Monday, March 9th 2020
Intel Core i5-10400 Pictured and Detailed, New Mid-range Gaming Champion in the Making?
Here are two of the first pictures of Intel's upcoming Core i5-10400 processor, based on the company's 10th generation, 14 nm "Comet Lake-S" silicon. With its 10th generation, Intel is looking to bolster its Core i5 desktop processor series by introducing HyperThreading and increased L3 cache to existing price-points. The i5-10400 is hence a 6-core/12-thread processor with 12 MB of shared L3 cache at its disposal, compared to 9th and 8th generation Core i5 desktop chips being 6-core/6-thread with 9 MB of L3 cache.
The Core i5-10400 succeeds the popular Core i5-9400/F and its equally popular predecessor, the i5-8400. The iGPU-devoid i5-9400F in particular owed its popularity to Intel pricing it $15-20 less than the standard i5-9400. The upcoming i5-10400 is expected to be priced under the $200 mark, with the i5-10400F being similarly discounted. Both chips feature identical CPU specs: 2.90 GHz nominal clock speeds, up to 4.30 GHz maximum Turbo Boost, and 4.00 GHz all-core Turbo Boost. As the chip lacks an unlocked multiplier, its TDP is reportedly rated at 65 W. The chip will compete with AMD's Ryzen 5 3600 for sub-$200 supremacy. The 10th generation Core desktop processor family is built in the new LGA1200 package, and launches alongside the new Intel 400-series chipset, in April.
Sources:
PTT.cc, VideoCardz
The Core i5-10400 succeeds the popular Core i5-9400/F and its equally popular predecessor, the i5-8400. The iGPU-devoid i5-9400F in particular owed its popularity to Intel pricing it $15-20 less than the standard i5-9400. The upcoming i5-10400 is expected to be priced under the $200 mark, with the i5-10400F being similarly discounted. Both chips feature identical CPU specs: 2.90 GHz nominal clock speeds, up to 4.30 GHz maximum Turbo Boost, and 4.00 GHz all-core Turbo Boost. As the chip lacks an unlocked multiplier, its TDP is reportedly rated at 65 W. The chip will compete with AMD's Ryzen 5 3600 for sub-$200 supremacy. The 10th generation Core desktop processor family is built in the new LGA1200 package, and launches alongside the new Intel 400-series chipset, in April.
88 Comments on Intel Core i5-10400 Pictured and Detailed, New Mid-range Gaming Champion in the Making?
Which is totally fine btw, its plenty capable and powerful CPU.
Thing is, it seems like we will go into a cat and mouse with how this can compete with the 3600 and its replacement later this year in terms of pricing and availabilities. I do fully expect a fierce competition from AMD seeing how even the 3600X touched the 210$ price point several times, and possibly comes as a more complete package to those looking for an affordable, already-existing eco system and maybe some OC shananignas for fun.
The only thing im truly sad about is that there aint too much fun to be had with those "new" Intel CPUs. We know eactly what we are going to get, and there is no element of surprise... well, we didn't have one anyway for some years now from them but there's that. Somwhere i have hopes the F variant can be compelling at sub 179$
Additionally i don't want to deny Intels ability to have changed their Boostbehaviour and make all-core boost of more than the advertised available for a short or medium timespan.
I'm out, need to cuddle my 8700K.
This isn't a gaming champ. 4.3 Ghz is a clock from 2013. Even the 8700 non K does 4.6. This thing can't even compete on price at 200 bucks... and HT is worse than a full fat 8 core, especially at lower clock.
9400F is priced $157, 10400F must be $25 more or so.
Intel currently has less IPC than AMD, but slightly better performence because of higher average clock speed.
But you're right, Zen has a lead now and can do more with lower clock in many instances.
A huge win imho, but one that takes all the fun out of "multiplier unlocked" CPUs.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Are you serious? A locked 4 GHz 6 core intel chip? Without its 4.6+ GHz clock rates, Intel cant compete with AMD in gaming, and it already loses in almost everything else. The 3600 is going to crush this thing in perf/$ and likely match it or exceed it in overall performance, and its been out for a year already, and the ryzen 4600 will likely curbstomp the intel chip across the board. Unless intell pulled a rabbit out of their hat with that extra L3 cache, this thing will be slower then the 9600K, 9600KF, 8700K, 8700, and 9600.
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,9.htmlBecause of better software optimisation for Intel in gaming. Games usually don't touch or use more than 6-8 cores and when they do so, they jump between the cores like crazy.
This is the result of game developers trying to get multi core performance out of tasks that are not naturally parallel tasks.www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-3600/15.html
The whole whopping 1-2% faster the Intel chips will manage, based on TPU's 3600 review, will not justify the intel chip being $200 VS the 3600's $175. The AMD chip will dominate in perf/$. The I5-9400F is the most comparable to the 10400, and it was a whopping 2.7% faster at 720p. This was all before AMD fixed the boost clock issues with ryzen 3000. Especially considering that current I5-9600s can be had for $200 with a 300 mhz higher core clock, this 10400 looks DOA for anyone not rocking an old quad core, and then those quad core users would be better served with a cheaper ryzen 3000 6 core that can be upgraded to a ryzen 4000 series at the end of the year.
1-2% more performance for 12.5% more $$$, or less performance for same $$$ as the previous gen intel chips. Not a great look for the intel chip.
AMD had poor offerings when Intel banned overclocking in 2016. But now, there is an alternative.
Regardless of benchmarks and pricing, we should all give Intel the middle finger and go with AMD.
More generally, when talking CPUs it's actually ok to limit yourself to CPU prices ;)