XFX Radeon RX 5600 XT THICC 3 review
Fractal Design Define 7 XL review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - January 2020
Palit GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER GamingPro review
Team Group T-Force DarkZα 3600 MHz DDR4 review
Corsair Scimitar Elite RGB gaming mouse review
Cougar 700K Evo keyboard review
Aorus Liquid Cooler 360 review
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X review
Corsair A500 CPU air cooler 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 09:53 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 04:26 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 12:21 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 09:11 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 08:36 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...
fantaskarsef
Senior Member
Posts: 11259
Joined: 2014-07-21
Senior Member
Posts: 11259
Joined: 2014-07-21
#5759570 Posted on: 02/12/2020 04:29 PM
^ Yeah... until we know what cooling it had, I wouldn't trust that benchmark to not be made with LN2 or a chiller... it's not like we haven't had that already.
^ Yeah... until we know what cooling it had, I wouldn't trust that benchmark to not be made with LN2 or a chiller... it's not like we haven't had that already.
EspHack
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2010-01-03
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: 2010-01-03
#5759585 Posted on: 02/12/2020 05:41 PM
maybe they realized they might need it
maybe they realized they might need it
Glottiz
Senior Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 2006-11-18
Senior Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 2006-11-18
#5759604 Posted on: 02/12/2020 06:48 PM
When AMD release a product with higher TDP than competition: "It's not really an issue, it costs just a few extra Euros pear year to run it, difference is negligible. I still love AMD and support them!"
When Intel release a product with higher TDP than competition: "OMG Intel is the devil incarnate! They killed my whole family!"
TDP 0 (Meltdown ERROR... ERROR... Kaboom) 
When AMD release a product with higher TDP than competition: "It's not really an issue, it costs just a few extra Euros pear year to run it, difference is negligible. I still love AMD and support them!"
When Intel release a product with higher TDP than competition: "OMG Intel is the devil incarnate! They killed my whole family!"
metagamer
Senior Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 2018-04-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 2018-04-10
#5759608 Posted on: 02/12/2020 06:56 PM
Why? Intels have boosted to 5ghz right out of the box for a while now. 5.3ghz is not a miraculous increase. On LN2 they've hit well over 7ghz.
^ Yeah... until we know what cooling it had, I wouldn't trust that benchmark to not be made with LN2 or a chiller... it's not like we haven't had that already.
Why? Intels have boosted to 5ghz right out of the box for a while now. 5.3ghz is not a miraculous increase. On LN2 they've hit well over 7ghz.
karma777police
Senior Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 2018-08-17
Senior Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 2018-08-17
#5759620 Posted on: 02/12/2020 07:35 PM
No software and game will cause meltdown. I still have to find a game or software which would push my 9900k over 100 W.
No software and game will cause meltdown. I still have to find a game or software which would push my 9900k over 100 W.
kakiharaFRS
Senior Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 2015-11-21
Senior Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 2015-11-21
#5759627 Posted on: 02/12/2020 08:01 PM
When AMD release a product with higher TDP than competition: "It's not really an issue, it costs just a few extra Euros pear year to run it, difference is negligible. I still love AMD and support them!"
When Intel release a product with higher TDP than competition: "OMG Intel is the devil incarnate! They killed my whole family!"
amd generate a crap ton of heat and unlike Intel, as in the laptop segment, the idle power is super high meaning your beloved AMDs are way hotter than an overclocked Intel
I know I own a 9900K@5.1Ghz and a TR 3960x@4.15Ghz yep it's lower than stock but otherwise the idle temps are way too high, enough to heat a living room when it's 0°C outside
When AMD release a product with higher TDP than competition: "It's not really an issue, it costs just a few extra Euros pear year to run it, difference is negligible. I still love AMD and support them!"
When Intel release a product with higher TDP than competition: "OMG Intel is the devil incarnate! They killed my whole family!"
amd generate a crap ton of heat and unlike Intel, as in the laptop segment, the idle power is super high meaning your beloved AMDs are way hotter than an overclocked Intel
I know I own a 9900K@5.1Ghz and a TR 3960x@4.15Ghz yep it's lower than stock but otherwise the idle temps are way too high, enough to heat a living room when it's 0°C outside
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7748
Joined: 2008-07-31
Senior Member
Posts: 7748
Joined: 2008-07-31
#5759648 Posted on: 02/12/2020 09:17 PM
When AMD release a product with higher TDP than competition: "It's not really an issue, it costs just a few extra Euros pear year to run it, difference is negligible. I still love AMD and support them!"
When Intel release a product with higher TDP than competition: "OMG Intel is the devil incarnate! They killed my whole family!"
Fairly big difference there.
When AMD produces a high TDP part, it typically actually produces that wattage plus or minute 10 watts.
When Intel produces a high TDP part, it's actual wattage is around double that full load.
I don't think people would be as upset with Intel in regards to how much power their parts use if their TDP calculation was a bit more realistic to its actual wattage usage. Especially when it comes to their top of the line consumer parts.
amd generate a crap ton of heat and unlike Intel, as in the laptop segment, the idle power is super high meaning your beloved AMDs are way hotter than an overclocked Intel
I know I own a 9900K@5.1Ghz and a TR 3960x@4.15Ghz yep it's lower than stock but otherwise the idle temps are way too high, enough to heat a living room when it's 0°C outside
Did you really just compare an 8 core part to a 24 core part and complain that the 24 core part is warmer then the 8 core part?
..............
Do you work for intel or something? Serious question. I can't fathom how someone would try to compare incomparable parts to eachother unless they work for one side or the other trying to save face and spread misinformation.
That or you really weren't prepared to get such a large, multi-core CPU and have completely unrealistic expectations.
When AMD release a product with higher TDP than competition: "It's not really an issue, it costs just a few extra Euros pear year to run it, difference is negligible. I still love AMD and support them!"
When Intel release a product with higher TDP than competition: "OMG Intel is the devil incarnate! They killed my whole family!"
Fairly big difference there.
When AMD produces a high TDP part, it typically actually produces that wattage plus or minute 10 watts.
When Intel produces a high TDP part, it's actual wattage is around double that full load.
I don't think people would be as upset with Intel in regards to how much power their parts use if their TDP calculation was a bit more realistic to its actual wattage usage. Especially when it comes to their top of the line consumer parts.
amd generate a crap ton of heat and unlike Intel, as in the laptop segment, the idle power is super high meaning your beloved AMDs are way hotter than an overclocked Intel
I know I own a 9900K@5.1Ghz and a TR 3960x@4.15Ghz yep it's lower than stock but otherwise the idle temps are way too high, enough to heat a living room when it's 0°C outside
Did you really just compare an 8 core part to a 24 core part and complain that the 24 core part is warmer then the 8 core part?
..............
Do you work for intel or something? Serious question. I can't fathom how someone would try to compare incomparable parts to eachother unless they work for one side or the other trying to save face and spread misinformation.
That or you really weren't prepared to get such a large, multi-core CPU and have completely unrealistic expectations.
JamesSneed
Senior Member
Posts: 668
Joined: 2017-02-14
Senior Member
Posts: 668
Joined: 2017-02-14
#5759661 Posted on: 02/12/2020 09:50 PM
When AMD release a product with higher TDP than competition: "It's not really an issue, it costs just a few extra Euros pear year to run it, difference is negligible. I still love AMD and support them!"
When Intel release a product with higher TDP than competition: "OMG Intel is the devil incarnate! They killed my whole family!"
Good try but people griped about both especially Vega so no AMD is not immune to criticism. Intels power numbers are rather over the top these days for 8-cores or higher in desktop chips. The PL2 on this chip is going to be like 225-250 watts.
Most people talk about TDP's but frankly for the average person the TDP numbers are meaningless unless you are an engineer designing a specific cooling solution. The PL1 and PL2 states tell how much power is going in and is a better indicator of how much heat you will have to dissipate. These high boosts are really going to be near 250 watts which means to hit these boost clocks for any amount of time you have to have darn good cooling. To compare the PL2 on a Ryzen 3800x with PBO on is about 100 watts.
When AMD release a product with higher TDP than competition: "It's not really an issue, it costs just a few extra Euros pear year to run it, difference is negligible. I still love AMD and support them!"
When Intel release a product with higher TDP than competition: "OMG Intel is the devil incarnate! They killed my whole family!"
Good try but people griped about both especially Vega so no AMD is not immune to criticism. Intels power numbers are rather over the top these days for 8-cores or higher in desktop chips. The PL2 on this chip is going to be like 225-250 watts.
Most people talk about TDP's but frankly for the average person the TDP numbers are meaningless unless you are an engineer designing a specific cooling solution. The PL1 and PL2 states tell how much power is going in and is a better indicator of how much heat you will have to dissipate. These high boosts are really going to be near 250 watts which means to hit these boost clocks for any amount of time you have to have darn good cooling. To compare the PL2 on a Ryzen 3800x with PBO on is about 100 watts.
Kool64
Senior Member
Posts: 516
Joined: 2006-10-21
Senior Member
Posts: 516
Joined: 2006-10-21
#5759665 Posted on: 02/12/2020 10:06 PM
this will probably be the gaming sweet spot. If they can slot it into the $400 spot that would be a pretty good deal.
this will probably be the gaming sweet spot. If they can slot it into the $400 spot that would be a pretty good deal.
kendoka15
Senior Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 2014-03-14
Senior Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 2014-03-14
#5759683 Posted on: 02/12/2020 11:21 PM
Imagine taking Intel TDP figures seriously, lmao
Imagine taking Intel TDP figures seriously, lmao
Ridiric
Senior Member
Posts: 188
Joined: 2016-09-08
Senior Member
Posts: 188
Joined: 2016-09-08
#5759706 Posted on: 02/13/2020 01:12 AM
Fairly big difference there.
When AMD produces a high TDP part, it typically actually produces that wattage plus or minute 10 watts.
When Intel produces a high TDP part, it's actual wattage is around double that full load.
..............
Do any of you actually look at Hilberts power consumption charts?
Both Intel *AND* AMD's listed TDP's are completely off the mark compared to actual power draw, and are actually pretty similar for their 8 core parts.
For example, from Hilberts own power tests,
AMD 3700X: 70W~ system idle - 100W~ single thread - 165W~ multithread (AMD lists as 65W TDP)
Intel 9900K: 59W system idle - 89W single thread - 198W multithread (intel lists as a 95W TDP)
AMD 3800X: 64W system idle - 104W single thread - 194W multithread (AMD lists as a 105W TDP)
Intel 9900KS: 58W system idle - 88W single thread - 241W multithread (intel lists as 127W TDP)
Mind you these are total system power, so motherboard and other parts are adding extra power load, even with that, its still well over their advertised TDP.
Both of them dont use actual realistic numbers for their TDP.
AMD certainly ISN'T within 10 watts of their advertised TDP, neither is intel.
Not saying that this new intel processor isnt going to use crazy amounts of power, especially considering that the 9900KS already hits 241W on max load, however intel still seems to have the advantage on idle power and single thread power, and when not being fully stressed its pretty comparable to AMD parts with similar core counts that are also not being fully stressed when looking around online for different usage loads.
Fairly big difference there.
When AMD produces a high TDP part, it typically actually produces that wattage plus or minute 10 watts.
When Intel produces a high TDP part, it's actual wattage is around double that full load.
..............
Do any of you actually look at Hilberts power consumption charts?
Both Intel *AND* AMD's listed TDP's are completely off the mark compared to actual power draw, and are actually pretty similar for their 8 core parts.
For example, from Hilberts own power tests,
AMD 3700X: 70W~ system idle - 100W~ single thread - 165W~ multithread (AMD lists as 65W TDP)
Intel 9900K: 59W system idle - 89W single thread - 198W multithread (intel lists as a 95W TDP)
AMD 3800X: 64W system idle - 104W single thread - 194W multithread (AMD lists as a 105W TDP)
Intel 9900KS: 58W system idle - 88W single thread - 241W multithread (intel lists as 127W TDP)
Mind you these are total system power, so motherboard and other parts are adding extra power load, even with that, its still well over their advertised TDP.
Both of them dont use actual realistic numbers for their TDP.
AMD certainly ISN'T within 10 watts of their advertised TDP, neither is intel.
Not saying that this new intel processor isnt going to use crazy amounts of power, especially considering that the 9900KS already hits 241W on max load, however intel still seems to have the advantage on idle power and single thread power, and when not being fully stressed its pretty comparable to AMD parts with similar core counts that are also not being fully stressed when looking around online for different usage loads.
Astyanax
Senior Member
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2018-03-21
Senior Member
Posts: 4755
Joined: 2018-03-21
#5759708 Posted on: 02/13/2020 01:27 AM
TDP is not Power Draw.
TDP is not Power Draw.
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7748
Joined: 2008-07-31
Senior Member
Posts: 7748
Joined: 2008-07-31
#5759709 Posted on: 02/13/2020 01:31 AM
Do any of you actually look at Hilberts power consumption charts?
Hilberts tests are total system power draw last i checked unless he has changed his methedology.
Example from the 9900ks review:
"We show energy consumption based on a the entire PC (motherboard / processor / graphics card / memory / SSD). This number depends and will vary per motherboard (added ICs / controllers / wifi / Bluetooth) and PSU (efficiency). Keep in mind that we measure the ENTIRE PC, not just the processor's power consumption. Your average PC can differ from our numbers if you add optical drives, HDDs, soundcards etc."
So all of the examples you gave of the total sytem power useage are irrelevant for the cpu power consumption compared to TDP
Whereas when you try and find reviewera that try and measure just the cpu package power draw, you get stuff like this
Both of them dont use actual realistic numbers for their TDP.
AMD certainly ISN'T within 10 watts of their advertised TDP, neither is intel.
I didnt say either of them use realistic numbers from tdp, i said amd is typically, yes, i did say typically, look up at my original post---- typically, amd is within 10 watts of their TDP rating, and that is true, factual information, whereas intel in their consumer high end, is the last few years typically far beyond it.
Do any of you actually look at Hilberts power consumption charts?
Hilberts tests are total system power draw last i checked unless he has changed his methedology.
Example from the 9900ks review:
"We show energy consumption based on a the entire PC (motherboard / processor / graphics card / memory / SSD). This number depends and will vary per motherboard (added ICs / controllers / wifi / Bluetooth) and PSU (efficiency). Keep in mind that we measure the ENTIRE PC, not just the processor's power consumption. Your average PC can differ from our numbers if you add optical drives, HDDs, soundcards etc."
So all of the examples you gave of the total sytem power useage are irrelevant for the cpu power consumption compared to TDP
Whereas when you try and find reviewera that try and measure just the cpu package power draw, you get stuff like this
Both of them dont use actual realistic numbers for their TDP.
AMD certainly ISN'T within 10 watts of their advertised TDP, neither is intel.
I didnt say either of them use realistic numbers from tdp, i said amd is typically, yes, i did say typically, look up at my original post---- typically, amd is within 10 watts of their TDP rating, and that is true, factual information, whereas intel in their consumer high end, is the last few years typically far beyond it.
Hyderz
Senior Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 2017-10-20
Senior Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 2017-10-20
#5759716 Posted on: 02/13/2020 01:56 AM
0nm thats rather impressive
0nm thats rather impressive
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 2017-12-19
TDP 0 (Meltdown ERROR... ERROR... Kaboom)