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?

#26
Vario
I agree that it isn't the "Gaming Champion" because it clearly isn't the best, it has worse IPC than the AMD product line.
However, I really think its funny that because of an 8 points cinebench* difference in the range of 150+ points, we should shit all over the Intel offering, a difference that is entirely unnoticeable. In reality, the most important thing for gaming is the videocard, the processor barely matters.
The real world difference between brands is entirely exaggerated at this point in time.
It is similar to the threads about "The Best Thermal Paste 2020" where a paste that has 1 *C lower temperature therefore is superior to all others, ignoring all other considerations.

edit: the DST change hit my brain hard, its not even FPS in some game, we are measuring a difference of 8 widgits of cinebench score. Even more abstract and irrelevant.
Posted on Reply
#29
bug
Vario
I agree that it isn't the "Gaming Champion" because it clearly isn't the best, it has worse IPC than the AMD product line.
However, I really think its funny that because of an 8 FPS difference in the range of 150+ FPS, we should shit all over the Intel offering, a difference that is entirely unnoticeable. In reality, the most important thing is the videocard, the processor barely matters.
It is similar to the threads about "The Best Thermal Paste 2020" where a paste that has 1 *C lower temperature therefore is superior better to the rest, ignoring all other considerations.
There are always those that will lower resolution and/or fidelity in their quest to reach stable 144 (and now 240) FPS.
But yes, for 90% of us, the GPU is more important.

And while building a balanced PC you need to look at the big picture, there's always value in pointing out particular strengths and weaknesses in individual components. Because sometimes, some people need a build that is off the mainstream and aspects that are unimportant to us, may be crucial for them.
Posted on Reply
#30
Vario
bug
There are always those that will lower resolution and/or fidelity in their quest to reach stable 144 (and now 240) FPS.
But yes, for 90% of us, the GPU is more important.

And while building a balanced PC you need to look at the big picture, there's always value in pointing out particular strengths and weaknesses in individual components. Because sometimes, some people need a build that is off the mainstream and aspects that are unimportant to us, may be crucial for them.
Agreed, but definitely not going to matter in this case because its the i5-10400 mainstream line. Reality is these i5 will probably be a component for Dell prebuilts, imo.
Posted on Reply
#31
bug
Vayra86
Huh?





More like polar opposite :) Or did you mean something else?
In one instance AMD is ~15% faster, in one other Intel is ~15% faster. Yup, that's what "same ballpark all over" (or should I have said overall?) means.
They're not going to consistently put out the exact same numbers, but if you look at the big picture, the graphs are about the same.
Posted on Reply
#32
Vayra86
bug
In one instance AMD is ~15% faster, in one other Intel is ~15% faster. Yup, that's what "same ballpark all over" (or should I have said overall?) means.
They're not going to consistently put out the exact same numbers, but if you look at the big picture, the graphs are about the same.
A 30% performance gap between a synthetic, linearly scaling benchmark versus a realtime ingame test is not same ballpark.... Its a different performance bracket.

30% is a GPU tier. And note: that is with CPUs running at the same clock, whereas the 9900K has 1 Ghz of headroom to spare and AMD best-case 300 mhz.. So, yes, AMD may have the same 'ballpark' IPC... the performance per workload is radically different.

Remember this relates to a topic about 'a gaming CPU'. Using the Zen IPC gain based on Cinebench for that discussion isn't really a good choice. You end up buying the wrong stuff.

Vario
Agreed, but definitely not going to matter in this case because its the i5-10400 mainstream line. Reality is these i5 will probably be a component for Dell prebuilts, imo.
Likely. This is most certainly not an '3570K all over again'... it has the threads, but lacks the clocks. I really struggle to see the point of this CPU for gaming at all.
Posted on Reply
#33
Imsochobo
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.
why do you feel the urge to defend a company serving you mostly worse products at higher prices.?
Posted on Reply
#34
bug
Vayra86
A 30% performance gap between a synthetic, linearly scaling benchmark versus a realtime ingame test is not same ballpark.... Its a different performance bracket.

30% is a GPU tier. And note: that is with CPUs running at the same clock, whereas the 9900K has 1 Ghz of headroom to spare and AMD best-case 300 mhz.. So, yes, AMD may have the same 'ballpark' IPC... the performance per workload is radically different.

Remember this relates to a topic about 'a gaming CPU'. Using the Zen IPC gain based on Cinebench for that discussion isn't really a good choice. You end up buying the wrong stuff.
There is no 30% performance gap, you're just cherry-picking extremes. If you had some statistics background, you'd know extremes get pruned when determining an average ;)
Posted on Reply
#35
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
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.
That is out of the question. And even if you manage to source components from outside China, some parts and materials will always come from China.
Posted on Reply
#36
Vayra86
bug
There is no 30% performance gap, you're just cherry-picking extremes. If you had some statistics background, you'd know extremes get pruned when determining an average ;)
Did you even read the results in the link you provided, or? Those cherry picked extremes are constant throughout almost all game tests. IPC gain in Cinebench never EVER translates to better ingame perf at the same clock. The 9900K with LOWER IPC at the SAME clock, still gets higher FPS everywhere. If it isn't 30%, its either 20% or 10%, but its still consistent. The best case scenario is World of Tanks but even then AMD only manages to get 0% gap with better IPC.

Come on now...
Posted on Reply
#37
bug
Vayra86
Did you even read the results in the link you provided, or? Those cherry picked extremes are constant throughout almost all game tests. IPC gain in Cinebench never EVER translates to better ingame perf at the same clock. The 9900K with LOWER IPC at the SAME clock, still gets higher FPS everywhere.

Come on now...
Yes, especially since one extreme (Cinebench) is not even a game. Now I'm wondering how you read graphs...
Posted on Reply
#38
Vario
Vayra86
Did you even read the results in the link you provided, or? Those cherry picked extremes are constant throughout almost all game tests. IPC gain in Cinebench never EVER translates to better ingame perf at the same clock. The 9900K with LOWER IPC at the SAME clock, still gets higher FPS everywhere. If it isn't 30%, its either 20% or 10%, but its still consistent.

Come on now...
Seems like in reality, anyone buying it wouldn't even notice a difference between either product at 4 GHz, the difference is noteworthy only in R6 Siege but the FPS is so damn high anyway.
Posted on Reply
#39
Vayra86
bug
Yes, especially since one extreme (Cinebench) is not even a game. Now I'm wondering how you read graphs...
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.
bug
Here's IPC compared across several applications and benchmarks: https://www.techspot.com/article/1876-4ghz-ryzen-3rd-gen-vs-core-i9/
Same ballpark all over.
You say AMD and Intel have similar IPC and the same clocks. And yet, an Intel CPU running at the same clocks catches a consistent lead in gaming. On the other hand, in nice parralel workloads, AMD shows a clear and consistent IPC gain at the same clocks.

This isn't cherry picking... its calling things what they are. If we zoom out far enough everything is 'ballpark' the same...

The point being: its not right to translate AMD"s IPC lead in a synthetic to gaming results, because they don't seem to lean on IPC, but rather on raw clockspeed and memory latency.

Vario
Seems like in reality, anyone buying it wouldn't even notice a difference between either product at 4 GHz, the difference is noteworthy only in R6 Siege but the FPS is so damn high anyway.

Yeah but CPUs age and so do the requirements for games. If you are buying a midrange CPU its nice not to be upgrading it in two years time. After all, there are enough threads to make it last...

Also... FC New Dawn... 84 vs 92 min FPS? That is significant.
Posted on Reply
#40
kapone32
At the end of the day this CPU should be no faster than the 3600....in anything. 6 cores and 12 threads are 6 cores and 12 threads. Even if it boosts to 4.3 GHZ it will not in my opinion be any faster than AMD's offerings. The 3800x @ 4.3 GHZ is about 10% to 15% slower than the 9900K @ 5 GHZ in gaming. Without the clock speed advantage there is no way (in my opinion) Intel would be faster with the same core count and clock speed. At the end of the day reviews will verify of destroy my thought process.
Posted on Reply
#41
Vario
kapone32
At the end of the day this CPU should be no faster than the 3600....in anything. 6 cores and 12 threads are 6 cores and 12 threads. Even if it boosts to 4.3 GHZ it will not in my opinion be any faster than AMD's offerings. The 3800x @ 4.3 GHZ is about 10% to 15% slower than the 9900K @ 5 GHZ in gaming. Without the clock speed advantage there is no way (in my opinion) Intel would be faster with the same core count and clock speed. At the end of the day reviews will verify of destroy my thought process.
Look at the charts I cropped for you and you will see that in games, the Intel is faster at the same core count and clock speed.
Posted on Reply
#42
Dave65
I hear all these new 14nm ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ will come with duel fire extinguishers built in:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
Posted on Reply
#43
kapone32
Vario
Look at the charts I cropped for you and you will see that in games, the Intel is faster at the same core count and clock speed.
Really the biggest difference is 13 FPS with 238 FPS in Rainbow Six vs 251 for the 9900K.
Posted on Reply
#44
Vario
kapone32
Really the biggest difference is 13 FPS with 238 FPS in Rainbow Six vs 251 for the 9900K.
For the title "Mainstream gaming Champion", the main differentiator will be price. The performance is close enough to be irrelevant. If the i5 10400 is more expensive than 6 core 12 thread AMD, then the AMD is the one to buy, because the difference could be put into the graphics card.
Posted on Reply
#45
bug
kapone32
Really the biggest difference is 13 FPS with 238 FPS in Rainbow Six vs 251 for the 9900K.
(13/238)*100=5.46%
Barely above the margin of error ;)

Vario
For the title "Mainstream gaming Champion", the main differentiator will be price. The performance is close enough to be irrelevant. If the i5 10400 is more expensive than 6 core 12 thread AMD, then the AMD is the one to buy, because the difference could be put into the graphics card.
On the other hand, AMD needs faster RAM...
But in my book, it's ok when the choice is not that obvious. It means there are options/alternatives.
Posted on Reply
#46
Darmok N Jalad
If these are 65W parts, they will find themselves in a lot of OEM machines, Macs included. The headline suggests gaming, but realistically, I don’t see this CPU being a gamer’s first choice. Ryzen or a K series seem more likely.
Posted on Reply
#47
dirtyferret
ARF

This chart is extremely useful as just the other day I was thinking to myself "maybe I should build a PC that runs Cinibench 15 single core tests all day with a CPU locked at 3500mhz?"
Posted on Reply
#48
m4dn355
R5 4600 is gaming champion, i5 is POS.
Posted on Reply
#49
dirtyferret
Vario
Seems like in reality, anyone buying it wouldn't even notice a difference between either product at 4 GHz, the difference is noteworthy only in R6 Siege but the FPS is so damn high anyway.

I recall the review on techspot and from an exercise stand point it does a good job of showing both CPUs are within the same IPC ballpark. A mighty golf clap to both parties.

The obvious reality is neither CPU runs at 4ghz with one being able to push further past 4ghz then the other. That's not a recommendation as their are other things to consider (price, cooling, mobo, the day of the week, etc., etc.,).

m4dn355
R5 4600 is gaming champion, i5 is POS.
the R54600 is an epic fail, the Intel i5-11550KF runs rings around it!
Posted on Reply
#50
ppn
Rocket lake could be good only with the big core sunny/ocean coves, in case intel releases yet another stop gap filler product it will just be kicking the can down the road for nothing.. and there is no significant improvement going from 4 to 5 ghz, considering +50% price and double the power usage, $157 9400f h310 vs $237 9600kf z390. This is purely enthusiasm thing. We get 10% perf out if it. So not worth it for budget builds which must be most of them..
I wouldn't buy anything anyways, id rather just unlock $17 6/12 haswell zeon to 3,4 on 2011v3 mobo. and call it a day. But even that costs too Much. Besides why would anyone buy the 5r3600 now if it drops to $89 preceding the r4600 release.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment