I'm putting together an Intel-based system with a Z490 motherboard and 3600MHz (CL16) memory.
It's intended mostly for general usage and some music making. Gaming is not a priority for now.
I don't plan on overclocking, because it seems these CPUs are already pretty hot/power hungry as it is and don't overclock much anyway.
With that said and with the CPUs running at stock, how would the 10600 and the 10600K compare? How much does the higher base clock matter? I couldn't find any proper tests.
Also, does this matter:
https://www.techpowerup.com/267757/...re-i5-in-circulation-only-one-comes-with-stim
So the K has soldered TIM and the non-K has thermal paste, which means lower temps for the K all things being equal, right?
But besides that, in terms of inter-core latency, performance, all-core clocks and stuff?
(I'm still considering the 10700 as well, although that's a significant increase in price. And let's keep AMD out of this, please. ).
It's intended mostly for general usage and some music making. Gaming is not a priority for now.
I don't plan on overclocking, because it seems these CPUs are already pretty hot/power hungry as it is and don't overclock much anyway.
With that said and with the CPUs running at stock, how would the 10600 and the 10600K compare? How much does the higher base clock matter? I couldn't find any proper tests.
Also, does this matter:
https://www.techpowerup.com/267757/...re-i5-in-circulation-only-one-comes-with-stim
So the K has soldered TIM and the non-K has thermal paste, which means lower temps for the K all things being equal, right?
But besides that, in terms of inter-core latency, performance, all-core clocks and stuff?
(I'm still considering the 10700 as well, although that's a significant increase in price. And let's keep AMD out of this, please. ).