• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Core i7-10700

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
24,196 (3.65/day)
Processor Core i7-8700K
Memory 32 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 3080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
In our Intel Core i7-10700 review, we're taking a look at one of Intel's most affordable 8-core/16-thread processors. Its low TDP of 65 W makes it power-efficient, but also limits performance. We unlocked that limit and gained up to 30% real-life performance without ever risking an unstable system.

Show full review
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
321 (0.09/day)
Interesting product. The 10700f should be even better value.
So judging by the numbers, the 10700 at stock consumes a bit less power than 3700X while being within 3% of 3700X performance??? Just wow.
A 14nm process, 6 years old now gives you the same performance and efficiency as a state of the art 7nm product?
Not saying this CPU is the winner in this comparison, but technically it is remarkable how Intel can use such an old part to tie in performance and power consumption with the 3700x.
 

Cheeseball

Not a Potato
Supporter
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
1,523 (0.31/day)
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
System Name Custom AMD Rig
Processor AMD Ryzen™ 7 5800X
Motherboard MSI MEG B550 Unify
Cooling EVGA CLC 280mm AIO Liquid Cooler
Memory Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro DDR4-4000 32 GB (8GB x 4) C18
Video Card(s) NVIDIA GeForce RTX™ 3090 24GB GDDR6X
Storage 1TB Inland GPP, 2TB Samsung 970 Plus, 2x 2TB Inland Premium, 1TB Samsung 860 Evo, 1TB SK hynix S31
Display(s) Samsung Odyssey Neo G9, LG C1 48" 4K 120 Hz (OLED44C1PUB)
Case Corsair iCue 5000X (White)
Audio Device(s) Kanto Audio YU2 and SUB8 Desktop Speakers and Subwoofer, Blue Yeti Microphone
Power Supply EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 P3
Mouse Logitech G303 Shroud Edition, Pro Superlight (White)
Keyboard NuPhy Air75
VR HMD Occulus Quest 2 128GB
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit 21H2 Build 19044.1645
This one does seem to be a nice alternative for gaming, especially if you're not looking to overclock. The only problem is the memory limitation of the budget and mid-range motherboards as DDR4-2666 DDR4-2933 will hamper its overall performance. Most users won't be buying [expensive] Z-class motherboards just to put a non-K class CPU in it. Intel should've spec'd the B and H boards up to DDR4-3200 max.
 
Last edited:

ppn

Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
1,133 (0.45/day)
It needs at least DDR4-4266. I mean 10600K scales linearly almost with memory this having 33% more cores need to be fed properly. It really is 165 watts TDp at 4.6GHz nThreads AVX. Underclocking this CPU by 25% saves 100 watts power. Actually H410 supports 2933. 10700F unlocked to 200 watts beats 10600K for the price.
 
Last edited:

Cheeseball

Not a Potato
Supporter
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
1,523 (0.31/day)
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
System Name Custom AMD Rig
Processor AMD Ryzen™ 7 5800X
Motherboard MSI MEG B550 Unify
Cooling EVGA CLC 280mm AIO Liquid Cooler
Memory Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro DDR4-4000 32 GB (8GB x 4) C18
Video Card(s) NVIDIA GeForce RTX™ 3090 24GB GDDR6X
Storage 1TB Inland GPP, 2TB Samsung 970 Plus, 2x 2TB Inland Premium, 1TB Samsung 860 Evo, 1TB SK hynix S31
Display(s) Samsung Odyssey Neo G9, LG C1 48" 4K 120 Hz (OLED44C1PUB)
Case Corsair iCue 5000X (White)
Audio Device(s) Kanto Audio YU2 and SUB8 Desktop Speakers and Subwoofer, Blue Yeti Microphone
Power Supply EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 P3
Mouse Logitech G303 Shroud Edition, Pro Superlight (White)
Keyboard NuPhy Air75
VR HMD Occulus Quest 2 128GB
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit 21H2 Build 19044.1645
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
2,214 (0.64/day)
Under the OCing section, it says that raising the power limits dramatically affects multicore performance. Now, am I blind, or are there no graphs showing this improvement? I'd be curious to see the clocks it sustains at higher PL1 TDP settings.

Also, I faintly remember back in the ivy bridge/haswell days that you could raise the boost bin on non K CPUs, so a 4.0 GHz boost hypothetical 4590 non-k for single core could be raised to 4.4, and the multi core would go from 3.6 to 4.0, ece. Or maybe it was only 200 mhz. Is this possible on the 10700? It's clock rates are so high already that if this boost tuning worked then you could hypothetically raise the 10700 to run at the same all core boost as a 10700k, and could do the same with a 10900, negating the purpose of the higher priced K series much how the 3800x is kinda pointless when the 3700x gets within 50 MHz boost.

If this worked, the $50 difference between a 10900-10900k/10700-10700k could make up the difference for the more expensive Z490 motherboard for memory overclocking.
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
24,196 (3.65/day)
Processor Core i7-8700K
Memory 32 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 3080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
Under the OCing section, it says that raising the power limits dramatically affects multicore performance. Now, am I blind, or are there no graphs showing this improvement? I'd be curious to see the clocks it sustains at higher PL1 TDP settings.
"Max Turbo"
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
260 (0.26/day)
Location
NYC, NY
I won't be upgrading till we get DDR5 RAM. The 10 generation CPU - even the i3, are damn powerful so I'm very excited for the Core i7.
 
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
93 (0.04/day)
With the power tuning limit adjusted the 10700 seems like a great CPU, until you look at the price.

I see the 10700 being popular with OEM systems, not retail. If a consumer wants better value by foregoing a non-K CPU they will probably end up saving even more money by going with AMD.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
10,225 (3.63/day)
@W1zzard

So am I correct in assuming, that like in previous Z390 boards when you could "enable boost" it would set all your cores to max out of box, in this case it would be 4.8ghz all 8 cores no downclocking. Does that still exist for Z490 non-oc'able chips? I am a bit confused because you mentioned Turbo Boost several times, but is there a static turbo boost option where it will stay 4.8 at all times? I know MSI and a couple others had this feature for Z390 non-k chips last gen. Wondering if same holds true here.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
901 (0.22/day)
System Name Better than before
Processor 10400
Motherboard B460 Pro4
Cooling Id-Cooling 224
Memory 16 GB
Video Card(s) 1650 Super
Storage Swordfish 500 GB
Display(s) AOC G2
Case Coolermaster Ammo 533
Audio Device(s) ALC1200
Power Supply Pure Power 11
Mouse G403
Keyboard Sidewinder x4
Software Windows 10 (ugh)
It's amazing how cool it runs when at stock.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
626 (0.22/day)
With the power tuning limit adjusted the 10700 seems like a great CPU, until you look at the price.
Yeap, I just looked, you're right! It's $65 more than an R7 3700X.
In fact, the better buy is the 2700X for less than $200.
All this talk about the last drop of performance is nauseating already; how many of us game competitively at (very) high refresh rate? Sometimes I have the feeling the tech press writes exclusively for half demented teenagers.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
10,225 (3.63/day)
Yeap, I just looked, you're right! It's $65 more than an R7 3700X.
In fact, the better buy is the 2700X for less than $200.
All this talk about the last drop of performance is nauseating already; how many of us game competitively at (very) high refresh rate? Sometimes I have the feeling the tech press writes exclusively for half demented teenagers.

I only play single player games, but I find them more fun at higher refresh. Diablo 3 at 60 fps versus 165 fps for example, was a much more fun experience, everything just looks so smooth.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
13,209 (4.70/day)
Location
Sunshine Coast
System Name Black Box
Processor Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5
Motherboard MSI E3 KRAIT Gaming v5
Cooling Tt tower + 120mm Tt fan
Memory G.Skill 16GB 3600 C18
Video Card(s) Asus GTX 970 Mini
Storage Kingston A2000 512Gb NVME
Display(s) AOC 24" Freesync 1m.s. 75Hz
Case Corsair 450D High Air Flow.
Audio Device(s) No need.
Power Supply FSP Aurum 650W
Mouse Yes
Keyboard Of course
Software W10 Pro 64 bit
All this talk about the last drop of performance is nauseating already; how many of us game competitively at (very) high refresh rate? Sometimes I have the feeling the tech press writes exclusively for half demented teenagers.
They're catering to the average consumer with their bigger, faster and, must have the latest tech mentality.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
1,282 (1.55/day)
Yeap, I just looked, you're right! It's $65 more than an R7 3700X.
In fact, the better buy is the 2700X for less than $200.
All this talk about the last drop of performance is nauseating already; how many of us game competitively at (very) high refresh rate? Sometimes I have the feeling the tech press writes exclusively for half demented teenagers.
You still need to factor in the additional cost of a good after market cooler as well to allow this sort of boost speed. The Ryzen 7 3700X comes with a beefy Wraith Max cooler, while the Intel chip comes with a crappy thin cooler which is not fit for purpose when it comes to achieving the advertised boost speed.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
10,225 (3.63/day)
You still need to factor in the additional cost of a good after market cooler as well to allow this sort of boost speed. The Ryzen 7 3700X comes with a beefy Wraith Max cooler, while the Intel chip comes with a crappy thin cooler which is not fit for purpose when it comes to achieving the advertised boost speed.

This is a good point, I have seen the 3700x cooler in person, and it is indeed quite impressive for basically being free.
 

ppn

Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
1,133 (0.45/day)
AT this point intel needs to bundle this with 224 watt cooler to be able to match 3700x in Cinebench20, and return the surplus difference in the power bill accumulated for 7 years 7/7 operation.
I cant even justify measuring 250+ watts at the wall.for just the CPU load alone.
For game it can work perfectly fine with the box, since out of the box it runs at the same 4.2GHz frequency and power as 3700x, at lower voltage .
but is probably noisy even for 65 watts, always better to replace it, I can reuse my deepcool single heatpipe cooler that can cool 100 watts to 66C in under 1000 rpm silent mode.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
10,225 (3.63/day)
I just hope the rumors about ryzen 4000 chips being on 5nm+ and releasing this Fall/winter are true... AND that i can score a msi x570 tomahawk assuming they ever come in stock
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2016
Messages
6 (0.00/day)
You still need to factor in the additional cost of a good after market cooler as well to allow this sort of boost speed. The Ryzen 7 3700X comes with a beefy Wraith Max cooler, while the Intel chip comes with a crappy thin cooler which is not fit for purpose when it comes to achieving the advertised boost speed.
the only thing the wraith prism is good for is selling to unsuspecting 3600 owners
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
10,225 (3.63/day)
the only thing the wraith prism is good for is selling to unsuspecting 3600 owners

wraith prism is great for 65 watt 3700x. there is no reason to OC on amd chips at all, so the wraith prism makes a lot of sense for a lot of people. especially if your willing to set an aggressive PWM curve for it. this is a redeeming factor about AMD, they make gaming so much more accessible / cost effective than Intel/Nvidia, and this is true even back in the AGP days. it is one reason I am not giving up on them yet. if it was not for AMD and ATI I would never have been able to afford to play games like Stronghold in 2001, or Age of Empires 2, or even WoW in 2003-2004 beta. They gave me some amazing memories. I already decided I am going to give AMD one last chance. big navi and ryzen 4800x. POSSIBLY i will settle for the soon to be released 3800 XT cpu... we will see.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2016
Messages
6 (0.00/day)
wraith prism is great for 65 watt 3700x. there is no reason to OC on amd chips at all, so the wraith prism makes a lot of sense for a lot of people. especially if your willing to set an aggressive PWM curve for it. this is a redeeming factor about AMD, they make gaming so much more accessible / cost effective than Intel/Nvidia, and this is true even back in the AGP days. it is one reason I am not giving up on them yet. if it was not for AMD and ATI I would never have been able to afford to play games like Stronghold in 2001, or Age of Empires 2, or even WoW in 2003-2004 beta. They gave me some amazing memories. I already decided I am going to give AMD one last chance. big navi and ryzen 4800x. POSSIBLY i will settle for the soon to be released 3800 XT cpu... we will see.
I found the prism to be pretty average, sure it kept temps mostly below 80 degrees on my 3700x but it was far from quiet doing so. Best thing it did was cover half the cost for a better air cooler. You wont be disappointed giving AMD another go, though do expect some software inconsistencies on both CPU chipset and GPU software packages
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
4,925 (1.46/day)
Interesting product. The 10700f should be even better value.
So judging by the numbers, the 10700 at stock consumes a bit less power than 3700X while being within 3% of 3700X performance??? Just wow.
A 14nm process, 6 years old now gives you the same performance and efficiency as a state of the art 7nm product?
Not saying this CPU is the winner in this comparison, but technically it is remarkable how Intel can use such an old part to tie in performance and power consumption with the 3700x.
The 3700x can also be tuned to perform a lot better, especially with manually tuned RAM oh btw did you forget the RAM support & of course the locked multiplier for the 10700 chip? Not to mention 14nm++ isn't 6 years old, neither is skylake ~ that's patently false :rolleyes:

Your claim is roughly pants on fire on the fact check meter :shadedshu:
 

ppn

Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
1,133 (0.45/day)
At $25 more there's 10700KF. 4,6GHz is the sweet spot already where the voltage starts to ramp up especially when all the low voltage dies went for the making of 10900K. 10600 and 10700 are the garbage chips but good enough, 4,8GHz at 1,3V is just sick. DDR is the big dissatisfaction here, DDR3 topped at 2133 and DDR4 is not reaching 4266 at reasonable price and voltages yet when what they are doing is just doubling the rate for almost free as the starting point and DDR5 is almost here killing all prospects for any socket available today. If i can run the CPU with DDR and NB all at sync 4,6GHz it would be perfect. That means waiting for DDR5 and 5nm+ from both companies.
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
321 (0.09/day)
The 3700x can also be tuned to perform a lot better, especially with manually tuned RAM oh btw did you forget the RAM support & of course the locked multiplier for the 10700 chip? Not to mention 14nm++ isn't 6 years old, neither is skylake ~ that's patently false :rolleyes:

Your claim is roughly pants on fire on the fact check meter :shadedshu:
For sure, any unlocked CPU can be tweaked to do better. But simply comparing these two products from a technical standpoint, I think my analysis stands true.
I specifically said the 3700x is the clear buy nevertheless, but you seem to have a bit of fanboyism for AMD in you, hence you don't like anyone saying anything good about intel products. But that is ok...
As for the 3700x, lets see how the 3700xt will fair, I am quite curious how the balance of perf/consumption will be kept/disturbed.
14nm is 5-6 years old. Sure, they tweaked the knobs here and there to make it run faster, but nevertheless it uses the same transistors, same machines, same tech, same library so it is the same process. And I am reiterating. For such an old piece of tech, I think it is impressive that it can keep up with the latest and greatest from amd/tsmc. This shows that AMD has a lot more work to do on the power saving schemes and that 7nm power advatange is the main reason why zen 2 parts are so good. This also shows that technically the skylake core is more efficient when it comes to work done per unit of power used vs zen 2 core. But the 7nm usage turns the tables in favor of amd. Only just.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
4,925 (1.46/day)
Yet you don't seem to have any bias, towards Intel, is that what you're claiming? I highlighted the specific points of your post ~ which you should know are incorrect but whatever floats your boat o_O

And before you go on to nitpick on this reply, why don't you post evidence to backup your initial claim that everything's (nearly) the same as it was 6 years back? For instance there's no SKL in 2014, so no backtracking room there.
 
Top