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

#51
fynxer
LESS WE BUY (14nm), FASTER WE GET (10nm)

DON'T BUY... If sales suck Intel will scramble to get next gen out faster.
Posted on Reply
#52
agatong55
Why buy this with rumor is the 11th gen is coming out still later this year? And also with the new zen series coming out this fall, for only a few percentage upgrade in gaming, why spend the money instead of just waiting to see what is going to be released, even intel themselves said the 10 series is a stop-gap till the 11 series.
Posted on Reply
#53
Mats
Ohhh, they would have done that years ago if they could have.

Weak for $100 extra + $100 for needed cooling.


Hardware Unboxed calls it a paper launch, almost.
In short, the chances of getting a Core i9 10900K in hand seems extremely remote at this point.
At 16:44
Posted on Reply
#54
AnarchoPrimitiv
Mark Little
That was a quote from the Anandtech article. I placed quotes around that paragraph. I put the right price for the Intel part of $500 or more in my comment.
Obviously man... Why would anyone think you were saying it when it was obviously a quote?
Posted on Reply
#55
Mark Little
AnarchoPrimitiv
Obviously man... Why would anyone think you were saying it when it was obviously a quote?
Whoops, I read 'you' instead of 'they' in your original post. Sorry about that.
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.
But you are not getting faster gaming performance unless you build a very specific, high cost rig and ONLY game at 1080p medium settings or less. Also, you are wrong about future proof. At resolutions higher than 1080p, TR shows that even a Coffee Lake Core i3/i5 or Zen+ Ryzen 5/7 gets almost the same performance as a 9000KS.

www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-9900ks/21.html

Games are bottlenecked by the graphics card only when you go to higher resolutions and game details. Many year old CPUs perform the same as recent CPUs when gaming under these conditions. So a Ryzen 3900X will perform about the same now and a few years from now at 2.5K and higher resolutions as the Core i9-10900K.
Posted on Reply
#56
HammerON
The Watchful Moderator
Please stop with the "fanboy" name calling. Carry on.
Posted on Reply
#57
TheinsanegamerN
Mats
You forgot the differences. 250 W coming from 200 mm² is not as easy to cool as 250 W coming from 315 mm².

Also, AMD said the TDP is 220 W:

Intel still says 125 W:


I still consider the 10900K to be less of a freak than the FX, because it's more competitive. Don't quote me on that tho, don't remember those FX reviews..
You have a point on a smaller die area, not sure why you bring claimed TDP in. That's a red herring. The 3950x is a 105 watt chip, but hits a peak of 145 watt total power draw with 10 cores loaded, and core frequency starts falling the more cores you load after that, with the aveerage clock rate hittting 3.875 GHz with 16 cores. Upping power limits on DIY systems to allow higher clocks raises that power draw much higher.
www.anandtech.com/show/15043/the-amd-ryzen-9-3950x-review-16-cores-on-7nm-with-pcie-40/2

According to the enthusiast community, pushing these chips to 4.3-4.4 all core pushes power consumption above 280 watts total, and they manage to handle the heat generated. Notice as well the one spushing these clocks are using 360MM rads with 3-6 fans, yet there is no complkaining fro the community of the higher clocks being useless without "exotic cooling"
Amd/comments/euk0th
The point is the power draw of the 10900k isnt unmanageable. As I said, you have a point of the small die becoming a limiting factor. Techspot was able to load all 10 cores at 4.9 GHz, with a 200 watt power draw, and hit 84C.
www.techspot.com/review/2028-intel-core-i9-10900k/

The whole "ZOMG IT SO HOT" seems to be a bit overblown. Yes the chip is hot, yes it is harder to cool then AMD chips, but its hardly unsustainable. The FX was seen as a freak more because it was identical to the 8350 just clocked higher, no additional cache or more cores, and most 8350s could be pushed about as far. And the 9000 series had compatibility issues and not all fothem worked with speccd voltages.

The 10900k seems to hold the same spot the 9700k did last year: faster in games, slower in everything else, and needing a bigger cooler to hit max speed.
Mark Little
But you are not getting faster gaming performance unless you build a very specific, high cost rig and ONLY game at 1080p medium settings or less. Also, you are wrong about future proof. At resolutions higher than 1080p, TR shows that even a Coffee Lake Core i3/i5 or Zen+ Ryzen 5/7 gets almost the same performance as a 9000KS.

www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-9900ks/21.html

Games are bottlenecked by the graphics card only when you go to higher resolutions and game details. Many year old CPUs perform the same as recent CPUs when gaming under these conditions. So a Ryzen 3900X will perform about the same now and a few years from now at 2.5K and higher resolutions as the Core i9-10900K.
I have both a 9700K and a 2700x. The 2700X is OCed, with PBO and AutoOC, with 2866 MHz RAM. The 9700k is running at stock speeds with 2400 mhz ram.

Despite all the reviews saying there is only a small differenc at higher resolutions in sucha scenario, running both on my 1440p144 gaming monitor, there is a definite difference between the two. Even limiting the framerate to 90 or 60 still shows better overall performance from the intel chip. Perhaps the ryzen chip needs faster memory, which my chip cant even get 2933 out of my 3200MHz RAM. Perhaps there is some setting to tweak. But out of the box, for high end gaming, the intel chip still holds a noticeable advantage, and the 10900k slightly improves this advantage.
Posted on Reply
#58
Mats
TheinsanegamerN
You have a point on a smaller die area, not sure why you bring claimed TDP in.
Just showing that the CPU you compared the 10900K to did have a realistic TDP.
TheinsanegamerN
Techspot was able to load all 10 cores at 4.9 GHz, with a 200 watt power draw, and hit 84C.
With a 360 AIO, that's hardly a surprise.
Posted on Reply
#59
bogmali
In Orbe Terrum Non Visi
To all those that keep trolling and baiting, I will delete/LQ your posts but at some point, you will be thread banned and assessed points.
Posted on Reply
#60
dyonoctis
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.
To be fair, you are using a language that makes you look like a troll, or someone with an agenda. "Intel 14nm+++++ is better than AMD 7nm ROFL". The worse is that you know exactly that it got nothing to do with fab process, and more about the IF speed and the ccx. (Intel mesh design isn't exactly brillant in gaming either.)

It's been nearly one year that zen 2 is out and everybody knows that they are not the absolute best at gaming. People buying a 3700x over a i9 9700k knows exactly what they are buying that cpu for. It's for 3d, video editing, with maybe decent gaming on the side.
Posted on Reply
#61
Tatty_One
Super Moder@tor
I Read 2 or 3 interesting 10600k reviews, it seems the chips have a much thicker heat spreader so the 10600k does not really get any warmer than the 9600k even though it has the extra HT and apart from an intensive Prime run in all the other tests it did not even hit 100W of that 125W TDP, the conclusions thus far, albeit it early days is that the improvement from Coffee Lake i5 justifies it's existence but much less so with the 8 and 10 core parts...…… looking forward to W1z's take on things.

Here is one of them...….

global.techradar.com/en-za/reviews/intel-core-i5-10600k
Posted on Reply
#63
nickbaldwin86
Funny how everyone saying this is blah blah blah, this that and whatever. Yet it is sold out everywhere. Maybe they only sent out 2 CPUs to every online store and that is why they sold :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#64
Mats
nickbaldwin86
Maybe they only sent out 2 CPUs to every online store and that is why they sold :rolleyes:
That's basically what Hardware Unboxed said. We'll know in a few weeks when Mindfactorys sales for the first weeks will pop up.
Posted on Reply
#65
Dave65
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?


Ohhhhhh.... Triggered!

I've seen some reviewers say that the heat wasn't an issue and some say it needs a very good cooler to keep it under control.
Hope TPU has a review soon.
Posted on Reply
#66
ARF
This launch is disappointing on many fronts - you do get very high gaming performance but at the expense of hundreds of dollars overpayment, incredible amounts of heat and energy consumption. It's never going to be easy to keep this out of throttling.

I can't prove but the current situation resembles to some kind of conspiracy between AMD and Intel, and both charge for maximum profits, despite the fact that Intel is not competitive and its real market share is around 10% or less of the current sales.

What was the problem not to go to 10nm with more cores clocked at a reasonably low frequency ?
What was the problem to get rid of the iGPU which no one would ever use anyways on so expensive a platform?

Intel has the X-series with more cores.

Their opportunity to be competitive lies in decreasing the pricing and they never do it.

What is the problem with the supply ?

Where do all Intel chips go?
Posted on Reply
#67
RandallFlagg
Dave65
Ohhhhhh.... Triggered!

I've seen some reviewers say that the heat wasn't an issue and some say it needs a very good cooler to keep it under control.
Hope TPU has a review soon.
I personally see the 10900K as mostly a fail. Its main improvement is the 10C/20T vs 9900K. In the highly threaded environments it is not really beating AMD, and in games which are still mostly unable to use > 4 threads effectively it is overkill.

For games, and more typical budgets and workloads, I see the 10400 10500 10600 and 10700 being where it's at same as the 3600/3600X. These are the ones I want to see, along with faster and lower latency DDR4 supported by the Z490 chipset. The only reliable source thus far is guru3d which has a review of the 10600k with some DDR4-3600.

On that one, for games primarily but also in some productivity apps, the 10600K looks very good vs AMD (intel on the right) :

Posted on Reply
#68
moob
claes
Kind of impressed by the thermals. Here they are with a U14S (I'm assuming open bench):
translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2020-05%2Fintel-core-i9-10900k-i5-10600k-test%2F
Where do you see what cooler they used? I went to the Test System page, and didn't see a whole lot about what they actually used. Though Google Translate is breaking a lot of those images for me so it could have been on one of those.

I've been trying to find reviews where they used an air cooler and the only one I could find was Tom's where they used both for comparison (and obviously the air takes a hit). All the other reviews I've seen so far are with AIOs. As an aside, Digital Foundry was perhaps the worst offender here using an AIO for the Intel chip for their review, but using the boxed AMD cooler for the 3900X. As far as testing methodology is concerned, that's a pretty egregious error.

Edit: Bit-tech used an air cooler but there's no detailed temperature info. =\
Posted on Reply
#69
ARF
moob
Where do you see what cooler they used? I went to the Test System page, and didn't see a whole lot about what they actually used. Though Google Translate is breaking a lot of those images for me so it could have been on one of those.

I've been trying to find reviews where they used an air cooler and the only one I could find was Tom's where they used both for comparison (and obviously the air takes a hit). All the other reviews I've seen so far are with AIOs. As an aside, Digital Foundry was perhaps the worst offender here using an AIO for the Intel chip for their review, but using the boxed AMD cooler for the 3900X. As far as testing methodology is concerned, that's a pretty egregious error.

Edit: Bit-tech used an air cooler but there's no detailed temperature info. =\
There are temperatures:

www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i9_10900k_processor_review,30.html
Posted on Reply
#70
claes
moob
Where do you see what cooler they used? I went to the Test System page, and didn't see a whole lot about what they actually used. Though Google Translate is breaking a lot of those images for me so it could have been on one of those.

I've been trying to find reviews where they used an air cooler and the only one I could find was Tom's where they used both for comparison (and obviously the air takes a hit). All the other reviews I've seen so far are with AIOs. As an aside, Digital Foundry was perhaps the worst offender here using an AIO for the Intel chip for their review, but using the boxed AMD cooler for the 3900X. As far as testing methodology is concerned, that's a pretty egregious error.

Edit: Bit-tech used an air cooler but there's no temperature info. =\
On page 3 they suggest they use the setup they used in their Ryzen benching.

Edit: I just checked out that bit-tech review and it looks like they suggest it hit 74* with a D15s on page 6 (the overclocking section).
Posted on Reply
#71
trparky
bogmali
To all those that keep trolling and baiting, I will delete/LQ your posts but at some point, you will be thread banned and assessed points.
And that’s my signal to back up out of this thread. This thread is nuclear waste. I’m gone folks.
Posted on Reply
#72
coozie78
W1zzard
Just in case you're wondering about where the TPU reviews are... the samples from Intel USA have been en-route for two weeks now. DHL air freight had major difficulties finding flights... last I heard was they were in Amsterdam, on Monday. National holiday here tomorrow, so maybe Friday.
Hurry, we hunger!
Posted on Reply
#73
moob
Thanks folks. I hope more reviewers test on air as well as on an AIO. As someone who prefers the ease-of-use and reliability of an air cooler I find it far more useful.

And yeah, I saw they mentioned the temp in the bit-tech review but it doesn't really give you a whole lot.
Posted on Reply
#74
claes
moob
Thanks folks. I hope more reviewers test on air as well as on an AIO. As someone who prefers the ease-of-use and reliability of an air cooler I find it far more useful.

And yeah, I saw they mentioned the temp in the bit-tech review but it doesn't really give you a whole lot.
Indeed, and Tom's doesn't tell us if it's open-air or in a chassis, either (has to be in a chassis, right?). So few good reviews these days!

Here it is on a ST30 with 3 eloops: hardwareluxx
Posted on Reply
#75
Tatty_One
Super Moder@tor
Dave65
Ohhhhhh.... Triggered!

I've seen some reviewers say that the heat wasn't an issue and some say it needs a very good cooler to keep it under control.
Hope TPU has a review soon.
I have seen those comments consistently for the 10 core part, one review said that their test bench Corsair H115 Pro 280 AIO could not keep it cool, a little less so for the 8 core but the i5 runs pretty cool from everything I have seen so far.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment