Intel Core i9-10900 10-core CPU Pictured

[ARF]

i don't think they're stupid to add 2 cores with overall lower clocks as they'll gain nothing...

More threads is always better. In gaming + streaming, 8 cores at super high clocks might be not enough and the additional 2 cores / 4 threads could come very handy to offload the other threads and relieve the framerate.

It all comes to the price, though. There is no bad product, there is bad pricing.

 

[hat]

Why 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.

Ugh, this again. It's okay if an expensive, high performance 10 core chip runs slow all the time because nobody does anything with their computers except open web pages and word documents, and now distributed computing projects aren't useful...

 

[JackCarver]

I 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.

Why 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.

 

[MrAMD]

10c/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.

 

[Imsochobo]

Skylake'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.

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

 

[TheLostSwede]

2.5 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.

No 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.

 

[MikeZTM]

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

The reason Intel designed mesh is because ring latency will go up when you add more cores.
This will not kick butts in gaming as 9900k O.C. is already slower than 8086k O.C. in gaming.

 

[EarthDog]

65W 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..

doubtful...

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

No 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.

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

Why 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.

because now, few people need that many cores and is still 'improvement'over 9700k.

 

[MikeZTM]

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

If you throw out gaming then yes.
For pure gaming performance we already see regression from 8086k now.

doubtful...

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

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

Intel brought Thermal Velocity Boost to desktop. On laptop TVB means the rated maximum boost will only work if temperature is lower than 50 degrees Celsius.
So yes it is a much shorter than a blink of an eye.

10c/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.

First 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.

 

[EarthDog]

Intel brought Thermal Velocity Boost to desktop.

This is confirmed or?????

 

[MikeZTM]

This is confirmed or?????

I 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.

 

[EarthDog]

I 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.

I'll wait and see.

 

[MrAMD]

First 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.

Reading comprehension problems? Literally said wish my Z390 mobo would work with it. Obviously meaning it won't..
9900KS > everything else gaming. Yes even the 8086k. The 9900k/ks have higher clock ceilings. I'm running a 9900k myself at 5.2GHz all-core, 24/7.

 

[phanbuey]

Why 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.

Without 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.

 

[Ruru]

Reminds me when people bought i7-2600Ks and turned the HT off..

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

 

[Valantar]

Sure, 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.

You're kind of right, though not necessarily about efficiency - the refinements to the 14nm process have mainly focused on clock scaling, not efficiency. Some of the optimizations needed to make higher clocks run stable end up consuming (slightly) more power, partly by designing for running at higher voltages to stabilize higher clocks. Remember, getting a 6700K to 5GHz was pretty much impossible. Then of course there's the frequency and power consideration missing from your illustration of scaling: the 10900K doesn't just add 6 cores to a 6700K, it also adds a full gigahertz to the boost clock, with all the added power draw that brings. Of course all core boost is much lower, but that's how thermal and power limitations work. I would expect 4-core boost for this to (far) exceed the 6700K, just like on the 9900K.

7700K 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.

Which makes complete sense seeing how the first two had 4 cores in their ~95W thermal envelopes while the following ones added two per round. More cores at the same power = lower clocks. Or, in this case, more cores with even more power = still lower clocks. Intel has squeezed an astounding amount out of their 14nm process, but it truly is time to put it out to pasture.

 

[JackCarver]

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.

Depends of the game as there are games out there which perform better on 9900k. 8086 is only 6 Core

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

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

 

[cucker tarlson]

Without 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.

View attachment 144846

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.

hitman 1 is very much latency and single thread dependent,pretty much a rarity in modern games.

Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake | PurePC.pl

Test procesora Intel Core i5-8600K - Rzeźnik zwany Coffee Lake (strona 37) Test procesorów Intel Core i5-8600K vs Ryzen 5 1600, czyli pojedynek sześciordzeniowych modeli. Jak jest wydajność Core i5-8600K? Do ilu się podkręca? Czy jest opłacalny?

www.purepc.pl

 

[Nihilus]

Meanwhile the R9 3900 non-x runs 12 cores at 3.1 ghz at the same 65w tdp.

 

[Melvis]

So 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.......

 

[Ruru]

So 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.......

More cores is better in the view of marketing. There's still so much people who doesn't understand that much about computers, so more is better, of course!

Brings me back to the days when more VRAM was better and Pentium 4 was better than Athlon XP/64 because of the higher clock speed..

 

[EarthDog]

Reminds me when people bought i7-2600Ks and turned the HT off..

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

lol... but this is a bit different. You are paying less for less.

 

[Steevo]

700Mhz base clock, but 7Ghz for half a second with one core boost!!!

 

[phanbuey]

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

The futureproofing thing almost never works out IMO -- sometimes - but very rare. - the only time it was REALLY spot on is when we first went dual core and the game got it's own core, but since then, it's been taking forever for games to use more threads and clocks/cache/memory have reigned supreme.

We said it about the Q6600 (oh get that quad in the future games will use more cores) - but dual cores were still the best for gaming, then the 1060T Phenom then 2600K, r7 1700, etc. etc. - basically 4 c / 4t thread CPUs really only started to show real limits in 2015, with the i5 4t still being the optimal gaming choice. Right now 6t is starting to show it's age, but I think it will be another few years before 8t/10t/12t starts to really limit anything, by then you're on to more cores and completely different tech anyways.

You may be right though - the 9700K is a little weird with it's frame pacing and sometimes has issues in some games due to the high performing core/ low thread count combo (red dead, GTA 4, farcry 5).

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

2.5 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.

what makes you think they havent?