Core i9-10900KF performance leaks in 3DMark Time Spy - Ryzen 9 3900X Level Perf

So its Core i9 9900K performance +10%, because of + 100 Mhz faster base clock, more agressive turbo clock, 2 more cores and probably TDP getting out of the roof..

Should we just stand up and clap our hands?

 

If it gets to 10% i think is a lot. I expect more or less 9900k + 3% in single thread.

 

What about them 9900K's that do 5300 all core? I wonder what OC is gonna look like for the 10900K, especially all core and AVX workloads... In games, because its harder to push frequency on 10 cores rather than 8, it might be worse than the 9900K, not to mention the cost of changing platforms again...

 

There should be a vulnerabilities benchmark. The one with least exploits breached will be the one to buy.

 

Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't the 10900KF be faster than the 3900X by a larger margin? Sure it supports more threads than just one but... doesn't look like the best gaming CPU this time around... differences within the margin of error.

 

Well we can´t make any conclusions of a single benchmark, specially a synthetic one.

 

... of an unknown origin. Who knows this could be running with exotic cooling to keep boost high.

 

As the actual intel processor that this one should replace, is already at an higher price than the Ryzen... i feel a bit negative about this intel.
Exept the price it is nice to see the new gen, but the war will be on price per perf...

 

Just a guess but i imagine this will hit 140w under full load. The 9900KS is already listed as 127w. While the 3900X is 105w with 2 more cores.

 

its a just synthetic test, you can see how its wrong when the test shows 3900x ahead 9900ks, and in real world games its worst than 8700k

 

Games are not a determining factor for speed of a cpu.

That's not to say if how a cpu performs in games is what matters to you then don't pay attention to that, but again, the determining factor for how fast an entire cpu is, is not determined by any game.

 

Aren't these still 14nm? Then those numbers are very optimistic.

 

Has there been much on Intel releasing something new not based on Skylake?

 

wtf? all depends what your want do with your pc, obviously if i want play games, i9 are faster to me

 

You apparently didn't read what i wrote, but hey, i did read what you wrote, which wasn't a reply to anyone talking about gaming, just a claim that this "synthetic benchmark is wrong because...... games" nonsense.

If all you care about is games...Great! But that doesn't magically make a benchmark wrong because all you care about is games.

 

@squalles
maybe google the difference between synthetic and real world benches. just because they dont show what YOU want to see, doesn't make it invalid or not needed.

it depends on what you want to compare, as in this case pure cpu numbers without getting affected by other things a game puts on the cpu/gpu (physx/audio etc),
or to eliminate false stats because of "2 explosions/5 more NPC" showing up in a scene.

completely ignoring that someone that buys a +8 C cpu for gaming doesnt know crap, others might be interested to have their work computer also be their gaming (able) rig.
then the amd would still make more sense, as the saved money vs the intel can get you a much better gpu.

 

And the price.... $1000 ?

 

Recently I did upgrade to i9-9820X and being sceptical about my rusty assembling skills (last rig was assembled 8 years ago) I did stress testing. I used Intel Extreme Tuning Utility and CPU-Z. All 10 cores (I disabled HT) went to their maximum turbo clocks (all different since BIOS and OS are tuned to use most favourite cores feature) for the whole span of tests and temperatures stayed near 60C (with air cooling).

 

Then why buy a high core HT chip in the first place?
could have easily gone with 6 C running HT for that.