Intel Core i5-10400 Gets Benchmarked and tested, much faster SMT over Core i5 9400
Click here to post a comment for Intel Core i5-10400 Gets Benchmarked and tested, much faster SMT over Core i5 9400 on our message forum
Francesco
These could be good CPUs... if only efficency wasn't that bad. I'm not buying anything that draws so much more power and runs so much hotter than a comparable CPU of the competition.
Yosif Videlov
I would not call base TDP of 65W much. Look at the CPU package temps of 59C - in the AIDA FPU Stresss test.. I wonder what kind of cooler they used for it.
I am more interested in 10700K results and comparisons to 9700K, 3700X and 3800X.
jbscotchman
Meh, I'll take my $85 1600 AF on B450 and upgrade a couple years from now to Zen 2. Now that is value.
gx-x
I get 954 in cinebench r15 with 9400F and 3200 cl16 ram and 19x in single core test. I am saying I would probably build PC better than they did and get even more out of 10400. It's not really hard to build it better, you just need to do it properly.
the real question is: is it better to put i7 8700 on the same mobo as 9400 is in, or get a whole new system. (for me: neither)
It draws <65W max. It's literally coded that way. When it reaches or goes over that it throttles the clock down to stay =<65W.
Stop making s*it up.
asturur
I think those CPUs are great.
a 6/12 sub 200$ is value.
You can still get an AMD if you think this is not worth.
I'm just wondering if the k version can overclock or is binned to not do so.
waltc3
I don't see a 14nm CPU with oodles of vulnerabilities that will need bios and Win10 microcode patching to be particularly attractive...;)
Fox2232
@Hilbert Hagedoorn : I think that "much faster SMT" is not correct.
Take multithreaded score, divide it by single threaded score. And that divided by number of real cores will give you "bonus" of SMT. (In optimal situation ST and MT clock would be same.)
For CB R15, it is some 19.4%.
For CB R20, it is some 21,2%.
CPUz: 24.76% and 21.3% depending on test.
What we are looking at is gimped performance of 9400f, that is being removed with 10400 as its multi core performance is following multiple of single threaded:
CB R15: 5.37x
CB R20: 5.48x
CPUz: 5.62x and 5.66x
As has been written before, 10x00 CPUs have boosting power limits higher and can boost for longer time as result.
So, question is: "What will be scores in consecutive 10 runs of same benchmarks?"
asturur
The problem with windows patching is that you get it anyway, if is not microcode specific. So if a dll is hitting a code path that will trigger some vulnerabilities in the cpu, if they patch the DLL, you get it, with AMD or Intel. And if that is a slower codepath, is slower for everyone.
No one is upgrading from series 6000 intel to those series 10000, but for who is getting a new pc, like thousand of every people every time, this is a better attractive compared to the 9400, that will be just hard to find, and not discounted.
You do not have to close your eyes on every small improvements because is not enough, otherwise you miss the big picture.
I believe a 3600x is better and will continute to be, but that those CPUs are not improvement price and performance wise, that is not true.
Venix
Looks like a real competitor to 3600 and x variant! Now i wonder will amd respond with a small price drop ? Or amd will take the stance that they are the premium brand and stay firm ?
Reddoguk
I have to say this, good job AMD. If it wasn't for AMD we'd never of gotten these type of bang for buck budget gaming chips from Intel.
Honestly these would be $300+ if the competition didn't get it's act together. So hats off to both Intel and AMD for bringing low cost decent gaming chips to the table.
We'll have to wait to see what Zen 4000 brings to the table but this chip might become very popular at the right price.
toyo
Not bad, basically a slowed down 8700K. If it was unlocked you'd likely get it to 5GHz.
Undying
When you think about 8700k isnt that fast anymore. I dont think this is worth 280$ and need a new board. Again what amd offers with 3600 is a better choise.
metagamer
The 10400 is going to be $280?
oxidized
Same thing AMD is asking for their new CPUs, and he might need to buy a new motherboard anyway. Besides this'll probably be better in everything compared to a 3600x, will probably draw more power and have higher temps tho. A 4600x could be better but again, anyone or almost, would need a new motherboard regardless. Also how do you know this is going to cost that much, xx400 class i5 should be the mid low i5s...
coth
If you have 8700K you still have to buy a new board to get AMD CPU.
Francesco
Lol, no, I can assure you it will draw a lot more than that.
TDP, expecially for INTEL (but also for AMD) has very little to do with the actual power draw.
Kaleid
Intel Core i9-10900K 10 Core Flagship CPU Runs Very Hot & Consumes 235W Power at 4.8 GHz – Over 90C Temps With a 240mm AIO Cooler
https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-10900k-10-core-cpu-hot-power-hungry-at-stock-benchmarks-reveal/
I don't get why people trust corporations so much. This is not the same CPU, but every business is to a certain degree filled with BS.
itpro
Even 10900F overclocked seems identical to 10900K. Intel has no hope against zen 3. 😕
Venix
. This round the Core i5-10400 processor (6c/12t) listed for USD $184indicates it could be a sweet spot mid-range product. Copy pasted from the article ... honestly at 280 would have been dead on arrival with the price 3600 and x go but at 184 seems really competitive
metagamer
I get that. Just got confused because that guy was talking about $280 for some reason.
