# Intel Core i9-10850K



## W1zzard (Aug 27, 2020)

The Intel Core i9-10850K is the company's latest Comet Lake processor. It's just 100 MHz slower than the Core i9-10900K flagship, but much more affordable, and with better availability. In our i9-10850K review, we're taking a close look at both gaming and application performance to determine whether it's a good alternative to the i9-10900K.

*Show full review*


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 27, 2020)

I just bought one of these. I was going ot buy a 10900K, but I couldn't find one in stock anywhere for a reasonable price. Everywhere wanted $700+ for the 10900K, so I just grabbed the 10850K for $479.  After reading the review, I'm glad I did.  Though I did kind of want the cool 10900K box to put up on the shelf next to the 9900K's dodecahedron.


----------



## Raendor (Aug 27, 2020)

I’m looking at the 1440p chart every time to confirm myself once more that for home/gaming system it’s no use to go beyond even 3600/10400. saw 10400f for mere €146 on amazon today and was tempted to make impulse purchase.


----------



## Dave65 (Aug 28, 2020)

I just don''t see a reason to buy Intel..


----------



## Naito (Aug 28, 2020)

While I have next to no interest in Intel these days, I do love a good TPU review! Thanks W1zz!


----------



## RealNeil (Aug 28, 2020)

Naito said:


> While I have next to no interest in Intel these days, I do love a good TPU review! Thanks W1zz!



I agree with the good review and a nice performer too.


----------



## Makaveli (Aug 28, 2020)

A 240mm AIO was never going to be good enough to overclock this 10 core cpu. 280mm min and I would actually prefer 360mm myself.

I'm abit surprised when looking at the AES numbers i'm able to match the 2nd best score with my rig and I have less cores. I have PBO on and Ram is at stock clocks 3200 with just a Fast Ryzen Dram profile applied.


----------



## dicktracy (Aug 28, 2020)

Top 10 is all Intel Skylakes, and AMD's best is no longer even an i5 in gaming.


----------



## Searing (Aug 28, 2020)

dicktracy said:


> Top 10 is all Intel Skylakes, and AMD's best is no longer even an i5 in gaming.



But we are talking about 4 percent differences at 1440p. The CPU no longer matters in gaming. Buy any 6 core you want. We desperately need much faster GPUs.


----------



## dicktracy (Aug 28, 2020)

Searing said:


> But we are talking about 4 percent differences at 1440p. The CPU no longer matters in gaming. Buy any 6 core you want. We desperately need much faster GPUs.


*With a 2080 ti* and there's still some differences in some games as said by Digital Foundry and Gamer Nexus. RTX 3090 will likely mirror 2080ti's 1080p performance in 1440p resolution. You gonna want that heavy headroom from Intel and not Ryzen.


----------



## Lateshow (Aug 28, 2020)

Dave65 said:


> I just don''t see a reason to buy Intel..



It's always dollars to performance. Here in the USA, certain 10 series CPU's are cheaper when you factor in motherboard, and RAM than equivalent AMD's. For people who mostly game, Intel is already in demand. When you factor in pricing, chips like the i3 10100 ($100 locally), and the 10700 ($290 locally) make a lot of sense. 

AMD's 3100 is $100, the mobo options are not as good, and it needs 3600CL16 ram from what everyone recommends.  The 3300x is $150 when in stock, and not much better than the stock 10100.  

Same story with the 3700x which is $270 locally.  Due to AMD's new B-series price hikes, and more expensive RAM, the 10 series has some very viable options IMO.  

Hopefully the new A series tip the scales a bit. Especially since oc'ing chips like the 3700x doesn't net you much.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 28, 2020)

What, no negative for the high power consumption and heat output in the conclusion?


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 28, 2020)

Mussels said:


> What, no negative for the high power consumption and heat output in the conclusion?


Are you looking at the manual OC red bar by any chance?


----------



## Mussels (Aug 28, 2020)

Lateshow said:


> Hopefully the new A series tip the scales a bit. Especially since oc'ing chips like the 3700x doesn't net you much.



It's a lot better on the new revisions of the chips, OC'ing higher on lower voltages



W1zzard said:


> Are you looking at the manual OC red bar by any chance?



Yes, still should be mentioned that its a power hog when OC'd


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 28, 2020)

Mussels said:


> Yes, still should be mentioned that its a power hog when OC'd


Isn't that the typical behavior for overclocking? Don't look at OC lemons like some Ryzens  If you want to hit high all-core OCs you have to bump the voltage = more power?


----------



## Searing (Aug 28, 2020)

dicktracy said:


> *With a 2080 ti* and there's still some differences in some games as said by Digital Foundry and Gamer Nexus. RTX 3090 will likely mirror 2080ti's 1080p performance in 1440p resolution. You gonna want that heavy headroom from Intel and not Ryzen.



You are talking about the difference between 200 and 210 fps... it really isn't that important (and you need a GPU that hits 200fps, the 2080 ti is not even hitting 100fps at 1440p in many of the newest games at highest settings, and RT features will make it even worse). I'm always running out of GPU performance but frankly I can game with an overclocked 10100 if Intel would offer it. Same as the Ryzen 3300x if I could actually buy them.

You have to take your local pricing into consideration. AMD went from 40 percent behind to 4 percent behind. But the Ryzen 3600 is $240 CAD in Canada and the 10600k is $400. Intel raised the price on the 6 core so high it is disgusting ($100 more than the 9600k for example), so no one wants to buy it. Your mileage may vary based on your country.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 28, 2020)

Searing said:


> 10600k is $400. Intel raised the price on the 6 core so high it is disgusting ($100 more than the 9600k for example), so no one wants to buy it. Your mileage may vary based on your country.


There is hundreds, probably thousands of 10600K CPUs available in Europe, for € 240 including VAT = USD 245 without tax


----------



## ZoneDymo (Aug 28, 2020)

Searing said:


> You are talking about the difference between 200 and 210 fps... it really isn't that important (and you need a GPU that hits 200fps, the 2080 ti is not even hitting 100fps at 1440p in many of the newest games at highest settings, and RT features will make it even worse). I'm always running out of GPU performance but frankly I can game with an overclocked 10100 if Intel would offer it. Same as the Ryzen 3300x if I could actually buy them.
> 
> You have to take your local pricing into consideration. AMD went from 40 percent behind to 4 percent behind. But the Ryzen 3600 is $240 CAD in Canada and the 10600k is $400. Intel raised the price on the 6 core so high it is disgusting ($100 more than the 9600k for example), so no one wants to buy it. Your mileage may vary based on your country.



its good to see some level-headed people on the site.


----------



## mahirzukic2 (Aug 28, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> There is hundreds, probably thousands of 10600K CPUs available in Europe, for € 240 including VAT = USD 245 without tax


I think he specifically said in Canada, so there might be a different situation.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 28, 2020)

mahirzukic2 said:


> I think he specifically said in Canada, so there might be a different situation.


Yeah, I understand and it makes me sad. Just sharing some info from this side of the pond, because the difference is so huge


----------



## mahirzukic2 (Aug 28, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Yeah, I understand and it makes me sad. Just sharing some info from this side of the pond, because the difference is so huge


Are you from USA Wizzard? I thought you were.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 28, 2020)

mahirzukic2 said:


> Are you from USA Wizzard? I thought you were.


Germany


----------



## mahirzukic2 (Aug 28, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Germany


Ahhh, that's why you always include the euro prices in your reviews and articles.
Greetings from Berlin.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 28, 2020)

mahirzukic2 said:


> that's why you always include the euro prices


Actually I don't. I always focus on US prices, but Intel CPU prices are so unrealistic in the States that I'm also mentioning the price in Europe, so that people don't think it's Intel that's ripping them off


----------



## mahirzukic2 (Aug 28, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Actually I don't. I always focus on US prices, but Intel CPU prices are so unrealistic in the States that I'm also mentioning the price in Europe, so that people don't think it's Intel that's ripping them off


Good man you are. Keep up the god's work.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 28, 2020)

Do I smell..... bacon?

"No, its my CPU!"


----------



## RedelZaVedno (Aug 28, 2020)

Please add Microsoft Flight simulator 2020 to the test.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 28, 2020)

RedelZaVedno said:


> Please add Microsoft Flight simulator 2020 to the test.



Its an interesting one because the performance seems related to download speed/bandwidth and quality of the service as well. I'm curious how W1zz will add that if he even could. But its an interesting bench nonetheless because it does present some new tech.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 28, 2020)

Lateshow said:


> It's always dollars to performance.



For me, it isn't always dollars to performance.  For the most part, Intel and AMD are pretty close to the same price/performance.  It's really hard to say one always gives the best price/performance.

On the other hand, in my experience owning several systems from both platforms, I'll say the Intel systems have been less hassle.  The Intel platform is just more mature(obviously because the Intel platform hasn't really changed in 7+ years).  The AMD platform isn't terrible, I've just had more minor annoying problems(and one major) issues.


----------



## VulkanBros (Aug 28, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Do I smell..... bacon?
> 
> "No, its my CPU!"



..or you have a GTX480


----------



## Amite (Aug 28, 2020)

Well have learned what "popular" games  tend to be single threaded.


----------



## dirtyferret (Aug 28, 2020)

Praise the gods!  The long suffering nightmare of 9900k owners having to play Rainbow six at a peasant like 275 FPS is now over!  They can move up to the sweet sweet frame rate of 285 FPS with the availability of the 10850k (with mobo upgrade).  Truly the gods work in wondrous ways!


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 28, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> But its an interesting bench nonetheless


imo it's a bad simulation that uses outdated technology paired with subpar programming. At 10k Steam reviews it's also not that popular, I'm really not sure whether this is worth caring about at all

I feel like this part of a Steam review (from an actual airline pilot) summarizes it very well


> All in all I can't figure out who the ideal user of this game could be, it's way too simplified for professional use or to run any sort of realistic simulation, too pointless for your typicall gamer, since there are no objectives, campaign, or goals to achieve, and too distant from reality for a student pilot or an amateour to get acquainted with flying.
> As it stands right now I can't recommend it due to the aforementioned issues, I suggest the developers to focus a bit more on nailing the essential mechanics and less on polishing the droplets of water on the windshield.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 28, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> imo it's a bad simulation that uses outdated technology paired with subpar programming. At 10k Steam reviews it's also not that popular, I'm really not sure whether this is worth caring about at all
> 
> I feel like this part of a Steam review (from an actual airline pilot) summarizes it very well



I have to agree. Flight Simulator 2020 is a niche game that is really only played by the few people that were still playing Flight Simulator X because they thought it made them a real pilot.


----------



## Makaveli (Aug 28, 2020)

A real Air bus pilot tried the game and liked it. So to each his own I guess.


----------



## Lateshow (Aug 28, 2020)

Searing said:


> You are talking about the difference between 200 and 210 fps... it really isn't that important (and you need a GPU that hits 200fps, the 2080 ti is not even hitting 100fps at 1440p in many of the newest games at highest settings, and RT features will make it even worse). I'm always running out of GPU performance but frankly I can game with an overclocked 10100 if Intel would offer it. Same as the Ryzen 3300x if I could actually buy them.
> 
> You have to take your local pricing into consideration. AMD went from 40 percent behind to 4 percent behind. But the Ryzen 3600 is $240 CAD in Canada and the 10600k is $400. Intel raised the price on the 6 core so high it is disgusting ($100 more than the 9600k for example), so no one wants to buy it. Your mileage may vary based on your country.



I've been curious about what the 10100 would perform like, or if it's replicable on a B, or H series mobo.  It's a $100 down here, and actually comes out to less than the 3100/3300x after B/H mobo, and ram.  








						Intel Core i7-10700 Review - Way to Overclock without the K
					

In our Intel Core i7-10700 review, we're taking a look at one of Intel's most affordable 8-core/16-thread processors. Its low TDP of 65 W makes it power-efficient, but also limits performance. We unlocked that limit and gained up to 30% real-life performance without ever risking an unstable system.




					www.techpowerup.com
				




The pricing on the 10600k is definitely high for a 6/12. I believe MSRP was already high at $260, but it's always $280-$300+ down here, and sold out lol. Demand is crazy high. Idk how it will hold up in 2-3 years, and I wouldn't go that route even at MSRP, but lots are.   9600k is on sale for $160, and would be decent, but 6/6 makes less future proof than the newer version. Dollars to performance is way better though.  I'm leaning towards the 10700. I don't plan to oc, but it should be plenty for gaming, and any 8/16 is going be fairly future proof IMO.



newtekie1 said:


> For me, it isn't always dollars to performance.  For the most part, Intel and AMD are pretty close to the same price/performance.  It's really hard to say one always gives the best price/performance.
> 
> On the other hand, in my experience owning several systems from both platforms, I'll say the Intel systems have been less hassle.  The Intel platform is just more mature(obviously because the Intel platform hasn't really changed in 7+ years).  The AMD platform isn't terrible, I've just had more minor annoying problems(and one major) issues.



Correct there is more to picking a platform, but for me it's simple. Gaming is the most stressful thing I put my pc through besides stressing when I set it up, or to troubleshoot.  Both (8/16) 3700x, or 10700 are close enough that either would work fine for me so it comes down to price.  Here, certain Intel chips like the 10100, and 10700 actually come out a little less than their AMD counterparts, or you get a little more on the mobo at around the same price. If that trend continues, I'll go Intel this round.  Just waiting for AMD to show their new chips.  

You nailed the other part about a mature, and stable platform.  Intel has a well oiled machine from their consumer products to their pro stuff. It's one of the reasons there are not as many decent AMD laptop options yet, and more companies are not moving over to AMD on the server side.  Reputation, and infrastructure that works is why AMD hasn't caught up in the 2 areas they are arguably better than Intel. Reminds me of when Dell featured those crappy Intel pentiums when AMD had those sweet Athlons, and Opterons.  Well except this trend will continue, and we'll be seeing a lot of AMD for the foreseeable future.  

Competition is good.


----------



## TheMysticWizard1 (Aug 28, 2020)

I had purchased one, right before they "officially" came out, mainly because they were "in stock." Delivered on 8/16.

I can confirm, first hand. It is a HOT chip. I put it under a Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme and about 30 seconds into Prime95, it started throttling, reaching 100*C on several cores. Obviously not gonna work out, long term.

I now have it under water (360 Rad in push/pull configuration) and with tweaking settings I can keep it in the high 80's - low 90's while boosting to 4.8 GHz on all cores. Still no easy feat. Intel is clearly at the limits of the 14nm process, there's no practical way to keep it cool enough to get more out of it.

Side Note, I feel a lot of the boards out there are still running "beta" bios'es. My Board (Gigabyte Z490 Vision G) set to "Optimized Defaults" removed the CPU Power Limit, thus running the CPU right up to the thermal throttling wall. I was seeing 325+W power draw until it hits 100*C


----------



## Selaya (Aug 28, 2020)

TheMysticWizard1 said:


> [ ... ]
> 
> Side Note, I feel a lot of the boards out there are still running "beta" bios'es. My Board (Gigabyte Z490 Vision G) set to "Optimized Defaults" removed the CPU Power Limit, thus running the CPU right up to the thermal throttling wall. I was seeing 325+W power draw until it hits 100*C


"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 29, 2020)

Lateshow said:


> Correct there is more to picking a platform, but for me it's simple. Gaming is the most stressful thing I put my pc through besides stressing when I set it up, or to troubleshoot. Both (8/16) 3700x, or 10700 are close enough that either would work fine for me so it comes down to price. Here, certain Intel chips like the 10100, and 10700 actually come out a little less than their AMD counterparts, or you get a little more on the mobo at around the same price. If that trend continues, I'll go Intel this round. Just waiting for AMD to show their new chips.



If I was only gaming, then I'd have either a 10100 or 3300X.  I mean, that's really I'd need for 1440p gaming.  Beyond that, there is very marginal improvement in performance, but huge price increases.  Because games still just aren't really benefiting from more than 4 cores, despite people saying that's going to change any minute for the past 8 years or so.


----------



## kiriakost (Aug 29, 2020)

the boxed cooler is missing ..............   Yea I would love to see with what air-cooling system INTEL was happy with this CPU at full load.


----------



## John Naylor (Aug 29, 2020)

1.   Wishful thinking 1 - Since the CPU doesn't sit on its desk and to the job by itself, the cost comparison is red herring.  If you are buying a $450 - 500 CPU, your system cost is gong to be in the $1800 - $2000 range.  If $2k, that's a 2.5% cost increase

2.   Wishful thinking 2 -Since we doing the direct comparison with the 10900k, it would be nice to see a comparison of overclocked perfomance side by side, especially when the conclusions state "Reaches highest multipliers only rarely" and "Overclocking barely worth it".  The "For general applications, the improvement is 6.6% " ... that is significant for a 2.5% oncrease in system proce.

3.  One would think that the way you carefully articulated the performance of the AMD / Intel CPUS each being the better choice for the applications they excel in, would erase the mindset that produces posts like "I just don''t see a reason to buy Intel.. ".  As you careful have pointed out in this and other reviews.

a)  The Intel 10400 puts up better gaming numbers than any CPU in AMDs entire lineup.

b)  In Application performance, the 10850k beats the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and 3900XT by 1.2% and 0.2% respectively.

c)  In the most common "time is money" applications, the 10850k is 16% faster in photo editing than the 3900XT and 6% faster than video editing

d)  "Professionals working with rendering and simulation apps, or other similarly demanding apps, should definitely consider AMD for their rig"  Agreed ... In the architectutal / engineering / industry .... I recommend Intel CPUs / Nvidia RTX cards for 2D / CAD, Office Apps  and Gaming (Given the nerd personna of most A/Es, LAN parties are not unusual after hours in small to mid size firms.  For home iusers, I can point out many things that the AMD CPUs do better ... rendering, game design, software development, etc .... and would recommend AMD for thoise applications, but 98.5% of home users don't have those apps.  But occasionally, the client will want to see rendering made form those drawings and for this the best tool is an AMD CPU.  In an A/E office, the need for drafting boxes to renedering boxes might be between 10 and 20 to 1.  The reason to buy the 1 is the same as the reason to buy the other 9 ... it's the best tool for the primary application(s).


----------



## Tiffinslice (Aug 30, 2020)

I have purchased the i7 10700k and can get this for £65 more. Should I return my i7? I am kind of wishing I had it but someone told me it’s the poor mans 9900k. Would the i7 overclocked be as good as this stock but not run as hot as the OC i9 ?


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 30, 2020)

Tiffinslice said:


> Should I return my i7?


Probably not, depends on what you do with it



Tiffinslice said:


> Would the i7 overclocked be as good as this stock but not run as hot as the OC i9 ?


Check my 10700K review, it has OC results that can be directly compared to the numbers in this review


----------



## Tiffinslice (Aug 30, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Probably not, depends on what you do with it
> 
> 
> Check my 10700K review, it has OC results that can be directly compared to the numbers in this review



I am gaming and doing some light video editing. I need something that can last a fair while though as I probably wont upgrade for another 5 years ( old PC has i5 3470)


----------



## Raendor (Aug 30, 2020)

Tiffinslice said:


> I am gaming and doing some light video editing. I need something that can last a fair while though as I probably wont upgrade for another 5 years ( old PC has i5 3470)


You can get a mid-range mobo and cpu now and upgrade in a few years to a midrange new platform (if needed) for the same money or even less than going for i7/i9 now. And the future mid-range will likely outperform decently. Look at 10400f. Costs around €150 right now, while 10700 is twice more. Both beat amd in gaming and the latter is not miles beyond the former in all cases, but doubles the cost.


----------



## Selaya (Aug 30, 2020)

Tiffinslice said:


> I am gaming and doing some light video editing. I need something that can last a fair while though as I probably wont upgrade for another 5 years ( old PC has i5 3470)


Unless you really care about every single last fps, you're probably better off with something AMD. You _will_ hit the thermal barrier with this CPU when you render your videos. Speaking of that, I really wish there was some kind of thermal (throttle) testing, like with M.2 SSDs:






There is _no way_ the average consumer will be able to build a system that can dissipate 250W of heat - that is basically Threadripper levels of thermals. (Oh and, I'd be curious how toasty the VRMs get ...)


----------



## Searing (Aug 31, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> There is hundreds, probably thousands of 10600K CPUs available in Europe, for € 240 including VAT = USD 245 without tax



So I went ahead and bought a 10600k for my second computer (first one is using the 10900f I imported at a good price, $550 CAD). $400 CAD plus tax equals $448 here. IT IS TERRIBLE. I had to go from 1.250V to 1.320V to get it to go from 4.7ghz to 4.8ghz all core fully stable, already at thermal limits BEFORE I GOT TO 4.9 GHZ!!! A long way from my old 8086k that ran at 5ghz all cores with the same Noctua cooler (golden sample, but still). [also the Gigabyte Gaming X was terrible, the VRM overheats at less than 200 watts also]

It's going right back to the store and being swapped for the $250 dollar more 10850k. No silicon quality with this 10600k.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 31, 2020)

Selaya said:


> Speaking of that, I really wish there was some kind of thermal (throttle) testing, like with M.2 SSDs:


Thermal throttle works the same on all CPUs, not much point testing it: you hit 100°C, it will throttle clocks enough to not go above 100°C

Or maybe you are looking for a power throttling test like on this page? https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900k/18.html


----------



## Raendor (Aug 31, 2020)

Searing said:


> So I went ahead and bought a 10600k for my second computer (first one is using the 10900f I imported at a good price, $550 CAD). $400 CAD plus tax equals $448 here. IT IS TERRIBLE. I had to go from 1.250V to 1.320V to get it to go from 4.7ghz to 4.8ghz all core fully stable, already at thermal limits BEFORE I GOT TO 4.9 GHZ!!! A long way from my old 8086k that ran at 5ghz all cores with the same Noctua cooler (golden sample, but still). [also the Gigabyte Gaming X was terrible, the VRM overheats at less than 200 watts also]
> 
> It's going right back to the store and being swapped for the $250 dollar more 10850k. No silicon quality with this 10600k.



Well, that's what the silicone lottery is after all. Doesn't mean another 10600k won't be better than your sample. I personally see no pint in OCed cpus in this day and age at all. More headache, hardly any performance improvement, more cost. Getting high enough clocked memory at this stage is all you need.


----------



## Selaya (Aug 31, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Thermal throttle works the same on all CPUs, not much point testing it: you hit 100°C, it will throttle clocks enough to not go above 100°C
> 
> Or maybe you are looking for a power throttling test like on this page? https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900k/18.html


Yes well obviously, what I'm interested in is how well different kinds of mainstream cooling solutions are capable of dealing with the 250W of heat those 14nm++++++++++++++++++s generate - that graph is just default Intel behavior with PLs because even they realised that the average joe consumer is unlikely to install a cooling solution that can deal with 250W of thermals for an extended period of time ...

Of course that would require quite a bit of extra testing/benching, with different tiered air coolers, AIOs and maybe even a custom loop ...


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 31, 2020)

Raendor said:


> Well, that's what the silicone lottery is after all. Doesn't mean another 10600k won't be better than your sample. I personally see no pint in OCed cpus in this day and age at all. More headache, hardly any performance improvement, more cost. Getting high enough clocked memory at this stage is all you need.



Looking at my 8700K and what came after that in non-K's, I can only agree with this.

Zen is no different either. The only reason for an OC capable system is tweakability. Undervolts, etc.

GPUs have been that way for nearly half a decade now. I believe the 980ti was the last one that really hit above expectations in OC results. Pascal was so tight after that with GPU Boost, and binning was already not much of a differentiator.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 31, 2020)

Selaya said:


> You _will_ hit the thermal barrier with this CPU when you render your videos.
> 
> There is _no way_ the average consumer will be able to build a system that can dissipate 250W of heat - that is basically Threadripper levels of thermals.



The 250w is during a stress test, not real world full load.  The real world full load number is about 225w, which is only 24w more than the full load 3900X(201w).  So the the increase in heat load is only about 10%.  If your cooling solution can handle a 3900X, it can handle a 108500K.  Plus, the improved thermal efficient design means temps of the actual processor aren't really higher than the previous generation of Intel processors. In fact, they might even be lower than the previous generation despite the higher heat output.

Hell, the temperature testing in this review uses an air cooler, and under full load the 10850K and 10900K both were about 25°C cooler than the 3900X.  Hell, they were 18°C cooler than the 3600X.


----------



## Selaya (Aug 31, 2020)

Well, I have a 3900X and the CPU itself doesn't exceed 145W ...
The whole package (with X570) will consume more power bc the X570 chipset gobbles power like nothing bc of PCIe 4.0.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 31, 2020)

Selaya said:


> Well, I have a 3900X and the CPU itself doesn't exceed 145W ...
> The whole package (with X570) will consume more power bc the X570 chipset gobbles power like nothing bc of PCIe 4.0.


You might want to rethink that.
It's a new standard, it doesn't increase power throughput.
75W is still 75W.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 1, 2020)

Selaya said:


> Well, I have a 3900X and the CPU itself doesn't exceed 145W ...
> The whole package (with X570) will consume more power bc the X570 chipset gobbles power like nothing bc of PCIe 4.0.



None of that really changes the fact that the 10900K/108500K both run cooler than even a 3600X when using the same cooler.  Your original statement about a thermal barrier doesn't hold up.


----------



## Selaya (Sep 1, 2020)

??????
Are you referring to idle/single-thread load temps?


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 1, 2020)

Selaya said:


> ??????
> Are you referring to idle/single-thread load temps?



Go back, try actually reading the review you are commenting on.


----------



## Selaya (Sep 1, 2020)




----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 1, 2020)

Selaya said:


>








Here is a hint, we were discussing temperature. Did you know temperature and power are two totally different words.


----------



## Selaya (Sep 1, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> None of that really changes the fact that the *10900K/108500K* both run cooler than even a *3600X* when using the same cooler.  Your original statement about a thermal barrier doesn't hold up.


8700K = 10900K, interesting.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 1, 2020)

Selaya said:


> 8700K = 10900K, interesting.



You seem to still be talking about power consumption.  Power consumption and temperature aren't the same thing. Really, I'm not making this up, you can go look in a dictionary for yourself if you don't believe me!

But, since you brought it up, the 10900K/10850K both run cooler than the 8700K too.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 1, 2020)

Selaya said:


> There is _no way_ the average consumer will be able to build a system that can dissipate 250W of heat - that is basically Threadripper levels of thermals. (Oh and, I'd be curious how toasty the VRMs get ...)


No way, eh? Considering many mid-range+ air coolers and AIOs can handle these at stock... not sure how you ended up with that conclusion. If you choose to circumvent the stock power settings, you should get a better cooler in most cases. Yeah.



newtekie1 said:


> But, since you brought it up, the 10900K/10850K both run cooler than the 8700K too.


What does this mean?


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 1, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> What does this mean?



It means exactly what I said.  To spell it out for those that can't get it.  Using the same air cooler, under the same full load situation, the 10900K and 10850K both run at a lower temperature than the 8700K...and the 3900X...and even the 3600X.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 1, 2020)

No need to explain it like we're dolts...remove stick from rear, please. 

Im imagining this is the difference between solder and thermal paste TIM though, right? So, while in the end that is correct... I wonder what it would be like if all had solder TIM. You're also comparing quite a difference in clock speed (200 Mhz) and power consumption (30W or 1/3 difference) between the two in TPUs blender temp results. The 10th gen is simply better at getting more heat out.


----------



## Selaya (Sep 1, 2020)

Yeah, I did forget about that.
Still a swing and a miss tho - The 10850K/10900K _clearly_ run hotter than the 3600X when you unlimit their power consumption (let's face it, if you spend $700 on i9 + Z490, you ain't gonna let PL1 hamstring you, but more to that later).

As for the average joe, again swing and a miss - we clearly aren't average joes - we're _enthusiasts_, frequenting an enthusiast tech site. Suffice to say, there's a reason Intel did their PL1/PL2s.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 1, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> No need to explain it like we're dolts...remove stick from rear, please.
> 
> Im imagining this is the difference between solder and thermal paste TIM though, right? So, while in the end that is correct... I wonder what it would be like if all had solder TIM. You're also comparing quite a difference in clock speed (200 Mhz) and power consumption (30W or 1/3 difference) between the two in TPUs blender temp results. The 10th gen is simply better at getting more heat out.



They both also run cooler than the 9900K and 9900KS, which both use soldered TIM.  So it isn't just down to soldered vs. not soldered.



Selaya said:


> Still a swing and a miss tho - The 10850K/10900K _clearly_ run hotter than the 3600X when you unlimit their power consumption (let's face it, if you spend $700 on i9 + Z490, you ain't gonna let PL1 hamstring you, but more to that later).



Rember, the entire argument is about your statement that anyone buying these would be thermally limited under full load.  Even with the power limits removed, it is still running cooler than the 3600XT, 3800XT, 3900X, and 3900XT.  So the result is your original statement was completely false no matter which way you try to spin it.

So, yes, you keep swinging and you keep missing.



Selaya said:


> As for the average joe, again swing and a miss - we clearly aren't average joes - we're _enthusiasts_, frequenting an enthusiast tech site. Suffice to say, there's a reason Intel did their PL1/PL2s.



But wait, you were specifically talking about "the average consumer" in your original statement.



Selaya said:


> There is _no way_ *the average consumer* will be able to build a system that can dissipate 250W of heat - that is basically Threadripper levels of thermals.



Now suddenly we're talking about enthusiasts?  Move the goalposts much?

There is no getting around the fact that your original statement was wrong.


----------



## Selaya (Sep 1, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> They both also run cooler than the 9900K and 9900KS, which both use soldered TIM.  So it isn't just down to soldered vs. not soldered.
> [ ... ]


The 9900K(S) don't have PL1/PL2 (unless I missed something?) so naturally a power-limited 10900K will run cooler.


> [ ... ]
> Rember, the entire argument is about your statement that anyone buying these would be thermally limited under full load.  Even with the power limits removed, it is still running cooler than the 3600XT, 3800XT, 3900X, and 3900XT.  So the result is your original statement was completely false no matter which way you try to spin it.
> 
> So, yes, you keep swinging and you keep missing.
> ...


Yes, after doing (proper) research I admit that I was wrong.  I guess Intel really did pull no punches when it came to making these chips thermally viable (solder TIM and all), so there's that.
As for the average joe statement, I guess this may be more appropriate to the 10900 that comes with a bundled cooler (or one of a comparable class) - basically a person unaware of PL1/PL2 buying a cooler according to the advertised TDP. I mean, stock does _automatically_ throttle down after all.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 1, 2020)

Selaya said:


> The 9900K(S) don't have PL1/PL2 (unless I missed something?) so naturally a power-limited 10900K will run cooler.
> Yes, after doing (proper) research I admit that I was wrong.  I guess Intel really did pull no punches when it came to making these chips thermally viable (solder TIM and all), so there's that.
> As for the average joe statement, I guess this may be more appropriate to the 10900 that comes with a bundled cooler (or one of a comparable class) - basically a person unaware of PL1/PL2 buying a cooler according to the advertised TDP. I mean, stock does _automatically_ throttle down after all.




The last few generations(at least 8th and 9th) have all had PL1/PL2 power limits when everything is left at stock.  Intel has had to do this to keep them in the thermal envelope they are designed for.  The 10th generations refines it a little more(allowing PL2 to go longer as long as thermals are in check) but doesn't really make huge changed.  But even my 8700K in the Z390 board has a short term power limit of 125w and a long term power limit of 95w(that is Pl2/PL1).  Those limits can be adjusted or ignored via the BIOS(just like the 10th gen chips), but they are there.  PL1 and PL2 have existed since at least the introduction of the 8th gen chips.


----------



## Selaya (Sep 1, 2020)

Interesting. Could probably boil down to further generational optimisation then.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 2, 2020)

Selaya said:


> Interesting. Could probably boil down to further generational optimisation then.



A big part of it comes from the thinner CPU die. They removed a large amount of excess Silicon, which isn't that good at transferring heat.


----------



## Raendor (Sep 2, 2020)

newtekie1 said:


> The last few generations(at least 8th and 9th) have all had PL1/PL2 power limits when everything is left at stock.  Intel has had to do this to keep them in the thermal envelope they are designed for.  The 10th generations refines it a little more(allowing PL2 to go longer as long as thermals are in check) but doesn't really make huge changed.  But even my 8700K in the Z390 board has a short term power limit of 125w and a long term power limit of 95w(that is Pl2/PL1).  Those limits can be adjusted or ignored via the BIOS(just like the 10th gen chips), but they are there.  PL1 and PL2 have existed since at least the introduction of the 8th gen chips.


Pl1/pl2 were already in skylake.


----------



## Cabs (Sep 7, 2020)

Hi I’m new here and I have a beginner question. The review suggests that I increase beyond the stock power limits. Can anybody tell me what that means (is that voltage?) and what I should increase to?


----------



## Talcast65 (Nov 7, 2020)

RedelZaVedno said:


> Please add Microsoft Flight simulator 2020 to the test.


10850k with 2080 oc runs great on ultra with flight simulator 2020. But higher then 1920x1080 the game is not playable


----------



## Mussels (Nov 8, 2020)

Cabs said:


> Hi I’m new here and I have a beginner question. The review suggests that I increase beyond the stock power limits. Can anybody tell me what that means (is that voltage?) and what I should increase to?



BIOS setting on your motherboard, if it supports it.


----------



## loki1944 (Nov 30, 2020)

Raendor said:


> I’m looking at the 1440p chart every time to confirm myself once more that for home/gaming system it’s no use to go beyond even 3600/10400. saw 10400f for mere €146 on amazon today and was tempted to make impulse purchase.



No reason to upgrade my 6850K@4.5Ghz or 7800X@4.8Ghz looking at these gaming benchmarks.


----------



## WhiteNoise (Dec 15, 2020)

Great review. Thanks!


----------



## Adder (Mar 12, 2021)

i9 10850 is $319 now.  This is a steal!


----------

