Core i9-10900KF performance leaks in 3DMark Time Spy - Ryzen 9 3900X Level Perf

ruthan

2020-03-20 11:28

So its Core i9 9900K performance +10%, because of + 100 Mhz faster base clock, more agressive turbo clock, 2 more cores and probably TDP getting out of the roof.. Should we just stand up and clap our hands?

#5771440

asturur

2020-03-20 11:37

If it gets to 10% i think is a lot. I expect more or less 9900k + 3% in single thread.

#5771447

Evlmj

2020-03-20 11:52

What about them 9900K's that do 5300 all core? I wonder what OC is gonna look like for the 10900K, especially all core and AVX workloads... In games, because its harder to push frequency on 10 cores rather than 8, it might be worse than the 9900K, not to mention the cost of changing platforms again...

#5771461

alanm

2020-03-20 12:40

There should be a vulnerabilities benchmark. The one with least exploits breached will be the one to buy.

#5771463

fantaskarsef

2020-03-20 12:42

Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the 10900KF be faster than the 3900X by a larger margin? Sure it supports more threads than just one but... doesn't look like the best gaming CPU this time around... differences within the margin of error.

#5771531

H83

2020-03-20 14:58

fantaskarsef:

Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the 10900KF be faster than the 3900X by a larger margin? Sure it supports more threads than just one but... doesn't look like the best gaming CPU this time around... differences within the margin of error.

Well we can´t make any conclusions of a single benchmark, specially a synthetic one.

#5771532

JamesSneed

2020-03-20 15:00

H83:

Well we can´t make any conclusions of a single benchmark, specially a synthetic one.

... of an unknown origin. Who knows this could be running with exotic cooling to keep boost high.

#5771535

rl66

2020-03-20 15:13

As the actual intel processor that this one should replace, is already at an higher price than the Ryzen... i feel a bit negative about this intel. Exept the price it is nice to see the new gen, but the war will be on price per perf...

#5771620

Reddoguk

2020-03-20 19:51

Just a guess but i imagine this will hit 140w under full load. The 9900KS is already listed as 127w. While the 3900X is 105w with 2 more cores.

#5771626

squalles

2020-03-20 20:06

its a just synthetic test, you can see how its wrong when the test shows 3900x ahead 9900ks, and in real world games its worst than 8700k

#5771705

Aura89

2020-03-21 00:42

squalles:

its a just synthetic test, you can see how its wrong when the test shows 3900x ahead 9900ks, and in real world games its worst than 8700k

Games are not a determining factor for speed of a cpu. That's not to say if how a cpu performs in games is what matters to you then don't pay attention to that, but again, the determining factor for how fast an entire cpu is, is not determined by any game.

#5771709

Kaleid

2020-03-21 01:11

Reddoguk:

Just a guess but i imagine this will hit 140w under full load. The 9900KS is already listed as 127w. While the 3900X is 105w with 2 more cores.

Aren't these still 14nm? Then those numbers are very optimistic.

#5771732

squalles

2020-03-21 06:29

Aura89:

Games are not a determining factor for speed of a cpu. That's not to say if how a cpu performs in games is what matters to you then don't pay attention to that, but again, the determining factor for how fast an entire cpu is, is not determined by any game.

wtf? all depends what your want do with your pc, obviously if i want play games, i9 are faster to me

#5771733

Aura89

2020-03-21 06:54

squalles:

wtf? all depends what your want do with your pc, obviously if i want play games, i9 are faster to me

You apparently didn't read what i wrote, but hey, i did read what you wrote, which wasn't a reply to anyone talking about gaming, just a claim that this "synthetic benchmark is wrong because...... games" nonsense. If all you care about is games...Great! But that doesn't magically make a benchmark wrong because all you care about is games.

#5771734

fry178

2020-03-21 06:54

@squalles maybe google the difference between synthetic and real world benches. just because they dont show what YOU want to see, doesn't make it invalid or not needed. it depends on what you want to compare, as in this case pure cpu numbers without getting affected by other things a game puts on the cpu/gpu (physx/audio etc), or to eliminate false stats because of "2 explosions/5 more NPC" showing up in a scene. completely ignoring that someone that buys a +8 C cpu for gaming doesnt know crap, others might be interested to have their work computer also be their gaming (able) rig. then the amd would still make more sense, as the saved money vs the intel can get you a much better gpu.

#5771741

Bo Alenkaer

2020-03-21 08:31

And the price.... $1000 ?

#5771743

mbk1969

2020-03-21 08:50

Evlmj:

In games, because its harder to push frequency on 10 cores rather than 8, it might be worse than the 9900K, not to mention the cost of changing platforms again...

Recently I did upgrade to i9-9820X and being sceptical about my rusty assembling skills (last rig was assembled 8 years ago) I did stress testing. I used Intel Extreme Tuning Utility and CPU-Z. All 10 cores (I disabled HT) went to their maximum turbo clocks (all different since BIOS and OS are tuned to use most favourite cores feature) for the whole span of tests and temperatures stayed near 60C (with air cooling).

#5771758

fry178

2020-03-21 10:08

Then why buy a high core HT chip in the first place? could have easily gone with 6 C running HT for that.

#5771811

squalles

2020-03-21 13:42

fry178:

@squalles maybe google the difference between synthetic and real world benches. just because they dont show what YOU want to see, doesn't make it invalid or not needed. it depends on what you want to compare, as in this case pure cpu numbers without getting affected by other things a game puts on the cpu/gpu (physx/audio etc), or to eliminate false stats because of "2 explosions/5 more NPC" showing up in a scene. completely ignoring that someone that buys a +8 C cpu for gaming doesnt know crap, others might be interested to have their work computer also be their gaming (able) rig. then the amd would still make more sense, as the saved money vs the intel can get you a much better gpu.

you cant spend more on intel, the i7 10700k are 8 cores and 16 threads in same price of 3800x but very better than him, 10900k are 2 cores less than 3900x but rendering same on multi thread because have many better single core performance, so, the better choice is obvious, or choice are amd x570 and your processor and depends of software be improved to use all your cores, or you choice the intel and have the same or better performance even if when software cant be optimized if you want does amd performs close you need a x570 to hit 3733mhz on amd and its need spend much more money, because x570 cost more than z390, mainly the decents motherboards to hit the boost clock announced

#5771816

mbk1969

2020-03-21 14:28

fry178:

Then why buy a high core HT chip in the first place? could have easily gone with 6 C running HT for that.

In case you were replying to me, the number of cores was not the point of my comment. I was on 6 cores (with HT) CPU before upgrade.