Core i9 10900K Review with benchmarks finds its way to the web in Asia

And that there are more in-silicon mitigations. Rocket Lake is going to be more interesting as it will have a new architecture based on 14nm.

 

Same here. The 9700k was always more tempting to me than the 9900k, but not having HT was a no-go. Now that the 10700k will be more of a direct comparison, I'm paying attention again.

 

There is still target audience for these.. 144 Hz+ display owner, retro (yeah you still get a bit more backward SW/HW compatibility), manufactures usually give Intels MBs more care, also because they are more expensive and there is gaming, if more care about FPS that browser and office, Excel, 7zip performance.. lots of people do.. because i dont have problem to wait a bit more for office stuff, but in games every 5-10 FPS matters, you can add more details, have much better 0.1% / 1% drops etc.

 

But you know 99% of "gurus" here says they are pro videoeditors, so they can't go Intel. Atleast they don't say it loud

 

I like how productivity is in quotes and gaming no. That shows a lot.
the fastest vs slightly slower.

This is exactly what the review will tell: Performance numbers based on the same method of previous cpus, that can offer a neutral unbiased point of view of the new cpus.

 

Cinebench singlecore score =/= "singlecore" performance in all programs. Latency comes to play.
CB singlecore score is a bad mesure of gamingperformance

My old TR 1950x is still good enough for rendering, but no cpu is good enough for gaming. I want more!

 

Yes, ever since Ryzen came out everyone suddenly become a pro video editor and also running 3d render farm for Pixar in their mom's basement.

Jokes aside, this looks like a solid CPU for 550€. Anyone else notice that high end CPU price remained relatively stable, but high high end GPU prices ballooned to 1300-1400€. Crazy.

 

Because while AMD has become competitive in the CPU space, they basically haven't done much in the GPU space.

 

Well, It depends on what type of CPU you stop comparing. Nowadays, you have CPUs on the mainstream platform at almost $800, which in the last years only happened on the HEDT segment.

Today, on HEDT you have CPUs costing up to $4000. Yes, the most common CPUs have not gotten more expensive, but the top of the line ones have come up a lot in price, just like the RTX 2080Ti.

 

No, I'm a pro cinebench benchmarker.

 

It's the obvious choice if you care about getting the highest frame rate, which doesn't apply to pretty much anyone who is locked by v-sync or isn't a competitive gamer. Otherwise, spending that much money on a CPU strictly for gaming purposes is more stupid than it is obvious.

I'm having a really hard time comprehending the logic in this. You're basically saying you have the following 2 options:
A. Buy Intel where you might go from 140FPS to 160FPS and have an otherwise slower experience in most non-gaming tasks
B. Buy AMD where you'll sacrifice that unnoticeable frame drop and otherwise get a CPU with better efficiency and future-proofing.
Why are these the only 2 choices? You could eliminate your passive-aggressive attitude toward the excess core counts and just buy an AMD CPU with a lower core count. You'll get the same performance in games and save yourself a couple hundred dollars. At that point you have a practical CPU (by your standards) and a dismissible drop in framerate.

I agree the degradation caused by heat is a non-issue, and I also feel that the cost of a higher wattage is also insignificant. What isn't insignificant are the other disadvantages to high-wattage parts, like noisier fans, more expensive motherboards, more expensive PSUs, and dumping unwanted heat into the room in the middle of summer.
That being said... I do like having overclocked PCs running BOINC over winter to keep my bedroom warm.

 

It's the fastest gaming CPU. Period. Not sure why you feel the need to argue about it.

 

Not sure why you feel the need to point that out - it's a moot point. Why spend so much more extra money for an imperceptible performance gain? The vast majority of people are satisfied with 60FPS (or 30FPS if you include consoles). For those who want to go faster (like 144Hz for example), you don't need Intel to get that. Save your money on the CPU and invest in a better GPU if you care that much about higher frame rates.
EDIT:
That being said, there are still good Intel CPUs you can buy for gaming that are hundreds of dollars cheaper than a 10900K. I'm not saying you should only buy AMD, but rather, this pissing contest of highest FPS is meaningless.

That's like buying the Dodge Challenger Demon because it's (one of?) the fastest production cars on a drag strip. Sure, that's impressive for a production car, but it's kinda stupid to justify buying that car for that reason. You could spend the same amount of money on a car that's faster around the Nurburgring, or is more comfortable as a daily driver, or isn't going to break down every half year.

 

I have miners. All PSUs are over 3 years old 1200W ones running at ~90% load all the time. They will die eventually, but 3 years 24/7 ~90% load. That's a lot. Never had a CPU die. CPUs rarely die outside of people that are dumb or chasing max clocks with LN2.
Looking at 30-ish W difference between 10900 and 3900, I couldn't make an argument that 3900 is ok, but 10900 uses too much power, especially when you need the same/similar cooling system for both of them.
Now, I am not saying 10900 is a good chip, but it's "outdated tech" somehow competing with 7nm latest new tech. 7nm is either not to good, or 14nm from intel is just not that bad. Decide. But 7nm intel is coming in 2 years. And dreams of 15% better ipc on ryzen 3? We shall see. I give them 3~5% tops. They punched out with zen 2 already, they have a "tok" with zen 3 and you should all be familiar with intels tik tok.
Anyway, you can have AMD CPUs in front of you, you can pick up two while blindfolded, and test them in real world usage and you wouldn't know the difference. One could even be Intel just to throw you off.
You are all too spoiled and biased. They are all good products.

 

Because some things are designed to be great at one particular thing, in this case, the best gaming cpu. It is not a moot point for someone who wants, oh i dont know lets say "the fastest gaming cpu"?
Its funny that your comparison literally exists. I know guys who have so much money that they do exactly that, buy a car so that can keep their name on the top of that track list, some 70 years running. Its called a hobby and some people have more money than the guy next to them and they are more than happy to pay a premium for what they want without even batting an eye. Lets not even mention how insanely cheap that car is for the amount of power you get, thats not even disputed. Not everyone agress on best bang for buck because not everyone plays on the same field. Me personally, I am super happy with my 2 pcs running zen 2 after switching from intel which i was super happy with as well for the time. Unfortunately i am not one of these rich guys though lol

 

If you want the fastest, go get the fastest. I don't care. But don't go around saying it's the "obvious choice" because it very much isn't. Not all gamers, nor enthusiasts, care about those extra few FPS. Some have other priorities, arguably of which are more important.

Says the person who is twisting the words I say...

Again... go ahead and do that if that's what you like. But if money is not a limitation, a 10900K isn't going to be the best option, even in Intel's own lineup. So.... why spend so much more for something that is very good, but settle for something that isn't the best? That doesn't make sense.

I agree. Did you not see the part where I said it was impressive?

Hence why I gave a bunch of "or" examples of very different cars, because you're not going to get a car that's faster around the Nurburgring, more comfortable, AND more reliable than a Demon for the same price. You can pick one, maybe 2 of those alternatives, but not all 3.

Seems you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

Underwhelming...

 

just more of the same, as expected, what I'm really looking forward to is whether AMD can bring 15% faster IPC for real, that would actually be news worthy

 

Well, the comments section is going to be an interesting read tomorrow. Warnings at the ready.

 

Rumor is they are optimizing the ccx and cache layout for Zen 3, so 15% could be entirely possible especially if they can reduce latency on ccx.