Lian Li Galahad 360 liquid cooler review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - July 2020
Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 3600 MHz (64GB) review
Red Dead Redemption 2: PC graphics benchmark review (revisited)
Kioxia Exceria 960 GB SATA3 SSD review
HP Portable P500 1TB Portable USB3 SSD review
EK-Quantum Magnitude WaterBlock Review
Death Stranding: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Deepcool DQ850-M-V2L 850 W PSU review
Kioxia Exceria PLUS 2TB M.2 NVMe SSD review
Core i7-10700F CineBench Scores spotted: lets chart that up
Intel's Core i7-10700F has been spotted, the 8-core/16-thread processor that is multiplier locked. It has a base clock of 2.90 GHz, and lacks integrated graphics "F" extension.
The turbo is expected to run to 4.7/4.8 GHz. The Korean based community from QuasarZone now has shared a screenshot of what is allegedly an i7-10700F run with Cinebench R20. The chip scores 4781 points in the multi-threaded test, and 492 points single-threaded. The scores position the processor at Ryzen 7 3700X processor level performance. When we chart that up with our results sets, this is where the processors end in the score:
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPU | Cores/threads | Baseklok | Turbo 1T | Max Turbo 3.0 | All-core turbo | TDP |
| i9 10900K | 10C/20T | 3.7 GHz | 5.1 GHz | 5.3 GHz* | 4.8 GHz | 125W |
| i9 10900 | 10C/20T | 2.8 GHz | 5.0 GHz | 5.1 GHz* | 4.5 GHz | 65W |
| i7 10700K | 8C/16T | 3.8 GHz | 5.0 GHz | 5.3?? GHz | 4.7 GHz | 125W |
| i7 10700 | 8C/16T | 2.9 GHz | 4.7 GHz | 4.8 GHz | 4.6 GHz | 65W |
| i5 10600K | 6C/12T | 4.1 GHz | 4.8 GHz | - | 4.5 GHz | 125W |
| i5 10600 | 6C/12T | 3.3 GHz | 4.8 GHz | - | 4.4 GHz | 65W |
| i5 10500 | 6C/12T | 3.1 GHz | 4.5 GHz | - | 4.2 GHz | 65W |
| i5 10400 | 6C/12T | 2.9 GHz | 4.3 GHz | - | 4.0 GHz | 65W |
| i3 10320 | 4C/8T | 3.8 GHz | 4.6 GHz | - | 4.4 GHz | 65W |
| i3 10300 | 4C/8T | 3.7 GHz | 4.4 GHz | - | 4.2 GHz | 65W |
| i3 10100 | 4C/8T | 3.6 GHz | 4.3 GHz | - | 4.1 GHz | 65W |
| * Intel Thermal Velocity Boost (single-core / all core): 10900K: 5.3/4.9 GHz; 10900: 5.1/4.6 GHz | ||||||
Intel Core i7-10700K Spotted in UL 3DMark listing at 5.30 GHz Turbo Boost - 02/12/2020 03:33 PM
It seems the specs of Intel's upcoming processors might change a bit. A 3DMark benchmark was spotted, indicating a slightly higher Turbo clock at 5300 MHz....
First Benchmarks show AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS to be faster than Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i7-9700K - 02/12/2020 09:28 AM
A set of early benchmarks of the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS have appeared on the web, and as it seems the mobile CPU is faster than a Ryzen 7 2700X or a Core i7-9700K....
Intel Core i7-9750H and GeForce GTX 1650 Perfs leaks though marketing material - 04/08/2019 12:56 PM
In the Asia region, a number of presentation slides have leaked, they originate from MSI and shows some numbers based on a laptop with the pending Core i7-9750H and GeForce GTX 1650....
Intel Core i7-9750H and GeForce GTX 1650 say hi in 3DMark database - 03/05/2019 10:18 AM
Twitter user TUM_APISAK has once again spotted something in the 3DMark database. Two things actually as there is a still unannounced laptop which would come be released with the unannounced GeForce GT...
Spanish website posts Core i7-9700K Benchmarks - 09/10/2018 06:01 PM
A Spanish website just posted a near full review of the Intel Core i7-9700K processor, the review includes a wide selection of benchmarks....
Caesar
Senior Member
Posts: 1129
Joined: 2015-06-18
Senior Member
Posts: 1129
Joined: 2015-06-18
#5761837 Posted on: 02/19/2020 06:02 PM
Where does my i7 - 9700K stands in the benchmarks?
Where does my i7 - 9700K stands in the benchmarks?
JamesSneed
Senior Member
Posts: 883
Joined: 2017-02-14
Senior Member
Posts: 883
Joined: 2017-02-14
#5761870 Posted on: 02/19/2020 08:34 PM
9700K
Single: 466
Multi: 3656 (Just below the Ryzen 3600X)
Where does my i7 - 9700K stands in the benchmarks?
9700K
Single: 466
Multi: 3656 (Just below the Ryzen 3600X)
karma777police
Senior Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 2018-08-17
Senior Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 2018-08-17
#5761878 Posted on: 02/19/2020 09:57 PM
This is not bad at all. This is 65W CPU and I believe it will cost $300. $399 is for 10700X and 10900X will be $499. 10900 non X will be $429.
I bet you AMD will lower the price of Ryzen of 3900x to $429, being more appealing product. 3800x is already reaching low $329 and 3700x <$300.
I hope Intel sells this even cheaper than what I said which is more likely to be, 95%.
Let's see how 10900X with its agressive turbo performs against 3900x, I am sure they will trade punches with Intel edging 3900x in gaming by a bigger margin than 9900k.
This is not bad at all. This is 65W CPU and I believe it will cost $300. $399 is for 10700X and 10900X will be $499. 10900 non X will be $429.
I bet you AMD will lower the price of Ryzen of 3900x to $429, being more appealing product. 3800x is already reaching low $329 and 3700x <$300.
I hope Intel sells this even cheaper than what I said which is more likely to be, 95%.
Let's see how 10900X with its agressive turbo performs against 3900x, I am sure they will trade punches with Intel edging 3900x in gaming by a bigger margin than 9900k.
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7873
Joined: 2008-07-31
Senior Member
Posts: 7873
Joined: 2008-07-31
#5761913 Posted on: 02/20/2020 02:27 AM
This is not bad at all. This is 65W CPU and I believe it will cost $300. $399 is for 10700X and 10900X will be $499. 10900 non X will be $429.
It's amazing that you choose to put your foot in your mouth time and time again.
This is not bad at all. This is 65W CPU and I believe it will cost $300. $399 is for 10700X and 10900X will be $499. 10900 non X will be $429.
It's amazing that you choose to put your foot in your mouth time and time again.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 883
Joined: 2017-02-14
Not bad for a more budget friendly CPU. I suppose if its priced right around a 3700x it should be a good seller. Im a bit turned off by Intel lately so I'm more interested to see what Zen3 looks like.