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

[SavageNeo]

12 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

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

intel does that because they only care about money pretty much.

 

Why would i get 10core cpu if i can get 12core cpu near same price with lower heat and power consumption?

[leadeater]

19 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

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

There are X570 boards with 10G, 5G and 2.5G Ethernet and the chipset fan actually isn't even required so you can unplug it if you wish (first checking heatsink quality and not running RAID 0 NVMe on chipset).

 

Also I'm not sure why I need more than 17 USB3.2 ports and 4 USB2 ports?

[Blademaster91]

Just now, SavageNeo said:

intel does that because they only care about money pretty much.

 

Why would i get 10core cpu if i can get 12core cpu near same price with lower heat and power consumption?

Both AMD and Intel are companies, all they care about is getting your money lol.

It depends if you do anything besides gaming, there are workloads that value Intel clockspeed to make it worth getting 2 fewer cores and buying a 280mm AIO. But don't most people buying a $500 cpu put at least a high end air cooler on it anyway? I don't see the point of buying a nice CPU only to be putting a cheap cooler on it. I mean the 3900X will be better on an AIO as well.

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

There are X570 boards with 10G, 5G and 2.5G Ethernet and the chipset fan actually isn't even required so you can unplug it if you wish (first checking heatsink quality and not running RAID 0 NVMe on chipset).

 

Also I'm not sure why I need more than 17 USB3.2 ports and 4 USB2 ports?

There are, but you end up buying a $600 X570 motherboard to have onboard 5G or 10G, plenty of Z490 boards under $300 have 2.5G, I don't see it on many X570 boards.

Not sure I'd want to risk the warranty on a dead chipset though because heatsinks on most except the really high end boards are just a piece of metal with a fan shroud. And I was referring to the more common $200-250 boards people will buy, with how many ports are on the rear I/O.

[SavageNeo]

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

Both AMD and Intel are companies, all they care about is getting your money lol.

It depends if you do anything besides gaming, there are workloads that value Intel clockspeed to make it worth getting 2 fewer cores and buying a 280mm AIO. But don't most people buying a $500 cpu put at least a high end air cooler on it anyway? I don't see the point of buying a nice CPU only to be putting a cheap cooler on it. I mean the 3900X will be better on an AIO as well.

There are, but you end up buying a $600 X570 motherboard to have onboard 5G or 10G, plenty of Z490 boards under $300 have 2.5G, I don't see it on many X570 boards.

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

Not sure I'd want to risk the warranty on a dead chipset though because heatsinks on most except the really high end boards are just a piece of metal with a fan shroud.

. And I was referring to the more common $200-250 boards people will buy, with how many ports are on the rear I/O.

my strix x570-E has 2.5gb ethernet too. yes there are some workload but not that much. 

 

and btw there are goodx570 boards with good chipset cooling speaking of z490 boards, you have to get very good and expensive one to keep 8+ core cpus cool enough sicne 10th gen intel cpus are space heaters

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Not sure I'd want to risk the warranty on a dead chipset though because heatsinks on most except the really high end boards are just a piece of metal with a fan shroud

That chipset uses way less power than you think, people have tested it with no heatsink at all. It's so not needed that a lot of boards got BIOS updates that allow you to select silent mode for it and you'll never hear it again ever, unless you go with 2x M.2 NVMe RAID 0 off the chipset but who is actually doing that.

 

9 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

There are, but you end up buying a $600 X570 motherboard to have onboard 5G or 10G, plenty of Z490 boards under $300 have 2.5G, I don't see it on many X570 boards.

You don't have to go that high, mid ~$350 you can get these (not 10G).

 

Edit

6 minutes ago, SavageNeo said:

my strix x570-E has 2.5gb ethernet too. yes there are some workload but not that much. 

Or as it appears as low as $235

[SavageNeo]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Or as it appears as low as $235

and the board has great VRMS. looks great. 2.5gb ethernet. 1gb ethernet, wifi 6, bios flashback,  good audio. m.2 heatsinks. like 10-12 usb ports.  and pci e 4.0 support that z490 boards do not have.

[leadeater]

Just now, SavageNeo said:

and the board has great VRMS. looks great. 2.5gb ethernet. 1gb ethernet, wifi 6, bios flashback,  good audio. m.2 heatsinks. like 10-12 usb ports.  and pci e 4.0 support that z490 boards do not have.

Ah yes but most importantly it doesn't support a 10900K so it's useless for gaming 

[Blademaster91]

11 minutes ago, SavageNeo said:

my strix x570-E has 2.5gb ethernet too. yes there are some workload but not that much. 

 

and btw there are goodx570 boards with good chipset cooling speaking of z490 boards, you have to get very good and expensive one to keep 8+ core cpus cool enough sicne 10th gen intel cpus are space heaters

The 2.5G ethernet is a nice feature to have, but I also doubt most people actually have a use for it.

Although yeah unless the primary use is for gaming I don't see the point in choosing the 10900K over a 3900X, and I've seen a few Z490 boards with VRM fans which is just too much when the VRM's needs fans lmao.

[5x5]

5 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The 2.5G ethernet is a nice feature to have, but I also doubt most people actually have a use for it.

Although yeah unless the primary use is for gaming I don't see the point in choosing the 10900K over a 3900X, and I've seen a few Z490 boards with VRM fans which is just too much when the VRM's needs fans lmao.

First you claim people should buy Intel for 2.5G, now it's not important. Make up your mind, question mark?

Funnily enough, the reason Z490 boards need VRM fans is because the 10900K uses more power than two 3700Xs combined.

[Brooksie359]

9 hours 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.

Your joking right? In 99% of use cases ryzen 3000 series are definitely performance competitive. They might not always beat them but they are always competitive so I am unsure what you are talking about. Also new ampere system that nvidia is releasing for alot of money runs on epyc Rome and not xeon for a reason. Are there use cases where intel is faster by a significant amount? Yeah but not alot of them while the majority of tasks its neck and neck with ryzen beating Intel on quite a few fronts while consuming less power. 

[CephDigital]

Now this is an FX 9590 moment

[AlistairA]

Reading the guy on the front page (Straight_stewie is so clueless...) go all go-ga over Intel was embarrassing to read. AMD's gaming performance has caught up since Ryzen 3000, I don't care about 3-4 percent fps differences. But we just installed 3 x Epyc servers, 96 cores, they average 450W total over all 3 servers, the single Intel server with two 18 core CPUs we were also offered used the same power. Think about that for a second. 14nm is dead, has been for more than 6 months. It was not hard to convince the company to buy more Epyc servers after our first 3. Any opinions you have about Ryzen that were formed before 3rd gen Ryzen are invalid, just like about AMD's laptop CPUs before Ryzen 4000 (Zen 2) laptop CPUs came on the market (which can be up to twice as fast). We should have our first batch of Ryzen 4000 laptops arriving today.

[AlistairA]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Your joking right? In 99% of use cases ryzen 3000 series are definitely performance competitive. They might not always beat them but they are always competitive so I am unsure what you are talking about. Also new ampere system that nvidia is releasing for alot of money runs on epyc Rome and not xeon for a reason. Are there use cases where intel is faster by a significant amount? Yeah but not alot of them while the majority of tasks its neck and neck with ryzen beating Intel on quite a few fronts while consuming less power. 

You're right. Sounds like the other guy is stuck in 2019. Ryzen 3000 changed all that and he's still using talking points from Ryzen 1st or 2nd gen.

[GDRRiley]

6 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

The 2.5G ethernet is a nice feature to have, but I also doubt most people actually have a use for it.

Any video editor using the network did, that is why my schools computer lab built in 2011 had 4 or 8gb fiber channel

any sort of LAN network use can benefit, hell even if you just severing out to 1g clients that means you can better support 3 at near max speed. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

15 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

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

 

Yes, calling gaming "real world application" for 10-16 cores CPUs is twisting.

 

15 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

No. Doing exactly one type of thing is faster on AMD

It's kind of reverse, though: you pointed at the one thing ("gaming", an average of whatever they tested on that department) the 10900K is faster. There was no other benchmark in OP that aligned with that - and also no high clock CPU with fewer cores from any of the companies, which would again defeat all these CPUs in real world^TM (a.k.a., gaming). 

Of course, one could also construct a different benchmark leading to such a result (relevance would be a different story)-

 

15 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

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.

That is a strange argument to bring up when trying to argue for a 10-core chip. You are basically saying people should get an 8700K, which maybe they should, but that's not an "AMD vs. Intel" question as you are making it to be.

If I'm not building a server, I don't need a Xeon or Epyc; saying that a benchmark comparing Xeons and Epycs at server tasks is useless because "most people are not running servers", then jumping from the specific models tested to "brand X is better at..." is just... do I want to say fanboyism? Flamewarism? I don't know how to call it, but it's not cold logic, and it is shoehorning a product review into a brand debate.

Is Nvidia better for gaming? Well, if you are getting a GT 1030 then no, it's not. There will be products from all brands interlocked in any performance ranking (whether real world^TM or not).

 

[williamcll]

If you are looking for an English review

 

Note that Linus has released their video already.

[F.E.A.R.]

 

[StDragon]

On 5/19/2020 at 7:01 AM, leadeater said:

There are X570 boards with 10G, 5G and 2.5G Ethernet and the chipset fan actually isn't even required so you can unplug it if you wish (first checking heatsink quality and not running RAID 0 NVMe on chipset).

You sure about that?? I've got ASRock X570 Taichi with an R7-3800x. While gaming, that chipset get up to 75c! I have only one 970 EVO NVMe. But the entire chipset heatsink gets real hot to the touch. I'm using three case fans in the front and I've already mounted the GPU parallel with the MB thinking that would help. It didn't.

 

Either the internal chipset fan isn't doing anything useful other than whipping air around and making noise. Or, the heatsink cover doesn't have enough surface area to dissipate over 7 watts of power/heat.

 

Basically, the chipset needs to be water cooled.

[Deli]

11 minutes ago, StDragon said:

You sure about that?? I've got ASRock X570 Taichi with an R7-3800x. While gaming, that chipset get up to 75c! I have only one 970 EVO NVMe. But the entire chipset heatsink gets real hot to the touch. I'm using three case fans in the front and I've already mounted the GPU parallel with the MB thinking that would help. It didn't.

 

Either the internal chipset fan isn't doing anything useful other than whipping air around and making noise. Or, the heatsink cover doesn't have enough surface area to dissipate over 7 watts of power/heat.

 

Basically, the chipset needs to be water cooled.

75C? Oh, mine barely reaches 55C according to HWinfo. I have Gigabyte board.

[StDragon]

46 minutes ago, Deli said:

75C? Oh, mine barely reaches 55C according to HWinfo. I have Gigabyte board.

Well apparently I'm not the only one.