Intel Core i9-10900K

[dgianstefani]

So you could look at an averages chart and say - well my 3700/3900x gets 120fps, and the 10900k get 160, but it doesn't matter to me since I only have a 120hz monitor. But you'd be wrong, and wouldn't know that unless the review you looked at had 1% lows/0.1% lows.

@Wizzard is there some particular reason you don't test for the min framerates? Such good reviews otherwise.

 

[Vayra86]

How on earth is this "competitive on price if you consider the competition"??

$500 is the tray price and it will not retail at this price. $530 if you're lucky. That makes it 25-30% more expensive than a 3900X!

And that's just the CPU! Add on top the mobo differences plus the cost of extra watts... I mean, come on.

This CPU is for 1) Intel fanbois and 2) gamers with absolutely no concern for money. That's it.

Price changes according to market demand and above msrp is simply inflated. Launch price isnt a great indicator. I did say 'IF priced right'

Look where Ryzen 9 is sitting at and what you trade is 2 cores for some ST performance. So there is a choice here and if priced right (not saying this is 500 bucks going down the line; Ryzen 9 can be found 100 bucks below msrp), the product is competitive.

It still does offer high perf, after all.

 

[dirtyferret]

it is needed now ... a bit before it was not really ... why is it an issue for you? streamer need them and more and more games and softwares beneficiate from them even a game that only use 4 core having more is useful, although 6C/12T would probably be enough for me.

It's not an issue but once you move away from something like an i7-8700/ryzen 3600x then performance improvements seem more niche or benchmark related but not necessarily real world jumps that you can see with the naked eye.

 

[Vayra86]

AMD marketing is pushing reviewers hard for that, because it's the only way their cores don't sit idle in games. Do really that many people game and stream at the same time?

Streaming related topics do pop up left and right. Its not my cup of tea either but besides streaming...

people have a browser fullof tabs, social media push services, some discord or likewise, overlays... there is a shit ton of background and out of focus applications in use while gaming. And OS services too. Windows even advertises the use of idle CPU cycles...

Again, it aint my thing to do all that while gaming...but the demand for 1% lows is real and it surprises me you still dont have it. Especially as parts become so much more dynamic in how they deliver performance... its a must, really.

 

[TheLostSwede]

What amazes me is that TPU doesnt test gaming with youtube or other apps on the side, eg streaming content. Intel falls flat on its face with this scenario.
I mean, really, you guys review with, and i quote: “application as that better reflects real life”
It’s time to send some old metrics with retirement.

I love the attention to detail TPU does. But in the end, does the 2,4% improvement really matter when tested with “only” gaming, a lot of people use their computer with more than just gaming, eg, gaming with youtube+twitch+spotify etc...

Also i didn't see the comparison about €€€ buying a new platform again and a new cooler (again), and a beefy one at that... idle performance is better due to pcie3 ipresume.
Load however... seems bonkers. Do we really need to give intel such a big praise for this nee processor while it is, in fact, intel pushed into a corner due to fierce competition?

cheers,
A critic reader who lurks for years.
Keep up the good work.

I guess you haven't done any benchmarking yourself?
The problem is that as soon as you introduce more variables, there's a huge risk of the testing environment throwing off the normally reproducible numbers. Then we're ending up in a situation where a lot of people are going to start questioning the benchmark results, as every time they come outside the normal 1-2% variance or less. Benchmarking for review purposes has to deliver reproducible results across several platforms, so you need to try to minimise variables that might affect the performance in a negative way, regardless of what you're testing.

Yes, a lot of people run at least something like discord alongside their gaming, but live streaming, not sure how many people really does that. That said, most of us probably don't turn off all the background services and what not when we game either, so you lose out a few percents performance there too.

I doubt PCIe 3.0 vs PCIe 4.0 would make any difference to idle power, at least not if no PCIe 4.0 devices are being used. It's more likely that Intel is simply better than AMD at the whole idle power end of things and it's something that have been for quite some time. AMD seems to be starting to catch up on the mobile side though, so maybe that'll be something that translates over to the next set of desktop CPUs as well.

 

[W1zzard]

is there some particular reason you don't test for the min framerates? Such good reviews otherwise.

The current bench system doesn't have the infrastructure to measure, analyze and plot frametimes. This is something I'll work on for next rebench, based on the work I've done with the new GPU bench

 

[E-curbi]

Hilarious. Needs best bin and special gear to hit 200mhz over stock turbo. Why even bother... I'll take stock any day of the week, funny how that is the same between Intel and AMD now all of a sudden

Probably worth it to Luumi, since he's only promoting a motherboard for EVGA. ie - gets a paycheck in the mail every month.

Yea, same old Skylake architecture, I remember the days when a binned Skylake chip could run 600Mhz over stock turbo ... on air ... on inaudible air ... Ahh, those were the days.

Rocket Lake is rumored to offer +20% IPC, that will be nice as long as they don't thermal like fireballs.

 

[ppn]

i would be happy if 10700F can do all core at 4.6GHz at 1.2V 175 watt AVX. and 11700F too..

Rocket lake better deliver at least 40% to be viable, inital tests show 0%.

 

[Vayra86]

The current bench system doesn't have the infrastructure to measure, analyze and plot frametimes. This is something I'll work on for next rebench, based on the work I've done with the new GPU bench

Those GPU reviews are much improved by it! Awesome

 

[randomUser]

AMD marketing is pushing reviewers hard for that, because it's the only way their cores don't sit idle in games. Do really that many people game and stream at the same time?

While i do not do the streaming, there are always steam, epic, core temp, keyboard apps in the background; drive meter/core temp gadgets. Sometimes there is a browser open (so might be some ads running).
I would really hate closing everything down every time i want to play something.
That might be the reason why my 9900k never hits the 4.8Ghz and up frequency even tho all the mentioned stuff only takes like 1-3% at best.

 

[E-curbi]

i would be happy if 10700F can do all core at 4.6GHz at 1.2V 175 watt AVX. and 11700F too..

Rocket lake better deliver at least 40% to be viable, initial tests show 0%.

Agree. AMD is going to be tough to beat in Single Thread.

 

[cueman]

well, i see intel cpus have only one problem and thats all, and it is 14nm process tech.

wow,but even large 14nm tech ,it can beat amd cpus even they have more cores alot better 7nm process tech...hmm.. and thats why intel 10900 doing good work.


anyway, intel need badly 10nm and 7nm process tech cpus,and, they should release thouse soon, looks intel want dong it well and carefully.

i give 10900 cpu score 9


summarum


when intel release first even it 10nm cpu, we seen little bit how strengt goes reality, and how intel can build cpus.
but,when intel release it 1st 7nm, we finally then see battles without any handicap,meaning how good/bad amds 7nm cpus really are,and can intel go top both, performance and efficiency.
i guess when that happends, many peoples eyes open good...

hmm, we seen little bit it when nvidia release it 7nm gpus and then comapare it amd 7nm gpus.


if i get it righ this way we go:

14nm 10900 vs amd 7nm ry(zen 2)
10nm 11900 vs amd 7nm ry(zen 3)
7nm 12900 vs amd 7nm ry(zen 4)
5nm 13900 vs amd 5nm ry(zen 5)

year is 2021 at least,both are same line,without process tech handicap.

and,as all know,saying again,both, amd and intel get 5nm process tech same time 2022 or 2021 late.

exiting!

 

[X71200]

Why did this CPU get an "Editor's Choice" award? Let's bring these back up:

It costs $500 and the boards seem to cost no less than $200-300, IPC improvements aren't really there as was mentioned in the review - it's all in the clocks... and you have those clocks resulting in an outrageous 305W / 99C.

Then it's been talked like as if buying this CPU actually gets you a noticeable performance increase in games when it is so minimal at such high frames, or simply limited by GPU around 80 FPS. You'll get A LOT more FPS with a stronger GPU & AMD combo. Not same. The amount of FPS you'll gain from the GPU you'll be able to buy with the cash, will be significantly more than what this CPU offers you.

I'd have simply tossed it without an award and left at that.

 

[E-curbi]

Why did this CPU get an "Editor's Choice" award? Let's bring these back up:

It costs $500 and the boards seem to cost no less than $200-300, IPC improvements aren't really there as was mentioned in the review - it's all in the clocks... and you have those clocks resulting in an outrageous 305W / 99C.

Then it's been talked like as if buying this CPU actually gets you a noticeable performance increase in games when it is so minimal at such high frames, or simply limited by GPU around 80 FPS. You'll get A LOT more FPS with a stronger GPU & AMD combo. Not same. The amount of FPS you'll gain from the GPU you'll be able to buy with the cash, will be significantly more than what this CPU offers you.

I'd have simply tossed it without an award and left at that.

The thermals are pretty amazing for the 10900K considering 10 14nm cores, although anyone could argue the reduced die thickness and increased IHS should have already been designed that way for the previous 9th gen - which seems as much a FUBAR today as it did at launch in 2018. Remember enthusiasts sanding down the die? Why Intel, just why?

 

[Vayra86]

The thermals are pretty amazing for the 10900K considering 10 14nm cores, although anyone could argue the reduced die thickness and increased IHS should have been already been designed that way for the previous 9th gen - which seems as much a FUBAR today as it did at launch in 2018. Remember enthusiasts sanding down the die? Why Intel, just why?

In spec is in spec. All the moaning aside, and heat 'problems'... even my 'hot' 8700K under toothpaste still runs within spec. And quite well at that. It just doesn't OC for shit.

Intel changing TIM means their CPUs just got a bit hotter and they give you just enough to compensate for that. After all, this way they could make two baby steps from 8th gen onward

Why did this CPU get an "Editor's Choice" award? Let's bring these back up:

It costs $500 and the boards seem to cost no less than $200-300, IPC improvements aren't really there as was mentioned in the review - it's all in the clocks... and you have those clocks resulting in an outrageous 305W / 99C.

Then it's been talked like as if buying this CPU actually gets you a noticeable performance increase in games when it is so minimal at such high frames, or simply limited by GPU around 80 FPS. You'll get A LOT more FPS with a stronger GPU & AMD combo. Not same. The amount of FPS you'll gain from the GPU you'll be able to buy with the cash, will be significantly more than what this CPU offers you.

I'd have simply tossed it without an award and left at that.

Editor's choice to make this review, that must be it

 

[MrAMD]

You'll get A LOT more FPS with a stronger GPU & AMD combo.

No. Just no. I know you're saying budget wise but balls to the wall top-end setup is intel CPU and NV RTX 2080 Ti. Nothing will beat it in gaming.

 

[Cobain]

Absolutely! But its nothing new, is it? Its just a new type number with some tweaks and high peak temps. I mean, this CPU was essentially already available since the 8700K.

Yes maybe you are right, for someone that has a 8700k, no news here, but we should point out that 10600k costs 260€ and is not as hard to cool, lower voltage too. Suely it doesnt justify an upgrade unless someone os still on really old CPUs

 

[Gameslove]

The World's Fastest Gaming CPU.
4K Gamers: Really? Why should I upgrade my PC? According to price / performance Ryzen 5 1600, haven't seen noticeable performance in 4K (Intel Core i9 10900K only 3 % fast then Ryzen 5 1600).

 

[GreiverBlade]

It's not an issue but once you move away from something like an i7-8700/ryzen 3600x then performance improvements seem more niche or benchmark related but not necessarily real world jumps that you can see with the naked eye.

well as the softwares and games will advance ... it will be less niche ... for myself i prefer having more even when not needed than needing more and not having them

but you are right the sweetspot, as i mentioned too, is 6C/12T like a 3600X

everything i see about Intel is painting my next upgrade path in red ...

No. Just no. I know you're saying budget wise but balls to the wall top-end setup is intel CPU and NV RTX 2080 Ti. Nothing will beat it in gaming.

but again, the margin will not be that much high ...

(yeah yeah i know ... +0.2-10fps = "not equal! i am gaming king!" )

(disclaimer i am a 1620p/1440p 75hz kind ... )

we should point out that 10600k costs 260€

for me i think it will be more 320+ at that rate even a 3700X would be a better option


oh i just checked prices ... confirmed
10600K around 319 chf (i was 99% spot on ) ahahahahaha
10900K around 600 chf ahahahahahahahaha .... no ...

aye ....
3700X/3800X/3900X are 120 to 200 chf cheaper than the 10900K
3600X is almost 100chf less than the 10600K ...

 

[jsteinhauer]

AMD marketing is pushing reviewers hard for that, because it's the only way their cores don't sit idle in games. Do really that many people game and stream at the same time?

Almost always have something running or downstreaming on the other display while gaming on the first (not livestreaming myself), so this would be valuable information. Given the vast numbers of wannabe streamers-for-a-living, a marketing department would love to use the label "Best processor for streamers." Personally, I see no reason to upgrade from my 8700K, yet.

 

[coozie78]

I can get a much better room heater for $500 ;-)
Interesting that is can best the 3900X in the scientific benchmarks, looks like its higher sustained clocks beat out the extra cores/threads of the AMD part. Run at stock with a half decent air cooler it's a nice alternative to a Xeon/Threadripper build.
Those gaming benchmarks are as expected, although I'm a little surprised to see AMD fall so far behind in Sekiro at 1080 rez, maybe it'll be patched out later, although the entire Far Cry series has always strongly favoured Intel with no signs of improvement to date. :-(
For the huge majority of users 8C/16T is plenty, even streamers shouldn't find themselves running into issues with that find of silicon and TBH most wouldn't suffer too much with the far cheaper i5s out there.
This is a halo part for halo users who demand the very highest gaming performance and will back it up with a high refresh display and RTX2080Ti. For the rest of us mortals it's a Bugatti Veyron or Lear Jet,
great to dream about but realistically, just too expensive when the kids needs new shoes and the rent is due.

 

[INSTG8R]

AMD marketing is pushing reviewers hard for that, because it's the only way their cores don't sit idle in games. Do really that many people game and stream at the same time?

Well also because AMD has integrated the ability to stream from the Adrenaline drivers pretty easily now so it makes sense they‘d want that showcased.

 

[Gameslove]

..... "Best processor for streamers." Personally, I see no reason to upgrade from my 8700K, yet.

Ye, you absolutely right.

The new CPU must to bring a new instructions (for example such SSE4. 2, AVX). Since 2000 year a Cpu's and GPU's evolution, I will see in future a motherboards with only GPU, a CPU complete dissappear.

 

[cucker tarlson]

not really an upgrade over 9900k.
it's not that 10900k is bad,but for gaming 9900k was already enough to push the fastest cards to extreme framerates.
technically it is the fastest,but realisctically,who does this even exist for?

not necessarily real world jumps that you can see with the naked eye.

so glad I got glasses

AMD marketing is pushing reviewers hard for that, because it's the only way their cores don't sit idle in games. Do really that many people game and stream at the same time?

I would really like to see a review with a smaller number of games and resolutions but one that includes avg. and peak core/thread usage.

 

[mohammed2006]

the 8% gaming performance will be shrinked with xt higher frequency