notbWhy would it be different? These CPUs are sold to the same clients (maybe putting gamers aside).
It's the same boost-idle-boost-idle cycle.

Actually it's the other way round (Intel vs AMD in expectations). AMD looks great in Cinebench or batch encoding. People buy them, run a few benchmarks, post results on forums - great. And one day they notice that their office laptop boots quicker, opens websites faster and actually is perfectly fine for everything they need. So why did they buy this huge desktop? And how to use 12 cores?

LOL on crunching workloads. How many people here actually do some heavy computing on their uber fast PCs? And I mean concious useful activity, not running benchmarks and distributed computing projects.

Also, you would have to manually limit the CPU to force it to run at those 2.8GHz (which will happen in SFF OEM machines). Leave it alone, provide decent airflow - it'll boost all day long if needed.

phanbueyI think if they came out with a 9700K version of this series - a 10 core with no HT for a reasonable price it would be a winner.

GlacierNineSkylake's 6700K was a 4GHz all core part, 4.2GHz singlecore. It was faster in games than anything that came before it with any number of cores.

Intel's IPC hasn't changed at all since that time, so we can directly compare the clockspeeds.

As long as the new chips aren't throttling below 4GHz on 4 core workloads, or 4.2GHz single core, then they'll still be as fast or faster than the hardware that was top of the line when those games came out. I really don't think anyone needs to worry about their 6700K outperforming their 10900K as a result of lost clockspeeds - there's just no way a 4 core load is going to be so impossible to cool that it'll need to run at 3.9GHz across each core.

Vayra862.5 Ghz base for a desktop part? Wtf... I remember them coming with 3.4 base. Intel is just moving goal posts for higher boost figures, and they don't seem to know when to stop.

LOL. Soon you're better off sticking a laptop CPU in there instead.

cucker tarlsonring or mesh ?
if this is a 5ghz ring 10 core,however inefficient in cinemark,it's gonna kick butts and take names in gaming.

Chloe Price65W and 10 cores with Skylake 5.0 architecture and 14nm++++++++ means probably that it uses its turbo clocks for a blink of an eye so HWInfo and similar software shows that it had peaked at those turbo clocks..

TheLostSwedeNo worries, Intel has sampled much faster parts to the board makers. I've seen parts that have a base clock well over 3GHz, but unfortunately I can't share more than that.

JackCarverWhy without HT? Rumours are that they offer an i7 10700K, 8 cores with HT, and pricepoint below 400. That is the pricepoint of a Ryzen 3800X and would be better in gaming than 3900X/3950X.

Imsochobowell said, it's all improvement if we look at intel in an isolated case but.. amd exists in the market today.

EarthDogdoubtful... :)

.. but better than not reaching it and causing a stink?

this. Its early.. and people will post and believe anything.

MrAMD10c/20t ringbus @ 5GHz all-core (K version). Hm.. it's definitely going to be a beast.

Remain gaming king and add MT performance. If only I could use my current Z390 mobo.

MikeZTMIntel brought Thermal Velocity Boost to desktop.

EarthDogThis is confirmed or?????

MikeZTMI got this confirmed from multiple sources. And obviously I can not tell you my source... You will see if my state here is correct or not later.

BTW I do not know the TVB temperature for desktop. It might not be the same 50 degrees as laptop TVB now.

I hate this hyper train for Intel 14nm refresh when people already knows 9900k is slower than 8086k in multiple games. Adding 2 cores will only make it worse.

MikeZTMFirst you can not use z390 as the socket is different (LGA1200).
Second 9900k is 50% slower than 8086k in PUBG when both overclocked to 5GHz and run 4000MHz DDR4. More core means higher ring bus latency and less RAM performance.

My friend already got this CPU last year and told me to ignore this gen as they performed badly in games.

JackCarverWhy without HT? Rumours are that they offer an i7 10700K, 8 cores with HT, and pricepoint below 400. That is the pricepoint of a Ryzen 3800X and would be better in gaming than 3900X/3950X.

GlacierNineSure, but you said single threaded. Those extra cores don't matter. They're not under load, therefore they produce negligible heat.

At the end of the day, these are still 14nm parts. A single 10900K core can be considered "pretty much" the same as a single 6700K core. They have the same architecture and IPC. At 4GHz, both parts will perform identically.

That means that with one core, you're dealing with "pretty much" the same amount of heat, over the same amount of area, at the same clockspeeds and voltages. Add a core, you double it, add a core, you triple it, add a core, you quadruple it. You've now built a 6700K. Now add 6 more of those cores, you've built a 10900K.

Now granted, a 10900K core is going to do this at lower voltage and with less heat, because of the refinements of the manufacturing process, but that only works in the favour of the later chip.

If you load 4 of those more efficient, later production 10900K cores, you'll get a reasonable amount less than 6700K heat. If you load all 10 cores you get 10900K heat. If you load one single core then you'll get substantially less heat than either of those circumstances, which means cooling a single threaded workload is simply not an issue - if you're only pursuing the same clocks, anyway. Intel always tries to use as much of the available headroom as possible, which is why the single core boost always goes up, from 6700K to 7700K, 8700K, 9900K, and now 10900K. They're not really producing more heat when in single threaded workloads. They're just producing lots more in multi-threaded workloads.

Single core boost will always go up as long as manufacturing keeps improving. The battle is in maintaining high all-core boost clocks as you add more and more cores into the same space.

GlacierNine7700K was 4.2GHz base and 6700K was 4GHz base.

8700K started the trend of reducing base clocks, with 3.7GHz. 9900K continued it. This continues it further.

MikeZTMI hate this hyper train for Intel 14nm refresh when people already knows 9900k is slower than 8086k in multiple games. Adding 2 cores will only make it worse.

phanbueyIt's pretty common to see a 9700K at 5.2 beating a 9900K at 5.0 in games

phanbueyWithout HT would drastically drop the temperatures and power consumption, and allow much higher clocks. The 9700k's lack of HT allows users to run it at 5.2-5.3ghz at relative ease (compared to 9900k which CAN hit those clocks but it's much more difficult). Most people don't need 16 threads and SMT/HT even hurts in some situations. The 9700k lacks a bit of cache, but with 2 more cores, another 4-8mb of cache and a new process that allows it to hit 5.4-5.5 ghz with decent cooling without causing a small brown out would be really ideal for most gamers.

Turning HT off on the current gen of chips yields pretty dramatic temperature differences and allows for a 200-300mhz higher OC as a result.



It's pretty common to see a 9700K at 5.2 beating a 9900K at 5.0 in games/non-heavily threaded loads while consuming less power.

MelvisSo what is this CPU going to achieve? like really? a bit better Multi core threaded performance? the 18Core from Intel struggles against AMD's 16 core so.......what are these 10core CPUs going to do? Gaming performance is so close these days that it doesnt really matter, 4% faster over 30+ games (9900K/3950X) isnt anything to write home about.......

Chloe PriceReminds me when people bought i7-2600Ks and turned the HT off.. :laugh:

Isn't the whole idea of buying a hyperthreaded CPU to have more threads? :rolleyes:

JackCarverI also say that depends of the game and for future use 8 cores with HT will be better than without HT in my opinion.

Vayra862.5 Ghz base for a desktop part? Wtf... I remember them coming with 3.4 base. Intel is just moving goal posts for higher boost figures, and they don't seem to know when to stop.

LOL. Soon you're better off sticking a laptop CPU in there instead.

phanbueyWithout HT would drastically drop the temperatures and power consumption, and allow much higher clocks. The 9700k's lack of HT allows users to run it at 5.2-5.3ghz at relative ease (compared to 9900k which CAN hit those clocks but it's much more difficult). Most people don't need 16 threads and SMT/HT even hurts in some situations. The 9700k lacks a bit of cache, but with 2 more cores, another 4-8mb of cache and a new process that allows it to hit 5.4-5.5 ghz with decent cooling without causing a small brown out would be really ideal for most gamers.

Turning HT off on the current gen of chips yields pretty dramatic temperature differences and allows for a 200-300mhz higher OC as a result.



It's pretty common to see a 9700K at 5.2 beating a 9900K at 5.0 in games/non-heavily threaded loads while consuming less power.