Intel to launch 10th generation Core processors between April and June

vbetts

Moderator

2020-03-09 20:16

nizzen:

4770k is EQUAL to AMD Ryzen 3000 series in gaming, så why bother use money on a new cpu? Buy better GPU for the money you save from not buying a new Ryzen cpu. True story 😉 Allways play in gpubound scenarios, then you can use a "free" 7 years old cpu for years to come 😛

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2519?vs=2462 While there are a number of titles pretty equal, in most cases we see the Zen 2 based cpus give better performance. Definitely impressive for the 4770k and shows it aged well though. That being said, 1440p and 4k results most likely are going to be even more similar. Also remember that say a 9700k will give very similar performance to both in these scenarios. So it's not just an Intel VS AMD performance thing, it's a generation VS generation thing.

#5767545

JamesSneed

2020-03-09 20:18

nizzen:

4770k is EQUAL to AMD Ryzen 3000 series in gaming, så why bother use money on a new cpu? Buy better GPU for the money you save from not buying a new Ryzen cpu. True story 😉 Allways play in gpubound scenarios, then you can use a "free" 7 years old cpu for years to come 😛

Not true AMD is considerably faster than a 4770K: :https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2519?vs=2421 Also its not really GPU bound scenarios if you look at the data. AMD losses when its high FPS in a mostly single threaded games. AMDs chiplet design is more latent and thus is slower with the back and forth traffic from the GPU when you are talking high FPS situations. Not that I'm against the advice of buying a better GPU just lets do it with facts. 🙂

#5767546

rm082e

2020-03-09 20:21

Aura89:

Or is what is being looked forward to is the decrease in price(hopefully)?

That's what I'm waiting on. I'm still running a 3770k and ready to upgrade, but only for gaming. I would like a solid 8/16 chip for gaming, but at $350, not $500. I could have picked up a 3800x recently for $340, but if the 10700k will outperform it, I might as well wait another couple of months to see how that turns out. Even if it's nothing special, it might drive down the price a little more on the 3800x.

#5767547

Mufflore

2020-03-09 20:22

I'm on a clocked 6700K and havent found a reason to change it yet, gaming on a QLED TV at 1440p120 and UHD60. Perhaps the next gen GPUs will give me reason but I think its more likely to be games needing more CPU that will push me. The only games I care about high framerate currently are racing, 60Hz does me fine everywhere else.

#5767551

nizzen

2020-03-09 20:31

JamesSneed:

Not true AMD is considerably faster than a 4770K: :https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2519?vs=2421 Also its not really GPU bound scenarios if you look at the data. AMD losses when its high FPS in a mostly single threaded games. AMDs chiplet design is more latent and thus is slower with the back and forth traffic from the GPU when you are talking high FPS situations. Not that I'm against the advice of buying a better GPU just lets do it with facts. 🙂

Hehe... He said Ryzen is EQUAL to Intel, then 4770k must be equal to Ryzen. "EQUAL" PS: Ryzen is not EQUAL to Intel in gaming. That is my point 😉 I have both 9900k and 3900x with 2080ti. I'm not running them stock. 9900k 38ns and 3900x 64ns memorylatency. Are they EQUAL in performance? Not even in most 1440p games 🙂 In BF V multiplayer my 9900k is 20%+ faster in 1440p. Min fps (1%) is far from EQUAL. If I play on GPU bound scenarios, the fps is equal. (Sherlock Holmes) I love both 3900x and 9900k. Using them for different tasks.

#5767561

squalles

2020-03-09 21:03

Mundosold:

No it can't. What's with you Intel people who just make up stuff? 4770K is stuck on Ddr3. That alone means it will never touch modern CPUs in gaming especially in minimum framerates. And quad core vs 8core.. One means you have to shut down programs like Chrome from running in background before gaming, vs just keeping everything up.

dont matter, 4770k on 4.7ghz still are better than ryzen 3800x Nobody will gaming and acess internet sites or see videos on same time kkkkk

#5767565

squalles

2020-03-09 21:06

Kool64:

everyone knows Intel's 14nm+++++++++++++++++++++ is actually 7nm in disguise. Hence why they can't break into their 10nm chips at a profit. So they'll just keep stacking plus signs to make it look good.

and? you can say ++++++++++****::::: or more signs, he are still better

#5767573

Kool64

2020-03-09 21:51

squalles:

and? you can say ++++++++++****::::: or more signs, he are still better

ok here's more ++++++++++

#5767580

Fediuld

2020-03-09 22:24

nizzen:

Ryzen 4k for desktop in ~Mars 2021?

Ryzen 4000 this year, Ryzen 5000 next year

#5767584

nizzen

2020-03-09 22:35

Fediuld:

Ryzen 4000 this year, Ryzen 5000 next year

Not according to: Desktop Ryzen 4000 March 2021. https://www.tweaktown.com/news/71043/amd-says-it-will-have-zen-3-processors-by-march-2021-4-in-2022/index.html https://www.techradar.com/news/amd-zen-3-processors-will-arrive-by-march-2021-at-the-latest So you just guessed? Release of tech and cpu's in stock/shops is a different thing 🙂

#5767585

nizzen

2020-03-09 22:49

Mundosold:

No it can't. What's with you Intel people who just make up stuff? 4770K is stuck on Ddr3. That alone means it will never touch modern CPUs in gaming especially in minimum framerates. And quad core vs 8core.. One means you have to shut down programs like Chrome from running in background before gaming, vs just keeping everything up.

4770k @ 4800mhz with 2800c12 avexir ddr3 memory is pretty fast.. Compare to this, not stock clock and 1333mhz ddr3 cl 20 LOL

#5767607

Ricepudding

2020-03-10 00:48

metagamer:

Gaming performance. AMD still doesn't anything worthwhile for those on intels that are 6700k or better. Many are waiting for these and possibly to see what 4xxx Ryzen will bring. I am, at least.

I mean yeah at 1080p you'd lose a few frames, but soon as you go above that 1440p or specially 2160p then there is basically no difference. But i think if you are updating to these top of the line processors then i kind of question why anyone would be on 1080p, since even mid range cards can handle 1440p easily now with high frames.

#5767611

metagamer

2020-03-10 00:54

Ricepudding:

I mean yeah at 1080p you'd lose a few frames, but soon as you go above that 1440p or specially 2160p then there is basically no difference. But i think if you are updating to these top of the line processors then i kind of question why anyone would be on 1080p, since even mid range cards can handle 1440p easily now with high frames.

There's is some difference in some games having a 9900k at 5ghz gives a nice boost over AMD, for example, even at 1440p. And a 7700k at 5ghz easily matches and even beats a 3900x in games too at that resolution, this is what I've been saying all along, for someone like me, and there's a lot of people on highly clocked 6700k and 7700k, for gaming, there's no point in spending £500 on a AMD rig that will perform the same. I think it's clear that if anyone is building from scratch, AMD is a really viable option. If you have a decent Intel based rig already, the step up is just a waste of money, from a gaming performance perspective.

#5767617

Ricepudding

2020-03-10 01:06

metagamer:

There's is some difference in some games having a 9900k at 5ghz gives a nice boost over AMD, for example, even at 1440p. And a 7700k at 5ghz easily matches and even beats a 3900x in games too at that resolution, this is what I've been saying all along, for someone like me, and there's a lot of people on highly clocked 6700k and 7700k, for gaming, there's no point in spending £500 on a AMD rig that will perform the same. I think it's clear that if anyone is building from scratch, AMD is a really viable option. If you have a decent Intel based rig already, the step up is just a waste of money, from a gaming performance perspective.

you got a reference for that, would like to check it out, but as always i think it depends on the game, some prefer higher cores others might like higher clocks. It's possible the 4000 series might change this if they can push the 4.7/4.8ghz. Though we so many of us going towards 1440p gaming, a few frames here and there is quite small and they more fight on this level. with 4k just putting everything on par. You speak about having a decent intel rig already, but changing the CPU beyond a few things you would need to replace the same parts as you would changing to AMD. Only thing I could see being an issue is RAM and that would depend on the motherboard

#5767682

vbetts

Moderator

2020-03-10 04:37

metagamer:

There's is some difference in some games having a 9900k at 5ghz gives a nice boost over AMD, for example, even at 1440p. And a 7700k at 5ghz easily matches and even beats a 3900x in games too at that resolution, this is what I've been saying all along, for someone like me, and there's a lot of people on highly clocked 6700k and 7700k, for gaming, there's no point in spending £500 on a AMD rig that will perform the same. I think it's clear that if anyone is building from scratch, AMD is a really viable option. If you have a decent Intel based rig already, the step up is just a waste of money, from a gaming performance perspective.

Even if this were the case, the AMD side can also be overclocked and tweaked as well. I do agree that any recent generations of AMD or Intel for people playing at 1440p and 4k, there's no need to upgrade unless you're on a 4c/4t or lower.

#5767779

Fediuld

2020-03-10 11:57

nizzen:

Not according to: Desktop Ryzen 4000 March 2021. https://www.tweaktown.com/news/71043/amd-says-it-will-have-zen-3-processors-by-march-2021-4-in-2022/index.html https://www.techradar.com/news/amd-zen-3-processors-will-arrive-by-march-2021-at-the-latest So you just guessed? Release of tech and cpu's in stock/shops is a different thing 🙂

An yeah, sites with articles "12th gen intel will beat AMD" ? No rumour, no guess. Lisa Su own words says 2020 https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd-zen-3-release-date-2020

#5767811

JamesSneed

2020-03-10 13:23

Daytona675:

Define high frames, saying mid range cards can handle 2160p is grossly untrue -- maybe in Minecraft or relics like CS:GO. Even a 2080ti can't max most games at 144-165hz. There's an upwards of 30% loss in frames going from 1080p to 4k and for a competitive gamer like myself that is HUGE. I wasted so much money listening to you idiots blab about "wHy StIlL 1080P L0L", I did the 2k/4k g-sync monitors and to be completely unbiased the experience was crap. I had to greatly lower quality to even scrape close to a decent refresh rate and at that point my games looked like crap. 1080p is still king for a reason, ultra high refresh rate and maximum graphics quality and once you go high refresh rate 144hz+, everything under just feels slow, bloated and unresponsive. I had a Ryzen 1700x, it was a great processor but gaming wise it didn't really deliver. It was very acceptable but ultimately I ended up selling it and currently run on a 5.2ghz 8700k. I am super excited to see what AMD does next and may try them again very soon, also looking forward to Big Navi.

As a competitive gamer an Intel 9900K, Nvidia 2080 ti, 1080p monitor with a high refresh rate can't be beat. Most people though are not competitive gamers and are looking for more value for money. Honestly everyone needs to be realistic about their needs, read reviews and get what works best for their overall needs.

#5767863

Ricepudding

2020-03-10 15:14

Daytona675:

Define high frames, saying mid range cards can handle 2160p is grossly untrue -- maybe in Minecraft or relics like CS:GO. Even a 2080ti can't max most games at 144-165hz. There's an upwards of 30% loss in frames going from 1080p to 4k and for a competitive gamer like myself that is HUGE. I wasted so much money listening to you idiots blab about "wHy StIlL 1080P L0L", I did the 2k/4k g-sync monitors and to be completely unbiased the experience was crap. I had to greatly lower quality to even scrape close to a decent refresh rate and at that point my games looked like crap. 1080p is still king for a reason, ultra high refresh rate and maximum graphics quality and once you go high refresh rate 144hz+, everything under just feels slow, bloated and unresponsive. I had a Ryzen 1700x, it was a great processor but gaming wise it didn't really deliver. It was very acceptable but ultimately I ended up selling it and currently run on a 5.2ghz 8700k. I am super excited to see what AMD does next and may try them again very soon, also looking forward to Big Navi.

I mean i said in 1440p not 2160p, like mid range cant handle that. but telling me a 2060 super which is a straight up mid-range card cant handle 1440p with high frames, and by high frames i mean the space between 60 and 120fps. https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_rtx_2060_and_2070_super_review,20.html Considering this is also not overclocked i checked a bunch of games and it ranges between 70 and 100+ on games at 1440p. But again it looks like you read my comment wrong as you mostly go on about 2160p when i clearly spoke about 1440p. I mean if you are competitive, yes a 1080p high refresh rate might be best for you, but i'd still make a point to say with current tech 1440p is also easy to get high frames in and most competitive games like CS:GO and Overwatch you will be getting 144fps + at 1440p. And you speak about graphics quality but a lot of competitive gamers lower the quality (sometimes for an advantage and sometimes because they want it less flashy).

#5767877

fantaskarsef

2020-03-10 16:05

vbetts:

Even if this were the case, the AMD side can also be overclocked and tweaked as well. I do agree that any recent generations of AMD or Intel for people playing at 1440p and 4k, there's no need to upgrade unless you're on a 4c/4t or lower.

Yes and no I'd say, I'm seeing the FPS dropping in top and most of all bottom percentile already with a 5930K (6/12) at an average 4.5GHz overclock. But yes, I see what you're trying to say, and generally I have to agree.

#5767908

MonstroMart

2020-03-10 17:16

fantaskarsef:

Yes and no I'd say, I'm seeing the FPS dropping in top and most of all bottom percentile already with a 5930K (6/12) at an average 4.5GHz overclock. But yes, I see what you're trying to say, and generally I have to agree.

This is really a personal preference. What do you value the most? Fps or gfx quality and resolution. Personally while i value fps and less clutters more in games like Overwatch i value gfx quality and resolution significantly more in all the other type of games. The reality is most modern twitch shooters can run fine on any recent cpus. I can get 144fps at 2k with a 1800x and a 5700xt in most recent twitch shooters. Unless you aim for 300fps pretty much any modern cpus will do the job providing you don't cheapen on on the gpu. If you aim for high resolution and lot of clutters making the scene more realistic then the gpu gonna be the big bottle neck. You'll get a few extra frames with a 9900k but the cost per frames will be out of the park. If you got the money for a 9900k and a 2080Ti then it makes sense but if not then it's probably wiser to spend more on the gpu instead.