Intel Core i9-10900K spied in 3DMark database with 5.1GHz boost clock

[Shawn Knight]

Something to look forward to: Intel’s upcoming Core i9-10900K CPU will carry a base clock of 3.7GHz and boost up to 5.1GHz according to recently uncovered results from a 3DMark benchmarking run. The chip could be Intel's best shot at holding off AMD but will excess heat generation be a concern?

A screenshot of the 3DMark entry was shared earlier today by Twitter user _rogame. The 14nm Comet Lake chip is said to pack 10 physical cores with 20 threads and is rumored to be accompanied by a 20MB cache.

According to Tom’s Hardware, coolers compatible with LGA 115x sockets should work on new LGA 1200 boards as they have the same mounting hole dimensions. That said, you’ll want to make sure your cooler of choice is capable of dissipating the heat that the i9-10900K will generate.

The 3DMark listing unfortunately didn’t have a value for the chip’s TDP but considering it is based on aging architecture, many expect it to run a bit warm.

Also worth mentioning is that earlier rumors suggest the i9-10900K will utilize Intel’s Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 and Thermal Velocity Boost features which will reportedly allow the chip to boost up to 5.3GHz.

We should get the full scoop in the coming months as partners are rumored to be announcing Z490 motherboards sometime in May.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/83814-intel-core-i9-10900k-spied-3dmark-database-51ghz.html

 

[Shadowboxer]

I get the impression that Intel just don’t care anymore. Currently they are making more money than they ever have done, I get the impression they aren’t too bothered about falling behind in the enthusiast CPU space, it’s nothing compared to the enterprise space at the moment.

That being said I build desktops to game with and I can’t see Ryzen touching Intel in gaming if Intel are rocking 10 cores that can OC up to 5.3ghz. But then again, who needs this just to game? Who isn’t served well enough by last years 9900K? Who isn’t served well enough with a 4.5ghz+ Intel quad core from the last 10 years?

Intel don’t give a dam lol.

I find it a bit hollow to condemn the fact that you need a new mobo. I mean half the point of getting a new CPU is so you can get a new mobo that has new features you want. But yeah I imagine there are some people who would like to upgrade a 6 core to a 10 core or something, even if it’s probably not the best value to do so. Still, I’ve been building for 25 years and I’ve purchased more than one motherboard per CPU purchased on average.

 

[BadThad]

*YAWN* Just another attempt by Intel to stay competitive against AMD using the same old minor tweaks at the expense of TDP. They need to improve the IPC substantially if they want to better AMD and give us something exciting to talk about.

 

[antiproduct]

Ohh, how many security vulnerabilities does this one come with??

 

[Shadowboxer]

Ohh, how many security vulnerabilities does this one come with??

If anyone could accurately answer your question they’d be incredibly rich. All new silicon has vulnerabilities in them, we just haven’t found them out yet. When we learn about them from trusted companies we ought to be grateful, Intel (and many other companies) spend millions hunting out its own vulnerabilities in order to make their systems more secure. In fact if you can find one, I believe they will offer you a direct financial reward. It’s all about being one step ahead of those who would exploit these vulnerabilities at your expense.


Of course people who are concerned about Intel or AMD vulnerabilities ought to take a look at how insecure Android and Android devices are as a whole, it makes Intel chips look like Fort Knox!

 

[Confuzled]

I get the impression that Intel just don’t care anymore. Currently they are making more money than they ever have done, I get the impression they aren’t too bothered about falling behind in the enthusiast CPU space, it’s nothing compared to the enterprise space at the moment.

That being said I build desktops to game with and I can’t see Ryzen touching Intel in gaming if Intel are rocking 10 cores that can OC up to 5.3ghz. But then again, who needs this just to game? Who isn’t served well enough by last years 9900K? Who isn’t served well enough with a 4.5ghz+ Intel quad core from the last 10 years?

Intel don’t give a dam lol.

I find it a bit hollow to condemn the fact that you need a new mobo. I mean half the point of getting a new CPU is so you can get a new mobo that has new features you want. But yeah I imagine there are some people who would like to upgrade a 6 core to a 10 core or something, even if it’s probably not the best value to do so. Still, I’ve been building for 25 years and I’ve purchased more than one motherboard per CPU purchased on average.

Wait, who isn't served by 10 year old quad cores?

I'm confused...

Also, seems like you drank the kool-aid far too long if you think "half the point" of getting a new CPU is also to pay 100 bucks (maybe less, possibly much more) to get new features.

I rather have double the threads as last year than "new features".

Also, this kind of seems like a "don't forget about us" release

 

[Evernessince]

If anyone could accurately answer your question they’d be incredibly rich. All new silicon has vulnerabilities in them, we just haven’t found them out yet. When we learn about them from trusted companies we ought to be grateful, Intel (and many other companies) spend millions hunting out its own vulnerabilities in order to make their systems more secure. In fact if you can find one, I believe they will offer you a direct financial reward. It’s all about being one step ahead of those who would exploit these vulnerabilities at your expense.


Of course people who are concerned about Intel or AMD vulnerabilities ought to take a look at how insecure Android and Android devices are as a whole, it makes Intel chips look like Fort Knox!

Intel has 247 known vulnerabilities
AMD has 16

What's most interesting is that Intel's architecture has remained largely unchanged the last 10 years or so and people are now just finding these exploits. It goes to show you that even with Intel's bug bounty program and infinitely more people using their processors, it didn't really help in the end. Sometimes researchers just find clever ways around security.

Microsoft is actually leading in the number of exploits: https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-vendors.php

I'm not one for assuming that a ton of exploits exist in every chip. Time may prove all chips hack able but time also makes it irrelevant with the release of newer processor with better security. Intel should have done more to improve that aspect over the years but I guess it figured people had to buy Intel anyways.

That being said I build desktops to game with and I can’t see Ryzen touching Intel in gaming if Intel are rocking 10 cores that can OC up to 5.3ghz. But then again, who needs this just to game? Who isn’t served well enough by last years 9900K? Who isn’t served well enough with a 4.5ghz+ Intel quad core from the last 10 years?

Intel don’t give a dam lol.

I find it a bit hollow to condemn the fact that you need a new mobo. I mean half the point of getting a new CPU is so you can get a new mobo that has new features you want. But yeah I imagine there are some people who would like to upgrade a 6 core to a 10 core or something, even if it’s probably not the best value to do so. Still, I’ve been building for 25 years and I’ve purchased more than one motherboard per CPU purchased on average.

If they do go to 5.3 GHz it will definitely be single core. Even then, given rumors suggest it'll still be 14nm, it's going to be a massive power hog. If you add another 25% onto the 9900K, you get quite a bit above 300w under full load. Not to mention, the 9900K saw extremely diminishing returns above 5.0 GHz. Over the 9900KS, you are talking maybe 2%.

I don't really see how that will stave off AMD if they pull out another 10%+ IPC increase like they seem to be indicating with Zen 2, gaming or otherwise. AMD wouldn't even have to increase clocks, they can take the power savings from the new node instead.

 

[Nobina]

If anyone could accurately answer your question they’d be incredibly rich. All new silicon has vulnerabilities in them, we just haven’t found them out yet. When we learn about them from trusted companies we ought to be grateful, Intel (and many other companies) spend millions hunting out its own vulnerabilities in order to make their systems more secure. In fact if you can find one, I believe they will offer you a direct financial reward. It’s all about being one step ahead of those who would exploit these vulnerabilities at your expense.


Of course people who are concerned about Intel or AMD vulnerabilities ought to take a look at how insecure Android and Android devices are as a whole, it makes Intel chips look like Fort Knox!

You're trying to spin Intel having many vulnerabilities as a positive because they're supposedly spending millions to fix them and that everyone else has them (They either don't or they don't have as many). Also, saying that all new silicon has vulnerabilities which haven't been found yet is pointless when you just throw it out there. The mental gymnastics on these Intel fanboys...

 

[pcnthuziast]

Wouldn't be surprised if it retails for 700-800 regardless of how it stacks up against AMD. In other words typical Intel pricing.

 

[Hardware Geek]

Intel has 247 known vulnerabilities
AMD has 16

What's most interesting is that Intel's architecture has remained largely unchanged the last 10 years or so and people are now just finding these exploits. It goes to show you that even with Intel's bug bounty program and infinitely more people using their processors, it didn't really help in the end. Sometimes researchers just find clever ways around security.

Microsoft is actually leading in the number of exploits: https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-vendors.php

I'm not one for assuming that a ton of exploits exist in every chip. Time may prove all chips hack able but time also makes it irrelevant with the release of newer processor with better security. Intel should have done more to improve that aspect over the years but I guess it figured people had to buy Intel anyways.



If they do go to 5.3 GHz it will definitely be single core. Even then, given rumors suggest it'll still be 14nm, it's going to be a massive power hog. If you add another 25% onto the 9900K, you get quite a bit above 300w under full load. Not to mention, the 9900K saw extremely diminishing returns above 5.0 GHz. Over the 9900KS, you are talking maybe 2%.

I don't really see how that will stave off AMD if they pull out another 10%+ IPC increase like they seem to be indicating with Zen 2, gaming or otherwise. AMD wouldn't even have to increase clocks, they can take the power savings from the new node instead.

Zen 3 is anticipated to provide a similar uplift over Zen 2 as Zen 2 was over the OG Zen.

I think there are far too many consumers who see that 5 gigahertz number though and simply assume it's better. People are finally waking up to the fact that more cores do help in everyday tasks as well as intensive workloads, but given an equal number of cores with higher megahertz, there is a huge market of consumers who will believe Intel is superior simply because of that.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

I kinda woulda preferred if they called it a CORE i11.

 

[Evernessince]

Zen 3 is anticipated to provide a similar uplift over Zen 2 as Zen 2 was over the OG Zen.

I think there are far too many consumers who see that 5 gigahertz number though and simply assume it's better. People are finally waking up to the fact that more cores do help in everyday tasks as well as intensive workloads, but given an equal number of cores with higher megahertz, there is a huge market of consumers who will believe Intel is superior simply because of that.

Correct. This is not a simple refresh like Zen+. AMD anticipates at least 15% increase in IPC.

"When asked about what kind of performance gain Milan's CPU core microarchitecture, which is known as Zen 3, will deliver relative to the Zen 2 microarchitecture that Rome relies on in terms of instructions processed per CPU clock cycle (IPC), Norrod observed that -- unlike Zen 2, which was more of an evolution of the Zen microarchitecture that powers first-gen Epyc CPUs -- Zen 3 will be based on a completely new architecture.


Norrod did qualify his remarks by pointing out that Zen 2 delivered a bigger IPC gain than what's normal for an evolutionary upgrade -- AMD has said it's about 15% on average -- since it implemented some ideas that AMD originally had for Zen but had to leave on the cutting board. However, he also asserted that Zen 3 will deliver performance gains "right in line with what you would expect from an entirely new architecture.""

AMD Inks New Server CPU Deals; Data Center Chief Discusses Them and More

During a talk with TheStreet, AMD exec Forrest Norrod highlighted new supercomputer deals and an expanded partnership with AWS. He also suggested AMD's next-gen server CPUs will deliver healthy performance gains.

realmoney.thestreet.com

They kind of leave the door open for more performance as they are asserting here then Zen 2 was a refinement while Zen 3 is a new architecture and performance increases should be in line with that. The 15% figure was only for a refinement.

I want to see the impact a unified cache has on performance. It should make it so that you don't have to worry about bouncing threads around as much as should ensure lower latency and more even performance across the board. Apps will have less Ryzen specific optimization to do as will windows.

 

[hapkiman]

Ohh, how many security vulnerabilities does this one come with??

I have two main systems now. One a Ryzen 7 based 2700x rig, and the second a i9 9900K based rig. Guess how much I have been affected by all the terrible security vulnerabilities on the Intel system? The answer would be not at all. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Both system run just fine and always have. Everyone thinks the sky is falling every time someone digs down to the Kernel level and finds a flaw amongst the billions of tiny transistors. There is no need to even give these things a thought for 99% of users out there.

 

[mrvco]

Clearly this release doesn't do much more than keep the news sites and tech blogs talking about Intel. Reminds me a bit of Dodge dropping increasingly powerful motors into the antiquated Charger / Challenger platforms.

 

[Puiu]

I have two main systems now. One a Ryzen 7 based 2700x rig, and the second a i9 9900K based rig. Guess how much I have been affected by all the terrible security vulnerabilities on the Intel system? The answer would be not at all. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Both system run just fine and always have. Everyone thinks the sky is falling every time someone digs down to the Kernel level and finds a flaw amongst the billions of tiny transistors. There is no need to even give these things a thought for 99% of users out there.

Oh yes, because your own experience is the same as others. Those vulnerabilities are more relevant in the server sector and businesses that take security seriously anyway.

Let me give you an example of what could happen if Intel doesn't deliver patches on time (the same for OS and browsers too): a website server is hacked and then JS code is injected to hack PCs that access that website. It's been proven that some vulnerabilities can be used together with JS code in websites. After which your PC can be used to deliver malware payloads without you ever knowing or they just take your data.

Only 1% needs to be affected by this to be a huge problem (we are still talking about millions of PCs). Congrats for being in the 99%.

 

[trparky]

> You'll need a new motherboard to run Intel's Core i9-10900K
No surprise there.

I wonder kind of cooling you'll need? Perhaps your own nuclear power station-style cooling tower.

 

[Red999]

I get the impression that Intel just don’t care anymore. Currently they are making more money than they ever have done, I get the impression they aren’t too bothered about falling behind in the enthusiast CPU space, it’s nothing compared to the enterprise space at the moment.

That being said I build desktops to game with and I can’t see Ryzen touching Intel in gaming if Intel are rocking 10 cores that can OC up to 5.3ghz. But then again, who needs this just to game? Who isn’t served well enough by last years 9900K? Who isn’t served well enough with a 4.5ghz+ Intel quad core from the last 10 years?

Intel don’t give a dam lol.

I find it a bit hollow to condemn the fact that you need a new mobo. I mean half the point of getting a new CPU is so you can get a new mobo that has new features you want. But yeah I imagine there are some people who would like to upgrade a 6 core to a 10 core or something, even if it’s probably not the best value to do so. Still, I’ve been building for 25 years and I’ve purchased more than one motherboard per CPU purchased on average.

majority of their profits comes from Xeon.
we need amd epyc to make more market share

 

[Shadowboxer]

Wait, who isn't served by 10 year old quad cores?

I'm confused...

Also, seems like you drank the kool-aid far too long if you think "half the point" of getting a new CPU is also to pay 100 bucks (maybe less, possibly much more) to get new features.

I rather have double the threads as last year than "new features".

Also, this kind of seems like a "don't forget about us" release

I would take a guess that you haven’t been around for very long. When you buy a CPU you also buy into its chipset. This chipset is actually what carries the connectivity and many of the new technologies. The chipset lives on the motherboard. If you don’t buy a new motherboard you don’t get any new features.

A good example is pcie 4.0. You may have some hardware that can take advantage of this. However, without buying a new motherboard you won’t be able to access this new feature.

As for the quad core comment. My point was most gamers who own an older Intel quad core will not gain much by upgrading to silicon sold today. Because games don’t benefit hugely from more than 4 cores and the IPC and clock speeds haven’t changed much.

If you need any further help with this then pm me, I’m more than willing to teach you anything you need to know. You will find that many of us in the community are friendly and willing to help.

 

[Peter Farkas]

These are only speculations so far...
We will know the facts for certain when the Benchmark King has put his hands on it! (I am looking at you again Steve...)

 

[Gypsygib]

I wonder how many more CPUs Intel would sell if you didn't need a new MB every time you wanted to upgrade. At this point, if I'm forced to buy a new MB I may as well just go with AMD.

 

[hapkiman]

Oh yes, because your own experience is the same as others. Those vulnerabilities are more relevant in the server sector and businesses that take security seriously anyway.

Let me give you an example of what could happen if Intel doesn't deliver patches on time (the same for OS and browsers too): a website server is hacked and then JS code is injected to hack PCs that access that website. It's been proven that some vulnerabilities can be used together with JS code in websites. After which your PC can be used to deliver malware payloads without you ever knowing or they just take your data.

Only 1% needs to be affected by this to be a huge problem (we are still talking about millions of PCs). Congrats for being in the 99%.

Yes I am aware of all that. Thank you for your attempt to educate me. And I am doing just fine in the 99th percentile.

 

[Puiu]

Yes I am aware of all that. Thank you for your attempt to educate me. And I am doing just fine in the 99th percentile.

Then why are you defending Intel if you are "aware". I wouldn't have to "educate" you if that was the case. Sarcasm only works when it doesn't make you look like you are trying your hardest to dodge the issue brought up in the conversation.

 

[trparky]

Actually, having more cores than you need allows for the game itself to have cores dedicated to it. Remember, you have other things to run like your OS and other associated system services that all vie for processor time. The more cores you have the less core contention you're going to have.