News Leaked Core i9-10900K Review Shows it Barely Surpassing the Ryzen 9 3900X

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
exroofer said:
Barely surpassing said 3950x in gaming, while getting roflstomped in every other category.
Quel Surprise!
Click to expand...
The said CPU is the 3900x which is roughly in the same price tier and it beats barely surpasses it in both gaming and "productivity" while the 3900x has 20% more cores....

Nobody is saying that AMD is so bad that 16 cores are going to match only 10 cores.
 
The full set of gaming benchmarks show the 10900k beating the other cpus by 10% at 1440p. So as 1440p benchmarks are bottlenecked by 2080ti's, that's a very good result. So it will be interesting to see what happens when trusted benchmarks are released, if there is such a thing as a trusted benchmark. 11th gen previews seem to show better performance so it might be worth hanging out for them late 2020. I want to see how much headroom there is on 10th gen and what frequency the cpus are running at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gurg
"Barely surpassing" soooo winning right? it's ok, you can say it, AMD is at 7nm and can't win gaming. All the stick Intel takes for being stuck at 14nm but no one ever asks why AMD (when the whole world has discovered Esports) can't beat 14nm... oh well, there's always 5nm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gurg
TerryLaze said:
The said CPU is the 3900x which is roughly in the same price tier and it beats barely surpasses it in both gaming and "productivity" while the 3900x has 20% more cores....

Nobody is saying that AMD is so bad that 16 cores are going to match only 10 cores.
Click to expand...
The R9 3900X is NOT in the same price tier as the i9-10900K... The R9 is $410 atm WITH a cooler, whereas the i9-10900K will be over $500 (significantly so if the i9-9900K was anything to go by; the $488 price on Intel's slides is only for a tray of 1000), and with no cooler. The R9 3900X is going to be at LEAST 25-30% cheaper in total (you're gonna need quite the cooler for that i9). As far as actual, real-world pricing goes, the i9-10900K is going to fall right into the no-man's land in-between the 3900X and 3950X (I'd be expecting $520-550 for the chip and $100 for a good enough cooler, so like $630ish total).

This CPU is barely beating a much cheaper CPU in gaming (at least at 1440p), while losing everywhere else, and with significantly worse power & thermals to boot (reviewer says a 360mm² AIO is the minimum you need). Not a good look for Intel.
 
Last edited:
Chris Fetters said:
The R9 3900X is NOT in the same price tier as the i9-10900K... The R9 is $410 atm WITH a cooler, whereas the i9-10900K will be over $500 (significantly so if the i9-9900K was anything to go by; the $488 price on Intel's slides is only for a tray of 1000), and with no cooler. The R9 3900X is going to be at LEAST 25-30% cheaper in total (you're gonna need quite the cooler for that i9). As far as actual, real-world pricing goes, the i9-10900K is going to fall right into the no-man's land in-between the 3900X and 3950X (I'd be expecting $520-550 for the chip and $100 for a good enough cooler, so like $630ish total).

This CPU is barely beating a much cheaper CPU in gaming (at least at 1440p), while losing everywhere else, and with significantly worse power & thermals to boot (reviewer says a 360mm² AIO is the minimum you need). Not a good look for Intel.
Click to expand...
You mean that cheap AMD Wraith Prism air cooler that throttles performance and that everyone that cares about performance is trying to dump on E-bay to help fund buying a decent AIO water cooler? LOL

The reviews of the 10900K are supposed to go live tomorrow so that should put an end to all this BS.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what this article’s spin would be if the 10900K was an AMD cpu and the 3900X and 3950X were Intel cpus. Probably the headline would read like this:
“AMD extents their single-threaded performance dominance”
“All bow down to the new gaming king. The 10900K succeeds the 9900K in the gaming throne leaving Intel further in the dust!”
“A true ultra-fast moving comet. Meet the new blazing fast AMD cpu clocking at up to 5.3GHz out of the box!”
“The 10900K demonstrates meaningful gaming performance gains in 1440p, not just 1080p”
“Who said the choice of cpu mattered in 1080p gaming only? AMD now offers higher frame rate than Intel by 20% in 1440p resolution!”
“WOW. AMD’s 10-core outmatches Intel’s 12-core”
“This new AMD 10-core $500-dollar cpu DEMOLISHES Intel’s 16-core $750 flagship in a multitude of workloads”,
“Not even Intel’s flagship 16-core can keep up with AMD’s new 10-core processor”
“Power wizardry! AMD’s 14nm process somehow manages to defy the laws of physics and is more efficient than Intel’s 7nm! Look at those low idle powers! Also more efficient in regular workloads 107W vs 124W. WOW how did they do it?!”

By the way here is the video of the other review:
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1ZC4y1H7NC/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gurg
So when the Ryzen 4000 chips are released in a few months it will be interesting to see how the two latest chips will compare with each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gurg
PCWarrior said:
I wonder what this article’s spin would be if the 10900K was an AMD cpu and the 3900X and 3950X were Intel cpus. Probably the headline would read like this:
“AMD extents their single-threaded performance dominance”
“All bow down to the new gaming king. The 10900K succeeds the 9900K in the gaming throne leaving Intel further in the dust!”
“A true ultra-fast moving comet. Meet the new blazing fast AMD cpu clocking at up to 5.3GHz out of the box!”
“The 10900K demonstrates meaningful gaming performance gains in 1440p, not just 1080p”
“Who said the choice of cpu mattered in 1080p gaming only? AMD now offers higher frame rate than Intel by 20% in 1440p resolution!”
“WOW. AMD’s 10-core outmatches Intel’s 12-core”
“This new AMD 10-core $500-dollar cpu DEMOLISHES Intel’s 16-core $750 flagship in a multitude of workloads”,
“Not even Intel’s flagship 16-core can keep up with AMD’s new 10-core processor”
“Power wizardry! AMD’s 14nm process somehow manages to defy the laws of physics and is more efficient than Intel’s 7nm! Look at those low idle powers! Also more efficient in regular workloads 107W vs 124W. WOW how did they do it?!”
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if it's AMD or Intel. What matters is whether it's a a bad, cringy, click-baity journalist or a normal one.
 
Chris Fetters said:
The R9 3900X is NOT in the same price tier as the i9-10900K... The R9 is $410 atm WITH a cooler
Click to expand...
The cheapest deal you can find on a CPU is not the average price most people are going to buy it for,the list price is 499 so it's close.
Just because some retailers are willing to take a loss/make no profit on zen CPUs just to get rid of them before the new ones come out and they get stuck with them doesn't mean that that's a normal price.
Chris Fetters said:
This CPU is barely beating a much cheaper CPU in gaming (at least at 1440p), while losing everywhere else, and with significantly worse power & thermals to boot (reviewer says a 360mm² AIO is the minimum you need). Not a good look for Intel.
Click to expand...
But it is beating it,even at 1440 where the GPU is limiting intel's speed by a bunch,even with the zen CPU having 20% more cores.
It's also not losing in everything else,it might be loosing in some and winning in others,the chinese graphs are difficult to decipher.

Power & thermals depend on what you run,if you look at the results as well instead of looking at power & thermals alone it's very ok.

Burning 250W is bad but if burning 250W gets you the performance of twice the cores/threads then it's not that bad anymore.
m3vFDhj59wuEvbDUoWM3Kn-650-80.png
 
10900K with its inflated price in the first 3 months + very strong VRM equipped mobo + water cooling will easily exceed $1000.
3900X + X570 costs around $600. For a $400 saving. That alone is enough to turn MANY people away and stick with AMD.
The 10900K will go down in history as one of the worst flagship products released. It's Prescott all over again. Ignore this, or you're only kidding yourself. Even Rocket Lake will succeed it in half a year's time. It goes to show how desperate and behind Intel has fallen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted member 14196
As I expected. Intel is a horrible choice. EVEN FOR GAMING. See all the same intel shills kicking around in here.
 
barryv88 said:
10900K with its inflated price in the first 3 months + very strong VRM equipped mobo + water cooling will easily exceed $1000.
Click to expand...
If you want to run it overclocked to hell,do you truly believe everybody has to,or will, do that?!
If you don't care about AVX stress testing at 5.3+ Ghz you can make a relatively cheap system that is going to be cool enough.
Mandark said:
As I expected. Intel is a horrible choice. EVEN FOR GAMING. See all the same intel shills kicking around in here.
Click to expand...
The 10900k is horrible for gaming alone,true that.
The i3-10300 will come close enough to 10900 FPS to be a far better choice.
 
It's a CPU guys. Buy it or don't but there's no need to attack each other over personal choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom