Intel i9-10900K performance increase upto 30% higher than 9900K

kruno

2020-01-02 09:16

Well it has up to 25% more cores 🙂:) . With higher base and boost clock and 25% more cores it's no wonder that it has up to 30% uplift in performance (ofc in small print ;your mileage may vary 😉;) )

#5747043

Alienwarez567

2020-01-02 09:20

Lets hope they price it decently so we can have more battle on the hardware/price

#5747044

cryohellinc

2020-01-02 09:22

kruno:

Well it has up to 25% more cores 🙂:) . With higher base and boost clock and 25% more cores it's no wonder that it has up to 30% uplift in performance (ofc in small print ;your mileage may vary 😉;) )

This. In a single threaded environment performance will be most likely the same. Max 5% increase. Slap on top of it temps and CPUs ability to sustain that clock. But more cores is always nice.

#5747045

wavetrex

2020-01-02 09:22

So when they are increasing the number of cores, they show all kind of business-related benchmarks that do make use of those cores. But when comparing with AMD's superior number of cores, they use single-threaded E-sports gaming benchmarks. Okay. Also, Cinebench is not so useless anymore when it shows some gains on their side ? Intel did finish with Magna Cum Laude on the Deception and Shoddy Marketing University.

#5747050

Fediuld

2020-01-02 09:29

Heh the funny thing is that 3900X going to be still faster 😀

#5747052

nizzen

2020-01-02 09:31

With this kind of plattform I care about gamingperformance, not cinebench performance. Wake me up when something is 30% faster than 9900k @ 5.3ghz with 38ns memorylatency in games like BF V Multiplayer 🙂 For "everything else" we have HEDTH 😉

#5747053

Webhiker

2020-01-02 09:33

If you average the numbers shown in the graph, it's 1.13x the performance with 25% more cores and higher boost clock. I didn't think Intel regarded Cinebench as a valid benchmark. I wonder why CB15 was used and not CB20 and if the performance delta would be the same. Since the CPU would have to sustain it's clock speed over a longer period of time in CB20. So it doesn't look like any IPC performance gains or am I missing something ?

#5747059

anticupidon

2020-01-02 09:51

wavetrex:

So when they are increasing the number of cores, they show all kind of business-related benchmarks that do make use of those cores. But when comparing with AMD's superior number of cores, they use single-threaded E-sports gaming benchmarks. Okay. Also, Cinebench is not so useless anymore when it shows some gains on their side ? Intel did finish with Magna Cum Laude on the Deception and Shoddy Marketing University.

Hit the nail in the head... twice? Made my coffee taste bitter - hey, that's a compliment.:D

#5747098

neikosr0x

2020-01-02 11:53

nizzen:

With this kind of plattform I care about gamingperformance, not cinebench performance. Wake me up when something is 30% faster than 9900k @ 5.3ghz with 38ns memorylatency in games like BF V Multiplayer 🙂 For "everything else" we have HEDTH 😉

of course, if you like to get ripped off i understand, in case you could afford an Intel HEDT then yes. But then again is not like you are wasting a super sum of money for a CPU that only runs better at games. Damn, i don't actually use all of my 12c/24t all the time but when i do, I'm super happy not to wait 1.6 times the time same when decompressing and compressing data. All games in my case do run as good as they do on a 9900k lol since i'm not playing at 1080p with all low, lol. Anyone who owns a 9900k or a 3900x to play a 1080p is just wasting money for no reason.

#5747136

BLEH!

2020-01-02 13:46

Slightly faster with double the power consumption... Intel aren't doing so well with this...

#5747152

Astyanax

2020-01-02 14:46

cryohellinc:

This. In a single threaded environment performance will be most likely the same. Max 5% increase. Slap on top of it temps and CPUs ability to sustain that clock.

Less more like.

#5747176

Toadstool

2020-01-02 15:54

karma777police:

This is a good gain, 30%. Intel design is far superior than AMD design. The monolithic CPU design gives you the best gain in games and content creation, every extra core means a lot however the only problem Intel has with this is being stuck at 14nm. If they have moved earlier to 10nm Ryzen would still be miles behind. With 14nm it is much harder for Intel to add additional cores...kudos to them for optimizing the crap out of 14nm process. If this new 10/20 is priced right Intel might have a winner here. At the end AMD never created a CPU more than 8 cores, what they did is slapped two CPU on same DIE with IO in between which is OK.

My favorite parody account!

#5747186

D3M1G0D

2020-01-02 16:14

I don't see why this should be news to anyone - this is the same processor with just two more cores added and slightly higher clocks. It would be a bigger surprise if it didn't have such performance.

#5747215

illrigger

2020-01-02 17:22

Alienwarez567:

Lets hope they price it decently so we can have more battle on the hardware/price

Ha! Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning. It still says "i9" in front of it, so it's going to have a $100 premium over whatever the i7 line costs, which has $100 over the i5, which has $100 over the i3 - which means they will start at a minimum of $400. The blessing here is that they are undoing the BS they did in Gen 9's Core i7s, and it looks like everything down through the i3s will have HT now, with the differentiating factors between the levels being the number of cores and minor clock speed boosts, just like AMD. So, in a way, you will get your wish - core for core the prices will likely be similar, it's just that you will need to pay a premium for an overclockable mobo on the Intel side.

#5747221

waltc3

2020-01-02 17:36

I wouldn't expect an Intel projection to say anything less. I love how the fine print says that "security updates" haven't been accounted for in their performance projection! Intel seems to be getting increasingly desperate--putting out optimistic projections instead of products.

#5747225

spine

2020-01-02 17:54

125w cpu beats 95w cpu by 30% - Who knew?!!?!

#5747229

D3M1G0D

2020-01-02 18:12

illrigger:

Ha! Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning. It still says "i9" in front of it, so it's going to have a $100 premium over whatever the i7 line costs, which has $100 over the i5, which has $100 over the i3 - which means they will start at a minimum of $400. The blessing here is that they are undoing the BS they did in Gen 9's Core i7s, and it looks like everything down through the i3s will have HT now, with the differentiating factors between the levels being the number of cores and minor clock speed boosts, just like AMD. So, in a way, you will get your wish - core for core the prices will likely be similar, it's just that you will need to pay a premium for an overclockable mobo on the Intel side.

Yeah, I'm expecting at least $600 (probably more), along with a new platform. They're not just going to offer 30% more performance for the same price - this is Intel we're talking about here, not AMD.

#5747233

Jayp

2020-01-02 18:20

This 10 core would have been cool a couple years ago. Sadly for Intel, the 3900X will still be better except for less than 24 threaded programs. Even there the 10900K won't be "better enough" to really matter. Aside from that AMD will be likely providing another IPC increase with the Zen 3 CPUs. By the time that happens the 10900K will really need to be about $400 to make any sense. I'm sure people will still buy Intel as some have yet to realize AMD can currently catch and even surpass Intel in gaming with some memory tuning. 10900K likely won't come for any less than $500 I bet. Not sure what Intel's cost is on it but they could actually do really well with it at $400 but I'd never hold my breath on Intel doing that. Don't worry folks they saved up a bunch of money while they slept on Skylake and it's only going to be used to mislead people and surpress AMD while they build a new architecture they should have got right years ago. AMD was severely underestimated I believe.

#5747238

nizzen

2020-01-02 18:32

neikosr0x:

of course, if you like to get ripped off i understand, in case you could afford an Intel HEDT then yes. But then again is not like you are wasting a super sum of money for a CPU that only runs better at games. Damn, i don't actually use all of my 12c/24t all the time but when i do, I'm super happy not to wait 1.6 times the time same when decompressing and compressing data. All games in my case do run as good as they do on a 9900k lol since i'm not playing at 1080p with all low, lol. Anyone who owns a 9900k or a 3900x to play a 1080p is just wasting money for no reason.

What gpu do you have?

#5747286

D3M1G0D

2020-01-02 21:42

karma777police:

If Intel price 10/20 $399 it will directly compete against Ryzen 8/16 and they should do fine. Most of the market is not in $500+ price range so 3900x and 3950x do not matter.

The 9900K has a MSRP of $479. Why would Intel charge anything less than that for the next-gen flagship (which has two more cores)?