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

#51
HD64G
Same insecure arch with ultra-high power consumption, expensive chipset and motherboard. Not a product for 2020 imho even with a discount vs the 9-series.
Posted on Reply
#52
Turmania
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.
too bad it was very short lived, lets hope after almost 20 years AMD can actually sustain it with Ryzen.
Posted on Reply
#53
Super XP
yeeeeman
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.
Absolutely NOT. Do not compare Bulldozer to the Pentium 4 as AMDs desire was to mindlessly boost clocks speeds. That was not the reason why AMD designed Bulldozer.

AMD choose a different route with Bulldozer, as a way to rapidly increase CPU cores instead of supporting SMT like Intel AMD went the physical route and found a way to increase CPU cores instead.

Obviously this didn't work, which is why AMD hired Jim Keller, CPU Architect genius.
Posted on Reply
#54
ARF
Turmania
too bad it was very short lived, lets hope after almost 20 years AMD can actually sustain it with Ryzen.
We have the chiplets technology which enables AMD to be competitive regardless of any potential big IPC changes against Ryzen.

You can have the 64-core Ryzen Threadripper 3990X and it only needs future shrinks which will be sufficient enough.
Posted on Reply
#55
Super XP
QUANTUMPHYSICS
My next computer will be a 10000 CPU or a Core i11 Extreme


ARF
We have the chiplets technology which enables AMD to be competitive regardless of any potential big IPC changes against Ryzen.

You can have the 64-core Ryzen Threadripper 3990X and it only needs future shrinks which will be sufficient enough.
AMD won't make that error again. Future ZENs will never be a simple die shrink. With each generation release, AMD is basically re-designing each processor gen for significant IPC performance.

A great example of this is what we are seeing today. ZEN to ZEN2 to upcoming ZEN3 etc.,
Note: ZEN+ was suppose to have been the original ZEN. That's why AMD officially announced no more plain old refreshes like for example a ZEN2+ or a ZEN3+...

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.
The only people that will buy Intel Processors are none tech savvy people and those that don't research tech on a daily basis. And still to date, many retailers still pushing Intel for general use computing and gaming despite Ryzen being far superior. But not everywhere though, as Ryzen does very well online with real reviews that people read then decide.
Posted on Reply
#56
nickbaldwin86
ARF
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.
Play all the newest titles and old... I have yet to see my CPU become a noticeable bottleneck. a benchmark isn't enough to make me spend money to upgrade. I rarely get under 100FPS on my 2560x1080 monitor and most games can tweak settings to play at 166FPS to hit the 166Hz for the monitor.

Does great for me I am not trying to say my 8350K wouldn't be a bottleneck on a system with two 2080Ti ... because in that case yes it would bottleneck that system.

I was more pointing out that people just getting so mad about something so little and something they can't even control. You can control it with your buying habits, yelling at each other in a forum post isn't doing anything. ;)
Posted on Reply
#57
ARF
Super XP
AMD won't make that error again. Future ZENs will never be a simple die shrink. With each generation release, AMD is basically re-designing each processor gen for significant IPC performance.

A great example of this is what we are seeing today. ZEN to ZEN2 to upcoming ZEN3 etc.,
Note: ZEN+ was suppose to have been the original ZEN. That's why AMD officially announced no more plain old refreshes like for example a ZEN2+ or a ZEN3+....
Well, the situation isn't that bad. If you compare multi-threaded apps, you would see that the FX-8350 is actually a bit ahead of Core i7-2600K, despite the 25-30% IPC disadvantage.
Single core performance is no longer important, and in the future it will become ever less important.
Posted on Reply
#58
efikkan
HD64G
Same insecure arch with ultra-high power consumption, expensive chipset and motherboard. Not a product for 2020 imho even with a discount vs the 9-series.
Statistically speaking, a long-lived architecture with refinements is much more likely to have identified and eliminated larger bugs and problems.

Skylake may be on "life support", not because it's bad, it's very impressive for an architecture from 2015, but because we need higher IPC to scale further and these current clock speeds are really not sustainable.
Posted on Reply
#59
Super XP
ARF
Well, the situation isn't that bad. If you compare multi-threaded apps, you would see that the FX-8350 is actually a bit ahead of Core i7-2600K, despite the 25-30% IPC disadvantage.
Single core performance is no longer important, and in the future it will become ever less important.
In PC Gaming single core performance is important unfortunately.
Hopefully developers further take advantage of at least 16 threaded CPUs as a default standard. This should be pushed industry wide ASAP.

Intel holds a very slight lead in gaming performance over Ryzen. ZEN3 will eliminate that lead based on what information is available about it.
Posted on Reply
#60
efikkan
Super XP
In PC Gaming single core performance is important unfortunately.
Hopefully developers further take advantage of at least 16 threaded CPUs as a default standard. This should be pushed industry wide ASAP.

Intel holds a very slight lead in gaming performance over Ryzen. ZEN3 will eliminate that lead based on what information is available about it.
Games will not be able to scale well with many threads. The workloads of a game is basically divided into three categories; 1) rendering, 2) core game simulation 3) optional stuff (like networking, sound effects etc.). Rendering(1) only scales until the GPU is no longer bottlenecked. While some games can leverage multiple queues to do multi-pass rendering etc., the scaling potential here is fairly limited anyway, and the thread(s) feeding the GPU is usually the only ones which matters for FPS anyway. Also, the future long-term trend in games is that the GPU does more and more of the heavy lifting. Game simulation(2)(game loop) is usually a fixed workload, since the game needs to work the same across machines, and is usually scaled towards the minimum requirements of a game. Games are also incredible latency sensitive, which makes it very hard to divide timing critical tasks into tiny chunks across many cores. We might see some more multi-core scaling in gaming, but games will not use 16 threads even 10 years from no (except for a couple of edge cases, of course).

Applications in general do slowly scale better with multiple threads, but even here there are theoretical limits to what is achievable. Even with the best efforts, most synchronized workloads (like most client applications are) will see a scaling drop-off around 8 threads, and not scale well beyond 16 threads. Asynchronous workloads scale nearly perfectly though, but very few of those are relevant for end-users. Anything beyond 8 cores is more relevant for users running multiple applications simultaneously rather than single applications.
Posted on Reply
#61
RealNeil
R0H1T
I doubt that, I'm guessing Intel will go with a $600~700 flagship this round.
If they do more of the same with their prices, I and many others will do without it.
Posted on Reply
#62
bug
cucker tarlson
how can a cpu be faster for 1080p,high refresh rate and with a high end gpu only but not the fastest in general ?
Easy: once you crank up resolution, the CPU is no longer the bottleneck, so it doesn't matter if it's the faster or not. Though if I had to choose, I'd still go for the CPU that can push geometry to the GPU faster. Because of those frame dips, you know.
Posted on Reply
#63
cucker tarlson
bug
Easy: once you crank up resolution, the CPU is no longer the bottleneck, so it doesn't matter if it's the faster or not. Though if I had to choose, I'd still go for the CPU that can push geometry to the GPU faster. Because of those frame dips, you know.
it doesn't matter is same as it isn't better ?

when I'm loading games on my 128gb sata ssd I get roughly the same times as a 970 Pro owner.so 970 pro isn't better in general.
Posted on Reply
#64
bug
cucker tarlson
it doesn't matter is same as it isn't better ?

when I'm loading games on my 128gb sata ssd I get roughly the same times as a 970 Pro owner.so 970 pro isn't better in general.
Well, that's a tough one.
The 970 will win more synthetics, but if nothing you do with it is faster irl, is it really faster in general? Is a Ferrari faster than a Corolla in general, if all you do with it is drive through town?
Posted on Reply
#65
cucker tarlson
bug
Well, that's a tough one.
no.
bug
Is a Ferrari faster than a Corolla in general, if all you do with it is drive through town?
yes.
Posted on Reply
#66
bug
cucker tarlson
yes.
And yet, it's not getting you faster from point A to point B.
Posted on Reply
#67
cucker tarlson
bug
And yet, it's not getting you faster from point A to point B.
cause you're driving slow.

what the hell am I even expleining right now.
Posted on Reply
#68
bug
cucker tarlson
cause you're driving slow.
You're getting warm: usage patterns matter.
Posted on Reply
#69
cucker tarlson
bug
You're getting warm: usage patterns matter.
for a user,not for objective truth.
Posted on Reply
#70
bug
cucker tarlson
for a user,not for objective truth.
To me, the user is more true than lab conditions.
Posted on Reply
#71
Minus Infinity
Object55
5.3 - all security patches is more like 4.1
Ha ha, indeed closer to the truth. Couldn't care less if it clocked to 10GHz, still wouldn't interest me. Zen 3 4700X or 4900X is all I want for my new build.
Posted on Reply
#72
Mistral
Can anyone please confirm if this comes boxed with a chiller or not?..
Posted on Reply
#73
Dave65
This will put Intel back on top.................................................. As long as you live in an Igloo :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Posted on Reply
#74
TranceHead
GlacierNine
Nobody going to talk about that 0nm manufacturing process? I'll be really impressed if Intel can pull that off.
They once measured in microns (um)
Once they hit sub 1 micron they started measuring in nanons (nm)
I suspect once they get to 1nm or under they'll start announcing architecture lithography by picons (pm) 1000pm to 1nm.
Posted on Reply
#75
GoldenX
Ok, so nothing relevant or new from Intel until 2021, what a joke.
AMD is going to increase prices, get ready.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment