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.
Intel Core i5-10400 Front Intel Core i5-10400 Back
Sources: PTT.cc, VideoCardz
Add your own comment

88 Comments on Intel Core i5-10400 Pictured and Detailed, New Mid-range Gaming Champion in the Making?

#1
dj-electric
So basically a potentially 199$ Core i7 8700 equiv CPU.
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$
Posted on Reply
#2
_Flare
The mentioned 4GHz All-Core Boost comes well into place regarding the about ~ 4150 MHz Boost of the Ryzen 3600 and a still present slight "IPC"-advantage Intel has.
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.
Posted on Reply
#3
R0H1T
_Flare
The mentioned 4GHz All-Core Boost comes well into place regarding the about ~ 4150 MHz Boost of the Ryzen 3600 and a still present slight "IPC"-advantage Intel has.
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.
And the 3600 can always be OCed, not to mention the boost clocks of the i5 will likely depend on the motherboard as is the case with all locked Intel chips so it can vary a lot from one board to another. Intel doesn't have an IPC advantage wrt Zen 2, AMD has decisively overtaken them at least on the desktop!
Posted on Reply
#4
Vayra86
Bwahahah that base clock and this turbo?

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.
Posted on Reply
#5
ppn
Intels IPC at same clocks 4.0 vs 4.0Ghz is probably lower at this point. Can't wait the tests.
9400F is priced $157, 10400F must be $25 more or so.
Posted on Reply
#6
IceShroom
_Flare
The mentioned 4GHz All-Core Boost comes well into place regarding the about ~ 4150 MHz Boost of the Ryzen 3600 and a still present slight "IPC"-advantage Intel has.
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.
Looks like lots of people still dont understand IPC. IPC = Instruction Per Clock/Cycle, simple term -> the average number of instructions executed for each clock cycle.
Intel currently has less IPC than AMD, but slightly better performence because of higher average clock speed.
Posted on Reply
#7
Vayra86
IceShroom
Looks like lots of people still dont understand IPC. IPC = Instruction Per Clock/Cycle, simple term -> the average number of instructions executed for each clock cycle.
Intel currently has less IPC than AMD, but slightly better performence because of higher average clock speed.
IPC varies per application. Raw IPC cannot always be utilized and that specifically goes for gaming. That is why clocks still matter. More clock = more instructions *per second* :)

But you're right, Zen has a lead now and can do more with lower clock in many instances.
Posted on Reply
#8
Turmania
I have been defending Intel against AMD since the launch of Ryzen 3000 series. lately, I`m finding it difficult to back them up, just waiting for their 10th gen to launch and see reviews before I make a judgement.
Posted on Reply
#10
Turmania
where are these made? I`m going to try to make a system that is not made in china. would be a very hard task. but have to start somewhere.
Posted on Reply
#11
bug
R0H1T
And the 3600 can always be OCed, not to mention the boost clocks of the i5 will likely depend on the motherboard as is the case with all locked Intel chips so it can vary a lot from one board to another. Intel doesn't have an IPC advantage wrt Zen 2, AMD has decisively overtaken them at least on the desktop!
Sadly, no. All AMD CPUs are unlocked, but their power management does such a good job out of the box, there's not much left for a manual overclock to squeeze out of those CPUs.
A huge win imho, but one that takes all the fun out of "multiplier unlocked" CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheinsanegamerN
Midrange gaming champion.....
: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.
Posted on Reply
#13
Mysteoa
Not only it will have to compete with 3600x, but with 2700x that is even cheaper.
Posted on Reply
#14
Darmok N Jalad
I can get the 9600K for $200. While it lacks SMT, it at least is unlocked and has a higher boost. I guess I was expecting Intel to use it’s clock speed advantage more, not just enable SMT. Maybe the higher models will be doing lore of that?
Posted on Reply
#15
ARF
Vayra86
IPC varies per application. Raw IPC cannot always be utilized and that specifically goes for gaming. That is why clocks still matter. More clock = more instructions *per second* :)

But you're right, Zen has a lead now and can do more with lower clock in many instances.
IPC is measured at equal clock, for instance 3.5 GHz:


https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,9.html


IceShroom
Looks like lots of people still dont understand IPC. IPC = Instruction Per Clock/Cycle, simple term -> the average number of instructions executed for each clock cycle.
Intel currently has less IPC than AMD, but slightly better performence because of higher average clock speed.
Because 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.
Posted on Reply
#16
bug
TheinsanegamerN
Midrange gaming champion.....
: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.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. AMD and Intel have similar IPC and by the looks of it, about the same clocks. Zen2 can't be pushed much over its out-of-the-box parameters, Intel traditionally can (these are locked, so they won't overclock like a 9600k, we'll have to wait and see). So no, 3600 will not crush this, it will match it, best case scenario.
Posted on Reply
#17
TheinsanegamerN
ARF
IPC is measured at equal clock, for instance 3.5 GHz:


https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,9.html




Because 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.
That's hardly an optimization for intel. Jumping cores constantly is going to result in worse performance, no matter the arch. Intel simply benefits from higher clock rates and lower inter core latency, so the issue is not as pronounced as it is on AMD hardware.

This is the result of game developers trying to get multi core performance out of tasks that are not naturally parallel tasks.

bug
I'm not sure what you're talking about. AMD and Intel have similar IPC and by the looks of it, about the same clocks. Zen2 can't be pushed much over its out-of-the-box parameters, Intel traditionally can (these are locked, so they won't overclock like a 9600k, we'll have to wait and see). So no, 3600 will not crush this, it will match it, best case scenario.
https://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.
Posted on Reply
#18
ARF
TheinsanegamerN
That's hardly an optimization for intel. Jumping cores constantly is going to result in worse performance, no matter the arch. Intel simply benefits from higher clock rates and lower inter core latency, so the issue is not as pronounced as it is on AMD hardware.

This is the result of game developers trying to get multi core performance out of tasks that are not naturally parallel tasks.
They don't have to switch a serial task between the cores. They need more cores and every single core attached to a particular task - main thread, sounds thread, AI thread 1... AI thread n, physics thread 1... physics thread n and so on and so forth.
Posted on Reply
#19
medi01
Gaming champion, chuckle.
Posted on Reply
#20
bug
TheinsanegamerN
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.
Ah, I see. You're comparing Ryzen's street price to Intel's MSRP. 3600's MSRP is also $200.
Posted on Reply
#21
Indurain
Under $200 really, did we all forget that this requires the new LGA1200 socket? That new MB cost needs to be added to the pricing for a majority of people moving up from a previous Intel platform. So I have both Intel and AMD systems and with my X370 MB I can drop in a 1st gen - 3rd gen Ryzen CPU, can't do that with Intel. My Intel system will not be upgraded anytime soon as I am still on a 6700K (LGA1151). Now on AMD I would lose some features but the newest Ryzen CPU works and does not REQUIRE a platform change. My X370 started with a 1700X and now has a 2700X without buying anything more than just the CPU.
Posted on Reply
#22
Regeneration
NGOHQ.COM
You shouldn't consider this processor as long as overclocking is restricted to certain chipsets and models.

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.
Posted on Reply
#23
bug
Indurain
Under $200 really, did we all forget that this requires the new LGA1200 socket? That new MB cost needs to be added to the pricing for a majority of people moving up from a previous Intel platform. So I have both Intel and AMD systems and with my X370 MB I can drop in a 1st gen - 3rd gen Ryzen CPU, can't do that with Intel. My Intel system will not be upgraded anytime soon as I am still on a 6700K (LGA1151). Now on AMD I would lose some features but the newest Ryzen CPU works and does not REQUIRE a platform change. My X370 started with a 1700X and now has a 2700X without buying anything more than just the CPU.
Well, if you don't already have an AM4 motherboard, you'll have to buy a motherboard regardless.
More generally, when talking CPUs it's actually ok to limit yourself to CPU prices ;)
Posted on Reply
#24
Vayra86
ARF
IPC is measured at equal clock, for instance 3.5 GHz:


https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,9.html




Because 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.
Measured. Per application. In this case Cinebench. These results do not translate to having all CPUs running a game at 3.5 Ghz. Not even remotely - note also that this is a single thread test. Barely any application scales equally or linear across multiple threads. The more you add, the more overhead. And then comes the fact that every thread a game uses is completely different, whereas Cinebench threads are the exact same job.
Posted on Reply
#25
milewski1015
Can't decide if this is anywhere close to a mid-range gaming champion until we see some third-party reviews/benchmarks, but I'm hesitant to believe this will compete with the 3600. 2.9 base and up to 4.3 boost with 12 MB of L3 and a locked multiplier vs. the 3600's 3.6 base and up to 4.2 boost with 32 MB of L3 and unlocked multiplier. Not like the 3600 can be pushed much more than its out-of-the-box performance (hats off to AMD for that), and obviously this chip won't be able to at all since it's locked up. I'm interested to see what the new motherboard lineup will look like - that will be a large deciding factor I think: if decent motherboards can be had for a reasonable price, this may appeal to some non-enthusiast gamers that just wanna pop in a CPU and go.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment