Intel Releasing 10 core 20 thread i9-10900KF for $499 very soon... 5.2 Ghz boost

[londiste]

Wanted to see what exactly you meant by that because we seem to be talking about different things.
As I said before, I consider gaming the primary performance driver for desktop CPUs, with other common use cases being easier on CPUs and more heavy use cases being less common.

 

[Tatty_Two]

What I consider? Are you still trying to get me for pointing you are wrong or you want to catch me off guard with what I will say? You know what I use desktop for, would that justify desktop computer purpose? I think you are limited only by your imagination what you can use it for. If gaming is what you use it for great. If you think that desktop computing has no use for 16 or more cores because games don't use that many (now they don't and 2-3 years back people said 4c is max you would need. Look at this now) than join EarthDog and Cucker Tarlson club.

I think I need to join that club too then but I think here in this debate terminology may not be peoples friends. So just to be clear on my take, a few years ago I would have called myself an enthusiast but these days I consider myself rightly or wrongly a mainstream user, so I surf the net, watch the odd video, do the odd work in MS Office pro and do some light gaming and therefore I consider my "needs" to not extend further than lets say a 3600X or an i7 9700, even if I considered myself a gamer I would likely stick to one of those CPU's but upgrade my graphics card to something more powerful.

You most definitely need more cores from your explanation and I agree there are loads of users out there that have productivity scenario's similar to yours where the more cores are the better but for many there will always be a point where a line has to be drawn (unless they have a degree of financial freedom) between need and productivity, the thing is this, if anyone really does believe that there are more high productivity users out there than "mainstream" then I really have got it wrong as productivity would actually be the new mainstream although I don't believe that is the case. From reading the last page or so, all I read into Londiste's words are "not everyone needs high core count desktop PC's"

Hopefully at this point we can draw a line and get back on topic as it's seems in part the Moderator warning a few posts back has been ignored, it is an interesting topic but not for an Intel CPU release news piece and I would rather not have to manage reply bans.

 

[cucker tarlson]

If that's not juvenile then I don't know what is and yet I'm being offensive What a ruse.
Bravo to the two (so-called grown ups) sharing thoughts but instead tuck tail and run when no arguments and make childish remarks . Expected more but if that is what I get. Oh well

no one is disputing your point,I'd also like to have more cores if they did anything for me and cost me little.
but as snoop earth pointed out,there's the sweetspot,and above that most of us are paying bigger premiums for diminishing returs.I don't really see a point in engagin in a serious discussion while you're denying the obvious.
there's little 8c/16t can do that 6c/12t can't atm.

I'll gladly move to 10c/20t,when I feel like 10c/20t is the sweet spot for performance.right now it's 6c/12t and for casual gaming/home use my 4c/8t is doing just fine when I push the clocks,just like any 6700k/7700k user.

3700x is 70% more expensive than 3600.Yes,progress

 

[juiseman]

I'm glad that is settled.

 

[kapone32]

I have been reading the debate about cores and I must say that in my opinion both sides are right. It is a fact that current games are best used with 6/12 cores (including streaming on the AMD side). Where 8 to 10 and beyond help is if you are a multi tasker. If you do anything in Premiere or Vegas the extra cores make sense. If you are into any type of CAD work more cores are beneficial.

Even though most users of PCs are not hard core gamers the industry has put that in the head of most people in terms of how they market their products with the "Gaming" moniker. Even cut down workstation products will get that designation.

The last fact though is that people buy what they can afford or want. The notion of a powerful PC is based on the users own desires. Some of you on here do product reviews and as such get hardware that the average person does not have the same access to. I will use myself as an example when I first started getting into PC (build myself) I started with a 4 core 965BE. After I had used that to my desire I went with a 6 core 1090T as what I was doing (making DVDs) would help with more cores. After I was satisfied with that I went with a 8320 8 core (arguably) as those extra cores helped with what I was doing. My next CPU was the 1700 8 cores SMT and it was better and faster than the 8320. The next move I made was for the 2600. It only had 6 cores but was faster than the 1700 in games and most applications I use. I had been looking at TR4 as my wishlist then one day I say an X399 board for $249.99 or $330 Canadian (at the time). I got a 1900X for $349.99 (I can't believe they are now $149 US or $200 Canadian on Amazon) to go with that board and it was faster than the 2600 for what I do. I was happy with that until I started a Vegas project(S) I decided I needed more cores and lo and behold the 1920X was $349.99 on Tiger Direct. I can say that the 1920X is faster than the 1900x in every regard. I was waiting for TR3 details to see what I would do next and as they are now professional workstation products I am not looking at them (though I wish they would release a 7NM CPU for X399) but my next CPU will probably be either the 2920X or 2950X. As far as gaming I game at 4K and the CPU does not matter at that resolution.

In regards to this specific thread it is good for everyone if Intel does release this for $499 if nothing else it should drive down the price of the rest of the stack underneath including the "gaming centric" CPUS (9700,8700,9900K and KS).

 

[Tatty_Two]

Seems a line cannot be drawn so on that note, the door is closed