Intel's Core i9-10900K releases in a few months and we got new benchmarks for the chip to share courtesy of TUM_APISAK. The latest benchmark covers the performance of Intel's upcoming Deca-core chip in 3DMark Firestrike and Time Spy benchmarks and compares it against the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, which seems to be the main competitor for the 10900K as both CPUs would aim for a $500 US price tag.
Intel Core i9-10900K 10 Core CPU Is Definitely Faster Than The AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12 Core CPU But Only By A Slight Bit At The Cost of Much Higher Power Consumption
Featured in the Comet Lake-S mainstream desktop family, the 10th Generation Core i9-10900K is the flagship CPU for 2020. It's still based on the same Skylake architecture that we have received in countless revisions such as Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, and Coffee Lake-Refresh. The process is also the same 14nm but a more refined version allowing for a slight clock speed bump and addition of more cores.
Intel Core i9-10900K 10 Core CPU Specifications
Coming to the specifications, the Core i9-10900K features 10 cores, 20 threads a total cache of 20 MB and a 125W TDP. The chip has a base frequency of 3.7 GHz and a boost frequency of 5.1 GHz. However, using Intel's Turbo Boost Max 3.0 technology, the chip can boost up to 5.2 GHz on a single-core and what's even better is the 4.9 GHz all-core boost. Some of the features of this particular chip include:
- Up to 4.8 GHz All-Core Turbo
- Up to 5.3 / 4.9 GHz Thermal Velocity Boost Single / All-core Turbo
- Up to 5.2 GHz Intel Turbo Boost Max 3.0
- Up to 10C and 20T
- Up to DDR4-2933 MHz dual-channel
- Enhanced Core & Memory Overclocking
- Active Core Group Tuning
The benchmarks show that the Intel Core i9-10900K manages to score 28462 points in the 3DMark Firestrike benchmark which is around 5% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X which scores around 27,000 points. In 3DMark Time Spy, the Core i9-10900K scores 13142 points which is around 4.00% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X which scores around 12,6000 points. There are some things to consider here so let's start.
i9-10900K (3.7/5.1)
FS - Physics Score 28462
TS - CPU Score 13142R9 3900X
FS - Physics Score 27137
TS - CPU Score 12624For Comparison ⬇️https://t.co/se2Hn2KcRq pic.twitter.com/C7nySfbMtD
— APISAK (@TUM_APISAK) February 4, 2020
The Intel Core i9-10900K has a much faster boost clock across all cores, rated at 4.9 GHz while the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X has an all-core boost of 4.1 GHz with a limited sample size hitting close to 4.2 GHz. The AMD Ryzen 9 3900X does offer 2 more cores and 4 more threads but the lower clocks put it at slightly slower than the Core i9-10900K. Intel's 4.9 GHz all-core boost is also rated as the newer Thermal Velocity Boost frequency which would be only possible if you're running it with the best cooling solutions. Despite the huge clock lead over AMD, Intel's Core i9-10900K is only able to out-perform the Ryzen 9 3900X by up to 5% which isn't even AMD's top chip in its mainstream family.
Core i9-10900K vs AMD Ryzen 9 3900X in 3DMark Benchmarks: (Image CC: _Rogame #1 & #2):
Intel 10th Gen Core Comet Lake Desktop CPU Family:
| CPU Name | Cores / Threads | Base Clock | Single-Core Boost Clock | Turbo Boost Max 3.0 (Single-Core) | All Core Boost Clock | Cache | TDP | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intel Core i9-10900K | 10/20 | 3.7 GHz | 5.1 GHz 5.3 GHz (Velocity) | 5.2 GHz | 4.8 GHz 4.9 GHz (Velocity) | 20 MB | 125W | $488 US |
| Intel Core i9-10900KF | 10/20 | 3.7 GHz | 5.1 GHz 5.3 GHz (Velocity) | 5.2 GHz | 4.8 GHz 4.9 GHz (Velocity) | 20 MB | 125W | $472 US |
| Intel Core i9-10850K | 10/20 | 3.6 GHz | 5.2 GHz | N/A | 4.8 GHz | 20 MB | 125W | ~$450 US |
| Intel Core i9-10900 | 10/20 | 2.8 GHz | 5.0 GHz 5.2 GHz (Velocity) | 5.1 GHz | 4.5 GHz 4.6 GHz (Velocity) | 20 MB | 65W | $439 US |
| Intel Core i9-10900F | 10/20 | 2.8 GHz | 5.0 GHz 5.2 GHz (Velocity) | 5.1 GHz | 4.5 GHz 4.6 GHz (Velocity) | 20 MB | 65W | $422 US |
| Intel Core i9-10900T | 10/20 | 1.9 GHz | 4.5 GHz | 4.6 GHz | 3.7 GHz | 20 MB | 35W | $439 US |
| Intel Core i7-10700K | 8/16 | 3.8 GHz | 5.0 GHz | 5.1 GHz | 4.7 GHz | 16 MB | 125W | $374 US |
| Intel Core i7-10700KF | 8/16 | 3.8 GHz | 5.0 GHz | 5.1 GHz | 4.7 GHz | 16 MB | 125W | $349 US |
| Intel Core i7-10700 | 8/16 | 2.9 GHz | 4.7 GHz | 4.8 GHz | 4.6 GHz | 16 MB | 65W | $323 US |
| Intel Core i7-10700F | 8/16 | 2.9 GHz | 4.7 GHz | 4.8 GHz | 4.6 GHz | 16 MB | 65W | $298 US |
| Intel Core i7-10700T | 8/16 | 2.0 GHz | 4.4 GHz | 4.5 GHz | 3.7 GHz | 16 MB | 35W | $325 US |
| Intel Core i5-10600K | 6/12 | 4.1 GHz | 4.8 GHz | N/A | 4.5 GHz | 12 MB | 125W | $262 US |
| Intel Core i5-10600KF | 6/12 | 4.1 GHz | 4.8 GHz | N/A | 4.5 GHz | 12 MB | 125W | $237 US |
| Intel Core i5-10600 | 6/12 | 3.3 GHz | 4.8 GHz | N/A | 4.5 GHz | 12 MB | 65W | $213 US |
| Intel Core i5-10600T | 6/12 | 2.4 GHz | 4.0 GHz | N/A | 3.7 GHz | 12 MB | 35W | $213 US |
| Intel Core i5-10500 | 6/12 | 3.1 GHz | 4.5 GHz | N/A | 4.2 GHz | 12 MB | 65W | $192 US |
| Intel Core i5-10500T | 6/12 | 2.3 GHz | 3.8 GHz | N/A | 3.5 GHz | 12 MB | 35W | $192 US |
| Intel Core i5-10400 | 6/12 | 2.9 GHz | 4.3 GHz | N/A | 4.0 GHz | 12 MB | 65W | $182 US |
| Intel Core i5-10400F | 6/12 | 2.9 GHz | 4.3 GHz | N/A | 4.0 GHz | 12 MB | 65W | $157 US |
| Intel Core i5-10400T | 6/12 | 2.0 GHz | 3.6 GHz | N/A | 3.2 GHz | 12 MB | 35W | $182 US |
| Intel Core i3-10320 | 4/8 | 3.8 GHz | 4.6 GHz | N/A | 4.4 GHz | 8 MB | 65W | $154 US |
| Intel Core i3-10300 | 4/8 | 3.7 GHz | 4.4 GHz | N/A | 4.2 GHz | 8 MB | 65W | $143 US |
| Intel Core i3-10300T | 4/8 | 3.0 GHz | 3.9 GHz | N/A | 3.6 GHz | 8 MB | 35W | $143 US |
| Intel Core i3-10100 | 4/8 | 3.6 GHz | 4.3 GHz | N/A | 4.1 GHz | 8 MB | 65W | $122 US |
| Intel Core i3-10100T | 4/8 | 3.0 GHz | 3.8 GHz | N/A | 3.5 GHz | 8 MB | 35W | $122 US |
| Intel Pentium G6600 | 2/4 | 4.2 GHz | N/A | N/A | N/A | 4 MB | 58W | $86 US |
| Intel Pentium G6500 | 2/4 | 4.1 GHz | N/A | N/A | N/A | 4 MB | 58W | $75 US |
| Intel Pentium G6400 | 2/4 | 3.8 GHz | N/A | N/A | N/A | 4 MB | 58W | $64 US |
| Intel Pentium G6400T | 2/4 | 3.4 GHz | N/A | N/A | N/A | 4 MB | 58W | $64 US |
| Intel Celeron G5925 | 2/2 | 3.6 GHz | N/A | N/A | N/A | 4 MB | 58W | ~$60 US |
| Intel Celeron G5920 | 2/2 | 3.5 GHz | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2 MB | 58W | $52 US |
| Intel Celeron G5905 | 2/2 | 3.5 GHz | N/A | N/A | N/A | 4 MB | 58W | ~$50 US |
| Intel Celeron G5900 | 2/2 | 3.2 GHz | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2 MB | 58W | $42 US |
| Intel Celeron G5905T | 2/2 | 3.3 GHz | N/A | N/A | N/A | 4 MB | 35W | ~$40 US |
| Intel Celeron G5900T | 2/2 | 3.2 GHz | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2 MB | 35W | $42 US |
This shows just how much of a leap AMD has made in terms of IPC compared to Intel. The other thing is the power consumption and thermals. We have already seen in previous reports that the Intel Core i9-10900K is going to end up consuming as much power as the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X while offering 5% better performance than a Ryzen 9 3900X.
With all cores loaded up, the Intel Core i9-10900K would break the 300W power barrier which also shows the massive efficiency lead that Intel has lost to AMD over the years by producing their desktop parts on an aging 14nm process node while AMD has moved to 7nm and would soon be offering a more refined 7nm+ node on its newer Zen 3 core-based processors.
Several motherboard manufacturers revealed that the ten-core break the 300-watt mark at maximum load. Not surprisingly, the 9900KS already exceeded the 250-watt mark in scenarios of this kind. via Computebase
This also doesn't bode well for Intel in the thermal department with Intel Core i9-9900K already hitting past 90C when overclocked and resulting much higher temperatures than the competing AMD Ryzen 3000 processors. With a higher core count and higher clock speed, you'd need a very beefy cooling setup and power supply to run the Core i9-10900K at optimal levels.
If that's not enough, AMD's ECO mode has also shown to be a very useful feature with their 16 core and 32 core chips performing very well even with toned down power limits. It shows just how much of an immense efficiency leap the new 7nm Zen 2 cores have been for AMD, offering desktop-class performance on mobile platforms with Ryzen 4000 'Renoir' processors. It is possible that Intel could do a silent launch of their 10th Gen desktop parts since they are aware they cannot compete with AMD's offerings or the next ones which are due for later this year.
AMD may not even consider offering a price cut as their Ryzen 3000 are competitive enough to compete against Intel's 10th Gen parts unless Intel brings Core i9 down to $350-$400 US which seems unlikely, but then again, they have the financial horsepower to do so to remain competitive in the desktop segment. Intel's 10th Gen lineup may offer multi-threading on all parts along with higher clock speeds, but they would require more power and beefier cooling.
With Zen 3 expected this year and AMD eating up market share in all segments, Intel really needs to rethink their CPU strategy and we hope that they can hit their process roadmap goals on time if they really want to hit AMD back. Intel's 10th Gen Comet Lake-S desktop family and the respective Z490 motherboards are slated for launch in April 2020.
