Wednesday, May 20th 2020

Intel 10th Generation Core Desktop Processors Start Selling

Intel's 10th generation Core desktop processors started selling as review and retail embargoes lifted earlier today. Despite supply chain constraints, prices of the chips appear surprisingly tame, and close to Intel's announced prices. The retail Core i9-10900K is priced at USD $529 on Newegg, before it quickly ran out of stock. The Core i7-10700K is listed at $409. The mid-range Core i5-10400 is going for $195 (all USD prices without taxes). Across the pond, the i9-10900K is listed for €589, the i9-10900KF for €549, the i7-10700K for €449, the i5-10600K for €309, and the i5-10400F for €183 (all EUR prices inclusive of taxes). Retailers also began shipping socket LGA1200 motherboards for which they started taking pre-orders earlier this month.
Add your own comment

108 Comments on Intel 10th Generation Core Desktop Processors Start Selling

#26
Mats
dicktracy
Where's the 14nm+++++ jokes now?
Here.
dicktracy
It gives so much headroom, you don't need to upgrade every year like you do with AMD.
1080p medium with 2080 Ti, yeah, truly magnificent.
Posted on Reply
#27
trparky
dicktracy
Truly a magnificent gaming processor.
You forgot your sarcasm tag.
Posted on Reply
#28
kapone32
dicktracy
Truly a magnificent gaming processor. It gives so much headroom, you don't need to upgrade every year like you do with AMD. Where's the 14nm+++++ jokes now?


2 FPS faster than the 9900K meh.............
Posted on Reply
#29
dicktracy
Mats
Here.



1080p medium with 2080 Ti, yeah, truly magnificent.
You're comparing stock versus overclocked. As far as I can see, 9700k, 9900k, 10900k and the entire 10th gen lineup at merely stock speed destroys the entire Zen 2 lineup at gaming.
This is, once again, grandpa Skylake with 14nm+++++++ beating the latest the greatest 7nm processor from AMD simply by adding 2 more cores to the ancient architecture ROFL.
Posted on Reply
#30
Mats
dicktracy
You're comparing stock versus overclocked.
You're right, I did. Edit: Or did I? The overclocked 3900X in there uses 100 W less.
dicktracy
This is, once again, grandpa Skylake with 14nm+++++++ beating the latest the greatest 7nm processor from AMD simply by adding 2 more cores to the ancient architecture ROFL.
Well, in the end it's not the age that makes the difference here. AMD can't push the clocks like Intel can, and I don't think AMD will change this anytime soon. That TSMC process isn't made for high clocks AFAIK.

However, Intel didn't "simply" do this, they had to make the hottest mainstream CPU ever, a desperate move that worked. With hottest I mean in relation to die size, because this time around it's much smaller than, say, hottest FX in the past.

If you don't think Intel have something better to come up with during the next year then I guess I can't blame you. This is the best you can get, no need to upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#31
trparky
dicktracy
the entire 10th gen lineup at merely stock speed destroys the entire Zen 2 lineup at gaming.
Yeah, that may be so but at what cost? Nearly $500 for the chip alone, $200 (if you're lucky) for a decent motherboard ($300 if you want a good motherboard), and last but to least you're going to have to get a Corsair H150i so that's another $320. You're looking at a grand total of nearly $1000 USD ($1100 if you want a good motherboard) for just the CPU, motherboard, and cooler. We're not even talking about the video card or any other expenses yet.

I don't know about you but that places Intel firmly in the "nope" category for me and probably for a lot of others as well. Sure, you can get the best performance with Intel but be prepared to take a major hit to your bank account. Meanwhile in the AMD camp one can get a decent performing system for far cheaper. Sure, it might not be as good as Intel but who gives a damn? You'll have nearly half a grand more in your bank account.
Posted on Reply
#32
W1zzard
Just got an update, it's still sitting in AMS, should be here on Friday
Posted on Reply
#33
dicktracy
Mats
You're right, I did.

Well, in the end it's not the age that makes the difference here. AMD can't push the clocks like Intel can, and I don't think AMD will change this anytime soon. That TSMC process isn't made for high clocks AFAIK.

However, Intel didn't "simply" do this, they had to make the hottest mainstream CPU ever, a desperate move that worked. With hottest I mean in relation to die size, because this time around it's much smaller than, say, hottest FX in the past.

If you don't think Intel have something better to come up with during the next year then I guess I can't blame you. This is the best you can get, no need to upgrade.
It's not so much about clockspeed with AMD anymore. Getting Zen 2 to 5Ghz wouldn't do anything. They need to improve Infinity Fabric significantly or put at least 8 cores in a single CCD in the mean time. The 3300x with a single CCD destroys the 7700k in gaming at the same core count. This should mean that if AMD does the same thing but with 8 cores for Zen 3, it should finally allow them to beat 9900k.
Posted on Reply
#34
ZoneDymo
wait...the KF is cheaper then the K?

was the 9900KF not a better binned 9900K?
dicktracy
Truly a magnificent gaming processor. It gives so much headroom, you don't need to upgrade every year like you do with AMD. Where's the 14nm+++++ jokes now?


1080p - medium.

sure if you are a base res low settings high fps gamer, go Intel.
if you are anyone else who plays at high res with the setttings cranked, which im guessing more gamers care about when they buy something like a RTX 2080 Ti, then with Intel all you are gaining is heat and power consumption.
Posted on Reply
#35
Mats
dicktracy
Getting Zen 2 to 5Ghz wouldn't do anything.
I don't believe that for a second. Maybe some fancy cooling benchmarks can prove me wrong. Either way, Ryzen isn't particularly high clocks as it stands now so it doesn't matter.
dicktracy
The 3300x with a single CCD destroys the 7700k in gaming at the same core count.
The 3300X is impressive, and great bang for buck etc. Dunno if it really "destroys" the 7700K tho.
Posted on Reply
#36
john_
Just a thought.

Well, reviews pointing out the power usage of this processor and the cost of cooling, is one thing. Testing this CPU with a $100 cooling solution on a motherboard that will not be the top $500+ model in a closed case, that's something that reviewers probably don't have the freedom (from Intel) to do. But it's also something that I would like to see.
Posted on Reply
#37
Renald
dicktracy
It's not so much about clockspeed with AMD anymore. Getting Zen 2 to 5Ghz wouldn't do anything. They need to improve Infinity Fabric significantly or put at least 8 cores in a single CCD in the mean time. The 3300x with a single CCD destroys the 7700k in gaming at the same core count. This should mean that if AMD does the same thing but with 8 cores for Zen 3, it should finally allow them to beat 9900k.
As said before : who fracking cares ?
For 1000$ upgrade, you get a slightly faster CPU.
Consider putting (a part of) that money into a decent GPU : you'll get a greater increase that you'll ever have with any upgrade with a CPU.

If you can afford to spend 1000$ for your upgrade in both CPU and GPU, great for you, but your arguments are pointless since you're biased by your infinite income.
Here we discuss on whether or not this generation make sense compared to the previous one, and to other systems ; not comparing how deep our wallet are.

In this case, this generation is not suitable for an upgrade for many reasons : heating, consumption, branding new MB, perf/dollar not increasing enough.
Nvidia have high prices, but they have good improvements too, so the balance is less negative even when they put a 800$ chip.
Posted on Reply
#38
TheLostSwede
ZoneDymo
wait...the KF is cheaper then the K?

was the 9900KF not a better binned 9900K?
My understanding is that the KF are K parts with a flawed GPU, nothing more, nothing less.
Posted on Reply
#39
KarymidoN
Mats
Here.



1080p medium with 2080 Ti, yeah, truly magnificent.
holee foquin caow. thats a lot of power
Posted on Reply
#40
trparky
Jesus... even a 64 core Threadripper 3990X doesn't use as much power as this absolute pig of a chip. If a 64-core chip uses less power than a 10-core chip, there's something wrong; something very wrong.
Posted on Reply
#41
Mats
KarymidoN
holee foquin caow. thats a lot of power
Mmm, so worth it if you want to go from 175 to 178 FPS on subpar settings on a 2080 Ti. Yummy.
Posted on Reply
#42
trparky
Mats
Mmm, so worth it if you want to go from 175 to 178 FPS on subpar settings on a 2080 Ti. Yummy.
I hope to God that you're being sarcastic there, man. Sarcasm isn't easily conveyed over the Internet unless of course you add the /sarcasm tag.
Posted on Reply
#43
Bee9
Renald
If you can afford to spend 1000$ for your upgrade in both CPU and GPU, great for you, but your arguments are pointless since you're biased by your infinite income.
Here we discuss on whether or not this generation make sense compared to the previous one, and to other systems ; not comparing how deep our wallet are.
You cannot apply the same buying logic / reasons on different income bracket.
Higher income people have their own priorities. (Eg: those who can afford the 2080Ti). They are in a different league.
Posted on Reply
#44
Mark Little
dicktracy
It's not so much about clockspeed with AMD anymore. Getting Zen 2 to 5Ghz wouldn't do anything. They need to improve Infinity Fabric significantly or put at least 8 cores in a single CCD in the mean time. The 3300x with a single CCD destroys the 7700k in gaming at the same core count. This should mean that if AMD does the same thing but with 8 cores for Zen 3, it should finally allow them to beat 9900k.
Dicktracy, I know you are defending the company you love. People do that. But just like Netburst and Bulldozer, this is a bad product in every way imaginable. No one is going to buy a $500 plus CPU that will cost them over $1000 in computer parts to maybe, maybe, maybe get the performance shown by reviewers with liquid cooling in open air test benches. Also no one is buying a $500 anything just to run games at 1080p medium settings. All these game tests show is that higher clocks on otherwise similar IPC products yield faster frames when the GPU isn't the bottleneck. It's completely academic because even the AMD products yield enough frames in that test for 144 Hz adaptive sync which is about the highest monitor refresh rate available right now.

Edit: By the way, if you are only interested in games, you can get fully loaded VR hardware for the same price as all the parts you need to buy just this CPU. Or you can buy a next gen console and 4K TV for less than the parts you need just to buy this CPU and related parts.
Posted on Reply
#45
Mats
trparky
I hope to God that you're being sarcastic there, man. Sarcasm isn't easily conveyed over the Internet unless of course you add the /sarcasm tag.
Nope, I'm serious.


/s
Posted on Reply
#46
trparky
Mark Little
No one is going to buy a $500 plus CPU that will cost them over $1000 in computer parts
And to think that's just for the damn CPU, motherboard, and cooling. We're not even talking about a GPU, memory, adequate power supply, and NVMe SSD yet. Talk about a "Holy shit! My wallet is on fire!" moment.

You're looking at a conservative $2000, $2500 if you push things. This is crazy!
Posted on Reply
#47
dicktracy
Mark Little
Dicktracy, I know you are defending the company you love. People do that. But just like Netburst and Bulldozer, this is a bad product in every way imaginable. No one is going to buy a $500 plus CPU that will cost them over $1000 in computer parts to maybe, maybe, maybe get the performance shown by reviewers with liquid cooling in open air test benches. Also no one is buying a $500 anything just to run games at 1080p medium settings. All these game tests show is that higher clocks on otherwise similar IPC products yield faster frames when the GPU isn't the bottleneck. It's completely academic because even the AMD products yield enough frames in that test for 144 Hz adaptive sync which is about the highest monitor refresh rate available right now.

Edit: By the way, if you are only interested in games, you can get fully loaded VR hardware for the same price as all the parts you need to buy just this CPU. Or you can buy a next gen console and 4K TV for less than the parts you need just to buy this CPU and related parts.
lol who said I love Intel. I love performance. This is in fact the fastest gaming CPU since the 9900k that somehow triggers the most loyal AMD fanboy. And testing at 1080p makes sense to determine the headroom of CPUs for longevity sake since you're reducing the GPU bottleneck.

You know once Ampere comes out, 1440p CPU tests with 3080ti will mirror 1080p CPU tests with 2080 ti right? If Zen 2 can't hit a certain high frame rate with 2080 ti at 1080p, it isn't going to do that with 3080 ti at 1440p either.
Posted on Reply
#48
trparky
dicktracy
This is in fact the fastest gaming CPU since the 9900k that somehow triggers the most loyal AMD fanboys.
I'm not a fanboy of any kind, I'm just the kind of person who's highly allergic to spending any more than one has to. And right now, Intel is asking for way too damn much for too little in return.
Posted on Reply
#49
ZoneDymo
dicktracy
lol who said I love Intel. I love performance. This is in fact the fastest gaming CPU since the 9900k that somehow triggers the most loyal AMD fanboys. And testing at 1080p makes sense to determine the headroom of CPUs for longevity sake since you're reducing the GPU bottleneck.

You know once Ampere comes out, 1440p CPU tests with 3080ti will mirror 1080p CPU tests with 2080 ti right? If Zen 2 can't hit a certain high frame rate with 2080 ti at 1080p, it isn't going to do that with 3080 ti at 1440p either.
Honestly man, the only triggered fanboy seems to be you with your way of wording and responses, atleast that is how it comes across.
You dont love performance, you love "gaming" performance and even then at the cost of literally everything it seems, power consumption, heat, who cares you will just throw a custom loop watercooler against it I guess.

(speaking of which, would love to know what kind of system you have, 2080ti, 9900k overclocked, 32gb of ram all on NVMe drives all water cooled with a 144hz+ 1080p monitor I take it?, which does not represent 99% of the market anyway making your comments even more baffeling)

No matter how you slice it, you are buying the past, heck you would have done so for like 3 - 4 generations now....
Also by the time Ampere comes out, so will the 4000 series so if anything, you should wait for until then before purchasing anything if you think about gaming.
If you think broader then gaming the Intel should not even be an option....
Posted on Reply
#50
Mats
Anyone who ignores the power consumption of the 10900K is a fanboy. There's no need to compare the gaming performance to Ryzen 3000, because the latter didn't lead the gaming benchmarks overall to begin with.

Try instead to compare the 10900K with every mainstream CPU Intel has ever made, this one is way to hot running no matter how you look at it.

However, there are other models launched now, like the 10700K and the 10600K, which obviously aren't that hot running and may be better choices.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment