Intel Core i9 10900K with 5.1 GHz boost appears in 3DMark specifications

The 14nm process is undoubtedly well honed by now as this shows, it will be interesting to see what frequencies Ice Lake for Desktop would do with it's increased IPC. If that is still going to happen.

 

Not every new architecture got a + after the 14nm, I think for some the process was exactly the same.

 

I wonder how Intel going to make 10nm or 7nm better than their 14nm+++++ maybe they want to keep 14nm+++++ alive and milk more

 

Amd will be at 5nm and Intel will still milk the 14nm, this just isnt even funny anymore.

 

Looks like will be a monster CPU for gaming. Oh but I forgot, FPS in games doesn't matter and only C4D/Blender render time matters. Suddenly every home user sold their high refresh rate monitors and has become a visual FX guru and plays games casually at 60hz

 

Remember that futurama episode when Bender overclocked himself more and more and at the end needed a waterfall for cooling? This chip somehow reminds me of that.

 

If this CPU supports 4.0 and if I worked at intel, I would sell 3.0 boards at launch and start selling 4.0 boards after initial sales. Why? Because selling 2 motherboards is better then selling 1 and bad press never stopped sales for Intel...

 

The CPUs are going to be good but it´s still the same arch and we need a new MB for it so the interest is low from my end... I think the only way i could be interested in this new platform is if Intel offered a very nice rebate for my current system and even so...
Let´s see if they drop their prices at least.

 

You are not supposed to upgrade CPU every year. Most ppl upgrade CPU every 5-10 years, so you buy new mobo with CPU upgrade. It's non issue in the real world.

 

go buy today, it will be a beast w/o those vulnerabilities

 

i9-10900K's gaming capability will be very similar to 9900K(S).
Those extra cores above 6C/12T mean little today for gaming. And having more than 8C/16T will unlikely yield any difference within this year.
From that perspective, It has only memory clock/latency and core clock*IPC. And that will be very comparable to 9900K(S) in games.

Calling 10C/20T gaming CPU this year or next is not realistic. Even while some call Ryzen 9 3900X/3950X gaming CPUs in attempt to force "Gaming only" comparison and ignore everything else.
Which is absurd approach since those who get Ryzen 9 chips actually do more than gaming. (Unless ePeen is involved.)

And if some pure gamer gets i9-10900K just for gaming, he'll be wasting money as if he bought Ryzen 9.

Pure gamers may easily look at i5-10600K or i7-10700K as long as they have screens with 240Hz or higher refresh rate.
People with 144/165Hz screens can enjoy full experience with non-K variants or older generations of non-K CPUs.

 

Thanks, I never studied the new nomenclature.

 

Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense. There's been huge improvements to Ryzen over the years. You really need to take into account the generational performance improvement, which can be substantial in some cases. While your statement makes more sense performance wise on the Intel platform, it's not absolute for Intel either, and it especially doesn't ring true for those with older Ryzen chips who can gain a nice bump in performance. There is no "Supposed to" in the tech enthusiast community.

 

0nm ? Is Intel finally ahead of AMD ? NEW TECH FROM ALIENS CONFIRMED ? TSMC IS BARELY AT 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /s

 

Damm That is Fast I give em that much! Won’t be long before Intel breaks the 6ghz Mark very cool! So people either choose intel for overall speed or Amd for overall performance it seems these days. Win win.

 

How can one chip (10900k) be 125w and the none k version be only 65w? That's weird numbers.

 

Why people with 2 year old Ryzen would need to upgrade? Isn't Ryzen supposed to extremely future proof because of many cores? Your argument goes out the window, because you blame Intel for frequent Mobo revisions, yet you champion frequent CPU upgrades, which like I said before, no one does. Heck, I'm PC enthusiast and I never upgrade CPU more frequently than every 5 years. When 5 years is up, you NEED a new motherboard, because your old one is desperately outdated. Old USB ports, old m.2 ports, everything is old. So like i said before, new Mobo requirement every 2-3 years from Intel isn't that big of an issue.

 

I'm not championing anything. Intel makes good chips and so does AMD. Though it's nice to have the option to drop in a new CPU if you want better performance is all I'm saying. You can't really argue that Ryzen 3000 offers a pretty decent performance boost over 2K series. It not always about more cores. Per core performance matters also. Otherwise, we would all have been happy with Bulldozer. There was a reason that people were still buying Intel quad cores for all those years.

 

Having options in this case is quite nice. It would be really cool if Intel did the same.