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

[HEXUS]

They're not the great leap forward that 10th Gen branding deserves.

Read more.

[lumireleon]

how comes during gaming the 10900k uses less power than the 12 core Ryzen??

[ohmaheid]

how comes during gaming the 10900k uses less power than the 12 core Ryzen??

Yeah. Weird one that.
less cores/turbo features in use?
It would've been useful to see the temps when stressing the setup too.

Still, in all...a decent performance from the new gaming top-dog, considering it's on an old process.
But still far too expensive, given you are essentially building a whole new system - An expensive one at that.

[Terbinator]

That Multi-threaded power draw 🙈

how comes during gaming the 10900k uses less power than the 12 core Ryzen??

Could be to do with the game they're using not pushing the 10900K hard?

[Helios451]

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?

[Thorsson]

Looks like a generation to miss.

[Tarinder]

how comes during gaming the 10900k uses less power than the 12 core Ryzen??

That is what we thought, too. But the numbers came out the same each time. Guess that the chip is somewhat frugal when running only one or two cores at full chat. Running them all flat-out is a different story, as shown by the Blender test.

[3dcandy]

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

[MagicWok]

Looks like a generation to miss.

If Intel were to make a competitive statement that this platform could last 3 or 4 generation cycles, then I can see the potential of buying into this generation. But otherwise, just for now, an B550 or X570 makes more financial and upgrade path sense - at least to my simple head anyway

[Kanoe]

That is what we thought, too. But the numbers came out the same each time. Guess that the chip is somewhat frugal when running only one or two cores at full chat. Running them all flat-out is a different story, as shown by the Blender test.

Wondered if the difference could be down to platform features, isn't PCI-e Gen4 more power hungry than Gen3, would be sort of interesting if you could test on a X470 for AMD with PCI-e Gen 3 to see if that made a difference.

Also doesn't AMD's IO chip (Southbridge?) eat like 15w? (hence needing a small fan), i bet Intel's is far less than that too.

[3dcandy]

If Intel were to make a competitive statement that this platform could last 3 or 4 generation cycles, then I can see the potential of buying into this generation. But otherwise, just for now, an B550 or X570 makes more financial and upgrade path sense - at least to my simple head anyway

X570 isn't cheap though...
B550 might make more sense from a pure financial point of view.

I'm actually happy right now with the 2700X in this system that was on offer at under £150

[ksdp37]

Thought I regretted switching to AMD too soon with the 3900x as gaming was the only reason to stick with Intel and at the 4k resolution I play, glad I made the move... Can't wait for their Zen 3 series.

[kalniel]

That is what we thought, too. But the numbers came out the same each time. Guess that the chip is somewhat frugal when running only one or two cores at full chat. Running them all flat-out is a different story, as shown by the Blender test.

Might be motherboard related too - the idle power draw is quite impressive, so perhaps it's VRM gating.

[Jonatron]

A lot of money for a few more gaming FPS. Does anyone know how it performs and compares while streaming and gaming?

[3dcandy]

Wondered if the difference could be down to platform features, isn't PCI-e Gen4 more power hungry than Gen3, would be sort of interesting if you could test on a X470 for AMD with PCI-e Gen 3 to see if that made a difference.

Also doesn't AMD's IO chip (Southbridge?) eat like 15w? (hence needing a small fan), i bet Intel's is far less than that too.

Yup 15w is specified chipset power...
I'm lucky enough to have a 9th gen system here to compare to a Ryzen system and the Intel system always seems to drop clockspeed down a tad quicker and run at a lower frequency compared to the Ryzen subjectively. There isn't much in it but I feel they approach idling and boost etc. slightly differently with the Intel solution quicker to reduce back down and sometimes less likely to spike up and down a bit.

Genuinely not scientific by any means but it's there...

However once you load cores up the Intel system draws more power and can't hold it's boost for the same time as the Ryzen system can.

[3dcandy]

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