Comprehensive Core i9-10900K Review Leaked: Suggests Intel Option Formidable

[Daven]

No upgrade options for 9900k, a kickass product. No need to really. With ZeN you had to upgrade every year. Just because there was a new model of bates 4000. And thats somehow a plus. Laughable. They couldn't make it right the first time kept improving it. And in the end CCX latency, memory controller is a separate chip. Far from finished. Bates 5000 is just around the corner. Motherboard makers will push for new socket every year. Just refuse to release new bios and force your wallets.

This person is a wccftech commentor. I wouldn't recommend responding to any of his/her comments as they bring down the level of conversation to the craziness that goes on in wccftech's comment system.

 

[SL2]

With ZeN you had to upgrade every year.

The 3900X cost €100 less, is 13 % faster in TPU's benchmarking tests, and 1.6 % slower in gaming at 1440 (1.1 at 4k), than a 9900K.

Tell me again, why would anyone have to upgrade the 3900K but not the 9900K?

 

[Bee9]

The 3900X cost €100 less, is 13 % faster in TPU's benchmarking tests, and 1.6 % slower in gaming at 1440 (1.1 at 4k), than a 9900K.

Tell me again, why would anyone have to upgrade the 3900K but not the 9900K?

Because some people value that 1.6% in gaming than anything.

 

[moproblems99]

Man, this is like what GPUs have been like for a sweet while. How interesting for AMD to be on both ends.

 

[dicktracy]

Skylake still the fastest gaming CPU to date... LMFAO. When is ARM joining the battle again?

 

[WeeRab]

The numbers are all run on a system with EK watercooling. Pulling 337w whist running AIDA64 is verging on criminal.
May be different when some proper reviews are done...but we were warned by the M/board makers the 10900k was a 'hot' chip.

Intel keeps smoking AMD in gaming.

Yeah...With a 337w power draw. It's smoking alright.

 

[Crackong]

IDK why but TPU should cap this one for power consumption.
The test uses the whole system power consumption.

3900x machine: idle 126W , Full CPU load: 263W
10900k machine: idle 107W , Full CPU load: 338W
3950x machine: idle 128W , Full CPU load: 306W

From my own experience, Ryzen idles ~30-ish W , Intel idles ~20
For a rough guess, let's take 90W out from the idle power consumption.

So for CPU only:
3900x: 173W
10900k: 248W
3950x : 216W

10900k is 43.35% more power hungry than 3900x.

 

[Sabishii Hito]

Enough with the CPU comparisons, I want to see what the IMC on these things can do. I wonder if DDR4-5200 will be capable with most samples provided a board that can handle it.

 

[watzupken]

Depending on pricing everything can be a good deal to be honest.

Wonder what sort of cooling they'll provide for non-K SKUs tho.

When you mentioned pricing, you need for factor in a new Z490 board, a decent PSU and a high end cooler. While Intel have reluctantly drop prices on the CPU, cost of other components to get it to work have gone up. I don't even think the stock cooler that comes with the non K version will be able to keep up with the heat, and the Thermal Velocity feature likely won't work with stock cooler.

try 10700K, at 409,99 price is a steal.
Zen3 will be losing in the future, compared to 5 and 3nm with triple transistor densities, it is always useless to argue power consumption and performance,. it is going to lose sooner than you think.

Yes, it sounds "cheap" until you factor in you need a new Z490 board, a high end cooler, and perhaps a good PSU (case by case basis).

Zen 3 will lose in the future, that is correct. But till Intel comes out with a 7nm, 5nm or even 3nm processor, they will still be the underdog with no product to compete. And also, its not like Zen 3 is the last product that AMD is releasing and they will not wait around for Intel to respond. Perhaps if you have some insights as to when Intel's 5nm will be out since you mentioned AMD will lose sooner than we know? I know you sound like you are defending for Intel, but your defense is full of loopholes and unreasonable.

 

[EarthDog]

Lol at the notion for an extra psu. 550-650W is going to be plenty.

Enough with the CPU comparisons, I want to see what the IMC on these things can do. I wonder if DDR4-5200 will be capable with most samples provided a board that can handle it.

I highly doubt anything that close.

 

[Gungar]

Why is Zen3 losing in the future when we already know that OEMs are reporting 20%+ IPC improvements, that moving to 7nm EUV will gain 200-300Mhz in the clocks (possibly allowing Zen3's boost frequency to hit 5.0Ghz and basically taking away Intel's last, albeit pointless, source of pride), and that the amount of cores per CCX is going to be doubled. We know from the reviews of the 3100 vs 3300x that the two vs one CCX topology respectively equated to an approximate 12% overall performance increase. With Zen 3 doubling the cores per CCX, there's every reason to believe that this performance boost will help Zen3 in ADDITION to the 20+% IPC increase.

So with the 20% IPC increase, the 200-300Mhz boost in clocks, and the doubling of cores per CCX, Zen3 could very well result in core for core performance gains vs Zen2 in the area of 30+%! When it comes to rocket lake, we know there will be new core architecture, but the same old 14nm process. I seriously doubt this will result in better performance gains than Zen3. It was just leaked that OEMs testing early samples of Zen3 believe that not only will Zen3 maintain multicore application dominance, but that Zen3 might take the gaming performance crown as well..... Knowing all of that, I don't see how it's possible for you to believe Zen3 will be defeated by whatever intel squirts out

Ofc Zen 3 won't boost to 5.0 on TSMC fab...

 

[ZoneDymo]

Intel keeps smoking AMD in gaming.

Are we looking at the same charts? I see at max a 6 fps difference...you cant even notice that unless you actively switch between the two....
I mean if you play on low settings on 1080p or below, basically if are a "pro" high fps player in CSGO sure go intel.

But if you are a more mainstream? or average gamer, they tend to prefere high resolutions and all the settings cranked, meaning you wont benefit from that Intel cpu at all, you would just be buying an aged cpu in a new suit.

 

[coozie78]

Lol at the notion for an extra psu. 550-650W is going to be plenty.

I doubt anyone purchasing this type of CPU is likely to get away with a 550W unit unless they pair it with a weak GPU.
Put this beast into a system with a RTX2080,overclock it and you'll get what >500W peak gaming draw? To cope <>750W would be more sensible.

 

[EarthDog]

I doubt anyone purchasing this type of CPU is likely to get away with a 550W unit unless they pair it with a weak GPU.
Put this beast into a system with a RTX2080,overclock it and you'll get what >500W peak gaming draw? To cope <>750W would be more sensible.

650W is plenty if you want to set it up like that. But that said, at 5.2 ghz all c/t with rtx 2070, I dont see 450W at the wall..

750W psu for a 500W load is paying too much for no reason. 650W is plenty for that.

 

[Chrispy_]

So for CPU only:
3900x: 173W
10900k: 248W
3950x : 216W

10900k is 43.35% more power hungry than 3900x.

For what it's worth, I've built a lot of 3900X and a handful of 3950X and those are PBO+ numbers on high-end boards with the upper limit of what you'll see in terms of PPT, TDC, EDC limits. Those limits are much higher than AMD's spec, which permits a 65W CPU to have an 88W PPT and a 105W CPU to have a 142W PPT.

I guarantee you will get within 25-50MHz boost clocks (so performance will be between 0.5% and 1% lower) on the 3900X using a more normal motherboard that delivers 142W PPT and my experience of the 3950X is that it's maybe 10% hungrier, give or take, so it will be a fraction slower at 142W but it will still definitely meet the rated clockspeeds, even when using the 3900X's stock cooler (though it's damn noisy when trying to handle a 3950X!)

Although PBO+ is a 'stock feature', the AMD spec for a 105W CPU is 142W - meaning that both the 3900X and 3950X are capable of meeting their rated clocks at 142W or lower.

PBO+ on high-end motherboards qualifies as a factory overclock that goes beyond AMD's stock settings. It is massively inefficient and guzzles tons of extra power for very little extra performance. Nobody is going to buy a $300 overclocking board and use cheap air cooling so that's fine - but it needs to be taken into consideration when comparing "stock" performance/Watt figures because overclocking-focused boards will automatically overclock the CPU through PBO+ to well beyond the sweet spot on the efficiency curve. As someone building rendering nodes that are running 24/7 all-core loads, the efficiency curve matters a lot to me.

750W psu for a 500W load is paying too much for no reason. 650W is plenty for that.

A 650W PSU for a 500W load is fine, but remember that PSU efficiency is highest at around 50% load.

A 650W PSU will certainly do the job for the warranty period but it'll run hotter and louder and is less likely to last as long past the warranty period. The biggest thing that degrades PSU components is heat, and the best way to keep a PSU cool is to operate well below its peak load and in its most efficient operation range.

 

[SL2]

Because some people value that 1.6% in gaming than anything.

I get that, but saying that the 9900K doesn't need to be replaced at some point is just silly.

 

[Dredi]

Why is Zen3 losing in the future when we already know that OEMs are reporting 20%+ IPC improvements, that moving to 7nm EUV will gain 200-300Mhz in the clocks (possibly allowing Zen3's boost frequency to hit 5.0Ghz and basically taking away Intel's last, albeit pointless, source of pride), and that the amount of cores per CCX is going to be doubled. We know from the reviews of the 3100 vs 3300x that the two vs one CCX topology respectively equated to an approximate 12% overall performance increase. With Zen 3 doubling the cores per CCX, there's every reason to believe that this performance boost will help Zen3 in ADDITION to the 20+% IPC increase.

So with the 20% IPC increase, the 200-300Mhz boost in clocks, and the doubling of cores per CCX, Zen3 could very well result in core for core performance gains vs Zen2 in the area of 30+%! When it comes to rocket lake, we know there will be new core architecture, but the same old 14nm process. I seriously doubt this will result in better performance gains than Zen3. It was just leaked that OEMs testing early samples of Zen3 believe that not only will Zen3 maintain multicore application dominance, but that Zen3 might take the gaming performance crown as well..... Knowing all of that, I don't see how it's possible for you to believe Zen3 will be defeated by whatever intel squirts out

The CCX topology change just means better IPC in some applications, and is thus included in the possible ”20% IPC increase”. (application specific)Performance = (application specific)IPC * clock speed, there is no CCX topology in that equation.

20% increase in IPC and some 200MHz in clock speeds for budget chips would be plenty, dont be greedy in your predictions. The top end of the clock speed spectrum won’t likely get that much more anyway due to the exponential relationship with power consumption and clocks. So base clocks get maybe 200-300MHz boost and the top end possibly 100MHz.

The top products will be fast af and cost an arm and a leg as there is no competition. Budget chips like 4600 will be truly awesome though in all aspects.

 

[EarthDog]

A 650W PSU for a 500W load is fine, but remember that PSU efficiency is highest at around 50% load.

True... but to what end? You are aware how flat the efficiency curve is, right? At most, the difference between tiers is 3%. The difference between running at 50% load vs. 66% is likely ~1%. I emplor you to take the time and do the math to see if you will ever make up the difference monetarily over the life of the PSU. I know at my 10 cents /KW /hr, I would need to F@H (24/7/365) for several years to make up the difference between the same model 650W vs 750W. And there is room to upgrade (though we're already talking flagship CPU and high-end GPU).

A 650W PSU will certainly do the job for the warranty period but it'll run hotter and louder and is less likely to last as long past the warranty period. The biggest thing that degrades PSU components is heat, and the best way to keep a PSU cool is to operate well below its peak load and in its most efficient operation range.

Just not worth it (to me).......Running 500W load on a 650W PSU is "well below its peak load" and still quite close to "its most efficient operating range". For 80+ Gold, the MAXIMUM difference allowed between 50-100% load is 3%...

That advice only serves to spend more money for no/little tangible reasons. Buying a PSU to run it at 50% load is a monumental waste of cash. 60-75% is a great sweetspot between price, headroom, and quiet operations.

EDIT: I just ran a game (Forza 4) with a 'CPU' @ 5.2 GHz 10c/20t with a stock RTX 2070... want to know what the kill-a-watt said? I peaked at 301W (at the wall) during the benchmark.

EDIT2: The Division 2 - 362W peak (ran around 325W).

EDIT3: AIDA64 stress test... 290W.

EDIT4: A64 stress test + Furmark, 460W.

Again, all values are at the wall, so take away 10% for efficiency.

So, I stand firmly behind the 650W will be plenty fine. Truth be told, 550W would be too...though 80% is pushing things a bit for quiet operations (depends on the unit and what you have in your case). Id also run a 2080Ti on a 650W PSU without a bit of worry. Doesn't get much more than that.....

 

[Crackong]

For what it's worth, I've built a lot of 3900X and a handful of 3950X and those are PBO+ numbers on high-end boards with the upper limit of what you'll see in terms of PPT, TDC, EDC limits. Those limits are much higher than AMD's spec, which permits a 65W CPU to have an 88W PPT and a 105W CPU to have a 142W PPT.

I guarantee you will get within 25-50MHz boost clocks (so performance will be between 0.5% and 1% lower) on the 3900X using a more normal motherboard that delivers 142W PPT and my experience of the 3950X is that it's maybe 10% hungrier, give or take, so it will be a fraction slower at 142W but it will still definitely meet the rated clockspeeds, even when using the 3900X's stock cooler (though it's damn noisy when trying to handle a 3950X!)

I made those calculation based on the figures from that video, assuming the tester uses the same config and load on each CPU.
And also his figures are measured from the PSU, not from the motherboard sensors, so there are variances.

I use 3900x as well
In Prime95 small FFT it draws around ~135W package power, measured in HWinfo64

That's why I said it was just a rough guess.

 

[Makaveli]

Are we looking at the same charts? I see at max a 6 fps difference...you cant even notice that unless you actively switch between the two....
I mean if you play on low settings on 1080p or below, basically if are a "pro" high fps player in CSGO sure go intel.

But if you are a more mainstream? or average gamer, they tend to prefere high resolutions and all the settings cranked, meaning you wont benefit from that Intel cpu at all, you would just be buying an aged cpu in a new suit.

Yup there is no smoking there.

Its worded that way for a reason I will leave it to you guys to assume that reason.

650W is plenty if you want to set it up like that. But that said, at 5.2 ghz all c/t with rtx 2070, I dont see 450W at the wall..

750W psu for a 500W load is paying too much for no reason. 650W is plenty for that.

I would prefer the 750 psu for 500w because psu's get less efficient the more you load them. And produce higher fan noise closer to max load.

The 250 Watts of room that the 750 will give you should equal a longer lasting quieter psu. And should be worth the price difference.

 

[Decryptor009]

Yup there is no smoking there.

Its worded that way for a reason I will leave it to you guys to assume that reason.




I would prefer the 750 psu for 500w because psu's get less efficient the more you load them. And produce higher fan noise closer to max load.

The 250 Watts of room that the 750 will give you should equal a longer lasting quieter psu. And should be worth the price difference.

Yes very true, a cheaper higher wattage PSU can still offer a very good argument vs a more expensive technically superior PSU with less wattage, the technical superiority doe snot negate noise at near to max capacity.

Both units will age but i would put my money on a decent higher wattage PSU holding out longer than a technically superior product loaded close to it's maximum.

 

[Chrispy_]

True... but to what end? You are aware how flat the efficiency curve is, right? At most, the difference between tiers is 3%. The difference between running at 50% load vs. 66% is likely ~1%. I emplor you to take the time and do the math to see if you will ever make up the difference monetarily over the life of the PSU. I know at my 10 cents /KW /hr, I would need to F@H (24/7/365) for several years to make up the difference between the same model 650W vs 750W. And there is room to upgrade (though we're already talking flagship CPU and high-end GPU).

Efficiency is part of it, but the components in a PSU are also sized appropriately - so even at identical efficiency for a 500W load, the 650W PSU will likely run hotter than the 750W PSU.

Like I said, the 650W would be fine, the 750W would be better. Better is rarely cheaper too.

 

[EarthDog]

Efficiency is part of it, but the components in a PSU are also sized appropriately - so even at identical efficiency for a 500W load, the 650W PSU will likely run hotter than the 750W PSU.

Like I said, the 650W would be fine, the 750W would be better. Better is rarely cheaper too.

1. And? Both will run well with specs, bud... what's your point here? The temp differences are likely negligible...and won't take away any appreciable amount of life. 7 years, 10 years, etc... plenty of life from a PSU.
2. The 750W is in no tangible way better in this case. It is simply spending more than you need to...many would say a waste.

 

[Makaveli]

1. And? Both will run well with specs, bud... what's your point here? The temp differences are likely negligible...and won't take away any appreciable amount of life. 7 years, 10 years, etc... plenty of life from a PSU.
2. The 750W is in no tangible way better in this case. It is simply spending more than you need to...many would say a waste.

PSU's are not all made the same and quality components do matter.

Only highend PSU's with come with a 7-10 year warranty and Japanese caps not the cheap stuff.

If the difference in price is $20-$30 I think its worth spending it.

 

[EarthDog]

I would prefer the 750 psu for 500w because psu's get less efficient the more you load them. And produce higher fan noise closer to max load.

The 250 Watts of room that the 750 will give you should equal a longer lasting quieter psu. And should be worth the price difference.

I've already went over these talking points. The efficiency difference is NOTHING (a max of 3%, actual ~1%)..so that point isn't really one. Fans may spin up faster, sure... but again, I don't hear shit over 5 case fans and a GPU. Also note, my PSU fan barely turns on with a 4.5 GHz 16c/32T CPU (Intel) and a 2080 Ti overclocked. That isn't using any more power than the 10900K.

PSU's are not all made the same and quality components do matter.

Only highend PSU's with come with a 7-10 year warranty and Japanese caps not the cheap stuff.

If the difference in price is $20-$30 I think its worth spending it.

Right. That is what we are talking about......QUALITY PSUs... not shit... come on. Even 5 year PSUs would be fine running a couple of C warmer. A quality PSU should run its label rating for the life of its warranty. Ya'll are making mountains out of mole hills causing you (and those reading) to overspend for no real reason.

If there is a $20-$30 difference, there is no way I would buy 750W over 650W in this case. None. That is $20-$30 wasted and never recovered.


Gentlemen......move on. Our points have been made. If you choose to spend more for little to no reason, that is on you/whoever is doing it. Im just here to say the reasons mentioned to go higher are soft at best. I've lived this life and have had zero issues over the last 2 decades. I've used 3 PSUs in that time. lol