Wednesday, May 20th 2020

Intel 10th Generation Core Desktop Processors Start Selling

Intel's 10th generation Core desktop processors started selling as review and retail embargoes lifted earlier today. Despite supply chain constraints, prices of the chips appear surprisingly tame, and close to Intel's announced prices. The retail Core i9-10900K is priced at USD $529 on Newegg, before it quickly ran out of stock. The Core i7-10700K is listed at $409. The mid-range Core i5-10400 is going for $195 (all USD prices without taxes). Across the pond, the i9-10900K is listed for €589, the i9-10900KF for €549, the i7-10700K for €449, the i5-10600K for €309, and the i5-10400F for €183 (all EUR prices inclusive of taxes). Retailers also began shipping socket LGA1200 motherboards for which they started taking pre-orders earlier this month.
Add your own comment

108 Comments on Intel 10th Generation Core Desktop Processors Start Selling

#101
ARF
EarthDog
They haven't included stock coolers with K variants in years... because they are intended to be overclocked. So why spend more to sell it with a cooler?? Makes sense to me on all fronts. ;)

Most people who buy K variant cpus know they need to buy a cooler for it. Research is all a part of it... nothing new. And nothing to hold against intel.
No. The K variants are out of the box always faster. And the research process is confusing for the large majority who goes to forums with the question - "what to buy ?"...
Posted on Reply
#102
EarthDog
ARF
No. The K variants are out of the box always faster. And the research process is confusing for the large majority who goes to forums with the question - "what to buy ?"...
If you insist... I disagree. Again, it doesnt come with a cooler.. you'd need to research one to buy one anyway, lol...

All you need to do is read a damn review of the cpu and see what they suggest and are using. Come on man, use that bean in your head! :)


"I've seen this on a stock cooler" - SHUT THE GET THE... it doesnt come with a cooler... hilarious argument.
Posted on Reply
#103
B-Real
Trying not to hurt anyone's feelings but who the heck on earth buys these CPUs?
Posted on Reply
#104
RandallFlagg
B-Real
Trying not to hurt anyone's feelings but who the heck on earth buys these CPUs?
I think if you were to clear your thoughts about process tech, and everything you think you know about AMD vs Intel from reading forums, and then copy all the benchmark charts into a document and compare CPUs, you would have your answer.

It might look something like this :

Posted on Reply
#105
B-Real
RandallFlagg
I think if you were to clear your thoughts about process tech, and everything you think you know about AMD vs Intel from reading forums, and then copy all the benchmark charts into a document and compare CPUs, you would have your answer.

It might look something like this :


Sorry, I can't see your argument.


Considering the 10900K, there is ~ +70W power draw with 2 less cores compared to the 3900X. It's about 12% slower on average in productivity and only 5% faster than the 3900X in 1440P games (with a 2080Ti). And 7% in FHD, but hey, no 2080Ti owner plays in FHD.

And not to mention price, even without the extra cooling: most people will definitely change the 3900X's stock cooler, but it's there and can cope with the CPU. The 10900K doesn't have any, so you have to buy one, and it should be a watercooling solution regarding the temperatures. And the 10900K is already about $100-130 more expensive than an already better 3900X.

Comet Lake is a huge NO for every PC builder, just as refreshed Coffee Lake was.
Posted on Reply
#106
Tatty_One
Super Moder@tor
I personally would certainly not buy these 10 or 8 core parts if only because I don't need it in my usage scenario, but I might consider the 10600K 6 core 12 thread part, more realistic for my needs, longevity is not such an issue for me simply because it may be my last build, it's likely in my old age I will end up a laptop/notebook user :oops: , the 10600k runs pretty cool, has been tested to run at around 95w so I am hopeful my 240mm AIO will suffice, the other option obviously would be to wait and take a look at Zen3.
Posted on Reply
#107
RandallFlagg
B-Real
Sorry, I can't see your argument.


Considering the 10900K, there is ~ +70W power draw with 2 less cores compared to the 3900X. It's about 12% slower on average in productivity and only 5% faster than the 3900X in 1440P games (with a 2080Ti). And 7% in FHD, but hey, no 2080Ti owner plays in FHD.

And not to mention price, even without the extra cooling: most people will definitely change the 3900X's stock cooler, but it's there and can cope with the CPU. The 10900K doesn't have any, so you have to buy one, and it should be a watercooling solution regarding the temperatures. And the 10900K is already about $100-130 more expensive than an already better 3900X.

Comet Lake is a huge NO for every PC builder, just as refreshed Coffee Lake was.
What is the power draw of the Intel platform vs AMD platform (not CPU, we don't run the CPU all by itself) under idle and light loads where they spend 95% of their time?
RandallFlagg
What is the power draw of the Intel platform vs AMD platform (not CPU, we don't run the CPU all by itself) under idle and light loads where they spend 95% of their time?


Posted on Reply
#108
claes
B-Real
Sorry, I can't see your argument.


Considering the 10900K, there is ~ +70W power draw with 2 less cores compared to the 3900X. It's about 12% slower on average in productivity and only 5% faster than the 3900X in 1440P games (with a 2080Ti). And 7% in FHD, but hey, no 2080Ti owner plays in FHD.

And not to mention price, even without the extra cooling: most people will definitely change the 3900X's stock cooler, but it's there and can cope with the CPU. The 10900K doesn't have any, so you have to buy one, and it should be a watercooling solution regarding the temperatures. And the 10900K is already about $100-130 more expensive than an already better 3900X.

Comet Lake is a huge NO for every PC builder, just as refreshed Coffee Lake was.
I don't think you were looking -- that chart didn't include the i9, only the i5 ;)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment