Intel Core i9-10900K CPU Flagship Review ""Leaks"" Out -Wccftech (Much salt needed)

[marldorthegreat]

So another day brings another "leak". Apparently there is a review of intel's latest flagship i9 10900k, and it isn't looking good for intel, and even worse when you consider that 4th gen Ryzen is coming this year

Sorce: https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-flagship-review-leaks-out/

Quote

An early review of Intel's upcoming Core i9-10900k flagship has leaked out from Teclab @Bilibili (via Videocardz). The review pits the Core i9-10900k against AMD's 3rd Generation Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 9 3950X flagships. The sample tested by Teclab appears to be a retail sample and has a base clock of 3.7 GHz. While the Core i9 10900K has similar performance in gaming tests, it is outclassed by AMD's 3900 and 3950X in pretty much all other benchmarks.

Although this might not seem fair, considering the 3900x is a 12 core part, they are going to be the same price!

Quote

Intel 10900K Gaming Performance: Tested aggregate ~3.3% faster than AMD 3950X, 4.1% faster than AMD 3900X

And I think the most interesting part of this, the 10 core intel CPU consume more power than a R9 3950x, a 16 core CPU. (It's like intel's FX 9590 moment) 

Power consumption

 

A Quick Summary

Quote

A summary and translation courtesy of Videocardz:

• i9 10900K power consumption and temperature are high again, 360 integrated water cooling is the minimum heat dissipation standard
• Rely on CPU rendering + transcoding applications, or choose Ryzen 9 is stronger
• Playing games and daily operations Application, the new i9 at 5GHz + clock speed is indeed faster
• The overclocking performance comparison test of the three processors has been completed, and it will be launched in the near future
• Finally, correct the memory parameters in the configuration list, AMD X570 part, the frequency is DDR4 -3600 The timing is 18-22-22-42 1T FCLK = 1800

Personally I think If this is true, and it might very well be, Intel is going to be behind (Probably for the first time in over a decade) in gaming, and efficiency. For someone that started taking an interest in PC hardware during the FX 8350 days, this is truly amazing, AMD are back and will not be going anywhere soon. 

 

Potential talking point

- Ryzen 4th gen is rumoured to offer up to 20% IPC improvements over 3rd gen, and a bump in clock speeds. Could we see a CPU from AMD that is not only ahead of anything intel has, but ahead by 10-20% while using significantly less power?

[AndreiArgeanu]

I saw a news which said that the i9 10900k runs at 90C under a 240mm AIO, if that is true, imagine how little overclocking headroom you've got. If that is the case it could be that to get any sizeable performance difference when overclocking you may need to get the LN2 out, or a beefy 360mm AIO. I'm really curious to see the i9 in a small form factor case with limited cooling.

[marldorthegreat]

1 minute ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

I saw a news which said that the i9 10900k runs at 90C under a 240mm AIO, if that is true, imagine how little overclocking headroom you've got. If that is the case it could be that to get any sizeable performance difference when overclocking you may need to get the LN2 out, or a beefy 360mm AIO. I'm really curious to see the i9 in a small form factor case with limited cooling.

Oh yeah! That's an interesting point. It amazes me that these things are going to have Mobile variants coming, might actually start a fire. And good luck putting this into anything small, going to need a very beefy cooler or your just going to get a 9900k on a new motherboard! 

[KWelz]

I am starting to feel bad for Intel here.  I think I will hold onto my 3900X and 3800X.   

 

[Inkz]

Hmm, well usually in a lot of games the 9900k is more than 3% better than AMD so I am doing to take this with a MASSIVE mountain of salt, I am skeptical. 

[straight_stewie]

Wait, we're mad at Intel because even an allegedly not updated 7 year old  Intel design is still faster in non-optimized-multithreaded-workloads (most real world workloads) than AMDs fastest offerings?

This is why you don't take the popularity of an argument into account when forming opinions...

[KWelz]

Just now, straight_stewie said:

Wait, we're mad because even an allegedly not updated 7 year old design is still faster in non-optimized-multithreaded-workloads (most real world workloads) than AMDs fastest offerings?

This is why you don't take the popularity of an argument into account when forming opinions...

That is an interesting way to twist the story.  

[straight_stewie]

2 minutes ago, KWelz said:

That is an interesting way to twist the story.  

Didn't seem like a twist to me. The OP's source literally says:

4 hours ago, marldorthegreat said:

Intel 10900K Gaming Performance: Tested aggregate ~3.3% faster than AMD 3950X, 4.1% faster than AMD 3900X

 

[marldorthegreat]

Just now, straight_stewie said:

Didn't seem like a twist to me. The OP's source literally says:

 

But also consumes more power (A lot more) , and literally doing anything else is faster on AMD. Not to mention the fact that AMD has a better platform, with newer features. Yeah gaming performance is better, but 3% misses that the CPU is more expensive, with more expensive motherboards on a socket that will be dead by the end of next year. 

[williamcll]

But can I get better single thread OC on the ryzen? It's all AMD needed to completely defeat Intel. 

 

Also, why not just source the news from VideoCardz? 

[marldorthegreat]

4 minutes ago, williamcll said:

But can I get better single thread OC on the ryzen? It's all AMD needed to completely defeat Intel. 

I think you can now, clock for clock Zen 2 has better ipc, but intel can push clock speeds on a Very mature node. If ryzen 4th gen gets 20% better ipc, and 10% better clock speeds intel may actually be stuck.

Also, as much as I want AMD to stick it to intel, I also want Intel to do the same. Competition is always good, I want to be a little excited when new CPU's launch and genuinely have to compare which CPU makes sense for me.Think about it, the highest end non HEDT Cpu from intel was 4 cores 8 threads before Ryzen, now it's 10 cores within 4 years. 

[straight_stewie]

Just now, marldorthegreat said:

and literally doing anything else is faster on AMD

No. Doing exactly one type of thing is faster on AMD, and that one thing is not nearly as common as people think it is.

 

That's why AMD always wins in Cinebench and other very very similar benchmarks, but loses everywhere else.

 

Cinebench (and the like) tests only very highly optimized multithreaded workloads: Of course the processor with the most cores is going to win when the point of the benchmark is basically to figure out who has the most cores.

People hate Intel because Intel chips cost more. But they also perform better in all but the one relatively rare case mentioned above (at this level anyway. Let's talk about HEDT and server processors shall we?). Is it really that wrong for a company to charge more money for a product that performs better in the vast majority of cases?

[marldorthegreat]

3 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

No. Doing exactly one type of thing is faster on AMD, and that one thing is not nearly as common as people think it is.

 

That's why AMD always wins in Cinebench and other very very similar benchmarks, but loses everywhere else.

 

Cinebench (and the like) tests only very highly optimized multithreaded workloads: Of course the processor with the most cores is going to win when the point of the benchmark is basically to figure out who has the most cores.

People hate Intel because Intel chips cost more. But they also perform better in all but the one relatively rare case mentioned above (at this level anyway. Let's talk about HEDT and server processors shall we?). Is it really that wrong for a company to charge more money for a product that performs better in the vast majority of cases?

I understand what you are trying to say, and I get it. But why do people like Linus, Gamers Nexus, Jayz two Cents, etc. all say if you are just gaming, intel is better, but if you are doing anything else AMD is the way to go. I'm not exactly an expert, I just enjoy hardware. I have owned both AMD and Intel CPU's (I was an unlucky f*****r and bought an FX 8350) . But surely for example, Nvidia are using Epyc CPU's in the big GPU thing ( Can't remember what it was called.)

 

(Also it's 5am in the UK, so I'm pretty tired)

[straight_stewie]

34 minutes ago, marldorthegreat said:

Linus, Gamers Nexus, Jayz two Cents, etc

Because those people all also do a significant amount of video editing so to them "literally anything else" means video editing, the one case where AMD is currently excelling. Unless of course you are trying to build a high end video editing workstation, then Intel is still better.

AMD again becomes better for some server/HPC cases, but Intel still excels for GPGPU based HPC (Epyc does not support NVLink as a PCIe replacement, and I am discounting PowerPC so as not to complicate the debate), as well as very high processor density nodes, where Intel still excels, offering 4x or even 8x socket setups, whereas EPYC only offers dual CPU configurations (in very highly virtualized or some HPC architectures this can be a real boon because higher processor densities reduces cost from having to buy more motherboards, psus, cases..., and can also increase the speed of processor-processor communication as well as the amount of memory on node).

The only case where AMD is performance excelling in the consumer context is in low or middle tier content creation machines.

AMD is picking their battles very, very carefully, and they are moving steadily towards a much better market position. But as it currently stands, their product stack is not performance competitive with Intel for the vast majority of use cases.

[xAcid9]

RIP. For me the only thing Intel CPU good at is at high FPS gaming but looking at recent Anandtech review on r5-3600, that's not usually the case. 

[GDRRiley]

41 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Because those people all also do a significant amount of video editing so to them "literally anything else" means video editing, the one case where AMD is currently excelling. Unless of course you are trying to build a high end video editing workstation, then Intel is still better.

AMD again becomes better for some server/HPC cases, but Intel still excels for GPGPU based HPC (Epyc does not support NVLink as a PCIe replacement, and I am discounting PowerPC so as not to complicate the debate), as well as very high processor density nodes, where Intel still excels, offering 4x or even 8x socket setups, whereas EPYC only offers dual CPU configurations (in very highly virtualized or some HPC architectures this can be a real boon because higher processor densities reduces cost from having to buy more motherboards, psus, cases..., and can also increase the speed of processor-processor communication as well as the amount of memory on node).

The only case where AMD is performance excelling in the consumer context is in low or middle tier content creation machines.

AMD is picking their battles very, very carefully, and they are moving steadily towards a much better market position. But as it currently stands, their product stack is not performance competitive with Intel for the vast majority of use cases.

what do you mean high end? 3950x beats almost all the intel chips then when the 18 core comes to play AMD 32 core is right above it.

intel doesn't do well for GPPGU HPC why do you think ever supercomputer is buying epyc? (NVlink is nivdia between GPUs nothing to do with board and even then NIVIDA new compute thing uses EPYC)

 

why would you put 4 intel chips when 2 AMD beat it? let me know who is still running 8 socket machines most would just use 4 blade servers each with dual chips

 

AMD is matching or beating intel in almost any category 3-5% wins for intel aren't much and AMD has new chips that are 10-30% faster mattering on how clockspeed/IPC turn out

 

I'm just going to call it all your info is wrong.

https://www.amd.com/en/campaigns/amd-and-cray

[RejZoR]

Gaming performance is not shocking. Clock boost is still saving their bottoms still, but very little and they need to really push the thing. From this point they really need to do something about the chip itself and not just push clock even higher to compete with Ryzen that's hardly sweating and only losing by 3% (which in actual framerate means next to nothing, that's 3fps at 100fps, insignificant difference).

[straight_stewie]

40 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

(NVlink is nivdia between GPUs nothing to do with board and even then NIVIDA new compute thing uses EPYC)

NVLINK supports CPU-GPU communication. It was not developed to connect two cards together for gaming. It was developed to connect many graphics cards together with potentially many processors to increase the performance of GPU compute in HPC.

"Nvidia new compute thing" is, in a simplification, a virtual collection of GPUs potentially spread across multiple physical nodes but accessible as a single virtual node. There's actually two new things, and I'm unsure which you are referring to, but both are describable as that.

The first ten results in the TOP500 list for November 2019 go: PowerPC, PowerPC, Sunway, Xeon, Xeon, Xeon, Xeon, Xeon, Xeon, Xeon. The first machine to use AMD is number 59, and that doesn't even use EPYC. #221 is the first machine to use EPYC processors. It is 35 times slower than the first Xeon machine in the list.

 

40 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

why would you put 4 intel chips when 2 AMD beat it? let me know who is still running 8 socket machines most would just use 4 blade servers each with dual chips

It saves money and space to use a higher processor density. More than a few machines use this to their advantage. SuperMicro has off-the-shelf options that fit 8 Xeons and 24TB memory, among other things, in 2U space. To fit 8 processors using dual processor nodes requires at least 4U space, plus the cost of more motherboards, more network cards, more cables, and more power supplies.

 

40 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

I'm just going to call it all your info is wrong.

https://www.amd.com/en/campaigns/amd-and-cray

That's not conceited at all, and that's definitely not the fox guarding the hen house.

But just to play along, did you notice that the component listings say "custom EPYC CPUs" and "Purpose built Radeon Instinct GPUS"? Custom/purpose built as in "purposefully designed only for this specific task and not available to the general public". They get to completely optimize everything just to perform better for that specific architecture. Had Intel or IBM been the lowest bidder we wouldn't be having this conversation:

 

Government contracts go to the lowest bidder capable of meeting the minimum project requirements. Which means that this argument falls back to the "AMD is cheaper" argument. In fact, we don't even know if AMD is profitable on these machines: They might have purposefully underbid themselves just to get the marketing.

[marldorthegreat]

36 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Gaming performance is not shocking. Clock boost is still saving their bottoms still, but very little and they need to really push the thing. From this point they really need to do something about the chip itself and not just push clock even higher to compete with Ryzen that's hardly sweating and only losing by 3% (which in actual framerate means next to nothing, that's 3fps at 100fps, insignificant difference).

And when you consider that the most popular monitor type (I think) is 1080p 60hz monitors, it literally makes no difference since you literally don't really benefit from anything over 60fps

[GDRRiley]

12 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

It saves money and space to use a higher processor density. More than a few machines use this to their advantage. SuperMicro has off-the-shelf options that fit 8 Xeons and 24TB memory, among other things, in 2U space. To fit 8 processors using dual processor nodes requires at least 4U space, plus the cost of more motherboards, more

But just to play along, did you notice that the component listings say "custom EPYC CPUs" and "Purpose built Radeon Instinct GPUS"? Custom/purpose built as in "purposefully designed only for this specific task and not available to the general public". They get to completely optimize everything just to perform better for that specific architecture. Had Intel or IBM been the lowest bidder we wouldn't be having this conversation:

 

Government contracts go to the lowest bidder capable of meeting the minimum project requirements. Which means that this argument falls back to the "AMD is cheaper" argument. In fact, we don't even know if AMD is profitable on these machines: They might have purposefully underbid themselves just to get the marketing.

NVIDIA A100

none of the new AMD supercomputers are built yet. there are at least 4 in the US plus 1 in the UK.

Perlmutter, Frontier, Archer 2

 

NO it doesn't blade servers will do that in 2U, blades are made for both AMD and intel.

 

Custom EPYC is no different than 90%+ of xeons sold most go to T1 with modification done so that google or Facebook gets exactly what they want.

For EPYC is is just going to be clockspeed vs cores vs cache. AMD has a MI60 that is custom order which is likely what is being used. the mi50 is very close to it

 

BS this is Cray/HPE not AMD bidding.

 

I'm going to stop derailing this thread because I rest my point, ether you haven't read any of the news around epyc or you so dug in that intel makes better chips you won't realize what is happening.

[Mamonos]

Sales starts tomorrow - in my country some of retailers have already listed the prices.

Here, the i9-10900KF is going to be about 20% more expensive than the 3900X.

 

At "flagship" level it already looks like a lost battle, especially considering type of workload, price and TDP issues.

 

On the other hand, for gaming I am really curious to see what the i3-10320 and the i5-10600KF can offer compared to AMD alternatives.

 

 

[dat_boi_fluff]

4 minutes ago, Mamonos said:

On the other hand, for gaming I am really curious to see what the i3-10320 and the i5-10600KF can offer compared to AMD alternatives.

Agreed, I am anticipating the arival of these "low end" CPUs

[Arika]

WccfLeaks

[5x5]

When the minimum cooling requirement is a 240mm AIO, your CPU is a hot mess. Using insane amounts of power, insane amounts of heat and needing insane boards for 4% more gaming performance? This is sad

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

No. Doing exactly one type of thing is faster on AMD, and that one thing is not nearly as common as people think it is.

 

That's why AMD always wins in Cinebench and other very very similar benchmarks, but loses everywhere else.

Mmmm no not really, gaming is the minority workload more than anything else. If that is your use case then that is what you actually need to be looking at but in the good at one thing right now that is Intel and gaming.

 

If you do almost anything else AMD is faster and often at a lower cost, also not just talking about video rendering.

 

You have to take a balance of tests to look at a wider picture which many reviews are doing and right now Intel leads in very few of them. Here's the thing about those other workloads however, things that are not video rendering, are for the user not that big of difference for almost any CPU from either AMD or Intel as the load profiles and the way you actually use the application mean almost anything on the market will give you an excellent user experience. That means unless you do have the need for the extra performance you should be buying the most cost effective option that gives the most broad performance, today that is AMD Ryzen 3000 series.

 

Intel K series CPU and their top models is only a very small sub section of the entire market and only a very small portion of Intel's product stacks, just because the 9900K has the best gaming performance doesn't actually mean products below that from Intel will actually be better than AMD options for gaming either. And it sure as heck does not mean Intel has a wider and more broad performance for their products either.

 

Practically speaking right now you could buy almost any CPU from Intel or AMD and be very happy with it for at least 3 years with no significant performance issues.