Wednesday, May 6th 2020

Intel Core i9-10900K Cinebench 15 Benchmark Leaked: Stock 2347 Points, 3K Points @ 5.4 GHz and 1.35 V

Even as review embargoes remain on Intel's latest 10th Gen CPUs, benchmark scores that show what these 14 nm CPUS are capable of are already flooding the web. Case in point: a Cinebench 15 benchmark of Intel's unlocked Core i9-10900K running at an overclocked 5.4 GHz on all cores @ 1.35 V core. The 10-core CPU features a base clockspeed set at 3.7 GHz, so we're looking at a frequency increase of around 46%.

At those speeds, tested on an ASRock Phantom Gaming 4/AX motherboard and 16 GB of G.Skill DDR4-3200 MHz CL14 memory, the Intel Core i9-10900K managed to post a 3002 multi-core score. When at stock, it achieved a relatively paltry 2347 points. An AMD Ryzen 7 3800X CPU (8-core, 16-thread) typically scores around 2200 points, and an AMD Ryzen 9 3900X CPU (12-core, 24-thread) achieves a 3200 score. They do so at stock frequencies, though; and the Intel Core i9-10900K is sandwiched in-between those when it comes to core-count, but not on price: 10 Intel cores will set you back $488.00, while AMD's 8-core launched at $399 (and is now cheaper) and AMD's 12-core CPU launched for $499. Adding to the benchmarking caveat, the operating temperatures for this particular Core i9-10900K show 0º min and 69º max, so assuming the temperature report is correct, it's fair to say an air cooler wasn't used for this overclocking feat.
Source: Videocardz
Add your own comment

46 Comments on Intel Core i9-10900K Cinebench 15 Benchmark Leaked: Stock 2347 Points, 3K Points @ 5.4 GHz and 1.35 V

#1
agatong55
Isn't the 488 pricing that intel showed only if you buy it 1000 units at a time? So wouldn't it be more expensive if you buying a single chip?

Also still can't beat out a 3950x, also wonder what kind of cooler they were using to achieve those numbers on the 10900
Posted on Reply
#2
Cranky5150
More of the same from Intel i see..I think retail on this chip is gonna be 525 to 575 IMO..
Posted on Reply
#3
bencrutz
it comes with bundled chiller, right?
Posted on Reply
#4
20mmrain
If this holds true... this looks like a flop from Intel!
Posted on Reply
#5
thesmokingman
20mmrain
If this holds true... this looks like a flop from Intel!
And R15 isn't as well threaded as R20 to boot. The prior leaks gave the impression that they almost had parity... Oh lmao, look at that R15 , its on win 8. Avoiding a fair test by not doing it on win10... :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#6
danbert2000
There is an interesting choice between these two processors. The 3900X has more performance guaranteed. The stock cooler will get you the lion's share of the single core performance, there isn't much manual overclocking can give you over the very easy PBO option, and you won't need a 750 W PSU to power it. The 10900K has slightly better single core performance, and a higher ceiling for overclocking, but it will require a water cooler or large, $50+ air cooler to run even stock without throttling, and will likely take 300 W or more to get to the rated boost speeds. All while having worse multi core performance no matter what.

So your choice is: a processor that works at default close to its maximum performance, is cheaper overall (because of the included cooler and lower power requirements), and better at multi core. Or a processor that is marginally faster at single core, potentially better for high frame rate gaming, but requires you to buy a beefier PSU, a cooler, and if you want to really get the most out of it, you have to manually overclock it to even get close in multi core performance.

Oddly enough, it will probably be the least proficient users that go for Intel because of their brand recognition and years of being "top dog." Whereas those who want a well rounded processor will stick with the Zen 2 chips. And the smartest of all will wait for Zen 3 this year because it will torpedo both options, and Intel won't have an answer for another whole year.
Posted on Reply
#7
Ed_1
That is an impressive increase considering stock the all core freq is 4.9 if under 70c or 4.8 if not so for 500mhz OC score went from 2347 to 3002.
So 10% OC gets 28% increase, well that base seems wrong as normally performance doesn't keep increasing linerally once you pass the sweet spot freq wise.
Posted on Reply
#8
Decryptor009
Just seems intel is pushing for clock speed. Kind of irrelevant to the competition at least for work loads outside of gaming which is 99% of what CPU's are for.
Posted on Reply
#9
thesmokingman
Ed_1
That is an impressive increase considering stock the all core freq is 4.9 if under 70c or 4.8 if not so for 500mhz OC score went from 2347 to 3002.
So 10% OC gets 28% increase, well that base seems wrong as normally performance doesn't keep increasing linerally once you pass the sweet spot freq wise.
Here's the tip off that shenanigans are afoot.
Adding to the benchmarking caveat, the operating temperatures for this particular Core i9-10900K show 0º min and 69º max, so assuming the temperature report is correct, it's fair to say an air cooler wasn't used for this overclocking feat.
Posted on Reply
#10
Bee9
Decryptor009
Just seems intel is pushing for clock speed. Kind of irrelevant to the competition at least for work loads outside of gaming which is 99% of what CPU's are for.
Clock speed and boosting...
That’s all they can do with current 14nm nodes.
We can all say: Intel, you boosted bastard lolz
Posted on Reply
#11
Ed_1
thesmokingman
Here's the tip off that shenanigans are afoot.
Even though CB15 is fast test, it could be its clocking down after hitting wattage, so if it clocked down with stock Intel wattage limiters and it did only 4.2 on all cores that would bring to 28% increase.
So when OC the limiters are removed most likely, but also this is a ES chip.
Posted on Reply
#12
thesmokingman
Ed_1
Even though CB15 is fast test, it could be its clocking down after hitting wattage, so if it clocked down with stock Intel wattage limiters and it did only 4.2 on all cores that would bring to 28% increase.
So when OC the limiters are removed most likely, but also this is a ES chip.
Ugh, I'm referring to the 0 degree min cpu temp and 62 degree max temp. You know what that means right, it ain't water or air.
Posted on Reply
#13
Decryptor009
thesmokingman
Ugh, I'm referring to the 0 degree min cpu temp and 62 degree max temp. You know what that means right, it ain't water or air.
Good catch.
Posted on Reply
#15
Vayra86
Decryptor009
Just seems intel is pushing for clock speed. Kind of irrelevant to the competition at least for work loads outside of gaming which is 99% of what CPU's are for.
Well, the box does say 'Gaming happens on Intel'

:twitch:
Posted on Reply
#16
coozie78
Decryptor009
Good catch.
So, we have a supercooled CPU running a useless synthetic benchmark? ( and it still can't beat a stock 3900X o_O :p ).
Nothing to see here folks, move along to a proper review later.
Posted on Reply
#17
Dave65
bencrutz
it comes with bundled chiller, right?
No, dual fire extinguishers
Posted on Reply
#18
Punkenjoy
Funny that now that AMD have very competitive offering, we now have like 5 Intel CPU per days.
Posted on Reply
#20
gravel
Hi i'm french and i have buy my ...3900x ==> 400 euro

The french price and often on sale at 400 euro
Posted on Reply
#21
kapone32
Like I said in a previous post Z490 boards rival and in some cases beat X299, X399 and even TRX40 boards in terms of VRM strength. For me that says it all about the power draw that an OC of any kind will have on these chips bit I am pretty sure people will wan all core 5+ GHZ OC.
Posted on Reply
#22
thesmokingman
kapone32
Like I said in a previous post Z490 boards rival and in some cases beat X299, X399 and even TRX40 boards in terms of VRM strength. For me that says it all about the power draw that an OC of any kind will have on these chips bit I am pretty sure people will wan all core 5+ GHZ OC.
It's starting to look like those netburst days.
Posted on Reply
#23
TheoneandonlyMrK
Ed_1
Even though CB15 is fast test, it could be its clocking down after hitting wattage, so if it clocked down with stock Intel wattage limiters and it did only 4.2 on all cores that would bring to 28% increase.
So when OC the limiters are removed most likely, but also this is a ES chip.
That's no ES chip this close to release , and the limiters were definitely off but a chiller on it helped.
Posted on Reply
#24
Chrispy_
Looks like Skylake to me; Overclocks to the moon as long as you have a way of dissipating unreasonable amounts of power, is otherwise overpriced and now comes with a bonus $200 tax for a Z490 board that doesn't currently have any benefits whatsoever.

The Intel die-hard fans will rightly claim it's the fastest-clocked, money-no-object processor you can get right now.

Meanwhile,
  • the productivity crowd will be realising that it's outperformed at half the power consumption by a 3900X, which actually costs less when you factor in a decent B450 board.
  • most gamers will look at the $700 CPU and board cost of these new Intels and decide that their money is better spent on a GPU because a 9700K is plenty for the now.
Leaving only the influencers, streamers, and frothy mouth fanboys to get worked up about it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's still just Skylake+++++ so it's unlkely to offer up any real surprises.
Posted on Reply
#25
Crackong
Here is the 2HP under the table secret chiller again :)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment