Wednesday, January 1st 2020

Core i9-10900K up to 30% Faster than i9-9900K: Intel

Intel's upcoming Core i9-10900K desktop processor is up to 30 percent faster than the Core i9-9900K according to the company, which put out a performance guidance slide that got leaked to the web. Based on the 14 nm "Comet Lake-S" silicon and built for the new LGA1200 platform (Intel 400-series chipset motherboards); the i9-10900K is a 10-core/20-thread processor that leverages increased TDP headroom of 125 W to sustain higher clock-speeds than 9th generation "Coffee Lake Refresh," while also offering a 25% increase in processing muscle over the i9-9900K, thanks to the two additional CPU cores.

In its performance guidance slide, Intel shows the i9-10900K scoring 30% more than the i9-9900K in SPECint_rate_base2006_IC16.0. There's also a 25% boost in floating-point performance, in SPECfp_rate_base2006_IC16.0, which roughly aligns with the additional core count, as both these tests are multi-threaded. Other noteworthy results include a 26% gain in Cinebench R15, and 10% in SYSMark 2014 SE. In tests that don't scale with cores, Intel appears to rely entirely on the increased clock-speeds and improved boosting algorithm to eke out performance gains in the low-to-mid single-digit percentages. Intel is introducing a new clock-speed boosting technology called Thermal Velocity Boost, which can dial up clock-speeds of the i9-10900K up to 5.30 GHz.
Sources: ITHome, Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

143 Comments on Core i9-10900K up to 30% Faster than i9-9900K: Intel

#26
JackCarver
There is no clear answer which cpu is better, Intel or AMD. Before Ryzen the answer was clear Intel but now it depends on use case. For gamer I think Intel is the best choice and 10c/20t are more than enough for this use case. For Productivity I would choose AMD.
Posted on Reply
#27
john_
londiste
For some reason everyone expects security fixes in hardware to affect performance. They don't, that is the whole point - issues fixed in hardware means precisely that there is no performance difference.
No, you just think it wrong. If there are extra hardware security fixes in 10900K that are not in 9900K, then 10900K should show some difference compared to 9900K. No one says that hardware security fixes will improve performance, only that software security fixes on the 9900K have a negative impact on performance. If 10900K had hardware security fixes in place of software security fixes, the difference in performance should have been obvious, even without IPC improvements.

JackCarver
There is no clear answer which cpu is better, Intel or AMD. Before Ryzen the answer was clear Intel but now it depends on use case. For gamer I think Intel is the best choice and 10c/20t are more than enough for this use case. For Productivity I would choose AMD.
It's clear as day which processor is better. With AMD you get much better multithreading performance, a more modern platform and also a platform that will have at least one more upgrade option, Ryzen 4000. Even without the 4000 series, a 16 core processor is available as an option today. This will never happen in the Intel mainstream platform.

Intel is giving you marginal higher single core performance IF you go out and buy a high end motherboard and an expensive cooling solution to throw on the chip. And of course we have to conveniently ignore the much higher power consumption and the almost certain possibility to learn about more Intel security vulnerabilities in the near future.
Posted on Reply
#28
phill
XL-R8R
Maybe someone else has already posted this... but:



So... we should take from this, that the 10900K is actually only 5% faster... the sad part is, the 4.8GHz clock speed of the newer part vs 4.6GHz for the 9900k..... a reduction of 5% from 4.8GHz puts you at 4.56GHz..... so with 2 extra cores, 4 extra threads and a bump in effect base clock... I would have expected more than 5%(30%??) improvements overall.

Intel do have some funny press announcements recently.
I was going to see whether or not anyone picked up on the 2 extra cores etc but I'm not sure why Intel would say we have a massive performance increase.... I mean how dumb??!

Still worth a giggle I guess :)
Posted on Reply
#29
londiste
R0H1T
Intel's HT isn't as good as AMD's SMT implementation.
Gets offtopic but I wonder why is that. Have you seen any good articles about why that is the case?

Threading and frontend should not be that much different. Intel does appear to have more load/store but actual compute is the key to SMT. My bet would be on AMD's much cleaner execution stage setup. They have more execution units that are far more specific in what they do. Intel has a couple powerful ones but the management to get the stuff efficiently into these must be pretty crazy.
- Zen2 has 4 INT ALUs (with slightly varying capabilities) and 4 FP ALUs (2 FMA/FMUL and 2 FADD) plus some AGU/Load/Store stuff.
- Coffee Lake has 4 execution pipes with strange range of capabilities. One that can do everything (INT, FP, both INT/FP Vector etc), second can do a little less and remaining two are largely INT stuff.

What AMD said and went for with Bulldozer with regards to execution units sounds true here - FP is less critical than INT. The moment FP is used and used heavily, Intel's scheduler will need to make hard choices. This is simplified but while Zen can do 4 INT and 2 FP instructions (or 4 in case of 2 FMA and 2 FADD) at once, Coffee Lake has to choose whether it does 4 INT, 3 INT+1 FP or 2 INT + 2 FP.

john_
No, you just think it wrong. If there are extra hardware security fixes in 10900K that are not in 9900K, then 10900K should show some difference compared to 9900K. No one says that hardware security fixes will improve performance, only that software security fixes on the 9900K have a negative impact on performance. If 10900K had hardware security fixes in place of software security fixes, the difference in performance should have been obvious, even without IPC improvements.
If you look at the link, 9900K R0 stepping has everything but TAA and V3a already fixed in hardware. P0 stepping lacks MDS fixes.

phill
I was going to see whether or not anyone picked up on the 2 extra cores etc but I'm not sure why Intel would say we have a massive performance increase.... I mean how dumb??!
Sure they did. John_ even pointed out exactly that.
25% performance increase is the baseline expectation (10 cores is 125% of 8 cores). Some of the tests rely on single/fewer cores resulting in no real performance increase.

john_
a more modern platform and also a platform that will have at least one more upgrade option, Ryzen 4000.
This is probably the first time the longer-term platform argument is not true with Ryzens. AM4 is expected to get Ryzen 4000 but AMD has not even given hints about what happens after that. They have said AM4 will last to 2020. Intel's sockets have been very predictible - 2 CPU generations per socket. Which in a weird way puts whatever socket 10-series will come out for, on par with AM4 at this point in its life cycle.
Posted on Reply
#30
john_
phill
I was going to see whether or not anyone picked up on the 2 extra cores etc but I'm not sure why Intel would say we have a massive performance increase.... I mean how dumb??!

Still worth a giggle I guess :)
Intel will throw that 30% in their advertisements and OEMs will also use that 30% in their advertisements. People don't have the time to investigate what that 30% is. And neither we do in everything we buy. Do we really go into technical details when buying a new refrigerator for example? We might know why CPU A is way better than CPU B. But will we go out and invest hours, days, months to learn about refrigerators? We will just do a quick google search, find a review that says that "model A is great" and go out and buy model A. The same will happen with the new Intel CPUs. Some might search for reviews, and some will end up in an Intel friendly review that will be saying them that the new Intel CPU is the best Intel CPU ever for the mainstream platform. The end. Product sold.
Posted on Reply
#31
JackCarver
This is probably the first time the longer-term platform argument is not true with Ryzens. AM4 is expected to get Ryzen 4000 but AMD has not even given hints about what happens after that. They have said AM4 will last to 2020.
The next platform will be AM5 in 2021 with DDR5 RAM and Ryzen 5000. So with AM4 there is only one upgrade left, Ryzen 4000.
It's clear as day which processor is better.
Not in gaming...that's what I said.
IF you go out and buy a high end Motherboard
You get an Intel high end Mainboard for the same Price as an X570 middle end mainboard
Posted on Reply
#32
phill
john_
Intel will throw that 30% in their advertisements and OEMs will also use that 30% in their advertisements. People don't have the time to investigate what that 30% is. And neither we do in everything we buy. Do we really go into technical details when buying a new refrigerator for example? We might know why CPU A is way better than CPU B. But will we go out and invest hours, days, months to learn about refrigerators? We will just do a quick google search, find a review that says that "model A is great" and go out and buy model A. The same will happen with the new Intel CPUs. Some might search for reviews, and some will end up in an Intel friendly review that will be saying them that the new Intel CPU is the best Intel CPU ever for the mainstream platform. The end. Product sold.
I'd like to hope that they can read and see 9900k = 8 cores, 10900k = 10 cores lol :) But we'll move on :)
Posted on Reply
#33
john_
JackCarver
Not in gaming...that's what I said.
Yes, even in gaming. With an AMD you lose how much? From 0%-10% in 1080p? Up to 5% in 1440p? Up to 2% in 4K? And those differences with a 2080Ti probably.

So you go out and buy an Intel processor because reviews show you that the top Intel CPU, under the best cooling solution, on an expensive high end motherboard in a case with plenty of air flow, while paired with an RTX 2080 Ti is 5%-10% on average faster than the 3900X at 1080p? And that's while ignoring power consumption because power consumption is important only when AMD CPUs are less efficient.

What about a typical system with a mid range motherboard, mid range air cooling, probably an RTX 2070S or 5700XT at best, in a case with mediocre air flow running games at 1440p? What is the difference in games there? And can you really see it and feel it in games?

phill
I'd like to hope that they can read and see 9900k = 8 cores, 10900k = 10 cores lol :) But we'll move on :)
Yes they will see it and they will say "10 cores much faster than 8 cores"...... IN EVERYTHING. ;)
Posted on Reply
#34
londiste
john_
Yes, even in gaming. With an AMD you lose how much? From 0%-10% in 1080p? Up to 5% in 1440p? Up to 2% in 4K? And those differences with a 2080Ti probably.

So you go out and buy an Intel processor because reviews show you that the top Intel CPU, under the best cooling solution, on an expensive high end motherboard in a case with plenty of air flow, while paired with an RTX 2080 Ti is 5%-10% on average faster than the 3900X at 1080p? And that's while ignoring power consumption because power consumption is important only when AMD CPUs are less efficient.

What about a typical system with a mid range motherboard, mid range air cooling, probably an RTX 2070S or 5700XT at best, in a case with mediocre air flow running games at 1440p? What is the difference in games there? And can you really see it and feel it in games?
In the other camp you can also go and buy 9400F for 150€$. If Intel puts 10400(F) price (now with HT) at the same spot, AMD has a problem.

AMD power consumption wins are at 8 cores or more. 6-core CPUs are not doing too well. There is a baseline higher power consumption of +10W (compared to both Intel's 9000 series and Ryzen 2000 series) and scaling kind of helps but not completely. If I remember correctly in TPU CPU reviews, 8700K puts up hell of a fight to 3600/3600X that includes power consumption/efficiency. It is worth noting here that 8700K does indeed have all the software mitigation problems right now.
Posted on Reply
#35
Zach_01
JackCarver
The next platform will be AM5 in 2021 with DDR5 RAM and Ryzen 5000. So with AM4 there is only one upgrade left, Ryzen 4000.
Still better than Intel with 0 upgrade path on worst overall platform.

JackCarver
You get an Intel high end Mainboard for the same Price as an X570 middle end mainboard
With 0 upgrade path, power hungry CPUs that need professional cooling, a whole list of security holes, and just 10% gaming benefits with a 2080Ti and loosing up to 50% in everything else...

Intel is just struggling right and (and regurgitate same things, from struggling?) and we as users hope to get it together and show some real competition soon.
Posted on Reply
#36
john_
londiste
In the other camp you can also go and buy 9400F for 150€$. If Intel puts 10400(F) price (now with HT) at the same spot, AMD has a problem.

AMD power consumption wins are at 8 cores or more. 6-core CPUs are not doing too well. There is a baseline higher power consumption of +10W (compared to both Intel's 9000 series and Ryzen 2000 series) and scaling kind of helps but not completely. If I remember correctly in TPU CPU reviews, 8700K puts up hell of a fight to 3600/3600X that includes power consumption/efficiency. It is worth noting here that 8700K does indeed have all the software mitigation problems right now.
I understand your point but I am feeling you are doing a common mistake. You search for one example, let's say the 10400(F) and then try to come to a general conclusion based on that one example.
Posted on Reply
#37
londiste
Zach_01
Still better than Intel with 0 upgrade path on worst overall platform.
Intel's socket history on desktop is quite predictible. A socket houses 2 generations of CPUs and lasts about 2 years.
2011-2012: s1155 - Sandy Bridge (2000) and Ivy Bridge (3000)
2013-2014: s1150 - Haswell (4000) and Broadwell (5000)
2015-2017: s1151 - Skylake (6000) and Kaby Lake (7000)
2018-2019: s1151v2 - Coffee Lake (8000) and Coffee Lake refresh (9000)
john_
I understand your point but I am feeling you are doing a common mistake. You search for one example, let's say the 10400(F) and then try to come to a general conclusion based on that one example.
We have no price reference other than 9000 series for now. Intel is probably screwed in 8-10 core space primarily due to power issues but 6-core CPUs are competitively in a pretty nice position if priced correctly. 9400F is simply put the best bang-for-buck gaming CPU today, there is no contest. What it lacks is futureproofing both due to lack of HT and platform. 10400F can change both of these. 9600K is currently at ~220€ with the same problems. Again, 10600K can get HT and competitive enough platform and should perform close enough to 3600/3600X in production while being faster in games.

We enthusiasts like our powerful CPUs but majority of the people do not need or want an expensive CPU. Today, the best bang-for-buck CPU - in new prices, not accounting for the EOL sales of Ryzen 2000 series - is Ryzen 5 3600. This is all about the 200+-50€ price range that has been midrange for a long time and sells a lot. A few years back Intel got a lot or criticism for 300€ i7 CPUs and much more justified criticism about the 500€ 9900K. The market has not changed but our perception of it has, making new price points seem normal. This really is not normal for a layperson who wants a good enough or bang-for-buck computer.
Posted on Reply
#38
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
R-T-B
And AMD is using better glue? What is your point here? This is just as valid a criticism as Intel calling Ryzen "glued together."
AMD has does multiple iterations of their glue and it's working out pretty well at this point. Cooper Lake "MCM" is just a modern day Pentium D.
Posted on Reply
#39
Midiamp
Intel i3-9100F and i5-9400F have been keeping their ship afloat in my country. Aggressively priced and got performance to match, not so much on the i7 and the i9 end.

Not so sure about that 30% performance increase will come for free, especially with that 250 watt max TDP. I'm not into watercooling of any kind, and I already consider my 3700X as hot.

Still, I bought the AMD because I believe Intel needs a competition. I'm in the position now hoping that Intel will clean up their mess and be the leader in computing solution once again... Because AMD now have the capability to match it, which in the end, we as the consumer will win with the available solutions.
Posted on Reply
#40
TheDeeGee
Is that with or without the security fixes?
Posted on Reply
#41
JackCarver
And can you really see it and feel it in games?
That's nature of Benchmarks, isn't it? Can you feel the few ms a Ryzen 3900X compresses a file faster than an Intel 9900K?

You can look at the 3900X Review, it got beaten over all games relative Performance by my old 8700K. But when it comes to pricing a german Hardware dealer asks the following Prices:

- Ryzen 3700X 325,90€/Intel i7 9700K 379,90€
- Asrock Taichi X570 305,90€/Asrock Z390 Taichi 232,45€

The Ryzen System costs you 631,80€/The Intel System costs you 612,35€
So the Intel System is cheaper and it beats the Ryzen System in games by nearly 10%. So if your System is a gaming rig, what would you choose?
With 0 upgrade path, power hungry CPUs that need professional cooling, a whole list of security holes, and just 10% gaming benefits with a 2080Ti and loosing up to 50% in everything else...
You can cool it with a good air cooler or an AiO, no custom Loop or similar necessary here. 10% gaming benefit over all cards
Posted on Reply
#42
Zach_01
JackCarver
- Ryzen 3700X 325,90€/Intel i7 9700K 379,90€
- Asrock Taichi X570 305,90€/Asrock Z390 Taichi 232,45€

The Ryzen System costs you 631,80€/The Intel System costs you 612,35€
So the Intel System is cheaper and it beats the Ryzen System in games by nearly 10%. So if your System is a gaming rig, what would you choose?
Buy the 3600/3600X, save a 100€, have about the same gaming performance or use the 100€ for better GPU and send that Intel 9700K home...

It’s really that simple!
Posted on Reply
#43
Tomorrow
JackCarver
That's nature of Benchmarks, isn't it? Can you feel the few ms a Ryzen 3900X compresses a file faster than an Intel 9900K?
And can you feel the few frames of difference Intel has vs AMD in games assuming you are using the same GPU?
When it comes to compression and especially decompression Ryzen beats Intel by a lot. The bigger the archive being decompressed for example the bigger the difference. Few ms is far from true.
JackCarver
You can look at the 3900X Review, it got beaten over all games relative Performance by my old 8700K.
For gaming 3600 is good enough and pretty much as fast as 8700K.
JackCarver
The Ryzen System costs you 631,80€/The Intel System costs you 612,35€
So the Intel System is cheaper and it beats the Ryzen System in games by nearly 10%. So if your System is a gaming rig, what would you choose?
You forget to factor in a cooling solution for the Intel system. Ryzen already includes a cooler. Include even a 20€ budget cooler and you have price parity with X570 being a more modern platform. Plus thanks to not limiting compatibility to one chipset it's possible to get B450 for less 1/3rd the price of X570 if the user does not need PCIe 4.0 and put that saving toward a class higher GPU instead.

So which one would i buy if i had to?

9700K+Z390+Cooler+ let's say 1660S.
Or 3700X+B450+5700.
or even 3600+B450+2070S

Assuming the price will be the same the AMD system will be faster thanks to a faster GPU.
People argue over how much a CPU affect framerates. Guys - a GPU is still the #1 when it comes to gaming.
So if AMD offers good enough performance at significantly lower prices that allows the user to get a faster GPU.

9700K and 9900K make sense only if you already have the fastest card and want those few extra frames at the top end.
For most users AMD makes tons more sense.

Besides would you buy Ryzen - a CPU that is faster at everything except gaming (losing 5-20% in edge cases in 1080p with 2080Ti) or would you buy Intel - a CPU that is great only at gaming (losing 20-100% in everything else that needs cores).

To me the choice is clear - AMD. A more user friendly platform with upgrade options that excels at nearly everything instead of being great at only one thing.
Posted on Reply
#44
hat
Enthusiast
R-T-B
And AMD is using better glue? What is your point here? This is just as valid a criticism as Intel calling Ryzen "glued together."
Maybe Infinity Fabric is better glue than whatever Intel does when more than one die is present on the same substrate? Just speculating on this one. Infinity Fabric is baked in to the core Zen design... even on single CCX chips, it still gets used for the cores to communicate with the separate chipset portion of the processor. Intel puts everything on a single piece of silicon so you don't need an interconnect system... until you make a chip with multiple dies. Their system for this, I'm assuming, is largely inferior to AMD's implementation because until very recently nobody was buying processors with heaps of cores unless they were in the server space, where latency and per thread performance wasn't as important as having a ton of cores. Thanks to AMD, the core wars have now truly begun, as well as looking for the most performance per core we can get... at least outside of the server space. AMD started this war, so they have a leg up at the moment. It's going to be interesting to see what Intel comes up with once they get out of the lake, and it will be equally as interesting to see what AMD has at that time.

Intel is really in a sad state at the moment. Their 10nm issues are truly unfortunate, I'll give them that, but it seems clear to me they got too comfortable with their lead over AMD when I think about how many iterations of Skylake we've seen at this point. The Zen architecture, and the growing list of *lake security flaws have been around for a while now... and so far we've been shown nothing more than more *lake chips. I don't think they had any plans to move on from *lake any time soon...
Posted on Reply
#45
londiste
There are two somewhat different implementations of IF in Zen, one inside the CPU between CCXs is different from the one used between dies. IF in the implementation it is used between dies in Zen CPUs it seems to be roughly on par with UPI.

Intel's counterpart to IF is UPI. By the way, both are used in pretty much the same way in multi-socket/CPU systems. There is a reason EPYCs top out at 2 socket configurations and while marketing says this is market optimization and best most optimal section of the market, the actual reason is purely technical - with the amount of dies EPYCs use there are not enough to facilitate the links between separate CPUs in optimal manner.
Posted on Reply
#46
cucker tarlson
IF is more universal,AMD are using them to connect same,functional dies.
what Intel is developing with their EIMB is different,separate modules working together as one cpu.
Posted on Reply
#47
KarymidoN
Hmmm lemme guess. up to 30%, but didn't you guys add 2 extra cores (4t)? and this new plataform needs a new mobo, and after that theres no upgrade path? so new cpu in the future, new mobo in the future right? yeah, no thanks mate.
Posted on Reply
#48
londiste
cucker tarlson
IF is more universal,AMD are using them to connect same,functional dies.
what Intel is developing with their EIMB is different,separate modules working together as one cpu.
You are confusing different things.
- IF and UPI are interconnects, basically a logical/electrical specification of the connection. Whether IF is more universal has little bearing in this context.
- EMIB is a physical, packaging solution. using a silicon substrate isntead of PCB traces for connecting two dies which has multiple advantages, primarily concerning power and speed. EMIB is in the middle of tracing over PCB and having a full interposer.
Posted on Reply
#49
cucker tarlson
KarymidoN
Hmmm lemme guess. up to 30%, but didn't you guys add 2 extra cores (4t)? and this new plataform needs a new mobo, and after that theres no upgrade path? so new cpu in the future, new mobo in the future right? yeah, no thanks mate.
same number of upgrades as ryzen 3000 owners at this point.
and same type too.tweaked 14nm vs tweaked 7nm.
more for amd to squeeze out from 7nm+ than for Intel to gain from another 14nm revision,same as a better IMC on ryzen 4000 would benefit IF speeds.
Still,the path is mostly the same.

londiste
You are confusing different things.
- IF and UPI are interconnects, basically a logical/electrical specification of the connection. Whether IF is more universal has little bearing in this context.
- EMIB is a physical, packaging solution. using a silicon substrate isntead of PCB traces for connecting two dies which has multiple advantages, primarily concerning power and speed. EMIB is in the middle of tracing over PCB and having a full interposer.
was that developed for core+vega apus only ? seems wasteful.
Posted on Reply
#50
londiste
cucker tarlson
was that developed for core+vega apus only ? seems wasteful.
No. Remember that this is a packaging thing. You can use it to route any traces or connection over it. For example, AMD could route IF over EMIB faster and more power efficiently than current CPU packaging. TSMC is developing similar solutions so that might/will come to pass at one point.

It is likely that APUs with Vega were a kind of mass-production test of sorts. In these APUS, EMIB was used for GPU-HBM connection, meaning connecting the very wide memory bus from GPU to HBM without having a full interposer.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment