Asus ROG Strix XG27UQ review
be quiet! Pure Rock 2 review
Fractal Design Define 7 Compact review
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
Intel Core i7-10700K Spotted in UL 3DMark listing at 5.30 GHz Turbo Boost
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.
TUM_APISAK spotted a Futuremark SystemInfo screenshot of the Core i7-10700K which shows 3.80 GHz base, with a 5.30 GHz Turbo Boost. That is interesting as earlier on it was listed at 5.1 GHz. perhaps the 'Thermal Velocity Boost' kicked in, who knows. The Core i7-10700K has 8 cores, HyperThreading at 16 threads. Earlier on the Core i9-10900K also got mentioned with its ten cores.
It could also be a tweak of course, but the fact that the proc is listed is interesting all by itself, also it was tested at an ECS motherboard, the Z490H6-A2 apparently.
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 i9 10900K with 5.1 GHz boost appears in 3DMark specifications - 02/02/2020 10:53 PM
We've seen many signs that Intel is getting closer to release the desktop 10000 series of Core processors. Z490 motherboards for the new generation procs keep popping up, plus weeks ago the entire li...
Intel Core i5-L16G7 Lakefield Spotted in benchmark - 01/31/2020 05:26 PM
Does anyone remember Lakefield? You know, not regular desktop processors, but more of a hybrid one based on Foveros technology? Well, as it seems the Intel Core i5-L16G7 has surfaced in a benchmark.
Intel Comet Lake-S CPUs and Z490 boards support PCI-E 4.0 (but it's not active) - 01/22/2020 01:21 PM
A new report on the web indicates that the upcoming Comet Lake-S processors (tenth generation of Intel Core for desktop) actually do support PCI Express 4.0, some Z490 motherboards are designed for it...
Intel Comet Lake i5 and i3 spotted, both get HyperThreading but lower clock speeds - 12/28/2019 10:11 AM
Some info on Intels' pending Comet Lake processors has surfaced. The 14nm node fabricated processors are assumed to launch in April. Earlier on it was kind of confirmed that the lower positioned pro...
Intel Core i9-10900K 10-core Processor and Z490 Chipset Rumored to be released April 2020 - 12/10/2019 09:36 AM
Intel Generation 10 Comet Lake processors, based on Intel's 14nm process and an underlying microarchitecture that is Skylake is next year's desktop processor series from Intel. It makes a step towar...
Ridiric
Senior Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 2016-09-08
Senior Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 2016-09-08
#5760253 Posted on: 02/14/2020 03:26 PM
The people on stack exchange are more qualified than Steve.
The people on 4ch are more qualified than Steve.
Still waiting on that single example of a microprocessor that magically produces less heat than it should for any given wattage.
So far from your infantile remarks like "The people on 4ch are more qualified than Steve." maybe you belong there?
Oh and as a side note, as you so seem to love industry qualified sources, Steve spoke to many people in different parts of the chip making industry as part of his research for his TDP articles and videos to try and find out exactly what was used in their calculations for TDP.
I mean that still doesn't change the fact that anyone who regularly builds or works with electronic devices understands wattage in = heat out, and the only major variable is if the energy in is being transformed into something else, like light or movement.
The people on stack exchange are more qualified than Steve.
The people on 4ch are more qualified than Steve.
Still waiting on that single example of a microprocessor that magically produces less heat than it should for any given wattage.
So far from your infantile remarks like "The people on 4ch are more qualified than Steve." maybe you belong there?
Oh and as a side note, as you so seem to love industry qualified sources, Steve spoke to many people in different parts of the chip making industry as part of his research for his TDP articles and videos to try and find out exactly what was used in their calculations for TDP.
I mean that still doesn't change the fact that anyone who regularly builds or works with electronic devices understands wattage in = heat out, and the only major variable is if the energy in is being transformed into something else, like light or movement.
Ridiric
Senior Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 2016-09-08
Senior Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 2016-09-08
#5760260 Posted on: 02/14/2020 03:46 PM
Mind you tho. The full load on Hilberts is gonna have x570 chipset that alone eats 30-50 watts more then x470. So gotta remember to add that. Sure 3800x is gonna be meh compared to 3700x and not as accurate. But still
Nice input on the discussion there mate.
Didn't realise the X570 was that much of a power jump compared to the X470, guess i understand why the fans were such a requirement now, though i still think they could have just gone with actual useful heatsinks instead of the stylised crap they whack on there and done without the fans.
So yeah both AMD and intel still understate power usage on some of their processors (not all), but it appears to only be by a small amount and only under specific workloads, so i guess that's nice to know, though there are still some weird inconsistencies on those charts, like the 3800X pulling less power than the 3700X both with PBO enabled on the handbrake test.
Also, surprised on those graphs, intel actually using less power than i thought they were as well, well, as long as its running stock and MCE and all that stuff isn't turned on (do motherboard manufactures still leave that on by default on some boards? Been building mostly AMD systems for customers lately so haven't had any new systems being built with high end intel for about a year now, but back when i built my system i remember a bunch of boards had it enabled by default).
I guess the take away here, is that these pushed to the limits parts intel are releasing do use quite a bit more power than expected based on just looking at the TDP in the spec sheet (which i kinda already knew) even though they upped it to 127W TDP for example with the 9900KS, their more standard parts still seem to be fairly accurate though, and AMD probably should have a separate TDP listing for their 12core and 16core parts instead of listing them all at 105W TDP.
Mind you tho. The full load on Hilberts is gonna have x570 chipset that alone eats 30-50 watts more then x470. So gotta remember to add that. Sure 3800x is gonna be meh compared to 3700x and not as accurate. But still
Nice input on the discussion there mate.
Didn't realise the X570 was that much of a power jump compared to the X470, guess i understand why the fans were such a requirement now, though i still think they could have just gone with actual useful heatsinks instead of the stylised crap they whack on there and done without the fans.
So yeah both AMD and intel still understate power usage on some of their processors (not all), but it appears to only be by a small amount and only under specific workloads, so i guess that's nice to know, though there are still some weird inconsistencies on those charts, like the 3800X pulling less power than the 3700X both with PBO enabled on the handbrake test.
Also, surprised on those graphs, intel actually using less power than i thought they were as well, well, as long as its running stock and MCE and all that stuff isn't turned on (do motherboard manufactures still leave that on by default on some boards? Been building mostly AMD systems for customers lately so haven't had any new systems being built with high end intel for about a year now, but back when i built my system i remember a bunch of boards had it enabled by default).
I guess the take away here, is that these pushed to the limits parts intel are releasing do use quite a bit more power than expected based on just looking at the TDP in the spec sheet (which i kinda already knew) even though they upped it to 127W TDP for example with the 9900KS, their more standard parts still seem to be fairly accurate though, and AMD probably should have a separate TDP listing for their 12core and 16core parts instead of listing them all at 105W TDP.
Ryu5uzaku
Senior Member
Posts: 6832
Joined: 2006-09-24
Senior Member
Posts: 6832
Joined: 2006-09-24
#5760338 Posted on: 02/14/2020 06:28 PM
Nice input on the discussion there mate.
Didn't realise the X570 was that much of a power jump compared to the X470, guess i understand why the fans were such a requirement now, though i still think they could have just gone with actual useful heatsinks instead of the stylised crap they whack on there and done without the fans.
So yeah both AMD and intel still understate power usage on some of their processors (not all), but it appears to only be by a small amount and only under specific workloads, so i guess that's nice to know, though there are still some weird inconsistencies on those charts, like the 3800X pulling less power than the 3700X both with PBO enabled on the handbrake test.
Also, surprised on those graphs, intel actually using less power than i thought they were as well, well, as long as its running stock and MCE and all that stuff isn't turned on (do motherboard manufactures still leave that on by default on some boards? Been building mostly AMD systems for customers lately so haven't had any new systems being built with high end intel for about a year now, but back when i built my system i remember a bunch of boards had it enabled by default).
I guess the take away here, is that these pushed to the limits parts intel are releasing do use quite a bit more power than expected based on just looking at the TDP in the spec sheet (which i kinda already knew) even though they upped it to 127W TDP for example with the 9900KS, their more standard parts still seem to be fairly accurate though, and AMD probably should have a separate TDP listing for their 12core and 16core parts instead of listing them all at 105W TDP.
I am thinking PBO might bring out differences in silicon quality. Reason for it being what it is. The 3700x being inferior but still clocking quite high = increasing voltage more then 3800x.
Nice input on the discussion there mate.
Didn't realise the X570 was that much of a power jump compared to the X470, guess i understand why the fans were such a requirement now, though i still think they could have just gone with actual useful heatsinks instead of the stylised crap they whack on there and done without the fans.
So yeah both AMD and intel still understate power usage on some of their processors (not all), but it appears to only be by a small amount and only under specific workloads, so i guess that's nice to know, though there are still some weird inconsistencies on those charts, like the 3800X pulling less power than the 3700X both with PBO enabled on the handbrake test.
Also, surprised on those graphs, intel actually using less power than i thought they were as well, well, as long as its running stock and MCE and all that stuff isn't turned on (do motherboard manufactures still leave that on by default on some boards? Been building mostly AMD systems for customers lately so haven't had any new systems being built with high end intel for about a year now, but back when i built my system i remember a bunch of boards had it enabled by default).
I guess the take away here, is that these pushed to the limits parts intel are releasing do use quite a bit more power than expected based on just looking at the TDP in the spec sheet (which i kinda already knew) even though they upped it to 127W TDP for example with the 9900KS, their more standard parts still seem to be fairly accurate though, and AMD probably should have a separate TDP listing for their 12core and 16core parts instead of listing them all at 105W TDP.
I am thinking PBO might bring out differences in silicon quality. Reason for it being what it is. The 3700x being inferior but still clocking quite high = increasing voltage more then 3800x.
Ridiric
Senior Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 2016-09-08
Senior Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 2016-09-08
#5760635 Posted on: 02/15/2020 06:44 PM
Hmm yeah that could be it.
I am thinking PBO might bring out differences in silicon quality. Reason for it being what it is. The 3700x being inferior but still clocking quite high = increasing voltage more then 3800x.
Hmm yeah that could be it.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2606
Joined: 2009-06-07
Lol I post on stack wtf... *sniff sniff