Core i5-10400 Benchmarks Shows performance close to i7-9700F
Click here to post a comment for Core i5-10400 Benchmarks Shows performance close to i7-9700F on our message forum
sverek
When to expect official reviews? NDA lift?
Yosif Videlov
If this is true, than it will trample 3600 in gaming workloads.
asturur
Can you define trample? like you mean + 20% fps on cpu bound scenario?
rl66
It will depend on the price...
Right now it's the price/perf ratio that is against Intel more than the perf only (and maybe some security problem, but gamer don't know about it lol).
The actual gen perform fine to be honest, but for the price you can get the upper level on AMD...
Undying
After being 1 year late i would expect to do so. Then again it require new motherboard and amd can just drop the prices in response.
alanm
Tbh I dont even care about gaming perf anymore. Prefer to look at the whole package and overall perf, including mobo features when looking at next upgrade.
metagamer
It'll launch at around $160.
And here is why we should all appreciate the "CPU war" that's ongoing. These are rumoured to launch at around $160, undercutting the Ryzen 3600 by some $10 dollars. If AMD go and drop the price of the 3600 to sub $160, everyone wins.
We honestly need to stop hating on AMD and Intel and let them battle it out. It's best for all of us. AMD did a great job with their CPUs in the last few years and Intel is reacting. If someone told me a couple of years ago that Intel will release a 6c/12t CPU that clocks to around 4.3ghz for $160, I'd tell them to get out of here.
Enjoy this time, it'll only get better for all of us.
Ricardo
I don't think people "hate" on intel that much. It's a lot more about criticizing their recent behavior.
But apparently this 10th generation is coming from comptetitive-mode intel, which like you said is good for everybody, so if they keep this up I guess everyone will be happy.
Let's wait and see.
metagamer
Oh they do.
schmidtbag
I can't say I'm surprised by these results. Since HT isn't as good as a full core, 6c/12t is going to offer similar performance to 8c/8t. The 9700F has similar clock speeds too.
If this will in fact be priced at $160 then this would be a legitimately good alternative to the 3600, depending on your priorities. I'm not expecting the 10400 to be a unanimous performance win.
Eh... there's a lot of people who are very anti-Intel. Like they hate everything Intel does, or, will praise AMD for something where Intel may have done the same thing first. A lot of people in these forums don't even try to hide their biases.
Of course, the inverse can also be said.
EspHack
i wonder what would this chip do to 8700k prices
oh yeah, separate sockets, nvm
TLD LARS
It will be nice to see if the i5-10400 is boosting through the Cinebench test, my Ryzen 1700 uses less then 20 seconds with the same score, so the i5-10400 should be able to boost past the 65W during the entire run, if it does that.
Real world long time multicore performance will be lower if the CPU is allowed to boost past the TDP.
toyo
Max turbo is only 4.3GHz for this i5, with the all core turbo apparently at 4GHz. An 8700K which has the same number of cores/threads, but boosts to 4.3GHz, should suck about 90W in R15, managing to stay under the 95W TDP, so the power limit is irrelevant for this scenario. My (very average) 8700K with an undervolt caps at 78W in all core R15.
Cannon Lake should be able to use less voltage than both Coffee Lake S and R to achieve these speeds, and coupled with the 4GHz top all core speed, this CPU will likely remain below the 65W TDP in R15.
Where these CPUs start to use a lot of power is with AVX, like prime95 stresstesting. At stock my 8700K will suck 135W or so, 116W with my undervolt. Overclocking to 5GHz will shoot to 200W with ease in prime95, 160W+ without AVX.
Venix
+1000 from me i do not want either amd or intel out of the performance race i really want em very very close in performance waging a full on price war !
Agonist
And not to mention that boards x570 down to 1st Gen still will support ryzen 4000 series.
What pisses me off about most of these Intel people is that they think because it's needed for their specific scenario or usage that everyone else must follow. So if you need a hundred 44 Hertz at 1080p with the 1080i and he's garbage which it really isn't, then you need to listen to what they have to say and use that.
Personally I don't buy it until because I still find their shit overpriced and honestly not worth the value. My 1920x may not be the fastest thing Freight wise out there, but it destroys anything for the price point that I bought it at with the motherboard too.
BLEH!
It's intel, it won't be priced at $160...
BReal85
Haha. The 9400F is about 1% faster in games with a 2080 Ti in FHD than the 3600. This means if you OC the 3600, it is exactly the same as the 9400F. Now the 9700F may be around the 9600K, which is ~4% faster than the 3600, so with the 3600 OCd, the 10400 (9700F, as it is 1 fps slower than the 10400) should be about 3% faster than the 3600 OC in games. With a 2080Ti. In FHD. For an extra $10, which is +6%. So you get 4% (3%) more performance for 6% more money with the newest Intel CPU. And the upcoming Zen 3 will arrive in some months, which will get another ~15% or so IPC gain. And don't forget you have to buy new motherboards too. Again an absolute no for Intel. And that's what the DIY market generally says since Zen+.
Nope. The 10400 will be $182. It is official.
