> Base clocks are irrelevant on desktop It's relevant for the TDP number. > I'd personally point at the 10700F as being the winner from the specs, 4.6 GHz all

> Base clocks are irrelevant on desktop It's relevant for the TDP number. > I'd personally point at the 10700F as being the winner from the specs, 4.6 GHz all-core 8C16T with slightly higher IPC in gaming than AMD, for under $300 I think the 10700F would only be the winner if you have a motherboard that either isn't following Intel's recommendations for turbo or lets you ignore them. Otherwise the 10700F's 4.6ghz all-core isn't going to happen with a 65W limit after unknown seconds. That TDP limit is going to really cripple that chip. Whether or not you can ignore that limit will I guess decide whether or not the i7-10700KF is worth the extra $50. But the 9700 appears to be almost nonexistent. I think the 10700 will end up in the same camp. The 10700K will likely be the only chip with any meaningful coverage/reviews in the i7 lineup.