Monday, April 20th 2020

Intel Core i7-10700K and i5-10600K Geekbenched, Inch Ahead of 3800X and 3600X

The week has begun with sporadic leaks about Intel's upcoming 10th generation Core "Comet Lake-S" desktop processor family, be it pictures of various socket LGA1200 motherboards, or leaked performance scores. Thai PC enthusiast TUM_APISAK posted links to Geekbench V4 entries of a handful 10th gen Core processors. These include the Core i7-10700K (8-core/16-thread), and the Core i5-10600K (6-core/12-thread). Comparisons with incumbent AMD offerings are inescapable. The i7-10700K locks horns with the Ryzen 7 3800X, while the i5-10600K takes the battle to the Ryzen 5 3600X.

The Core i7-10700K scores 34133 points in the multi-core test, and 5989 in the single-core one. The i5-10600K, on the other hand, puts out 28523 points in the multi-threaded test, and 6081 points in the single-core test. Both scores appear to be a single-digit percentage ahead of the AMD rivals in the multi-threaded test. The Intel chips appear to offer slightly better less-parallelized performance owing to higher boost frequencies for single-threaded or less parallelized workloads. These include an impressive 5.10 GHz max boost frequency for the i7-10700K, and 4.80 GHz for the i5-10600K. APISAK also posted scores of the iGPU-disabled Core i5-10600KF, which is roughly on par with the i5-10600K since it's basically the same chip with its eyes poked out.
Source: TUM_APISAK (Twitter)
Add your own comment

80 Comments on Intel Core i7-10700K and i5-10600K Geekbenched, Inch Ahead of 3800X and 3600X

#1
theoneandonlymrk
If so, it'll be at considerably more power used, a point that's missing from this but wasn't during similar reports of the FX series back int day.
If you care for the earth you can't buy Intel, :p

No I jest at least Intel are competing on some points.
We wouldn't want a one horse race again.
Posted on Reply
#2
phanbuey
That's great and all but the 8700K OC'd (a ~3 year old chip) is ahead of the 3600x, if these weren't ahead of the ryzen 3 chips with the same core count that would be a massive disaster. The competition is the 4000 series and that's where they're going to have a tough time.
Posted on Reply
#3
ZoneDymo
The Core i7-10700K scores 34133 points in the multi-core test, and 5989 in the single-core one. The i5-10600K, on the other hand, puts out 28523 points in the multi-threaded test, and 6081 points in the single-core test.

Why is the 10600k better in single core? higher clock speeds due to less cores?

Also how does Geekbench evne work because if I look it up I find different scores, some better then what is posted here, some worse, the title says it inches out the 3800x but I see scores of it losing to the 3700x sooo what gives?
Posted on Reply
#4
Imsochobo
phanbuey
That's great and all but the 8700K OC'd (a ~3 year old chip) is ahead of the 3600x, if these weren't ahead of the ryzen 3 chips with the same core count that would be a massive disaster. The competition is the 4000 series and that's where they're going to have a tough time.
yeah agreed.
atleast now it I think addresses some of the platform concerns I have, just so little bandwidth with 4 lanes of 3.0 pci-e bandwidth for all usb, storage, network, and such.
it's improved a lot in that area but, the 10600k is gonna use more power than a 3950x and inch ahead of a year old cpu which is more efficient ?
if the leaked prices are anything to go by they're not even priced competitively as well as probably locked B460 boards so need z490 for 10600K which is The best cpu in this lineup imho and coulda been a big hit if they price right, give affordable B motherboards with unlocked atleast memory as these won't clock much higher anyways.
Posted on Reply
#5
Mark Little
If you count Cascade Lake-X, then AMD and Intel have competitive lineups all the way up to $1000. They are both competitive on performance and if you go by 1000 tray unit, pricing as well. AMD is doing much better in the power efficiency department.

So I checked how much the Core i9-10980XE is going for over at Newegg. This processor is competitive against the Ryzen 3950X.

www.newegg.com/intel-core-i9-10th-gen-core-i9-10980xe/p/N82E16819118112?&quicklink=true

It's out of stock and last sold for $3500!!!!

My point is that no matter what Intel releases on paper it will be damn hard getting anywhere close in reality.

Edit: As a similar exercise, I looked at Newegg for Core i9 Coffee Lake and Ryzen 7 3000 series. These are all 8 cores with hyperthreading.

www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007671+601321946+601350549+4814&Order=PRICE

The Intel processors are all way above the MSRP. As insanely high power draw configs are being pushed on the 14 nm process by Intel gen after gen, again how close to reality will these Comet Lake offerings be available to buy and at the MSRP?
Posted on Reply
#6
phill
What I don't understand is that we rave about scores based on a benchmark that's not brilliant at the best oft times and everyone go nuts about it..

Still, I wonder how they tested the Intel CPUs with regards to what cooling.. I'd rather not hear they have to have a chiller to keep the thing under what we'd hope is normal temps :) That and the RAM speeds as well... All interesting stuff tho... Would be good to see the reviews when they come through :)
Posted on Reply
#7
DR4G00N
ZoneDymo
Why is the 10600k better in single core? higher clock speeds due to less cores?
Geekbench scores can vary by a bit run to run.
Posted on Reply
#8
Vayra86
theoneandonlymrk
If so, it'll be at considerably more power used, a point that's missing from this but wasn't during similar reports of the FX series back int day.
If you care for the earth you can't buy Intel, :p

No I jest at least Intel are competing on some points.
We wouldn't want a one horse race again.
Its not a one horse race.. You can buy a 3800X or 3600X!

Or an Intel pressure cooker
DR4G00N
Geekbench scores can vary by a bit run to run.
Yeah... its remarkably similar to that Final Fantasy GPU bench where every run its a total surprise if you might get on the leaderboards...
ZoneDymo
The Core i7-10700K scores 34133 points in the multi-core test, and 5989 in the single-core one. The i5-10600K, on the other hand, puts out 28523 points in the multi-threaded test, and 6081 points in the single-core test.

Why is the 10600k better in single core? higher clock speeds due to less cores?

Also how does Geekbench evne work because if I look it up I find different scores, some better then what is posted here, some worse, the title says it inches out the 3800x but I see scores of it losing to the 3700x sooo what gives?
Shit bench, ignore Geekbench is the gist of it. For ballpark performance comparison, maybe. For anything more, pointless. These minor gaps are meaningless and the ST score gap is margin of error territory, You're talking 100 points out of 6000 here.
Posted on Reply
#9
AnarchoPrimitiv
Mark Little
If you count Cascade Lake-X, then AMD and Intel have competitive lineups all the way up to $1000. They are both competitive on performance and if you go by 1000 tray unit, pricing as well. AMD is doing much better in the power efficiency department.

So I checked how much the Core i9-10980XE is going for over at Newegg. This processor is competitive against the Ryzen 3950X.

www.newegg.com/intel-core-i9-10th-gen-core-i9-10980xe/p/N82E16819118112?&quicklink=true

It's out of stock and last sold for $3500!!!!

My point is that no matter what Intel releases on paper it will be damn hard getting anywhere close in reality.

Edit: As a similar exercise, I looked at Newegg for Core i9 Coffee Lake and Ryzen 7 3000 series. These are all 8 cores with hyperthreading.

www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007671+601321946+601350549+4814&Order=PRICE

The Intel processors are all way above the MSRP. As insanely high power draw configs are being pushed on the 14 nm process by Intel gen after gen, again how close to reality will these Comet Lake offerings be available to buy and at the MSRP?
The 10980XE, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist to regular consumers. I've never wanted one, but out of curiosity I have checked various online retailers for stock, and I've never seen one in stock for purchase....the only way you can reliably get one is from a SI.
Posted on Reply
#10
theoneandonlymrk
Vayra86
Its not a one horse race.. You can buy a 3800X or 3600X!

Or an Intel pressure cooker



Yeah... its remarkably similar to that Final Fantasy GPU bench where every run its a total surprise if you might get on the leaderboards...
It's getting to a point where one horse is towing a shit load more than the other though and for peanut's relatively.
A horse can't outlast the environment it's in and if you keep flogging a lame horse the feckers going to fall down dead eventually, this is Intel and 14nm IMHO.

I think we're really in a three horse race anyway ,arm part's are actually taking over from x86 for some workloads, a debacle Intel have little answer for even on they're 10nm node.

I see a reorganization on the cards personally ,since these new parts are not priced to really succeed again imho.
Posted on Reply
#11
Turmania
I will hold my judgement untill reviews pop up. We have to take into account price, a new motherboard ,power and heat and of course performance. My suspicion is it will be a good chip but one that is power hungry. And power hungry is a no go for small itx build users like me.
Posted on Reply
#12
theoneandonlymrk
Turmania
I will hold my judgement untill reviews pop up. We have to take into account price, a new motherboard ,power and heat and of course performance. My suspicion is it will be a good chip but one that is power hungry. And power hungry is a no go for small itx build users like me.
Those motherboards are not going to be cheap.

And how long are people going to keep paying for what amounts to minimal performance gains for such high prices.

Their competition is starting to open up such an efficiency gap that some shouldn't even be considering them viable, looking at all those mentioning TCO for AMD GPUs compared to Nvidia here.
You can often do the same work on a 35watt laptop ffs! 180/250 watts for a CPU alone in 2020 just to game on is preposterous.
Posted on Reply
#13
Mark Little
AnarchoPrimitiv
The 10980XE, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist to regular consumers. I've never wanted one, but out of curiosity I have checked various online retailers for stock, and I've never seen one in stock for purchase....the only way you can reliably get one is from a SI.
I fear this will start to extend down into the mainstream and soon only Celeron, Pentiums, Core i3 and Core i5 processors will be available for the DIY market. There are two reasons I say this. Fab capacity is being wasted on underperforming 10 nm processes taking up fab machinery and very short supply binning of all high end 14 nm cores. In order to get Core i7, i9 and Xeon processors (both mobile and otherwise), Intel is probably only getting some cores to operate at the high frequencies and core counts. The rest are repurposed for the low end.
Posted on Reply
#14
birdie
I'm curious why the editor chose to repost shitty quality screenshots from Twitter instead of making his own or posting direct links to results:

browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=10600K
browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=10600KF
browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=10700K
browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=10700KF
browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=10900KF

Also, the editor didn't mention the fact that GB4 test is quite sensitive to RAM speed (the higher the memory speed is the better results are) which often doesn't relate to real world applications performance that's why the memory speed test was removed from GB5.

Oh, and I've just found you some 10900KF results as well. The CPU as predicted boosts to 5.3GHz which is simply astonishing. You may mention it in the news.

Looks like the Core i9 10900KF is thermally limited - 39K points vs Ryzen 3900X 49K points (i.e. 25% faster). Considering the former has 10 cores and the latter 12, the difference should have been smaller (20% faster). Intel desperately needs a high performance low power node to start reigning again.

You're welcome.
Posted on Reply
#15
TheinsanegamerN
Interesting how all over the net there are these articles proclaiming "INTEL COMET LAKE IS MARGIN OF ERROR AHEAD OF 3800X ZOMG" yet none of them show the scores for the vastly superior 3900x, which costs less then that i9-10900k will. Hmmmmm..........
Posted on Reply
#16
kapone32
Well this is not going to convince anyone who bought into Ryzen to change back or over to Intel. Not that the CPU(s) are not impressive (for gaming) but that continued conceit that you must buy a new MB is even more pronounced in a world where you could use (for the most part) a MB from 2017 with a CPU from 2019 or vice versa.
TheinsanegamerN
Interesting how all over the net there are these articles proclaiming "INTEL COMET LAKE IS MARGIN OF ERROR AHEAD OF 3800X ZOMG" yet none of them show the scores for the vastly superior 3900x, which costs less then that i9-10900k will. Hmmmmm..........
Well it is a 12 core processor....I guess.
Posted on Reply
#17
Ex amd fanboy
phanbuey
That's great and all but the 8700K OC'd (a ~3 year old chip) is ahead of the 3600x, if these weren't ahead of the ryzen 3 chips with the same core count that would be a massive disaster. The competition is the 4000 series and that's where they're going to have a tough time.
Btw, even 8600k/9600k/9600kf are a better option for gaming, than any Ryzen at the moment. 8700k is WAY faster. That`s why 10th gen is a succes, you will be able to buy a refreshed 8700k for the price of an i5. I don`t like all the synthetic benchmarks tho. They do not represent real world perfomance
Posted on Reply
#18
Mistral
Ex amd fanboy
Btw, even 8600k/9600k/9600kf are a better option for gaming, than any Ryzen at the moment. 8700k is WAY faster...
Hey, if you like to play at low resolution and reduced graphic settings, more power to ya...
Posted on Reply
#19
cardss
A 14nm cooking stove for an unnoticeable difference? No thanks
Posted on Reply
#20
Ex amd fanboy
Mistral
Hey, if you like to play at low resolution and reduced graphic settings, more power to ya...
Playing FC5 on my R5 3600 + 16GB 3733cl16 tuned ballistix spot lt + 5700XT at 1440p full ultra is not a pleasant experience. I am heavily CPU bound. Ryzen is OK for 4K@60Hz gaming, but gaming on a high refresh rate monitor is definitely not the best case scenario for AMD CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#21
Calmmo
Lets play spot the troll account

:)
Posted on Reply
#22
Ex amd fanboy
Turmania
I will hold my judgement untill reviews pop up. We have to take into account price, a new motherboard ,power and heat and of course performance. My suspicion is it will be a good chip but one that is power hungry. And power hungry is a no go for small itx build users like me.
I don`t see a big problem with power. There`re plenty of SFX/SFX-L PSUs that can handle such builds.
Posted on Reply
#23
Cidious
My 3800X (NO PBO, NO MANUAL OC. STOCK VOLTAGE. Only memory OC):


6261 SC | 38377 MC.

Seems like their benchmarking is flawed or the Geekbench version might be cherry picked to give Intel a slight favor. Wouldn't surprise me.
Posted on Reply
#24
Tsukiyomi91
at least AMD is getting some competition, but with how the Ryzen 3xxx being priced rn, on top of a possible price reduction when Ryzen 4xxx unveils, Intel isn't doing a good job when their rumored chips that are somewhat "TBA" aren't performing well.

gaming wise & specific workloads, Intel is fine on those fronts. But once you go for something else, AMD does the rest much better. 14nm+++++ is no longer deemed as competitive in 2020.
Posted on Reply
#25
ppn
14nm not competing for server, but for pc we get 9900@ 4,4 157 watts, 3700x @ 4,2 140 watts stress test. Suppose that 10700K@ 4,3 can also be under volted by 0,1 and oc'ed by 200mhz. And AMD had to go for 7nm second gen node n7p to get that. We are yet to witnesses rocket and coVe with great ipc. So 14 nm will kick ass even when amd is on 5Nn.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment