Are Celeron G5920 and I9-10900K CPUs Interchangeable?

[Barryng]

I am building a new W10 machine based on an ASUS Prime Z490M-Plus mobo, an I9-10900K, and a Samsung M.2 970 Pro. Except for I9-10900K CPU, all the parts are now readily available. However, since a LGA-1200 $62.00 Celeron G5920 can be ordered now, I am thinking about using it to get this machine up and running then later replacing it with the I9-10900K once it is in stock at a reasonable price.

If I build the machine now using the currently available cheap Celeron and Install W10 and the various software packages (MS Office, etc.), will I have any problem later, when the I9-10900 becomes available, simply swapping the CPUs? Even if it does work, will there be any issues with the Intel chipset drivers, W10 accepting a different CPU, etc.?

 

[bigtallanddopey]

You shouldn’t have a problem at all buying the cheaper cpu now and then putting in the 10900k.

However I would say look around for the some reviews of that motherboard. Some of the cheaper models cannot handle the 10900k at all and will either cause throttling or no overclocking.

Check out this vid

They tested the z490-p which is a slightly more expensive board and has a 10+1 vrm whilst the board you have chosen the z490-m has an 8+1 vrm. The z490-p seemed to handle the 10900k ok but with a vrm temp of over 90 you wouldn’t want to push it over 5.1.

I am not saying it won’t be ok but I am definitely saying check out some reviews and see if they used the board you have chosen with a 10900k.

 

[trents]

The 10900k should do fine on that motherboard, at least at stock voltages and frequencies. It's only a 65W TDP CPU so I see no problem.

And there will be no problem with drivers or Windows issues when you swap the CPUs.

 

[EarthDog]

The 10900k should do fine on that motherboard, at least at stock voltages and frequencies. It's only a 65W TDP CPU so I see no problem.

i9-10900K is a '125W' processor. The Celeron is 58W. Either way, that board will handle both of those chips at stock speeds as was said. Overclocked... I would keep an eye out.

 

[trents]

Your rigth, ED. Was looking at the 10900F line on Asus' CPU table. Still should be no problem at stock.

 

[Barryng]

I appreciate the advice above and, as a result, I am going to look at a different mobo. I probably will not know if I am going to overclock the I9-10900K until all the hardware is purchased, installed, and up/running. Although I want a very fast machine that will give instant gratification and response to anything asked of it, stability and reliability are the highest priority goals for me. Therefore, I will not know if the I9-10900K will overclock or how far it can be overclocked until I try it and assure the machine remains 100% stable.

I am going to heed the advice and switch to a different mobo. The Z490-A is probably an overkill for my needs but considering all the effort and expense for this new machine I would rather have more than I need than less.

 

[bigtallanddopey]

That would only be my point. Why get a 10900k, arguably the best gaming chip and not overclock it? Even if it is not this year but next or two years down the line?

What is the pc going to be used for anyway? Gaming mainly? Or something else?

 

[Barryng]

I have no interest in gaming and my machine is mainly used for personal and business purposes. I just like a very fast machine that responds as instantly as possible to my commands. For example, I have an almost 100Gb database of PDF files varying in size from 1 to a 100 or more pages and many include graphics and photographs. When I load them into the software I use to scan, manage, edit, and organize them I like everything to happen instantly. I like the machine to boot fully in just a few seconds. I want MS Office programs to load instantly when I click on them. When I scan a multi-page document using a very fast commercial scanner I want to reduce the wait for the machine to load and then render each page to as quick as the available hardware will allow. etc. All this certainly does not justify the expense and effort needed for each generation of machines I used since the TRS-80 in 1979 but that does not matter if that is what I want. I have found over the years if I rebuild my machine every 3 to 5 years I get a satisfying step change in how fast things happen. My last build was five years ago and I think I can make a consequential improvement with a new build now. In the unlikely event I don't make an improvement, I still will enjoy building and tuning the new hardware.

 

[bigtallanddopey]

If that is the case I would seriously consider an AMD Ryzen build. They are by far the best processors for productivity tasks.

All intel are the best for at the moment is gaming.

Don’t get me wrong the 10900k is a powerful chip. But the 12 core Ryzen 3900x is cheaper whilst offering great performance. You could even go all out and get the 16 core Ryzen 3950x for $650.

 

[Barryng]

That actually is good advice but I have no experience with AMD and years of experience with Intel. So, in this case, I am going to make what I perceive to be a small sacrifice and stay with Intel and Intel chipsets. I enjoy selecting the hardware and then putting it all together but once this is done, except for some minor tweaks, I will basically ignore the under the hood aspects until I am ready to do it again a few years in the future. Overall, best I stay with what I know.

 

[trents]

The fact that you have had no experience with AMD makes absolutely no sense in rejecting out of hand bigtallanddopey's suggestion. Putting a system together is the same whichever you use. Using ii is the same after it is built. So, get the one that will perform the best for your use scenario.

 

[Barryng]

Thanks for the thoughts trents. I agree assembling the hardware is almost certainly no different. However, there has to be subtle and arcane differences in the bios setup, chipset and other drivers, etc. I also am concerned with the I don't know what I don't know factor. I like building my own machine and, to some, but not extreme, extent I like to tweak/overclock. However, once I have the machine up and running with no compromise in stability and reliability, I am mostly done having any interest in the under the hood stuff until I repeat the cycle a few years later with another build. I want a very fast machine but stability, reliability, and not needing to screw around with it once I am done is even more important so, again, I am willing to sacrifice some practically inconsequential speed to achieve these goals. If I had a continuous focused interest in computer hardware, without question, I would go the AMD route and have already certainly thought about it. Also, in my professional life (retired now) I spent a career in an industry requiring as close to 100% dependability and reliability as humanly possible for both safety (public and worker) and commercial ($) reasons. I found by designing, specifying, and building systems etc. by being very conservative always achieved both these goals (albeit at some higher initial cost) and that is my culture. Anyway, I appreciate your opinion.

 

[trents]

Well, if you want to overclock then Intel might be a better way to go. With newer AMD chips there is not much reward in overclocking and with Intel, not as much as there used to be. These newer chips come pretty topped out from the factory. But if not overclocking, there should be no need to monkey in the bios with AMD these days. Plug and play.

 

[Barryng]

I do not find any consequential reward from overclocking in itself. However, I do recognize, with some measure of luck associated with how chips are manufactured and binned, there might be some reasonable stable horsepower available that is beyond the nameplate rating. I build a machine only expecting performance as indicated by the chips nameplate and am mostly satisfied if that is all I get. Over the years there has been a few instances where the CPU in hand did not overclock reliably so I just ran it at its rating. In reality, conservatively overclocking an already fast CPU gets some measurable but mostly just incremental gains. Also, when I do overclock, I never attempt to get it to run at its maximum achievable speed because, invariably, it will eventually crash when heavily loaded. I do somewhat probe to get a rough handle on its limits but then set it back to something where I have 100% assurance its reliable at 100% continuous load with reasonable temperatures. Its been my observation many people find overclocking a goal in itself but that is not at all what interests me. Overclocking to me is just conservatively taking advantage of some reasonably additional horsepower if it is comfortably available from the particular CPU in hand. I choose mobos marketed to overclocking because I perceive, maybe incorrectly, these boards generally are more robust and reliable because they are better designed to handle higher clock speeds. Why then am I in a forum titled overclockers.com when I have no interest in extreme overclocking? Because, over a lot of years I found I can get the best informed answers and opinions to my questions here.

 

[Woomack]

The truth is that high Intel CPUs are not overclocking nowadays, AMD is also not overclocking. In both cases, you won't run the CPU on all cores at its turbo clock but 200-300MHz below.
Comparing 10900K and 3900X core to core, AMD seems faster but it has a lower frequency so losses in the end (with the same thread count). Comparing thermals/heating up and required cooler, AMD runs cooler at 12-16 cores than Intel at 10. Both will hit ~90°C under load on above-average coolers. Looking at power usage, in idle Intel wins by maybe 10-15W, under load AMD wins by ~50W.

For me, AMD wins nowadays and most X570 motherboards from popular gaming/overclocking series seem more mature and more reliable than Z490. I have 3900X and 10900K and I could compare them directly. I also tested 15+ motherboards so I have some reasons why I would pick AMD over Intel.