Purported Internal Intel Doc Reveals Core i9-10900K Tests: Up to 30 Percent Gain in Threaded Work

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,875
Hoping that AMD still remains on top even after this:

"Overall, we can clearly see an increase in performance coming with the 10th-Gen chips, but Ryzen 3000 still offers tough competition with much higher multi-threaded performance and competitive (but slightly weaker) single threaded performance. Given that these projections appear in what are purportedly Intel's own performance docs, the 10th-Gen chips will need a good price to stand out."

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/l...mance-up-to-30-percent-gain-in-threaded-tests
 
Pretty sure it's an unmitigated 30%* successful performance bump.


*Some restrictions apply. Vomit Lake may exhibit side effects such as 25% lower mitigated performance, 125W TDP = 250W when used as intended, 14+++++nm ad nauseam, new dead socket and limited availability, excessive bouts of buyer remorse, subject to reality check and shareholder confidence. Consult your [H]ard forum to determine if Vomit Lake is for you.
 
Last edited:
30% was best case with 26% on CB and about 5% on many others.

All core turbo of the 10 core was bumped to 4.8 ghz vs 4.7ghz on the 9900k.

Doing a bit of math 8 x 4.7 = 37.6 and 10 x 4.8 = 48. The 10 core part has 28% more theoretical performance than the current 9900k. Cinebench was actually a little down.
 
Nightfire said:
30% was best case with 26% on CB and about 5% on many others.

All core turbo of the 10 core was bumped to 4.8 ghz vs 4.7ghz on the 9900k.

Doing a bit of math 8 x 4.7 = 37.6 and 10 x 4.8 = 48. The 10 core part has 28% more theoretical performance than the current 9900k. Cinebench was actually a little down.
Click to expand...
Don't feed it to Intel executives (and fanboys) like that; they may lose their superiority boner if they find out it's just the same thing with more cores than last year.
 
Skull_Angel said:
Don't feed it to Intel executives (and fanboys) like that; they may lose their superiority boner if they find out it's just the same thing with more cores than last year.
Click to expand...

A bit faster with more cores seems to work well these days.
 
2020 starting like 2019 for intel, badly!

4 threads more for ~25% gains is not stellar and it is likely to push beyond 500 bucks add the power spike and Intel have taken the efficiency of Sandy bridge as being lower clocks high performance and basically throwing clockspeed at the problem hoping AMD just stays behind for gaming. What we have is just a power chugging chip for people wanting 5ghz at the cost of power and heat.

It will maintain the gaming crown not really because of AMDs cllockspeed, but rather the CCX design, however Intel can't match or fight AMD in threads and threaded performance or efficiency. I said last year Intel are in more troubled waters than many want to believe and it is not easy to fix or show progression. It started in 2015 when Intel did not fully appreciate it accept the then Ryzen in the works to be a red herring and now they are paying the price.

For me I would love a 3970x as a balanced alrounder
 
That headline deserves a....check from intel.
 
clockdogg said:
Pretty sure it's an unmitigated 30%* successful performance bump.


*Some restrictions apply. Vomit Lake may exhibit side effects such as 25% lower mitigated performance, 125W TDP = 250W when used as intended, 14+++++nm ad nauseam, new dead socket and limited availability, excessive bouts of buyer remorse, subject to reality check and shareholder confidence. Consult your [H]ard forum to determine if Vomit Lake is for you.
Click to expand...

Those have the mitigation's in hardware so it wouldn't be that they are testing "unpatched" to get a better score. More likely that nightreaver has it right with 2 more cpu's providing the majority of the boost. 10>8

Don't need to upgrade yet but for me it will come down to cost. Where they price it is key.
 
Can't imagine much o/c headroom. All core turbo of 4.9 ghz already has a tdp of 250 watts. 300+ watts from 5.2 ghz seems likely.
 
It seems stupid and desperate, if AMD keeping hitting the IPC targets with lower clocks soon Intel will be up on the 5.2ghz wall with nowhere to go.
 
30% MOAR!!!

security breach


18% MOAR!!!!!

meltdown v3


4% MOAR!!!!!



processor literally pulls a knife on you.



Please for the love of God buy our processors!!! Remember the cool DUN-dun-duh-DUN noise?! Member!!!!
 
The fact that Intel is pushing performance figures without Spectre and Meltdown mitigations in place tells me that they are dumping too much money into marketing and not enough into R&D.

It's time to put the Sandy Bridge foundation into the grave and start from scratch, Intel.
 
GoodBoy said:
Those have the mitigation's in hardware so it wouldn't be that they are testing "unpatched" to get a better score. More likely that nightreaver has it right with 2 more cpu's providing the majority of the boost. 10>8

Don't need to upgrade yet but for me it will come down to cost. Where they price it is key.
Click to expand...

no they don't have full hardware security mitigation.. the mitigation's were suppose to be part of sonny cove on 10nm but comet lake is yet another skylake refresh. the only mitigation's implemented are microcode changes for some of the minor security flaws which also the same ones that the separate bios updates released for previous gen chips.

to be honest this feels like an intentional leak then anything else to drum up media attention.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
no they don't have full hardware security mitigation.. the mitigation's were suppose to be part of sonny cove on 10nm but comet lake is yet another skylake refresh. the only mitigation's implemented are microcode changes for some of the minor security flaws which also the same ones that the separate bios updates released for previous gen chips...
Click to expand...

Looks like it is a mix.
i9-10900x is Cascade Lake per intel Ark https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...x-series-processor-19-25m-cache-3-70-ghz.html
Cascade Lake has hardware fixes for Spectre variant 2, Meltdown variant 3, Meltdown variant 5 (source: https://www.techpowerup.com/248368/...w-desktop-processors-core-x-will-have-to-wait )
Meltdown 3a and 4 are still firmware fixes, Spectre variant 1 remains an OS patch.

I find it hard to believe that there would even exist a microcode for these new CPU's that is 'unpatched'. Anything is possible but if that were the case, Intel would be loosing any shred of trust they have left. We are 2+ years into this spectre/meltdown shit, I expect their new cpu's that finally come out on 5 or 7nm or whatever to be fully patched... they've had time.
 
What's amazing is that Intel is resorting to even more BS instead of changing their tactics. Same chips on new sockets, check, fuzzy math, check, business as usual, check. No wonder you are where you are Intel.
 
The 10900k is still going to get roflstomped by its price point competitor ie 3950X and will barely match or beat a 3800 and 3900 in threaded domains, it will be skewed for gaming. If Intel cares only for gamers go back to 4 cores at 5.8ghz
 
isn't that because it has 2 extra cores??? well... DUH!!!!! why wouldn't it score better in multi core?
 
DejaWiz said:
The fact that Intel is pushing performance figures without Spectre and Meltdown mitigations in place tells me that they are dumping too much money into marketing and not enough into R&D.

It's time to put the Sandy Bridge foundation into the grave and start from scratch, Intel.
Click to expand...

i say let em burn. Let AMD grab a piece of the pie for a change. They deserve it if for nothing else, for not being shady and trying to make the tech world a better place for everyone. Even if you don't like em, we need em, because if we didn't have AMD we'd only have one company to by proc's from. That would be a sad world to live in. You'd be getting ready to do a new build with Intels new 17th gen "rickety bridge" architecture.
 
Shouldn't 30% be about right?

You add 2 cores and an additional 4 threads.

2 Cores = +25% in the number of cores and you assume that the hyper threads don't scale as well as the real cores do -- 30-35% should be correct?
 
It should be 25% for two more cores and ~5% for IPC and clock speed differences. Sounds about right.

Not sure why all the Intel hate. Sure AMD has them beat on the price/performance scene (although less so with the new Intel processors). Intel still has the fastest cores and fastest processors for most usage. AMD only takes the performance crown when their CPUs have more cores, and only in highly multi-threaded apps at that.

This new competition is great for consumers.
 
There wasn't this level of gain from the 8700k to the 9900k. If you think 30% is magically going to happen with another 2 cores I have a bridge to sell you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top