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

#126
RandallFlagg
dirtyferret
Not for $400 but I got my 9700k for under $300 and at microcenter you can get the 9700k for less then $329 and the 8700k for under $300.
You can always find a markdown deal and make false comparison vs current non makred down prices on the competition. Right now at Newegg the Ryzen 5 3600X is $160 less than a 9700K, and the 3600 is $205 less. The 8700K costs more than the 9700k at Newegg.

If you are building a system, that ~$200 is the difference between having a RX 5500XT or 1650 Super and having an RTX 2070 or 5700.

Or it will get you a 2TB SSD. Or, it'll get you a 1TB SSD and take you from a 1650 Super to a 1660 Super. And so on and so forth.
Posted on Reply
#127
Vario
I picked up a 9900K for a build last week for $380 from Microcenter, open box. I think at that price it's fair. Building a productivity desktop for my dad to replace his W3680 X58 system. Probably will be the same price as the upcoming i7 but his need for a computer is now.
i9 9900K, Z390 Taichi, MSI 1060 3GB OCV1, Seasonic 550W Prime Ultra Platinum, Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, G Skill TridentZ 2x16GB DDR4 3000C14 B Die, Lian Li PCA05-FN, Phanteks PHTC14PE.

Aerpoweron
My biggest issue with the 10th gen CPUs for LGA 1200 is, that they don't offer any advantage over the 9th gen in PCI-E lanes or PCI-E version. They have Wifi 6 included, but to use that you have to upgrade your Wifi router at least.
If they would release the 10 core CPU on LGA 1151 that would be ok. But a new platform for 2 more cores?

Come on Intel, you can do better than this.
Probably a matter of power delivery, maybe only the top tier of Z390 boards can hypothetically run the 10 core without issue such as Asus Maximus XI Apex, MSI MEG Godlike, Gigabyte Aorus Extreme, etc. New socket's pin increase might be related to the extra power demand.
Posted on Reply
#129
trparky
Vario
I picked up a 9900K for a build last week for $380 from Microcenter, open box. I think at that price it's fair.
That's a fair price, that's about $100 off list price.
Posted on Reply
#130
Vario
trparky
That's a fair price, that's about $100 off list price.
No way would we buy one at the list price. I waited around for an open box one to appear and sniped it.
Posted on Reply
#131
xtremesv
My 9900K runs very hot even with a 360 mm AIO. I can't imagine how heat is going to be kept in check as we're talking of 10 cores on an ancient process by today's standards.
Posted on Reply
#132
Berfs1
biffzinker
With or without AVX2 though?
its just turbo specs, I don't understand why people deal with AVX offsets. IMHO, if the CPU is stable for a certain application, but with the same overclock, fails in another application because of different code, then it is not 100% stable. Just run it at 1 flat frequency to make it simple.

cygnus_1
Oh boy, 33% more power usage and 25% more cores... and it ONLY gets 30% better performance??
yea cus intel's pro csgo strats ar to ad mor cors & mor freqs
Posted on Reply
#133
Tomorrow
Berfs1
its just turbo specs, I don't understand why people deal with AVX offsets. IMHO, if the CPU is stable for a certain application, but with the same overclock, fails in another application because of different code, then it is not 100% stable. Just run it at 1 flat frequency to make it simple.
What if i don't run the application where it's not stable?

I have no AVX workloads and thus stability in those is not relevant to me. I would rather have max perf in applications i do use instead of chasing some magical (and lower) frequency that is stable in every scenario.

Ideally i would like to have something like Afterburner does for GPU's - per game OC. Takes more time to finetune but offers better performance for those willing to do some testing.
FYI i have 3800X running at 4.5Ghz allcore OC (1.4v). Yes it gets to 90c in AVX2 stress test but that's irrelevant for me. Does not exceed 75c in games.
Posted on Reply
#134
biffzinker
Tomorrow
I have no AVX workloads and thus stability in those is not relevant to me.
Trouble with that is software has started using AVX/AVX2 without you being aware of it's usage. In other words not every piece of software is going to advertise it utilizes AVX.
Posted on Reply
#135
Vario
xtremesv
My 9900K runs very hot even with a 360 mm AIO. I can't imagine how heat is going to be kept in check as we're talking of 10 cores on an ancient process by today's standards.
Got this 9900K system built today, Z390 Taichi, latest bios, Gskill 32GB 3600C16, Phanteks PHTC14PE, just loaded the defaults, installed 10 OS, ran Prime95 Blend, it ran for 5 minutes and I wasn't seeing temperatures over 72*C, so I walked out to take care of something, left it unattended for another 5 minutes. When I came back, test was 10 minutes in, it was up to 108C and ~245 Watts as reported in HWmonitor! Immediately turned off P95, temps returned to idle 30*C, shut it down for a bit. I am sure the thermal paste is nicely cooked though.

Going to have to dig around in the bios because that seems to be out of spec for the TJMax and TDP Limit. I would have expected it to throttle or shutdown. Probably will undervolt and slightly underclock this system. It also seems to want a fairly high default vcore of 1.32. This computer will be a workstation not a gamer.
Posted on Reply
#136
biffzinker
Vario
Going to have to dig around in the bios because that seems to be out of spec for the TJMax and TDP Limit.
MultiCore Enhancement is turned on would be my guess. Might be worth checking to see if it's on. You have to watch for that when enabling XMP profile.
Posted on Reply
#137
Vario
biffzinker
MultiCore Enhancement is turned on would be my guess. Might be worth checking to see if it's on. You have to watch for that when enabling XMP profile.
It wasn't MCE in this instance which was disabled, but it was the Long and Short Duration Power Limits and the TJ Max set to Auto. Turned these to Long Duration: 100 Watts, Short Duration: 150 Watt, TJ Max 100*C and now it behaves as it should with throttling at high wattage. The CPU is under an aircooler. I will probably try to find a way to get the core volts down a bit more. However, this isn't the thread for this discussion other than to illustrate how damn hot the 9th gen i9 can get! :cool:
Posted on Reply
#138
londiste
Shouldn't Short Duration be a bigger value than Long Duration?
Posted on Reply
#139
Vario
londiste
Shouldn't Short Duration be a bigger value than Long Duration?
Yeah I had them reversed when I typed the post, but they are set properly in bios. Also applied a -50mv offset to get the vcore max to 1.280 which is a bit more reasonable.

Edit: changed max turbo bin to 48x, -20 offset, and the CPU performs admirably with a max voltage of 1.184V and temperatures generally not exceeding 70*C in Smallest FFT P95 AVX2. Pretty decent. The 9900K works fine on an aircooler, it just needs to be tamed.
Posted on Reply
#140
trparky
Vario
When I came back, test was 10 minutes in, it was up to 108C
DAMN!!!
Posted on Reply
#141
Berfs1
Tomorrow
What if i don't run the application where it's not stable?

I have no AVX workloads and thus stability in those is not relevant to me. I would rather have max perf in applications i do use instead of chasing some magical (and lower) frequency that is stable in every scenario.

Ideally i would like to have something like Afterburner does for GPU's - per game OC. Takes more time to finetune but offers better performance for those willing to do some testing.
FYI i have 3800X running at 4.5Ghz allcore OC (1.4v). Yes it gets to 90c in AVX2 stress test but that's irrelevant for me. Does not exceed 75c in games.
As with overclocking, there isn't really a perfect stress test, you have to test for stability based on your kinds of workloads. Also, I would not recommend running a 3800X at 1.4V, NOT BECAUSE OF THE TEMPERATURES, but because you will see serious degradation within a few months. I recommend 1.325V, 1.35V, and 1.375V max for Ryzen 3000 under stock/average air cooling, high end air/average liquid cooling, and high end liquid cooling respectively. 1.4V isn't going to *kill* the chip, but it will *degrade* it, as in, you will have to lower the clock speed if you plan on running 1.4V for a long time. Temperature wise, it looks like you are using a liquid cooler, probably 240mm, I wouldn't go over 1.35V, but you do you.

Vario
Got this 9900K system built today, Z390 Taichi, latest bios, Gskill 32GB 3600C16, Phanteks PHTC14PE, just loaded the defaults, installed 10 OS, ran Prime95 Blend, it ran for 5 minutes and I wasn't seeing temperatures over 72*C, so I walked out to take care of something, left it unattended for another 5 minutes. When I came back, test was 10 minutes in, it was up to 108C and ~245 Watts as reported in HWmonitor! Immediately turned off P95, temps returned to idle 30*C, shut it down for a bit. I am sure the thermal paste is nicely cooked though.

Going to have to dig around in the bios because that seems to be out of spec for the TJMax and TDP Limit. I would have expected it to throttle or shutdown. Probably will undervolt and slightly underclock this system. It also seems to want a fairly high default vcore of 1.32. This computer will be a workstation not a gamer.
Fun fact, it has been known for a while that the 9900K takes *a lot* of power. When I say a lot, I mean more than the era of the FX-9590. You almost always need a liquid cooler to run a 9900K overclocked. A typical air cooler just wont cut it anymore.
Posted on Reply
#142
trparky
Berfs1
You almost always need a liquid cooler to run a 9900K overclocked. A typical air cooler just wont cut it anymore.
That's a clear sign that Intel is bumping up against the limits of their process node.
Posted on Reply
#143
Tomorrow
Berfs1
As with overclocking, there isn't really a perfect stress test, you have to test for stability based on your kinds of workloads. Also, I would not recommend running a 3800X at 1.4V, NOT BECAUSE OF THE TEMPERATURES, but because you will see serious degradation within a few months. I recommend 1.325V, 1.35V, and 1.375V max for Ryzen 3000 under stock/average air cooling, high end air/average liquid cooling, and high end liquid cooling respectively. 1.4V isn't going to *kill* the chip, but it will *degrade* it, as in, you will have to lower the clock speed if you plan on running 1.4V for a long time. Temperature wise, it looks like you are using a liquid cooler, probably 240mm, I wouldn't go over 1.35V, but you do you.
I plan on upgrading to Zen 3 later this year. So longevity does not matter to me. And no im using be quiet Dark Rock Pro 4 aircooler.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment