The 10900 is $47 more than the 9900, but you do at least get an extra two cores here for your money, so I guess it's not all bad.
The 10700K is $69 cheaper than 9900KF, but $45 more than the 9700K...
The 10700 is $39 more than the 9700...
Not sure the extra price premium is worth it to get 200MHz base and maybe 200MHz boost speed and HT over the current x700 parts.
In case of the plain 10700 you actually lose out 100MHz base clock...

I like that pricing.

Seems a bit hot running (surprise), not much more W than the 9900K tho, IIRC.
www.notebookcheck.net/Comet-Lake-S-may-require-hefty-CPU-coolers-Core-i9-10900F-shown-to-have-a-170-W-PL1-TDP-and-224-W-PL2-for-a-4-6-GHz-all-core-boost.460196.0.html

jlewis02I like that pricing.

should thanks to Lisa Su~ AMD

Prices have gone up, last time I bought a heater for my room it was like 30 GBP.

not sure it can run on z390 mobo or not

base 2.9 -> 3.8 -> 2.8 Ghz
Seems like too big jump and dip

amend. 10700K and 10900K has 125W TDP vs 65W for non-K.

jlewis02I like that pricing.

Wait. What? That's nearly $500 for the top end chip meanwhile you can get a comparable chip from AMD at a fraction of the price. I don't know about you, but it sure looks like Intel is price gouging us here.

Not too shabby. Intel could definitely do worse.

www.techradar.com/news/intel-core-i9-10900f-power-requirements-leaked-and-youll-need-a-beefy-cpu-cooler
Rumors indicate that you're going to be needing some seriously beefy cooling to be able to cool this beast of a chip.

Assuming the details posted on Weibo are correct – pinches of condiments handy, as ever – what we see is the Core i9-10900F (F means there’s no integrated GPU) flooring it in a stress test scenario, with an all-core boost of 4.6GHz, drawing 224W in terms of PL2 (‘power level 2’, or power usage under Turbo).

If you bring AMD’s far more efficient Ryzen 3rd-gen CPUs in for comparison, matters look even worse, with the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X flagship toting 16-cores – over 50% more than Intel’s Comet Lake kingpin – and hitting around 145W when under full load.

The power-efficiency gap is shaping up to be nothing less than startling at this point, but this is no big surprise given that Intel is having to continue to try and get the most out of its long-in-the-tooth 14nm process, an increasingly difficult endeavor.

The suggestion is that the Core i9-10900 will need a seriously beefy cooler to ensure you’re getting anything like the best out of it, and PC Gamer mentions a 240mm liquid cooling solution. Arguably, anyone spending the money to purchase this Comet Lake 10-core flagship – it doubtless won’t come cheap – will likely to be looking to fork out for one of the best CPU coolers, anyway.

trparkywww.techradar.com/news/intel-core-i9-10900f-power-requirements-leaked-and-youll-need-a-beefy-cpu-cooler
Rumors indicate that you're going to be needing some seriously beefy cooling to be able to cool this beast of a chip.

224W sounds both plausible and painful. The 9900KS pulls 170W with 8 cores, so just adding 2 more cores at the same spec would get you to 212W. Granted, we're not looking at an all-core of 5.0GHz.

TheLostSwedeNot sure the extra price premium is worth it

+ a new board (Supposedly).

Outback Bronze+ a new board (Supposedly).

Right, yes, that too, as the socket changes to 1200 pins.

trparkyWait. What? That's nearly $500 for the top end chip meanwhile you can get a comparable chip from AMD at a fraction of the price. I don't know about you, but it sure looks like Intel is price gouging us here.

That's the non K/KF version though, so there will be at least two more expensive parts than what's list here.

mrthanhnguyennot sure it can run on z390 mobo or not

Nope as it has a new socket (LGA 1200) once again.

This isn't really worth the digital paper it's being printed on by all these hardware outfits eager for Comet Lake news; we knew the pricing was going to remain on a high footing more or less from the outset. If there's any truth to this, we should see the 10900K square at the $500 mark but it's more likely to be as high as $549. That's not bad when you consider they insist on retailing the Cascade Lake part at upwards of $600 but given the new socket and power draw requirements, I think more people will wait to see if Zen 3 will finally clock to 5ghz, which in itself is unlikely but the prices on ComL will have dropped by then anyway so the wait-and-see game is the one to play if you're in the market for a new CPU.

TheLostSwedeThe 10900 is $47 more than the 9900, but you do at least get an extra two cores here for your money, so I guess it's not all bad.
The 10700K is $69 cheaper than 9900KF, but $45 more than the 9700K...
The 10700 is $39 more than the 9700...
Not sure the extra price premium is worth it to get 200MHz base and maybe 200MHz boost speed and HT over the current x700 parts.
In case of the plain 10700 you actually lose out 100MHz base clock...

its basically not worth the Upgrade. New CPU, new socket.
And its a socket that comes to live and its already dead cause this is probably the last processors on 14nm+++++++++++ after this i assume intel is going 10nm so thats a new socket again... meanwhile AMD is releasing ZEN3 (ryzen 4000 desktop) and it will run on AM4 boards (B550, X570 and some X470 with bios updates)

KarymidoNits basically not worth the Upgrade. New CPU, new socket.
And its a socket that comes to live and its already dead cause this is probably the last processors on 14nm+++++++++++ after this i assume intel is going 10nm so thats a new socket again... meanwhile AMD is releasing ZEN3 (ryzen 4000 desktop) and it will run on AM4 boards (B550, X570 and some X470 with bios updates)

The socket doesn't have anything to do with the manufacturing node and it will be used for at least two CPU generations.

TheLostSwedeThe 10900 is $47 more than the 9900, but you do at least get an extra two cores here for your money, so I guess it's not all bad.
The 10700K is $69 cheaper than 9900KF, but $45 more than the 9700K...
The 10700 is $39 more than the 9700...
Not sure the extra price premium is worth it to get 200MHz base and maybe 200MHz boost speed and HT over the current x700 parts.
In case of the plain 10700 you actually lose out 100MHz base clock...

Thanks, Swede! I started to do the cypherin' in my head, but you saved me the trouble. I'm wanting to build another desktop soon so your info is a big help. I'm also in the market for another 17" laptop, but that's a horse of another color. There are a couple of kids in our condo unit that are in need of systems, so part of my desire to build/buy new systems is to pass my hand-me-downs to them (with NEW, fresh HDDs). Any excuse to have a new system or two.

I wonder how much they can be OC on a good AIO.

Elysium

This isn't really worth the digital paper it's being printed on by all these hardware outfits eager for Comet Lake news; we knew the pricing was going to remain on a high footing more or less from the outset. If there's any truth to this, we should see the 10900K square at the $500 mark but it's more likely to be as high as $549. That's not bad when you consider they insist on retailing the Cascade Lake part at upwards of $600 but given the new socket and power draw requirements, I think more people will wait to see if Zen 3 will finally clock to 5ghz, which in itself is unlikely but the prices on ComL will have dropped by then anyway so the wait-and-see game is the one to play if you're in the market for a new CPU.

I doubt that Zen3 will reach 5.0, but if it gets the 10-15% IPC uplift, then it won’t really have to. Intel can’t hit 5.0 GHz on 10nm, and it comes at great efficiency cost to do it on 14nm. I guess we’ll see if they can wrangle more MHz out of future nodes, but it certainly seems like as densities increase, the ideal frequency targets get narrower.