Wednesday, January 1st 2020
Core i9-10900K up to 30% Faster than i9-9900K: Intel
Intel's upcoming Core i9-10900K desktop processor is up to 30 percent faster than the Core i9-9900K according to the company, which put out a performance guidance slide that got leaked to the web. Based on the 14 nm "Comet Lake-S" silicon and built for the new LGA1200 platform (Intel 400-series chipset motherboards); the i9-10900K is a 10-core/20-thread processor that leverages increased TDP headroom of 125 W to sustain higher clock-speeds than 9th generation "Coffee Lake Refresh," while also offering a 25% increase in processing muscle over the i9-9900K, thanks to the two additional CPU cores.
In its performance guidance slide, Intel shows the i9-10900K scoring 30% more than the i9-9900K in SPECint_rate_base2006_IC16.0. There's also a 25% boost in floating-point performance, in SPECfp_rate_base2006_IC16.0, which roughly aligns with the additional core count, as both these tests are multi-threaded. Other noteworthy results include a 26% gain in Cinebench R15, and 10% in SYSMark 2014 SE. In tests that don't scale with cores, Intel appears to rely entirely on the increased clock-speeds and improved boosting algorithm to eke out performance gains in the low-to-mid single-digit percentages. Intel is introducing a new clock-speed boosting technology called Thermal Velocity Boost, which can dial up clock-speeds of the i9-10900K up to 5.30 GHz.
Sources:
ITHome, Tom's Hardware
In its performance guidance slide, Intel shows the i9-10900K scoring 30% more than the i9-9900K in SPECint_rate_base2006_IC16.0. There's also a 25% boost in floating-point performance, in SPECfp_rate_base2006_IC16.0, which roughly aligns with the additional core count, as both these tests are multi-threaded. Other noteworthy results include a 26% gain in Cinebench R15, and 10% in SYSMark 2014 SE. In tests that don't scale with cores, Intel appears to rely entirely on the increased clock-speeds and improved boosting algorithm to eke out performance gains in the low-to-mid single-digit percentages. Intel is introducing a new clock-speed boosting technology called Thermal Velocity Boost, which can dial up clock-speeds of the i9-10900K up to 5.30 GHz.
144 Comments on Core i9-10900K up to 30% Faster than i9-9900K: Intel
Also Intel : include a 26% gain in Cinebench R15
Intel already looks be in second place compared to AMD's twelve, and sixteen core chips.
This looks like same old same old core,only 10th gen locked skus will match 9th gen k-series on stock clocks and there's HT on every cpu + a 10 core.
will probably end up really competitive against ryzen 3000/4000,imagine stock 9900k rivalling 3700x/3800x not 3900x,but intel has no new core design still.
i think the 10900k will be priced at $549, but would rather see it at $499-$525
this is good for consumers as more options available from both amd and intel.
now what do u guys think the z490 chipset will it include pci-e 4.0 or not?
It has less latency which is better for gaming yes. But it is actaully worse in ST IPC.
Keep the ring design and give it all it has,that is the only way they can still stay ahead.
So... we should take from this, that the 10900K is actually only 5% faster... the sad part is, the 4.8GHz clock speed of the newer part vs 4.6GHz for the 9900k..... a reduction of 5% from 4.8GHz puts you at 4.56GHz..... so with 2 extra cores, 4 extra threads and a bump in effect base clock... I would have expected more than 5%(30%??) improvements overall.
Intel do have some funny press announcements recently.
en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/mesh_interconnect_architecture
XeMF: The Scalable Memory Fabric, with RAMBO CACHE
For all the talk about Intel being a leader, they sure do follow AMD a lot not to mention badmouth & then copy them.
From what AMD has said, the CPUs will be out in H2 2020.
Keep in mind that 10-series according to what we know will have HT. There will not be that huge cap in productivity performance any more.
While much of the hoopla is around i9-10900K the actual Intel 10-series CPU to watch is i5-10400(F).
Similarly, AMD's Renoir APUs should be very excciting.
Purely in terms of value, this offers more than most Intel chips in the last decade though you will have to question why doesn't Intel use *cove at 14nm++++ instead of adding more (weak) cores. Surely their volumes will justify back-porting the design & IIRC the coves are node agnostic?Yes that's why I said better value in a really long time though I'll add Intel's HT isn't as good as AMD's SMT implementation.
Anything lower than i9 currently does not have HT. This is the main concern in every review - Intel may do OK in gaming but there is a large automatic gap in productivity/threaded performance. HT will address most of that.Intel's cores were not node agnostic. There are rumors (and I think Intel's people have mentioned that in several talks) about a project to make their cores node agnostic. This project should be going on for a little over a year now. Too early to actually use the cores.
When it comes to Coffee Lake vs Ice Lake, the claimed transistor counts are 217 million vs 300 million in a core. This is a considerable 38% difference.
Also NO extra performance from architectural improvements in multithreding, just what we get from those extra 2 cores / 4 threads and those higher Turbo frequencies.
That probably also means NO hardware security fixes. If there where any security fixes we could have seen some extra performance differences.
That 95W 9900K is in fact a 210W chip, if you want to get 100% of what that chip can offer. The new 10900K is in fact a 250W chip. 125W is at base frequency.
Great. Even Pentium 4 was looking better against Athlon64.
www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/engineering-new-protections-into-hardware.html
For some reason everyone expects security fixes in hardware to affect performance. They don't, that is the whole point - issues fixed in hardware means precisely that there is no performance difference.