Ten cores for less money? Intel Core i9-10850K discovered on Geekbench

[midian182]

Rumor mill: If you’re considering a 10-Core Comet Lake-S chip but don’t want to pay over $500 for a Core i9-10900K, a cheaper option could be on its way. According to a Geekbench entry, a Core i9-10850K is in the works, and it sounds very similar to the flagship processor.

The news comes from Twitter user and regular leaker Tum_Apisak, who posted a link to the Geekbench result for the Core i9-10850K. Assuming it’s real, the chip has the same 10-core/20-thread configuration as the Core i9-10900K while also boasting 20MB of L3 cache and 256KB of L2 cache per core. No mention of the TDP but expect it to be around 125W.

i9-10850K
1 Processor, 10 Cores, 20 Threads
GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 165 Stepping 5
Base Frequency3.60 GHz
Maximum Frequency5.17 GHzhttps://t.co/Qv5TzYdcxGhttps://t.co/CRaDXBLO7R

— APISAK (@TUM_APISAK) July 3, 2020

The Core i9-10850K managed a single-core score of 6244 and multi-core score of 37794, which is very close to what the Core i9-10900KF (disabled iGPU) achieves.

The only real difference between the two chips are the clock speeds. The upcoming CPU's base clock is down as 3.6 GHz, making it just 100 MHz slower than the Core i9-10900K. It can boost up to 5.18 GHz, whereas its sibling can hit 5.3 GHz with Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB), suggesting the Core i9-10850K lacks this feature.

There’s always a chance that this will be an OEM-only chip reserved for device manufacturers, but if it is coming to the retail market, expect it to be around $30 to $50 cheaper than the other 10-core Comet Lake-S CPU.

Assuming the Core i9-10850K is going to be a consumer product, it's perhaps Intel’s response to AMD’s 3600XT, 3800XT and 3900XT parts, which are due to launch tomorrow and sell for $249, $399, and $499, respectively.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/85886-ten-cores-less-intel-core-i9-10850k-discovered.html

 

[QuantumPhysics]

These new CPU are absolute monsters.

Future proof for 5 years or better.

 

[Adhmuz]

This may be the result of poorly performing silicon not achieving the desired 5.3 GHz TVB, those CPUs are already on the ragged edge as it is.

These new CPU are absolute monsters.

Future proof for 5 years or better.

That's my reasoning behind the 5960X I'm running. Still not showing any signs of being a bottle neck, but two more cores and the 5.3 GHz clock speed sure are tempting, really I'm holding out for DDR5 and the platform it will bring with it. Not quite ready to abandon my quad channel RAM.

 

[HardReset]

These new CPU are absolute monsters.

Future proof for 5 years or better.

PCIe 4.0 still missing. And when you tell me "it doens't matter", look at what kind of SSD's are on new consoles...

Also there will be several new security flaws too.

So not future proof. Obsolete when released.

 

[yeeeeman]

PCIe 4.0 still missing. And when you tell me "it doens't matter", look at what kind of SSD's are on new consoles...

Also there will be several new security flaws too.

So not future proof. Obsolete when released.

Consoles have a different paradigm, they usually move lots of data around. PC has a different style, you basically have all your assets in RAM and that is it. So ssd speeds matter just for a few seconds at game start. So not a biggie. I would even go on to say that sata 3 ssds are still plenty fast for 95% of cases and you can check out Linus blind test with sata ssd, nvme pcie 3.0 and nvme pcie 4.0 and the results were a wash. Some people said the sata ssd was the fastest machine, so...
In any case, I agree, having a 5960x and wanting to upgrade to a 10940x is not a great idea. The platform is more or less the same, you get more cores and that is it.

 

[HardReset]

Consoles have a different paradigm, they usually move lots of data around. PC has a different style, you basically have all your assets in RAM and that is it. So ssd speeds matter just for a few seconds at game start. So not a biggie. I would even go on to say that sata 3 ssds are still plenty fast for 95% of cases and you can check out Linus blind test with sata ssd, nvme pcie 3.0 and nvme pcie 4.0 and the results were a wash. Some people said the sata ssd was the fastest machine, so...

Essentially most PC games behave just like consoles do. So if console has 512 MB RAM, surprisingly PC version also uses at most around 512 MB RAM. So no, your example is simply "how it should be", not how it really is. SATA SSD's are enough for gaming because current consoles have also just SATA SSD, oh wait they have HDD's. Not hard to imagine what happens when consoles have fast disk access.

Either that blind test was made badly or people were drunk. I can very easily say in few seconds if SSD is SATA, PCIe 3.0 or PCIe 4.0. Difference is so big.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

This may be the result of poorly performing silicon not achieving the desired 5.3 GHz TVB, those CPUs are already on the ragged edge as it is.


That's my reasoning behind the 5960X I'm running. Still not showing any signs of being a bottle neck, but two more cores and the 5.3 GHz clock speed sure are tempting, really I'm holding out for DDR5 and the platform it will bring with it. Not quite ready to abandon my quad channel RAM.

The 5960X is still a beast of a CPU. 8 cores, 16 threads at 3GHZ.

And that was released 6 years ago in 2014. I actually have a workshop computer with that CPU. There's virtually no game it can't run - and coupled to a 2080Ti or better, you'd never know you weren't running a new CPU.

It still works well as a Workstation CPU and still works excellently for gaming.

I am with you: no more upgrades until DDR5 arrives - and then I'll have a new motherboard, RAM and CPU.

For the time being, my only upgrades are SSD storage.

 

[Adhmuz]

The 5960X is still a beast of a CPU. 8 cores, 16 threads at 3GHZ.

The 4.5GHz all core OC helps too, wish it could go higher but the core voltage I have is as high as I'm comfortable to push daily.

I am with you: no more upgrades until DDR5 arrives - and then I'll have a new motherboard, RAM and CPU.

Agreed.

 

[neeyik]

The 5960X is still a beast of a CPU. 8 cores, 16 threads at 3GHZ.

Intel went 'big everything' with Haswell E - cores, cache, clocks, socket, price, kitchen sink, cuddly toy...

 

[Adhmuz]

Intel went 'big everything' with Haswell E - cores, cache, clocks, socket, price, kitchen sink, cuddly toy...

I got the cuddly toy with my CPU, but the kitchen sink was not included, guess it's far too late to make a claim with Intel at this point in time...

 

[Lew Zealand]

Essentially most PC games behave just like consoles do. So if console has 512 MB RAM, surprisingly PC version also uses at most around 512 MB RAM. So no, your example is simply "how it should be", not how it really is. SATA SSD's are enough for gaming because current consoles have also just SATA SSD, oh wait they have HDD's. Not hard to imagine what happens when consoles have fast disk access.

Either that blind test was made badly or people were drunk. I can very easily say in few seconds if SSD is SATA, PCIe 3.0 or PCIe 4.0. Difference is so big.

It's pretty easy to tell the difference between SATA and a high end NVMe in most computing instances but game loads are among the less speed sensitive demands on an SSD. Tom's Hardware used to do game load tests and the last time I looked the load time difference between a good SATA (850 Evo) and a good NVMe (970 Evo) was about 2%.

 

[HardReset]

It's pretty easy to tell the difference between SATA and a high end NVMe in most computing instances but game loads are among the less speed sensitive demands on an SSD. Tom's Hardware used to do game load tests and the last time I looked the load time difference between a good SATA (850 Evo) and a good NVMe (970 Evo) was about 2%.

Current games are because consoles have HDD. On PC many games load speeds are exactly what might be expected when loading from HDD. That is, games are speed sensitive but since consoles read from HDD, nobody bothers to make PC version load fast.

Next generation consoles have PCIe 4.0 SSD so not had to guess what happens on PC versions...

 

[QuantumPhysics]

It's pretty easy to tell the difference between SATA and a high end NVMe in most computing instances but game loads are among the less speed sensitive demands on an SSD. Tom's Hardware used to do game load tests and the last time I looked the load time difference between a good SATA (850 Evo) and a good NVMe (970 Evo) was about 2%.

In time, the difference I've seen between M.2 NVME and a SATA is typically within 2 seconds - at the most 4.

Personally, I don't mind Nvme or SATA because either one is so ridiculously better than HDD.

 

[pcnthuziast]

10th gen prices are laughably absurd. Even at MicroCenter the 10700k is $500.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Current games are because consoles have HDD. On PC many games load speeds are exactly what might be expected when loading from HDD. That is, games are speed sensitive but since consoles read from HDD, nobody bothers to make PC version load fast.

Next generation consoles have PCIe 4.0 SSD so not had to guess what happens on PC versions...

I have full confidence in the supreme laziness of people so I won't be surprised if game loads are little changed between 500 MB/s SATA and 3500 MB/s NVMe for the vast majority of PC games after next gen consoles are out.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Current games are because consoles have HDD. On PC many games load speeds are exactly what might be expected when loading from HDD. That is, games are speed sensitive but since consoles read from HDD, nobody bothers to make PC version load fast.

Next generation consoles have PCIe 4.0 SSD so not had to guess what happens on PC versions...

*ahem*

Xbox 360 - 6 threads, 2005
PS3 - 7 hardware threads, 2006
PS4/Xbone - 8 core 16 thread, 2013

PC- Games using more then 4 threads in any noticeable way - 2017.

That took quite a while. At most you might see a need for NVMe speed by the end of this generation, so MAYBE 2025 at the earliest. By then PCIe 5.0 will be out on consumer PCs.

 

[HardReset]

I have full confidence in the supreme laziness of people so I won't be surprised if game loads are little changed between 500 MB/s SATA and 3500 MB/s NVMe for the vast majority of PC games after next gen consoles are out.

Talking about laziness and then saying something like that. You do understand that if console games take advantage of ~6000 MB/s speeds and then game is "lazily" ported to PC, that PC port will take advantage of ~6000 MB/s speeds. Because it would create extra work to switch loads into 500 MB/s speeds. Laziness is to avoid extra work.

So your point couldn't be more invalid.

*ahem*

Xbox 360 - 6 threads, 2005
PS3 - 7 hardware threads, 2006
PS4/Xbone - 8 core 16 thread, 2013

Corrections:

Xbox 360 - PowerPC, 3 in-order CPU cores with SMT (many PC games used 3 cores)

PS3 - CPU + 7 vector units (not CPU), Very hard to program, Sony even needed to add additional emergency GPU because originally they thought Cell could handle graphics

PS4/Xbone - 4 cores *2. Where did you get 16 threads? There is no SMT. Additionally core arrangement is clearly 4 cores + 4 cores. And some cores were reserved to OS. In reality only 4 cores had fast communication between them and 4 other cores were others side of cache. Not very surprising AMD's CCX design too has 4 cores connected to L3 cache.

PC- Games using more then 4 threads in any noticeable way - 2017.

That took quite a while. At most you might see a need for NVMe speed by the end of this generation, so MAYBE 2025 at the earliest. By then PCIe 5.0 will be out on consumer PCs.

Consoles didn't have more than 4 cores with high speed communication between them until new consoles come. That's why. I don't even count that Cell design as it had only 1 CPU.

Using fast disk access is very easy to even beginner.

Currently: consoles have HDD and loading takes, say, 25 seconds. Instead showing black screen, there is some kind of loading screen with text. PC ports? They also have loading screen at least 10 seconds or so. Loading itself is done in less than second.

With fast disk access: on next gen consoles loading takes less than two seconds at most. Need for loading screen? No. Lazy PC port? Adding loading screen would create more work...

For programming, it's pretty hard (or at least it's time consuming) to create software that uses 8 cores. However it's trivial to make software that loads data from disk fast. So really hard to see why we should wait 5 years until loading times are optimized to fast SSD. They are actually promising ~2 second loading time for This year title NBA 2K21 and no loading times for RE8. So yeah, wait for 2025 at least

 

[Lew Zealand]

Talking about laziness and then saying something like that. You do understand that if console games take advantage of ~6000 MB/s speeds and then game is "lazily" ported to PC, that PC port will take advantage of ~6000 MB/s speeds. Because it would create extra work to switch loads into 500 MB/s speeds. Laziness is to avoid extra work.

So your point couldn't be more invalid.

That's a perfectly valid hypothesis. As is mine. Because nothing's happened yet and it's all conjecture right now. I merely base my opinion on how things rarely live up to the hype.

 

[HardReset]

That's a perfectly valid hypothesis. As is mine. Because nothing's happened yet and it's all conjecture right now. I merely base my opinion on how things rarely live up to the hype.

When talking about laziness, it's that PC ports same disk and memory usage than console version. So in case consoles use NVMe speeds, making them slower on PC is creating more work so lazy people use PC SSD's just like on consoles. And because on consoles making use of fast SSD is very easy task, it's very likely to happen. With limited info (two launch games), it does happen almost immediately.