Intel Core i5-10600 spotted in MSI board company

[Flying Sausages]

https://www.compspice.com/intel-core-i5-10600-spotted-in-msi-board-company/

Quote

The release of new CPUs is just around the corner, which is confirmed by recent entries in the online 3DMark test suite database. They are dedicated to the 6-core Core i5-10600 chip, which worked in tandem with the MSI motherboard based on Intel Z490 logic.

Quote

According to 3DMark, the Intel Core i5-10600 processor operates with six cores with support for Hyper-Threading. The nominal frequency of this “stone” was 3.3 GHz, and in Turbo Boost mode it accelerated up to 4.7 GHz

Quote

As regards the results of the Core i5-10600 in the 3DMark 11 Extreme test, they are quite expected to correspond to the Core i7-8700 processor: 12.7 thousand “Parrots” Physics Score versus ~ 13 thousand points

So the 10th gen i5 with hyperthreading performs close to the 8th gen i7 8700. For the cost of a new chipset board and socket, I expect the i5 with 12 threads to be better but in reality it performs close to the 8th gen i7! 

[LogicWeasel]

There were already signs that with hardware mitigations added to the 10th gen (and the fact that they're so stuck on 14nm it hurts) that the chips are hardly even an improvement.  I think it was also some leaks about how the mobile 10th gen is almost no better, and the high-end 10th gen can't really top the 9900KS.  Makes sense then that they'd start tacking on features they held back on before like hyperthreading for the i5 line just to try to differentiate an already crowded stack of refreshed 14nm Skylake-based design.

[Princess Luna]

I mean lets be honest here, whoever bought an i7 8700K made a terrific purchase.

 

Chip that came in 2017 is still pretty much the best hexa core in the market even with the R5 3600X out and apparently Intel is unable to beat it either yet.

[MageTank]

2 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

I mean lets be honest here, whoever bought an i7 8700K made a terrific purchase.

 

Chip that came in 2017 is still pretty much the best hexa core in the market even with the R5 3600X out and apparently Intel is unable to beat it either yet.

Got mine for a steal. $200 through Intel's Retail Edge after shipping shortly after it launched. It does 5.2ghz on a custom loop with a naked die at 1.4v and runs well on any game I've played. I contemplated upgrading to a 9900K, but honestly I don't really need the extra cores, especially not at a potential cost in clock speeds if I don't get as lucky as this chip.

 

If the Core i5 10600 performs even remotely as good as the 8700k at a lower cost, it will still be a hot seller.

[Stu_Bear]

Yeah...unless they sale the 10600 for like $200...I don't see why anyone would think it's a great deal if a new mobo is required.  That said my lame self only just yesterday bought a 8700k...found an open box for $300...already had a z370m...no brainer.  As a gamer and web-surfer...think the 8700k is the cat's pajamas.  Not poo-pooing on 9th gen...neat stuff but too much money...not enough performance advantage.  Still if 9th gen was priced the same as 8th gen...

[Stu_Bear]

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Got mine for a steal. $200 through Intel's Retail Edge after shipping shortly after it launched. It does 5.2ghz on a custom loop with a naked die at 1.4v and runs well on any game I've played. I contemplated upgrading to a 9900K, but honestly I don't really need the extra cores, especially not at a potential cost in clock speeds if I don't get as lucky as this chip.

 

If the Core i5 10600 performs even remotely as good as the 8700k at a lower cost, it will still be a hot seller.

U bought a 8700k for $200?  I just paid $300

[Zando_]

2 minutes ago, Stu_Bear said:

I don't see why anyone would think it's a great deal if a new mobo is required.

People build new rigs. 

[Stu_Bear]

Just now, Zando Bob said:

People build new rigs. 

True...bet they will have some bold new graphics on a shiny board...pitching some new technology that no vendor will ever make hardware for

[RejZoR]

12 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

I mean lets be honest here, whoever bought an i7 8700K made a terrific purchase.

 

Chip that came in 2017 is still pretty much the best hexa core in the market even with the R5 3600X out and apparently Intel is unable to beat it either yet.

I still have 5820K which is basically the same thing. The IPC thing is debatable and it has 200MHz higher clock than mine in OC state. It's nic ethat R5 2600 and 3600 series kicked Intel around to finally step up the game.

[Stu_Bear]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

I still have 5820K which is basically the same thing. The IPC thing is debatable and it has 200MHz higher clock than mine in OC state. It's nic ethat R5 2600 and 3600 series kicked Intel around to finally step up the game.

Yeah I wish I had no pc when the 3600/3600x came out...I'd have all that money to do a proper ALL AMD build...then intel/invidia can go jump off a cliff...and I'd throw a kegger afterwards!

[Zando_]

Just now, Stu_Bear said:

True...bet they will have some bold new graphics on a shiny board...pitching some new technology that no vendor will ever make hardware for

What? It's a motherboard... they're standard ATX... they fit in standard cases... socket sizes are standard and this is likely still on LGA1151 so no need to even get new brackets... what's the new tech they're pushing that nobody else makes hardware for? Isn't it confirmed that this is still on PCIe 3.0 and everything too? DDR4 as well, it's all standard. 
 

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

I still have 5820K which is basically the same thing. The IPC thing is debatable and it has 200MHz higher clock than mine in OC state. It's nic ethat R5 2600 and 3600 series kicked Intel around to finally step up the game.

No. 5820K is on par with R5 2600 single core, a little bit snappier if well tuned, due to ringbus arch. It's faster overall because it clocks higher, but it cannot clock high enough to match or beat an 8700K unless you have a seriously good bin and are fine with running very very high voltages.

[SeraphicWings]

46 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

I mean lets be honest here, whoever bought an i7 8700K made a terrific purchase.

 

Chip that came in 2017 is still pretty much the best hexa core in the market even with the R5 3600X out and apparently Intel is unable to beat it either yet.

I'd like to say that the finest of the 14mm is actually the 7700K, too bad it was a 4 cores

[MageTank]

41 minutes ago, Stu_Bear said:

U bought a 8700k for $200?  I just paid $300

Yeah. Intel does this thing a couple times a year that if you work for a retail store, or a corporate office for a retail chain, you can buy processors and other cool gadgets for a heavily discounted price after doing some training exercises. Gotta say, best processor that I've had, especially for the price.

[RejZoR]

53 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

What? It's a motherboard... they're standard ATX... they fit in standard cases... socket sizes are standard and this is likely still on LGA1151 so no need to even get new brackets... what's the new tech they're pushing that nobody else makes hardware for? Isn't it confirmed that this is still on PCIe 3.0 and everything too? DDR4 as well, it's all standard. 
 

No. 5820K is on par with R5 2600 single core, a little bit snappier if well tuned, due to ringbus arch. It's faster overall because it clocks higher, but it cannot clock high enough to match or beat an 8700K unless you have a seriously good bin and are fine with running very very high voltages.

8700K is better just because of higher clocks. People keep on lapping about "IPC" improvements, but the reality is, IPC hasn't changed for years in Intel's camp, all the per core gains they make are clock based. 8700K is faster per core because it turbos to 4.7GHz or is all core overclocked to that or more. And because of cache sizes or tweaks in that department. IPC frankly isn't one of them. If my 5820K could clock to 4.7GHz it would be pretty much the same thing.

[Reytime]

1 hour ago, Princess Luna said:

I mean lets be honest here, whoever bought an i7 8700K made a terrific purchase.

 

Chip that came in 2017 is still pretty much the best hexa core in the market even with the R5 3600X out and apparently Intel is unable to beat it either yet.

I am very happy with the 8700K. The only reason why I'd upgrade next year is just to have the latest and greatest.

[MageTank]

37 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

8700K is better just because of higher clocks. People keep on lapping about "IPC" improvements, but the reality is, IPC hasn't changed for years in Intel's camp, all the per core gains they make are clock based. 8700K is faster per core because it turbos to 4.7GHz or is all core overclocked to that or more. And because of cache sizes or tweaks in that department. IPC frankly isn't one of them. If my 5820K could clock to 4.7GHz it would be pretty much the same thing.

There was an IPC difference between Haswell and Skylake though. This is well documented online from several sources. Not only that, but we are talking two entirely different memory subsystems that can impact gaming performance. The consumer mainstream IMC's tend to have a much lower latency than the HEDT chips which helped quite a bit in terms of minimum framerates and overall gaming experience.

 

A 5820k clocked at 4.7ghz would not perform as well as an 8700k clocked at 4.7ghz, that I can guarantee.

[porina]

1 hour ago, MageTank said:

There was an IPC difference between Haswell and Skylake though.

Definitely. Skylake through to Coffee Lake is essentially the same architecture wise. Haswell/Broadwell behaved differently. In unlimited IPC terms (that is, not bottlenecked by cache or ram) I know Prime95 is 14% faster on Skylake than Haswell. Skylake in testing is identical to Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake and Skylake-X when not using AVX-512 instructions.

 

Similarly for Cinebench R15, I got the following points per core per GHz, but this is subject to a very weak ram/cache influence so there can be more variation when comparing different systems:

Skylake 43.9 (56.1 with HT)

Haswell 39.3 (50.3 with HT)

[MageTank]

16 minutes ago, porina said:

Definitely. Skylake through to Coffee Lake is essentially the same architecture wise. Haswell/Broadwell behaved differently. In unlimited IPC terms (that is, not bottlenecked by cache or ram) I know Prime95 is 14% faster on Skylake than Haswell. Skylake in testing is identical to Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake and Skylake-X when not using AVX-512 instructions.

 

Similarly for Cinebench R15, I got the following points per core per GHz, but this is subject to a very weak ram/cache influence so there can be more variation when comparing different systems:

Skylake 43.9 (56.1 with HT)

Haswell 39.3 (50.3 with HT)

My testing produced nearly identical results. I even purchased an ASUS board capable of using DDR3 to make sure what I was seeing wasn't simply gains from the DDR4 memory controller, but aside from heavy compression at higher memory bandwidth, it seemed negligible. 

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, Stu_Bear said:

U bought a 8700k for $200?  I just paid $300

Bought my 8700k for 270 shortly after the 9700k came out and I bought it at microcenter so I got an extra $30 off the motherboard. Didn't see the point in the 9700k and the 9900k seemed like it would heat my room up more than I would like. 

[DildorTheDecent]

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

A 5820k clocked at 4.7ghz would not perform as well as an 8700k clocked at 4.7ghz, that I can guarantee.

Having owned a 5820K that could clock to 4.7GHz all core, can confirm that the 8700K was faster.

 

Made me a bit jealous at the time since there's a mainstream chip beating my HEDT chip. I'd need to push for roughly 5.1GHz all core to match a 8700K (assume stock clocks).

[RejZoR]

7 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

Having owned a 5820K that could clock to 4.7GHz all core, can confirm that the 8700K was faster.

 

Made me a bit jealous at the time since there's a mainstream chip beating my HEDT chip. I'd need to push for roughly 5.1GHz all core to match a 8700K (assume stock clocks).

How much faster? 400-500€ faster? I very much doubt it...

[MageTank]

14 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

How much faster? 400-500€ faster? I very much doubt it...

The context of the posts have nothing to do with money. The context was IPC and relative speed at the same clocks.

[RejZoR]

50 minutes ago, MageTank said:

The context of the posts have nothing to do with money. The context was IPC and relative speed at the same clocks.

It has everything to do with money. If that was irrelevant, EVERYONE would be rocking 1099999999KS and EPYC ROMAN EMPIRE CPU's... The sole reason I even mentioned my ancient 5820K is how little we've progressed in all these years when it comes to CPU's. And if it wasn't for AMD's recent insane core count releases, my old clunker would still be relevant for next 5 years...

[amdorintel]

6 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

I mean lets be honest here, whoever bought an i7 8700K made a terrific purchase.

Chip that came in 2017 is still pretty much the best hexa core in the market even with the R5 3600X out and apparently Intel is unable to beat it either yet.

Maybe they chose not to beat the 8700K, focus on other things.

[porina]

11 hours ago, DildorTheDecent said:

Having owned a 5820K that could clock to 4.7GHz all core, can confirm that the 8700K was faster.

 

Made me a bit jealous at the time since there's a mainstream chip beating my HEDT chip. I'd need to push for roughly 5.1GHz all core to match a 8700K (assume stock clocks).

As always it depends on use cases. Light uses like Cinebench might show near enough ideal scaling but if you push harder loads the extra ram channels on 5820k will start showing their worth. Also PCIe lanes. We're in a similar position now with the higher AM4 CPUs being on a consumer platform...

 

10 hours ago, RejZoR said:

It has everything to do with money.

It isn't all or nothing. Money plays a part, but only one part. How big that part is depends on the buyer.

 

9 hours ago, amdorintel said:

Maybe they chose not to beat the 8700K, focus on other things.

For practical purposes it's close enough it doesn't really matter now that other factors become more important. If they had used better binned parts they could go further up, but those are reserved for higher models in the range.