Intel Core i9-10900 10-core Processor Poses for Camera

#5760257 Posted on: 02/14/2020 02:39 PM

---

9900 with 2 more cores. A new motherboard required.

#5760297 Posted on: 02/14/2020 03:53 PM

---

So 8% more for single core performance. When you think about it that's all Intel needs to do, just keep adding cores to it. If the CPU was on 7nm, same architecture...Intel would have eliminate high core count problem. Again 10/20 for 65W on 14nm is quite achievement if you ask me, I bet you that it won't go over 95W for any game or software you use. My 9900K never goes over 105W playing games and using software. Just because Prime 95 can push it too high, guess what...like I f. care. I don't play Prime95 nor I use it in production. It is just torture nonsense.

#5760315 Posted on: 02/14/2020 04:23 PM

---

AMD is 2x ing the cores, Intel add +2. They misread what AMD wants to do, but it was too late :p

AMD has 65W 12/24 already, with PCIe 4, not the old 3.0 and much more features. Stop praising intel, they seem that they don't have anything new to offer. They barely doubled the cores to 8, and now they struggle with everything. They can't really add single threaded performance, so they try to fix vulnerabilities by hardware so they don't take the penalty by software. Adding 2 cores is literally nothing these days. They are doing exactly what AMD did back with the FX 9 series. They just didn't added 2 more cores. (imagine FX 9590 on Excavator having 10 core...)

#5760316 Posted on: 02/14/2020 04:24 PM

---

Yup. I can't imagine anyone being excited for this processor. AMD doubles the core count on AM4 while Intel adds two more cores with a new socket, LMAO.

#5760323 Posted on: 02/14/2020 04:42 PM

---

lol at the fine print. "performance numbers may not reflect all security updates. No product can be absolutely secure"

Thanks for clearing that up, intel.

Also like "workloads used may have been optimized for performance only on Intel processors"

#5760330 Posted on: 02/14/2020 04:58 PM

---

It's not a bad platform, but lacking PCIe 4 seems a pretty big miss. What exactly are all those extra pins required for?

#5760343 Posted on: 02/14/2020 05:35 PM

---

The problem is, Intel can't afford to "just keep adding cores". Intel already has a shortage problem and their monolithic design makes that shortage even more of a challenge. This product is already going to be too expensive and/or hard to get and it hasn't even hit the shelves yet.
65W is an achievement for an aging architecture and process, but it isn't that amazing when you consider that's for base clocks.
If you're so sure it won't go over 95W then that means you bought an overkill CPU. Most people who will spend the kind of money on an Intel 10 core are pretty damn sure they're going to need all 10 cores, and at 4.5GHz, those 10 cores are definitely going to exceed 95W.
If you think Prime95 is bad, real-world AVX tests draw far more power and heat.

#5760348 Posted on: 02/14/2020 06:06 PM

---

I'm still happy af with my r7 1700 lol. Doing a lot of visual effects, does the job and its price
is around 100 euro here in bulgaria nowadays second hand, can't believe how far amd pushed things looking back at it now.

#5760361 Posted on: 02/14/2020 07:16 PM

---

I'm still happy af with my r7 1700 lol. Doing a lot of visual effects, does the job and its price
is around 100 euro here in bulgaria nowadays second hand, can't believe how far amd pushed things looking back at it now.

What's amazing is how many people still said AMD won't compete or put a dent on Intel after Ryzen 1 launch. Now all over the place, including the biggest youtubers have ditch intel for everything, even gaming rigs.
With the audience Linus and Jay2cents has, them praising AMD is a massive plus.

#5760376 Posted on: 02/14/2020 08:12 PM

---

So 8% more for single core performance.

You must be smoking whatever intel is giving you.

It states 8% improvement for general windows applications, it doesn't state 8% more for single-core performance. Personally i don't understand how they came up with this 8% over their otherwise stated 18% multi-core performance.

The 9900 is a 3.1Ghz, 5Ghz boost 8c/16 thread processor
The 10900 is, from any information i can find, a 2.8Ghz, 5.1Ghz boost 10c/20 thread processor.

Lower base clock, probably won't matter in most cases. 100mhz boost increase would be a 2% increase in single-core performance, not your mythical 8%.

And there's not going to be any noticable IPC improvements, but i'll be generous and say that'll be a 3% increase in single-core performance, again not your mythical 8%.

But then again look who it is that, i can go through your post history and pick out countless BS statements made by you.


The problem is, Intel can't afford to "just keep adding cores". Intel already has a shortage problem and their monolithic design makes that shortage even more of a challenge. This product is already going to be too expensive and/or hard to get and it hasn't even hit the shelves yet.
65W is an achievement for an aging architecture and process, but it isn't that amazing when you consider that's for base clocks.


He's not going to care what you say about this, or believe, or change what he's paid to say. Whatever the reason.

He makes statements like this(next quote) and refuses to acknowledge the nonsense in it. Effectively he believes Intel somehow has better margins on monolithic dies that are much larger then AMDs chiplets.

As I said 10/20 Cascade Lake X is $400. Ryzen on AM4 can only be offered in 8/12/16 variants due its design. Intel is going to offer extra two cores for the same price and there won't be 16 core part Cascade Lake X - 10/12/14/18 against 8/12/16. AMD design doesn't allow superior margins. AMD cannot sell their 12/24 part any cheaper, they won't make any money on it. Intel is going to offer 14/28 for same amount of money AMD sells their 12/24.

I have all the prices for a month now.

#5760379 Posted on: 02/14/2020 08:30 PM

---

Please AMD kill Intel off by releasing AM5 with both PCIe5 and DDR5 and then intel would be in real trouble.

I don't think it's far off either.

#5760437 Posted on: 02/14/2020 11:38 PM

---

Yup. I can't imagine anyone being excited for this processor. AMD doubles the core count on AM4 while Intel adds two more cores with a new socket, LMAO.
The problem is, Intel can't afford to "just keep adding cores". Intel already has a shortage problem and their monolithic design makes that shortage even more of a challenge. This product is already going to be too expensive and/or hard to get and it hasn't even hit the shelves yet.
65W is an achievement for an aging architecture and process, but it isn't that amazing when you consider that's for base clocks.
If you're so sure it won't go over 95W then that means you bought an overkill CPU. Most people who will spend the kind of money on an Intel 10 core are pretty damn sure they're going to need all 10 cores, and at 4.5GHz, those 10 cores are definitely going to exceed 95W.
If you think Prime95 is bad, real-world AVX tests draw far more power and heat.

This is all Intel can release right now until they fix their 10nm node or move to a smaller one because it´s not possible to backport their new CPU architecture for their current 14nm node. Their luck is that they are still competitive despite lagging on such an old node and CPU design. They just need to adjust their prices...


It's not a bad platform, but lacking PCIe 4 seems a pretty big miss. What exactly are all those extra pins required for?

Is PCIe 4 that important right now??? Honest question.

#5760490 Posted on: 02/15/2020 04:14 AM

---

With the Intel shortages and requiring a new mobo for absolutely no extra features this processor is Doa especially once u consider the price.

#5760495 Posted on: 02/15/2020 05:02 AM

---

From the bottom of image 4:

Performance results are based on testing/estimates as of 8/13/2019 and may not reflect all publicly available security updates. See configuration disclosure for details. No product can be absolutely secure.

Performance numbers are Pre-S: projections, subject to change and apply to top bin SKU's only. Results reported above may need to be revised as additional testing is conducted. The results depend on the specific platform configurations and workloads utilized in the testing, and may not be applicable to any particular user's components, computer system or workloads. The results are not necessarily representative of other benchmarks and other benchmark results may show greater or lesser impact from mitigations.

Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors.
Performance tests, such as SYSmark and MobileMark, are measured using specific computer systems, components, software, operations and functions. Any change to any of those factors may cause the results to vary. You should consult other information and performance tests to assist you in fully evaluating your contemplated purchases, including the performance of that product when combined with other products.

#5760498 Posted on: 02/15/2020 05:51 AM

---

I'm not doubting the processor will perform, but hopefully Intel releases this cpu and the whole platform to be competitive not only by performance but by price as well. But there are a few things to think about still.

1. AMD is killing it, but Intel still has it in the mobile and big name OEM markets, even in server space.

2. If AMD by chance takes more market share and becomes the norm compared to Intel, without any competition AMD is going to become what Intel was, slowly progressing because there's nothing the opposing group has to offer that's competitive. We need competition in order to take advantage of a great price/performance from both companies.