• expired

Intel Core i9-10850KA $599, Philips 27" 75hz QHD IPS USB-C Monitor (272B7QUPBEB) $349 Delivered @ Centrecom

200

First time I've seen this CPU for under $600, lowest I saw previously was $649.

Philips 272B7QUPBEB 27" QHD USB-C IPS LCD Monitor Same monitor was posted here yesterday for slightly cheaper with eBay Plus https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/584116

Solid review of the version with the webcam here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBIjxvX1WkU

Related Stores

Centre Com Online
Centre Com Online

closed Comments

  • i wonder whats the all core OC you can get with the avenger i9

  • Thats a nice price for the 10850KA. Very tempting.

  • Even the Avengers cant save Intel now. Lisa Su is literally Galactus…

  • This makes things really interesting.

    Not sure how appropriate it is to use this website for comparing these CPU's but man,
    10850K vs 5600X
    10850K vs 5800X
    I can see that the 5800X is better, but I'm not really sure if it's $100 better. (5800X RRP: $699AUD)
    Now I'm really starting to see why everyone is saying get the 5600X or the 5900X.

    • If you're gaming, then just looking at gaming benchmarks on youtube it probs better. Even just generally, benchmarks on youtube i reckon are better to compare whatever application you're using it for.

      • Going with your advice, I decided to pop in again on some Gamers Nexus videos. >This video< of his pretty much suggests that the 10850K performs extremely similarly to the 10900K, if not, they are "functionally the same" in most games, CPU benchmarks and video rendering. The only time there was a difference noticeable by the human eye was with the decompression benchmark, but even that showed very little difference.

        So if you don't mind from this point on wards I am going to talk as if the 10850K = 10900K.

        In >this video<, With Civilization VI it took the 5800X 27.2 seconds to complete its turn, and the 10900K 29.3 seconds. That is roughly 7.7% in terms of performance difference vs a roughly 16.7% increase in price ($699 vs $599).

        With Red Dead Redemption 2, "which is the one game that has Intel's CPU's holding top ranks still for the game, although by generally 4~5%."

        With Three Kingdoms Battle, 5800X had 207.8 FPS average vs 10900K at 194.6 FPS average. That is roughly 6.8% better FPS vs the roughly 16.7% increase in price.

        With Three Kingdoms Campaign was where the 5800X shines above the 10900K noticeably, where the FPS average was 145.3 vs 124.9. Roughly 16.3% increase in performance vs roughly 16.7% increase in price.

        I cbf calculating the percentages for the rest of the games but visually, you can tell that the 5800X is better in most games, but does it justify the 16.7% increase in price?:
        Name of game (5800X FPS vs 10900K FPS)
        Shadow of the Tomb Raider (203FPS vs 194.8FPS),
        F1 2020 (349.1FPS vs 325FPS),
        Assassin's Creed Intel 10900K is better (153.5FPS vs 160.3FPS),
        GTA V (141FPS vs 135.4FPS).

        V-Ray benchmark shows that the 10900K is better, Photoshop shows the 5800X is better (1352.8 vs 1191.8 = 13.5% performance increase), 7 Zip compression shows that the 10900K is better, 7 Zip decompression shows that the 5800X is better (118,215 vs 111,547), Blender GN Logo shows that the 10900K is better, Blender Monkey Head shows that the 10900K is better, Chromium compile shows that the 10900K is better, Blender Power Consumption shows that the 5800X is better (127.2 vs 129.6).

        Again. Is the 5800X worth $100 more than the 10850K? I don't know anymore.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm probably going to end up with a Ryzen CPU too because better motherboard offers, and it's not like the 5800X is everything. I'll just grab the 5600X or the 5900X. I'm just having random thought processes and was wondering how other people thinking. One thing is for sure though, I'm not getting the 5800X.

        • because better motherboard offers

          Not sure why you think that? There's some really good motherboards for the intel chip.

          Also, in all those benchmarks, I wonder what the thermal scores were like. It seems some CPU's run hotter than others under same conditions.

          • @cerealJay: There might be good motherboards for Intel… but none of them have PCIe 4.0

            Also worth mentioning B series chipset boards are also pretty good value.
            I don't think Intel has anything near them price wise whilst still maintaining a Z series chipset for overclocking / tuning.

        • AMD shot themselves in the foot with the 5800X.
          It's the worst value CPU in their range.
          For strictly games the 5600X is better value, for games and productivity the 5900X becomes the better choice.
          Their pricing across the board is wacky.

          1) The lowest cost offering (5600X) is just too expensive to a budget build
          2) The Next lowest, the 5800X has an abnormally spiked price point for it's core count (but then so did the 3800X)
          3) The 5900X is nice but would have been better placed at $799 which would put it's 12 cores at a slight premium over the 10900K's 10 cores
          4) The 5950X is really getting too expensive, it might be the king of the desktop socket but after you add $200-$250 for an ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 280 you almost hit $1500 which is a lot of money to spend and still not have Threadrippers benefits of extra PCIe lanes etc…

          Previously all bar the 3950X included coolers which was a great value add.
          Would have been great for them to either keep them included or at least pull them from the offering without bumping up the prices as well.

          I don't have all the answers, but whilst this 3rd gen Ryzen stuff is good, it's objectively average as far as value goes.

          Per core prices for reference
          $499 - $83.17 per core
          $699 - $87.38 per core
          $859 - $71.58 per core
          $1249 - $78.06 per core

          I'd have proposed pricing as follows…
          $499 - $83.17 per core —- Keep as is, but get a Ryzen 3 part to market at launch or at least faster to provide a better budget oriented CPU
          $649 - $81.13 per core —- Drop $50 off this to make it a competitive and sensible 8 core choice, or at least include a heatsink at the original $699 point
          $849 - $70.75 per core —- Still a lot more than a 3900X and has no heatsink, pulling $10 off it makes it a little more sane.
          $1199 - $74.94 per core —- A $50 drop to make it less obscene, but still keeping with the flagship price point.

          • @virtual81: 3000 Series Release prices (back in July 2019) vs 5000 Series Release prices (2020)
            3600X 249USD > 5600X 299USD (405AUD) + AusTax = $469AUD ($64AusTax)
            3800X 399USD > 5800X 449USD (610AUD) + AusTax = $699AUD ($89AusTax)
            3900X 499USD > 5900X 549USD (745AUD) + AusTax = $859AUD ($114AusTax)

            This price bump of 50USD really didn't help AMD.

            Although it seems like most people have already jumped onto the "AMD thinks about us consumers so they deserve our support" bandwagon, these price drops on Intel chips combined with the 50USD increase in AMD chips are actually making me concerned about making certain purchases like the 5800X.

            Thanks for the $/core, really puts things into perspective. Currently contemplating about waiting for the 5600 non-X now, and upgrading later on when AMD and Intel begin their pricing showdown. Or maybe the 5700X will fill this huge gap that AMD has left wide open? The GPU scene is even worse atm so it's going to be a very long while before I complete my gaming/bit of work rig anyways =/

          • @virtual81: It is AMD's pricing strategy, they rather put the perfect 8 cores into 5950x for better margin.

          • @virtual81: You do realise that's it's a price segmentation strategy to push people towards either the 5600x or the 5900x. AMD wants as many 8 core dies they get for Milan.

          • @virtual81: Probably do the pricing in USD, they round to nearest 50s in USD not AUD

        • Honestly yea, the 5800x is not very amazing value. Wish there were a 5700x.
          I'm leaning towards the 10850k aswell in this case. One argument in the past for ryzen cpus was that you could keep your motherboard and upgrade cpu atleast a couple generations. But since AMD are moving to a new chipset next year, that argument no longer holds.
          There are some great deals on z490 mobos, such as the MSI tomahawk at shoppingexpress for $280, heard its one of the best midrange z490s.
          Honestly you could go either way here, or choose the 5600x/5900x instead ofc

          • @Lance Miranda: I was in this situation up until yesterday and ended up going the 5600x/b450 ($520 total) route because it felt like really the only value proposition lower than a 5900x/B550 combo ($1120) which since I mostly played games was overkill.

            This/z490 ($880) seems hard to justify for worse performance in games than the 5600x (for substantially more $), and substantially worse performance than the 5900x in productivity.

            The 3600/B450 (~$410) also felt like pretty terrible value at the midrange compared to the 5600x combo.

        • I liked AnandTech's review because they included testing games at crazy low resolutions to tease out future potential.

          https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-di...

          Whatever the current relative real-world performance is, seems like future headroom heavily favours the Ryzen 5000 series.

    • Only other reason to go with AMD is PCIE 4.0

    • I'm sold on the 5950X - just need to find one as it's sold out everywhere atm

    • Avoid that website mate they are biased towards intel.
      https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10900K-v...

      Somehow they claim the 10900k to be 4% faster than the 16 core 32 thread 5950x, plus they claim it's better for gaming which https://i.ibb.co/4KmRnkw/rtetry6etyryt.png clearly isn't the case.

      Definitely avoid that site for comparisons.

      • Userbenchmark have a "value & Sentiment" category . Even though the 10900k lost in everything it still won overall because of this BS category they made up.
        They are complete shills

    • Unfortunately userbenchmark is not a reputable website to use to make comparisons. They are are only good at SEO to get the top Google rankings. They use an obsecure algorithm which is completely different to the proper application tests that reputable reviewers such as Gamer Nexus use.

      https://ownsnap.com/userbenchmark-is-not-trusted-by-tech-ent...

      https://www.eteknix.com/userbenchmark-gets-banned-from-3-hug...

  • Very good price, I literally just paid $640 for this a month ago :(

  • Tbh 5800x is better but not worth the extra 100 bucks. Very nice deal and if you don’t care ram frequency and oc stuff you can pair it with a quality b460, a killer value combo!

    • The slow ram speed and no overclocking really hurts the CPU a lot.
      I would rather the 5800x on a cheaper b550 board.
      TBH I wouldn't buy either at the moment. 5600x or wait for prices to drop early next year when rocket lake releases.