Monday, July 27th 2020

Intel Officially Launches the Core i9-10850K at $453

Intel today has officially launched their new Core i9-10850K CPU. The 10-core, 20-thread design slots in between the top of the line i9-10900K and the i9-10800K, and only features a small (100 MHz) clock reduction compared to the 10900K across all clocks (this means base, set at 3.6 GHz; Turbo Boost Max 2.0, reaching 5.0 GHz; Turbo Boost 3.0 going up to 5.1 GHz. Thermal Velocity Boost tech is also supported, which should allow for up to 5.2 GHz on a single core and a 4.8 GHz clock across all cores. The TDP remains the same as the 10900K at 125 W, with the same Tau and PL1/PL2 values as 10900K (56 sec, 125 W, and 250 W).

The new CPU improves on the value proposition of the 10900K by being available at around 10% less than Intel's top-of-the-line Comet Lake-S CPU, with pricing set at $453 (at 1K tray quantities). As Intel's manufacturing woes and 14 nm production output keep failing to meet demand, it's likely that the company will continue to fine-tune its product stack with as many CPUs as it can, in order to achieve higher ASP on each model than they would if they had to only count on manufacturing yields and/or manually disabling cores in chips that can't quite hit their advertised speeds for each CPU model. The Core i9-10850K retains compatibility with Intel's Z490, H470 and B460-based motherboards.
Source: Videocardz
Add your own comment

33 Comments on Intel Officially Launches the Core i9-10850K at $453

#1
cucker tarlson
there's a gaping 5.5% hole between 10900K OC and 10900 wo. PL
thank you intel for filling it

Posted on Reply
#3
EarthDog
Berfs1
Uhhh, 10800K?
good way to distinguish sub/later SKUs...
Posted on Reply
#4
Th3pwn3r
A new processor for every 100mhz.
Posted on Reply
#5
cucker tarlson
Th3pwn3r
A new processor for every 100mhz.
congratulations.you got the job.
Posted on Reply
#6
Vayra86
Funny thing is, the midrange GPU segment looks about the same since Pascal onwards..

Baby steps, I guess its thé buzz word for 2020
Posted on Reply
#7
Tomgang
Yawn. Wake me up when we get the 10 NM CPU's. Until then Intel's offerings are rather boring. New models or not.
Posted on Reply
#8
cucker tarlson
Tomgang
Yawn. Wake me up when we get the 10 NM CPU's.
get some bedsore powder
Posted on Reply
#9
Tomgang
cucker tarlson
get some bedsore powder
Yeah I'm properly gonna need it, cause with the rate Intel going. It's gonna be a long sleep...
Posted on Reply
#11
dicktracy
$453 is a steal for the world’s fastest gaming CPU. Much better than $400 3800XT that’s slower than a 8700k from three years ago.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheDeeGee
dicktracy
$453 is a steal for the world’s fastest gaming CPU. Much better than $400 3800XT that’s slower than a 8700k from three years ago.
Wait until your CPU get's patched.
Posted on Reply
#13
windwhirl
TheDeeGee
Wait until your CPU get's patched.
We're never letting Intel live that down lol
Posted on Reply
#14
Dave65
Tomgang
Yawn. Wake me up when we get the 10 NM CPU's. Until then Intel's offerings are rather boring. New models or not.
When that happens AMD will be on 3nm :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Posted on Reply
#15
Tomgang
Dave65
When that happens AMD will be on 3nm :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Yeah probably or at least 5 nm+. For my next build, I don't think it will be a Intel based system, more likely to be Zen 3 based.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheEndIsNear
I always wanted to register here. I've been a long time lurker but I've had enough of Intel is the fastest gaming CPU crap. I loved my Haswell and have no loyalty to either AMD or Intel. But I get sick of people saying they are the fastest gaming cpu. If you game at 1080p then you are correct. I game at 2k and yes I lose maybe as much as 5 to 8fps playing borderlands 3. But at 4k it doesn't matter one bit because the video card is the bottleneck. Resolution does matter and at 1080p you are right. Across the board no. Now I've watched Intel go down the tubes lately. Still using skylake after this long is a big fail no doubt about it. I wouldn't buy Intel right now. Not because of company loyalty but they are way behind process technology. I called them outsourcing some chip making at the beginning of the year and that's what happened. I bought TMSC stock at 29 because of that. This is just my guess I"m no expert but it seems to me that Intel going with the monolithic die was a factor instead of going the Amd route of chiplets. Like I said I'm not bashing either company just my thoughts. But it really irks me when people say it's the fastest cpu for gaming period. I think Amd are going to make more gains while Intel treads water for the next couple years.
Posted on Reply
#17
windwhirl
TheEndIsNear
I always wanted to register here. I've been a long time lurker but I've had enough of Intel is the fastest gaming CPU crap. I loved my Haswell and have no loyalty to either AMD or Intel. But I get sick of people saying they are the fastest gaming cpu. If you game at 1080p then you are correct. I game at 2k and yes I lose maybe as much as 5 to 8fps playing borderlands 3. But at 4k it doesn't matter one bit because the video card is the bottleneck. Resolution does matter and at 1080p you are right. Across the board no. Now I've watched Intel go down the tubes lately. Still using skylake after this long is a big fail no doubt about it. I wouldn't buy Intel right now. Not because of company loyalty but they are way behind process technology. I called them outsourcing some chip making at the beginning of the year and that's what happened. I bought TMSC stock at 29 because of that. This is just my guess I"m no expert but it seems to me that Intel going with the monolithic die was a factor instead of going the Amd route of chiplets. Like I said I'm not bashing either company just my thoughts. But it really irks me when people say it's the fastest cpu for gaming period. I think Amd are going to make more gains while Intel treads water for the next couple years.
First of all, welcome to TPU! Hope you enjoy your stay!

However, and I hate to be that guy, I'm sorry to tell you that until now and at least until AMD finally launches Zen 3 processors, Intel is still the king for purely gaming. Although barely and in some tests it could be considered within margin of error.

Anyway, and unless you're going all competitive and professional with 165 Hz or higher refresh rate displays and stuff, you would probably have a hard time seeing any difference between the best processors each company offers.

Check TPU's review of the Ryzen 9 3900XT, which has the most up-to-date game performance testing, using a RTX 2080 Ti and the highest graphic detail available on the tested games:

www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900xt/14.html
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900xt/15.html
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900xt/16.html
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900xt/17.html

*1 page per resolution, ranging from 720p to 4K
Posted on Reply
#18
TheEndIsNear
Yeah I guess you're right there isn't a lot of difference but they are I guess. I don't want to start a war this is better or that. I just think people that are fans of one company or the other are strange. Competition is good. I loved my x99 haswell and used it for many years. I have a 2700x right now and I'm happy with it. But you can't downplay what has happened to Intel. I never thought I'd see them in the position they are in. I'm glad I was right about TSMC though. They were 86 a share earlier today. I wish I would've bought more though lol
Posted on Reply
#19
dicktracy
TheDeeGee
Wait until your CPU get's patched.
8700k has gone through many “performance-nerfing“ patches and is still faster than the competition to this day.
Posted on Reply
#20
bonehead123
dicktracy
8700k has gone through many “performance-nerfing“ patches and is still faster than the competition to this day.
Been there, done that :)

I had an 8700k for a while & it was indeed a fast chip. I am now on a 9900K @5.2GHZ, and it is very, very fast in everything I do, however, I use it for real work (database, CAD,/CAM, video/image processing etc) and not for gaming...so there's that....

However, if this falling-further-behind-the-curve crap with Intsmell continues, my next rig will be Zen 3/4 based for sure..... :respect:..:clap:..:shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#21
Caring1
Th3pwn3r
A new processor for every 100mhz.
So nothing has changed at Intel since the beginning.
Posted on Reply
#22
Crackong
So they knew their prices are ridiculous.
Posted on Reply
#23
B-Real
dicktracy
$453 is a steal for the world’s fastest gaming CPU. Much better than $400 3800XT that’s slower than a 8700k from three years ago.
That's why nearly nobody is buying the 3800X, but the 3700X or the 3900X. You blueish troll... :D
Posted on Reply
#24
lexluthermiester
dicktracy
$453 is a steal for the world’s fastest gaming CPU. Much better than $400 3800XT that’s slower than a 8700k from three years ago.
It's not that simple but generally, the benchmarks say otherwise.
dicktracy
8700k has gone through many “performance-nerfing“ patches and is still faster than the competition to this day.
No, it isn't. It would seem your reading skills need improvement because TPU's own reviews(along with EVERYONE else's) show very clearly otherwise.
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3800xt/21.html
Even the 3700X, a sub $300 part, handily competes with the 8700K.

Context is important...
Posted on Reply
#25
EarthDog
lexluthermiester
Context is important...
Indeed it is.... I've bolded the part where the OP explicitly states the conext.
dicktracy
$453 is a steal for the world’s fastest gaming CPU. Much better than $400 3800XT that’s slower than a 8700k from three years ago.
And from your own link, at 1080p it is 3% faster overall.

That out of the way, its clear that dude leans to one side and doens't want to hear shiza...I wouldn't call it 'much better', lol. Just TPU being TPU...
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment