Intel Core i9-10900K: What Reddit Really Thinks

Good job on the smart and simple solution to the heat problem given restriction to same node. There is an improvement in multithreaded performance which brings it close enough to Ryzen (when cores are the same). However, still behind Ryzen on multithread performance even though single core performance is better. This is an architectural deficiency.

Performance is good. But oh my God, the power consumption!

TL;DW: 'Highest gaming fps, whatever it takes.' In this case it takes a new, expensive motherboard, an expensive, factory-sanded CPU, expensive cooling, and power consumption that puts Bulldozer to shame. And of course it still loses in productivity, despite the 300W+ power consumption.

I don't play games at 1080p though, which is the only trick Intel seems to have left.

It's still 14nm, can't expect much.

While AMD have improved significantly and offer great value for their CPUs, Intel still offers without a doubt a better gaming experience. Yes they are scumbags, but the numbers don't lie. I'm sick of how everytime we talk about strictly gaming needs, everybody becomes a twitch streamer software engineer and starts talking about the benefits of extra cores/threads in other workloads.

The numbers definitely show Intel is the leader but when you're paying a significant premium for a few % better in frames, is it really worth it? To those where money doesn't matter is one thing but I would assume that's not the majority of people.

Few problems with them until I consider getting another Intel: 1) Higher power consumption compared to closest AMD rivals. 2) They change sockets frequently and the naming scheme is confusing when looking for recent parts. 3) NO PCI-E v4 support. Could be relevant for high-end storage cards in the future.

I'm disappointed actually, it's pretty much a 9900K with 2 more cores.

300 Watts of power consumption for a few fps more. No thanks.

Absolutely 0 reason to upgrade from 10900 to 12xxx

At this point, get rid of Celeron entirely and rename the Pentium Gold to Core i1 and their naming scheme would finally make actual logical sense. Everything would have HT and each jump in series would just equate to 2 more physical cores.

Why is the i9 a 'K' chip? It hasn't got any room for overclocking after disabling the turbo limitations... the thing already sucks 250W of power and reaches thermal limits out of the box (again, with turbo limitations disabled).

I can buy a 3700x for 310 bucks or a 9700k for 400 bucks. The 9700k will give me ~5% better gaming performance but at a cost of 30% more money. AMD has already caught up. AMD doesn't lead the benchmarks, but they aren't far behind and where the vast majority of gamers play, they are definitely winning dollar for fps while still being very competitive.

ASUS boards do the best job of following Intel Spec, which is 225w for 56 seconds then 125w indefinitely.

If you don't have a reason to... don't. Upgrading for the sake of it is a waste of money and resources. 10900k is still a nice CPU.

Not a bad chip as a temporary stopgap to keep itself on top in many categories. Power hungry for sure, but those paying so much for small performance gaps shouldn't care much.

i9-10900k is this CPU still relevant for gaming at 1440p? - Of course bro. It is a waste of money upgrading to 12900k for a 5 fps difference.

Intel prices are way high and AMD offers enough for the budget you spend — lower power consumption, included cooler, budget platforms, efficiency — especially in budget gaming.

Yea no. Not investing 1000$ for 2% more performance.

It is enough mate. If you watch comparisons, they differ in performance on 1080p, but become almost identical at higher resolutions. All you need is a high frequency RAM and you are set for years.

3200MHz is completely safe and the possibility of it being unstable is so remote it would be like winning in a lottery if it didn't work. Just buy a 3200MHz kit and enable XMP in the bios.

I've a i9 10850, it's still a beast. Unless you're a Professional and can justify the cost against earnings/time, there aren't many reasons to upgrade. I'm an IT pro and use mine as a VM host, with the 20 threads and a ton of RAM (64gb), it could practically run a business. With the RTX 3080 attached, it doesn't miss a beat at high fps 1440p. If you've a 10th gen i9, get a nice monitor and GFX card to compliment it. Should still be solid for a couple of years minimum.

Really? I have a 10900k and game at 4k with my 3090. Zero issues. Power for days. If anyone tells you that you need 12th gen they are just an intel employee.

If all you do is game and don't care about money or your power bill, the 10900k is for you. That's pretty much it though.

Most of z490 automatically increases power limits to 10900k you may have to disable them manually on mobo bios. Also getting 5900x is overall better choice because lower power draw than 10900k, same or higher gaming performance, better single and multithread usage, 2 more cores and 4 threads, no need to worry about OC.

The thing with 10900k is that it is in a weird spot. AMD is still the better option when it comes to productivity while intel is still the king of gaming. However, using 10900k for gaming only is quite overkill when you can buy 10700k or 10600k which are cheaper yet will still provide superb gaming performance.

Warranty is void by using xmp? That's horseshit

I'm still rocking a 10700K and 4090, and at 3440x1440, it's still more than enough for all the games that I play.

Since late 2020, I've been using the 10900K at 5.0GHz with 32GB DDR4 4000MHz memory. First, I used it with two 2080Ti graphics cards in SLI, then with a single 3090, and for the last two years, I've been using the CPU with a 4090 in an LG C1 TV at 4K/120Hz. That processor hasn't bottlenecked the graphics cards at all.

With CinebenchR20 my STOCK/AUTO wattage with the gigabyte master board that does not limit TAU duration I see around 220-245W. With maxed OC: 5.3GHz all-core / 4.9GHz cache / with HT + 4400MHz RAM with CL16-16-16 and standard 1.4V Vcore.

Guru3d did and they said air cooling the chip stock saw a fully-loaded chip hitting over 95 degrees while a standard AIO cooler did low to mid 70s. They stated that air cooling this thing just isn't probable due to its heat output.

Yep why I am still on 3090RTX a great 1440p ultra card with I9 10900k@5 for 5 years now both holding strong

Im on 10850k and rtx 3080, i game in 1440p and CPU shows absolutly no signs of being slow. Im not upgrading it for at least two to three years.

If you wanna go with another 10th gen i9, buy a 10850k, it's just a 10900 with a slightly slower clock speed that goes for a lot less cash.

Proper stock stock per intel spec is 125w long term

Still running an I9 10900k all cores 5.4 ghz. This is on a Z490, 32gb ddr4 @ 4.0ghz and RTX3080 12gb @ 2.1ghz. Most of my games run 100 to 120 fps 4k.

I9 10900k 10@5.1, 32GB DDR4, 3090RTX, no issues at all most games 4-6 rare 8+ 10c20t at 5Ghz should hold.

10900k is a monster of a cpu, I wouldn't waste the money on anything coming out, maybe not until 14th gen, or 15th if you need it.

I am an Intel user. These CPUs I won't touch.

Let's just remember that 3900x comes with a capable cooler and 10900k doesn't, and it requires serious cooling. Also 3900x can be installed on b450 board while 10900k needs z490 board. It's like 10900k is in average 300 bucks more expensive than 3900x if you see it that way. That destroys the value more.

And... The older 3900X is still an overall better and cheaper CPU. Too little too late for the power-hungry and expensive 10900K