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?

#51
Dave65
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.
Rocket Lake will be the same old (OLD) tech, just another 14 nm part.. Should name is sparkler lake.
I think people want new tech not the same old stuff wiith different names. But you said it GAP FILLER and you're correct, sadly!
Posted on Reply
#52
Vayra86
bug
(13/238)*100=5.46%
Barely above the margin of error ;)


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.
In the case of FC New Dawn we're talking about 9,5%. Not average. Minimums. And that is today, what about in a few years time when a stronger GPU is paired with games that demand more CPU as well. I will reiterate the lifetime of my last 'midrange gaming CPU', 3570K... it lasted 5,5 years and could still pull things reasonably, but started to show age. I doubt these low-ish clocked Intel 6c12t's will do similar. That HT better get used... I also vividly remember people who had locked i5's at the time. They didn't last more than 3-4 years tops, simply lacking clock.

These gaps only get larger, not smaller over time. And when its about best choice for a gaming CPU... an AMD equivalent with the same clocks and the same core/thread count will perform worse. Not similar, but consistently worse for gaming. Despite higher IPC. Its not ballpark the same, its a gap.

But... that still doesn't make this 10400 a 'gaming CPU' by any stretch. Its just mainstream performance :p And yes, in the larger scheme of things, I do agree the gap is too small to favor either one over the other at the same price. Most people do have more purposes for CPUs than gaming.
Posted on Reply
#53
londiste
dirtyferret
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?"
Try this one as well:
https://www.sweclockers.com/test/27760-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-och-7-3700x-matisse/28#content

Everything about i5-10400 comes down to specific specs. Price, clocks and TDP.

If (and it is a big if) they will place this exactly on par with i5-9400 it will definitely be a contender. i5-9400/F is by-the-spec 65W CPU, runs at reasonable enough 3.9/4.1GHz clocks and is not far behind R5 3600(X) in gaming. With 10-series i5 having HT back, the difference will be even smaller. i5-9400 tends to be sold for over MSRP (RCP $187 but sells for a bit under $200) while i5-9400F is sold under MSRP (RCP $157 but sells for about $140). i5-10400, F or not, for $150 would be trouble for AMD. Knowing Intel though, they will probably overprice it anyway :)

This time, AM4 longevity will only be a boost for people upgrading from previous Ryzens. As far as new systems go, if Intel keeps the usual 2 generations per socket model, it is right on par with AM4.

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.
This is technically true but only serves to usher a buyer towards cheaper CPU. While cheap R5 3600 has outmatched i5 9400F for now - mainly thanks to extra threads - if Intel happens to put out a 6c/12t CPU like i5-10400 in the same price bracket, this will be a close call.
Posted on Reply
#54
storm-chaser
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 would you be defending AMD? They totally betrayed the "overclocking enthusiast".... by releasing chips that are actually slower when used with an unlocked multiplier.

"Unlocked multi" on an AMD CPU is just a sales gimmick, an attempt to keep public confidence up that they still support overclocking. Which they don't.

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 agree, it would have been a "mid" range championship material chip had intel gone with an unlocked mutli. But I guess they don't want their 6 core chips to be performing as well as their high level i7 and i9 variants relative to gaming. Like how an overclocked 9600K closes the gap with Intel's 9900K to within a few percentage points...

Likely explanation:

[/quote]Right. The AMD chips suffer from incredibly "bad" latency as far as I am concerned. However, the end user sitting at the computer is likely not going to notice much of a difference between them unless they know what to look for. To give you an idea of the problems surrounding Ryzen and latency, take a look at the "how low can you go benchmark comp": It's almost all Intel i5-i7-i9 on top and almost all Ryzen on bottom. To add insult to injury, look at the two fastest AMD chips. One is a Phenom II and the other is a X2 6400!!! AMD cant even compete against decades old tech from their own company! Im not trying to rub AMD fans noses in the dirt, as I said, the difference is hardly noticeable, but, In my opinion, as a tweaker, this oversight, in trying to Frankenstein the very flawed FX IMC into Ryzen is simply unacceptable. Because the chip is otherwise, outstanding.


Posted on Reply
#55
Darmok N Jalad
storm-chaser
Why would you be defending AMD? They totally betrayed the "overclocking enthusiast".... by releasing chips that are actually slower when used with an unlocked multiplier.
I think by the way they designed their chips, they made overclocking impractical. The chip is designed to take advantage of the power/voltage/frequency conditions as they come, and their binning makes this system hard to beat with manual settings. Ultimately, their unlocked status isn’t much good to get more performance, making it not much of a selling point anymore. Intel’s chips still have room past their binning, so they can profit from unlocked SKUs. Until AMDs chips have room beyond their bins, I don’t think it really matters if their chips are unlocked at all right now.
Posted on Reply
#56
Fluffmeister
Basically, you have two choices in CPU land, and it's really dull either way.
Posted on Reply
#57
oxrufiioxo
Darmok N Jalad
I think by the way they designed their chips, they made overclocking impractical. The chip is designed to take advantage of the power/voltage/frequency conditions as they come, and their binning makes this system hard to beat with manual settings. Ultimately, their unlocked status isn’t much good to get more performance, making it not much of a selling point anymore. Intel’s chips still have room past their binning, so they can profit from unlocked SKUs. Until AMDs chips have room beyond their bins, I don’t think it really matters if their chips are unlocked at all right now.
They still benefit in rendering and encoding from all core fixed frequency overclocks more so the 3900X and 3950X though. I would expect this to carry over to Zen 3.


I'm actually excited about this chip for budget builds if it is priced right... Considering you can get a 3600 for around $165 lately if intel prices this at $150 it could be a really nice budget options I'm just glad they're ditching 6 thread i5 as they need to die.
Posted on Reply
#58
storm-chaser
oxrufiioxo
I'm actually excited about this chip for budget builds if it is priced right... Considering you can get a 3600 for around $165 lately if intel prices this at $150 it could be a really nice budget options I'm just glad they're ditching 6 thread i5 as they need to die.
What's wrong with having six core CPUs?

Hexacores in my book offer the perfect blend of performance. First of all, less heat.

There are many, many people out there who will never tap in to the outermost cores X7 and X8 and heck, they might not even load up X6 and X7.
Posted on Reply
#59
oxrufiioxo
storm-chaser
What's wrong with having six core CPUs?

Hexacores in my book offer the perfect blend of performance. First of all, less heat.

There are many, many people out there who will never tap in to the outermost cores X7 and X8 and heck, they might not even load up X6 and X7.
A lot of budget builders like to keep their systems for 5 years sometimes longer.... Especially on intel platforms where the cost of moving to better chips like the 6500k to the 6700k is very prohibitive. intel offering more threads at the low end is a very good thing. A 6 core 12 thread chip for less than 200 is way better than a 6 core 6 thread offering at the same price for people who want to stick with intel. Especially when you start to look at cpu demanding game engines or them wanting to be able to stream and game at the same time at a good quality level.

RTX GPU stream pretty damn good these days without a huge hit to performance so that's a good alternative.

At the same time the majority of people in this price range having potato gpu well under a 2060/5700 class card means it may not matter even if they have a Ryzen 1500X for the life of the platform and at that point you may as well still get the cpu with actual better general performance that a 12 thread cpu will give you especially at the same price.

Am4 is a different animal as amd supports more cpu generations per socket and lower price previous generation offerings giving budget shoppers more choice even if they had to go quad core at the start.

Unlike you and me who will likely ditch their motherboards and systems after 2-3 years if necessary making it irrelevant.
Posted on Reply
#60
Darmok N Jalad
storm-chaser
What's wrong with having six core CPUs?

Hexacores in my book offer the perfect blend of performance. First of all, less heat.

There are many, many people out there who will never tap in to the outermost cores X7 and X8 and heck, they might not even load up X6 and X7.
This is where AMD is missing the mark, IMO. Imagine a 3600X that boosts to 4.7GHz like it's big brother, the 3950X. They could call it a 3650X and sell it for $250. The binning must not be there?
Posted on Reply
#61
storm-chaser
Darmok N Jalad
This is where AMD is missing the mark, IMO. Imagine a 3600X that boosts to 4.7GHz like it's big brother, the 3950X. They could call it a 3650X and sell it for $250. The binning must not be there?
With AMD, I honestly do not know what the problem is. They got everything right with launch of the FX series, and even though they performed very poorly across the board, overclockers and computer enthusiasts loved them because they were so much fun to overcloc, test and tune. I think the world record clock was set on a FX chip, if I'm not mistaken. Something like 8.3GHz?

Darmok N Jalad
This is where AMD is missing the mark, IMO. Imagine a 3600X that boosts to 4.7GHz like it's big brother, the 3950X. They could call it a 3650X and sell it for $250. The binning must not be there?
You reminded me to pull some data from the Cinebench benchmark. We only have a couple applicants so it would be great if you guys could hop on over there for a minute and post up some good #s!

In any event, since we are talking about six cores, I thought this was an interesting comparison:




It's clear AMD is making great processors, and their six core 2600X variant takes down it's intel counterpart, a i5-9600KF even when overclocked to 5.0GHz...
Posted on Reply
#62
phanbuey
Darmok N Jalad
This is where AMD is missing the mark, IMO. Imagine a 3600X that boosts to 4.7GHz like it's big brother, the 3950X. They could call it a 3650X and sell it for $250. The binning must not be there?
I don't think they have the volume of cores that they need that can do that, such a small % can hit those clocks and the ones that can go straight to the 3900 or the 3950x. Also to @storm-chaser 's and your point: if you had a six core/12t CPU that did that the gaming differences between the 3650X and the 3700X would swing in favor of the six, and it would cut into their mid-tier 8 core sales and probably be one of the most popular CPUs they sell, making the supply problem even worse.
Posted on Reply
#63
R0H1T
Fluffmeister
Basically, you have two choices in CPU land, and it's really dull either way.
And they are?
Posted on Reply
#64
storm-chaser
oxrufiioxo
A lot of budget builders like to keep their systems for 5 years sometimes longer.... Especially on intel platforms where the cost of moving to better chips like the 6500k to the 6700k is very prohibitive. intel offering more threads at the low end is a very good thing. A 6 core 12 thread chip for less than 200 is way better than a 6 core 6 thread offering at the same price for people who want to stick with intel. Especially when you start to look at cpu demanding game engines or them wanting to be able to stream and game at the same time at a good quality level.

RTX GPU stream pretty damn good these days without a huge hit to performance so that's a good alternative.

At the same time the majority of people in this price range having potato gpu well under a 2060/5700 class card means it may not matter even if they have a Ryzen 1500X for the life of the platform and at that point you may as well still get the cpu with actual better general performance that a 12 thread cpu will give you especially at the same price.

Am4 is a different animal as amd supports more cpu generations per socket and lower price previous generation offerings giving budget shoppers more choice even if they had to go quad core at the start.

Unlike you and me who will likely ditch their motherboards and systems after 2-3 years if necessary making it irrelevant.
Yeah I get that. In my case, I stuck it out with an Unlocked 970 Zosma (Thuban) based core since 2012. So that's 2012 to 2020 on the same processor.

I was overjoyed to find that I could actually unlock extra cores. That little bit of "hidden" knowledge and the ability to activate these hidden cores is what makes me value the Phenom II as my favorite processor of all time. I called it my Phenom II X6 1705T, with a 189W TDP.

And believe me, at the time I worked remotely, 7-8 hours a day I was online, the computer was used intensively. Over the years I upgraded parts and continued tweaking to get the most out of it that I could. At first glance, you might see a huge disparity, as in, why the hell would I do something like that? Truth be told, the only thing lacking in a Phenom II is current instruction sets. It's still a stout processor, almost a decade gone by. That's why I held on to it. Because with DDR3 1600, 1T command rate and an overclocked memory controller to 3Ghz really wakes it up - because L3 cache speed runs at the full 3000MHz. The platform is very flushed out and sorted, especially when you compare to LGA775.

So yeah, I held on to this as my main system for way too long. But in the last few years, I was conducting an experiment more to see if the Phenom II hexacore was still competent processor for basic use and even moderate gaming in the modern world. Obviously no "heavy" work loads, but in my world, I value per core performance and lower latency over multi core crunching power. So it's a trade off, and this is another reason I chose the 9600KF over the 9900K. The same gaming performance without the cost. No compromise.

I will be building a dedicated "benching" machine that will be decked out with suitable hardware. So I am very much interested in multi core crunching power, but not needed for my main machine.

There is a reason Phenom II hexacores still sell for well over $100 on eBay.
Posted on Reply
#65
londiste
storm-chaser
What's wrong with having six core CPUs?
Hexacores in my book offer the perfect blend of performance. First of all, less heat.
6 cores are where price/performance is at. Even at MSRPs R5-3600 at $200 vs R7-3700X at $325 is 62% more money for 2 more cores (+33%). Similar or worse situation for Intel.
oxrufiioxo
A lot of budget builders like to keep their systems for 5 years sometimes longer....
...
Am4 is a different animal as amd supports more cpu generations per socket and lower price previous generation offerings giving budget shoppers more choice even if they had to go quad core at the start.
AM4 was introduced early 2017 and currently is estimated to last until 2021, 4 years at best. Someone upgrading at 5 years or more does note get real benefit from AM4's longer life cycle.
Posted on Reply
#66
storm-chaser
londiste
6 cores are where price/performance is at.
Thank you. Finally, a voice of reason! You don't know how many people around here have not a clue... this goes right over their heads...
Posted on Reply
#67
oxrufiioxo
londiste
6 cores are where price/performance is at. Even at MSRPs R5-3600 at $200 vs R7-3700X at $325 is 62% more money for 2 more cores (+33%). Similar or worse situation for Intel.
AM4 was introduced early 2017 and currently is estimated to last until 2021, 4 years at best. Someone upgrading at 5 years or more does note get real benefit from AM4's longer life cycle.
That wasn't really the point... On am4 if your CPU is struggling after 2-3 years you likely wouldn't need to change boards. With Intel you better pick wisely or you'll be in a situation where you either over spend on a CPU upgrade or have to do a platform upgrade.

I did multiple ryzen 1600 builds for people in 2017 and they've almost all moved to 3600/3700X the same jump in performance on Intel would have required a whole platform change for example.

Also one of you is talking about a 12 thread CPU which I agree it's currently the smartest choice price vs overall performance the other is talking about a 6 thread CPU.
Posted on Reply
#68
storm-chaser
oxrufiioxo
Also one of you is talking about a 12 thread CPU which I agree it's currently the smartest choice price vs overall performance the other is talking about a 6 thread CPU.
Right. The best value with be 6C/12T and the second best value with be 6C/6T
Posted on Reply
#69
Vayra86
storm-chaser
Thank you. Finally, a voice of reason! You don't know how many people around here have not a clue... this goes right over their heads...
6/6 is the new 4/4 and it will do fine for a few years, until you choke those threads. We've seen it before. Ye olde' i5's went obsolete 1,5 ~ 2 years faster than their i7 brethren with HT. Something similar will be happening in a few years time, but quite a bit faster than it used to during the quad core era. We are already fast moving past 6 core mainstream now, the pace is up compared to 8 years ago. The only logical outcome is that 6/6 will turn old faster. 3 years I think is realistic, of which one is already passing. The move to 8 core or at least 8 threads is a logical one. Consoles will have it, too, and no measly Jaguar cores either; DX12 and similar APIs are gaining ground, etc.

If you buy a 6/6 for gaming today, you'd better start saving for your next one. 6/12 is a great middle ground here in that sense, and might even be more flexible than 8/8. There are already some rare instances of games that dislike 6/6 today.
Posted on Reply
#70
londiste
oxrufiioxo
That wasn't really the point... On am4 if your CPU is struggling after 2-3 years you likely wouldn't need to change boards.
The use case you brought out in the beginning was someone that upgrades every 5 years or so. These people do not do mid-cycle CPU upgrades.
Posted on Reply
#71
oxrufiioxo
londiste
The use case you brought out in the beginning was someone that upgrades every 5 years or so. These people do not do mid-cycle CPU upgrades.
I think I said systems meaning platform sorry if that wasn't clear so motherboard/ram etc... I also mentioned the cost of having to upgrade to a higher tier cpu with Intel being cost prohibitive even after newer faster platforms are released. With Intel being forced to release faster chips at a lower cost to consumers being a good thing was my only real point.


Intel gives us 2 generations at best which is fine for me as I never go 3 gens without a whole platform upgrade but for budget builders which is the majority faster 12 thread and higher processors at the popular sub $200 price point is awesome.
Posted on Reply
#72
londiste
oxrufiioxo
With Intel being forced to release faster chips at a lower cost to consumers being a good thing was my only real point.
Could not agree more :)
Posted on Reply
#73
bug
dirtyferret
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?"
It is actually useful. Cinebench puts the CPU to good use, it will give you a good idea of how many instructions a CPU can push. That's why the link I posted with several benches, paints roughly the same picture.
Sure, you can play with IPC by playing tricks with the cache or running heavily branching code, but for typical usage, Cinebench is enough to get an idea.
Posted on Reply
#74
londiste
bug
It is actually useful. Cinebench puts the CPU to good use, it will give you a good idea of how many instructions a CPU can push. That's why the link I posted with several benches, paints roughly the same picture.
Sure, you can play with IPC by playing tricks with the cache or running heavily branching code, but for typical usage, Cinebench is enough to get an idea.
Different test for different use cases. Cinebench has the benefit of being simple and fast to run but at the same time there are some shortcomings - Cinebench R15 does not use AVX2 (R20 does) and has practically no benefit from faster memory.
Posted on Reply
#75
dirtyferret
oxrufiioxo
I did multiple ryzen 1600 builds for people in 2017 and they've almost all moved to 3600/3700X the same jump in performance on Intel would have required a whole platform change for example.
I don't understand. The same people screaming about future proofing their PCs and preventing microstutter by buying a Ryzen 1600 six core CPU "upgraded" to another six core CPU in the Ryzen 3600 in under three years? Next you will be filling us with lies that someone high IPC and high frequency plays a vital role in web surfing, gaming, and MS office!

bug
It is actually useful. Cinebench puts the CPU to good use, it will give you a good idea of how many instructions a CPU can push. That's why the link I posted with several benches, paints roughly the same picture.
Sure, you can play with IPC by playing tricks with the cache or running heavily branching code, but for typical usage, Cinebench is enough to get an idea.
Do you typically run it a full ghz under what your CPU operates at?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment