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

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, May 18, 2020.

  1. Mesab67

    Mesab67 Master Guru

    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    85
    GPU:
    GTX 1080
    Well, the comments section is going to be an interesting read tomorrow. Warnings at the ready.
     
  2. k3vst3r

    k3vst3r Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,444
    Likes Received:
    55
    GPU:
    Nitro+ 5700XT
    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.
     
  3. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,523
    Likes Received:
    523
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    There is a thing that people tend to forget. If you're on a longer upgrade cycle, the 10900k is equally a dead end, if you care about playing AAA console ports. If you see the architecture of both the next generation consoles (and the PS5 more), then you realise that 16 cores should be the minimum for any long-term system.
    I agree about AM4 being a dead end after Zen 3, but there is no magic allowing PCIe 5.0 and DDR5, and they need to break out at a point.

    Where do you see the info that Rocket Lake will be new? It even has the same "Lake" nickname, that indicates it's part of the same CPU family.
    This is its compiler profile according to Wikichip:
    upload_2020-5-19_11-13-59.png

    The thing is, the gaming difference (unless you try to get to 240Hz, and even then it's kind of doubtful), is on average around ~5%, depending on the testing.
    There is also the issue of longevity when asset streaming will be much more popular with game engine from 2021 and on, where Intel chips not only have literally half the I/O (PCIe 4.0 vs 3.0), but a crazy 60% core deficit to deal with it too.
    To me it sounds like another "the i5 is perfect for gaming" argument, followed by "these console ports are so unoptimised and they're stuttering with my quad thread CPU" whining. Hence the cycle will repeat.
     
  4. metagamer

    metagamer Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    731
    GPU:
    Palit GameRock 2080
    Exaggerating a little bit, aren't you? 16c/32t as minimum? How long term are you even thinking?

    I was just saying and it's a fact. And the whole campaign around the CPU has been and will be "it's the fastest gaming chip on the planet". Which it is and I'm sure the reviews will mention that. That's all I'm saying.

    And sure, diminishing returns, massively. And there'll be some other great CPUs in the line up, like the 6c/12t and 8c/16t CPUs. Look, I was just saying what I think the reviews will conclude. I'm not saying people need to buy this CPU to game. I've been saying from day 1 that all I do on my PC is gaming and I wouldn't buy the 10900k. But it'll be the fastest gaming chip. You can't deny that.
     
    toyo likes this.

  5. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,523
    Likes Received:
    523
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    If someone gives ~$1000 for CPU, memory and motherboard, I would guess at least for the next four years.


    But isn't this a bit like beating a dead horse? I'm not even certain which games are left that the core architecture is that favoured any more. Especially since Zen 3 is coming this year, it would be a bad move by default declaring anything (inside a reasonable timeframe). I believe that people underestimate the difference that the 8-core CCX will make for gaming. But sure, when it is presented, it will be the fastest CPU for benchmarking games.
    The funny thing is that these CPUs have really fast single core clocks, but the 9900KS has these too, so they won't be much faster for gaming. But on the other hand they don't have enough more cores to be meaningful for anything else either, so they're in a kind of limbo.
    You get a 10900K, you get 9900K performance for the games you care to hit 240Hz or whatever, but then the two extra cores are not enough extra cores to go for it instead of the 3950x.
     
  6. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,637
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Yes, it is a fact. What isn't is to say that Intel is the obvious choice for gaming. That is what I'm arguing against.
     
  7. kakiharaFRS

    kakiharaFRS Master Guru

    Messages:
    561
    Likes Received:
    144
    GPU:
    MSI Gaming X 1080ti
    9900k/10900k interest another gamer type other than competitive max Hz monitors players, the ones who want the max visual quality they can get, modders
    there's a lot of modders on pc https://www.nexusmods.com/ we more than welcome every fps we can have
    even with a 9900k I killed all the services I could, have very little running in the background because I play heavily modded games with reshade/enb so whatever fps you see in benchmarks you can halve or worse, that's the price to have games that look like nothing on the market
    120/2 is 60fps okay-ish 90/2 is 45fps...unacceptable !
    not saying I'm not a niche but that's one case where we need those +20fps because we run the game with as much picture quality we can riding on the edge of unplayablility
    https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd....055/57B10511EE268E02FBC30E4D41D50CED64C7D78E/
    https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd....988/FDDA41EFAE8AA71D8E9E34CA9C64B3CE401874E0/
    no fancy depth of field filter here, that's how I play my game at 120fps (indoors at least) not sure there's anything left from vanilla
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2020
  8. jwb1

    jwb1 Master Guru

    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    156
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 2080 Ti
    The reporting that is out there currently is that Rocket Lake will be Z490 based on Willow Cove, not Skylake anymore. I know it sounds confusing with all the Lakes, but Willow Cove is a newer architecture than Skylake, and thus will bring more IPC. Still 14nm, though.

    Not sure what you mean, even the next consoles (Ps5, etc) are still using 8 physical cores, Zen cores, but still 8. And as we all know games, even on PC are made with the consoles in mind, so at most for the next few years 8 cores will be what is at most pushed in most games. I bet even many games on console don't push all the 8 cores still. First party games definitely for sure. Some games on PC will go beyond that, but not many.

    So no, I would disagree that 16 cores is minimum for gaming. Not for a long time still.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2020
  9. H83

    H83 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,375
    Likes Received:
    774
    GPU:
    MSI Duke GTX1080Ti
    16 cores??? Games barely scale past 6 cores. I could be wrong but i don´t believe trowing cores at games is gonna make them run much faster because there seems to exist a limit to how much cores a game needs to run without creating a bottleneck.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2020
  10. jwb1

    jwb1 Master Guru

    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    156
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 2080 Ti
    Even the new consoles are not focusing on more cores or threads, they are pushing storage speeds. So if anything, invest in a really fast NvMe drive than a 16 core CPU.
     

  11. metagamer

    metagamer Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    731
    GPU:
    Palit GameRock 2080
    Hey, that's minimum, according to him, best start saving up for some 32 core CPU, just to be on the safe side.
     
    nizzen likes this.
  12. Glottiz

    Glottiz Master Guru

    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    164
    GPU:
    TUF 3080 OC
    10 core 20 thread 5.3Ghz CPU is a "dead end". May I ask what are you smoking?
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2020
  13. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,637
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Remember: PC games tend to revolve around the capabilities of consoles. Modern consoles have 8 cores but to my recollection, only 6 are readily available for games. So, we're not going to see a whole lot of games that demand more than 6 threads. Both next-gen consoles will have 8c/16t. I think it's safe to assume that at least 2c/4t will be reserved for background tasks again, so I predict next-gen games won't scale much beyond 12 threads.

    For those of you who don't do a lot of multitasking while gaming (like myself), I'm confident something like an 8700K or 2600X ought to hold up just fine for next-gen games. Our GPUs on the other hand..... those I think will become outdated rather quickly.
     
    Ricardo and PrMinisterGR like this.
  14. H83

    H83 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,375
    Likes Received:
    774
    GPU:
    MSI Duke GTX1080Ti
    I´m using an overclocked 7600K that so far has served me well and my next CPU is going to a 8 core one at best, no more than that for me. Unless sunddenly games really start ot use 16 cores, something i really don´t believe...
     
  15. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,637
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Not only do I find it unlikely for games to start using 16 cores/threads, but of the ones that will, they'll most likely still run perfectly smooth on 12 threads. You might not get as high of a framerate, but as discussed before, most people just care about 30-60FPS. So for most people, as long as they achieve their desired framerate, there's no point in paying for more cores. I'm very confident that 8c/16t is the most gamers will need in the foreseeable future (if all they do is play games and do nothing else at the same time).

    Despite my confidence though, I'm going to hold off any CPU upgrades until I hear about what next-gen games will demand. I pretty much just buy 1 CPU per console generation and I get the minimum specs required to prevent the CPU from being a bottleneck.
     

  16. Embra

    Embra Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    324
    GPU:
    Vega 64 Nitro+LE
    Perhaps he meant 16 threads? He will have to clarify if he wishes.
     
  17. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,523
    Likes Received:
    523
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    Unless architecture changes, if you want the same cool stuff you have to be able to stream them in at 7-10GB/sec from storage to the GPU memory. Please try doing that with even a 12-core CPU, while any game is running, don't forget the frame time graphs :p

    The PS5 can do it because it has hardware that offsets all that work from the CPU. We currently have nothing like that on the PC, but we should. It is a very clear point, I believe.
     
  18. metagamer

    metagamer Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    731
    GPU:
    Palit GameRock 2080
    No, because we were talking about the 10c/20t 10900k and he said we'll need more cores.
     
  19. craycray

    craycray Member Guru

    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    37
    GPU:
    3080 Gaming X Trio
    The power consumption is 28% higher than 3900x, a big jump from your "calculation" of 10%.
     
  20. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,587
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    You forgot moar dust, lower fans lifetime.

    Lower wattage => higher Quality of Life, peace of mind
     

Share This Page