel will fit the bill for their edge case usage. Things that make you go Hmmm?
To be fair, back in the day, we used to have threads in this very forum where people were asking about AMD hardware for a specific use case, only for the thread to be trolled by the then-usual-suspects that were trying to convince them to buy Intel instead. There was some counter-trolling where AMD diehards would enter budget Intel threads to try to sway people to AMD hardware ("It's such a great deal! Look how cheap it is! Just undervooooolt"). It was really tiresome watching people fight conversion wars.

If the guy legitimately wants to buy Intel hardware then so be it. That's why I haven't recommended him any AMD hardware, despite AMD hardware being objectively better now for most things and likely better in everything once Vermeer comes out. In the timespan mentioned by the OP, Vermeer would be the obvious choice (barring shortages of product).
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
20,892
9,083
136
To be fair, back in the day, we used to have threads in this very forum where people were asking about AMD hardware for a specific use case, only for the thread to be trolled by the then-usual-suspects that were trying to convince them to buy Intel instead. There was some counter-trolling where AMD diehards would enter budget Intel threads to try to sway people to AMD hardware ("It's such a great deal! Look how cheap it is! Just undervooooolt"). It was really tiresome watching people fight conversion wars.

If the guy legitimately wants to buy Intel hardware then so be it. That's why I haven't recommended him any AMD hardware, despite AMD hardware being objectively better now for most things and likely better in everything once Vermeer comes out. In the timespan mentioned by the OP, Vermeer would be the obvious choice (barring shortages of product).
My point is, why be so closed minded ? Back in the day... I read those, but they made no sense, no logic was there, just emotionalism. I hate that. We are talking about computers. Logic should reign. He can buy whatever he wants, not my problem, but thats why I said I am done. No sense in beating a dead horse. He got advice, and ignored it. So be it. I should not even have replied, but just wanted to make sure that my meaning was clear. He doesn;t want my help or advice ? fine, goodbye.
 

amrnuke

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2019
1,002
1,515
96
thanks all for valuable replies i can wait 6 months for intel and i NEED intel only i would love to go with i7 10th generation and from my old pc i will use only asus gtx 1660ti 6gb i have
If all you're running is a 1660 Ti, you're not going to see any benefit from anything new front Intel.
Your top-end FPS are going to be limited by your GPU.
If you buy anything less than 8 threads, your 1% lows and stuttering are going to be bad on the games you play.

You don't NEED intel, you WANT intel. I recommend you really evaluate your use case with an open mind.

Coming from an i5-2500 you need a new mobo and RAM anyway, may as well go with a more future-proof system. You can find 3700X + X570 motherboard deals for <$275. A 9400F + mobo might be a little cheaper but it'll give you frametime / 1% low / stutter problems esp with Battlefield V etc. and you'll be wanting to upgrade in 2-3 years because consoles will drag game developers into using more 8-16 threads.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,650
5,659
136
My point is, why be so closed minded ?
I've given up trying to find out. People want help, so I try to help them within whatever happens to be their narrow use case. Probably a bunch of dudebros told the guy that Intel hardware will always be better for games, or something. The amount of half-assed advice out there is pretty scary.

Like @amrnuke said, that 1660Ti will be a big bottleneck anyway. Even a 9900k at this point would be overkill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mopardude87

mopardude87

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2018
3,348
1,563
96
Its possible that MAYBE the op could look at Comet as a potential option? I only see appeal if it can be air cooled which i doubt for 10700k will be a thing idk. For getting maximum fps it may be the option till 4000 series but yeah with a 1660ti....yikes talk about one imbalanced system. Yeah the 2500k needs to go if that is what he is really using, prob has bottlenecks up and down the entire place really. Yeah many benches show Intel having a clear advantage on everything but a 9400f but good luck with that 14nm+++++ chip. Not even worth getting a 8700k/9700k/ or 9900k with AMD 3000 options. IF you need maximum frames NOW then i guess idk...find your 8700/9700k/9900k.

I honestly couldn't recommend anything outside of a 3700x if you don't wanna dump any money into this thing for 3+ years. Comet Lake prob won't compete but if your after maximum frames, then it may be a option. I emphasize on the word MAYBE. You could be content with a 3600 i am sure, then again when console ports push 16 threads then yeah your swapping out for a potentially faster 4000 series 16 threads but by then you invested nearly $500 between 2 chips as with the 3700x its $329 and its set and forget for YEARS.

Op will prob opt for something that idk makes no sense but power to the people, he can ignore all other suggestions or be as bias as possible and just go for the gold. My 2 cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blckgrffn

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
7,256
562
126
www.teamjuchems.com
Thanks for the detailed response, much appreciated. Checking the TechSpot BFV numbers I definitely see the correlation you're talking about between core/thread count and the 1% low minimum frame rates. eg, the i7-7700k, Ryzen 5 3500X, and i5-9400F all show comparable average of 140 and minimum around 80, whereas the 6C/12T or greater with comparable average of 140 are around 100 minimum.

I'll definitely agree that future games will move the target thread number upwards, in particular thanks to the next generation consoles providing more than 8T. It's likely the case that the behavior will be similar for most games in the next year or two for CPUs below the 'design' thread count: competitive average FPS, but falling behind on minimum. Definitely makes the Ryzen 5 2600 at the same $120 price as an i5-9400F a good choice if playing games that target 8T or more.

Slight aside regarding future proofing. For those who enjoy computer hardware and building their own systems, the merits of a system which will last for 3 years are questionable. A $300 CPU + $100 motherboard today costs more than a $120 CPU + $100 motherboard today that's sold for $120 in 1.5 years and replaced with the next generation $120 CPU + $100 motherboard. Similar argument works to some extent as you go up higher on the product stack, but more value tends to be lost. Point being that there's a good reason for building to current needs plus 10-25% rather than going overboard with something that may be needed in 2-3 years, but provides no benefit currently.

Edit: Going back and looking at the supposed configurations for comet lake it would appear that Intel's aware of the need for the additional threads as the entire lineup looks to be enabling SMT.
My 3930k has aged beautifully, actually. 6C/12T is still working well, and Sandy Bridge could clock easily. Coming up on 8 years strong, replacing with a 3600 build presently because... well, I don't have a great reason. 8 years is a long time? Also, NVME boot support is lacking.

If you buy a really strong 3900x build right now, you can likely ride that for quite some time. At Microcenter, getting those 2 chiplets and all that L3 cache is a ~$100 premium over a 3800x which makes it very tempting IMO. I was either going to get a 3600 and cheaper motherboard OR a 3900x and a 570 with solid power delivery. The 3700x & 3800x are in a weird middle ground, they don't have that many more cores/threads than the 3600 but command a huge premium, almost 100%.

Personally, I am using this 3600 build as a bridge to doing a "serious" Ryzen 4000 build next year that will A) be solid step above the consoles so should remain great for games for a long time and B) high end motherboards will not require active cooling.

And... C) my business might actually be making money by then. :D
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY