Why is this news? Significant multithread performance has been very-very obvious from get-go.
It has SMT enabled again which brings 30-35% boost in multithreaded tests (and a fairly minor 200MHz speed bump).

that avx2 bench on the cpu-z is super misleading.

londisteWhy is this news?
It has SMT enabled again which brings 30-35% boost in multithreaded tests (and a fairly minor 200MHz speed bump).

They gave back HT and got 30% that's a generational leap in performance they manufactured right there and all it took was marketeers ,no engineers necessary.
Saved them from being innovative.

londisteIt has SMT enabled again

We have to thank AMD for that and soon Intel will be consumer friendly again and will likely enable overclocking again too, just watch and see.

Yet, the R5 3600, its direct competitor, is faster than this 10400, at least according to those images. That said, competition is a good thing.

Did I read this right? A 6C/16T CPU is faster than a 6C/6T CPU at multithreading? Impossible... :rolleyes:

It's almost as if adding SMT makes the chip faster.
The more interesting tidbit is the single core performance. A 7% jump.

RowsolThe more interesting tidbit is the single core performance. A 7% jump.

Couple % from hardware fixes instead of vulnerability mitigations?

ManofGodYet, the R5 3600, its direct competitor, is faster than this 10400, at least according to those images. That said, competition is a good thing.

It should be! My kid's overclocked 1600AF (4.2) scores over 3226 and the single is 433 ish.

londisteWhy is this news? Significant multithread performance has been very-very obvious from get-go.
It has SMT enabled again which brings 30-35% boost in multithreaded tests (and a fairly minor 200MHz speed bump).

Did you not notice how every Intel fart gets a headline on TPU? I've already suggested numerous times to just give them a blog or feed and be done with it.

Inb4 the obvious, separate announcements of each SKU in 10th gen going forward... and our comments below it ridiculing this.

MetroidWe have to thank AMD for that and soon Intel will be consumer friendly again and will likely enable overclocking again too, just watch and see.

Teeeheee enabled overclocking, you mean like how its done on Ryzen right now? :roll::roll:

The days are soon over...

But!

Can it run cinebench??

A for effort :)

Vayra86Teeeheee enabled overclocking, you mean like how its done on Ryzen right now? :roll::roll:

The days are soon over...

yes, r3 3100 5.9 ghz, before 2011, i3's were pushed 150% overclocked, if is the only way for intel to regain or gain market share desktop then i see no other way, drop k support.

if wasn't for AMD, that 6 cores + 6 hyper threads would be fetch for $100 more.

I5 10400 is very similar to i7 8700 vanilla. Wonder if it us3s stim or the good old 'glue'.

great it is better than last years model... one would hope this to be true.

Wow looks like they caught up to my $85 Ryzen+ from Amazon.

I agree it is no news and to be expected with HT enabled. Intel deliberately disable this so that we pay more for HT all these time till now. Even so, I feel Ryzen 5 3600 is still a better buy because you have the option to overclock, while this Intel chip is locked. Clock for clock, AMD will pull ahead in terms of performance and with lower power requirements. You can even pair it with a cheap B450 motherboard, which means overall cheaper build.

theoneandonlymrkThey gave back HT and got 30% that's a generational leap in performance they manufactured right there and all it took was marketeers ,no engineers necessary.
Saved them from being innovative.

It's kind of obvious that HT on gives more multi threaded performance vs HT off. It shouldn't really be a headline that a 6c12t part beats a 6c6t part in multithreading.

watzupkenI agree it is no news and to be expected with HT enabled. Intel deliberately disable this so that we pay more for HT all these time till now. Even so, I feel Ryzen 5 3600 is still a better buy because you have the option to overclock, while this Intel chip is locked. Clock for clock, AMD will pull ahead in terms of performance and with lower power requirements. You can even pair it with a cheap B450 motherboard, which means overall cheaper build.

Actually the lack of ram OC on anything but Z-series MBs is the biggest problem with i5 10400, plus that useless stock cooler. OC barely improves ryzen 3600, ram OC can be a 20%+ performance in some games, and you can easily OC some cheap Crucial ballistix 3000cl15 to 3733cl15/3800cl16 on most B450-boards. 10400 is limited to 2666 and unless Intel improves stock cooler then it will thermal throttle in many scenarios. 3600 stock cooler is actually usable but not optimal. Even if 3600 and 10400 cost the same you would have to add about 80-100usd for a Z-MB and better cooler.

TaraquinActually the lack of ram OC on anything but Z-series MBs is the biggest problem with i5 10400, plus that useless stock cooler. OC barely improves ryzen 3600, ram OC can be a 20%+ performance in some games, and you can easily OC some cheap Crucial ballistix 3000cl15 to 3733cl15/3800cl16 on most B450-boards. 10400 is limited to 2666 and unless Intel improves stock cooler then it will thermal throttle in many scenarios. 3600 stock cooler is actually usable but not optimal. Even if 3600 and 10400 cost the same you would have to add about 80-100usd for a Z-MB and better cooler.

One thing y'all are forgetting: a majority of Intel's audience is gamers. You can include the business and other stuff too but let's talk gaming, since that is usually the big audience. Intel performs better due to architectural advantages, EVEN IF THE IPC IS LOWER, because Intel's later "lake" chips (at least 8th gen+) have been able to consistently run at substantially higher clock speeds. While I don't really agree with Intel locking out overclocking on a majority of their CPUs, the fact is, their LOCKED CPUs compare pretty well to OVERCLOCKED Ryzen CPUs. I have a quick question, if you were a gamer who wanted to build a gaming PC, would you rather spend 24 hours per week retuning your memory timings on Ryzen for slightly more gaming performance but will still be slower than an Intel platform or just put together a basic Intel system (provided the parts aren't dogsh*t) and enjoy more hours of gaming with higher framerates and less to worry about? Think about this from a performance and performance/$ standpoint, and ignore the power consumption for this. Also, about the RAM, you can still tune the timings on non-Z motherboards, you will just be limited to the CPU's official memory spec (as the i7 and i9 models officially support 2933, while the i3 and i5 models officially support 2666). Not that they can't run higher, but that's the speed Intel gives warranty for. Oh also, the i5-10400F is 157$, that is the one targeted against Ryzen 5 3600, because it doesn't have the iGPU which almost no gamer cares about.

Berfs1One thing y'all are forgetting: a majority of Intel's audience is gamers. You can include the business and other stuff too but let's talk gaming, since that is usually the big audience. Intel performs better due to architectural advantages, EVEN IF THE IPC IS LOWER, because Intel's later "lake" chips (at least 8th gen+) have been able to consistently run at substantially higher clock speeds. While I don't really agree with Intel locking out overclocking on a majority of their CPUs, the fact is, their LOCKED CPUs compare pretty well to OVERCLOCKED Ryzen CPUs. I have a quick question, if you were a gamer who wanted to build a gaming PC, would you rather spend 24 hours per week retuning your memory timings on Ryzen for slightly more gaming performance but will still be slower than an Intel platform or just put together a basic Intel system (provided the parts aren't dogsh*t) and enjoy more hours of gaming with higher framerates and less to worry about? Think about this from a performance and performance/$ standpoint, and ignore the power consumption for this. Also, about the RAM, you can still tune the timings on non-Z motherboards, you will just be limited to the CPU's official memory spec (as the i7 and i9 models officially support 2933, while the i3 and i5 models officially support 2666). Not that they can't run higher, but that's the speed Intel gives warranty for. Oh also, the i5-10400F is 157$, that is the one targeted against Ryzen 5 3600, because it doesn't have the iGPU which almost no gamer cares about.

What are you talking about

The 8700 non K is never going to surpass the 8700K. All that has happened since is higher turbo's for lower bases.
Many non K CPUs have lower turbo's. And, Ryzen 3 is stock here. And, this was the day before yesterday. Things haven't really improved much on the Intel side...

The gaming advantage for Intel has become extremely situational by now. As in, only if you chase maximum FPS on a highly single threaded game. Many games are not that anymore; the example below guzzles threads, look at where the 6c6t ends up compared to 6c12t.

With similar core counts, Intel has a very minor advantage, at best, even in gaming. Its time to let that penny drop now.

londisteIt has SMT enabled again which brings 30-35% boost in multithreaded tests

More like on avg 20% roughly across a range of tests, AMD is more in line with 30% or higher.

Berfs1One thing y'all are forgetting: a majority of Intel's audience is gamers. You can include the business and other stuff too but let's talk gaming, since that is usually the big audience. Intel performs better due to architectural advantages, EVEN IF THE IPC IS LOWER, because Intel's later "lake" chips (at least 8th gen+) have been able to consistently run at substantially higher clock speeds. While I don't really agree with Intel locking out overclocking on a majority of their CPUs, the fact is, their LOCKED CPUs compare pretty well to OVERCLOCKED Ryzen CPUs. I have a quick question, if you were a gamer who wanted to build a gaming PC, would you rather spend 24 hours per week retuning your memory timings on Ryzen for slightly more gaming performance but will still be slower than an Intel platform or just put together a basic Intel system (provided the parts aren't dogsh*t) and enjoy more hours of gaming with higher framerates and less to worry about? Think about this from a performance and performance/$ standpoint, and ignore the power consumption for this. Also, about the RAM, you can still tune the timings on non-Z motherboards, you will just be limited to the CPU's official memory spec (as the i7 and i9 models officially support 2933, while the i3 and i5 models officially support 2666). Not that they can't run higher, but that's the speed Intel gives warranty for. Oh also, the i5-10400F is 157$, that is the one targeted against Ryzen 5 3600, because it doesn't have the iGPU which almost no gamer cares about.

Who OCs on ryzen? ;) There is barely anything to gain. My point is you need a Z-mb to OC ram over 2666 on a i5 10400. Tuning ram on ryzen is actually quite easy, took me half an hour to plot in 3733cl16 safe on my 3600 and do some stabilitytesting. It crushes my i5 8400 rumning 2666cl13. Even if you run your 2666 at cl12 with tight timings it will struggle vs a 3600 with 3733/3800-ram. Tuning ram timings on Intel is a test of patience since you have no template you can use like dram calc. I used more time getting my i5 8400s ram from 2666cl16 to 2666cl13 than I have used getting my ryzen ram to 3733cl15.

If we do a more apples to apples with ram OC (this kit is easy to OC to 3733cl15).
3600 180usd
B450 80usd
Crucial 3000cl15 80usd

I5 10400F 160usd
212 evo 30usd
Z490 120usd for cheapest budget
Crucial 3000cl15 80usd

You will get slightly better perf with Intel for 50usd more.

You could get a B460 and use stock cooler and beat AMD pricewise, but performance in most games will be lower due yo 2666 ram.

Vayra86What are you talking about

The 8700 non K is never going to surpass the 8700K. All that has happened since is higher turbo's for lower bases.
Many non K CPUs have lower turbo's. And, Ryzen 3 is stock here. And, this was the day before yesterday. Things haven't really improved much on the Intel side...

The gaming advantage for Intel has become extremely situational by now. As in, only if you chase maximum FPS on a highly single threaded game. Many games are not that anymore; the example below guzzles threads, look at where the 6c6t ends up compared to 6c12t.

With similar core counts, Intel has a very minor advantage, at best, even in gaming. Its time to let that penny drop now.

I am genuinely confused by your reply. Please reread my comment and see if you maybe misread what I said.

As for the graph, from my understanding, you need 6 threads for that game. More is fine but doesn't seem to help, and it looks like the higher frequencies are accounting for the better performance numbers towards the top of the graph, which oddly doesn't include the 9900K/F/S or even 9700K.

Number 2, I never said an 8700 would beat an 8700K, I said a (recent) stock intel cpu is comparable to an overclocked RYZEN cpu (for gaming). Please reread that part.

TaraquinWho OCs on ryzen? ;) There is barely anything to gain. My point is you need a Z-mb to OC ram over 2666 on a i5 10400. Tuning ram on ryzen is actually quite easy, took me half an hour to plot in 3733cl16 safe on my 3600 and do some stabilitytesting. It crushes my i5 8400 rumning 2666cl13. Even if you run your 2666 at cl12 with tight timings it will struggle vs a 3600 with 3733/3800-ram. Tuning ram timings on Intel is a test of patience since you have no template you can use like dram calc. I used mote timing getting my i5 8400s ram from 2666cl16 to 2666cl13 than I have used getting my ryzen ram to 3733cl15.

If we do a more apples to apples with ram OC (this kit is easy to OC to 3733cl15).
3600 180usd
B450 80usd
Crucial 3000cl15 80usd

I5 10400F 160usd
212 evo 30usd
Z490 120usd for cheapest budget
Crucial 3000cl15 80usd

You will get slightly better perf with Intel for 50usd more.

You could get a B460 and use stock cooler and beat AMD pricewise, but performance in most games will be lower due yo 2666 ram.

Um, tuning ram is considered overclocking. Yes, going outside of specifications on a ryzen PLATFORM is considered overclocking. Also, 3600 MSRP is 199$, while 10400F MSRP is 157$. As for the motherboard, huh, i guess the motherboards arent even out yet. Also, why do you need to purchase an extra cooler? I doubt the 10400F will throttle on the stock cooler (though it isn't a bad idea to get a cooler generally speaking). Like i said, a majority of people don't want to tune every last timing on their system, intel OR amd, so OVERCLOCKING/TUNING ASIDE, Intel almost always has better performance in games than Ryzen, at least in a similar price range. Think of it this way, what percentage of the population of people who own a car buy it so that they can tune it to be better than another car? Not a high percentage. Likewise, a relatively low percentage of system builders buy a system to tune it to be better than another system.

Berfs1I am genuinely confused by your reply. Please reread my comment and see if you maybe misread what I said.

As for the graph, from my understanding, you need 6 threads for that game. More is fine but doesn't seem to help, and it looks like the higher frequencies are accounting for the better performance numbers towards the top of the graph, which oddly doesn't include the 9900K/F/S or even 9700K.

Number 2, I never said an 8700 would beat an 8700K, I said a (recent) stock intel cpu is comparable to an overclocked RYZEN cpu (for gaming). Please reread that part.

The graph shows that Ryzen 3600 with double thread count gets the same min FPS as a 6c6t 9400F has as average. So threads most certainly do matter, as much as, or even more than, clocks in some games. Its also funny that we read today about the 10400 as a counter to the 3600... but that CPU has been out for a while.

Here's the dots I connect:
- Ryzen CPUs you don't typically OC anymore, they're best on their own.. and yeah. RAM overclocking... so XMP is also an overclock now then :p Definition needs an update maybe.
- Intel CPUs non K cannot be overclocked, so you're talking stock vs stock anyway
- Intel K CPUs are extremely costly because to extract higher than Ryzen performance, you need to have sufficient cooling, cost can easily ramp up to 150% of a similar tier Zen CPU for the package. High power draw also affects case temps, and we're talking about significant TDP gaps here.
- Intel non K CPUs sacrifice base clocks for higher turbo's these days, they may burst a bit faster (nanoseconds of profit...) but under sustained loads, Ryzen will be faster every time.
- Ryzen SMT seems to scale better across the board

So what you have with a non-K Intel CPU, even if price is similar, is a less well rounded CPU and what you get in return is a highly situational advantage in a steadily decreasing percentage of game titles. The tables have quite definitively turned into AMDs favor, if you ask me. Comparable, yes, but certainly no longer the optimal choice. We have not even touched yet on Intel's security problems and bandaids which still, until recently include microcode updates through Windows Update, or the fact you cán indeed undervolt or OC your Ryzen CPU where the non K is unable to; or that motherboards are not dead ends.

Take a look at the reviews with the i7 8700 vanilla cooler, it is extremely noisy and thermalthrottles in several scenarios.https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-8700-cpu-review,5638-2.html I think most people who buys a Ryzen tune ram a bit. Why? Because they build the system themselves since very few oems ship ryzen. Anyways, you could by a cheap 3200cl16 or 3600cl18, much better performance than 2666cl16 which would be the result on most i5 10400 setups with 2666cl16.

Tuning a car is a terrible comparison as it voids warranty on most cases and requires a lot more work than using dram calc. You can OC ram and not voud your warranty unless going beyond recommended voltages.