Intel Core i9-10900K

[W1zzard]

Intel's Core i9-10900K achieves highly impressive gaming performance thanks to its 10-core/20-thread design with up to 5.3 GHz. We compare three configurations in our 10900K review: all stock, boost limits removed, and a manual 5.1 GHz all-core overclock.

Show full review

 

[Br0nnOfTheBlackwater]

What's the difference between 3.7/5.3 and max turbo?

 

[Vayra86]

310W peak. Something about comets and craters, funny twist, obligatory lol

Other than that, yeah. Nice heater, pretty useless otherwise. Its actually only usable at stock, and you do get most of the performance that way. It is competitive on price if you consider the competition.
But... 310W peak. Hell no. The first sunny day your OC falls apart, first heat wave you've got a cataclysmic event in your case. Staying FAR away.

This does confirm Comet Lake is only competitive if priced right. Might as well buy previous gen if cheaper.

Turbo Boost Max... Oh Intel... please, just don't add Ultra come gen 11 please. We get it, its a boost.

 

[KarymidoN]

Thanks for the Review @W1zzard . Amazing work as always.
After reading it some things come to mind... this is clearly a stopgap for Intel, cause in a few months AMD is gonna trounce it with ZEN3 and Ryzen 4000 desktop chips... it already looks bad cause AMD is already giving discounts on the 3900X (USD 389.99 on Microcenter)... on a cheaper plataform and with upgrade guaranteed to Next gen while consuming less power.... sheesh.
Once you factor in the CPU Price + Cooler + New Motherboard you already in the 800~1000 USD margin... that's insane.

 

[bug]

In some ways, this is Prescott 2.0.

 

[W1zzard]

What's the difference between 3.7/5.3 and max turbo?

3.7/5.3 is with the default power limits active (PL1 = 125 W, PL2 = 250 W, etc).
"Max Turbo" is with those limits removed

 

[Cobain]

Amazing job, was waiting for this review ! It seems the i5 10600k is the real winner for high end gaming rigs? 260€ and almost same performance as the other top of the line Intel CPUs.

Was also shocked to see differences up to 30% on some gaming scenarios, compared to AMD, damn that's a lot imo.

The total cost is too much tho, I would get a 10600k for Pure high refresh gaming machine, 3900x por serious productivity, 3600 for good all arounder budget machine.

 

[Vayra86]

Amazing job, was waiting for this review ! It seems the i5 10600k is the real winner for high end gaming rigs? 260€ and almost same performance as the other top of the line Intel CPUs.

Was also shocked to see differences up to 30% on some gaming scenarios, compared to AMD, damn that's a lot imo.

The total cost is too much tho, I would get a 10600k for Pure high refresh gaming machine, 3900x por serious productivity, 3600 for good all arounder budget machine.

The only game that is really behind the curve for AMD is Far Cry 5, or did you see any others with substantial gaps? Most others seem to be closing in on margin of error territory. 10 FPS on >150 FPS averages is negligible and you will never see any return of that in a real life scenario. Not in the least because there are other performance limiters even besides the GPU; the new boost tech will quickly destroy the Intel advantage you see here. More load = lower ST perf and clock for clock Ryzen is easily as fast. On the previous gen there were too many 'Far Cry 5'-like examples around. But now? They seem all but gone. So I'm genuinely curious what other games you perceive as problematic / shocking.

I am a 'gaming perf' advocate myself, but nuance must be applied here. It is highly doubtful you will be getting noticeably better gaming perf out of this gen with Intel. And if you do, it will be at increased cost, power usage, heat. Intel is trying hard to top benchmarks here, not create the most usable CPU. Something to keep in mind.

 

[Cobain]

The only game that is really behind the curve for AMD is Far Cry 5, or did you see any others with substantial gaps? Most others seem to be closing in on margin of error territory. 10 FPS on >150 FPS averages is negligible and you will never see any return of that in a real life scenario. Not in the least because there are other performance limiters even besides the GPU; the new boost tech will quickly destroy the Intel advantage you see here. More load = lower ST perf and clock for clock Ryzen is easily as fast.

Sekiro also. And I Said up to, wich means in some cases the difference is lower of course. Let me assure you that on a 165hz monitor I really do notice the difference between 140fps and 110fps. Easily.

Just to be clear, I would never buy 10900k, it has no place imo, but the 10600k is an interesting CPU imo

 

[mrthanhnguyen]

Out of stock everywhere and price gouging on ebay. Mobo is around $100 more expensive. Lumni has oc his 10900k to 5.5ghz on dark z490 with mo-ra3, so expect daily binned chip can hit 5.4-5.5.

 

[W1zzard]

so expect daily binned chip can hit 5.4-5.5.

if my chip can barely hit 5.2 with 1.4 V, then I doubt you'll see that many CPUs with 5.4/5.5

 

[kapone32]

Out of stock everywhere and price gouging on ebay. Mobo is around $100 more expensive. Lumni has oc his 10900k to 5.5ghz on dark z490 with mo-ra3, so expect daily binned chip can hit 5.4-5.5.

Haha for 5 seconds on 1 core.

 

[Vayra86]

Sekiro also. And I Said up to, wich means in some cases the difference is lower of course. Let me assure you that on a 165hz monitor I really do notice the difference between 140fps and 110fps. Easily.

Just to be clear, I would never buy 10900k, it has no place imo, but the 10600k is an interesting CPU imo

Absolutely! But its nothing new, is it? Its just a new type number with some tweaks and high peak temps. I mean, this CPU was essentially already available since the 8700K.

 

[mrthanhnguyen]

Binned chip.

 

[Vayra86]

Binned chip.

Hilarious. Needs best bin and special gear to hit 200mhz over stock turbo. Why even bother... I'll take stock any day of the week, funny how that is the same between Intel and AMD now all of a sudden

 

[W1zzard]

Binned chip.

ah I thought on air cooling

I'll take stock any day of the week, funny how that is the same between Intel and AMD now all of a sudden

indeed

 

[dgianstefani]

can get pretty insane speeds with this chip.

The cooling really isn't that bad as long as you keep the voltages under 1.35v.

Der8auer took another 5-10c off each core by using LM too. So there's potential.

 

[dirtyferret]

Am I the only one who's not impressed with either AMD/Intel sticking as many cores as they can on their CPUs?

 

[Radium69]

What amazes me is that TPU doesnt test gaming with youtube or other apps on the side, eg streaming content. Intel falls flat on its face with this scenario.
I mean, really, you guys review with, and i quote: “application as that better reflects real life”
It’s time to send some old metrics with retirement.

I love the attention to detail TPU does. But in the end, does the 2,4% improvement really matter when tested with “only” gaming, a lot of people use their computer with more than just gaming, eg, gaming with youtube+twitch+spotify etc...

Also i didn't see the comparison about €€€ buying a new platform again and a new cooler (again), and a beefy one at that... idle performance is better due to pcie3 ipresume.
Load however... seems bonkers. Do we really need to give intel such a big praise for this nee processor while it is, in fact, intel pushed into a corner due to fierce competition?

cheers,
A critic reader who lurks for years.
Keep up the good work.

 

[theGryphon]

310W peak. Something about comets and craters, funny twist, obligatory lol

Other than that, yeah. Nice heater, pretty useless otherwise. Its actually only usable at stock, and you do get most of the performance that way. It is competitive on price if you consider the competition.
But... 310W peak. Hell no. The first sunny day your OC falls apart, first heat wave you've got a cataclysmic event in your case. Staying FAR away.

This does confirm Comet Lake is only competitive if priced right. Might as well buy previous gen if cheaper.

Turbo Boost Max... Oh Intel... please, just don't add Ultra come gen 11 please. We get it, its a boost.

How on earth is this "competitive on price if you consider the competition"??

$500 is the tray price and it will not retail at this price. $530 if you're lucky. That makes it 25-30% more expensive than a 3900X!

And that's just the CPU! Add on top the mobo differences plus the cost of extra watts... I mean, come on.

This CPU is for 1) Intel fanbois and 2) gamers with absolutely no concern for money. That's it.

 

[GreiverBlade]

mhhh interesting review thanks

too close to a 3900X less value ... "king of gaming" indeed ... well, if 0.2 to ~ 13 fps when it's already above 100fps for both CPU was a huge gap, i would say "yes" but right now i would just say "meh"
as perf per dollar wise i would not even take the OC 10900K in account only stock and max turbo matter for me, given how my 6600K treated me (aka: rental OC )

i'd wait for the XT refresh and 4X00 line before deciding,
or, since both upgrade would need a full platform refresh, i can take a 3600X, since the 10600K would be 300 chf +, a X570 for the price of that 10900K alone, and upgrade later for a XT or if they lower the 3900X price, because for now it is still 498 chf, to 350 chf (funny how everywhere else the price go down but not where i live ... ahhhh bummer) and then wait till a 4X00

of the pros ... the "Beats AMD 12-core in many lightly threaded apps" is a bit hilarious ... many is rather few ... since in most of them where it is above, the gap between them is ridiculous at best, although being a 10 core it add a bit value on that

still funny how they compete with the previous gen,
the 3900X put more than a fight (granted... it has 2 more core ...) and is "previous" gen (well ...technically 3X00 was 9X00 concurrent ) i see them as equal and since at the value from reviews (aka the price i will never see where i live, or the OC that will never be since review and "OMG [not really] WORLD RECORD!" chips are hand picked ) the 3900X is the winner in that case...

Am I the only one who's not impressed with either AMD/Intel sticking as many cores as they can on their CPUs?

it is needed now ... a bit before it was not really ... why is it an issue for you? streamer need them and more and more games and softwares beneficiate from them even a game that only use 4 core having more is useful, although 6C/12T would probably be enough for me.

 

[W1zzard]

that TPU doesnt test gaming with youtube or other apps on the side, eg streaming content. Intel falls flat on its face with this scenario.

AMD marketing is pushing reviewers hard for that, because it's the only way their cores don't sit idle in games. Do really that many people game and stream at the same time?

 

[WeeRab]

The test setup makes no mention of the cooler used on the test systems.
Was it the Noctua NH-U12 used for the Blender temp test...And was the test conducted on an open test bench?
Also...The 10900k is selling for around the £540-£635 mark (but out of stock) here in the UK. Quite the mark-up
I have to admit though....Powerful chip, even if it makes no sense at all.

 

[dgianstefani]

Testing still doesn't include 1% and 0.1% lows. Shame really since that's where you really see the differences in a CPU throttled game and one that is smooth, regardless of averages.

It's noticable when you do include these results. E.g. the stock 10900k has higher 1% lows than the AMD 3900x average FPS.

 

[W1zzard]

Was it the Noctua NH-U12 used for the Blender temp test...And was the test conducted on an open test bench?

yes to both