Wednesday, February 12th 2020

Intel Core i7-10700K Features 5.30 GHz Turbo Boost

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.
Source: TUM_APISAK (Twitter)
Add your own comment

179 Comments on Intel Core i7-10700K Features 5.30 GHz Turbo Boost

#1
Super XP
This reminds me of the Pentium 4 days where Intel kept pushing higher clock speeds while AMD was innovating on CPU designs where AMD CPUs would beat P4's with up to 1000MHz lower clocks. That's how efficient and well designed the Athlon 64 was and beyond.
Posted on Reply
#2
ARF
This chip won't be DOA and not needed on the market only if it costs around $250-$300.

Super XP
This reminds me of the Pentium 4 days where Intel kept pushing higher clock speeds while AMD was innovating on CPU designs where AMD CPUs would beat P4's with up to 1000MHz lower clocks. That's how efficient and well designed the Athlon 64 was and beyond.
That was because the Athlons had tremendously higher IPC, while the pentium was designed for high clocks with very long execution pipeline.
Posted on Reply
#3
R0H1T
btarunr
This could give it a sub-$400 price
I doubt that, I'm guessing Intel will go with a $600~700 flagship this round. The rebranded 9900k will still retail at or around $500 IMO.
Posted on Reply
#4
Super XP
ARF
This chip won't be DOA and not needed on the market only if it costs around $250-$300.

That was because the Athlons had tremendously higher IPC, while the pentium was designed for high clocks with very long execution pipeline.
Yes I remember that. That IMC helped AMD achieve higher IPC on top of everything else. Those were great times back in the day.
Posted on Reply
#5
VrOtk
You should look not at "boost" clock, but at stock one: it's the same or 100MHz above the 9900K (don't remember), so all-core OC capabilities are gonna be the same. And it's only up to the pricing.
Posted on Reply
#6
londiste
Super XP
This reminds me of the Pentium 4 days where Intel kept pushing higher clock speeds while AMD was innovating on CPU designs where AMD CPUs would beat P4's with up to 1000MHz lower clocks. That's how efficient and well designed the Athlon 64 was and beyond.
Ironically, Intel is taking a page out of AMD's Zen2 playbook here. High single core clocks at the expense of high voltage and power consumption :)
Posted on Reply
#7
Super XP
londiste
Ironically, Intel is taking a page out of AMD's Zen2 playbook here. High single core clocks at the expense of high voltage and power consumption :)
ZEN3 will rewrite that book. Lol
AMD is being very modest and careful with what information they reveal on ZEN3 and what they allow to be leaked to gage peoples reaction.
I also noticed Dr. Lisa Su being somewhat cryptic when speaking about ZEN3. Something huge is coming and they are being quite silent about it.
Posted on Reply
#8
GlacierNine
Nobody going to talk about that 0nm manufacturing process? I'll be really impressed if Intel can pull that off.
Posted on Reply
#9
Noztra
125W TDP at 3.80 GHz.

300W+ TDP at 5,3 Ghz.

Several motherboard vendors have already said they are having issues, because of the 300W+ TDP.
Posted on Reply
#10
ARF
Noztra
125W TDP at 3.80 GHz.

300W+ TDP at 5,3 Ghz.

Several motherboard vendors have already said they are having issues, because of the 300W+ TDP.
I think it will be an epic fail and the only way to escape from that punishment is not to buy it. Ever.

Especially when you can buy the 65-watt Ryzen 7 3700X for $310.

R0H1T
I doubt that, I'm guessing Intel will go with a $600~700 flagship this round. The rebranded 9900k will still retail at or around $500 IMO.
If this is true, the 10-core i9-10900K flagship will cost $800-$900. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#11
notb
Super XP
I also noticed Dr. Lisa Su being somewhat cryptic when speaking about ZEN3. Something huge is coming and they are being quite silent about it.
Or nothing significant is coming and they are silent?

AMD has usually been very vocal about incoming products - even when (or maybe: especially when) they offered a significant leap in performance.
Noztra
Several motherboard vendors have already said they are having issues, because of the 300W+ TDP.
That's extremely unlikely considering motherboard makers have CPU power solutions that can provide 300W+ in Intel HEDT motherboards. They don't have to design anything new.
The only real problem could be in mITX.
Super XP
This reminds me of the Pentium 4 days where Intel kept pushing higher clock speeds while AMD was innovating on CPU designs where AMD CPUs would beat P4's with up to 1000MHz lower clocks. That's how efficient and well designed the Athlon 64 was and beyond.
The fact that Intel had this power headroom helped them survived the period when competition leads in technology (which is inevitable from time to time). Intel pushed more cash into R&D and we all know what happened few years later.
Will history repeat itself this time? Maybe.
I seriously doubt AMD will make a similar mistake and once again fall to ~10% market share.
But on the other hand: CPU market has changed and AMD today is nowhere near their excellent situation from mid 2000s.

ARF
If this is true, the 10-core i9-10900K flagship will cost $800-$900. :laugh:
It will cost as much as Intel can ask.
I'm not sure why you mock the high price of current Intel flagships. You should admire them instead.
Posted on Reply
#13
ARF
notb
It will cost as much as Intel can ask.
I'm not sure why you mock the high price of current Intel flagships. You should admire them instead.
Don't you want cheaper Ryzen 9 3950X and Ryzen 9 3900X those are currently traded for as much as $750 and $470?
Posted on Reply
#14
HwGeek
Let me guess... this will be fastest Gaming CPU at 1080P with RTX 3080Ti :).
Poor MB vendors, how they gonna sell those expensive MB's with expensive VRM for DIY market while AMD dominated this market?
Aren't they already stuck with huge X299 stock?, and now this?
Posted on Reply
#15
Super XP
notb
Or nothing significant is coming and they are silent?

AMD has usually been very vocal about incoming products - even when (or maybe: especially when) they offered a significant leap in performance.

That's extremely unlikely considering motherboard makers have CPU power solutions that can provide 300W+ in Intel HEDT motherboards. They don't have to design anything new.
The only real problem could be in mITX.

The fact that Intel had this power headroom helped them survived the period when competition leads in technology (which is inevitable from time to time). Intel pushed more cash into R&D and we all know what happened few years later.
Will history repeat itself this time? Maybe.
I seriously doubt AMD will make a similar mistake and once again fall to ~10% market share.
But on the other hand: CPU market has changed and AMD today is nowhere near their excellent situation from mid 2000s.


It will cost as much as Intel can ask.
I'm not sure why you mock the high price of current Intel flagships. You should admire them instead.
Intel is where AMD is when they launched Bulldozer in 2011. The difference is Intel has more market share and part positive yet False perception.

AMD took a calculated and innovative risk and bet on the wrong horse. They had there AsS handed to them by Intel.

Today it's Intel's turn to have there AsS handed to them by AMD superior CPUs. Basically Intel deserves this as there arrogance made them complacent. Intel was so desperate after ZEN launched that they hired Jim Keller in 2018. He's one of the best CPU architects of our time. It took AMD almost 6 years to design and release ZEN. It's probably going to take Intel about the same time.

In the meantime, here hoping AMD strips Intel's market share to pieces as AMD deserves it more.
Posted on Reply
#16
Octopuss
I already have central heating, thanks a lot.
It would take a lot more than this to impress me :kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#17
londiste
Noztra
125W TDP at 3.80 GHz.
300W+ TDP at 5,3 Ghz.
Several motherboard vendors have already said they are having issues, because of the 300W+ TDP.
Boost Clock is effectively single-core.
Posted on Reply
#18
Noztra
notb
That's extremely unlikely considering motherboard makers have CPU power solutions that can provide 300W+ in Intel HEDT motherboards. They don't have to design anything new.
The only real problem could be in mITX.
No s*hit sherlock. But 10900K is not a HEDT part, is it? Its gonna run on normal motherboards. And apparently its extremely likely since several motherboard manufacturers have claimed that they are having issues.

https://videocardz.com/newz/intels-10-core-comet-lake-s-cpus-could-draw-up-to-300w

But ofc you know better than everyone else, because you really like Intel.
Posted on Reply
#19
notb
ppn
300+ watts on socket 1200. It will burn the contacts over time. Yeas it may work for a while.
Considering 9900K are known to pull around 250W out of LGA1151v2 (146 power pins), there's no reason why LGA1200 wouldn't manage 300W.
That's 20% more power, i.e. 30 out of 49 additional pins would have to be responsible for power delivery (VCC type) to prevent higher current.
HwGeek
Aren't they already stuck with huge X299 stock?, and now this?
X299 was never made in high volumes, so there's certainly no huge stock.
ARF
Don't you want cheaper Ryzen 9 3950X and Ryzen 9 3900X those are currently traded for as much as $750 and $470?
They are sold for as much as AMD and middlemen can. That's how business work.
Yes, Intel sells their 8 cores for $400-500, while AMD's competing products are #300-350 (and $750 for 16 cores). This is certainly not a reason to mock Intel.

Would I want PC components to be cheaper? Of course. Just like any other product: food, shoes, cars.
Would I want PC component makers to be as profitable as AMD is right now? Definitely not.
Noztra
No s*hit sherlock. But 10900K is not a HEDT part, is it? Its gonna run on normal motherboards. And apparently its extremely likely since several motherboard manufacturers have claimed that they are having issues.
So I said that the only thing motherboard makers have to do is use the power delivery setups they already designed for HEDT (dual 8-pin, more robust VRM).
And I asked for some sources to the "several motherboard manufacturers have claimed that they are having issues" theory.
The article you've provided is titled: "Motherboard makers are ready, but Intel is not". :)
Posted on Reply
#20
yeeeeman
Super XP
This reminds me of the Pentium 4 days where Intel kept pushing higher clock speeds while AMD was innovating on CPU designs where AMD CPUs would beat P4's with up to 1000MHz lower clocks. That's how efficient and well designed the Athlon 64 was and beyond.
AMD made the same mistake a couple years after with Buldozer. My, how people forget.
Intel is not pushing frequency now because it was meant to be. They just can't fab any new design that big/cost effective enough yet so they squeeze what they can from 14nm.
Posted on Reply
#21
Noztra
notb
So I said that the only thing motherboard makers have to do is use the power delivery setups they already designed for HEDT (dual 8-pin, more robust VRM).
So motherboard makers have to redesign there entire stack or motherboards, so Intel's 10xxx series won't melt there boards. And what if people don't wanna buy a new motherboard and plug 10xxx in the "old" one, which doesn't have dual 8-pin, more robust VRM?

And using dual 8-pin, more robust VRM, etc = increase cost.
Posted on Reply
#22
vMax65
As a gaming CPU it should be absolutely fine especially if it is well under $400 which I am sure it will be due to well deserved competition from AMD and that is a great thing for us the consumer. For the mainstream gaming and general use community and not those running semi or pro workloads this could be a very good CPU otherwise go AMD. 8 cores and 16 threads is way more than enough for any game and if it boosts to 5 GHz and above at a good price we would have good choices in the CPU space. As a gamer, TDP has never been a factor especially when overclocking which is what these CPU's pretty much demand. Not sure I have ever understood this AMD versus Intel versus Nvidia crud...Just buy the product you want that suits you and your budget...I have had AMD, Intel and Nvidia systems and parts through my long PC life and I will only ever buy what suits my budget regardless of brand..
Posted on Reply
#23
Object55
5.3 - all security patches is more like 4.1
Posted on Reply
#24
ARF
notb
They are sold for as much as AMD and middlemen can. That's how business work.
Yes, Intel sells their 8 cores for $400-500, while AMD's competing products are #300-350 (and $750 for 16 cores). This is certainly not a reason to mock Intel.

Would I want PC components to be cheaper? Of course. Just like any other product: food, shoes, cars.
Would I want PC component makers to be as profitable as AMD is right now? Definitely not.
AMD is profitable enough, its share is among if not the best performing stock on the market. Currently trading for $54.50 and rising during the pre-market.
Let's not be greedy.
Let's not forget that the consumers have no choice, because the market is actually duopoly.
Posted on Reply
#25
kapone32
vMax65
As a gaming CPU it should be absolutely fine especially if it is well under $400 which I am sure it will be due to well deserved competition from AMD and that is a great thing for us the consumer. For the mainstream gaming and general use community and not those running semi or pro workloads this could be a very good CPU otherwise go AMD. 8 cores and 16 threads is way more than enough for any game and if it boosts to 5 GHz and above at a good price we would have good choices in the CPU space. As a gamer, TDP has never been a factor especially when overclocking which is what these CPU's pretty much demand. Not sure I have ever understood this AMD versus Intel versus Nvidia crud...Just buy the product you want that suits you and your budget...I have had AMD, Intel and Nvidia systems and parts through my long PC life and I will only ever buy what suits my budget regardless of brand..
If this CPU sells for $400 I will be pleasantly surprised. It is more likely that it will be north of $500. Though TDP might not bother you I am pretty sure you will need a beefy quality air cooler or at least a 240MM AIO to keep a beast like this cool. It ilke what Super XP said this is the 9590 equivalent vs the 8350. It better launch soon though because once Ryzen 3 or 4 or whatever it is launches this CPU may become moot vs the replacement to the 3700 for Gaming as AMD is only about 7-10% away from Intel in pure gaming (It is not black and white either).
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment