10900K is same thing as 9900K except it is 300Mhz more ?

Organik

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
116
In single threaded performance the 10900k @ 5.3Ghz on a core or 2 or more is just a 14++++ no real new tech + PCIe 3.0. It will be king for gaming like the 9900k was.
 
Last edited:

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,587
OC 3300x quad is faster than the 9900kfc in fortnight 1080p
It will be king for gaming like the 9900k was.
Not much of a king if it gets beaten by AMDs 2nd cheapest CPU in twitch FPS @ peasant resolution lol.
fortnight 3300x.jpg
 

Spartacus09

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Messages
1,368
TBF I do believe that a 3300x would beat it in some cases you can find a single or even several data points to support just about anything.
I wanna see the comparisons for other games and workloads not a single chart like snowdog noted.
 

Comixbooks

Ignore Me
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
14,910
300mhz would be a good fast PC back in 1998 back then I upgraded from a 250hz to a 500hz to a 800hz after that I got a custom build Dells were expensive back then.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
25,814
In single threaded performance the 10900k @ 5.3Ghz on a core or 2 or more is just a 14++++ no real new tech + PCIe 3.0. It will be king for gaming like the 9900k was.
It costs ~$100 more though...

Of course, the 10700k which is pretty much exactly the same as the 9900k is easier to come by and cheaper, but you'll need a new motherboard.
 

Ready4Dis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
1,027
It costs ~$100 more though...

Of course, the 10700k which is pretty much exactly the same as the 9900k is easier to come by and cheaper, but you'll need a new motherboard.
Yeah, but just imagine how much more power you can burn!!! You'd normally have to OC to hit 250 watts, now it can get there from the factory ;). Yeah, I'll wait for 3rd party benchmarks to officially hit, but I (and I appears most others) don't have high hopes (at least for the top end).
 

Spartacus09

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Messages
1,368
The only optimistic condition I'd have for it is if there was a bit of headroom and you could hit 5.4 or 5.5 all core, gonna need some baller cooling for that though.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
25,814
The only optimistic condition I'd have for it is if there was a bit of headroom and you could hit 5.4 or 5.5 all core, gonna need some baller cooling for that though.
It looks like you're going to need baller cooling to enable an all core OC at the top boost bin.
 

Spartacus09

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Messages
1,368
It looks like you're going to need baller cooling to enable an all core OC at the top boost bin.
Delid, liquid metal and copper IHS at minimum, direct die would be better with a custom WC loop with good flow.
I ain't getting it though, my 9900k is more than enough fire generation.
 

XoR_

Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
949
Intel should release Comet Lake for LGA1151 and make these processors considerably cheaper. If they did that then many current Coffee Lake users would upgrade, especially 9900K owners. Higher demand could also keep 14nm fabs occupied for some time.

Or alternatively if they went with new socket and old architecture then at the very least they should make these CPU's stand out in something. The one untapped potential feature they used only once was addition of L4 cache which boosted game performance in some cases so muchthat 4.2GHz Broadwell was able to outperform 5GHz Skylake. If they added L4 to Skylake (which we all know Coffe Lake and Comet Lake still is...) then this CPU would be completely untouchable in gaming and seriously interesting proposition. They wouldn't even need to push for 5.3GHz to leave any AMD offering in the dust.

And as it is this is the product line that is simply nonsensical and no one even asked for. We do not even have any official info or confirmation that there will be anything more for LGA1200 and what it could be. Maybe Rocket Lake which is rumored to be for this socket and have Xe based GPU will have large L4 cache... but maybe it won't and there is little point for anyone with LGA1151 to "upgrade.

I would say to just skip it. It is botched launch and no one seems to be excited about it 😖
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
2,263
Intel should release Comet Lake for LGA1151 and make these processors considerably cheaper. If they did that then many current Coffee Lake users would upgrade, especially 9900K owners. Higher demand could also keep 14nm fabs occupied for some time.

Or alternatively if they went with new socket and old architecture then at the very least they should make these CPU's stand out in something. The one untapped potential feature they used only once was addition of L4 cache which boosted game performance in some cases so muchthat 4.2GHz Broadwell was able to outperform 5GHz Skylake. If they added L4 to Skylake (which we all know Coffe Lake and Comet Lake still is...) then this CPU would be completely untouchable in gaming and seriously interesting proposition. They wouldn't even need to push for 5.3GHz to leave any AMD offering in the dust.

And as it is this is the product line that is simply nonsensical and no one even asked for. We do not even have any official info or confirmation that there will be anything more for LGA1200 and what it could be. Maybe Rocket Lake which is rumored to be for this socket and have Xe based GPU will have large L4 cache... but maybe it won't and there is little point for anyone with LGA1151 to "upgrade.

I would say to just skip it. It is botched launch and no one seems to be excited about it 😖
Not everyone is for the top end cpus only. The new 10600k cpu offers a good value in productivity and gaming especially when you factor in the iGPU.

Intel wants people that plan on upgrading their cpus to get on the new platform. There is a chance that RKL gaming performance will not be as good as the 10900k, depending on clocks. But honestly, is there really that many 9900k buyers salivating over a 10900k??

If they have to live with 380 fps instead of 400 fps while playing Counter Strike, I think they will live.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
25,814
Intel should release Comet Lake for LGA1151 and make these processors considerably cheaper. If they did that then many current Coffee Lake users would upgrade, especially 9900K owners. Higher demand could also keep 14nm fabs occupied for some time.
I said the same thing about putting CFL on Z170/Z270, especially since Z270 was only out for like 8 months before the CFL launch. Intel does what Intel wants...
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
25,814
Dominate = 10fps @1080p at low settings.

WE FUCKING DIDI IT!
Averaged over a suite of games it's maybe 7-10% difference over a comparable Zen2 part? At least that's what I've been seeing in reviews. Virtually no difference in gaming between the 10900k and the 10700k for the extra $150 upcharge (retail pricing...the ARK pricing might be closer to $100).
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,419
Intel CPU sales doesn't show they to dominate anything
AMD not only sells ten times more CPU but Zen2 also stimulated CPU sales
View attachment 247618
Don't get me wrong here. While their desktop performance is still good (compare how AMD fared during the whole decade before Ryzen when the screwed up), but Intel really lost price to performance ratio, and made it that much worse last year by disabling HT, and it's reflected in that sales chart. Though Intel still sells more CPUs (for now). They totally lost the self build after-market, which is what those sales represent, but that is a niche in the market. Though it is the one a lot of us are interested in, so Intel seemingly crapping on it, is annoying.

Intel massively screwed up in their decisions last year to disable HT across the board as well, and I said as much as soon as 9th generation was revealed. Intel had already lost the aftermarket, and then the pull that bonehead move on 9th gen. Epic stupid to cripple nearly their whole aftermarket lineup vs AMD. Note Intel still enabled HT on their laptop parts. They mainly crippled the desktop parts where they were already faltering. They got what they deserved.

I am just glad to see HT back in the midrange, making the i5s into great and affordable gaming CPUs.

Sales are also going to get a lot worse for Intel in Laptops, since new Ryzen 4000 APU are demonstrably superior in Laptops. I said way back that this APU was the most important part for AMD. Enthusiast forums like this are all about the aftermarket desktop parts, but that niche is a drop in the sales bucket.

The real consumer cash cow is the laptop market, and with Ryzen 4000 APU, AMD finally has a better part than anything Intel has, this is really going to hurt Intel, which has owned the laptop market, the way AMD now owns the Desktop aftermarket.
 

CraigHB

Weaksauce
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
81
The real consumer cash cow is the laptop market
Yes for sure. The retail market for box CPUs is just a drop in the bucket for Intel and they probably don't care much about it other than promotion. If AMD makes big strides in the laptop market, Intel will definitely feel that.

Makers like HP and Dell still buy a crap ton of parts for desktop systems. In terms of consumer sales laptops are quite a bit greater, but desktops are still there and include an amount that's noticeable. Though sales of computers at the consumer level have been on the decline for quite a while. It's a dwindling market. I think the consumer market will always be there, just not at the ravenous level it was some years ago. On the upside I think they got a big boost is sales recently with a lot of people shifting to work and school at home. You pretty much have to use a desktop or laptop for that kind of stuff.

As mentioned dropping HT on 9th gen was epic stupid as it got them creamed on the desktop side. Even for box desktop systems it gives buyers a reason to go with AMD. The last build I retired was Intel and in going to build a new machine I hadn't looked at product offerings for a while. I was surprised to see 9th gen Intel parts without HT. That was an instant veto for me, I was dead set on 8c/16t mainly because my i7 laptop is 6c/12t and I wanted my desktop to have more multi-core power. That put 9th gen Intel out of the question for me.

They fixed the lack of HT with 10th gen, but still the AMD parts are cheaper and run cooler. Even though they might not have the single core performance, the cost and thermal considerations are important to me. I think Intel still has a lot to do before they can put AMD down, and then there's Zen 3 in a few months.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,587
I'll believe that when I see it from a reputable site.

But don't let that stop you from scouring the dark corners of the internet, to cherry pick sketchy sites to support your beliefs.
I find it a very, very interesting data point due to CCX and clock config. Obviously it helps quite a bit on twitch FPS... I see it more as a potential future gain indicator for zen3.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,419
I find it a very, very interesting data point due to CCX and clock config. Obviously it helps quite a bit on twitch FPS... I see it more as a potential future gain indicator for zen3.
It's just that I read several big reviews from the big sites on the 3300X and never saw anything remotely close to that. So anomalous result from sketchy unknown site...

I do agree that the 3300X does highlight the latency benefit of staying away from inter-CCX traffic. But it highlights it best compared to equally clocked 3100. Then it's the same architecture, same cache size, same clock speed, and there are still big gains seen in some games.
Game benches start here. On this first one, which seems fairly consistent for others, Equally clocked, 3300X is 14% faster than 3100. At stock 3300X = 7700K (whats the all core boost on these?) though the 7700K can overclock better.

That does bode well for Zen 3 if it goes to a unified 8 core CCX as rumored.
 

Ready4Dis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
1,027
Yeah, Snowdog, I agree, the same CPU/architecture/clocks comparison is much more interesting. IF (big IF) zen3 can get close to that 14% uplift just from the single CCX along with any sort of IPC increase, it'll be a great release. This is why it's difficult for me to upgrade, something new is always coming out soon :).
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,853
As mentioned dropping HT on 9th gen was epic stupid as it got them creamed on the desktop side.
I'm still wondering why this is getting repeated.

Historically, HT has only been on the top-end Core parts; for the 9000-series, that's been the 9900 and variants. The 9700 (and variants) was a new SKU position. If you wanted eight cores with HT, you bought the 9900.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,419
I'm still wondering why this is getting repeated.

Historically, HT has only been on the top-end Core parts; for the 9000-series, that's been the 9900 and variants. The 9700 (and variants) was a new SKU position. If you wanted eight cores with HT, you bought the 9900.
Historically, Intel never had Core series competition. Intel could get away with crippling parts across the board then.

It's stupid to not adjust to new competitive realities. Ryzen 2000 had already beaten Intel in the aftermarket, and with Ryzen 3000 poised to do even more damage, Intel could have mitigated the damage by enabling HT.

Instead, Intel positioned in such a way that no reviewer or thinking customer could choose Intel parts below the 9700K.

Intel's marketing wizards decided, that the response to losing vs Ryzen 2000, was to lose even worse vs Ryzen 3000. The aftermarket is a small niche, but it's an important one for marketing. Every Review, every YT channel for a year, has pretty much been unanimous: Buy AMD.

I mean if I could predict that so could they. I remember thinking before Gen 9, was revealed; "Don't be stupid, don't be stupid". Gen 9 revealed: "Shit, they chose stupid".
 

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
8,529
Historically, Intel never had Core series competition. Intel could get away with crippling parts across the board then.

It's stupid to not adjust to new competitive realities. Ryzen 2000 had already beaten Intel in the aftermarket, and with Ryzen 3000 poised to do even more damage, Intel could have mitigated the damage by enabling HT.

Instead, Intel positioned in such a way that no reviewer or thinking customer could choose Intel parts below the 9700K.

Intel's marketing wizards decided, that the response to losing vs Ryzen 2000, was to lose even worse vs Ryzen 3000. The aftermarket is a small niche, but it's an important one for marketing. Every Review, every YT channel for a year, has pretty much been unanimous: Buy AMD.

I mean if I could predict that so could they. I remember thinking before Gen 9, was revealed; "Don't be stupid, don't be stupid". Gen 9 revealed: "Shit, they chose stupid".
Agree with all of this. Intel is just in a holding pattern waiting for the runway (7nm) to be built. I hope they don't run out of fuel before they land. I'm willing to bet their 7nm cpu's are going to be killer.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,853
Ryzen 2000 had already beaten Intel in the aftermarket
More like aftermarket mindshare...

Historically, Intel never had Core series competition. Intel could get away with crippling parts across the board then.
You're calling six- and eight-core parts that hit 5.0GHz 'crippled' here...

Instead, Intel positioned in such a way that no reviewer or thinking customer could choose Intel parts below the 9700K.
Really? Plenty of reasons to do so, especially against the motherboard / BIOS / memory compatibility shitshow that was Ryzen 2000. Plenty more reasons up and down the consumer stack just to get an IGP, since AMD has only now become interested in putting those on > four core parts.

The higher-end gaming market is not the only market.

Intel's marketing wizards decided, that the response to losing vs Ryzen 2000, was to lose even worse vs Ryzen 3000. The aftermarket is a small niche, but it's an important one for marketing. Every Review, every YT channel for a year, has pretty much been unanimous: Buy AMD.
I say 'buy AMD' too, but more from a price vs. performance standpoint now that AMD has gotten their performance up and stability and compatibility issues mostly figured. Same thing I said the last time they were in this position too, before their Bulldozer seppuku.

I mean if I could predict that so could they. I remember thinking before Gen 9, was revealed; "Don't be stupid, don't be stupid". Gen 9 revealed: "Shit, they chose stupid".
This is one prevailing - and supportable - perspective from enthusiasts, but do remember that Intel, like most enterprises interested in fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities, must also look toward sales.

Market segmentation, which AMD also clearly does, boosts revenue. Intel just had another record year.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,853
Both, pretty much all retailers were showing that with Ryzen 2000, AMD sales had eclipsed Intels in the aftermarket.
I saw one European retailer releasing numbers and people screenshotting Amazon's lists, but nothing that showed overall aftermarket sales with hard numbers that would stand under scrutiny.

That's not to say that it cannot be the case, but that it cannot be shown beyond a few indicators, and relative to stuff like revenue and overall marketshare, likely is a bit more wishful thinking than reality.


And right now, Intel's marketing team knows that they're on a short leash. They have no knockout punches, and they have to weigh market appeals against approaches that are more likely to generate revenue, even if they generate ire in the more vocal quarters. They're in a tough spot, no doubt.
 

Ready4Dis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
1,027
Historically, Intel never had Core series competition. Intel could get away with crippling parts across the board then.

It's stupid to not adjust to new competitive realities. Ryzen 2000 had already beaten Intel in the aftermarket, and with Ryzen 3000 poised to do even more damage, Intel could have mitigated the damage by enabling HT.

Instead, Intel positioned in such a way that no reviewer or thinking customer could choose Intel parts below the 9700K.

Intel's marketing wizards decided, that the response to losing vs Ryzen 2000, was to lose even worse vs Ryzen 3000. The aftermarket is a small niche, but it's an important one for marketing. Every Review, every YT channel for a year, has pretty much been unanimous: Buy AMD.

I mean if I could predict that so could they. I remember thinking before Gen 9, was revealed; "Don't be stupid, don't be stupid". Gen 9 revealed: "Shit, they chose stupid".
I wonder if the fact that they were supply constrained for so long had anything to do with some of their decisions. I mean, if they're selling out why lower prices or give more to the end user when you can sell out doing the bare minimum? It's a crappy way of thinking long term, but I wonder if this had something to do with it as well. Well, at least with this generation they are more competitive below the 10900k now since they finally realized they were losing to much (and didn't have much else to offer). I'm much more interested in the 3300x and 10400f type parts than I am in the 10900 or 3950x (well, for my kids boxes). I normally look around the $100 mark for their CPU's and around the $200 mark for mine depending on what's available at the time. Anyways, glad they brought the HT to the mid tier finally (they should have done it in the 9 series like you said). Maybe prices will stabilize once this corona stuff is over and we can really see where everyone is at because it's making it very difficult to price things out and really get a good comparison when 1/2 the stuff is being scalped.
 

CraigHB

Weaksauce
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
81
...especially against the motherboard / BIOS / memory compatibility shitshow that was Ryzen 2000.
I don't know how much better it is for Ryzen 3000 series. I have complaints with the BIOS on my x570 board and from what I can gather it's not an uncommon complaint across all the x570 boards. It's enough to make me want to go back to Intel. I left AMD many years ago for the better system compatibility and interoperability Core 2 offered, stayed with Intel until Ryzen 3000. Seems that hasn't changed hugely. I don't know though, I'd have to put together a current Intel system to compare. In any case there's things I'm still really happy with on Ryzen.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,419
I agree, being supply constrained, means they can try to squeeze more profits if they are selling all the silicon they can build. I guess if they had excess capacity, they might have tried to be more competitive in the mid-range and below. If I were buying in the last year there were pretty much no Intel options worth considering below 9700K IMO, and that was too expensive for me (and I bet lots of others).

Below that point it was AMDs market, and that is reflected in retailer sales trends.

If Ryzen 4000 really has 8 core CCX (eliminate inter-CCX latency in 6-8 core gaming CPUs) and a couple of minor tweaks and clock speed boost, it could even take the gaming crown from Intel. Then what do they have left? Intertia that keeps OEMs buying Intel?
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,853
I don't know how much better it is for Ryzen 3000 series. I have complaints with the BIOS on my x570 board and from what I can gather it's not an uncommon complaint across all the x570 boards. It's enough to make me want to go back to Intel. I left AMD many years ago for the better system compatibility and interoperability Core 2 offered, stayed with Intel until Ryzen 3000. Seems that hasn't changed hugely. I don't know though, I'd have to put together a current Intel system to compare. In any case there's things I'm still really happy with on Ryzen.
It was bad enough that the acolytes here who venture out of the AMD subforums don't bother to defend those releases ;)

Basically toward the second half of the Ryzen 2000 generation, stuff started to stabilize all around. A few months after the 3000 release problems were fairly limited to specific cases and the platform in general was solid.

At the same time, Intel has been releasing Skylake cores with various small improvements and fixes, as well as iterating the platforms, but in general not pushing the envelope the same way they themselves had planned, so aside from making sure that you have the right board for your CPU, you were good. The rest was just amenities.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,853
Then what do they have left? Intertia that keeps OEMs buying Intel?
From a performance numbers standpoint, sure, but remember that Intel can build over 10 times the number of CPUs in a year that AMD can order from TSMC. Both are tapped out.

So when it comes to actually getting something you need, if you actually do need it, you're more likely to have Intel available.
 

CraigHB

Weaksauce
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
81
Then what do they have left? Intertia that keeps OEMs buying Intel?
Well the retail box CPU market is nothing aside from promotion. You have to look at where most of their sales occur and that would be OEM system purchases. Laptops are probably number one in numbers with desktop systems down there at the "we still care" level. Consumer opinion is still pretty important. Intel definitely does not want the average consumer walking into someplace like a Best Buy dead set on buying a box AMD based system. Consumer opinion can trickle down to those making enterprise purchases as well. They'd feel that pain for sure.

So when it comes to actually getting something you need, if you actually do need it, you're more likely to have Intel available.
Intel does still have an order of magnitude greater production capacity than AMD. So in the end it could come down to who can fill the orders regardless of consumer opinion.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,419
Laptops are probably number one in numbers with desktop systems down there at the "we still care" level.
Yes, but on the specs, they have now lost in laptops as well. Ryzen 4000 APUs are better laptop CPUs than Intels. "We still care" doesn't matter much when you can't match your competitor.


Intel does still have an order of magnitude greater production capacity than AMD. So in the end it could come down to who can fill the orders regardless of consumer opinion.
Intel has been production constrained for years, and they didn't want to build new 14nm fabs because they should be moving off 14nm "soon".

AMD OTOH, appear to have no supply constraints, and TSMC keeps building more fab capacity.

AMD won't take over Intel in market share overnight, so I can see them steadily stealing Intel share while TSMC steadily grows capacity.
 
Last edited:
Top