Monday, May 18th 2020

Comprehensive Core i9-10900K Review Leaked: Suggests Intel Option Formidable

A comprehensive review of the Intel Core i9-10900K 10-core/20-thread processor by Chinese tech publication TecLab leaked to the web on video sharing site bilibili. Its testing data reveals that Intel has a fighting chance against the Ryzen 9 3900X both in gaming- and non-gaming tasks despite a deficit of 2 cores; whereas the much pricier Ryzen 9 3950X only enjoys leads in multi-threaded synthetic- or productivity benchmarks.

Much of Intel's performance leads are attributed to a fairly high core-count, significantly higher clock speeds than the AMD chips, and improved boosting algorithms, such as Thermal Velocity Boost helping the chip out in gaming tests. Where Intel loses hard to AMD is power-draw and energy-efficiency. TecLab tested the three chips with comparable memory- and identical graphics setups.

More charts follow.

The games above are Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Metro: Exodus, and Tomb Raider.

Find the video presentation (in Chinese language) here.
Source: TecLab (bilibili)
Add your own comment

159 Comments on Comprehensive Core i9-10900K Review Leaked: Suggests Intel Option Formidable

#76
Lokran88
Mats
No, I meant, what CPU have you got right now? What are you upgrading from?
Ahh, sorry, got you.

Nah, can't tell you cause you will call me dumb, lol.

Actually got a 8700k @ 5 GHZ. But I got someone who would need it and would sell it then for cheap.

I am aware that the 300 MHZ more boost and 4 cores 8 threads probably aren't worth the upgrade. I just could afford it and don't care about the money that much.

But yeah, really considering to cancel order and wait for Zen 3 or RKL or even Alder Lake.
Posted on Reply
#77
Lindatje
Intel: AMD, we have beat the Ryzen 3000 serie..... lol.

AMD: Great job Intel, you have indeed a higher score in the wattage meter....:laugh:

Intel: %$@%#^ AMD, %$#@!$... :banghead::banghead::banghead:
Posted on Reply
#78
Mats
Lokran88
But yeah, really considering to cancel order and wait for Zen 3 or RKL or even Alder Lake.
They all sounds like more fun upgrades.
Posted on Reply
#79
Cybrshrk
theoneandonlymrk
Kinda funny, now we're getting posts suggesting Intel are not too bad at gaming and are a viable option.

Where were the news posts declaring Ryzens as the same ,when intel were not formidable.
What? AMD has yet to ever take the gaming crown once since introducing ryzen after all the releases and all the years passed they never took the gaming title.

Whu
Lindatje
Intel: AMD, we have beat the Ryzen 3000 serie..... lol.

AMD: Great job Intel, you have indeed a higher score in the wattage meter....:laugh:

Intel: %$@%#^ AMD, %$#@!$... :banghead::banghead::banghead:
Why is it all you fanboys love to leave out the part where Intel has never been beaten in gaming performance since introducing ryzen. Not once.

For some this is all the news and yet you guys can't even manage to mention it.

I'll sell everything and go ryzen the minute they have that crown (heck I said that back in 2017 and I absolutely meant it) but still 3 years later when I'm ready to upgrade and I'm looking for the best gaming performance once again. I'm left with only one option like last time. Intel.
Mats
Just because it's a decent second hand CPU it doesn't mean it's worth it.
I mean, you already have an 8700K. Dunno what you're expecting from such an upgrade. Maybe wait for the post-Skylake-CPU's to get some real improvements with less power draw.
If you had a 4 core I wouldn't say anything.


Even besides stress testing? I've never used one lol.
Sold my 7700k couple days ago for $300 (originally cost $350 in 2017) and am going from the top gaming performance of that time to the new top gaming performance of today (and its still Intel).

I been saying since the 1800x and when I canceled my order for it ill go ryzen when they can actually take the top spot for gaming (the only thing that matters to me).
noel_fs
This is mediocre and embarrassing. If they atleast had the decency to support a single platform for 4 years maybe this would be worth it with previous socket. But of course new socket so add easily 150$ for a 10900k build. At that point i would objectively wait for next zen generation.
Buy ryzen 4000 this year and you're looking at the exact same thing the next time you want to upgrade. At least with the 1200 Socket and 10900k you have atleast 1 generation more of upgrades (rocket lake). Can't say that if you go 4000 series and x570 (it's EOL). AM4 will be replaced after this year.
AnarchoPrimitiv
Why is Zen3 losing in the future when we already know that OEMs are reporting 20%+ IPC improvements, that moving to 7nm EUV will gain 200-300Mhz in the clocks (possibly allowing Zen3's boost frequency to hit 5.0Ghz and basically taking away Intel's last, albeit pointless, source of pride), and that the amount of cores per CCX is going to be doubled. We know from the reviews of the 3100 vs 3300x that the two vs one CCX topology respectively equated to an approximate 12% overall performance increase. With Zen 3 doubling the cores per CCX, there's every reason to believe that this performance boost will help Zen3 in ADDITION to the 20+% IPC increase.

So with the 20% IPC increase, the 200-300Mhz boost in clocks, and the doubling of cores per CCX, Zen3 could very well result in core for core performance gains vs Zen2 in the area of 30+%! When it comes to rocket lake, we know there will be new core architecture, but the same old 14nm process. I seriously doubt this will result in better performance gains than Zen3. It was just leaked that OEMs testing early samples of Zen3 believe that not only will Zen3 maintain multicore application dominance, but that Zen3 might take the gaming performance crown as well..... Knowing all of that, I don't see how it's possible for you to believe Zen3 will be defeated by whatever intel squirts out
Judging by history and how every time before has went Intel is the safer bet of pure gaming is your goal.
Posted on Reply
#80
Mats
Cybrshrk
Sold my 7700k couple days ago for $300 (originally cost $350 in 2017) and am going from the top gaming performance of that time to the new top gaming performance of today (and its still Intel).
Well you had a 4 core so I don't see have that have anything to do with the quote from me. It's not like I disagree with you here.
Posted on Reply
#81
Cybrshrk
I
Lokran88
Sorry if that's offtopic but besides having to drain it once a year or even less often I am not having any work with it at all. Just runs and runs. But I am using soft tubing and clear cooling liquid.

Anyway, I did order a 10900k but still not sure if I might cancel it and wait rather for Zen 3.
Use hard tubing and just have to clean my loop about once a year as well no big deal its 1 day of 365 and my Temps stay awesome and my oc's strong.

BTW where did you go for your 10900k pre order. I had the unfortunate luck to go with newegg business (rip) lol

So we will see what happens but I'm not sure if I'll see it this week or not.
Posted on Reply
#82
Vayra86
Cybrshrk
What? AMD has yet to ever take the gaming crown once since introducing ryzen after all the releases and all the years passed they never took the gaming title.

Whu


Why is it all you fanboys love to leave out the part where Intel has never been beaten in gaming performance since introducing ryzen. Not once.

For some this is all the news and yet you guys can't even manage to mention it.

I'll sell everything and go ryzen the minute they have that crown (heck I said that back in 2017 and I absolutely meant it) but still 3 years later when I'm ready to upgrade and I'm looking for the best gaming performance once again. I'm left with only one option like last time. Intel.


Sold my 7700k couple days ago for $300 (originally cost $350 in 2017) and am going from the top gaming performance of that time to the new top gaming performance of today (and its still Intel).

I been saying since the 1800x and when I canceled my order for it ill go ryzen when they can actually take the top spot for gaming (the only thing that matters to me).


Buy ryzen 4000 this year and you're looking at the exact same thing the next time you want to upgrade. At least with the 1200 Socket and 10900k you have atleast 1 generation more of upgrades (rocket lake). Can't say that if you go 4000 series and x570 (it's EOL). AM4 will be replaced after this year.


Judging by history and how every time before has went Intel is the safer bet of pure gaming is your goal.
But... there are already games that run better on Ryzen than they do on Intel. Going forward, there is little reason to believe that will not get better. And on top of that, the Zen CPUs do it without burning a hole in your wallet for extra cooling.

And on top of THAT... how CPU limited are you really if you buy any high end CPU? For me the verdict was out with Ryzen 3000, to be honest. There is no real reason to go blue, but there are notable disadvantages to it. Do you really want to double or triple the power budget on your CPU for 5 FPS? You could run a new GPU on that alone.
Posted on Reply
#83
Cybrshrk
thesmokingman
It's probably a good time to try Zen 3. :roll:
As soon as they take the gaming crown I'm down.
Vayra86
But... there are already games that run better on Ryzen than they do on Intel. Going forward, there is little reason to believe that will not get better. And on top of that, the Zen CPUs do it without burning a hole in your wallet for extra cooling.

And on top of THAT... how CPU limited are you really if you buy any high end CPU? For me the verdict was out with Ryzen 3000, to be honest. There is no real reason to go blue, but there are notable disadvantages to it. Do you really want to double or triple the power budget on your CPU for 5 FPS?
Biggest "other reasons" I've seen....
Stability

Of the 4 ryzen builds I've helped friends with (and my own 3600 secondary system) not 1 has booted up and just ran. All had problems booting and several have had issue staying stable and friends have had to call me multiple times to troubleshoot a dead pc after a shut down. I eventually even had it happen to me this March and required me unplugging the system holding power button for several minutes and leaving it alone for over an hour before it came back.

Just a lot of trouble really.

The other reason is resale value (which is very important to me)

My 2017 7700k originally cost me $350 and I just sold it a couple days ago for $300 (many go for this and more on ebay every single day) at the same time my buddy wanted to sell his 2017 $500 ryzen 1800x and he couldn't even get a buyer at $150.

Intel just holds its value better and even though today a 3300x at less than $200 can keep up people would rather pay me $300 to get my 7700k.

There are other reasons but outside of gaming these are the other 2 major ones that have me going Intel once again. Maybe one day of amd can truly claim the best gaming performance things will change but until then I'll have to stick with Intel.
Posted on Reply
#84
Vayra86
Cybrshrk
As soon as they take the gaming crown I'm down.


Biggest "other reasons" I've seen....
Stability

Of the 4 ryzen builds I've helped friends with (and my own 3600 secondary system) not 1 has booted up and just ran. All had problems booting and several have had issue staying stable and friends have had to call me multiple times to troubleshoot a dead pc after a shut down. I eventually even had it happen to me this March and required me unplugging the system holding power button for several minutes and leaving it alone for over an hour before it came back.

Just a lot of trouble really.

The other reason is resale value (which is very important to me)

My 2017 7700k originally cost me $350 and I just sold it a couple days ago for $300 (many go for this and more on ebay every single day) at the same time my buddy wanted to sell his 2017 $500 ryzen 1800x and he couldn't even get a buyer at $150.

Intel just holds its value better and even though today a 3300x at less than $200 can keep up people would rather pay me $300 to get my 7700k.

There are other reasons but outside of gaming these are the other 2 major ones that have me going Intel once again. Maybe one day of amd can truly claim the best gaming performance things will change but until then I'll have to stick with Intel.
YMMV as usual, and faith in a brand has to grow in any case, so it is ultimately all up to you. All I can say is, I've built a couple 3600 rigs too, and they are all running perfectly fine, and the whole process from assembly to Windows boot and usage was virtually as simple as it was on the Intel's I've built over the last ten years. There is only a tiny, tiny part of emotion in it for me; Intel has not been doing us favors the last couple of years; not with their product portfolio (total stagnation) and definitely not with their 'security' problems. A microcode can hit you any day of the week. I don't call that reassuring. AMD has suffered a lot less from this, as they have a more modern architecture at its core. I like to support that, because I believe Intel has no real answers to that just yet.

A big one for Ryzen builds is part selection. We've gotten lazy building on Intel you could just mix and match anything in terms of RAM, board etc and the line up was always similar and familiar (H-Z-etc)..

Your reasons are valid though. If you make the jump and the experience is shit, there is no way you will recommend it. About resale value though... that will change rapidly and if you buy a recent Ryzen it won't resell for less than a similar Intel. There's just no way, the brand dominance is fading fast and the product isn't objectively faster. Another big thing is that Ryzen CPUs in the higher segment are very well binned too, to even achieve their performance so there is also silicon quality in play, which isn't in play on Intel. There are lots of stories about miserable OC"s on Intel from stock. My 8700K is a good example of a CPU that just managed to pass the QC check. If I look at 50x multiplier funny, the CPU says no. It runs great on lower volts, but above 4.9? Forget it. And that was a few gens ago... this has not improved.

Some considerations ;) Note, I also am a high refresh rate gamer, I would never go back to sub 120 FPS target. I even sacrifice resolution for it. I would still build a Ryzen rig if I had to upgrade tomorrow.
Posted on Reply
#85
Mats
Cybrshrk
Why is it all you fanboys love to leave out the part where Intel has never been beaten in gaming performance since introducing ryzen. Not once.
Don't call people that, it's rude.

Everyone already knows that Intel is faster in most games, but not all. Check the 3700X review here if you don't believe me.

You fail to realize where all the hate comes from: power consumption and heat.

Yeah, top gaming performance, but at what cost? The days of efficient Intel CPU's like the 2700K that crushed everything are long gone.
(Yeah I pick the 2700K just because most people have forgotten about it.)
Posted on Reply
#86
theoneandonlymrk
Cybrshrk
As soon as they take the gaming crown I'm down.


Biggest "other reasons" I've seen....
Stability

Of the 4 ryzen builds I've helped friends with (and my own 3600 secondary system) not 1 has booted up and just ran. All had problems booting and several have had issue staying stable and friends have had to call me multiple times to troubleshoot a dead pc after a shut down. I eventually even had it happen to me this March and required me unplugging the system holding power button for several minutes and leaving it alone for over an hour before it came back.

Just a lot of trouble really.

The other reason is resale value (which is very important to me)

My 2017 7700k originally cost me $350 and I just sold it a couple days ago for $300 (many go for this and more on ebay every single day) at the same time my buddy wanted to sell his 2017 $500 ryzen 1800x and he couldn't even get a buyer at $150.

Intel just holds its value better and even though today a 3300x at less than $200 can keep up people would rather pay me $300 to get my 7700k.

There are other reasons but outside of gaming these are the other 2 major ones that have me going Intel once again. Maybe one day of amd can truly claim the best gaming performance things will change but until then I'll have to stick with Intel.
I would not pay $300.

And clearly sarcasm ain't your thing.
My point was intel have always had gaming at 1080p as a go-to reprieve from being owned on performance charts, so how is this news.
Posted on Reply
#87
Bee9
Makaveli
Will just leave this here.


3900X is a rendering beast.
Cybrshrk
Why is it all you fanboys love to leave out the part where Intel has never been beaten in gaming performance since introducing ryzen. Not once.
I will just quote Linus Tech Tips here: "If you do any real work and gaming at the same time, get the Ryzen 3900X. "
It runs cooler, consume less power, and provide better value for multi-threaded application.
Most people don't play games for a living, so it depends on your need. If gaming is all your life, (like pro SC2 player in Korea), then Intel is your number one choice.
If my Ryzen loses by 5% or even 10% -15% in gaming but it will help me do my work faster, I am willing to sacrifice the gaming performance. I need to make money first. When my 9900K priced at $500 get smoked by the cheaper 3900X (priced at $420), I know it's time for upgrading. The 10900K pricing will need to be adjusted to match the competition. I hope it will be around $400 mark shortly after hitting the shelf.
Back to gaming: For Starcraft 2 pro players, Intel is a must. But for casual streamers, I can see many of them can benefit from more cores because of the heavy applications they run in the background (video capture and encoding, uploading videos, discord, VoIP etc...).
Posted on Reply
#88
msimax
intels 109590K :peace:
Posted on Reply
#89
ERazer
Cybrshrk
My 2017 7700k originally cost me $350 and I just sold it a couple days ago for $300 (many go for this and more on ebay every single day) at the same time my buddy wanted to sell his 2017 $500 ryzen 1800x and he couldn't even get a buyer at $150.
Good for you and all but why the hell on earth someone would pay $300 for 7700k, that some amazing sweet talking.
Posted on Reply
#90
Mats
ERazer
Good for you and all but why the hell on earth someone would pay $300 for 7700k, that some amazing sweet talking.
That's what I thought, but then I checked and saw three different used ones sold for about $280 each last month, crazy.
Posted on Reply
#91
Chrispy_
Cybrshrk
Intel has never been beaten in gaming performance since introducing ryzen. Not once.
My personal opinion is that the CPU crown doesn't matter for gaming for most people. I think the niche that makes the small difference between an Intel CPU and AMD CPU in gaming only matters to people trying to get 240fps at 1080p for their 240Hz monitor.

Everyone else will be bottlenecked by GPU in most titles - Even with a 2080Ti. If you want to buy an expensive processor that's absolutely fine, and everyone's right to choose, but unless you have some godlike GPU solution that shifts the bottleneck from GPU to CPU, almost any midrange CPU will do a good enough job.

There are plenty of reviews out there painting the 3300X as the best gaming option right now, because the money saved buying that instead of a 9900KF can be put towards the GPU budget. I'm not saying you should necessarily pair a 3300X with a 2080Super, but those two will cost you the same as a 9900KF and a 6GB vanilla RTX 2060. Obviously the 2080Super combination is the vastly superior gaming choice.

The only crown that matters to most people is performance/$ and when it comes to gaming that's rarely anywhere near the absolute performance crown. If you have enough money to throw at a 2080Ti then you can probably afford to buy whatever CPU you want, and the monitor to go with it. Meanwhile, something like 99.4% of all DIY PCs are built to a sub-$2000 budget (source, PCpartpicker).
Posted on Reply
#92
Lokran88
Cybrshrk
BTW where did you go for your 10900k pre order. I had the unfortunate luck to go with newegg business (rip) lol
I think we are all in the same boat here. I am in Germany so telling you where I preordered will be useless but I can tell you that only two big retailers in Germany have even listed it since last wednesday and none of them have it available.

They responded to my mail this morning telling me that they do not know when it will arrive and the vendor/producer also did not update them on availability.

I don't know if this also might have to do with Corona but as I heard Intel was always having trouble to deliver at release since they were having general 14nm shortage :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#94
ERazer
Mats
That's what I thought, but then I checked and saw three different used ones sold for about $280 each last month, crazy.
I had that dilemma from previous rig, I had 6800k and my upgrade path was 6950x if i wanna keep mobo which around $700 plus on eBay :banghead:

At least you now no need to cross HEDT platform to have more cores, thanks AMD :laugh::laugh::laugh:

TBH, ppl should stop with intel vs AMD, it should be old rig vs best upgrade you can afford
Posted on Reply
#95
Mats
Cybrshrk
Buy ryzen 4000 this year and you're looking at the exact same thing the next time you want to upgrade.
That way of reasoning works both ways. Buy a 9900KF and you'll have no upgrade options, and nothing came before it for the Z390 boards. (The 9900K and the 8000 is the same generation)
As it stands now, the AM4 boards works with two or three generations of CPU's.

Z390? One generation. Picking the AM4 socket at the end of its life cycle isn't really the same thing.
Posted on Reply
#96
ppn
No upgrade options for 9900k, a kickass product. No need to really. With ZeN you had to upgrade every year. Just because there was a new model of bates 4000. And thats somehow a plus. Laughable. They couldn't make it right the first time kept improving it. And in the end CCX latency, memory controller is a separate chip. Far from finished. Bates 5000 is just around the corner. Motherboard makers will push for new socket every year. Just refuse to release new bios and force your wallets.
Posted on Reply
#97
Decryptor009
ppn
No upgrade options for 9900k, a kickass product. No need to really. With ZeN you had to upgrade every year. Just because there was a new model of bates 4000. And thats somehow a plus. Laughable. They couldn't make it right the first time kept improving it. And in the end CCX latency, memory controller is a separate chip. Far from finished. Bates 5000 is just around the corner. Motherboard makers will push for new socket every year. Just refuse to release new bios and force your wallets.
Objectively, Ryzen is much more a kickass product because it reigns in more money for the company and gives consumers something great at a lower cost.

9900K is a great CPU, it's cost is not though.

The rest of your words is just inferiority and projecting the issue of spending so much money.

Moving forwards, AMD will just increase in dominance.
Posted on Reply
#98
Mysteoa
thesmokingman
Damn... why even bother? It's 75w more for the same number of cores versus 3900x. AMD gives you 4 more cores for 44 more watts. Godamn!
10900k is a 10 core not a 12 core. So its 44W for 6 cores less and 75w for 2 core less.
Posted on Reply
#99
Mats
ppn
No need to really.
What a weird comment. As if upgrade options were drawback.. nice way to spin it when Intel stops innovating. Good one.
Posted on Reply
#100
Mark Little
ppn
No upgrade options for 9900k, a kickass product. No need to really. With ZeN you had to upgrade every year. Just because there was a new model of bates 4000. And thats somehow a plus. Laughable. They couldn't make it right the first time kept improving it. And in the end CCX latency, memory controller is a separate chip. Far from finished. Bates 5000 is just around the corner. Motherboard makers will push for new socket every year. Just refuse to release new bios and force your wallets.
This person is a wccftech commentor. I wouldn't recommend responding to any of his/her comments as they bring down the level of conversation to the craziness that goes on in wccftech's comment system.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment