Good price drop for a CPU only a couple of weeks old!
I wonder if this price drop is to compete with new AMD stuff being released next week (B550 motherboards and MAYBE refreshed XT CPUs?)
Intel i7-10700K CPU $668 + Shipping (Was $749) @ Skycomp
711
p3t0r on 10/06/2020 - 06:11 skycomp.com.au (1139 clicks)
Last edited 10/06/2020 - 10:13 by 2 other users
Last edited 10/06/2020 - 10:13 by 2 other users
Related Stores
closed Comments
- 1
- 2
I currently have an i5 6600K. Looking forward to the upgrade to let my 1080ti breathe a little more :)
Why wait for Intel to upgrade?
Downvoted for saying you're buying an Intel processor in an Intel deal..
Oh I'm going AMD :) not to say this wasn't tempting!
@p3t0r: I've already gone AMD. Surprisingly have little interest in Intel this generation, to the point I haven't even bothered to look at reviews. This tribal crap in the tech community really annoys me though.
@TheContact: I currently have an Intel system, it would be silly for anyone to build a new Intel system now. Unless you are userbenchmarks.
Currently finalising parts for an 3700X build.
@JPerez: There are still applications that are basically single threaded bound, and not just gaming. If I were building a CAD/gaming build I'd be considering this deal for instance.
@JPerez: 3700X user here: strongly advise you hold your money to October/November and get Ryzen 4000 and B550 build instead.
Zen 3 is the true Intel killer.
@jasswolf: I'm already set on an x570 based system.
I can upgrade the CPU and sell the 3700X if the difference is justifiable.
@JPerez: You're not considering future pricing and product segmentation in that thought process.
In 6 months, a 3700X will be sitting where the 3600 is currently residing.
You're looking at the 4000 series basically beating Intel in virtually every metric, and perhaps Rocket Lake (in December) doing nothing to change that.
If it's a gaming system, and you're planning on going with next gen GPUs and monitors, you're still going to need some of that single-thread performance.
@jasswolf: Wouldn't recommend B550. AMD are most likely going to switch to AM5 for Ryzen 5000, and B450 supports Ryzen 4000. The only selling point is PCIe 4.0. B550's cheapest offering is set to be like $120 USD.
@Void: I'm not advocating B550 now, but I expect prices to soften. People often use a CPU for 4-6 years, which makes PCIE 4.0 relevant.
If pricing still stays so close to X570, I'm obviously not going to recommend that, but that will crystallise in 3-5 months.
@jasswolf: Well if 3.0 ages as 2.0 did it will serve you just fine. There's like a 2-3% performance loss with 2.0. Hopefully B550 does become cheaper, but even the boards themselves look expensive.
@Void: With work being done on storage tech and speeds, GPU to SSD DMA, MCM GPUs, CPU cache walls (near memory tech), PCIE 4.0 and PCIE 5.0 are going to increase in their importance. Next-gen consoles have flagged that.
That being said, Ryzen 4000 appears to be delayed until Q1-Q2 2021 according to the latest news out of Taiwan, so suffice to say B550 prices should be sensible by the time most people will be looking to upgrade.
Totally respect that the 1080ti, the 2080/2080S and the 2080Ti are the first cards to push past PCIe 3.0 8x bandwidth needs, but MCM configs making use of DMA in particular should see a big jump in requirements, and that will start appearing in the generation of GPUs after this one due to maximum die sizes being reduced with future silicon nodes.
Greater parallelisation dictates a need for more bandwidth.
@p3t0r: No fnaboyism here, more like moneyism and valueism, bang for buckism
AMD is the winner for that.
There is no point being loyal to a company, you buy what is best for your money and right now that is AMD.
Like I said, my current system is Intel.
@p3t0r: If you're upgrading specifically because of a CPU bottleneck in games, this would still be better than a 3900x, for everything else though the 3900x is the way to go
@cille745: I play at 1440P. When looking at the performance between 10th gen vs Zen2, you're looking at maybe a ~5% better performance with Intel @1440P.
The (to be released this month?) 3600XT, 3800XT and 3900XT CPUs I'm hoping will close that gap!
Will then look at price to performance between Intel vs AMD! The Z490 ITX motherboards ain't cheap! B550 should be cheaper
I'm still rocking an i7-6700K and GTX-1070, they are still doing well in the past 4 years. The CPU may have progressed 4 generations since then but the GPU has only gone 1 generation so far, so not worth upgrading yet.
If I had invested a bit more for the 6700K instead of the 6600K, I'd probably skip this gen also!
Similar to you, I have an i7-6700k with a 2080Ti.
I play at high res (3440x1440 ultrawide), so the reviews say there is little benefit in upgrading the CPU for gaming. Its still 99% on the GPU.
@reddead2067: Haha your 2080Ti is the current best anyway. How old is your i7-6700K and how old is your 2080Ti? Both my CPU and GPU are 4 years old.
@reddead2067: It also depends on the game you play and the stuff you have in background though. My i7 7700k struggle hard to keep up with a 2080 in games like AC Odyssey and Battlefield V, I often see GPU hover around 80% while CPU maxed out and frequent frames dipped below 40. Upgraded to 3700x and it's smooth sailing.
@reddead2067: Playing the Witcher III at 4k on a 6700K (stock) + 1080 Ti, and you're right. CPU usage of about 30%, GPU - 99 - 100%
Are you me?
Gotta say though (maybe not quite as relevant since it's an even older CPU) it's been a noticeably better gaming experience for me in the way of less FPS fluctuation/dips going from my 4770K to 3700X setup particularly obvious in Rise of the Tomb Raider where it would randomly dip into the 30-40's with my 4770K and often get random stutters whereas it's non-existent in my 3700X setup at 1440p (back when I had a 1070Ti).
Sky/Kabylake i7's have had impressive longevity, in fact I'd say they're the true successors to the 2500k/3570k of the last gen.
A 7700k still keeps up with, and in many cases outperforms, a Ryzen 3600 in gaming with 6700k not far behind. Not much reason to upgrade for gaming if you have either of these two, unless you've got a truly top end GPU (in which case you're probably not the type to keep the 6700k around in the first place).
Annoyingly, for someone with a 7600k machine, this is why used prices for these i7's are still ridiculous. You could possibly sidegrade to a 3600 and make money from the used combo lol.
got an i7 4790k, and 1080ti needs to breath a little more too…
You did well to make the 4790K last this long!
@DarthAntz: Amateur, I still have an i7-2600K that is going strong and I'm just updating the GPU every couple of years :)
@YLD1: Ditto. Have the 2600k running with a 1Ghz overclock for 9 years, and it's still Rock solid. It's only in the last year or so that an upgrade has looked even remotely compelling.
Not bad for a CPU that cost $350 at the time…
@kbzj: yeah me too
only annoying things about the 2600K is it can't playback 4K videos right and for Virtual machines it struggles, other than that its a workhorse
I upgraded to 3700X when it came out last year coming from a 4770K so I know that feeling haha!
@basketballfreak6: Just chiming in because I'm thinking of upgrading my OC 3770K and 2080.
It plays 4k games so well, I'm more concerned about the aging hard drives and figure may as well do it all at once.
@kevitkotw: I say hold off a bit if you can especially with the rumoured 3000 series refresh supposedly out soon (and 4000 series not far away) which will no doubt impact Intel prices as well for whichever camp you decide to upgrade to.
Also as I mentioned in a previous post I actually noticed less stuttering and drops in FPS when I upgrade to the 3700X which was particularly obvious in Rise of the Tomb Raider and that was with my old 1070Ti as well (currently rocking 2070S).
This. Once AM5 comes out I'll be upgrading to AMD. Having to change motherboard every time Intel release a chip is a massive pain in the crack.
How often do you just upgrade the CPU anyway? Every one year or every 3 years? If every 3 years or more, might as well change the motherboard too.
$30 for shipping…
Started from $16 for Sydney.
Even with $30 delivery, it's still a $60 saving over any PC store you could walk into and buy it.
It is $690 delivered everywhere on eBay
Link? Cheapest I found was $726+postage
@TheContact: Cheapest now is 759 on computer alliance. With coupon it will pay $710 delivered However there is catch: computer alliance is the only one that provides the key for a bundle games:
https://softwareoffer.intel.com/Campaign/LearnMore/521CD5E5-…
They confirmed it 2 days ago but now I am not sure anymore they are providing it from today as this info has been removed from their website/eBay.
Anyway, this one looks the cheapest now
Buy from AMAZON.com.au only AU$ 572.00 delivered
https://www.amazon.com.au/Intel%C2%AE-i7-10700-Desktop-Proce…
TBH i will not buy from Aussie retailers they are Over priced, hard to get a refund / replacement.
That's a different CPU. Thats the non K not overclockable version.
Yah, please check the proper model before you post.
Lol this price sickens me.
Ryzen 9 3900X is around the same and it comes with the wraith prism cooler.
LONG LIVE AMD!Still probably a good price OP so nothing against you posting this, just having a dig at Intel the gronks
Can you sell the Prism cooler and put it towards NH D15?
No, that's illegal.
Yes?
I guess you can, shouldn't be any reason as not to but every Ryzen comes with the wriath prism cooler I think
I sold mine for $20
Is that Prism cooler so crap?
It's not crap, just not great. It's issue is it fights the fan curve you set with inconsistent ramps that while not loud (in silent mode) can be annoying. As far as performance you're giving up about 100mhz of boost on silent, so not much.
I don't quite have the heart to swap it out for one of my massive tower coolers, it's a really good looking cooler and the kids love looking at the PC for it.
Edit: the it's not crap just not great also goes for the CoolerMaster hyper 212. The prism is only a few degrees warmer and a touch louder. I often hear people recommending the 212 to people with a prism, all I can say is keep the prism or go besilent, thermalright or noctua.
@AEKaBeer: The ramping is a Ryzen 3000 thing happens with my Noctua C14 as well. Set a delay with whatever you are using to control the fans, so that it only ramps up with a consistent load rather the the short temperature spikes.
@TheContact: I'm just using silent mode on my motherboard along with selecting the quiet option on the fan itself. It's really not that bad, but from a thermalright silver arrow in the same case which was dead silent (quieter than the d14 and d15 in my other machines) you really notice.
I'll have a play with the fan delay settings at some point soon. Funnily enough I don't get the same fan ramp on the 2700x as I do on the 3700x.
@HD9990: I think I was projecting, my 2 year old was mid tantrum over which dinosaur hoodie she wanted to wear…
Bequiet is indeed the brand.
You put your prism on your 1600AF that powers your home entertainment nas/vm server. Durr.
Do you feel physically ill from this? Perhaps you should visit a doctor!
Thank you for the advice I will go to the doctors
According to this, the Intel CPU appears to be faster than the Ryzen 9 3900x https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-10700K-v…
I'm a noob so can anybody help explain why the Ryzen is better? I'm looking to build a new PC very soon and deciding which CPU to buy.
Userbenchmark is extremely biased for Intel. Do not use them to compare AMD vs Intel.
Look at independent reviewers on YouTube for a fair review.
Edit: here's proof, https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8350K-vs…
How is a threadripper slower than an i3. Its not.
I think it comes down to the programs/apps/games. There are always some that will favour Intel over AMD and vice versa - depending on how they're written.
Threadripper CPUs prioritise core count over clock speed.
An i3 prioritises clock speed over core count.So a program that is only lightly threaded and heavily dependent on clock speed will show a bias towards the i3.
It's all about choosing the right component for the use case.
Should also point out, the 10th gen i3 is roughly equivalent to a 4th gen i7 in terms of specs, plus IPC increases.
I agree, but the problem is that people look at the "effective speed" on UB and say the i3 is faster than Threadripper, even though it is slower overall.
Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation, i3 got 31fps vs 124fps for threadripper, and the threadripper is not designed for games.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-10100-vs…
That's a good thought but not really the case with userbenchmark. The skew is extreme and doesn't make any sense. The i3 has significantly worse single core, quad core, and multicore speeds, but userbenchmark still says the i3 is faster.
The 3970X has great single core speed and in basically no workload, including gaming would a i3 be faster. That's still not enough and userbenchmark makes up a new metric which it weighs hugely (the 28% higher memory latency - which in the real world is crippled on the i3 and actually worse than the 3970X due to RAM limitations on motherboards), weighing it to be more important than the ~800% higher mulicore performance of the TR. This is new and something userbenchmark added once it became clear AMD CPUs had effectively caught up to intel in single core speed. It's always shifting the goal posts to make sure Intel wins.
When Zen 3 comes out at the end of the year and the memory latency gap no longer exists either you can be sure userbenchmark will make up some new metric to make Intel look better.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-10100-vs…
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8350K-vs…Same deal. Just makes no sense
Use cpubenchmark.net
Here look at this comparison between the 2 CPU's - https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-10700K-vs-AMD-…
cpubenchmark.net is even worse than userbenchmark. The userbenchmark owner is an unprofessional intel fanboy, but at least it lists actual gaming benchmarks. Synthetic benchmarks are barely even worth looking at. To look at them exclusively is almost completely useless.
Once you know userbenchmark is a bit biased towards intel, it's useful to use it to get a rough idea, then you can narrow it down by looking at actual game benchmarks from more reputable sources.
Intel generally has better performance per core, so benchmarks which rely on core speed rather than count (and most games as well) tend to favour Intel.
Anyone correct me if I'm wrong.
This is the right answer. Intel has higher IPCs and higher frequencies resulting in better performance for single core workloads that benefit from those two factors. Most non gaming workloads tend to be optimised for multi core CPUs, hence Ryzen has a significant lead in those cases.
Yep, the single-core gap closed a lot with the Ryzen 3xxx series, but intel is not yet completely beaten for gaming and single-core. There's only a few percent in it, though.
Sorry but some of the above statements are not entirely correct.
1.The Ryzen 3000 series in general has 1 to 9% better IPC than the current generation Intel CPUs.
If you look at the Cinebench R20 "single core: scores from the website Techspot for example, you will see that the 3900x scores 518 vs the 512 of the 10700k.
This is despite both CPUs having same base clock of 3.8ghz, and the 10700k having a higher boost clock of 5.1ghz vs 4.6ghz of the 3900x.
Ryzen does indeed have better SMT{multi-threading} than current gen Intel CPU. This provides and advantage in newer applications and games.
Intel has the advantage in certain games at 1080p, if you have a 2080TI. This due to the games being clock speed sensitive, developed on Intel's ring bus and not optimized for Ryzen's Chiplet architecture.
The gap in gaming performance diminishes significantly as the resolution increases and if you have a GPU below a 2080TI. This is because the GPU has to do more work at higher resolutions and is not waiting for the CPU to push data to it.
@shellshocked: Hey shellshocked, interested to know if you have any links or further info about point 5?
Actually if you read around the reviews for the first time AMD has better IPC than Intel, but Intel still clocks much faster therefore still edges ahead when it comes to lightly threaded workload.
Keep it easy:
For gaming 720/1080p - Intel
Everything else: AMD
3300x says otherwise.
from a point of view of purely gaming it is a little faster. The very high clock speeds per core are more advantageous than more cores. Actual real performance in apps that can fully utilise a CPU then the 3900x easily outperforms.
so I guess if your goal is purely gaming performance right now then yes the Intel CPU is the best CPU.
Thanks. Could you possibly give some examples of apps that can fully utilise a Ryzen CPU?
large code compiles, encoding/importing/exporting large batches of videos/photos or compressed files, running lots VM's on your desktop. basically any heavily threaded app or app that can run lots of jobs in parallel. Generally not things the average home user does. Though even if you are only gaming The Ryzen does use less power and hence produces less heat and tends to come with better OOB coolers than Intel (and intel K CPU's come with no cooler at all).
@gromit: Encoding is a strange one as it's the most intense CPU usage you can get. You get better results and smaller file sizes with less cores. The problem is it takes so much longer (sometimes many hours). 3900x encoded half a gb bigger for a 5gb file with a little bit less clarity compared to 6700K. Same settings took 8 hours for 6700K, 3.5 hours for 3900x. Encoding 4K content is where the 6700K loses badly for time (sometimes over 1 day!), the quality is the same too. There's no point in getting these flagship CPUs unless you are a heavy encoder or do video rendering for games. You won't be utilising anywhere near the capacity of it otherwise. Baffles me why people think they need these high end CPUs for gaming.
Intel is only best if you have unlimited budget. If you have a budget, you will likely get better gaming performance out of an AMD built.
For example, you will save close to $200+ going for a similar AMD build over Intel (CPU/cooler/mobo). That money can go towards a better GPU, which is likely to have more I impact on gaming performance than the slight CPU speed difference.
Obviously dependant on the games you play and the bracket of your budget.If you are aiming at a 3900x or a 10700k then arguably budget is not your main concern. NEITHER are good choices for pure price performance for gaming. These CPU's are both in the overkill range that will leave much of their potential untapped, so yes much lower spec CPU's are far better value for money in gaming and AMD definitely has the best mid range price/performance. I think the point I was making was that if performance in gaming is purely your goal then Intel are still the better CPU (FYI in the middle of a gaming build myself and it will be AMD based)
@edfoo: If I had to buy right now it would be the 3700X because I do a few things beyond just gaming. however I am in limbo as the mini-itx case I have ordered has had delayed delivery. So I won't make a decision till next month, by then maybe the XT's will be more than a rumour or perhaps 10600k availability and price will make me change my mind (unlikely but not impossible).
@gromit: Awesome!
I was looking into this one too. My main concern GPU temp since it doesn't look like there is much exhaust for GPU side.@SickDmith: reviews thus far show anything up to a 2070 super won't have much problem, but there are also details of a few people that have used the mesh to bolt on additional fans to force more airflow or removed the dust filters which will also increase airflow . I am not looking to overclock and will be at most putting in a 2070 super so I should be fine, even so I have a few spare quality fans in my drawers that I can add if needed.
Userbenchmark has a pretty bad reputation now and is banned from lots of tech websites and subreddits. They've applied really weird weightings to their benchmarks to try to benefit processors with less cores and specifically, Intel processors.
Check this comparison I found myself:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700-vs-…
Somehow the effective speed of the Ryzen is +7%, even though the average score is +17%, the single core is +15%, the dual core is +18%, the quad core is +25% and the octa core is +36%, and overclocked scores tell a similar story
Also they call anyone that criticises them "an army of shills".
LMAO. Do not fall for Userbenchmarks. They are known Intel shills.
Tech Jesus
Hardware Unboxed
LTTHave all called out Userbenchmarks
The issue is people are tired of hearing "shill review" so when someone as dodgy as userbenchmarks the people calling them out get ignored.
Here's my experience with them. I was going to their site almost daily as a fun little exercise when I was thinking of upgrading mine and my brother's i5 PCs. The results seemed pretty good at the time, then they had one bit of fkery with Ryzen 2xxx against Intel 8xxx, there was some verbal gymnastics on their part, fishy but I guess you could buy it if you weren't following any other reviews. Then just before Ryzen 3000 launched they completely changed the way they recommend CPUs putting i3 dual cores as superior to the 2700X and then eventually the entire stack of 3000 series, they lost all credibility in the enthusiast space.
It's still baffling to me why they're doing waht they're doing.
If they're not getting money from Intel then what is the whole point of playing the villain, blatantly giving out false information and purposely killing your own brand/company/website.
It does not make sense at all.
@JPerez: It's a real head scratcher. If they're not financially incentivised, then all I can think is they hated being called out on their single thread philosophy, that they doubled down to spite anyone that spoke against them.
Edit:what the hell was autofill on gboard doing? It was adding words left and right.
@JPerez: At this point they have gone full on troll mode, the new summaries they are writing for CPUs read like pure linguistic gymnastics.
I think they changed after they started getting called out by everyone. They were always Intel biased, but they did it in subtle ways and weren't obvious about it. But because the AMD Ryzen CPUs keep getting better and better compared to Intel they had to keep changing their formulas until it became obvious and they got called out on it.
Since the cat got out of the bag it's like they just decided to roll with it and start trolling people.
I would honestly wait for the 10600k, you'll save about $150 - $250 and you can overclock it to match similar performance to the i9 10900k, unless you need the threads, then go AMD
- 1
- 2
9700k is my last intel cpu. Ryzen is the way to go.