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

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

SuperMicro has off-the-shelf options that fit 8 Xeons and 24TB memory

2U4N options exist for both Intel and AMD EPYC, nothing special or unique there.

https://www.supermicro.com/en/Aplus/system/2U/2124/AS-2124BT-HNTR.cfm

https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/povw/poweredge-c6525

 

2U4N is pretty much the industry standard now and majority of sales is of these chassis configuration, still more Intel based system sales than AMD but there is a really big list of reasons and factors for that none of which are actually because the CPU performance or application are more optimized for Intel.

 

2 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

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:

Almost every Intel based system in the top 500 use custom spec CPUs from Intel, there's a ton of SKUs in use that are not retail option or something you can buy. AWS and Azure also do the same. IBM is nothing but a highly custom hardware company.

 

Supercomputer clusters are by definition "custom".

 

3 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

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

There are no Intel CPUs that have NVLink support on them, only IBM has this. All GPU connectivity between CPUs and GPUs in Intel systems is done over PCIe. NVLink is used between GPUs only for both Intel and AMD. The just announced 16 Tesla A100 GPU Nvidia DGX A100 uses two AMD EPYC CPUs, there is no way Nvidia put anything but the best in this system. The high number of PCIe lanes and the very high memory bandwidth make EPYC the absolute best choice here.

[KaitouX]

3 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Unless of course you are trying to build a high end video editing workstation, then Intel is still better.

What? Does Intel have something better than the Ryzen 9 3950X or than the Threadripper 3990X that I don't know about?

 

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.

If by this you mean multi-core applications, they are pretty common for people that require fast CPUs in the consumer space, which are for example: Video Encoding/Rendering, 3D Modeling/Rendering, Compiling, Encryption, Simulations, Image Editing, Compression/Decompression, Gaming, all which often can use multiple cores well, with the ones that don't being often(but not always) due to development limitations and not limitations on the activity itself.

AMD currently offers the same(~5% or less difference) performance or higher at basically all applications, while costing the same or less. Intel current CPUs just aren't competitive with the AMD ones for most users.

 

Also as far as I know most of the planned fastest supercomputers to be built in the next few years are using Epyc.

[Soppro]

Damn. Really hoping to see more significant IPC and other performance improvements with Tiger Lake parts (when finally 10nm will get to desktop), but it's not coming out anytime soon .. Intel's hands are slipping away

[5x5]

I love how some people can't accept reality - that the 10900K is a 9900K with two more cores "glued" to it. Power efficiency is still the same, core uarch is still Skylake, IPC hasn't changed, and performance is more of the same. Barely faster in games and massively slower everywhere else all while using more power than some SLI setups

[Arika]

9 minutes ago, Soppro said:

Damn. Really hoping to see more significant IPC and other performance improvements with Tiger Lake parts (when finally 10nm will get to desktop), but it's not coming out anytime soon .. Intel's hands are slipping away

i dont think they are even trying for 10nm on desktop, going straight to 7....at some point

[Deli]

1 hour ago, 5x5 said:

I love how some people can't accept reality - that the 10900K is a 9900K with two more cores "glued" to it. Power efficiency is still the same, core uarch is still Skylake, IPC hasn't changed, and performance is more of the same. Barely faster in games and massively slower everywhere else all while using more power than some SLI setups

I want to see what spin Intel fanboys can put up when AMD launches Zen 3 later this year.

[Deli]

1 hour ago, Soppro said:

Damn. Really hoping to see more significant IPC and other performance improvements with Tiger Lake parts (when finally 10nm will get to desktop), but it's not coming out anytime soon .. Intel's hands are slipping away

I read Tigerlake desktop is still on 14nm+++.

[RejZoR]

3 hours ago, marldorthegreat said:

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

That's not true at all. You can be hitting 60fps while having terrible frame pacing. One of reasons why most good tests do percentile tests where you see how many frames out of those 60 were paced properly and how many were not. Also it has been proven many times that even if display can only output 60Hz, that doesn't mean you're not benefiting going past that. Sure, you get some image tearing which is usually the worst if you're somewhere around 60fps, but once you're like 200fps or 300fps tearing becomes less noticeable and you're lowering latency with that. It's why competitive players run with shit graphics just to get the edge visually (less fancy distractions) and latency wise. And with high refresh displays becoming way more affordable, even normies can buy them now.

[Blademaster91]

6 hours ago, marldorthegreat said:

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. 

What newer features does AMD have besides pci-e 4.0? You don't need pci-e 4.0 for gaming because it won't make games load any faster or make your pci-e 3.0 gpu run better. But have you seen the 3950X and X570 board prices? The 10900K is cheaper, Z490 is in a similar pricing range with faster ethernet and no chipset fan.  Also the AM4 socket is dead after Zen 3.

[Deli]

7 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

What newer features does AMD have besides pci-e 4.0? You don't need pci-e 4.0 for gaming because it won't make games load any faster or make your pci-e 3.0 gpu run better. But have you seen the 3950X and X570 board prices? The 10900K is cheaper, Z490 is in a similar pricing range with faster ethernet and no chipset fan.  Also the AM4 socket is dead after Zen 3.

Wooh, you are comparing a 10-core to a 16-core. Of course the 10-core is cheaper. Also unless you upgrade the CPU and mobo every two years. if you keep your machine for longer, PCIe 4.0 will be beneficial for future GPU and storage upgrade.

[5x5]

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

What newer features does AMD have besides pci-e 4.0? You don't need pci-e 4.0 for gaming because it won't make games load any faster or make your pci-e 3.0 gpu run better. But have you seen the 3950X and X570 board prices? The 10900K is cheaper, Z490 is in a similar pricing range with faster ethernet and no chipset fan.  Also the AM4 socket is dead after Zen 3.

Good lord stop it already. The 10900K can't even compete against the 3900X (which is about 80 euros cheaper than the i9) - the 3950X is in a different league. The i9 is just not even comparable to it. Also, X570 boards are VERY good so comparing a Z490 board with VRMs taken from a top end B450 board is absurd. If you compare apples to apples in terms of quality, Z490 boards end up slightly more expensive.

 

Furthermore, PCIe 4.0 is no small thing. If it were, Intel would still be using PCIe 2.0, correct? Seriously, stop trying to make advanced technology sound bad. Not to mention the fact that AMD's current offerings are on a far more advanced node and the scalable tech is beyond anything Intel can offer. Hence why the 150W 3900X is beating the 250W 10900K

 

AM4 will be dead, yes, after over 4 years of active support. Meanwhile 1151v1, 1151v2 and 1200 will also be dead. All outlived or matched by AM4. How do you even spin that as negative? Seriously.

[3rrant]

It's funny to see FX era but reversed, the parallel universe of CPU war.

[marldorthegreat]

Just now, 3rrant said:

It's funny to see FX era but reversed, the parallel universe of CPU war.

Yeah! It's very strange, although to intel's credit at least people will actually buy this (Well maybe if it's a cold winter this year)

[5x5]

2 minutes ago, marldorthegreat said:

Yeah! It's very strange, although to intel's credit at least people will actually buy this (Well maybe if it's a cold winter this year)

Will they? I have a feeling most won't - it's a 250W (9590 anyone?) CPU that needs at minimum a 240mm AIO and a 300$ Z490 board. That's a small fortune. Very few will invest in the 10900K

[marldorthegreat]

7 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Will they? I have a feeling most won't - it's a 250W (9590 anyone?) CPU that needs at minimum a 240mm AIO and a 300$ Z490 board. That's a small fortune. Very few will invest in the 10900K

It depends if they get used by the likes of cyberpower, people see Intel i9 and think they are getting the best performance possible so I think people who build it themselves or are invested a bit in the CPU market will care, but I can think of lot's of people who simply won't know or care. The fact that it's rated at a 125w tdp will almost certainly confuse people, and make them think it consumes less power than equivalent AMD cpu's.
I agree, this is not going to be a good CPU, yeah performance will be there for gaming, but it will literally consume more power than my GPU! (And I run a 980ti I got second hand for like £100 (~$120))

[3rrant]

4 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Will they? I have a feeling most won't - it's a 250W (9590 anyone?) CPU that needs at minimum a 240mm AIO and a 300$ Z490 board. That's a small fortune. Very few will invest in the 10900K

They will. If you cut a tree in a forest, it doesn't matter how big it is it will never pose a danger to the entire forest in the immediate future. Intel is a giant megacorporation. When AMD released FX, they were not. Bigger, but nowhere close Intel is already right now. Yes, they will lose market share and yes they will lose sales, but this won't pose a real threat to them unless they keep failing over and over for several years forward and still they will have other segments to save themself, just like Radeon did before Ryzen for AMD.

 

I did have a 8350 and a 9590 years ago, and they honestly were pretty great in the winter in a small room. Paired with a very old 4890 you could easily cook, kinda game and heat yourself easily in a pretty efficient way!

[Deli]

11 minutes ago, marldorthegreat said:

Yeah! It's very strange, although to intel's credit at least people will actually buy this (Well maybe if it's a cold winter this year)

Nooooo, it's because of Intel, we have global warming.

[Blademaster91]

48 minutes ago, Deli said:

Wooh, you are comparing a 10-core to a 16-core. Of course the 10-core is cheaper. Also unless you upgrade the CPU and mobo every two years. if you keep your machine for longer, PCIe 4.0 will be beneficial for future GPU and storage upgrade.

I thought all the whining is because Intel is more expensive, interesting how the argument changes when Intel is cheaper everyone defends a more expensive CPU which is slower for the thing most people buy them for, high end gaming. In the few instances you need a 16 core cpu its actually better to get an HEDT system instead.

There isn't such a thing as future proofing either, I think AMD ditching the 400 series chipsets made that pretty obvious. The only beneficial thing you'll have from pci-e 4.0 is SSD's becoming more affordable, but pci-e 5.0 is supposed to come out along with DDR5.

 

[Deli]

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

I thought all the whining is because Intel is more expensive, interesting how the argument changes when Intel is cheaper everyone defends a more expensive CPU which is slower for the things most people buy them for, gaming. In the few instances you need a 16 core cpu its actually better to get an HEDT system instead.

There isn't such a thing a future proofing either, I think AMD ditching the 400 series chipsets made that pretty obvious. The only beneficial thing you'll have from pci-e 4.0 is more affordable SSD's, but pci-e 5.0 is supposed to come out along with DDR5.

 

Really? People buy 3950X mainly for gaming? That's news to me.

[3rrant]

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I thought all the whining is because Intel is more expensive, interesting how the argument changes when Intel is cheaper everyone defends a more expensive CPU which is slower for the thing most people buy them for, high end gaming. In the few instances you need a 16 core cpu its actually better to get an HEDT system instead.

There isn't such a thing a future proofing either, I think AMD ditching the 400 series chipsets made that pretty obvious. The only beneficial thing you'll have from pci-e 4.0 is SSD's becoming more affordable, but pci-e 5.0 is supposed to come out along with DDR5.

 

Unless you're going 1080p stupidly high refresh rate, there's no need for a 10900K for gaming either.

Plus, it's very unreasonable to buy a 3950X for gaming. That's the same as buying a HEDT for it.

The PCI-E5 + DDR5 applies to both AMD and Intel equally. There are no avaiable parts for either, and there won't be in the near future. Whatever you buy today won't be compatible with them.

[5x5]

5 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I thought all the whining is because Intel is more expensive, interesting how the argument changes when Intel is cheaper everyone defends a more expensive CPU which is slower for the thing most people buy them for, high end gaming. In the few instances you need a 16 core cpu its actually better to get an HEDT system instead.

There isn't such a thing as future proofing either, I think AMD ditching the 400 series chipsets made that pretty obvious. The only beneficial thing you'll have from pci-e 4.0 is SSD's becoming more affordable, but pci-e 5.0 is supposed to come out along with DDR5.

 

Who in their right mind buys an i9/R9 for gaming primarily? Seriously, stop with the antics. PCIe 4.0 specs were finalized 3-4 years before it was adopted on AM4. Same will happen with PCIe 5.0

[leadeater]

(10900k vs 3950X)

[Curious Pineapple]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

(10900k vs 3950X)

Hey look, you can see me in the distance with ever decreasing fucks to give. I have a dual CPU machine with 3 graphics cards that uses less power than that CPU alone.

[F.E.A.R.]

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, 5x5 said:

Good lord stop it already. The 10900K can't even compete against the 3900X (which is about 80 euros cheaper than the i9) - the 3950X is in a different league. The i9 is just not even comparable to it. Also, X570 boards are VERY good so comparing a Z490 board with VRMs taken from a top end B450 board is absurd. If you compare apples to apples in terms of quality, Z490 boards end up slightly more expensive.

 

Furthermore, PCIe 4.0 is no small thing. If it were, Intel would still be using PCIe 2.0, correct? Seriously, stop trying to make advanced technology sound bad. Not to mention the fact that AMD's current offerings are on a far more advanced node and the scalable tech is beyond anything Intel can offer. Hence why the 150W 3900X is beating the 250W 10900K

 

AM4 will be dead, yes, after over 4 years of active support. Meanwhile 1151v1, 1151v2 and 1200 will also be dead. All outlived or matched by AM4. How do you even spin that as negative? Seriously.

No my point was Z490 has more features for the price, like 2.5g ethernet, more usb ports, and yes not having a chipset fan is actually a feature for some people, and a reason why people bought B450 only to get burned by AMD on that one with only an upgrade path to 3000 series cpu's.

PCI-e 2.0? Going to need a source on that one because PCI-e 3.0 came out in 2010. Most people buying a cpu for gaming don't care what the tech is as long it's faster than their cpu, and that far more advanced node still gets beaten by old Skylake on 14nm++++++++++++++++++ with power consumption not even being a concern either for gaming because a high end GPU is still going to use around 200W by itself, unless your electricity is expensive it's a few cents per year.

 

The use of a socket for 4 years isn't the same as supporting the same motherboard for 4 years, you got 2 CPU's out of a motherboard,anything more required unofficially supported beta BIOS from the mobo makers. Intel doesn't hold onto a socket because people don't want to sacrifice features,deal with having to get another cpu just to flash the bios, or risk any stability issues

27 minutes ago, 3rrant said:

Unless you're going 1080p stupidly high refresh rate, there's no need for a 10900K for gaming either.

Plus, it's very unreasonable to buy a 3950X for gaming. That's the same as buying a HEDT for it.

The PCI-E5 + DDR5 applies to both AMD and Intel equally. There are no avaiable parts for either, and there won't be in the near future. Whatever you buy today won't be compatible with them.

I agree, most people aren't even buying a 3900X for gaming either, but that was my point both PCI-e 5.0 and DDR5 apply to both Intel and AMD but people are acting like a AM4 platform is going to last longer.