10900K...Why buy or Why not?? :-/

[richintheveins]

I can't say I'm impressed. 2 more cores and 4 more threads with a whole bunch of "Up to" Marketing without any real performance increase to consider. I was really hoping for this to give the 3900x some true competition, but instead we just got a more power hungry chip on old architecture. Just my thoughts. If anyone has any additional insight please humor me....

[ZephCloud]

Tdp and power are not disclosed until 20 May 2020...so...idk

[Fasauceome]

we do not have a single performance metric yet, only decide what to buy after you've seen what it can do in the real world.

[RadiatingLight]

Well it's a better buy than the 9900K so at least there's something, but nobody should really have been buying the 9900K anyway, so there's little reason to buy this new one, especially factoring in the monster cooler you're going to need.

I'm eagerly awaiting independant benchmarks and power draw numbers. 300W under load wouldn't surprise me.

[richintheveins]

Just now, Fasauceome said:

we do not have a single performance metric yet, only decide what to buy after you've seen what it can do in the real world.

I agree, but I more than likely wouldn't buy it regardless. I just want some real competition. Intel needs to step it up. 

[RadiatingLight]

2 minutes ago, richintheveins said:

I agree, but I more than likely wouldn't buy it regardless. I just want some real competition. Intel needs to step it up. 

The real competition for now is just AMD beating themselves. If the rumors are anything to go by, Zen 3's release in September will be a pretty big step up over Zen 2 with higher clockspeeds and better IPC, although core counts will remain the same.

[Mister Woof]

only one that looks interesting is the i7-10700KF, but that's only until AMD does a price cut on the 3700x to $249 or the 3900x to $299.

[Guest]

14nm + + + + + +++++

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Is 14nm dead yet? Beat to death??

[BobVonBob]

8 minutes ago, ZephCloud said:

Tdp and power are not disclosed until 20 May 2020...so...idk

TDP is 125W, there was a thread about it yesterday. On the other hand, we all know that the 9900K's "95W" was more like 175W, so I'd expect this to be somewhere along the lines of 225.

[ZephCloud]

1 minute ago, BobVonBob said:

TDP is 125W, there was a thread about it yesterday. On the other hand, we all know that the 9900K's "95W" was more like 175W, so I'd expect this to be somewhere along the lines of 225.

Ya...I mean the real tdp...haha

[richintheveins]

1 minute ago, RadiatingLight said:

The real competition for now is just AMD beating themselves. If the rumors are anything to go buy, Zen 3's release in September will be a pretty big step up over Zen 2 with higher clockspeeds and better IPC, although core counts will remain the same.

I agree I just was hoping that even this old 14 nm chip would close the gap with the 3900X (specifically multi core work loads). That would be a pretty big deal considering its dated technology. 

[Guest]

14nm +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Plusplusplusplusplusplusplusplus

[Zando_]

6 minutes ago, BobVonBob said:

TDP is 125W, there was a thread about it yesterday. On the other hand, we all know that the 9900K's "95W" was more like 175W, so I'd expect this to be somewhere along the lines of 225.

Up to 250W at stock. If it's anything like any other Intel CPU ever, that'll go much higher once you start messing with voltages. 

 

To answer the OP, eh. For people who like Intel it's a solid upgrade in multicore perf over a 9900K, given the higher clock headroom (will be interesting to see what they can put out on all-core with a manual OC too) they'll likely slightly outperform older chips in games, and keep that top end lead over Ryzen (it only really comes into play at like, 240Hz, but there are people who do play at that). The new CPUs are also a far better value at MSRP than the older stuff, same as 10-series X299 chips. 

 

[richintheveins]

1 hour ago, Zando Bob said:

Up to 250W at stock. If it's anything like any other Intel CPU ever, that'll go much higher once you start messing with voltages. 

 

To answer the OP, eh. For people who like Intel it's a solid upgrade in multicore perf over a 9900K, given the higher clock headroom (will be interesting to see what they can put out on all-core with a manual OC too) they'll likely slightly outperform older chips in games, and keep that top end lead over Ryzen (it only really comes into play at like, 240Hz, but there are people who do play at that). The new CPUs are also a far better value at MSRP than the older stuff, same as 10-series X299 chips. 

 

I agree on everything you're saying ; however, I would like for them to stop doing "solid upgrades" and bring some inovation to the table. I personally prefer Intel, but I'm losing faith in their product. Hopefully this 14 NM +++++++ ends up being alot more competitive with the 3900x then I'm expecting. Gaming is important to me, but PC's can offer so much more. I am belief (if nothing else) this will be a way better gaming/streaming chip with the added cores. 

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, richintheveins said:

I agree on everything you're saying ; however, I would like for them to stop doing "solid upgrades" and bring some inovation to the table. I personally prefer Intel, but I'm losing faith in their product. Hopefully this 14 NM +++++++ ends up being alot more competitive with the 3900x then I'm expecting. Gaming is important to me, but PC's can offer so much more. I am belief (if nothing else) this will be a way better gaming/streaming chip with the added cores. 

I'm an outlier, I really don't care about the process node. I find Intel's stuff more fun (I ran the best AMD had to offer back with a 2700X on a Crosshair VII Hero with a Vega Frontier Edition, switched back to an X58 setup with a 1080 Ti lol), and their Sandy-Ivy 32nm/22nm chips and 22nm/14nm Haswell-Broadwell chips were faster than the 12nm/14nm Zen/Zen+ chips prior to spectre/meltdown nerfs, Intel's current 14nm stays competitive with AMD's 7nm performance wise too so eh, why does it really matter. The process nodes aren't directly comparable anyways lmao, AMD's 7nm is about as dense as Intel's (mostly failed) 10nm IIRC. I don't care about heat/power consumption, I have a beefy Noctua, AIO/CLC, and custom loop to deal with the heat. And then high wattage PSUs + cheap power so power draw is mostly a non-issue. I don't do anything that actually needs high core counts (my getting a 6950X soon is purely because I want the best in socket chip for X99, not because I can even use my current 5960X's cores/threads lol) so AMD having more to offer there doesn't matter at all. 

If you're into purely benchmark numbers per dollar, AMD is very tasty right now. If not, just buy quality stuff you're familiar with, both platforms have plenty to offer depending on what you, specifically, want from them. 

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, richintheveins said:

I agree on everything you're saying ; however, I would like for them to stop doing "solid upgrades" and bring some inovation to the table. I personally prefer Intel, but I'm losing faith in their product. Hopefully this 14 NM +++++++ ends up being alot more competitive with the 3900x then I'm expecting. Gaming is important to me, but PC's can offer so much more. I am belief (if nothing else) this will be a way better gaming/streaming chip with the added cores. 

You're missing a few....let me help.

 

Plus + plus + plus + plus + plus + plus x2

 

Lets see the price first. 500 bucks for only 10 cores??? No thanks Ill pass that. (I hope under 300$ for new Intel 10th gen but super doubtful.)

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

We don't know dick about shit as regards the performance. Wait for the reviews

 

never pre order anything

[cagoblex]

I would say hold on to it. If you are a gamer/light content creator, it would be better to buy a 9700K or 9900K as these would drop the price after the release of 10900K. If you actually have a workload that requires 10 cores 20 threads, then you would almost certainly need something else that the mainstream chipset can't provide, such as enough PCI-E lanes, or ECC memory support. In that case LGA2066 or even LGA3647 is the right way to go. I just don't see a 'mainstream' 10 core CPU with over 200W+ power draw would make sense at this point, 

[Zberg]

I think its an interesting product stack, and honestly more than I was expecting from intel (which wasnt a lot!).  Will be interesting to see if this "up to" stuff pans out and the ability to actually get a high all core OC.

 

I think they will continue to sell out despite AMD's better performance per dollar, with the condition that they maintain the halo effect of the significantly higher core clock.  The combination of best in gaming, highest core clock, and ability to actually tinker meaningfully in overclocking is the only saving grace of the intel high end.  

 

I remember seeing a lot of "9900k is stupid, who is this part for, bad price/performance"...then I couldnt find a 9900k anywhere...then all those youtubers put 9900k in every single gaming max rig they made...  Now its still selling above MSRP to this day.  9900KS was laughed off as a joke and desperate marketing gimick (which isnt untrue!) but sold out instantly, and you cant find one on the interwebs for less than 200% markup.  The effect of "best in gaming" and overclockable is seriously the main thing saving these chips at this point; but it still works.  I suspect the same will continue with the 10900k.  Every youtuber building a min/max "best gaming build" will do it with SLI 2080ti (or soon to be 3080ti) and a 10900K (or KS lol).

 

The mid range i5, if it has decent performance, may make a comeback especially if they can be overclocked well.  However, AMD's next launch could very well completely crush this product stack so that will be interesting to see too.

 

Looking forward to the guys putting all these through their paces and seeing if they are worth anything.

 

 

 

 

[Falkentyne]

7 hours ago, BobVonBob said:

TDP is 125W, there was a thread about it yesterday. On the other hand, we all know that the 9900K's "95W" was more like 175W, so I'd expect this to be somewhere along the lines of 225.

This is true.

Power POUT=VR VOUT * Current IOUT.

 

CPU Package Power is *NOT* accurate power draw because that's equal to VID * IOUT.

 

VID !=VR VOUT.  VID can be manipulated just by changing the AC Loadline, DC Loadline, and even IMON Slope/IMON offset!

 

Average POUT of 9900K/KS for most users who were not trying to power virus the thing was 150-200W.

So slap two more cores on, 200-250W is reasonable if you're going by 25 watts / core.

 

BTW someone leaked that ICCMAX is 245 amps.  Found it on some japanese or chinese twitter where someone was mentioning power stages or VRM's or something.

Makes sense since 193A was ICCMAX on 9900k/S (24A/core).  245 amps on a 10 core means it's still 24A/core.

 

*edit* 

 

https://www.techbang.com/posts/78199-intels-10th-gen-core-desktop-processor-comet-lake-s-is-here-400-chipset-compatible-with-rocket-lake-s?from=home_headline

[Mister Woof]

1 hour ago, orbitalbuzzsaw said:

We don't know dick about shit as regards the performance. Wait for the reviews

 

never pre order anything

Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but given this is nothing actually new, it's more than reasonable to assume performance based on what we know about coffeelake.

 

That said, it's more of the same. Again.

[richintheveins]

2 hours ago, cagoblex said:

I would say hold on to it. If you are a gamer/light content creator, it would be better to buy a 9700K or 9900K as these would drop the price after the release of 10900K. If you actually have a workload that requires 10 cores 20 threads, then you would almost certainly need something else that the mainstream chipset can't provide, such as enough PCI-E lanes, or ECC memory support. In that case LGA2066 or even LGA3647 is the right way to go. I just don't see a 'mainstream' 10 core CPU with over 200W+ power draw would make sense at this point, 

 

I agree with you, but of course sometimes all sense is thrown out the door and you buy the most powerful mainstream gaming CPU and put it in your rig just because you can.

AKA the i9 9900K

 

****Its a beautiful thing to play AAA titles on Ultra and consistently get 80-120 FPS.****

 

There will be people who will buy this CPU (pending Benchmarks and reviews) just to do that. 

[richintheveins]

1 hour ago, Zberg said:

I think its an interesting product stack, and honestly more than I was expecting from intel (which wasnt a lot!).  Will be interesting to see if this "up to" stuff pans out and the ability to actually get a high all core OC.

 

I think they will continue to sell out despite AMD's better performance per dollar, with the condition that they maintain the halo effect of the significantly higher core clock.  The combination of best in gaming, highest core clock, and ability to actually tinker meaningfully in overclocking is the only saving grace of the intel high end.  

 

I remember seeing a lot of "9900k is stupid, who is this part for, bad price/performance"...then I couldnt find a 9900k anywhere...then all those youtubers put 9900k in every single gaming max rig they made...  Now its still selling above MSRP to this day.  9900KS was laughed off as a joke and desperate marketing gimick (which isnt untrue!) but sold out instantly, and you cant find one on the interwebs for less than 200% markup.  The effect of "best in gaming" and overclockable is seriously the main thing saving these chips at this point; but it still works.  I suspect the same will continue with the 10900k.  Every youtuber building a min/max "best gaming build" will do it with SLI 2080ti (or soon to be 3080ti) and a 10900K (or KS lol).

 

The mid range i5, if it has decent performance, may make a comeback especially if they can be overclocked well.  However, AMD's next launch could very well completely crush this product stack so that will be interesting to see too.

 

Looking forward to the guys putting all these through their paces and seeing if they are worth anything.

 

 

 

 

You hit it on the nail. There is a market for these CPUs and as long as they are enthusiast type chips there will be buyers; however, I thing its important for Intel to show some promise beyond tinkering and high clock speeds. Like many of you have said we have to wait and see the reviews to be able to really quantify the performance. Only then can we speak on the value. As of now I'm a bit underwhelmed, but maybe just maybe Intel will prove me wrong once they are released for review. 

 

I'll be watching.........

[Napero]

I’m unsure if I should wait for the new ones or go with i9-9900K.

Some people say ”go AMD” but I’ve heard that Intel is better for gaming? (It is what I do).

I was told that I could maybe get better for same price (Intel).

(I’m total newbie with this computer building stuff). 

[richintheveins]

3 hours ago, Napero said:

I’m unsure if I should wait for the new ones or go with i9-9900K.

Some people say ”go AMD” but I’ve heard that Intel is better for gaming? (It is what I do).

I was told that I could maybe get better for same price (Intel).

(I’m total newbie with this computer building stuff). 

That is a good question and its entirely subjective. Whatever you create should be tailored to what you do; however, I must say that AMD CPU's are really good in gaming as well. Price to performance the 3700x and 3800x are really good value and do really well in gaming. If your main focus is gaming then the 9700k is awesome and will edge out the prior mentioned cpus in gaming alone; however, you are paying a premium and the 3800x will give you good gaming and excellent multi core performance plus all the ryzen chips are future proofed with their new 7 nm architecture that offers more L3 Cache and PCIe 4.0.  

 

If you want the best of  both worlds (outside of the pricey 3950x) then currently the 3900x gives you amazing gaming performance plus amazing multi core performance so if you are streaming it will handle that with ease due its 12 core/24 threads. 

 

Now if all you care about is FPS. I mean literally ALL YOU CARE ABOUT IS FPS. and you plan to play on either a 240 hz monitor or a ultra wide/super ultra wide and (this is important) you plan to purchase a 2080 ti. If all of those are checked then go with an high end intel chip. 

 

Me personally I love clock speed and gaming performance. I'm rocking a 9900KS with a 2080 ti connected to a  LG38GL950G. I did this to be able to put out as many Frames as possible while playing Modern Warfare, Division 2, Resident Evil 2/3, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order etc on ULTRA. I don't care about synthetic multi core performance as to me my cpu does amazing in adobe premier and various other things I do for work. 

 

So to get through this long message building a PC is a huge decision. If you like clock speed, overclocking, your main focus is gaming, and you plan to build an expensive gaming rig with all the highest end parts then WAIT and see what this 10900k will do. It should perform better than the 9900k and will offer better multi core performance at the same price point as the 9900k today.

 

I'm sure its clear as mud. lol 

 

But that's the beauty of today's market there are so many options and really in the DIY space the options are plentiful. 

 

Enjoy building its one of my favorite past times.