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?

#76
bug
dirtyferret
Do you typically run it a full ghz under what your CPU operates at?
Run what? What frequency have to do with IPC?
Posted on Reply
#77
dirtyferret
bug
Run what? What frequency have to do with IPC?
run the test as in the chart
Posted on Reply
#78
bug
dirtyferret
run the test as in the chart
Well, yes. If you want to determine IPC, that's what you do: you underclock to run everything at the same frequency. Whoever wins does the most work per clock.
Posted on Reply
#79
dirtyferret
bug
Well, yes. If you want to determine IPC, that's what you do: you underclock to run everything at the same frequency. Whoever wins does the most work per clock.
I know how it works and what it does, my sole question was "do you run it like that"?
Posted on Reply
#80
bug
dirtyferret
I know how it works and what it does, my sole question was "do you run it like that"?
No. But how is that relevant in the context?
10400 is supposed to run at about the same frequency as 3600. Given similar IPC, it will behave about the same.
Posted on Reply
#81
dirtyferret
bug
No.
End of discussion
bug
But how is that relevant in the context?
Question was asked, answer given. See statement above
bug
10400 is supposed to run at about the same frequency as 3600. Given similar IPC, it will behave about the same.
Wonderful (and I agree) but that was never brought up by me. If you want to go at it with someone else over that topic, have at it.
Posted on Reply
#82
bug
dirtyferret
End of discussion
I still don't understand what you were talking about, but ok.
Posted on Reply
#83
Chrispy_
This still isn't going to do much to stop people buying R5 3600 chips instead:

With a 3600 you're getting
  • similar performance at a much better power efficiency
  • $20 in your pocket because the Ryzen is cheaper
  • an unlocked chip that'll routinely do 4.3-4.4GHz all core, all day (no boost limits)
  • No silly requirement for a Z-series motherboard. Several budget B450 boards can handle a 3600 4.4GHz with ease.
  • Included cooler. Maybe not for overclocking but at stock it'll match the (clock-locked) Intel without costing you a dime.
  • Way more cache. I'm convinced the huge cache is one of the biggest reasons Zen2 stomps all over Intel and Zen1/Zen+
I mean, taking all of that into account, the i5-10400 really needs to be $150 to compete.
Posted on Reply
#84
dirtyferret
bug
I still don't understand what you were talking about, but ok.
Vayra stated the following;
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.
A chart was posted in reply to his post showing various CPUs at 3500mhz running cinebench and many being in the same IPC ballpark unfortunately none of those CPUs are run at 3500mhz stock making the test academic in nature but not for the real world (unless of course you do run your charted CPU @3500)
Posted on Reply
#85
bug
dirtyferret
Vayra stated the following;


A chart was posted in reply to his post showing various CPUs at 3500mhz running cinebench and many being in the same IPC ballpark unfortunately none of those CPUs are run at 3500mhz stock making the test academic in nature but not for the real world (unless of course you do run your charted CPU @3500)
Well, yeah. And I posted another link showing that image extrapolates nicely to gaming, that's how "academic" that test is. After that he went on to tell me a sub 10% difference is not "in the same ballpark". So I really don't know what everybody is trying to say anymore.
Posted on Reply
#86
oxrufiioxo
dirtyferret
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!


Do you typically run it a full ghz under what your CPU operates at?
A lot of people I've done builds for are coming from console gaming so their initial investment is $800-1000 max including monitor etc. They mostly play multiplayer games like gears 5, call of duty, fortnite, and BFV and in less than 2 years switch to 144hz or 165hz panels with a 2080 super or 2080 ti and as good as the 1600 is doesn't hold up for that sort of usage especially if you want to maintain 144hz at all times.

I typically let them do a gaming session on my systems for a couple hours prior to them doing their builds. That's part of the reason I needed a ryzen system last year hard to recommend something I didn't own.... Graphs only show so much ya know.


Even my 9900k @ 5ghz can be CPU limited in BFV (multiplayer) at 1440p/ultra with a 2080 ti... By around 5-8% but still.

Some have stuck with their 1600/1700 and are super happy with their 1080 class GPU and lower. Also none of the 2600/2700 system I've done have made the switch.
Posted on Reply
#87
R0H1T
There is no such thing as "Gaming IPC" anyone trying to extrapolate CPU gaming performance ala IPC should just look at that LTT video with 3990x running Crysis, I mean how the heck do you measure that with GPU acceleration o_O

Hint ~ you don't! Also IPC isn't just application dependent, it's also code (path) dependent :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#88
Vayra86
bug
Well, yeah. And I posted another link showing that image extrapolates nicely to gaming, that's how "academic" that test is. After that he went on to tell me a sub 10% difference is not "in the same ballpark". So I really don't know what everybody is trying to say anymore.
Me neither let's drop it :D
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment