Wednesday, February 12th 2020
Intel Core i7-10700K Features 5.30 GHz Turbo Boost
Intel's 10th generation Core "Comet Lake-S" desktop processor series inches chose to its probable April 2020 launch. Along the way we get this fascinating leak of the company's Core i7-10700K desktop processor, which could become a go-to chip for gamers if its specifications and pricing hold up. Thai PC enthusiast TUM_APISAK revealed what could be a Futuremark SystemInfo screenshot of the i7-10700K which confirms its clock speeds - 3.80 GHz nominal, with an impressive 5.30 GHz Turbo Boost. Intel is probably tapping into the series' increased maximum TDP of 125 W to clock these chips high across the board.
The Core i7-10700K features 8 cores, and HyperThreading enables 16 threads. It also features 16 MB of shared L3 cache. In essence, this chip has the same muscle as the company's current mainstream desktop flagship, the i9-9900K, but demoted to the Core i7 brand extension. This could give it a sub-$400 price, letting it compete with the likes of AMD's Ryzen 7 3800X and possibly even triggering a price-cut on the 3900X. The i7-10700K in APISAK's screenshot is shown running on an ECS Z490H6-A2 motherboard, marking the company's return to premium Intel chipsets. ECS lacks Z390 or Z370 based motherboards in its lineup, and caps out at B360.
Source:
TUM_APISAK (Twitter)
The Core i7-10700K features 8 cores, and HyperThreading enables 16 threads. It also features 16 MB of shared L3 cache. In essence, this chip has the same muscle as the company's current mainstream desktop flagship, the i9-9900K, but demoted to the Core i7 brand extension. This could give it a sub-$400 price, letting it compete with the likes of AMD's Ryzen 7 3800X and possibly even triggering a price-cut on the 3900X. The i7-10700K in APISAK's screenshot is shown running on an ECS Z490H6-A2 motherboard, marking the company's return to premium Intel chipsets. ECS lacks Z390 or Z370 based motherboards in its lineup, and caps out at B360.
273 Comments on Intel Core i7-10700K Features 5.30 GHz Turbo Boost
I learned something from ToxicTaz as I'm sure he learned something from me. Forums are here for discussion. :D
For example, you both tried to claim that your respective manufacturer's TDP was somehow less than the others. You stated: "Intel's rated TDPs are always calculated at the base clock, excluding any boost clocks. AMD rates its TDPs more with industry standards. "
Taz proceeded to then state "Intel has Rocket Lake to deal with Zen 3 and yes Rocket Lake is 125w TDP what's your point? TDP means nothing....just like your Tread Rippers now pushing almost 300w TDP going off your statement."
The problem being that:
1 - There are no industry standards on what TDP means. Gamer's Nexus has a great in depth article here: www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3525-amd-ryzen-tdp-explained-deep-dive-cooler-manufacturer-opinions
2 - Taz's statement first dismisses the importance of TDP entirely, and then in the very same statement he uses TDP as a means by which to attack your point.
You're both at best half right and there's certainly no indication either of you is listening to what the other has to say.
Because TDP is not as simple as you think it is.
In case of a chip, radiated heat for all practical purposes (techically - roughly) equals its power consumption.
When it comes to CPUs, marketing and brand politics comes into play and disrupts process of normal spec creation. Both AMD and Intel currently have convoluted and complex TDP definitions on purpose (or should I say for marketing purposes) involving thermally significant periods and useful work. Surprisingly, at the same time GPUs do adhere to and limit themselves to TDP quite precisely.
Did you read what I wrote?
Again, what would you say was wrong in my post?
Not only is an industry standard always a document, it's also a vetted one.
Basically, you're wishing your common sense was an industry standard.It's incomplete, it paints a truncated picture.
In practice, if you design a system to be able to sustain 100W TDP, the heatsink, if cool enough, will be able to handle, say 200W for a limited amount of time. It will get hot, but while it can still absorb heat, it will do its job. This is what you see with Intel systems when you conclude their TDP definition is wrong. But the thing is, they can't know how far the CPU will go, because you may have bought a 150W capable heatsink for your system. Or even a 200W heatsink. There's a limit in the silicon, too, that's where Intel sets the cutoff, but until you reach there, the CPU is allowed to go crazy. But how crazy, that will vary from system to system, Intel cannot guarantee that.It's not my first language either and you're not entirely wrong. There are unratified standards, they are called "de-facto standards" (the others are "de-jure standards"). But when you're talking about de-facto standards, you need to refer to them as such. Also, de-facto standards are seldom binding (e.g. JPEG is the de-facto standard for images on the web, yet there's plenty of other formats used for the same purpose).
The thing with CPUs as well as other modern semiconductors is that TDP is almost never about the silicon capability - everything is power limited anyway. Assuming (and using) potential additional cooling capacity by default is something I would not say is OK. While that is the official reasoning it does not sound very sincere. It is the "thermally useful" and "useful load" thing right there. With a heavy load (which on lower and midrange CPUs even gaming can provide these days) the boost received is very minor if at all. On the other hand, it helps a lot with benchmarks.
Edit: that last part is assuming the over-TDP part is temporary and uses oversized cooler's ability to absorb heat which is what the theory says. This does seem to be the case for Intel non-K CPUs today but not for Intel K CPUs or Ryzen 3000s, last two will boost happily beyond TDP.
Heatsink TDP has proven to be even much more bullshit than CPUs are, even though it should be simpler when the dynamic variable part of a heatsink is generally limited to temperature and fan speed.
- AMD does seem to have a proper power limit in place (at 35% more than the stated TDP value for Ryzen 3000). Additional headroom is available as PBO.
Yes, both state some reliance on cooler capabilities but in practice insufficient cooler just triggers thermal throttle and calms CPU down with that. AMD does have dynamic boost mechanism based on temperatures but it does not make that much of a difference in practice.
You would have better gaming performance on a $300 CPU and a $1000 RTX 2080Ti for the same $1300.
It really is that simple;
Whether it's a 9700K or a 3800X doesn't really matter - A 2080Ti is so much faster than a vanilla 2080 so there's GPU performance you denied yourself by spending that money on an overpriced CPU instead.
Any 200w air or liquid cooler works fine.
10700K is using less power then my 9900KS with similar performance just above the 3800XDid you read what I said? “RTX 2080 NVlink" to unknowledge people that's "2080 SLI" and yes all my SLI profiles are working....SLI takes alot of work to work....... But performance wise 2080 SLI is faster than 2080Ti
3840x1600 is what I'm driving (LG UltraGear 38GL950G-B) if you're concerned.
Black Friday 2018 my RTX 2080 NVlink setup was $200. Less then one RTX 2080Ti
Playing COD Modern Warfare at the moment maxed out 120+fps with Raytracing off..... With Raytracing on its around 85+fps hit.
Let's pretend you have a heatsink large enough to keep a heat-emitting object at 50C in a 20C room, and lets say that you're dealing with 100W in those circumstances.
The exact same heatsink with absolutely no changes, will also be able to keep a more substantial heat emitting object, at a steady temperature somewhere upwards of 50C (Since temperature scales are arbitrary, it won't be just twice as many C) in a 20C room, and it will be dissipating, say, 200W of heat the entire time it does so.
So is this imaginary heatsink a 100W TDP heatsink or a 200W TDP heatsink? It can dissipate both figures as long as you're prepared to accept a higher delta over ambient, but claiming either one is the Rated TDP of the cooler is meaningless unless you are also specifying a temperature delta over ambient.
No manufacturer provides this info.
I'll quote TechPowerup, since you're using these forums:
"So the burning question: should you spend $1,680 on RTX 2080 SLI? Absolutely not. Averaging all our tests, RTX 2080 SLI is within single-digit percentage performance of the RTX 2080 Ti"
Since that article was written 18 months ago, even fewer games have decent SLI support - Nvidia have dropped SLI for nearly all of their cards so most developers aren't bothering to optimise for it.
I mean, if you're happy - great, but I certainly wouldn't go around preaching its merits.
Anandtech noted in their 9900K review that PL2 for it is set to 210W and the same has been found by other reviewers with different motherboards. Note that this is PL2 - power limit for the temporary boost. Based on Intel's own documentation, this should last 8 seconds at maximum and be 125% TDP. In theory.
So no, the CPU will not get just slightly warmer if it goes beyond what the heatsink is designed to handle.Man, have I been talking to myself all this time? The power limit is dictated by the CPU, the heatsink and the airflow in your case. How would you put a number on that as the manufacturer of the CPU?
For reference: no matter how you define TDP, the heatsink will allow the CPU to dissipate more than that for a short period of time. If you move the TDP to include the bursty TDP, you'll need a bigger heatsink. A bigger heatisnk will, in turn allow the CPU to boost even higher for a time. Rinse and repeat.