Monday, April 20th 2020
Intel Core i7-10700K and i5-10600K Geekbenched, Inch Ahead of 3800X and 3600X
The week has begun with sporadic leaks about Intel's upcoming 10th generation Core "Comet Lake-S" desktop processor family, be it pictures of various socket LGA1200 motherboards, or leaked performance scores. Thai PC enthusiast TUM_APISAK posted links to Geekbench V4 entries of a handful 10th gen Core processors. These include the Core i7-10700K (8-core/16-thread), and the Core i5-10600K (6-core/12-thread). Comparisons with incumbent AMD offerings are inescapable. The i7-10700K locks horns with the Ryzen 7 3800X, while the i5-10600K takes the battle to the Ryzen 5 3600X.
The Core i7-10700K scores 34133 points in the multi-core test, and 5989 in the single-core one. The i5-10600K, on the other hand, puts out 28523 points in the multi-threaded test, and 6081 points in the single-core test. Both scores appear to be a single-digit percentage ahead of the AMD rivals in the multi-threaded test. The Intel chips appear to offer slightly better less-parallelized performance owing to higher boost frequencies for single-threaded or less parallelized workloads. These include an impressive 5.10 GHz max boost frequency for the i7-10700K, and 4.80 GHz for the i5-10600K. APISAK also posted scores of the iGPU-disabled Core i5-10600KF, which is roughly on par with the i5-10600K since it's basically the same chip with its eyes poked out.
Source:
TUM_APISAK (Twitter)
The Core i7-10700K scores 34133 points in the multi-core test, and 5989 in the single-core one. The i5-10600K, on the other hand, puts out 28523 points in the multi-threaded test, and 6081 points in the single-core test. Both scores appear to be a single-digit percentage ahead of the AMD rivals in the multi-threaded test. The Intel chips appear to offer slightly better less-parallelized performance owing to higher boost frequencies for single-threaded or less parallelized workloads. These include an impressive 5.10 GHz max boost frequency for the i7-10700K, and 4.80 GHz for the i5-10600K. APISAK also posted scores of the iGPU-disabled Core i5-10600KF, which is roughly on par with the i5-10600K since it's basically the same chip with its eyes poked out.
80 Comments on Intel Core i7-10700K and i5-10600K Geekbenched, Inch Ahead of 3800X and 3600X
browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/15421175
8700K with league, dbeaver and sql managment studio running in the background... 3 year old chip...
But that said, look at most benchmarks and at the top Intel sits. I don't buy top end CPUs, but it's a fact. With 6 cores / 12 threads the gen 10 Intel i5 chips do look promising, in particular the i5-10400 through 10600k. And I could care a rats about an extra 30 or 50W of power draw on a desktop chip.
Because FX was proper shiett!!
To me £159 -5 years and when retired it was within a margin of the same FPS as an i7 @4K
Some upgraded from peasant 1080p:p years ago:p :D.
You like hot and hungry then go you.
Buy Intel, save on heating this Christmas.
It's too bad an overwhelming majority are at 1080p and less.
You did have to tune the snot out that civic to be fair.:)
Tuned? No. I said rolling down a hill. The point was that takes the engine out of the equation and is therefore similar in speed.... akin to running that potato for a cpu in 4k... it works, but it's still a civic. :p
Though it's funny because few can afford the graphical horsepower required in the first place... typically a 4k gamer isnt going to have a 2080+ and bulldozer. :)
I'd say 5.
It only needs developer support and will be top notch.
We already have upto 64 big cores thanks, I'm fine with those all the small cores stuff I've used were Very limited in use and remain so.
But we'll see how it pans out.
www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/2
All piledriver/bd/vishera had going for them is price.
Poorly optimised hardware with poorly optimised software will do that , and that's mostly what it was IMHO back then.
There are newer tests that show the same story. It didnt age well either. Slow is slow, my dude. What made these so attractive was the price... that's about it. It surely wasnt single threaded performamce, IPC, nor did it do well gaming at resolutions even more common back then (and less).
Edit: but I digress, this thread isnt about piledriver/bd/vishera. ;)
I have never understood the focus on that aspect of desktop chips for typical users at home. For mobile insofar as it affects thermals and battery life yes, for business class PCs (usually these are SFF), for servers, or worstation farms where the system remains at high use much of the time then sure.
But at home, where 99% of folks here are talking about?
Doing the math on typical workloads and based on my own experience with kilowatt measurements, you might be talking about +40W for 4 or 5 hours a day from a high power draw CPU - all else being equal - and assuming you put your system under heavy load for 4-5 hours per day 365/7 (which is a lot to average, even for power users and the most avid of gamers). That comes out to about 200WH / day or 1.4KWH / week. X52 weeks per year you get 72KWH per year.
The average KWH in the USA is 0.12c/kwh, so the cost here is 72KWH * 0.12c/KWH = $8.64 per year.
That isn't even worth anyone's time to discuss.
I mean, if you tell me chip A draws 250W vs chip B drawing 65W with the same performance, I might listen just a little. But 95W vs 135W? 65W vs 95W? No man, who gives a rat?
Now if I were buying 3000 PCs for my employer, I would care, but I'm not doing that and very few here are.
But as far as simplifying everyone into one bracket, that's a stretch IMHO.
I've paid about £30-50 for pc power alone for years and at one point 20 times that amount.
But some do not care indeed.
In my experience the type of people who legitimately care about power draw do not hang out here, nor in other similar sites. You'll find them in the forums on the specific applications they are using, because they are pros in those areas (rendering, video editing, AI/distributed computing, etc) and their ability to make a living is directly tied to their skill in those apps - not by perusing hardware tech forums. They also don't use consumer grade midrange desktop chips in their workstations.
Saving time is always more important to someone using their PC to make a living, which is why I question the veracity of someone who cares how much power an i5 / i7 or similar desktop chips draws.
As for your slur if you want to discuss with me about virtue signalling pm me for the verbose offensive reply, I was mearly defending my opinion by describing my thoughts due to costs.
And Also I put plain enough I agree the majority don't care , that's ok but that's not everyone like you said.
I care what I spend on anything I buy ,am I weird?, I doubt I'm alone.
There's a awful lot of folders new to this due to covid that are about to understand their computers power use per bill period:).
If they are as you say they we're, unconcerned before.