This is mighty impressive showing from Intel. It beats 800EUR 16c/32t CPU and almost beats 1500EUR 24c/48t CPU. Now if pricing of 10900K is in 550EUR range it will be amazing bang for buck.
EDIT: While I expect these high thread AMD CPUs might still come on top in pure rendering workloads, 10900K looks like to be a killer gaming and general enthusiast home use CPU.
This is mighty impressive showing from Intel. It beats 800EUR 16c/32t CPU and almost beats 1500EUR 24c/48t CPU. Now if pricing of 10900K is in 550EUR range it will be amazing bang for buck.
EDIT: While I expect these high thread AMD CPUs might still come on top in pure rendering workloads, 10900K looks like to be a killer gaming and general enthusiast home use CPU.
Timespy don't scale well with multiple cores, so no, it's not that good.
With the risk of sounding like a salty fanboy.
I never quite understood why in all intel vs AMD comparisons the AMD machine always has either less RAM or lower freq RAM. In this case both.
Lets not forget the fridge cooling fiasco to keep them boosts up.
Timespy don't scale well with multiple cores, so no, it's not that good.
Yeah, it isnt the best test. Im sure even the 3950x will come on top when it comes to rendering, editing and 10900k will be games due higher clock speeds.
Dont forget that this is Intel competitor to ryzen 4000 thats thats this year then all this seems less impressive.
Timespy don't scale well with multiple cores, so no, it's not that good.
I already explained that in my post. Also, core count isn't the only thing that matters. Frequency matters just as much. It's best to have CPU with a good balance between high frequency and core count.
We can´t take any conclusions from one or two benchmarks, we need the complete set to compare them. Anyway this CPU is basically a 9900K with 2 extra cores and an higher boost so it´s going to be a very nice CPU and a very expensive one of course...
This is mighty impressive showing from Intel. It beats 800EUR 16c/32t CPU and almost beats 1500EUR 24c/48t CPU. Now if pricing of 10900K is in 550EUR range it will be amazing bang for buck.
EDIT: While I expect these high thread AMD CPUs might still come on top in pure rendering workloads, 10900K looks like to be a killer gaming and general enthusiast home use CPU.
come on, will you really buy the new intel for 550 EUR + a new board for that 0-10% extra performance over the Ryzen 3900X which will cost you appr. 430 EUR today? thats ~+30% dough.
if yes, please provide postal address to receive free "no price too steep for intel" t-shirt 🙂))
This is mighty impressive showing from Intel. It beats 800EUR 16c/32t CPU and almost beats 1500EUR 24c/48t CPU. Now if pricing of 10900K is in 550EUR range it will be amazing bang for buck.
EDIT: While I expect these high thread AMD CPUs might still come on top in pure rendering workloads, 10900K looks like to be a killer gaming and general enthusiast home use CPU.
Especially with all of them hardware mitigations built/baked right in also!!
Sorry, but not sorry. Intel has a long way to go in order to obtain this guys trust back.
Looks good but not as much from an upgrade pov, I will skip this series most likely.
AMD doesn't impress me with anything at this point either, unless that 4k series is going to shine in games
significantly more than this. If they will barely match it then it's another doooh.
Not sure what's not more than "matching up" for you in regards to performance. AMD is kicking Intel's teeth in. In gaming and in applications. And at an unbelievable price point.
Hence Intel just dropped their prices from $2500 to nine hundred something!!!! MESSAGE!.!.!
I really failed to see what is impressive here, is it that the new generation from Intel with two more cores and higher clock-speed still retain the gaming crown ??? I mean that was pretty obvious from the start.....
Seriously?! Can it even be considered as a serious comparison when AMD is associated with a DDR4 2400. Specially when you know how better AMD performs with higher freq.
AMD : 4 x 8 GiB DDR4-2400
vs
INTEL : 4 x 16 GiB DDR4-2666
I find this entertaining, every time AMD puts out a new cpu, Intel's answer is to push more voltage, a whopping 125 watts, through their old processor and call it "new". That's like Ford putting out a new improved Mustang and Chevy just putting a bigger turbo charger on their old Camaro model and calling it a "newer" "faster" vehicle than Fords. But then having to buy racing fuel to make it run. Nothing to see here folks.https://media1.giphy.com/media/ObuuLMuAoESZy/giphy.gif
Seriously?! Can it even be considered as a serious comparison when AMD is associated with a DDR4 2400. Specially when you know how better AMD performs with higher freq.
AMD : 4 x 8 GiB DDR4-2400
vs
INTEL : 4 x 16 GiB DDR4-2666
I've got 4x16gb going on in my X570 Aorus Xtreme @ 3800mhz....
Not sure what's the problem here. And will be the same setup in my Aorus Xtreme TRX40 board.
@Glottiz :
Hilbert wrote: 'however in regular time spy only 10 cores/threads are taken into the measurement'(!)
1st: If you take this into account and give the 9900K two extra(polative) cores, the 10900K is 5.3% slower in regular time spy, and in time spy extreme only 2.57% faster... sound a bit meh to me...
2nd: I better do not want to now the amount of energy consumed by it... and afaik you need socket lga1200 - that owns no pcie 4.0 - so, very meeeeeehhhh
and last but not least: just couple the R9s with proper 3200MHz CL14 or 3600MHz CL16 memory & here wo go again... 🙂
I'm just a noob but the 3950X scores (non-extreme, the graph with the bars) which where put in the OP are taken with DDR4 3200MHz...
Although I'm not 100% sure where the Intel scores come from since source isn't available (anymore?), and I guess the general score (non-extreme) is extrapolated in the first place.
Not moved by this bench. Extrapolated score is ~3% above 3950X, which is not really that far ahead, especially considering AMD's releasing a new CPU after Intel's launch which is supposed to be faster...
Anyhow, it's all in the real world benchmarks and usage later on this year. I hope AMD doesn't take forever to release Ryzen 4k.
Intel Thermal Velocity Boost (single-core / all core): 10900K: 5.3/4.9 GHz; 10900: 5.1/4.6 GHz
Is it 5.3 or 5.2 Ghz (in the table) for the 10900K with single-core boost?