Intel Core i9-10850K: What Real Users Say on Reddit

$300 for a 10 core CPU. With some overclocking, it's basically a 10900k.

Without some overclocking it's basically a 10900k. The 10850k and 10900k perform within margin of error of one another at stock clocks. Gamers Nexus has a good video out with a direct comparison between the 2. They're functionally the same CPU.

This is a great price on the new 10 core. That's that Nvidia tactic. Release the highest price tier first and let the early adopters grab the best stuff, they won't regret it. Then release a slightly inferior version for less.

I gotta agree with everyone else here, that's a really dumb policy. 'Most users don't set XMP profiles because it requires interaction with the BIOS'. You're talking about power users here who buy top of the line parts. You're testing top of the line parts. XMP has been a thing for what, a decade?

10850k = 10900k is really deceiving because that GN video left out the part where they would compare the OCs. 10850k bins are notoriously bad because it has to keep up 10core/20 threads on chips that failed quality check for their og 10c/20t chips. OCing to 5.0 cpu of itself is np, but you need to crank up the power consumption hard. Also imc is really meh, you are probably gonna end up having a bad time trying to juice the ram past 4300.

Depends on the specific workload. Some make heavy use of cache, which amd does really well on with their gigantic cache. Some seem to scale more with frequency and/or memory latency, which Intel excels in. If you're just gaming, the differences are likely negligible and vary slightly game-to-game.

Have my 10850k in a loop and OCd to 5.1ghz all core. Stays under 70c as well but they do get hot in a hurry. Temps go from manageable to nuclear inferno in just a few mvs.

With recent sales/discounts the 10850k can easily be had for sub $400. The 10850k matches the 5800x across the board and with some undervolting will sustain lower temps. Plus Comet Lake is far less touchy with memory then Zen3 is. If I had the choice (and I did) I went with the 10850k over the 5800x but also got the 5900x over the 10850k.

Officially, one hits 5.2ghz. The other hits 5.1ghz. Intel could not legally sell the 10900k that didn't hit 5.2ghz so they rebranded it to 10850K. Get the 10850K.

I would rather take the 10 cores personally. The marginal difference in gaming performance between the two doesn't make up for the lack of 4c/8t. Also just fyi in gaming the intel chips tend to stay very cool. It is AVX and video encoding workloads that really push the power and temps up.

I've been an intel user for the past 32 years starting with 8086 in 1988. However, no more intel chips until they bring out a new 10nm or 7nm chip to the market. Yes, I swapped for a ryzen chip this time around. I'm sick and tired of the garbage intel has put out.

It's about the same as a Ryzen 5800x or an i7 11700k/11900k. They all roughly trade blows and have their own latency/cache advantages over each other that often offset the 10850k/10900k using 10 cores to get the same as their 8 cores.

For VMs you might be better off just getting a used Xeon setup, the 20c/40t Xeon 6138 can be found refurbished for $50-80, the LGA 3647 motherboards can be found for $100 for a single socket or $150-200 for a dual socket, so about $500-600 all in including RAM, PSU, chassis, coolers, and shipping prices for a monstrous 40c/80t powerhouse.

I agree. Source - Am a 10850K owner running my RAM at 3600MHz.

That's one hell of a deal, 10850K is a great CPU. I would have done this if this deal was available when I got my 10700k.

No difference.. get the one that is cheaper.

I am using D15. My 10850k (5.0ghz) hits about 85C with aida64. With normal usage, the max temp is 75C.

Gaming performance is up in the air depending on the game and if you OC 10850k can win in a lot of them. 10850k CAN use more power but in gaming loads it's not significant. 5600x runs hot because it can't dissipate heat as well from the die, still need a good cooler unless you want a jet next to you.

5800x itself performs about the same in games. But it has less power draw so you can have a cheaper board and cooler. Also has PCIe gen 4 if you care about that.

10850K user here, I OCed mine at 5.1Ghz on all cores. With a VCore of 1290v and a power draw of 180watts at full load, it's a monster!! It zips threw everything. You really won't notice a single difference in daily use between a 10850K and a 10900K, so go for the cheapest option (prob the 10850K).

11700K has better per-core performance for gaming, while the two extra cores of the 10850K give it the edge in highly-multithreaded applications like video editing.

What benchmark? The 10850k should be plenty for most gaming, but will fall massively short of 12th gen in multi-threaded.

The 10850K, to my understanding, is just a cut-down 10900K - it just has a slightly lower boost clock (5.2 vs 5.3 GHz) and is unlocked vs the non-K 10900. The price jump is just Intel charging a premium for their Comet Lake flagship processor; there's otherwise no difference.

The 10850k is a slightly slower 10900k. Best you can do is an 11700k or 11900k if your mobo supports it.

I just got one of these from my local microcenter, super good deal for essentially 5800x performance but $50 cheaper. I've only tried BL3 but it almost never goes over 60C with a Galahad 360.

6th gen to 11th gen were fairly similar IPC with a little frequency and core scaling. 12th gen was a massive step up. If I were you I'd wait until next series of AMD or Intel processors.

Same thing happened to me using MSI so I had to replace to the Z490 Aorus Pro AX, it's either an MSI problem with the 10850k's but we are not the only ones who had this issue.

It goes down to $399 more often on amazon, this is why I bought it instead of competing with bots for 5800x/5900x.

In reality, the 10850k is a monster - Linus and GN did testing and showed it ends up being almost identical in synthetic testing and gaming benchmarks to the 10900k. If you have a microcenter nearby, you can get them for a screaming deal. Don't skip on cooling, though - they will pull huge power (like 300+ watts if you don't enforce power limits).

A 5900x is the best choice this time around. Wish I could get my hands on one without going to a scalper.

At 5.1GHz the 10850k consumes roughly 250W according to reviews. The question is what you're gonna pair the 10850k with. If it's a 3090 you might wanna consider a 1000W PSU. Otherwise almost every single-gpu config runs on a 750W unit.

This is a great price.

10 cores vs 6... seriously. If you aren't trapped into the platform, go intel this round.

I have one and it runs well. OC's on all cores to 5.1GHz stable on liquid cooling. Got it for about $450 which I could not find a 10900K at the time under $550.

I just bought this and have it installed on my msi z490i, and it runs fast and smooth and temps are great with 120mm aio.. not sure why people say Intel runs hot, I switched from ryzen, and I had more trouble keeping ryzen cooled.. I am glad I switched.

10850k is more than enough for 3080ti, and it will be enough for 4090 or 5090 too, unless you're using some funny resolution in which case you should upgrade your monitor first.

Wait and get a 12900k. Otherwise get a 10850k. Literally no difference between the 10850k and 10900k that you will notice.

At 4.8Ghz on all core it consumes 176W. 750W psu is enough even when you overclocked it.

I regret buying a 12900k due to the massive heat issues. I would wait until some more efficient/faster/cooler processors are released.

There's not a lot of overclocking headroom left on these anyway. This is a failed 10900k keep in mind. It's just a beastly 10 core processor that even in stock form is chart topping at least from the reviews I saw on Gamers Nexus.

Couldn't get myself this beast as I need to buy bundle with other hardwares. Got an i7-10700k instead. It is good for gaming and game recording, but an i9-10850k would be better.