Support NeoGAF

[llien]

"The best CPU for 1080p gaming with 3080Ti" inbound.
The hottest consumer 14nm(++++) chip money can buy, literally.

Intel's 10th generation Core "Comet Lake-S" desktop processor series inches chose to its probable April 2020 launch. Along the way we get this fascinating leak of the company's Core i7-10700K desktop processor, which could become a go-to chip for gamers if its specifications and pricing hold up. Thai PC enthusiast TUM_APISAK revealed what could be a Futuremark SystemInfo screenshot of the i7-10700K which confirms its clock speeds - 3.80 GHz nominal, with an impressive 5.30 GHz Turbo Boost. Intel is probably tapping into the series' increased maximum TDP of 125 W to clock these chips high across the board.

The Core i7-10700K features 8 cores, and HyperThreading enables 16 threads. It also features 16 MB of shared L3 cache. In essence, this chip has the same muscle as the company's current mainstream desktop flagship, the i9-9900K, but demoted to the Core i7 brand extension. This could give it a sub-$400 price, letting it compete with the likes of AMD's Ryzen 7 3800X and possibly even triggering a price-cut on the 3900X. The i7-10700K in APISAK's screenshot is shown running on an ECS Z490H6-A2 motherboard, marking the company's return to premium Intel chipsets. ECS lacks Z390 or Z370 based motherboards in its lineup, and caps out at B360.

TPU

 

[stranno]

Prepare your delid tool.

 

[reconminicon]

With a TDP of 0w this will pay for itself. Intel just knocked it out the park.

 

[GymWolf]

Wait a moment, the simple boost without need for overclock is fucking 5,3 ghz?

 

[DGrayson]

The wattage of cpus is out of control now.

 

[Insane Metal]

8 cores, no? 10 cores will be The 10900k I think.

 

[Griffon]

 

[V2Tommy]

Prepare your delid tool.

They’re already soldered and so was the 9700K/9900K.

 

[KungFucius]

Fuck the 14nm ++-+/* node and go straight to 7nm Intel if you want me to be excited about your CPUs.

 

[Myths]

9900K for a while longer but the 3089TI...

 

[stranno]

They’re already soldered and so was the 9700K/9900K.

They can be delidded too. Rockit 89 works perfectly fine (9900K here).

 

[kraspkibble]

They’re already soldered and so was the 9700K/9900K.

you can still delid it though.

i have a 9900K and honestly temperatures are fine unless you're pushing heavy AVX workloads. i had mine hit 100C in stress tests but normal usage + gaming + video editing/rendering the temps are reasonable. my CPU is currently sitting at 26C just browsing and listening to music. in games it sits at about 40-60C depending on the game but usually 40-50C. never goes above ~70C if i'm doing 4K video work. this is with it running at 5.1Ghz

meanwhile my 3700X idles at 35-55C while just browsing. in games it's about 45-55C. in stress tests it still gets quite toasty ... highest temp i saw was 92C. and of course that CPU can only really hit 4.4Ghz...maybe 4.5Ghz if you're lucky.

 

[ZywyPL]

If anything, I'd undervolt and underclock such CPU to have still outstanding performance but dead silent cooling. Because how much (if any) performance gains are there above ~4,5GHz? Just slap a 280/360 AIO on it and you're set a for another decade (or whatever the next-gen consoles will last).

 

[kraspkibble]

Fuck the 14nm ++-+/* node and go straight to 7nm Intel if you want me to be excited about your CPUs.

that's what they are doing, i think. 10nm seems to be just for mobile/low powered chips so they are staying on 14nm for desktop.

when the Lake-series is replaced by the Rapids-series i think that'll be when we get 7nm desktop CPUs (plus DDR5/PCIE5.0). Sapphire Rapids is probably going to be next year.

 

[M1chl]

Reminds me of Pentium 4 netburst shit, until Conroe comes along and wipe the shit out of the old design. I have hard time to cool down R9 3900X on full load OC'd to 4.4Ghz, not really sure what this CPU TDP is.

 

[kraspkibble]

Reminds me of Pentium 4 netburst shit, until Conroe comes along and wipe the shit out of the old design. I have hard time to cool down R9 3900X on full load OC'd to 4.4Ghz, not really sure what this CPU TDP is.

a 3900X is a 105W TDP.

or if you mean the new Intel. i think the 10700K is a 65W and the i9-10900K will be 125W. The current 9900KS is a 127W. A 9900K is 95W.

Intel/AMD TDP is different. I think Intel TDP is rated at base clock. so a 10700K will be 65W at 3.8Ghz. a 10900K will be 125W at 3.7Ghz.

AMD rates TDP at their boost so a 3700X is 65W at 4.4Ghz. a 3900X is 105W at 4.6Ghz.

 

[M1chl]

a 3900X is a 105W TDP.

or if you mean the new Intel. i think the 10700K is a 65W and the i9-10900K will be 125W. The current 9900KS is a 127W. A 9900K is 95W.

3900x stock is 105W, while OC it's drawing around 135W (all cores OC'ed no precision boost), if this is should reach similar clocks I can see it being like 150W...

 

[kraspkibble]

3900x stock is 105W, while OC it's drawing around 135W (all cores OC'ed no precision boost), if this is should reach similar clocks I can see it being like 150W...

yeah well if you're OC'ing it then it will go higher.

a 9900K can pull ~250W when OC'd.

 

[LoganKnight4949]

They can be delidded too. Rockit 89 works perfectly fine (9900K here).

you can still delid it though.

I think he's referring to the fact that you don't really need to delid them anymore.

They used to use a shitty thermal paste between the chip and IHS, these days they use a high quality soldered metal for better head dissipation.

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that delidding is kind of pointless on these nowadays.

 

[Elektro Demon]

I like the jump from 14nm ++ to 0nm. It really shows how crucial that jump was in terms of power consumption.

 

[M1chl]

yeah well if you're OC'ing it then it will go higher.

a 9900K can pull ~250W when OC'd.

Well 250W....well that's something.

 

[Screamer-RSA]

Wait a moment, the simple boost without need for overclock is fucking 5,3 ghz?

Most probably single core max boost. All core probably ~5GHz

 

[kraspkibble]

Well 250W....well that's something.

255W to be exact. That's at 5.1Ghz with 1.375V.

 

[M1chl]

255W to be exact. That's at 5.1Ghz with 1.375V.

Well assuming that it's same system, CPU "only" draws 139W more than i5-8400, so in total 204W assuming that i5 draws 65W. Since it's "system power consuption", not CPU consumption : )

 

[Rbk_3]

5.3 on how many cores? What is the all core boost?

 

[GymWolf]

Most probably single core max boost. All core probably ~5GHz

still impressive isn't?

 

[kingbean]

I can only get my 9700k up to 5.1Ghz all cores. So if this can boost to 5.3Ghz all core that'd be really impressive... for such an old tech.

 

[clem84]

Even if someone were to not completely boost it to 5.3, this CPU will still be great for emulation.

 

[Kenpachii]

Kinda pointless, is probably going to be one or two cores, lets see first how that chip holds up with a overclock on all cores and even then 200mhz more over 9900k isn't going to be that much interesting.
We need 7ghz cpu's.

255W to be exact. That's at 5.1Ghz with 1.375V.

System power consumption mate, thats a entire system running.

9900k never used more then 125w here i think, i never saw it go up mostly it sits at ~70w usage and that's at max voltage the chip can have.

 

[Dennisonr]

Here is CPU ONLY power draw. You guys can see that Intel is a power hog. I imagine this CPU would be 300 watts or more.

Here is another comparing against recent AMD 3000 series CPU.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/3yBUKu5yiR7f48jRk6zBZf-2560-80.png

 

[rofif]

If they price it higher than 3700x then why bother

 

[Wizav]

Just bought 9700k

But wth.. can't wait forever

 

[Screamer-RSA]

still impressive isn't?

It is... but a 9900k all core 5Ghz oc is quite east to get. What would be more impressive if its 9900k performance or better for $400 but that remains to be seen.

 

[LOLCats]

At 0nm, Moore's law is really dead.

 

[kingbean]

Just bought 9700k

But wth.. can't wait forever

Nothing wrong with that chip.

 

[LOLCats]

If they price it higher than 3700x then why bother

...but intel da best 4 gaming !!