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

Published by

Click here to post a comment for Intel i9-10900K performance increase upto 30% higher than 9900K on our message forum
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/271/271903.jpg
Well it has up to 25% more cores πŸ™‚:) . 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 πŸ˜‰;) )
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/260/260048.jpg
kruno:

Well it has up to 25% more cores πŸ™‚:) . 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 πŸ˜‰;) )
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.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/196/196426.jpg
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.
data/avatar/default/avatar19.webp
Heh the funny thing is that 3900X going to be still faster πŸ˜€
data/avatar/default/avatar11.webp
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 πŸ™‚ For "everything else" we have HEDTH πŸ˜‰
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/234/234122.jpg
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 ?
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/189/189980.jpg
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
data/avatar/default/avatar25.webp
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 πŸ™‚ For "everything else" we have HEDTH πŸ˜‰
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.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/229/229509.jpg
Slightly faster with double the power consumption... Intel aren't doing so well with this...
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/273/273678.jpg
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.
data/avatar/default/avatar32.webp
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!
data/avatar/default/avatar26.webp
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.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/258/258688.jpg
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.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/108/108420.jpg
125w cpu beats 95w cpu by 30% - Who knew?!!?!
data/avatar/default/avatar36.webp
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?
data/avatar/default/avatar29.webp
spine:

125w cpu beats 95w cpu by 30% - Who knew?!!?!
Actually 250W CPU. The Intel TDP is on base clocks only not boost clocks. AMD on the other hand is on the whole package limit, until you start overclocking and using PBO etc.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/156/156348.jpg
D3M1G0D:

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.
AMD is not any better than Intel honestly in this regard. Look at the price of the TR 3970x and Ryzen 9 3950x. Like in the P4 years Intel will slowly adjust their pricing they don't have a choice anyway. The main problem is Intel was alone for a long while more than anything else. This said unless they can improve multi-threads performance and make the i5 supports HT i don't see the point. I have a Ryzen 7 1800x and i'm gpu bound at 2k resolution in pretty much all the games i play. My CPU rarely if ever goes over 50% utilization in games and is often sitting at 20-30%. My 5700XT is working at 90% and over in most of the new games i play. I'm able to achieve close to 144 fps in most pf the games i play without compromising the gfx much if at all even if i have a "old" Ryzen 7 1800x only. I would gain A LOT more by upgrading the gpu to a 2080Ti than upgrading the CPU no question about it. Unless you are aiming at 300fps at 1080p (for whatever reason) any modern cpus with 8 cores will work just fine. I hope Intel will have HT on all their i5 and up cpus next time and will improve MT performance on their lower end cpus maybe this will force the devs to support MT cpus better. We are getting close to the maximum we can achieve on less than 8 threads time to move forward.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/229/229509.jpg
karma777police:

Incorrect. 30% is a lot of gain and there won't be double the power consumption.
It's apparently running 250W under load...
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/270/270017.jpg
karma777police:

This is a good gain, 30%. Intel design is far superior than AMD design.
Don't take this as a personal, singled-out attack, this is typed for your benefit. Please re-read especially the fine-print and look at not only what benchmark they used, but the fact there's no security patches applied! That being said, there should be a few small gains on single-threaded from more cache memory possibly, if it makes it onto final production units, and of-course two more cores - provided heat isn't an issue. Now if you run water-cooling it's not so bad, but not everyone can afford (not in a money sense always mind you) to have water-cooling in the PC they use for production, or afford to have it "bake them out of a 15x24 size room in the middle of winter with the already having thrown a heavy box over the 'heater hole' in the floor". I'm not bashing intel, I'm not hyping AMD; but there's reasons other than 'Battlefield Multiplayer' or CS:GO Multiplayer performance people buy FAST processors. So in the end it's more likely it's a small increase - if only from security patches not being applied - plus two more cores. Don't wait with baited breath to be disappointed in the end. Not for intel. Not for AMD. Just expect nothing, and you will only be able to be surprised if something good comes out, which you can be happy about sinking a chunk of change into for once, in-stead of years of 'meh' upgrades as intel did for 4-core cpu's for YEARS and YEARS, and like AMD did with Bulldozer coming from Phenom II. I'm not an intel hater, but I had my 4790k for almost 5 years and barely had any upgrade options courtesy of milk-o-rama, until Ryzen 2xxx and definitely 3xxx in the end. I was very sour about that as I enjoy building new systems every few years like most of us here. Of course I also had dropped a bulldozer or whatever-dozer CPU (fx-6300) on my AM3+ board (which has replaced an am2+ failed board) about 3 weeks before building the 4790k machine in 2014. I just hated the FX CPU so much that I was ready to throw it out the 2nd floor window of the house after about two weeks.
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 $500+ price range so 3900x and 3950x do not matter.
9900k was 499$ on release day, US Dollar prices, sometimes going up or down a bit, depending on supply and demand. Expect the i9 10900k to follow suit, and you should only be surprised if it's anything less. I'd love it to be 399$ as it'd bring the prices down, and be relative to the AMD 12-core at 499$ and AMD 8-core at 299~329$ depending on the retailer. Keep in mind the AMD product comes with a cooler that is capable enough without breaking the bank, where the i-series k-chips from intel do not come with one. Thing is, unless you want to run your multiplayer games on low at 720p / 1080p to get the best FPS / frame time, you can't tell the difference* between a 300$ AMD 8-core Ryzen 7 3700x VS an i9 9900k. Then again, when you get older you might have other more important things VS multiplayer FPS. *Both processor trade crowns in a variety of benchmarks, with the intel often taking home the game performance crown by just a few percent. Sure the intel is faster by a few percent, sometimes as much as 8+% in a rare benchmark on one or two games, but in other anything-non-gaming uses it may be surpassed by that much. Not everyone games all the time - someone has to make those games you know. It's worth mentioning that while a rumor, there's purportedly (not fact yet!) a good double-digit FPU increase coming on Zen 3 on the AMD side of things. This helps physics, AI, and other similar non-medically precise computations in games AND content production, which are in almost anything these days... so let's keep fingers crossed for lots of competition. More important things (from above)... Like take a nice firearm to a nice range (with moving targets if there's one nearby, lucky if so they're AWESOME!), and practice there. It might save your civilian hide one day bud. That's way more rush, WAY WAY MORE than a multiplayer FPS anything. That FPS shooter stuff all looks like G.I.Joe games when you know you can dig your way out of a bad situation in real life, without hoping there's a Medikit around the corner (there usually isn't). That having been said, games can be a fun stress-release (and rightfully should be) and at-least keep your reflexes tops...but some of us live in 'Murica and want to live to see the next 'Core 2 Duo' like breakthrough in tech, too πŸ™‚ TL - DR Intel has a nice product with the 9900k, and though it's a bear to keep it cool without spending 100$ + on a cooler 5ghz non-withstanding, if they can build on it's performance (and show it improves *WITH* security patches applied!) they will still have a good product. If they do not improve their product, innovation will leave them behind just as with Pentium 4 and AMD's Bulldozer Boo-Boo. No part of this post was to be demeaning, attacking, or otherwise negative. Please don't take it as an argument, I tried to speak in a level tone as much as possible here and my apologies if it does not seem that way. I just want as much competition as legally allowed in the market, so my money as a consumer of tech goes further. If something in this write-up is wrong or you feel it is, please cite some reference saying so, so that I can learn from it so as to not steer anyone else wrong.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/225/225084.jpg
I would never say Intel's 10nm is going to smash AMD's 7nm because by that time AMD will be on their second or third iteration of 7nm which will be a 20%+ gained at least if not more. If Intel had sprung 10nm at the same time as Zen2 then maybe but Zen3 and 3+ will be more than fast enough for any needs.