News Intel Core i7-10700F Cinebench Figures Surface: Performance Near i9-9900K

[Admin]

The Core i7-10700F has been subjected to Cinebench R20, and its performance appears to be near that of the i9-9900K

Intel Core i7-10700F Cinebench Figures Surface: Performance Near i9-9900K : Read more

 

[A Stoner]

Intel's 10nm is much like fusion. I wonder which one we will get first.
I like Intel, so far all my CPUs have come from them since at least 1992.
But AMD is looking better and better over the last 2 years.

 

[TerryLaze]

as the i9-9900K was happy to burn through 200W without all too much effort.

Links to article that shows that this needed running Prime95,called 95 due to the year it was made with full blast AVX,while the second highest measurement was at 72W...
I guess everybody has their own ideas about how much effort is a lot of effort.

 

[InvalidError]

Links to article that shows that this needed running Prime95,called 95 due to the year it was made with full blast AVX,while the second highest measurement was at 72W...

Just about every 9900k review I have ever seen measured ~130W with little more than baseline performance enhancements enabled.

 

[AlistairAB]

Links to article that shows that this needed running Prime95,called 95 due to the year it was made with full blast AVX,while the second highest measurement was at 72W...
I guess everybody has their own ideas about how much effort is a lot of effort.

Funny I own a 9900k and you couldn't be more wrong. We are talking about the power consumption of the chip at reviewed settings, which is usually with no turbo limit and unrestricted in the BIOS, 5Ghz all cores.

If you want to run your 9900k at 3.6ghz to keep it at 95 watts, go ahead, but why did you buy it then? The performance will be worse than Ryzen then.

 

[hotaru251]

But AMD is looking better and better over the last 2 years.

my view.
i wanna build a new pc, but I keep hoping intel releases something worth it..

between the "fixes" that impact performence and the frequency of new stuff revealed keeps making me question if i should just go for amd.

I have never once owned an amd cpu.

 

[alextheblue]

Links to article that shows that this needed running Prime95,called 95 due to the year it was made with full blast AVX,while the second highest measurement was at 72W...
I guess everybody has their own ideas about how much effort is a lot of effort.

Funny, I didn't know they HAD AVX in 1995! Turns out software can be updated. Anyway the torture tests might be the worst case result, but that's at stock settings. Funny enough the AMD chips didn't consume nearly as much power in the same tests. Weird, right?

Look I think the 9900K is a dynamite chip, but they are power hungry. That's the kind of thing you'd bash AMD for a few years ago. They even eat a lot of power when running other kinds of heavy loads, like 4K video encoding. Especially when you (very reasonably) pair them with a matching high end desktop board, even at default settings. If you pair them with a lower-end board, it would default to more restrictive power settings (and reduce performance under heavy workloads), but it also wouldn't make any sense to do so with such a high end chip.

 

[InvalidError]

Look I think the 9900K is a dynamite chip, but they are power hungry. That's the kind of thing you'd bash AMD for a few years ago.

AMD got bashed for its astounding power draw because even at 200+W, the FX9650 was still getting outperformed by 50W i3 in many games. The 9900k on the other hand is leading in most games against anything available from AMD, so the high overclock power draw is at least justifiable by real-world performance.

 

[svan71]

my view.
i wanna build a new pc, but I keep hoping intel releases something worth it..

between the "fixes" that impact performence and the frequency of new stuff revealed keeps making me question if i should just go for amd.

I have never once owned an amd cpu.

You need to make the switch, Ryzen 3000 is rock solid and future proof, start with a 6 core and in a few years drop in a 16 core you can't do that with intel, pcie 4.0 your not getting from intel .

 

[InvalidError]

pcie 4.0 your not getting from intel .

You aren't getting PCIe 4.0 from AMD either unless you buy an X570 motherboard or one of the OEM boards with 4.0 from the CPU-fed slots enabled on B550A. (Or 300/400-series boards with a BIOS using an AGESA version from before AMD decided to kill off 4.0 support on pre-500 boards.)

 

[nitrium]

A stock AMD 3700X scores 4900 in multi-threaded and 510 in single core on Cinebench at with a TDP of 65W. Yes, I'm sure you can overclock the 10700 and get much higher scores, but you shouldn't have to imo (especially considering how much Intel will likely charge for it).

 

[TerryLaze]

Funny, I didn't know they HAD AVX in 1995! Turns out software can be updated. Anyway the torture tests might be the worst case result, but that's at stock settings. Funny enough the AMD chips didn't consume nearly as much power in the same tests. Weird, right?

Look I think the 9900K is a dynamite chip, but they are power hungry. That's the kind of thing you'd bash AMD for a few years ago. They even eat a lot of power when running other kinds of heavy loads, like 4K video encoding. Especially when you (very reasonably) pair them with a matching high end desktop board, even at default settings. If you pair them with a lower-end board, it would default to more restrictive power settings (and reduce performance under heavy workloads), but it also wouldn't make any sense to do so with such a high end chip.

Still it's a benchmark with zero practical application and we have no idea how heavily it uses AVX.
Yes depending on how somebody runs the test (including mobo as you said) the difference to ZEN isn't all that great,in fact the idle and load power are lower for intel and it only peaks very high for a very short time, you want the best possible power management and that means that if something can be finished very quickly by going above the limits for a short time you want that to happen.
You have to go through a lot of effort to make intel look bad.
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...0x-and-ryzen-7-3900x-reviewed-red-storm-ryzen

 

[mdd1963]

AMD got bashed for its astounding power draw because even at 200+W, the FX9650 was still getting outperformed by 50W i3 in many games. The 9900k on the other hand is leading in most games against anything available from AMD, so the high overclock power draw is at least justifiable by real-world performance.

To quote a Spok-ism here...

"Precisely"!

 

[mdd1963]

You aren't getting PCIe 4.0 from AMD either unless you buy an X570 motherboard or one of the OEM boards with 4.0 from the CPU-fed slots enabled on B550A. (Or 300/400-series boards with a BIOS using an AGESA version from before AMD decided to kill off 4.0 support on pre-500 boards.)

All the hooplah about PCI-e 4.0...; granted, it's 'great' for impressive numbers (5000 Mbps!) on CrystalDIskMark, assuming you have one of the near 5 Gbps drives, but then, time to boot or load game levels, or do file copies....1/4 sec slower than with a 'old' Samsung 970 EVO Plus...

 

[mdd1963]

Until we see what the actual clock speeds were/are doing the running of said comparison vs. the 9900K, the comparisons merely show the new 10700K to be 'slightly slower'..which could easily be explained by it running (at default) 100-200 MHz slower clock speeds to meet power budgets...

It will be interesting to see the comparisons when both are at all-core loadings of 4.6 GHz and higher, depending on what headroom the 10700K has....

Naturally, I'm sure folks have some fantasies about all-core overclocks of 5.2 GHz, but, I suspect such comparisons will be out ~10 minutes after product launch and NDAs lift...

 

[Phaaze88]

 

[theseconddavid]

my view.
i wanna build a new pc, but I keep hoping intel releases something worth it..

between the "fixes" that impact performence and the frequency of new stuff revealed keeps making me question if i should just go for amd.

I have never once owned an amd cpu.

Intel has lost this generation and probably the next. It happens when you get happy, fat, and soft. I haven't owned a amd since the athlon 600. Just built with 3800x. Paid $300 and it comes with a cooler that isn't garbage. The x570 motherboards aren't out of line for enthusiast boards. Hopefully Intel sees how bad they blew it and gets back to churning out best of breed products.

 

[closs.sebastien]

The last "reasonably power-hungry" intel core was the core i7 8700k, which I bought approximately 2 years ago with no regrets at all. (it was to replace a i7 3400). I think personally that the 8700k is the maximum of power that a non-server-cpu should required.
With the 9900 and 10700, we see clearly that intel is at the end of its node, and a jump to the <10nm is absolutely required and mandatory to continue.
one of the best ratio performance/energy was the i7 3400. very good performance (at its time) for only 75 W.

 

[RodroX]

So.... nothing new on the horizon, just a slower version of the i9 9900K.
Perhaps for a little less than the current i9 9900K price tag?

Remember this is only CBR20 results, and no Intel fanboy cares about this anyways... right?

 

[InvalidError]

All the hooplah about PCI-e 4.0...; granted, it's 'great' for impressive numbers (5000 Mbps!) on CrystalDIskMark, assuming you have one of the near 5 Gbps drives, but then, time to boot or load game levels, or do file copies....1/4 sec slower than with a 'old' Samsung 970 EVO Plus...

And nearly double the FPS on the 4GB RX5500 in games at settings that require more than 4GB of VRAM thanks to AMD's hare-brained decision to make it x8-only.

 

[King_V]

my view.
i wanna build a new pc, but I keep hoping intel releases something worth it..

between the "fixes" that impact performence and the frequency of new stuff revealed keeps making me question if i should just go for amd.

I have never once owned an amd cpu.

I can't speak on the issue of PCIe 4.0, but I never had an AMD chip before, either. December, I built a Ryzen-based PC for my son. Mid-range, but still, couldn't be beat for price/performance. I'd say go for it.

 

[jimmysmitty]

You need to make the switch, Ryzen 3000 is rock solid and future proof, start with a 6 core and in a few years drop in a 16 core you can't do that with intel, pcie 4.0 your not getting from intel .

No such thing as "future proof" considering tomorrow software could change everything.

I mean how "future proof" was the FX series?

A stock AMD 3700X scores 4900 in multi-threaded and 510 in single core on Cinebench at with a TDP of 65W. Yes, I'm sure you can overclock the 10700 and get much higher scores, but you shouldn't have to imo (especially considering how much Intel will likely charge for it).

Considering their price drops on HEDT I would imagine this will price near current i5s since 10 cores will take the i9 spot now.

All the hooplah about PCI-e 4.0...; granted, it's 'great' for impressive numbers (5000 Mbps!) on CrystalDIskMark, assuming you have one of the near 5 Gbps drives, but then, time to boot or load game levels, or do file copies....1/4 sec slower than with a 'old' Samsung 970 EVO Plus...

File sizes have not gotten larger. The thing is that speed is a specific QD, sequential transfers of a large solid file. Take 5000 1MB files and it will go much slower. The other side is IOPS which i think have a more important role in modern OSes than MB/s does. The Intel Optane 905P proved that with its more consistent IOPS performance.

Intel has lost this generation and probably the next. It happens when you get happy, fat, and soft. I haven't owned a amd since the athlon 600. Just built with 3800x. Paid $300 and it comes with a cooler that isn't garbage. The x570 motherboards aren't out of line for enthusiast boards. Hopefully Intel sees how bad they blew it and gets back to churning out best of breed products.

Any CPU comparable to the 3800x has not come with a cooler for a very good reason. Most people who buy a comparable CPU will not be using a stock cooler for anything other than a temp use until they get their after market cooler.

Besides stock coolers are only good for stock settings and guarantees only that much nothing more.

 

[InvalidError]

Besides stock coolers are only good for stock settings and guarantees only that much nothing more.

Which is fine for the bulk of people, overclockers are somewhere in the neighborhood of 5% of the desktop PC market, most of the rest is OEM and shifting to laptops.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Which is fine for the bulk of people, overclockers are somewhere in the neighborhood of 5% of the desktop PC market, most of the rest is OEM and shifting to laptops.

Agreed but the K series is always marketed towards overclockers and not the bulk of people. I would see no value in someone buying a 9700K and using a stock Intel cooler. There is the non K edition for just that that includes the Intel stock cooling fan.

 

[theseconddavid]

Of course, and eventually I did replace the cooler, but it was nice to be able to bench test and get up and running without needing to know what my cooler would end up being, especially using a non standard size case. Something is always greater than nothing.