Asus Shows Benchmark performance of Intel Core i9-10900K on Cinebench R15

These graphs are made probably in Paint, differences do not correspond with difference in points, even considering that graphs do not start in 0.. (e. g. difference from 213 to 219 is smaller than 2019 to 222)
And it is not sure that these are ASUS slides, there may be just used their motheboard.

 

Funny... my 3900X scores 215/3182 (on a MSI B450M Mortar Max /UEFI@Auto, RAM@3600MHz CL 16-18-18-39; Cooler: Arctiv Liquid Freezer II 240)

And somehow I have the feeling, that my CPU runs cooler with 212W peakpower usage ;-)

So thanx, but no thanx...

 

I got 7859points in Cinebench r20 with my 3900x and overclocked memory. Haven't tested r15.

Maybe 10900k didn't make it with R20 LOL

 

So,my 6850k at 4.4 ghz score 180 in cinebench r15,and the new flagship cpu score 23% more at 5.3ghz which is 23% more ghz.what the hell?at 4.4ghz the 10900k is the same powerfull,i mean no IPC incrase at all in 4 years?do u think guys that is worth to upgrade for that 24% single core performance?

 

You will get more game performance in cpubound games. 6850 has big cache and quad channel memory? Maybe that's why 6850 is pretty good in Cinebench.

10900k with 4400+ tweaked memory wil be Very good for games.
We are binning memory here in Norway, to be ready for 10900k Asus z490 Apex party

https://www.diskusjon.no/uploads/mo...0959.png.19c3effcfefe928d64e77f2ace0f68cd.png

 

Why 10 cores for games? For games, 10400 will be good enaugh if you insist on Intel. And saved money you can invest to the graphic card instead.

 

Considering most games are GPU limited, not sure 10900K is really a big deal for games. 3950X and even 3900X are also overated as "gaming CPU". So only for gaming, won't see a real difference with a 8 cores classic CPU.

The only viable thinking is about thinking to keep these CPU for a very long time, but consoles getting 8 cores next-gen probably means most games (but not all) will stick to 8 cores coded games for a long time.

 

Don't upgrade, you still have a lot of life to squeeze out of this CPU.

It looks like the 10900k is simply an overclocked 9900k with 2 more cores. But let's wait for the benchmarks.

 

I don't play with midrange gpu and vsync=on

Asus Apex z490 +10900k + 4600mhz+ tweaked memory + 3080ti. Many games will be cpulimited. Like Battlefield V is now even in 1440p and one 2080ti

PS: I don't play much, this plattform is mostly for benchmarking and overclocking the memory

This is with Z390 Apex binning memory to z490 plattform:

 

Haha,,
The price would probably be around twice and then some compaired to the R7 3800x.
And im just running 3200mhz ram on mine.. (Gskil flareX 2x8mb cas 14)

My 3800x+ Noctua NH15 + Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite - bios F11 + External sound card.

R15
Multi 2195
Single 210

And Intel have 1 ghz advantage and 2 cores 4 threads more and really no advantage.

 

Thank you for all the suggestions,yeah i know today games barely use more than 6 core,but i like to play games on the ps3 emulator,nintendo emulator and one of my favorite game is the Trainz Railroad simulator 2019,which is a cpu hungry application.that is the only game where my gpu not pushed to the 90% region cause my cpu.so the 24% more ipc will be welcomed but iam not sure if its worth to sell my old one and buy this comet lake

 

With a 3900X at stock on a TUF X570-Plus Wi-Fi, with DDR4-3600 14-15RD-14WR-14-28-42 (270 RFC) I get a score of 3250 in R15 even with the pussy conservative Ryzen Balanced power plan which drops the maximum clocks by 50 to 100+ MHz vs the 1usmus power plan.

I have no real issues in high frame rate gameplay because I'm not a caveman or a degenerate so I play at 1440p/144Hz, not 720p with a 960Hz monitor that doesn't exist. 720p, the resolution literally no one ever used because long before 16:9 became a thing that resolution was massively surpassed when it came to the bare minimum. But hey, it makes for good pseudo logic to pretend overpriced BS from those turds at Intel is not an insane ripoff. People actually believe those results scale. No.

But let's not get complacent. If Intel don't come up with some competition soon, AMD's greed is going to rise at an exponential rate. They've already jacked up their prices as far as they think they can push in their experiments. Come on Intel, get good!

 

Isn't the 1usmus power plan integrated in the most recent versions of the AMD chipset drivers?

 

I actually don't know since I already had that power plan installed. I just don't use it anymore since I'm not comfortable with that increase in voltage it causes as even the balanced Ryzen plan pushes my CPU towards 1.5V for everything from very light to heavy sustained loads, and that's with me undervolting my CPU vs stock settings, by a lot. I use 1.28V vs stock/auto which jacks it to 1.48V before the added voltage from dynamic clocks/power management kicks in. I don't want to know what it'd sustain in that case.

Anyway, it seems incredibly unlikely AMD would do that; if you do get that power plan with your drivers I would guess it's in the package from a board manufacturer rather than directly from AMD themselves. If AMD have started throwing in 1usmus stuff, I'd be really surprised.

 

Here's my stock 3900X running v1.92 CPU-Z.

https://valid.x86.fr/phthup