Intel Core i9-10900K is official, boosting up to 5.3 GHz; Core i7 and Core i5 get competitive...

Dyper

Posts: 22   +8
Love Intel, still running i7 4790k ASR0ck H97 Workstations.
Not enough core performance to justify a move yet.
Been on 14nm with more Cores, more wats, etc.
Give me Tiger Lake, great single core performance, 4 Cores and I’ll jump.
Seen enough 14nm, yadda, yadda.

I really like the AMD 3300X.
But want that new design and Quad. If it’s single core beats Intel, I’ll buy that then.

Just want that big cache and best single core performer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shadowboxer

PEnnn

Posts: 461   +402
The price of the 10900K + required cooling solution will be well above 100 dollars more than a 3900X, even more if AMD immediately responds with price reductions. Plus with 10900K you will get a more expensive electric bill. All that to get 5-10% higher single core performance (and give up maybe 5-10% of multicore performance). If you absolutely only care about single core performance and money is not a problem, then sure, Intel is still the best choice. But that doesn't make it competitive, as this will not even close half of the gap they currently have with AMD. Furthermore, these are still unreleased and the next move will be AMD's, maybe in like 6 to 8 months.
Don't forget you'll need a new motherboard too.
 

dirtyferret

Posts: 636   +730
The Intel 9700k at stock beats every Ryzen CPU in gaming, at OC it blows past them but it's "uncompetitive"? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shadowboxer

Arbie

Posts: 110   +174
The Intel 9700k at stock beats every Ryzen CPU in gaming, at OC it blows past them but it's "uncompetitive"? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
My "competitive" refers to the fact that 99.9% of buyers will be better off with a Ryzen chip. Everyone here, including you and the authors, knows that. So using this word in the title is little better than clickbait.

Your "competitve" refers to the 0.1% who are either competitive gamers or commodity traders, or some micro-niche of users to whom power consumption is irrelevant and CPU grunt overriding.

So no - this Intel chip isn't competitive in any meaningful chunk of the market, and playing with words won't make it so.
 

ruddevil

Posts: 24   +43
What a great time to be a PC enthusiast. After a long long time, finally Intel's product lineup is dictated by AMD's. Impressive. I'm delighted knowing that we all will get competitive pricing and performance, no matter which side we are on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dyper and meric

Randall Markus

Posts: 6   +3
I'd love review sites to benchmark these Intel chips with a 125w cooler. That's the TDP, so that's the cooler you get (it's the literal definition of TDP). To be fair, AMD should be run on a cooler that matches their TDP as well.

Sucks Intel is rebranding the same CPUs, but changing the motherboard AGAIN simply to eliminate backwards compatibility. I do appreciate the price drops to at least have a chance to compete with AMD. However, it still looks like "everything except games? AMD. Games only? Intel." At least, until Zen3 in a few months anyways (a chip that fits on my extremely low end board I bought 4 years ago).

 

Randall Markus

Posts: 6   +3
Sure but it’s not normal to see parts from larger process nodes beating out parts from smaller nodes. Look at the whomping difference AMD got going from 12 to 7nm. Im aware that TSMC 7nm is less dense than Intel’s 10nm and therefore is somewhere between Intel’s 10nm and 14nm processes. So it’s not directly comparable. Also by great attention to cooling you mean buying a slightly beefier cooler? That’s not too difficult. And it’s not like these parts will cost you that much more per month in electric. You may notice over the year but I’d take the performance. Who’s buying a brand new 8+ core CPU and isn’t able to afford a few dollars more a year on electric? Also, it’s competition isn’t exactly an iPad. Ryzens 7nm parts do use less power and produce less heat but you’re still buying similarly sized power supplies and coolers for them. The footprint of the system in your room is unlikely to be all that different.

None of this makes Intel a better buy though, the prices need to be right. But by the looks of it, it doesn’t look like performance is going to be lacking and that surprises me. I thought Intel’s 14nm was finally done when the 7nm Ryzen stuff launched.
Intel has had the advantage of reselling the same chips for 4 years, swapping boards only because they didn't want to allow an upgrade path. So, they've found many tiny optimisations along the way to get more clocks (an admirable feat, which they happily did because competition didn't force their hand), but no more IPC (that's the hard gains). This is why the new 10nm process looks like crap; it's actually great compared to the first go at 14nm, but you're looking at an extremely mature 14nm design vs the new deal, but essentially a beta 10nm design.

AMD gained a lot going from 12 to 7 because it was a new chip design (Zen2 vs Zen), and they resolved a bunch of bottlenecks. Where Intel would just revise their current chip, AMD are creating new designs, AS WELL AS utilising TSMCs fantastic 7nm node. The node is basically responsible for the extremely good thermals, the chip design is responsible for the IPC (which is the lions share of AMD performance gains).

As for the cooler comment: cooling a 9900k (~230w TDP) is not easy, even if you spend a lot of cash on an expensive cooler: that is an 8 core part at 5.0ghz. The tim is the same size on a 10990k, except it's 10 cores, and runs 5.3ghz, meaning probably more like 300w TDP. We shall see what ridiculousness is required by reviewers to give that chip a chance of not thermally throttling, but spending $20 on a hyper212 for your 12c Ryzen is a lot different than spending $200 for a liquid cooling solution for your 10c 10990k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Achaios and PEnnn

ubronan

Posts: 57   +9
Thank you AMD for having performed the most essential step in making these launches happen.

It's nice to see cores and clocks increase over time, but in my real world day to day usage, I don't think I'd feel much difference from my CPU from two years ago.
I fully agree I actually was stunned to see that my by now very old 6700k actually does do very well in games, the issue is that the motherboards lack the advanced toys I like to use.
Nevertheless I will soon buy as many before me buy an AMD based system as soon as the new motherboards with usb 4 get launched.
And hopefully this will not be another fail launch like the current ones, there are hardly any devices which really make use of the usb3.2 gen 1000 speed ( yes I typed it on purpose wrong).
The reason is that the shops are full with fake high speed products, they actually are either usb 1.0,2.0 or 3.0 devices being renamed to the fail name change of the replacing products.
They make use of that fail all the time, friends come to me for testing their brand new super speed usb stick because it seemed so slow.... well indeed if you have bought a usb 1.0 speed which is branded in large red letters a USB 3.2 super speed device.
People expect it to run at minimal 3.0 speeds but after I tested it and tell them they got screwed by the shop because they over payed for such a slow device which actually should not be sold anymore. Often the clue that its probably not any good is often a real weird brand, with loads of flashy ads and alot of pictures show a rocket or super car. But I found big brands actually do the same simply because they are now doing nothing wrong because the fail usb standard makes it easy to buy crap for premium prices.
The sad part of it all is that it looks like that group of people did it on purpose because I have not found any device besides very expensive TB 2 or 3 devices that actually make use of the near 20 Gbit speed ( again intensional leave the never used 40 away).
There are no devices coming remotely near that max speeds for real no usb3.x or Tb 3.
The devices I tested are maxed out pretty rapid, that does not say these are slow, but fact is that its much slower than usual big numbers which are on the boxes.
Its kinda like buying superspeed wifi .... the same story over and over again, friends buy a wifi device expecting to see massive speed improvements because it says so on the box, so they ask me to look at their new toy and then get the bad news ... They bought another fail because the one they bought is NOT faster than the previous.
So long story short do not let you lead by all these fake numbers because you get disappointed except if you bought it to brag to friends and family.
But make sure they can not test the actual speeds because like this new series cpu, you probably never reach that 5.2 or higher clocks. I bet your only get it if you are lucky and have spend a fortune on expensive custom water cooling solutions.
 

dirtyferret

Posts: 636   +730
My "competitive" refers to the fact that 99.9% of buyers will be better off with a Ryzen chip. Everyone here, including you and the authors, knows that. So using this word in the title is little better than clickbait.

Your "competitve" refers to the 0.1% who are either competitive gamers or commodity traders, or some micro-niche of users to whom power consumption is irrelevant and CPU grunt overriding.

So no - this Intel chip isn't competitive in any meaningful chunk of the market, and playing with words won't make it so.
You are entitled to your opinion unfortunately no facts support your opinion making it factual incorrect. The 9700k is faster in gaming and office making it a better chip from a performance standpoint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shadowboxer

fadingfool

Posts: 185   +183
I wonder how well the 10 core will run multi threaded tasks - the ring bus architecture is remarkably efficient at up to 8 cores but previously Intel have used the mesh architecture for their higher core parts (as in my 7820X) . Could be interesting to see a 10900k versus a 10900X in a multi-threaded workload at the same clocks.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,144   +4,908
As for me, I'm still kind of satisfied with my i5 4460, although my pc needs an SSD now. Yeah I don't have an SSD on my desktop yet, go figure :)
I got a funny story for ya. I built a new rig around an i5-6600K. I installed my last copy of Win 7 Pro unto a 250 GB SATA 2 (?) HDD.(The plan being to image it over to a Samsung 250 GB SATA 3 SSD). After I installed Photoshop Elements 13, it would barely launch with the HDD. (Don't think I ever got it fully up and operational. So, naturally, I thought I screwed up the install of Windows.

As it turns out, after I transferred the OS image to the SSD, Elements started launching in a matter of seconds

The only reasonable explanation I can come up with for the issue, is that the HDD simply couldn't fetch data at the rate the system needed to run correctly.

That said, the Skylake chip was the last I ever intend to buy from Intel, until they put out 10 nm line.

I'm getting older, I hate the concept behind Windows 10, and at the rate Intel is going with 10 nm parts, I may not live long enough to build another machine.
 

treetops

Posts: 3,050   +776
Hmm so when are these releasing? Ryzen 4 launches in Semptish. Pretty sexy seeing a 9700kf at $240. Gaming, the 9700k is only almost challenged by the 3900x. If you have a old system you need to buy a mobo no matter what. Ryzen 4 + consoles + the economy will surely make prices fall all around the gpu cpu side. I have a 3700x, I got it at a $250 bargain. But I'm not delusional. A 9700kf will smoke it. They would need to drop the 3800x to $200 to stay competitive purely gaming. 3900x to what $250-$300? For the short time before Ryzen 4 comes out. Which from my guess will at least match intel on the gaming side. Perhaps surpass, since intel said last year when Ryzen 3 released that they wouldn't have anything to counter amd for 2+ years was it?
 

Kaj Hansen

Posts: 13   +7
As for me, I'm still kind of satisfied with my i5 4460, although my pc needs an SSD now. Yeah I don't have an SSD on my desktop yet, go figure :)
Don't know if you're running windows 10, but the next update coming may 13th or now for insiders, will apparantly improve performance for hdd users quite significantly because of indexing optimizations. If you're really active now, could look into insider slow ring, I installed it at a mate last week. No problems sofar. As always backup ofc. ;)
 

Alfatawi Mendel

Posts: 72   +124
The new z470 motherboards are giving an inkling of the power required to run these top end Intel chips. Some motherboards even have huge heatsinks on the BACK of the board around the socket area. Some have triple 40mm fans to cool the VRM's...and the reports are, they cost anywhere from $350 - $700.
Then you will have to factor in a cooling solution for the chip itself - and it looks like even the NoctuaDH15 will struggle to cool these monsters running at 5ghz all-core for more than a few seconds.
Can't wait for the reviews!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEnnn

Aries Lyon

Posts: 21   +19
It's funny how the mere fact that intel released something new is enough to get people foaming at the mouth. Yeah Ryzen is better at multi-threaded workloads but then not everyone is a streamer or video editor. There is a significant portion of the market whose workload solely consists of light-moderate web browsing, discord and gaming, which Intel should be better at.

As a consumer I'm simply glad that both sides have managed to remain competitive in the past few years and that we're no longer stuck in the era of 5-10% performance improvement per gen. It has nothing to do with AMD or Intel because almost every single company will slow their pace of innovation given the lack of competition. Had it been Intel who released bulldozer, AMD would likely have had the same release trajectory as pre-Ryzen Intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: treetops

darisalfafa

Posts: 8   +11
It's funny how the mere fact that intel released something new is enough to get people foaming at the mouth. Yeah Ryzen is better at multi-threaded workloads but then not everyone is a streamer or video editor. There is a significant portion of the market whose workload solely consists of light-moderate web browsing, discord and gaming, which Intel should be better at.
That's a weird analysis. The whole point of Comet Lake is to catch up with AMD in multi-threaded performance, with anything they have available. Intel is trying to be as competitive as possible with what they can. If you cater for the "significant portion", Intel has Ice Lake and AMD has Renoir to cover up that segment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PEnnn and meric

Aries Lyon

Posts: 21   +19
That's a weird analysis. The whole point of Comet Lake is to catch up with AMD in multi-threaded performance, with anything they have available. Intel is trying to be as competitive as possible with what they can. If you cater for the "significant portion", Intel has Ice Lake and AMD has Renoir to cover up that segment.
Yeah of course comet lake is aiming to catch up in terms of multi threaded performance, but it still has the single core advantage due to higher clock speeds and don't provide as many cores/threads as its AMD counterparts at a similar price point, which makes it better for applications that aren't so heavy on the multi-threaded aspects
 

ubronan

Posts: 57   +9
That single core performance is really overrated the same as the multicore power is overrated as well.
I bought a 8700K because I was thinking I would get a cpu which boosts up to 4.7 Ghz well I was wrong it this far only boosts between 4.2 and 4.5 Ghz.
My friend said its maybe because it runs hot you could pop it open and put in a better cooling material so I did however I regret I did it. Yes the temp dropped to a insane low max temperature but the boost is still crap.
But worse is when I try to oc it to the fabulous 4.7 Ghz you end up with a crashing piece of crap.
So this so called boost is a gamble which in many cases gives you a false idea that it actually does boosts to that speed.
More often than not it does never reach that speed unless you switch all other cores off.
So do not stare at that fake boost stuff, because most of the time your pc has more than 2 or 3 core and second getting lucky in the silicon lottery is already not something most of us get anyuthing good either.
Hell it already started with the 6700k the real high clocking ones are already been taken out by the shops selling them because some people pay big prices for them.
So you buying one clocking very good is pretty slim, the whole line is binned from factory down the line to the shop, I actually found even the middleman in between the factory and the shops was binning to get more profit.
Some might say they get so many but they actually do not get such great amounts that binning is not profitable because it is, the guy I heard it from had been working at such large firm.
And had to bin certain series of cpu to make sure the better clocking ones goes to the highest paying customers.
So if you got
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEnnn