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

#26
Unregistered
On the one hand it would give my old EVGA 1300w G2 PSU a good run again and heat a room or 2 in the process.

Just that it isn't worth it anymore...
#27
vMax65
kapone32
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).
More than understand but with the competition if it is not well under $400 and more like $300 it will be dead in the water. Intel have to compete and they have the money in the bank to compete and could drop there prices in a second to undercut AMD...but of course they won't go all out (as profit matters!)...still they will have to drop prices significantly. As to the difference in performance even if it is only small, it just depends on price...

As to TDP and I always overclock my CPU's since the good old days, and I have used AIO's with a 360mm AIO currently which tames just about any mainstream CPU.

Bottom line it is a great time for PC's and with AMD's bringing real competition into the CPU space, we have never had it so good...Long may it continue...
Posted on Reply
#28
kapone32
vMax65
More than understand but with the competition if it is not well under $400 and more like $300 it will be dead in the water. Intel have to compete and they have the money in the bank to compete and could drop there prices in a second to undercut AMD...but of course they won't go all out...still they will have to drop prices significantly. As to the difference in performance even if it is only small, it just depends on price...

As to TDP and I always overclock my CPU's since the good old days, and I have used AIO's with a 360mm AIO currently which tames just about any mainstream CPU.
Well they will still have their years of propaganda and questionable marketing practices to rely on for now. Even north of $500 there will be plenty of people that buy this so I don't see this being cheaper than the 9900K. Where the potential danger for Intel is in the laptop space as those new AMD mobile chips seem to be very disruptive.

AIOs (I know there will be comments to the viability) are a no brainer for CPUs and for me the bigger they are the better they are at dissipating heat. I personally have a couple of 420MM rads to cool my setup. The only thing I was establishing is you will need something powerful to cool this and get the advertised boost clocks.
Posted on Reply
#29
QUANTUMPHYSICS
My next computer will be a 10000 CPU or a Core i11 Extreme
Posted on Reply
#30
Elysium
Looks like just shy of 5.3g, so perhaps more in line with the initial SKU leak several months ago, although the stock clock back then was reported as 3.6g rather than 3.8. RRP appeared to come in at $389, far less than $500.
Posted on Reply
#31
notb
Noztra
So motherboard makers have to redesign there entire stack or motherboards, so Intel's 10xxx series won't melt there boards.
Redesign what? They're making new motherboards using the new socket.
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?
Sockets aren't compatible.
And using dual 8-pin, more robust VRM, etc = increase cost.
Yes. Enthusiast/workstation mobos (Z490, W480) will be expensive and cheaper models may limit 10-core Comet Lake's boost.

ARF
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.
AMD's share price has almost nothing to do with current or even forecasted earnings. It's based on very optimistic future projections. That's the problem.
Posted on Reply
#32
vMax65
kapone32
Well they will still have their years of propaganda and questionable marketing practices to rely on for now. Even north of $500 there will be plenty of people that buy this so I don't see this being cheaper than the 9900K. Where the potential danger for Intel is in the laptop space as those new AMD mobile chips seem to be very disruptive.

AIOs (I know there will be comments to the viability) are a no brainer for CPUs and for me the bigger they are the better they are at dissipating heat. I personally have a couple of 420MM rads to cool my setup. The only thing I was establishing is you will need something powerful to cool this and get the advertised boost clocks.
Agree and propaganda/marketing is done by all across every industry/sector and those with the most money will do whatever they can to get the edge...ultimately research before buying.
As to the mobile sector, I think Intel is working extremely hard in this space with Foveros and Xe and there new 10nm packages so this is not a space the will want to lose..
Couldn't agree more on AIO's the bigger the better...no space for a 420mm AIO for me but I will get there...
Posted on Reply
#33
DeathtoGnomes
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.
source?

---

I highly doubt Intel will release a new chip that out performs its predecessor at a lower price. But, depending on demand (and supply), on-sale prices could be very close.
Posted on Reply
#34
bug
Super XP
Yes I remember that. That IMC helped AMD achieve higher IPC on top of everything else. Those were great times back in the day.
It wasn't the IMC, AthlonXP didn't have one. It was the shorter pipeline ;)
Posted on Reply
#36
cucker tarlson
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 :)
I'm not touching anything that uses over 1.4v,let alone +1.55v like 3000
If 10th gen does super high voltage for boost clocks I'm going 9700K and I don't mind the thread count
Posted on Reply
#37
nickbaldwin86
I run a i3-8350K @ 5Ghz.... it was dirt cheap and it plays every game and is the last point of bottleneck in my PC.

Going to be a while until I see a "new aged" CPU that I care about.

This thread is depressing to read. People really get worked up about something that is so meaningless. AMD vs INTEL. Grow up people.
Posted on Reply
#38
cucker tarlson
nickbaldwin86
I run a i3-8350K @ 5Ghz.... it was dirt cheap and it plays every game and is the last point of bottleneck in my PC.

Going to be a while until I see a "new aged" CPU that I care about.

This thread is depressing to read. People really get worked up about something that is so meaningless. AMD vs INTEL. Grow up people.
while technically correct,it all depends on what you need it to do.
Posted on Reply
#39
ARF
nickbaldwin86
I run a i3-8350K @ 5Ghz.... it was dirt cheap and it plays every game and is the last point of bottleneck in my PC.
There are games where it will stutter, in BF1, for example, you can max out a 4c/4t cpu, which means you get stutter when you hit 100% usage.

It's for your interest to take AMD Ryzen - smoother gameplay because of the more cores/threads, for less money and in lower power envelope.
No need for industrial chillers, just works cool&quiet.

Posted on Reply
#40
bug
nickbaldwin86
I run a i3-8350K @ 5Ghz.... it was dirt cheap and it plays every game and is the last point of bottleneck in my PC.

Going to be a while until I see a "new aged" CPU that I care about.

This thread is depressing to read. People really get worked up about something that is so meaningless. AMD vs INTEL. Grow up people.
Yeah, well, it gives you the impression you contributed something when you have nothing to do ;)
cucker tarlson
while technically correct,it all depends on what you need it to do.
I think he was pretty clear: he games. And Intel still holds the crown for office applications, because those don't multithread well. AMD rules synthetics and very few things you routinely run at home.
Posted on Reply
#41
AnarchoPrimitiv
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?
I'm glad someone pointed this out! The fact is that Intel is NOT the fastest at gaming IN GENERAL, they're ONLY the fastest at gaming in the specific instance of low resolution (1080p or lower), high refresh, and with a 2080 ti (or whatever the top consumer card may be at the moment).
Posted on Reply
#42
bug
AnarchoPrimitiv
I'm glad someone pointed this out! The fact is that Intel is NOT the fastest at gaming IN GENERAL, they're ONLY the fastest at gaming in the specific instance of low resolution (1080p or lower), high refresh, and with a 2080 ti (or whatever the top consumer card may be at the moment).
Intel is faster in general. But in many instances they win by less than 10%, which is something you won't notice with the naked eye, so those are essentially ties.
Posted on Reply
#43
cucker tarlson
AnarchoPrimitiv
I'm glad someone pointed this out! The fact is that Intel is NOT the fastest at gaming IN GENERAL, they're ONLY the fastest at gaming in the specific instance of low resolution (1080p or lower), high refresh, and with a 2080 ti (or whatever the top consumer card may be at the moment).
how can a cpu be faster for 1080p,high refresh rate and with a high end gpu only but not the fastest in general ?
Posted on Reply
#44
catulitechup
nickbaldwin86
I run a i3-8350K @ 5Ghz.... it was dirt cheap and it plays every game and is the last point of bottleneck in my PC.

Going to be a while until I see a "new aged" CPU that I care about.

This thread is depressing to read. People really get worked up about something that is so meaningless. AMD vs INTEL. Grow up people.
In my case have too i3 8350K @5.0ghz (1 core disabled - no avx) since begins 2018, when bought i3 amd dont have anything with same performance per core

In my case use lower thread apps, many legacy apps (in most cases 3 cores or less) and use screen resolution closer to 720p (most critical scenary for ryzen)

However now* zen 3 seems very interesting, maybe think about change depending performance per core in quad core models (no ht) or six core (no ht)

*in this moment dont buy intel, maybe for specific case (most type legacy app or certified intel app) but in gaming no buy intel for now

:)
Posted on Reply
#45
ppn
cucker tarlson
I'm not touching anything that uses over 1.4v,let alone +1.55v like 3000
If 10th gen does super high voltage for boost clocks I'm going 9700K and I don't mind the thread count
10th likely requires 100mV less voltage at equal clocks. so there is no reason go 9700K, unless it is 20% cheaper. but for what the Z370 motherboard would be a total waste no future proof. Just manually set to 1.25 and call it a day.
Posted on Reply
#46
cucker tarlson
ppn
10th likely requires 100mV less voltage at equal clocks. so there is no reason go 9700K, unless it is 20% cheaper. but for what the Z370 motherboard would be a total waste no future proof.
future proofing your platform has more implications than you think.
involves buying a recent board at launch prices,recent cpu at launch price,and then selling the cpu later to get a new one,again at launch price.

buying z370 and 9700k once 10th gen arrives ?
boards are dirt cheap and cpus will likely drop in price substantially.
Posted on Reply
#47
JustNiz
Where is this 5.3 turbo info coming from? everwhere else is saying the 10700K will do 5.1GHz.
I can't imagine 5.3 to be true, or if it is, there has to be some giant catch compared to the 10900K boost.
If the 10700K boosts to 5.3 and the 10900K only boosts to 5.1, then the 10700K will give better performance for nearly everything (including gaming) than the10900K, as hardly anything actually uses, let alone maxes out 10 cores (or 20 cores if you count hyperthreaded).
I just can't imagine Intel sitting still for a 10700K having better real-world performance than their flagship 10900K.
Posted on Reply
#48
cucker tarlson
JustNiz
Where is this 5.3 turbo info coming from? everwhere else is saying the 10700K will do 5.1GHz.
I can't imagine 5.3 to be true, or if it is, there has to be some giant catch compared to the 10900K boost.
If the 10700K boosts to 5.3 and the 10900K only boosts to 5.1, then the 10700K will give better performance for nearly everything (including gaming) than the10900K, as hardly anything actually uses, let alone maxes out 10 cores (or 20 cores if you count hyperthreaded).
I just can't imagine Intel sitting still for a 10700K having better real-world performance than their flagship 10900K.
I don't think IVB will restrain 10900k from clocking as high as 10700k whenever 10700k sees it possible to hit 5.3ghz
Posted on Reply
#49
dicktracy
A 2015 CPU arch is still the fastest in gaming. Let that sink in.
Posted on Reply
#50
cucker tarlson
dicktracy
A 2015 CPU arch is still the fastest in gaming. Let that sink in.
clocks and latency.
ryzen is taking mainstream into a totally different direction so no surprises.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment