Isn't the 488 pricing that intel showed only if you buy it 1000 units at a time? So wouldn't it be more expensive if you buying a single chip?

Also still can't beat out a 3950x, also wonder what kind of cooler they were using to achieve those numbers on the 10900

More of the same from Intel i see..I think retail on this chip is gonna be 525 to 575 IMO..

it comes with bundled chiller, right?

If this holds true... this looks like a flop from Intel!

20mmrainIf this holds true... this looks like a flop from Intel!

And R15 isn't as well threaded as R20 to boot. The prior leaks gave the impression that they almost had parity... Oh lmao, look at that R15 , its on win 8. Avoiding a fair test by not doing it on win10... :shadedshu:

There is an interesting choice between these two processors. The 3900X has more performance guaranteed. The stock cooler will get you the lion's share of the single core performance, there isn't much manual overclocking can give you over the very easy PBO option, and you won't need a 750 W PSU to power it. The 10900K has slightly better single core performance, and a higher ceiling for overclocking, but it will require a water cooler or large, $50+ air cooler to run even stock without throttling, and will likely take 300 W or more to get to the rated boost speeds. All while having worse multi core performance no matter what.

So your choice is: a processor that works at default close to its maximum performance, is cheaper overall (because of the included cooler and lower power requirements), and better at multi core. Or a processor that is marginally faster at single core, potentially better for high frame rate gaming, but requires you to buy a beefier PSU, a cooler, and if you want to really get the most out of it, you have to manually overclock it to even get close in multi core performance.

Oddly enough, it will probably be the least proficient users that go for Intel because of their brand recognition and years of being "top dog." Whereas those who want a well rounded processor will stick with the Zen 2 chips. And the smartest of all will wait for Zen 3 this year because it will torpedo both options, and Intel won't have an answer for another whole year.

That is an impressive increase considering stock the all core freq is 4.9 if under 70c or 4.8 if not so for 500mhz OC score went from 2347 to 3002.
So 10% OC gets 28% increase, well that base seems wrong as normally performance doesn't keep increasing linerally once you pass the sweet spot freq wise.

Just seems intel is pushing for clock speed. Kind of irrelevant to the competition at least for work loads outside of gaming which is 99% of what CPU's are for.

Ed_1That is an impressive increase considering stock the all core freq is 4.9 if under 70c or 4.8 if not so for 500mhz OC score went from 2347 to 3002.
So 10% OC gets 28% increase, well that base seems wrong as normally performance doesn't keep increasing linerally once you pass the sweet spot freq wise.

Here's the tip off that shenanigans are afoot.

Adding to the benchmarking caveat, the operating temperatures for this particular Core i9-10900K show 0º min and 69º max, so assuming the temperature report is correct, it's fair to say an air cooler wasn't used for this overclocking feat.

Decryptor009Just seems intel is pushing for clock speed. Kind of irrelevant to the competition at least for work loads outside of gaming which is 99% of what CPU's are for.

Clock speed and boosting...
That’s all they can do with current 14nm nodes.
We can all say: Intel, you boosted bastard lolz

thesmokingmanHere's the tip off that shenanigans are afoot.

Even though CB15 is fast test, it could be its clocking down after hitting wattage, so if it clocked down with stock Intel wattage limiters and it did only 4.2 on all cores that would bring to 28% increase.
So when OC the limiters are removed most likely, but also this is a ES chip.

Ed_1Even though CB15 is fast test, it could be its clocking down after hitting wattage, so if it clocked down with stock Intel wattage limiters and it did only 4.2 on all cores that would bring to 28% increase.
So when OC the limiters are removed most likely, but also this is a ES chip.

Ugh, I'm referring to the 0 degree min cpu temp and 62 degree max temp. You know what that means right, it ain't water or air.

thesmokingmanUgh, I'm referring to the 0 degree min cpu temp and 62 degree max temp. You know what that means right, it ain't water or air.

Good catch.

Useless synthetic benchmark

Decryptor009Just seems intel is pushing for clock speed. Kind of irrelevant to the competition at least for work loads outside of gaming which is 99% of what CPU's are for.

Well, the box does say 'Gaming happens on Intel'

:twitch:

Decryptor009Good catch.

So, we have a supercooled CPU running a useless synthetic benchmark? ( and it still can't beat a stock 3900X o_O :p ).
Nothing to see here folks, move along to a proper review later.

bencrutzit comes with bundled chiller, right?

No, dual fire extinguishers

Funny that now that AMD have very competitive offering, we now have like 5 Intel CPU per days.

250W++ for that overclock.
videocardz.com/newz/msi-discusses-intel-comet-lake-s-processors-binning-and-overclockability

Hi i'm french and i have buy my ...3900x ==> 400 euro

The french price and often on sale at 400 euro

Like I said in a previous post Z490 boards rival and in some cases beat X299, X399 and even TRX40 boards in terms of VRM strength. For me that says it all about the power draw that an OC of any kind will have on these chips bit I am pretty sure people will wan all core 5+ GHZ OC.

kapone32Like I said in a previous post Z490 boards rival and in some cases beat X299, X399 and even TRX40 boards in terms of VRM strength. For me that says it all about the power draw that an OC of any kind will have on these chips bit I am pretty sure people will wan all core 5+ GHZ OC.

It's starting to look like those netburst days.

Ed_1Even though CB15 is fast test, it could be its clocking down after hitting wattage, so if it clocked down with stock Intel wattage limiters and it did only 4.2 on all cores that would bring to 28% increase.
So when OC the limiters are removed most likely, but also this is a ES chip.

That's no ES chip this close to release , and the limiters were definitely off but a chiller on it helped.

Looks like Skylake to me; Overclocks to the moon as long as you have a way of dissipating unreasonable amounts of power, is otherwise overpriced and now comes with a bonus $200 tax for a Z490 board that doesn't currently have any benefits whatsoever.

The Intel die-hard fans will rightly claim it's the fastest-clocked, money-no-object processor you can get right now.

Meanwhile,

• the productivity crowd will be realising that it's outperformed at half the power consumption by a 3900X, which actually costs less when you factor in a decent B450 board.
• most gamers will look at the $700 CPU and board cost of these new Intels and decide that their money is better spent on a GPU because a 9700K is plenty for the now.

Leaving only the influencers, streamers, and frothy mouth fanboys to get worked up about it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's still just Skylake+++++ so it's unlkely to offer up any real surprises.

Here is the 2HP under the table secret chiller again :)