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
If you are building a system, that ~$200 is the difference between having a RX 5500XT or 1650 Super and having an RTX 2070 or 5700.
Or it will get you a 2TB SSD. Or, it'll get you a 1TB SSD and take you from a 1650 Super to a 1660 Super. And so on and so forth.
i9 9900K, Z390 Taichi, MSI 1060 3GB OCV1, Seasonic 550W Prime Ultra Platinum, Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, G Skill TridentZ 2x16GB DDR4 3000C14 B Die, Lian Li PCA05-FN, Phanteks PHTC14PE.Probably a matter of power delivery, maybe only the top tier of Z390 boards can hypothetically run the 10 core without issue such as Asus Maximus XI Apex, MSI MEG Godlike, Gigabyte Aorus Extreme, etc. New socket's pin increase might be related to the extra power demand.
I have no AVX workloads and thus stability in those is not relevant to me. I would rather have max perf in applications i do use instead of chasing some magical (and lower) frequency that is stable in every scenario.
Ideally i would like to have something like Afterburner does for GPU's - per game OC. Takes more time to finetune but offers better performance for those willing to do some testing.
FYI i have 3800X running at 4.5Ghz allcore OC (1.4v). Yes it gets to 90c in AVX2 stress test but that's irrelevant for me. Does not exceed 75c in games.
Going to have to dig around in the bios because that seems to be out of spec for the TJMax and TDP Limit. I would have expected it to throttle or shutdown. Probably will undervolt and slightly underclock this system. It also seems to want a fairly high default vcore of 1.32. This computer will be a workstation not a gamer.
Edit: changed max turbo bin to 48x, -20 offset, and the CPU performs admirably with a max voltage of 1.184V and temperatures generally not exceeding 70*C in Smallest FFT P95 AVX2. Pretty decent. The 9900K works fine on an aircooler, it just needs to be tamed.
Nobody can predict the future and a new computer often delights in unexpected ways. Hence, most of us are now using our desktop PCs for things we never did on our past PCs. For this reason, I believe any new PC should be purchased to meet the excepted needs and with an open mind about how the computer might succeed in generalized usage, now and out perhaps 3 years into what we imagine to be the future.
One might argue that a new Ryzen has the edge in future usage scenarios because we all expect the future to better utilize high cpu core counts than hardware does today. But is this the future of the PC? If you've been watching Optane develop, then you are aware that future computers may do away with the notion of memory and storage being separate hardware. The future of computing could be that all files are kept in non-volatile memory, always available with no need to ever boot the computer or open a file. That could be a lot better than a huge core count for most users.
There are steps that can be taken to make intel cpus perform better and amd cpus are generally running flat out from the factory. So if you like overclocking, intel might seem more attractive.
Most people do not do massively multi threaded avx instructions in any of their workloads. Video conversion in Handbrake would be an example of a task like that. For these tasks, amd does hold an advantage with higher core counts. But even here, a thorough overclock of cpu and ram on intel can make up a lot of the difference ... i9-9900k really perks up in the hands of an experienced overclocker. Like 40% faster in Handbrake, for example.
Stop fearing there are bad choices out there. This is a time of innovation in desktop computers. Most any new system is going to blow you away with fast transfers between storage devices and snappy response while you do all those tasks that used to take longer on your old PC, Ryzen or Core either one is sweet.
I've an i9-9900k at 5GHz all cores, avx instructions (prime95 small ffts) with low latency ram (c16, 1T command rate) running @ 3866MHz. It is water cooled and all the storage devices are M.2 NVME ssds. It does a lot of video conversion and overclocking reduced the time to convert 20GB of 1080p MKVs to MP4s from 89 minutes to 53 mintues. It's clear evidence that you can increase multi-thread performance on the i9-9900k by 40%. But buying a Ryzen 3950x would be just as good, cost less and take less time.
I like overclocking and would never be happy with a Ryzen. That's me. :)