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

#76
Mats
Dave65
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.
Wasn't it the same with the 9900K reviews? Does anyone remember?
Posted on Reply
#77
E-curbi
claes
Kind of impressed by the thermals. Here they are with a U14S (I'm assuming open bench): computerbase via google translate
Yep, me too. Impressed and surprised. But then 10900K die thickness 0.5mm vs 9900K die thickness 0.8mm. :)

Still, the platform doesn't offer enough to upgrade from 8th gen, at least not for me. Oh well. :ohwell:

Thinking Meteor Lake 2022 7nm and 2nd gen ddr5 might be the next platform I can run at high clocks CPU and mem - cooling with simple Noctua Air.
Posted on Reply
#78
gravel
Hello from France

I bought my 3900x: 400 euro
MSI mortar max: 86 euro
g skill 3200 16 GB: 85 euro

My b450 max & compactible ryzen 4000

---->> The Core i9-10900K is expensive :kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#79
E-curbi
gravel
Hello from France

I bought my 3900x: 400 euro
MSI mortar max: 86 euro
g skill 3200 16 GB: 85 euro

My b450 max & compactible ryzen 4000

---->> The Core i9-10900K is expensive :kookoo:
Sup gravel? How's things going in France man? :)
Posted on Reply
#80
hurakura
Great for gaming and nothing else
Posted on Reply
#81
Bee9
I'm truly disappointed with the 10900K pricing. I should be $80 cheaper.
Posted on Reply
#82
Lionheart
Get this moron off this site, seriously.
Posted on Reply
#83
Bee9
Lionheart
Get this moron off this site, seriously.
Mirror mirror on the wall, who is moron-est of 'em all...
Posted on Reply
#84
gamefoo21
The good news out of this is that the 10700K actually launches $100 CAD lower than the 9900K normally lists at currently.
Posted on Reply
#85
Crackong
Could somebody tell me why mentioning the price of 3900x a.k.a. the biggest competitor of 10900k became "low quality" at #8 ?
Posted on Reply
#86
GoldenX
I'm starting to doubt if Intel shouldn't just port Ice Lake to 14nm, and force the highest possible clocks on that. At least we would see an IPC change, and mainstream programs could start to make use of AVX-512.
When even VIA offers a newer product than Intel...
Posted on Reply
#87
Palladium
Yet another new hardware that goes into my "I can easily afford it but what's the point" category.
Posted on Reply
#88
watzupken
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?


Do you game at 1080p with a top end processor? At higher resolution, the clockspeed advantage diminishes while the processor is still burning through more power and producing more heat. Moreover, you need the top of the line cooler to keep the flagship chugging along at high clockspeed.

I think nobody ever doubted Intel's performance in games given the high clockspeed. The joke is how desperate they are to keep this single core clockspeed advantage against AMD.
dicktracy
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.
I think there are ample reviews out there with the same conclusion. At stock, the 10900K draws around 250W period. The facts are in your face, its just a matter of you not accepting it. Of course if you ignore all other metrics other than pure FPS at 1080p or lower, sure, Intel still retains the crown with a decent margin and keeps users like yourself pleased with them. As mentioned, as resolution scales up, the benefits shrinks.

In any case, all the modern processors perform well in games regardless of Intel or AMD. With this in mind, I rather spend my money on a processor that gives me all round better performance which ironically cost less and significantly more power efficient.
GoldenX
I'm starting to doubt if Intel shouldn't just port Ice Lake to 14nm, and force the highest possible clocks on that. At least we would see an IPC change, and mainstream programs could start to make use of AVX-512.
When even VIA offers a newer product than Intel...
I think this is where Intel got complacent and underestimated competition and the scale of their 10nm troubles.
TheinsanegamerN
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.

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.


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.
AMD's strategy or chip itself was never meant for high clockspeed and about going wide. While the chips all run higher than the TDP claim, they are at least at this point, not too far away from it. The chip itself is smart enough to balance number of cores vs the type of load, so in games, you should expect less cores being utilized and run at a higher clockspeed. In a pure CPU load say running Cinebench as an example, all cores get loaded and once it hits 144W, it the clockspeed goes down. Even so, its beating Intel handily in the multicore score with the lower clockspeed. At least for 3900X and 3950X, there is little reason to overclock and just let the CPU do its work.

The perception that the CPU runs really hot is true in a sense it is running at 250W at full tilt. The heat is manageable, yes, but most reviews did mentioned you need some serious cooling solution. So that adds up on cost on top of a good Z490 motherboard for the flagship Intel chip. Even Intel recommended a 280 AIO if you refer to post #11 in the link below.

forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/hardware-clinic-2/preview-asus-maximus-xii-hero-wi-fi-z490-motherboard-gen-10-lga1200-6274769.html

I've never run a comparison between my 2700 @ 4Ghz vs an Intel processor of the same class, so I am not able to independently validate. However most reviews out there are consistent that at higher resolution, bottleneck on CPUs are lesser and thus, reduce the performance gap between the 2. The 2700X will certainly benefit from faster ram since this is one of the limitations of AMD chips. It think will be good to know what is the FPS between the 2 from your observations at the resolution and refresh rate you are using.
Posted on Reply
#89
1d10t
watzupken
The perception that the CPU runs really hot is true in a sense it is running at 250W at full tilt. The heat is manageable, yes, but most reviews did mentioned you need some serious cooling solution. So that adds up on cost on top of a good Z490 motherboard for the flagship Intel chip. Even Intel recommended a 280 AIO if you refer to post #11 in the link below.

forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/hardware-clinic-2/preview-asus-maximus-xii-hero-wi-fi-z490-motherboard-gen-10-lga1200-6274769.html

I've never run a comparison between my 2700 @ 4Ghz vs an Intel processor of the same class, so I am not able to independently validate. However most reviews out there are consistent that at higher resolution, bottleneck on CPUs are lesser and thus, reduce the performance gap between the 2. The 2700X will certainly benefit from faster ram since this is one of the limitations of AMD chips. It think will be good to know what is the FPS between the 2 from your observations at the resolution and refresh rate you are using.


280mm AIO cooler. At stock :laugh:
I believe we'll see 420mm AIO cooler from some random Chinese manufacture much sooner :D
Posted on Reply
#90
Chrispy_
Intel know they are going to sell every one of these they make at first, so no incentive to compete on price.

The Core i7-10700K is listed at $409 at Newegg and requires a cooler
They Ryzen 9 3900X is listed at $431 at Newegg and does not require a cooler.
Posted on Reply
#91
hurakura
Fanboys and mad gamers are going to get this no matter what. Those that use their PCs for work will just smile and look the other way
Posted on Reply
#92
sasamkd
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..
still using fx9590 and asus crosshair formula z (no time for gaming or much else these years :) ) and cooling it just fine with 240mm. it is freakier from that point of view, in general it costed as i5 and perf was also more or less the same
Posted on Reply
#93
RandallFlagg
Chrispy_
Intel know they are going to sell every one of these they make at first, so no incentive to compete on price.

The Core i7-10700K is listed at $409 at Newegg and requires a cooler
They Ryzen 9 3900X is listed at $431 at Newegg and does not require a cooler.
The prices are quite tame for day 1 and 2 of launch. Moreover Intel is already starting to compete on price, that is one of the major non-technical changes in gen 10. They aren't coming all the way down to parity but frankly if anyone expected Intel to come all the way down to AMD pricing they were deluding themselves. And if you are an AMD fan, you should be glad of that, because if Intel actually decides to lower prices and compete with AMD directly on price it will crush AMD.
Posted on Reply
#94
ARF
RandallFlagg
The prices are quite tame for day 1 and 2 of launch. Moreover Intel is already starting to compete on price, that is one of the major non-technical changes in gen 10. They aren't coming all the way down to parity but frankly if anyone expected Intel to come all the way down to AMD pricing they were deluding themselves. And if you are an AMD fan, you should be glad of that, because if Intel actually decides to lower prices and compete with AMD directly on price it will crush AMD.
Only if people start ignoring that today AMD offers the top performance with the 16C/32T Ryzen 9 3950X, and Intel with its lineup does compete up to the higher parts of the midrange.
You know that Ryzen 7 3700X is a 65-watt part, supports PCIe 4.0 and currently retails for just $294 at Newegg and for just $290 at Amazon.

Core i7-10700K simply doesn't compete at $409.

Intel should have lowered its TDP and start competing with real performance in normal TDPs, while marketing heavy overclocking for those who wish to go that route.
Posted on Reply
#95
Chrispy_
The i5-10600K is interesting whilst the i7-10700K and i9-10900K are not.

The i7 and i9 still fail to take the performance crown from AMD outside of unrealistic game benchmarks where the resolution and details are turned down on a 2080Ti to elimate the GPU as the bottleneck. Nobody buys a 2080Ti to turn down the resolution and details. So yes, Intel still holds the gaming CPU crown and no, the i7 and i9 do not change anything or improve the situation in a meaningful way. If you're not solely gaming, the 3900X beats both the i7 and i9 for less, on a cheaper, more stable, and more mature platform, at half the power draw.

The i5 on the other hand is amazing. It's not going to take the value crown away from the R5 3600 and it still (barely) loses to the much cheaper AMD in non-gaming tasks but it does bring a far more rounded product to the masses at the sub-$300 price point. The x1000 quantity price of the 10600K is $262 so at under $300 retail it will offer a lot more value in this price segment than Intel has offered for a long time. If you do have a high-end graphics card and a low-resolution monitor (maybe 240Hz) this is going to get you 9900K gaming performance at a $200 discount over the 9900K.

I'm still going to recommend the R5 3600 to people because at an estimated $135 cheaper than the 10600K you get functionally-identical performance on a cheaper, mature platform with less heat/noise, lower power consumption, and that $135 can be put into a better GPU. But the 10600K is the most exciting thing to come out of Intel since the 8700K, IMO.

I'm genuinely looking forward to the reviews of the 10400F when that gets launched, as I feel that will actually offer a true mainstream alternative to the R5 3600 with 4.0GHz all-core on a cheaper motherboard and 65W claimed power draw (so hopefully still under 100W real-world). That is what the midrange really needs.
Posted on Reply
#96
EarthDog
People only give a shit about power use when the other team uses more. These arguments are hilarious.
Posted on Reply
#97
ARF
EarthDog
People only give a shit about power use when the other team uses more. These arguments are hilarious.
It's very difficult to keep the Intel CPUs out of the throttling zone where they like so much to fall and stay.
Posted on Reply
#98
EarthDog
ARF
It's very difficult to keep the Intel CPUs out of the throttling zone where they like so much to fall and stay.
Is it? Youve tried?

So far haven't run into it in my testing...went through 5 boards so far. Only at 5.2 ghz all c/t did my 3x120mm aio thermally limit things. At stock it wasn't close to throttling... 20C off.
Posted on Reply
#99
ARF
EarthDog
Is it? Youve tried?

So far haven't run into it in my testing...went through 5 boards so far. Only at 5.2 ghz all c/t did my 3x120mm aio thermally limit things. At stock it wasn't close to throttling... 20C off.
Yes, I have seen it with stock Intel coolers. Maybe that's the reason why they no longer include such.
But that raises the cost to own their system even further and makes the purchasing process more complicated because the user now needs to research for proper cooler.
Posted on Reply
#100
EarthDog
ARF
Yes, I have seen it with stock Intel coolers. Maybe that's the reason why they no longer include such.
But that raises the cost to own their system even further and makes the purchasing process more complicated because the user now needs to research for proper cooler.
They haven't included stock coolers with K variants in years... because they are intended to be overclocked. So why spend more to sell it with a cooler?? Makes sense to me on all fronts. ;)

Most people who buy K variant cpus know they need to buy a cooler for it. Research is all a part of it... nothing new. And nothing to hold against intel.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment