I just completed a new build to replace a machine using an Intel I7-6700K on an Asus Z170M-Plus mobo. The I7-6700K was overclocked to 4.6 GHz and the memory was at 2666 Mhz. This machine was very quiet, stable, reliable, and very responsive but CPU temps did peak at 200F when under 100% load (using a Corsair H60 AIO). I intended to use a new Intel I9-10900K in my new machine but it is not currently available at any reasonable price. So, to get the machine up and running on my new Asus Prime Z490-A, I bought a very inexpensive Intel I3-10100 ($134). To my pleasant surprise the machine with this very inexpensive temporary CPU appears to be as responsive as my previous machine, if not a little more so. Under 100% load and the boxed Intel cooler, max CPU temp is under 155F. I am not running any demanding games etc. but with everyday tasks (for me) such as loading large PDF files, Excel, etc. it is hard to see a difference. The machine boots a little faster, software loads/starts a little quicker, and just overall the machine feels quick and agile. Since I do not run games, I am now thinking the Intel I7-10700k may be a much smarter purchase than the I9-10900k as I highly doubt I could perceive any difference between the very expensive I9-10900k and I7-10700k. In fact, I am doubting there will be consequential difference between I3-10100 and the I7 or I9 CPUs because the tasks I run I think are more dependent on data bandwidth than CPU speed. I am still going to go with the more powerful CPU if, for no other reason, I sleep better knowing I have a lot of horsepower under the hood. BTW, I will be using Corsair H115i Pro when I install the intended CPU.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Intel I3-10100 CPU - Surprisingly Good!
- Thread starter Barryng
- Start date
Makes sense, honestly... it has the same amount of cores and threads and is faster IPC-wise. Not surprised in the least. 
Where you will struggle is with anything that can use more than 4c/8t. You'll see some games have a glass ceiling on them as they respond to more cores and threads. For a gaming machine 4c/8t I would personally consider a minimum. With the new consoles coming out sporting 8c/16t we should start to see more games upcoming that can use more c/t. I wouldn't go less than the 10700K if you are planning on keeping this system for a while.
Where you will struggle is with anything that can use more than 4c/8t. You'll see some games have a glass ceiling on them as they respond to more cores and threads. For a gaming machine 4c/8t I would personally consider a minimum. With the new consoles coming out sporting 8c/16t we should start to see more games upcoming that can use more c/t. I wouldn't go less than the 10700K if you are planning on keeping this system for a while.
wtf is wrong with your cpu? I also have an I7-6700K, OC to 4.6 ghz, and I am never above 75C (167F) playing games. It can get up to 85C during a Prime95 load, but I rarely do those. This is with a Noctua NH-D15. Maybe you have case or other airflow issues?
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Location
- Corsica
All CPU's are different and on those forums, 100% load usually means P95, not gaming.
The H60 is not better than a nNoctua NH-D15 either. So 93c is totally normal. Nothing wrong with this CPU.
I'm really surprised how big difference in temps/power usage is between 10th gen i3/i5 and i7/i9 or even Ryzen processors. I got i5-10500 recently just because I already had the Z490 ITX motherboard and this CPU has 4.5GHz turbo and 6 cores+HT. The CPU under full load (AIDA64 AVX2) goes up to ~90W and has around 75-80°C with a really small AIO - Asetek with 92mm rad. I have 10900K and it's fine for tests but uses about 2x more power and heats up significantly more while in most things that I do (including some online games) is as good as mentioned i5, or at least I don't see any significant difference. As far as there is a lot of noise about the i7/i9 then for me winners are these lower chips.
Another thing is mentioned max temp. Modern CPUs run up to 95°C+ and above 100-105°C throttle down to keep optimal temps. The same for AMD and Intel. AMD looks a bit better as it keeps declared frequency range even the CPU hits 95°C. Intel drops below that. As far as it's maybe not comfortable to see 90°C+, then anything below CPU's Tj is still fine. I don't really care about temps as long as they are below Tj but higher temps usually mean more noise and it's annoying.
Another thing is mentioned max temp. Modern CPUs run up to 95°C+ and above 100-105°C throttle down to keep optimal temps. The same for AMD and Intel. AMD looks a bit better as it keeps declared frequency range even the CPU hits 95°C. Intel drops below that. As far as it's maybe not comfortable to see 90°C+, then anything below CPU's Tj is still fine. I don't really care about temps as long as they are below Tj but higher temps usually mean more noise and it's annoying.
Last edited:
