• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

News Rumor Hardware Intel Core i9-10900KF 10 Core, 10th Generation Desktop CPU Benchmarks Leak – ALMOST On Par With AMD’s 12 Core Ryzen 9 3900X But 14nm A Troublesome Bet

Elektro Demon

Shits and Giggles
Nov 9, 2019
4,525
7,943
815
Croatia
www.youtube.com
Sup Leonidas Leonidas

https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-10900kf-10-core-10th-gen-desktop-cpu-benchmarks-leak/

The latest set of benchmarks for Intel's Core i9-10900KF, 10th Generation Desktop CPU have been leaked by hardware leaker, Rogame. The latest benchmarks are specifically for the 'KF' version of the chip which would feature a disabled iGPU but would carry the same specifications as the 10th Generation flagship, the Core i9-10900K.

Intel's Core i9-10900KF CPU Benchmarked - Almost on Par With The 12 Core AMD Ryzen 9 3900X But Power Consumption & Thermals Could Spell Trouble For Team Blue
The Intel Core i9-10900KF features 10 cores & 20 threads and just like the Core i9-10900K, it will feature a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.1 GHz. However, using Intel's Turbo Boost Max 3.0 technology, the chip can boost up to 5.2 GHz on a single-core and what's even better is the 4.9 GHz all-core boost. The CPU also carries 16 MB of L3 cache & 4 MB of L2 cache, rounding up for a total of 20 MB of cache available on the die. The package TDP at PL1 (base clock) is rated at 125W but the PL2 or boost state where the chip would be averaging around is the proper variable to use for comparing power consumption numbers of this chip which is reportedly going to break 300W barrier.

The benchmarks show that the Intel Core i9-10900KF scores 12,412 points in the 3DMark Time Spy benchmark. This is slightly slower than the Intel Core i9-10900K benchmarks we saw before which scored 13,142 points. However, the Intel Core i9-10900KF configuration features 16 GB (2x8GB) of DDR4-2400 MHz memory whereas the Intel Core i9-10900K configuration features 64 GB (4x16GB) of DDR4-2666 MHz memory. That's not a huge difference in terms of memory speed but ever bit of ram speed in these scenarios helps out. The AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12 core CPU used for comparison featured a score of 12,857 points with its lower memory configuration of 32 GB (2x16GB) of DDR4-3200 MHz memory.

Following is the test breakdown of all chips that were used for testing:

  • AMD Ryzen 9 3900X (DDR4-3800 / 32 GB) - 13,650
  • AMD Ryzen 9 3900X (DDR4-3400 / 32 GB) - 13,193
  • Intel Core i9-10900K (DDR4-2666 / 64 GB) - 13,142
  • AMD Ryzen 9 3900X (DDR4-3200 / 32 GB) - 12,857
  • Intel Core i9-10900KF (DDR4-2400 / 16 GB) - 12,412
As stated above, the memory configurations are vastly different on each platform and fitted with the proper memory as Intel CPUs tend to support much higher frequency ram, we can see the 10 core, Intel Core i9-10900K/KF chips match or even dethrone the 12 core AMD Ryzen 9 3900X from the $400-$500 US segment, that is if this is the price segment Intel would be placing its 10 core chip at.




From the earlier benchmarks, one can conclude some pros for Intel's and AMD's current generation lineup which are listed below:
Intel's 10th Gen Core Desktop CPU Pros:

  • Higher single-threaded performance
  • Higher Clock Speeds
  • Better Overclocking Capabilities
  • Solid Memory Support
AMD's 3rd Gen Ryzen Desktop CPU Pros:

  • Higher multi-threaded performance
  • More cores/threads/cache
  • 7nm architecture (new features)
  • Impressive value out of the box
  • Single-threaded performance right on par with Intel
  • Run cooler and have lower power consumption
With all of that said, the power consumption and thermal figures will be much higher on Intel's 14nm part whereas AMD's 7nm architecture is much ahead in terms of thermals and power efficiency right now. Industry insiders and motherboard vendors themselves have stated that the Z490 boards are designed specifically for the higher power input of the Comet Lake-S lineup and they have noticed the chips breaking past the 300W barrier.

Several motherboard manufacturers revealed that the ten-core break the 300-watt mark at maximum load. Not surprisingly, the 9900KS already exceeded the 250-watt mark in scenarios of this kind. via Computebase
This is even more apparent in the latest listings for the 10th Generation T-series CPUs in the SiSoftware Sandra benchmark database. The T-series CPUs are TDP optimized, 35W part but benchmarks show that even these 35W figures are taken at the base frequencies with actual power consumption ending up over 100 Watts and closer to the 150W wall. Just for comparison's sake, the following is what the power figures on various 10th Generation Intel desktop CPUs look like as per the SiSoftware benchmark database (via TUM_APISAK):

  • Intel Core i9-10900 10 Core / 20 Thread (65W) - 123.0W
  • Intel Core i9-10900T 10 Core / 20 Thread (35W) - 123.0W
  • Intel Core i7-10700T 8 Core / 16 Thread (35W) - 123.0W
  • Intel Core i5-10500T 6 Core / 12 Thread (35W) - 92.0W
  • Intel Core i3-10100 4 Core / 8 Thread (65W) - 123.0W

The list above shows that most of the T-series parts are ending up with power consumption more than twice as their rated TDPs while the 65W (Non-K) parts end up close to the 2x figure. One thing to note here is that the 123.0W seems to be the limit for the non-K and T-series chips so that's why they are showing a similar number with the only exception being the 10500T which has a 92 Watt power consumption at maximum load. The unlocked part will start at 125W with its base clock and go beyond that when running at higher boost speeds beyond 5.0 GHz, which if sustainable under a longer period of time with better cooling or overclocking, would result in a heavy sum in the power bill.
Pricing would play a major role in deciding the fate of the 10th Generation Comet Lake-S CPU family. With Zen 3 expected later this year and AMD eating up market share in all segments, Intel really needs to rethink their CPU strategy and we hope that they can hit their process roadmap goals on time if they really want to hit AMD back. Intel's 10th Gen Comet Lake-S desktop family and the respective Z490 motherboards are slated for launch in April 2020. It's not just that Intel 14nm is old but by the time Intel manages to just match the Zen 2 CPUs, AMD would be talking about the release of its next Generation parts and with no strong desktop roadmap ahead aside from some rumors of Rocket Lake & Alder Lake being 14nm/10nm backports of next-gen architectures with weird design configurations, Intel's desktop momentum seems to be taking the biggest hit from AMD's Ryzen.

The new 10th Generation processor lineup is rumored to bring significantly lower price points at each CPU segment than the ones we have been getting so far from Intel. This is once again a much-needed push to reclaim some sort of relevance in the mainstream desktop segment where AMD's Ryzen has disrupted the market share and the mind share-alike.
Summary, it sucks.
 

xool

Member
May 29, 2018
1,773
2,138
415
Summary, it sucks.
Performance is good, but power consumption is not, and it sounds like they're literally lying about TDPs .. not good.

How long are Intel going to be stuck on 14nm? Last I heard was 10nm is dead to them and no 7nm until late 2020/2021.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Elektro Demon

Elektro Demon

Shits and Giggles
Nov 9, 2019
4,525
7,943
815
Croatia
www.youtube.com
Performance is good, but power consumption is not, and it sounds like they're literally lying about TDPs .. not good.

How long are Intel going to be stuck on 14nm? Last I heard was 10nm is dead to them and no 7nm until late 2020/2021.
At this point, it seems like they're gonna be on that node forever. And I'm guessing this Corona flu isn't helping either.
 

Leonidas

Member
Mar 6, 2007
2,619
2,905
1,820
If you care about gaming performance Intel is still king, in 2020, still on 14nm.

If you care about value, the best value CPUs are Ryzen 1000 and Ryzen 2000.

Ryzen 3000 is in a middle ground and clocks are atrocious, barely faster than console...
2x the price of 1000/2000 for 10-15% better gaming performance over 1000/2000 = terrible value and not top tier gaming performance.
 

Elektro Demon

Shits and Giggles
Nov 9, 2019
4,525
7,943
815
Croatia
www.youtube.com
If you care about gaming performance Intel is still king, in 2020, still on 14nm.

If you care about value, the best value CPUs are Ryzen 1000 and Ryzen 2000.

Ryzen 3000 is in a middle ground and clocks are atrocious, barely faster than console...
2x the price of 1000/2000 for 10-15% better gaming performance over 1000/2000 = terrible value and not top tier gaming performance.
But that is about to change with the upcoming 4000 series.
 

TheBreezyBB

Neo Member
Jun 12, 2019
44
123
215
If you care about gaming performance Intel is still king, in 2020, still on 14nm.

If you care about value, the best value CPUs are Ryzen 1000 and Ryzen 2000.

Ryzen 3000 is in a middle ground and clocks are atrocious, barely faster than console...
2x the price of 1000/2000 for 10-15% better gaming performance over 1000/2000 = terrible value and not top tier gaming performance.

This will not stay like that for a long time, Intel will be going downhill.

The age of the dinosaur is over.
 

Elektro Demon

Shits and Giggles
Nov 9, 2019
4,525
7,943
815
Croatia
www.youtube.com
So AMD might finally have the performance of a 2018 Intel CPU? How is that exciting?

That reminds me of people getting excited over Vega 64 for matching GTX 1080 performance a year later or Radeon VII almost matching GTX 1080 Ti performance two years too late :messenger_tears_of_joy:
But here's the thing. I'm more then willing to trade 5 to 10 percent of performance for a lower price and a product from a company that doesn't gouge their customers for years and years.
If that makes me a poor commie bastard, well, so be it.
 

nani17

Member
May 3, 2018
1,874
3,603
535
In terms of gaming performance, AMD is still a bit behind and I mean in gaming only for everything else AMD has surpassed them especially in their high-end CPU's

For people like me that only game I'm happy with Intel for now but they have been extremely lazy and a lot of people out there aren't happy with them for those and many other reasons
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elektro Demon

Leonidas

Member
Mar 6, 2007
2,619
2,905
1,820
But here's the thing. I'm more then willing to trade 5 to 10 percent of performance for a lower price and a product from a company that doesn't gouge their customers for years and years.
If that makes me a poor commie bastard, well, so be it.

Then why didn't you trade another 10% performance and save 50% with the 1000/2000 series?

Ryzen 1000/2000 are the best value CPUs today. Ryzen 3000 is abysmal value right now.

The price has come down a little but it's not enough, yet. Maybe when 4000 series comes out Ryzen 3000 will be as good a value as 1000/2000 series...
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Elektro Demon

Elektro Demon

Shits and Giggles
Nov 9, 2019
4,525
7,943
815
Croatia
www.youtube.com
Then why didn't you trade another 10% performance and save 50% with the 1000/2000 series?

Ryzen 1000/2000 are the best value CPUs today. Ryzen 3000 is abysmal value right now.

The price has come down a little but it's not enough, yet. Maybe when 4000 series comes out Ryzen 3000 will be as good a value as 1000/2000 series...
When I bought my 3700x I had a choice. It was priced similarly to the i9 9900k. 9900k was a bit more. Then I looked at the difference in mobo prices. Amd has cheaper good mid range boards.
And I thought I might get a 16c32t cpu some day in the future with the upcoming 4000 series. Cuz you can do that on AM4 AMD platform, which is not something you can do on intel boards.
But to answer your question, I never get last gen parts. If I'm buying a new pc the parts have to be from the current gen.
 
Last edited:

Leonidas

Member
Mar 6, 2007
2,619
2,905
1,820
When I bought my 3700x I had a choice. It was priced similarly to the i9 9900k. 9900k was a bit more. Then I looked at the difference in mobo prices. Amd has cheaper good mid range boards.
And I thought I might get a 16c32t cpu some day in the future with the upcoming 4000 series. Cuz you can do that on AM4 AMD platform, which is not something you can do on intel boards.

Good luck selling the 3700x for pennies on the dollar when 4000 series launches.

A gamer with 9900K has had no reason to upgrade since 2018.

The only gamers who are upgrading thier CPUs are those who aren't already on the top tier and want more performance...
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Elektro Demon

Elektro Demon

Shits and Giggles
Nov 9, 2019
4,525
7,943
815
Croatia
www.youtube.com
Good luck selling the 3700x for pennies on the dollar when 4000 series launches.

A gamer with 9900K has had no reason to upgrade since 2018.

The only gamers who are upgrading thier CPUs are those who aren't already on the top tier and want more performance...
I'm not gonna upgrade. I was just saying how it's good to have an upgrade path/plan in case I have to upgrade.
But seeing the "power" of these new next gen consoles, yeah I think I'm good for a few years.
 

Leonidas

Member
Mar 6, 2007
2,619
2,905
1,820
I'm not gonna upgrade. I was just saying how it's good to have an upgrade path/plan in case I have to upgrade.
But seeing the "power" of these new next gen consoles, yeah I think I'm good for a few years.

I saw your rig in the other thread you're gonna need to make a few upgrades to be on par with series X...
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Elektro Demon

PhoenixTank

Member
Jul 13, 2017
1,370
1,518
705
As far as I know, 11th gen marks their 10nm process for desktop processors. I wouldn't say they can't do it.
Tiger Lake, yes. In theory they could've brought Ice Lake to desktop as well, but it doesn't offer the right improvement versus their 14nm there. Higher IPC but lower peak clocks, lower yields -> smaller chips -> lower core count. Great for mobile, sidegrade for desktop.

Since nobody has really mentioned it: make or break on these Comet Lake parts is the pricing, from where I sit. Hopefully Intel will be reasonably aggressive (but not predatory), leading to price cuts across both vendors, thus making everyone happy? I do have to wonder where in the year these launches are going to hit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elektro Demon
Nov 5, 2016
24,112
47,939
1,215
One Big Room, Full Of Bad Bitches
Not sure if this is new or not but just saw this


An early review of Intel's upcoming Core i9-10900k flagship has leaked out from Teclab @Bilibili (via Videocardz). The review pits the Core i9-10900k against AMD's 3rd Generation Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 9 3950X flagships. The sample tested by Teclab appears to be a retail sample and has a base clock of 3.7 GHz. While the Core i9 10900K has similar performance in gaming tests, it is outclassed by AMD's 3900 and 3950X in pretty much all other benchmarks.

Intel Core i9 10900K Compute Performance: Outclassed by AMD offerings

A summary and translation courtesy of Videocardz:

  • i9 10900K power consumption and temperature are high again, 360 integrated water cooling is the minimum heat dissipation standard
  • Rely on CPU rendering + transcoding applications, or choose Ryzen 9 is stronger
  • Playing games and daily operations Application, the new i9 at 5GHz + clock speed is indeed faster
  • The overclocking performance comparison test of the three processors has been completed, and it will be launched in the near future
  • Finally, correct the memory parameters in the configuration list, AMD X570 part, the frequency is DDR4 -3600 The timing is 18-22-22-42 1T FCLK = 1800
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhoenixTank

onunnuno

Neo Member
Apr 1, 2020
37
51
170
Then why didn't you trade another 10% performance and save 50% with the 1000/2000 series?

If you compare 9900k vs the 3700x the same thing is true. 10% more performance for 50% more the price... but since the box is blue it's worth it?
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
44,609
25,711
1,805
Not sure if this is new or not but just saw this


This is all that a lot of people will care about:

  • Playing games and daily operations Application, the new i9 at 5GHz + clock speed is indeed faster

Still, glad I got a 3900x when it was on sale.
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
24,447
30,606
1,845
This is all that a lot of people will care about:

  • Playing games and daily operations Application, the new i9 at 5GHz + clock speed is indeed faster

Still, glad I got a 3900x when it was on sale.

The problem with that line of thinking is that it's a "for now" kind of situation. Most current games are still very much reliant on single threaded performance but that will change over the next couple of years.

The difference isn't big enough to be worth more money, heat, cooling and the fact that you're getting less performance in anything outside of gaming.
 
Nov 5, 2016
24,112
47,939
1,215
One Big Room, Full Of Bad Bitches
This is all that a lot of people will care about:

  • Playing games and daily operations Application, the new i9 at 5GHz + clock speed is indeed faster

Still, glad I got a 3900x when it was on sale.

I am probably about to upgrade from a 4-5 year old i7 to the 3900x. Got the MOBO already thanks to GHG GHG 's advice and just waiting for the right deal for the CPU
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: GHG

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
44,609
25,711
1,805
The problem with that line of thinking is that it's a "for now" kind of situation. Most current games are still very much reliant on single threaded performance but that will change over the next couple of years.

Even still, 10 cores/20 threads will probably be enough for next gen ports.

The difference isn't big enough to be worth more money, heat, cooling and the fact that you're getting less performance in anything outside of gaming.

Agreed on this.
 

STARSBarry

Gold Member
May 19, 2019
476
948
405
Like... I'm sorry but the fact the 5600x outperforms the prior gen 10900k in gaming while achieving it with almost laptop levels of wattage and thermals makes me look at this entire 11000 series from intel and laugh. There option is bassicaly to remove cores and throw as many Watts as possible at it without it melting, great job...

Considering the 10th gen had less than a year, around 6 months if you discount the paper launch intel just have no idea wtf they are doing, can't wait for the pricing where they literally kill themselves by asking 200+ more than the equivalent AMD chip.