No excitement about intel's latest offering??

D

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
15,116
No one is interested in the latest 10 core, up to 5.3 ghz chip?? :) I was considering an 9900K and calling it a day, then read about the latest 10900k. Seems pretty interesting. But I haven't seen much hype about it. Is it the same core as the existing Coffee Lake setup, just more of them at a higher clock?
 
Last edited:
Not really, from my reading there are more excited about the 3300x than Intel's next chip. It's expensive, burns power like crazy, and still falls short on many things. Yes, it can give you a few more FPS at low resolutions, if that's your thing sure.
Over 90C with liquid cooling.. at 4.8ghz
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tw...at-over-90c-even-with-liquid-cooling/amp.html
And others saying similar
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tomshardware.com/amp/news/intel-core-i9-10900k-stress-test

So unless you spend some serious coin on the cooling good luck maintaining boost. It just doesn't have a lot going for it. Still gets beat by 3900x in threaded loads, still slightly out in front in low resolution gaming, use a crap ton of power to do it. Just isn't a ton to get a excited about. Hopefully we will see some real benchmarks but I haven't seen to much reason to be hopeful.

Edit. You said your struggling to maintain 4.8... so does this chip with a 240mm radiator at over 90C. Unless you're really hitting a wall in something specific, your not missing much.
 
Need a space heater with 2 extra cores? This was a few months ago but from reading around the web, 250-300w to push it past 5.1Ghz barrier. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intels-new-desktop-processor-draws-too-much-power

After seeing that the decision to go 3900x was a good one. Now the price is at $529 after we heard Intel was going to be competitive price wise with this series. Don't look like it. They can have the gaming crown and hotness that goes with it. Lets see how long they last. A Rumored 10-15% increase in fps and alot of power draw doesn't seem like it is worth it and I was an Intel guy before I got this 3900x. Also, 4000 series is coming, will see what happens then.
 
SnowBeast said:
Need a space heater with 2 extra cores? This was a few months ago but from reading around the web, 250-300w to push it past 5.1Ghz barrier. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intels-new-desktop-processor-draws-too-much-power

After seeing that the decision to go 3900x was a good one. Now the price is at $529 after we heard Intel was going to be competitive price wise with this series. Don't look like it. They can have the gaming crown and hotness that goes with it. Lets see how long they last. A Rumored 10-15% increase in fps and alot of power draw doesn't seem like it is worth it and I was an Intel guy before I got this 3900x. Also, 4000 series is coming, will see what happens then.
Click to expand...
$529, but preorders were at $599... Will see how availability is. And as you mentioned AMD next gen out, but that's a little ways out still. If they can get the IPC increase they were talking about they should be very competitive, but those are far off rumors at this point.
 
Ready4Dis said:
Not really, from my reading there are more excited about the 3300x than Intel's next chip. It's expensive, burns power like crazy, and still falls short on many things. Yes, it can give you a few more FPS at low resolutions, if that's your thing sure.
Over 90C with liquid cooling.. at 4.8ghz
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tw...at-over-90c-even-with-liquid-cooling/amp.html
And others saying similar
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tomshardware.com/amp/news/intel-core-i9-10900k-stress-test

So unless you spend some serious coin on the cooling good luck maintaining boost. It just doesn't have a lot going for it. Still gets beat by 3900x in threaded loads, still slightly out in front in low resolution gaming, use a crap ton of power to do it. Just isn't a ton to get a excited about. Hopefully we will see some real benchmarks but I haven't seen to much reason to be hopeful.

Edit. You said your struggling to maintain 4.8... so does this chip with a 240mm radiator at over 90C. Unless you're really hitting a wall in something specific, your not missing much.
Click to expand...

I'm using a 280MM AIO ATM, I didn't realize it was so bad :X. I may just look and holding off for Zen 3, or shelling out for a 3900x then :). planning on Doing a full WC setup for the next upgrade, along with GPU.

Also, not sure why it's struggling now, Might need to delid it again and re-apply the liquid metal.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
I'm using a 280MM AIO ATM, I didn't realize it was so bad :X. I may just look and holding off for Zen 3, or shelling out for a 3900x then :). planning on Doing a full WC setup for the next upgrade, along with GPU.

Also, not sure why it's struggling now, Might need to delid it again and re-apply the liquid metal.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you'll be borderline burning up your CPU with that setup if you load it. And this is why there just isn't much excitement, minimal gains for a large increase in power. Reminds me of AMD GPUs, lol.
 
I had the 10900k and a Z490 motherboard in my cart at Newegg early today within minutes of the pre-order launch (at $529 also). I just didn't feel like I was going to get $800 out of that setup over my current one seeing as they are both CFL based.
 
Ready4Dis said:
Yeah, you'll be borderline burning up your CPU with that setup if you load it. And this is why there just isn't much excitement, minimal gains for a large increase in power. Reminds me of AMD GPUs, lol.
Click to expand...

My post above you almost included a R9 290X reference.
 
cjcox said:
Saving for 10 years from now...
Click to expand...

It's a pretty solid statement, you can hand a decade-old 980X to someone now and they're unlikely to notice its slow for day-to-day tasks, and a 2600K is pretty viable even for gaming.
The 10900K isn't exciting because it doesn't really improve on what Intel is good at (low latency and high clock speeds). Instead, it adds two more cores that no one really asked for (if you're married to the mainstream platforms and need cores, AMD is the undisputed best choice, and if your workload scales to 10 cores it could probably benefit from 12 or 16).
 
an i5/i7 with a cheap Z490 board with multicore enhancement and some decent RAM would probably make a better gaming rig than a 3600/B450...
 
mda said:
an i5/i7 with a cheap Z490 board with multicore enhancement and some decent RAM would probably make a better gaming rig than a 3600/B450...
Click to expand...

I'm on a 9700kf build bc 2600 wasn't feeding my 1080ti in proportion to my monitors.

I like the dead flat frame time in cpu bound games.

I am building a couple Ryzen systems for my buddies kids graduation presents. They don't know anything so itll be fine.
 
I was somewhat interested, I'm in the process of replacing my 5.1ghz 7700k that is starting to struggle with stuff I used it for, however whilst it's obviously better for gaming than the 3960x I am getting, it lacks the stuff I want to allow me to move to a single machine. I'll lose some frames sure, even over what I have now but really it's not going to be enough of a difference to limit myself by having an annoying workflow. Don't really know why you'd get it over a 3900x unless you were really obsessed about a couple of frames.

Plus I got really pissed off with Intel over the ridiculous changing of chipset very 6 minutes. Ironic given the next TR's will be the last SP3 chips, but meh it's not a rational purchase.
 
mda said:
an i5/i7 with a cheap Z490 board with multicore enhancement and some decent RAM would probably make a better gaming rig than a 3600/B450...
Click to expand...

From what I saw yesterday with the preorder, that's at least $100 difference in price for the i5. An i7 combo is pushing ~$550.
 
kirbyrj said:
From what I saw yesterday with the preorder, that's at least $100 difference in price for the i5. An i7 combo is pushing ~$550.
Click to expand...
A stock i5 with MCE/motherboard trickery will likely eat the 3600 in gaming scenarios. Interesting how the lower end Z490s *SEEM* to be better than the lower end X570s
 
mda said:
A stock i5 with MCE/motherboard trickery will likely eat the 3600 in gaming scenarios. Interesting how the lower end Z490s *SEEM* to be better than the lower end X570s
Click to expand...

"Eat" is relative and $100 is $100... I can't really talk to the motherboard situation, but a cursory look seemed to me like they are basically the same basic design just with Intel chipsets (for example, Asus X570-P vs. Z490-P looked awfully similar and other than a few different ICCs likely are).

I feel no need to upgrade personally to anything this generation (after all it's just another Skylake iteration and I already have one of those) nor do I feel the need to upgrade any Ryzen 3XXX system I have as the gaming is "good enough" for the price. I'm holding out for the Zen 3 vs. Rocket Lake battle later this year (or early next year) which should be much more interesting.

Edit: I just got an e-mail from newegg with $165 Ryzen 3600s. Couple that with a $65 BNIB B450 and you're at $230. The 10400 (non-k) with the same 6C/12T is $195. Boost speed is 4.3Ghz. Lowest priced Z490 board is $150 on NE. So at a bare minimum you're at $230 vs $345 for what would be very similar performance. To get an unlocked i5, you're still looking at $230+ just for the CPU. If Intel allows OCing on B460 boards, and the "locked" CPUs can MCE to max turbo on all core, then the price/performance might be closer. And I might be tempted to drop $20-30 extra for an Intel chipset as I've always had good luck with them. I'm not tempted to drop $100 extra at this time.
 
Last edited:
Iratus said:
Plus I got really pissed off with Intel over the ridiculous changing of chipset very 6 minutes. Ironic given the next TR's will be the last SP3 chips, but meh it's not a rational purchase.
Click to expand...

Well AMD is well on it's way with matching intels shenanigans when it comes to motherboards and CPU compatibility as Ryzen 3 will only run on 500 series mobo's and up. Steve from Gamers nexus has a nice vid about it.
 
Intel has been nothing but a huge disappointment as of late. Not only they couldn't get 10nm out of the door, which is probably obsolete considering that AMD is already on 7nm and by the time when Intel does use 7nm for their products, AMD most likely would have moved to an advanced lower node which makes 7nm already obsolete. How the mighty has fallen when Intel was in the lead for a decade.

Not sure why they are asking so much for their Z490 boards, it looks like a refreshed Z390 with a different socket without PCI-E 4.0. Even if the 10900K does manage to outperform the 3900x, they have no answer to the 3950x which is already a loss for Intel there.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
As some people who I think are currently banned have pointed out, Intels 10nm is on par with TSMC 7nm
Click to expand...
giphy-downsized-large.gif
 
ChronoDetector said:
Intel has been nothing but a huge disappointment as of late. Not only they couldn't get 10nm out of the door, which is probably obsolete considering that AMD is already on 7nm and by the time when Intel does use 7nm for their products, AMD most likely would have moved to an advanced lower node which makes 7nm already obsolete. How the mighty has fallen when Intel was in the lead for a decade.

Not sure why they are asking so much for their Z490 boards, it looks like a refreshed Z390 with a different socket without PCI-E 4.0. Even if the 10900K does manage to outperform the 3900x, they have no answer to the 3950x which is already a loss for Intel there.
Click to expand...

rumor mill is that z490 is secretly designed to support PCIE 4.0 when/if intel ever add's it. that was ultimately the reason why they switched to the 1200pin socket even though they don't want to directly confirm it that's what most board partner sources have told GN Steve and der8auer. so if that's the case it would explain the higher prices.
 
Honestly no, the 3900X is amazing and if I wanted a 4 series I can swap out the CPU. However, if reviews show it devastating my 3900X/4XXX equivalent... Maybe?

But I highly doubt Intel 10th gen is going to make me swap.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
rumor mill is that z490 is secretly designed to support PCIE 4.0 when/if intel ever add's it. that was ultimately the reason why they switched to the 1200pin socket even though they don't want to directly confirm it that's what most board partner sources have told GN Steve and der8auer. so if that's the case it would explain the higher prices.
Click to expand...

I'm sure most current gen boards could actually support PCIe 4.0. A lot of PCIe 3.0 AMD 4XX series boards had beta bioses enabling PCIe 4.0 before AMD clamped down on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
ChronoDetector said:
Intel has been nothing but a huge disappointment as of late. Not only they couldn't get 10nm out of the door, which is probably obsolete considering that AMD is already on 7nm and by the time when Intel does use 7nm for their products, AMD most likely would have moved to an advanced lower node which makes 7nm already obsolete. How the mighty has fallen when Intel was in the lead for a decade.

Not sure why they are asking so much for their Z490 boards, it looks like a refreshed Z390 with a different socket without PCI-E 4.0. Even if the 10900K does manage to outperform the 3900x, they have no answer to the 3950x which is already a loss for Intel there.
Click to expand...
It probably has to do with the 250watts required NOT overclocked... And early indications show it is slower than 3900x in threaded loads (generalizing with limited data, need real benches to confirm). It also needs to keep (going by memory) 75C to not throttle... Considering it runs over 90C while throttling with a 240mm radiator, this is a bigger ask than what people are used to.
 
I thought pretty heavily about upgrading over the last week myself from my 8700K. Just can't make myself do it with the power consumption plus the heat. I know this is somewhat speculation, but it still makes me hesitate.
 
Niner21 said:
I thought pretty heavily about upgrading over the last week myself from my 8700K. Just can't make myself do it with the power consumption plus the heat. I know this is somewhat speculation, but it still makes me hesitate.
Click to expand...


Do what I do, buy upgrades in winter. Much easier to justify power hungry machines when you're cold.
 
Need a pc right now. Can't wait microcenter to stock them up.
 
Niner21 said:
I thought pretty heavily about upgrading over the last week myself from my 8700K. Just can't make myself do it with the power consumption plus the heat. I know this is somewhat speculation, but it still makes me hesitate.
Click to expand...

honestly unless you need the extra cores the 8700k is still a beast for pretty much everything besides multi-thread scaling applications. but either way i'd just wait and see what happens to 9900k prices, if they go down then you basically have yourself a 10700k without the expensive board.
 
I have a 9900k under a d15, even with a lowered (voltage) offset when running all cores at 5ghz with AVX offset set to zero, temps hit low 90s, no throttling, but I wouldn't leave it like that. I doubt better cooling would help much (I have a lot of case airflow). I have settled for an avx offset of 2.

Single core/dual core speeds really don't matter for much except for desktop responsiveness (ENABLE Speedshift/HWP on your machines!)
 
Last edited:
Digital Viper-X- said:
No one is interested in the latest 10 core, up to 5.3 ghz chip?? :) My 8700K is starting to struggle a bit in maintaining 4.8ghz, I had to boost the voltage recently to stabilize it. so I was considering an 9900K and calling it a day, then read about the latest 10900k. Seems pretty interesting. But I haven't seen much hype about it. Is it the same core as the existing Coffee Lake setup, just more of them at a higher clock?
Click to expand...

What I am most excited about is the return of the 8700K, now as an i5 at a lower price point, and maybe even the return of the 7700K, as lower priced i3.

You might try delidding and Liquid Metal on that 8700K, if you feel it's holding you back, but really I think you you wouldn't even notice a difference with i9 10900K, over your 8700K, except when the benchmark reports it's number.

Just because something faster exists, doesn't mean it would actually produce a meaningful benefit for you.


Master_shake_ said:
Just look at all those awesome desktop cpus on 10nm that you can bu.........

Oh there aren't any?
Click to expand...

Intel's biggest problem with 10nm going forward, is that their 14nm was too damn good. Now 10nm can't really compete on the desktop where clock speed is king.

Even TSMC 7nm would be a downgrade for Intel vs its 14nm on Desktop. It's possible we might never see another 5GHz+ desktop CPU from anyone, below 14nm.
 
Snowdog said:
What I am most excited about is the return of the 8700K, now as an i5 at a lower price point, and maybe even the return of the 7700K, as lower priced i3.

You might try delidding and Liquid Metal on that 8700K, if you feel it's holding you back, but really I think you you wouldn't even notice a difference with i9 10900K, over your 8700K, except when the benchmark reports it's number.

Just because something faster exists, doesn't mean it would actually produce a meaningful benefit for you.




Intel's biggest problem with 10nm going forward, is that their 14nm was too damn good. Now 10nm can't really compete on the desktop where clock speed is king.

Even TSMC 7nm would be a downgrade for Intel vs its 14nm on Desktop. It's possible we might never see another 5GHz+ desktop CPU from anyone, below 14nm.
Click to expand...

Already had Liquid Metal on it ;) I guess I just have the bug.
 
Keljian said:
I have a 9900k under a d15, even with a lowered (voltage) offset when running all cores at 5ghz with AVX offset set to zero, temps hit low 90s, no throttling, but I wouldn't leave it like that. I doubt better cooling would help much (I have a lot of case airflow). I have settled for an avx offset of 2.

Single core/dual core speeds really don't matter for much except for desktop responsiveness (ENABLE Speedshift/HWP on your machines!)
Click to expand...
Corsair H115i (280mm), two cheap Fractal Design fans that came with my Define R5, hitting 89c under load at 5.0GHz all core. Honestly it's getting that hot because I've cycled the fans down as much as possible for noise control, I could and probably will spin them up a bit, but otherwise, I don't see that as too painful.

Now, for this ten-core variant... perhaps that pushes over some limit? Still, it's the most cores you're going to get up to these speeds in a consumer socket, so if that's what someone decides they need, rock on?
 
Snowdog said:
What I am most excited about is the return of the 8700K, now as an i5 at a lower price point, and maybe even the return of the 7700K, as lower priced i3.

You might try delidding and Liquid Metal on that 8700K, if you feel it's holding you back, but really I think you you wouldn't even notice a difference with i9 10900K, over your 8700K, except when the benchmark reports it's number.

Just because something faster exists, doesn't mean it would actually produce a meaningful benefit for you.




Intel's biggest problem with 10nm going forward, is that their 14nm was too damn good. Now 10nm can't really compete on the desktop where clock speed is king.

Even TSMC 7nm would be a downgrade for Intel vs its 14nm on Desktop. It's possible we might never see another 5GHz+ desktop CPU from anyone, below 14nm.
Click to expand...
I agreed I'm more interested in the low-mid range offerings, to many PCs to upgrade to sort about the fastest. Also partially agree on the 14nm being to good, I think the biggest issue was they where able to pull so much frequency out of it, when they got 10nm going and couldn't get the speeds high enough it would have been impossible to sell. If their 14nm called out at 4.5ghz it would have left a lot more room for 10nm, but they just refined it so much it took way longer to get 10nm up to speed.
Remember though, 10nm was supposed to be out before they got so high in the frequency, I think a combination of delays and subsequent refinement of 14nm together really made the issues worse.

Should see where things are soon, wating on benchmarks and real reviews, but normally rumors boost things up, but they haven't been to kind so far. I feel it's going to be more cores, more heat, slight increase in some metrics, but nothing that's going to make anyone to excited to upgrade from a recent build. Maybe someone from an older build though.
 
Ready4Dis said:
I agreed I'm more interested in the low-mid range offerings, to many PCs to upgrade to sort about the fastest. Also partially agree on the 14nm being to good, I think the biggest issue was they where able to pull so much frequency out of it, when they got 10nm going and couldn't get the speeds high enough it would have been impossible to sell. If their 14nm called out at 4.5ghz it would have left a lot more room for 10nm, but they just refined it so much it took way longer to get 10nm up to speed.
Remember though, 10nm was supposed to be out before they got so high in the frequency, I think a combination of delays and subsequent refinement of 14nm together really made the issues worse.

Should see where things are soon, wating on benchmarks and real reviews, but normally rumors boost things up, but they haven't been to kind so far. I feel it's going to be more cores, more heat, slight increase in some metrics, but nothing that's going to make anyone to excited to upgrade from a recent build. Maybe someone from an older build though.
Click to expand...

The problem with the mid range offerings is the price. You're still paying $260+ for an unlocked part which is $100 more than the 3600. The plain old locked i5 is ~$190-200, but you're not going to get that 5Ghz boost speed. You're only looking at 4.3 which is going to perform essentially the same as the 3600(x) for the same price. It's not unreasonable for someone to put an extra $100 toward a video card instead of the unlocked CPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top