Intel Core i7-10700

[md2003]

Maybe, I am not sure tbh. But definitely needs more voltage than x46 multi; with a) auto multi applied is stable using ~1.2V (max boost using >100 black was 4.73Ghz thus x46 multi), b) setting multiplier manually at x48 needs 1.27V+ or bsod. Default, the motherboard sets voltage at a) 1.32v and b) 1.42v correspondingly.
Have you tried any high frequency ddr4 kit? I ve bought some cheap 3600 cl19 16bgb and runs fine, but was wondering if 4200+ would work too.

 

[W1zzard]

Have you tried any high frequency ddr4 kit? I ve bought some cheap 3600 cl19 16bgb and runs fine, but was wondering if 4200+ would work too.

I have not, but 4000+ should be np on Intel, gains will be minimal

 

[Viperl0]

Just got this CPU, would be greatful if someone could tell me how I increase the power limit? MSI z490-A pro

Thanks

 

[Dirtdog]

Just got this CPU, would be greatful if someone could tell me how I increase the power limit? MSI z490-A pro

Thanks

Good question. I got the same board myself this week but only with an i5-10600. As far as I can tell, the power limits are off by default. But as the manual doesn't explain and the BIOS itself is not very intuitive, I'm still not sure.

 

[md2003]

@Viperl0 & @Dirtdog, in Bios go to Overclocking->Advancec CPU configuration and se the Long/Short duration power limit and duration and CPU current limit (A) to max. I think an XMP profile does that automatically too, check the image:

 

[Dirtdog]

Mine is on 288W, 28s, 288W and 256A by default. I guess maxing them out on my particular chip is moot but maybe it makes a difference on the i7.

 

[W1zzard]

Mine is on 288W, 28s, 288W and 256A by default. I guess maxing them out on my particular chip is moot but maybe it makes a difference on the i7.

That is definitely not default, at least by Intel standards. Which board are you using? Some mobo vendors decided to come up with their own defaults

 

[Dirtdog]

That is definitely not default, at least by Intel standards. Which board are you using? Some mobo vendors decided to come up with their own defaults

MSI Z490-A Pro. The defaults seem to work well, with my CPU at least, and vcore is not excessive (~1.1v under load) so it's all good. I think the MSI BIOS leaves a bit to be desired though, with somewhat unintuitive menus and uninformative / cryptic descriptions (and sometimes with misspellings). The Z97 ASRock board I had previously, I would say had a superior BIOS.

 

[Viperl0]

@md2003 That's exactly what I need. Really appreciate it. Noticeable improvement with these settings and BCLK at 102.95 . Thanks again

 

[W1zzard]

Ah those msi boards, yeah, no way to switch to the stock intel value because you always have to enter the power limit values manually. So unless you know what to enter, you can’t run stock. Besides bios these boards work fine though

 

[phints]

Does anyone believe/verify these i7-10700 gaming benchmarks? The cons are overly harsh considering the gaming benchmarks are the same as top gaming CPUs: 10700K, 9900K, and 9700K and destroys Ryzens. Considering it's priced at only $310, runs at only 65W, is much more available than the rip off K-series versions, runs with DDR4-3200 RAM on Z motherboards, and doesn't even need an OC to crush gaming, doesn't this effectively make this the best gaming CPU on the market? (Btw, TechPowerUp really needs to start including 1% lows in their benchmarks).

tldr - if these benchmarks are legit, this is effectively the BEST gaming CPU on the market. It seems like this processor should be much more talked about and recommended.

 

[W1zzard]

Does anyone believe/verify these i7-10700 gaming benchmarks? The cons are overly harsh considering the gaming benchmarks are the same as top gaming CPUs: 10700K, 9900K, and 9700K and destroys Ryzens. Considering it's priced at only $310, runs at only 65W, is much more available than the rip off K-series versions, runs with DDR4-3200 RAM on Z motherboards, and doesn't even need an OC to crush gaming, doesn't this effectively make this the best gaming CPU on the market? (Btw, TechPowerUp really needs to start including 1% lows in their benchmarks).

tldr - if these benchmarks are legit, this is effectively the BEST gaming CPU on the market. It seems like this processor should be much more talked about and recommended.

Of course the benchmarks are legit.

Other than availability, why would you prefer 10700 over 10600K ?

 

[phints]

Although they are close and both are strong CPUs, it seems obvious to chose the 10700 over the 10600K for most situations. It's performing better a lot of benchmarks (green bar using DDR4-3200 RAM), it runs cooler and consumes less power, and long-term more games will use more threads for 8C/16T, especially since next-gen consoles out in a few months with 8C/16T 3.5GHz (essentially using downclocked Ryzen 3700). The 10700 just seems like a better buy to me long term. A quick look on Amazon, the 10700 is also cheaper. These benchmarks unfortunately don't show 1% lows which is very important in gaming, I suspect more threads will do better there too.

 

[W1zzard]

Oh wow .. 10600K == 10700 price in the States .. that's crazy .. here in Europe it's € 250 vs € 320

OC on the 10600K will give you a percent or so that 10700 cannot, in the grand scheme of things it barely matters. and for the current pricing situation and for people who are more gamers than overclockers, 10700 is a decent choice indeed. Personally I would buy 10400F and a faster GPU with the savings

 

[argon]

Personally I would buy 10400F and a faster GPU with the savings

If you not playing at high Hz (120+) there no reason to take intel over amd, you just spending more on intel.
if you playing 1440p or 2160p around 90hz or even 144 , the ryzen 3600 is more than enough for any games at the moment, and the 3600x is still cheaper than 10700 at least there in europe, and you can save more for the gpu!

I do play 1080p 240hz at the moment I dont have money for upgrade but If I had to upgrade now, a 10600k would be my best pick for price/performance, so I can spend money on AIO/custom watercooling for take it around 5.1/5.2ghz and Im sure it will be better perfomance than this 10700 or even 10900k at stock where games don't utilize more than 6 core (90% of games use around six core),

Yes, 10700 can be overlclocked via BLCK, but I don't think if you got a 900$ motherboards your route is the 10700 with no overclocking feature, this reviews has no sense on the overclocking things, If we take a 10700 we don't have 900$ to buy a Z490 Maximus XII Extreme. I would have seen this review with a cheapy motherboard like the Asrock Z490 Gaming 4 and see if they can hit the 102blck overclocking even on that cheapy z490 motherboard.

 

[phints]

No the motherboard they use is absurd and nobody should entertain the thought of spending more than $200 on a motherboard then that nonsense wouldn't exist.

 

[W1zzard]

No the motherboard they use is absurd and nobody should entertain the thought of spending more than $200 on a motherboard then that nonsense wouldn't exist.

100% agree with you. But that ASUS motherboard is what was provided to me for testing, at at a time where 0 motherboards were available in retail

 

[Lateshow]

This article actually put the 10700 on my radar. Lots of sites have the same sentiment of the 10700 being good at everything, but master of none. It games better than the 3700x, which is something that matters to many, and is more future proof than the 10600k with a small performance hit in gaming. If you don't need what AMD does better, or the extra frames the k chip gives you, it comes down to price.

The 10700 has been on sale for $300, or less for months now. It's currently $290 at my local retailer while the 10600k is the same or more if you can find one. K chips need a z mobo, and probably 3200mhz ram, so there's also some savings by going with a B, or H mobo, and 3000mhz ram. When comparing chips, you have to factor in the price of the CPU, mobo, and RAM. You loose some performance with 3000mhz ram, but it also costs less. I save $50-$60+ by going 10700 over the 10600k currently.

The 3700x is it's direct competitor, and it's $270 locally, but you still have to factor in the motherboard, and 3600 CL16 RAM (seems to be the sweet spot). The 10700 actually comes out to less when you factor those in. It games slightly better, and that makes it a very solid option. If AMD had cheaper motherboard options, it would be a toss up depending on needs, but the current AMD B-series carries a premium over the last gen.

I even think the 10100 ($100 locally) ends up being a better buy than the Ryzen 3100 ($100), and the 3300x ($150ish when in stock). If I needed to build a budget rig, I'd probably go 10100. Save $50-$100 over the Ryzens, and buy a better video card.

 

[r9]

Can you adjust Max Turbo on B460 mobos and achieve similar OC/boost ?

 

[TigerF15]

I have Asus Z490-P, Does removing power limits harm the CPU/Motherboard ?

 

[Dirtdog]

I have Asus Z490-P, Does removing power limits harm the CPU/Motherboard ?

No it won't do any harm.

 

[spudknife]

According to this https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-10700/19.html Temparute is 43° on laod I think I have an issue with my CPU cooler because I am at 16 threads 3700Mhz 65° ?

Also I have an asrock h410m-itx/ac I can't change power limit so 65W.

My CPU cooler : enermax LiqTech ELC-LT120X-HP
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6340/enermax-liqtech-120x-aio-liquid-cpu-cooler-review/index.html

Thanks you in advance

 

[dragontamer5788]

In the general case, I expect AMD 3700x 32MB of L3 (and 512kB of L2 per core) to beat out the 10700's 16MB L3 (and 256kB of L2). The benchmarks seem to confirm this case: with the Intel chip requiring an overclock to beat a AMD 3700x at stock settings (and I'm sure the AMD 3700x can be overclocked, especially since its an unlocked processor). Combined with PCIe 4.0 support (albeit only on the most expensive x570 boards), the AMD chip seems like the superior buy.

Nonetheless, Intel's chip still comes with the standard suite of software that will keep its niche. Intel has single-clock PEXT / PDEP instructions (which are really cool, and AMD's core remains terribly slow at these instructions). Intel's VTune and hardware performance counters are known to be superior to use over AMD's uProf. And finally, Intel continues to somehow have a superior gaming benchmark suite: I really wonder why video games (and WinRAR) like Intel so much when so few other applications seem to match that performance pattern?

All in all, it looks like we're in for the standard set of recommendations once again. With AMD having better general performance specs, while Intel wins in video games (slightly), as well as having a few other soft-advantages for obscure low-level programmers.

 

[Powerline304]

Hi,
I bought one of these CPUs to do some gaming and streaming (had I read this before buying I would have moved differently). I'm having trouble with performance and it appears that power limit throttling may be the case. Intel XTU shows me that I'm constantly throttling. Additionally, during the benchmark my maximum processor frequency has not budged past .8 GHz, with a highest temp of 29C.

I'm using:
MSI Z490 Gaming Plus
MSI RTX 2060 Gaming Z
16GB Corsair Ram

Thanks,

 

[W1zzard]

Adjust the PL1 and PL2 settings in your motherboard BIOS