FRONTPAGE Intel Core i9-10900K and i5-10600K CPU Review: The Core Wars Continue

One thing for certain this "Core War" between AMD and Intel has been good for us, the consumer. After the launch of ZEN 2 with 12 and 16 core CPUs, Intel is firing back with the Core i9-10900K a 10-core, 20-thread CPU with a maximum boost speed of 5.3 GHz which Intel claims will deliver the best gaming experience in the desktop market.

Click here to view the article.

Nice review! Really interesting to see how the 14nm chips are sucking huge amounts of power compared to AMD per core.

Ho hum. Ridiculous power and temperatures, so much for that thin die helping thermals. I'll wait for DDR5 before considering upgrading. Not playing musical sockets with Intel any more.

I guess another generation until we see a proper leap then.

Interesting read. I've been out of the loop for some years now. Seems like AMD is doing great and really pushing Intel again.

GoD_tattoo said:

Interesting read. I've been out of the loop for some years now. Seems like AMD is doing great and really pushing Intel again.

Click to expand...

In many ways, AMD has pushed past Intel already. The possible exception might still be in he gaming sector.

More 14nm+++++++++++++++++ bullsh!t.They have been on the same damn technology for like 4 iterations now. They should be on 7nm now. I am losing confidence that Intel actually knows how to make processors anymore.

hey, I have an idea. Let's take a 9700k and just call it a 10600k and there we go, new processor line!

Good review! Can't wait to get my hands on one.

Voodoo Rufus said:

Ho hum. Ridiculous power and temperatures, so much for that thin die helping thermals. I'll wait for DDR5 before considering upgrading. Not playing musical sockets with Intel any more.

Click to expand...

In my tests, 10900K is about the same as 9900K so I don't get some comments on the web. 9900K was so great and 10900K is so bad? It's about the same +2 cores and better binning so the same clock at more cores and lower voltage = +/- the same wattage.

I'm able to set 5.1GHz using Noctua D15 in AIDA64 CPU+FPU (AVX2) with temps ~97°C (Tj is 100°C but doesn't throttle up to ~115°C). At stock settings and mixed load it boosts up to 5.3GHz without issues and keeps around 70-80°C during mixed load tests.

The 10900K performs well but the same as with AMD chips, we can't really count on OC. I guess we have to get used to that.
I guess that all were expecting something better. It's not a bad series but pretty much the most boring Intel premiere in years, including chipsets.

The negative comments are because it is a 9900k with 2 more cores and better binning. If nvidia's soon released 3080ti was a 2080ti with a small bump in mhz and vram that would also be poorly received. AMD set the bar with 15+% ipc/7nm and intel keeps wandering under it. Im glad AMD is back in the game, but intel's leadership went on a walkabout several years ago and havent been heard from since.

opt33 said:

The negative comments are because it is a 9900k with 2 more cores and better binning. If nvidia's soon released 3080ti was a 2080ti with a small bump in mhz and vram that would also be poorly received. AMD set the bar with 15+% ipc/7nm and intel keeps wandering under it. Im glad AMD is back in the game, but intel's leadership went on a walkabout several years ago and havent been heard from since.

Click to expand...

Your statement makes it seem like 9900k performance with 2 additional cores isn't impressive. They still hold the gaming crown which is all some people care about. I almost find it more impressive in some regards what Intel can squeeze out of their 14nm+++++++++++++

I am also glad AMD is back in the game or else we wouldn't have gotten those 2 extra cores.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/der8auer-intel-core-i9-10900k-runs-cooler-with-liquid-metal-delid

I would reserve impressive for a 10 core with +10-15% ipc improvement. 10900k is intels best gaming/prod combination cpu at a welcome price decrease and yet also a boring rebrand that epitomizes intel's stagnation.

And agreed without AMD, intel would still be offering 14nm 8 core with over $1000 price tag and likely would not have ported 10nm architectural improvement into upcoming rocket lake 14nm. Hopefully 4000 ryzen takes intels only remaining crown, 1080 gaming, and intel's only way back is via ipc improvements and node shrink. A role reversal where intel stagnates, instead of AMD, is not going to drive progress or competitive pricing.

Can you check the IMC of the i9-10900k for me? I my have gotten a bad retail i9-9900kf or just not setting it right. I can get my i9-9900kf's IMC to 4.9GHz but the memory will not run tighter/faster than 4133 CL 14-14-14-28. I have switched out the CPU for my i7-8700k and have hit 4000 CL 12-11-11-28/220 1t with it. It will not go above 4.9GHz without freezing the comp :-(
Is my IMC on the i9-9900kf average? BAD? Is the 10900k's IMC better?

Thank You

MaddMutt said:

Can you check the IMC of the i9-10900k for me? I my have gotten a bad retail i9-9900kf or just not setting it right. I can get my i9-9900kf's IMC to 4.9GHz but the memory will not run tighter/faster than 4133 CL 14-14-14-28. I have switched out the CPU for my i7-8700k and have hit 4000 CL 12-11-11-28/220 1t with it. It will not go above 4.9GHz without freezing the comp :-(
Is my IMC on the i9-9900kf average? BAD? Is the 10900k's IMC better?

Thank You

Click to expand...

I did a bit of testing and had 4900 cache running fine. Didn't go any higher as I'm short on time ATM but I might be able to squeeze something in

They are supposed to be better. We've seen some records broken recently with that CPU, no?

It will vary by board and kit of course... but, it seems to be a bit improved. I haven't had time to push on mine either (cache or memory/IMC).

Here's something quick, no time to dial in CL12 but I would suggest using RAM without lights changed to my FlareX and got down to CL13 before it started being difficult and ran out of time but 5100 on the cache was as easy as setting it and some voltage.

I went up to DDR4-4700 on a pretty bad Team Group Xtreem kit but it's still worse than what I could do on all X570 motherboards that I had. For example, max clock on 2x32GB HyperX is 4200 using X570 ASRock/Gigabyte and 4000 on ASRock Z490 PG Velocita. Max using 2x16GB Crucial kit is 4400 on X570, 4133 on Z490; max on 2x8GB Samsung is about the same on both.

I've noticed that on Z390 motherboards, SA voltage was already marked as red/unsafe at ~1.4V and at auto wasn't passing ~1.35V. On Z490 at auto, my motherboards set it at 1.5V+ when I want to run at DDR4-4600+. I only wonder how high is really max safe voltage as on Z390 1.6V+ was marked as "can instantly kill the CPU" ... I went up to 1.8V and it's still fine, maybe matter of luck

I think I will post some memory tests in a couple of days.

What is really annoying is how mobo manufacturers bumped prices on higher/OC series motherboards. I was thinking about ASUS Apex but it will cost ~40% more than the last one I purchased. The same ROG Extreme is already listed for 30-40% more. Each manufacturer has $1K mobos on Z490 chipset. It's not even X series and there are not so significant differences between them to ask up to 300% more compared to lower but still gaming/OC series.
Anyway, I won't buy any Z490 mobo and will base on samples, only not expecting these top series mobos so my results can be a bit lower.
ASRock Z490 PG ITX is on the way to me. Maybe it will OC memory better than the PG Velocita.

Nice review, but, to second Woomack, with the current trend, you should rename the website (un)overclockers.com.

It seems that except for extreme OC, the current gen chips don't offer much for us anymore...

CPUs are not overclocking, graphics cards are not overclocking, memory is overclocking but there is no point ... but really overclockers still can find something to tweak but each year it's getting worse.