Intel Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K

[philehidiot]

The other reviews out there are much less forgiving than the Hexus review...
320 watts draw from the cpu in a test there... 320 watts JUST from the cpu. Expensive coolers that cannot keep the chip cooled sufficiently and it was running at 100 degrees c. The latest BIOS updates mean that the power draw is just crazy to give it a lead in benchmarks at any cost

And I thought my 3900X was power hungry and hot. Even with an old AIO it never breached 77C under constant load.

[LSG501]

It would be nice to get a bit more information on how many cores each of these games are using etc in the benchmarks, not that I'd be buying a cpu based on game performance but still...

I did some rudimentary googling and it seems that most of the games used for testing don't really use more than 4 cores, so it would be nice to include some games that make use of more than 4 cores to see if that actually makes a real world difference, especially seeing as that is the likely direction for games in the future.

[QuorTek]

I love how you guys use stuck to get a new mobo... it tells quite a bit about the mobility of Intel in general...

Am happy that here is competetion in the field.

[will19565]

So, Intel have a range of pretty capable CPUs built on old technology, squeezing out all they can at the expense of high manufacturing costs and power hungry processors. A bit like the 1970 Ford Capri brought out to compete against the Porsche 911. Certainly very good in some areas, but under the bonnet not ground breaking or innovative and just not of the same world. With Zen 4 at 5nm coming maybe 2022, this is surely underwhelming from this mighty company?

All they have. It's a factory overclocked old style processor compared to Ryzen.

I'd be more worried they're falling behind on things like features despite a brand new ecosystem of motherboard needed - and the prices of those motherboards that I've seen so far are a lot more than an equivalent AMD setup. Circa £150 v £90 for example and the processor is more as well doesn't bode well and the reviews I've read so far, though thin on the ground are mainly meh

IN mITX the price is
£290 for a ROG STRIX Z490
&
£270 for a ROG STRIX x570
Not a huge delta, although you get much better USB on the z570, but much better LAN (2.5Gigabit (via (Intel® I225-V 2.5Gb) vs 1Gigabit (via Intel® I211-AT)) on the z490

[3dcandy]

IN mITX the price is
£290 for a ROG STRIX Z490
&
£270 for a ROG STRIX x570
Not a huge delta, although you get much better USB on the z570, but much better LAN (2.5Gigabit (via (Intel® I225-V 2.5Gb) vs 1Gigabit (via Intel® I211-AT)) on the z490

I said so far...
There are always going to be differences but with AMD currently the lower end chipset B450 gives you almost as much as the z490 at much lower costs... factor in that the cpu's are also lower costs and you get the cooler thrown in (you need a very very good cooler to cool the Intel solution) and it stretches your argument a fair bit. You need a water cooler to use the i9 to the best of its ability while the Ryzen is fine on the included air cooler

[spacein_vader]

If Intel can stay in touching distance with this kind of stuff then when they get their next node working we should have a very competitive CPU race, that can only be good for the end customer.

I don't want AMD pulling as far ahead as Intel were 5 years ago, pricing tends to get horribly inflated.

[deepblue08]

So, Intel have a range of pretty capable CPUs built on old technology, squeezing out all they can at the expense of high manufacturing costs and power hungry processors. A bit like the 1970 Ford Capri brought out to compete against the Porsche 911. Certainly very good in some areas, but under the bonnet not ground breaking or innovative and just not of the same world. With Zen 4 at 5nm coming maybe 2022, this is surely underwhelming from this mighty company?

They mismanaged their fabs, so they are way behind on the die shrink. They cannot really do too much at this point, not until they get their fabs in order.

[3dcandy]

They mismanaged their fabs, so they are way behind on the die shrink. They cannot really do too much at this point, not until they get their fabs in order.

I'd swap mismanaged fabs for got complacent

[lumireleon]

PCIE4 use same power as 3 but with higher data rates?

[3dcandy]

PCIE4 use same power as 3 but with higher data rates?

Yes but those data rates are harder to implement and cost more plus bring the added disadvantage of more heat

[kompukare]

I'd swap mismanaged fabs for got complacent

Money has a lot to do with it, and back before smartphones really got going Intel basically said they couldn't be bothered with low-margin stuff.
Those billions of revenue TSMC get from all this low-margin stuff has a lot to do with their advances.
Remember, Intel also deliberately crippled Atom for years so as not to cannibalise Core sales. In the end, they then poured billions into 'contra-revenue' (which apparently is not the same as below cost dumping...).
A lot of poor decision lead to this.

[3dcandy]

Money has a lot to do with it, and back before smartphones really got going Intel basically said they couldn't be bothered with low-margin stuff.
Those billions of revenue TSMC get from all this low-margin stuff has a lot to do with their advances.
Remember, Intel also deliberately crippled Atom for years so as not to cannibalise Core sales. In the end, they then poured billions into 'contra-revenue' (which apparently is not the same as below cost dumping...).
A lot of poor decision lead to this.

No argument with that but add in they didn't think AMD would come back as strong and this is the result

[Iota]

Priced at around £500, the Core i9-10900K's clear competitor is the Ryzen 9 3900X, which is still 15 percent cheaper

Honestly, the R9 3900X would be my clear choice, it can be found at more than £100 cheaper than the i9-10900K and the difference is marginal between them from what I've seen in reviews. Aside from the choice of AMD also gives other improvements such as PCI-E 4 etc, which the Intel still lacks.

I'm still glad I got the i7-9700K though, it's held up well in those gaming benchmarks.

[Xlucine]

The 10600K performs well for a 6 core chip, but it's almost 8 core money - you could free up a lot of budget for your GPU going down to a 3600, or trade up to a 3700X (cut back on the cooler to free up the £25 needed) and get a more future-proof system (ready for games designed for the nest gen of consoles that expect 8 zen cores)

[vanillasky]

It's interesting to see boost up the clock speed to 5Ghz, which is telling that Intel cannot compete in other areas. The TDP on the 10900k is 125W versus AMD's 3900X only at 105W with 2 more cores. Not to mention that Intel is running on a 14nm lithography vs. AMD's 7nm. I think this is a telling time and Intel will struggle unless they can make the shift to a similar lithography. They may have the crown for fastest clock, but that battle was fought many years ago. Now it's about efficiency, lower TDP, maximum Cores. And ultimately, where AMD will shine through is on VALUE. Intel's diversification into discreet GPUs is another nod in the direction of a need to compete.

[3dcandy]

It's interesting to see boost up the clock speed to 5Ghz, which is telling that Intel cannot compete in other areas. The TDP on the 10900k is 125W versus AMD's 3900X only at 105W with 2 more cores. Not to mention that Intel is running on a 14nm lithography vs. AMD's 7nm. I think this is a telling time and Intel will struggle unless they can make the shift to a similar lithography. They may have the crown for fastest clock, but that battle was fought many years ago. Now it's about efficiency, lower TDP, maximum Cores. And ultimately, where AMD will shine through is on VALUE. Intel's diversification into discreet GPUs is another nod in the direction of a need to compete.

TDP is 125? Should be but it can easily hit 225W as tested by many people