Thermals look horrendous! 102 C even when throttled is bad. Even with water, I don't think you will see much improvement. Better have a chiller on hand!
Nooo, as the article puts it, it's "not as bad as it sounds". People just needlessly freak out when they processor FREAKING BOILS WATER on "an open test bed with a chunky copper cooler" and needing 270W at full load. But in reality it's just "more about thermal gradients inside the processor and how easily the thermals can move" so it's all good. I can feel the temps dropping just by reading these comforting words.
I guess the only thing that can make a current gen Intel CPU look good is another current gen Intel CPU. Here's hoping that they get their act together for the next gen(s) or we'll keep having to read reviews where Intel competes against Intel as the only way to get some praise.
as the article puts it, it's "not as bad as it sounds" _______________________________________
Sadly, the presentation makes it much worst. Bad enough smoked with the Ryzen 5900x ... there is little to no downward price pressure on an 18-month old AMD 3900x at $499.
Even worst --- 18 months ago the HEDT Intel 12/24 i9-79xxX was $1,190 and was slobber-knocked by the 3900x . . .
Rocket Lake should cover the ground performance-wise, but it's going to be disastrous when it comes to power and heat. Would be nice to see Sunny Cove running on 7 or 5 nm, but I suspect even there, Zen 3 would use less power, owing to its more economical design.
It's a genuinely horrible CPU compared to the competition, Intel have regressed so much on performance-per-watt that even Apple are stealing their lunch now.
Part stagnation part major technological fumbles. Intel definitely played it safe on the architectural level but you could argue that was the right call given the state of the market. What is really killing them is the dropped ball on the fabrication front.
Regardless though Apple's move to their own designs was going to happen even if Intel was stumbling all over the place, that move has been planned for over a decade.
And TSMC is really killing the fabrication front with the inability to ship anything in meaningful numbers - due to a extremely fragile supply chain - other than Apple - everything else in still on some variation of TSMC's 10nm class process - they call "7nm"
You are right, but Intel desktop CPUs are manufactured on the 14nm process since 2014!!! Ok, it's 14++++ now, but what an evolution, I'm very impressed ;-)
I'm not an AMD fan boy, actually using a i7-9700k!
So is apple? Lmfao you thought they were making the chips? TSMC isn't behind on production, they are the production for literally everyone, from PC to mobile.
"you could argue that was the right call given the state of the market"
Only if you drank your own koolaid about the end of Moore's Law...
Remember a book called _Only the Paranoid Survive_? About how in High Tech there are *constant* upsets and changes, nothing ever stays the same? Hmm, if only someone at Intel had read that book and though "Gee, this seems to describe an industry very much like the one in which we operate"...
Playing it safe would have been fine if they had a product to release afterwards.
Thing is they didn't. They got so cocky they screwed up their fabs, reached too far while physics are only getting tougher to overcome.
TSMC made 7nm work, whether it hit their target density and speed goals or not it works. Intel had a goal and rather than back off as needed to release a product they kept fighting to hit an ego check-mark. When 10nm didn't work they should have backed off the density and tried again in order to release a product. Ultimately that's what they had to do but they did it 3 years too late.
M1 has very little in software and hardware compatibility to recommend it, however. Those are the #1 reasons people buy computer systems--raw performance is merely icing on the cake. AMD blows the M1, and Intel CPUs, away, imo. As it sits today, the M1 is not competitive with AMD (or even Intel, actually) in terms of multithreaded performance desktops & enterprise-level offerings. I very much doubt Apple will be going there--but we shall see...M1 as it sits is a good beginner's start...let's see where it goes from there.
Just read an article about Flash no longer being supported... and it was instead replaced by HTML5 and the like... Guess that genius companies really are lucky indeed ;)
While it is true that AMD's current available Ryzen mobile at 7nm is superior to the M1 at 5nm, you have to consider that M1 is Apple's entry level. Things will get more interesting once AMD gets into 5nm and Apple releases bigger M1
That is not true at all. Everything works on the M1, I have an M1 Mac Mini and a PC and have no problems. The issue is Apple's lack of expansion and lack of GPU performance. Games for example that are not on the Mac, not because of M1's performance (which is excellent) but because of M1's lack of GPU performance vs a basic video card, and the lack of the basic GPU expansion options. Also Mac OS sucks compared to Windows imo, but the Mac Mini hardware and M1 CPU performance are A+. Hopefully Apple doubles the GPU options and performance quickly.
still better then a company that fell asleep, and stagnated the cpu industry. intels lack of innovation, and reliance on its process tech, is what has caused intel to be in the position it is now in.
420mm AIO with bare die liquid metal here we come!
But jokes aside good 360 AIO with liquid metal should keep it quite easily under 80C at all times.
Anytime you see significant temperatures liquid metal helps disproportionately more, because it's thermal conductivity grows with temperature unlike thermal pastes. It drops 20C from 80C on paste and 30C from 100C on paste.
I dunno, sounds like an opportunity for ambient-pressure water phase-change cooling to me! Who needs evacuated heat-pipes or vapour-chambers when you can just spray the top of the IHS directly!
Hey Ian can you put the real cpu wattage in the charts that the cpu used in that test rather than the fake one? We all know this cpu never uses 125 watts.
You either skipped the 'Power Consumption' page, or don't understand CPU TDP ratings. The '125W' rating is the 'non-turbo' rating, meaning power consumed at max non-turbo clock rate. AMD does the same thing, and also has a higher power consumption during turbo (although not anywhere near as much as Intel does).
Since each benchmark varies it would be nice seeing how much wattage each cpu used during that benchmark. Yes i know amd uses more power during turbo, the 5950x uses 30 watts more than advertised... compared to ~140 watts more that intel advertises their 10850k to use. That quite the difference don't you think?
Unless you're working on a power budget, I honestly wouldn't worry about it. Most review websites don't have the time/man-power to trace the power usage on each benchmark for each CPU. You will also have a variance between processors of the exact same model due to binning/silicon lottery. You're better off planning to use/dissipate the full turbo power of the CPU than hope for lower power. Or just buy an AMD (if you can find one!)
Intel seems to have six similar i9 SKUs with prices ranging from $453 to $488. Seems rather pointless. Maybe Intel marketing should spend some time thinking about whether or not their insanely complex model scheme is contributing to their lack of sales. AMD has ONE SKU that competes with all of those Intel SKUs. Clock down for lower TDP doesn't need to be an entire SKU.
Whoever comes up with Intel's SKUs must be the same person/people responsible for interfacing with USB Implementers Forum on Intel's behalf. The industry is replete with remarkably confusing naming schemes, seemingly on purpose.
Making the low power versions use the same model number would be a very anti-consumer move because you'd have no easy way to know if you were getting the 3.7Ghz or 1.9Ghz model. We already have that problem on mobile where two laptops with identical specs perform wildly different because one is running the CPU at 2x the power/performance of the other. Using separate model numbers also lets you bin chips that perform best at low and high power levels separately.
The production limit bins (10850K and both IGPless KF models) muddle things up a bit; but Intel's desktop lines are very cleanly broken out vs what they did a decade+ ago with a mess of different similar chips with varying cache sizes and clock speeds but the same core counts; or the ongoing mess of their mobile line (good luck figuring anything out about one of those chips from its model number without looking it up).
they have various skus for oem's, system builders, general public, retail products, ect ect
Certain OEMs require a non-open market skus to promote their products or run at certain specs that differentiate them from what's available on the open market.
Put that piled higher and deeper to use and write an article about how binning affects IC design, before the variability in lithography. Other PhDs read this site too
Nice try Intel. This reminded us of AMD during those FX days when they had nothing good to compete with Intel. Intel's complacency has proven to be quite costly and made some consumers quite bitter toward them. It's gonna take some time to fix that and win back consumer trust and confidence. For example, our company has switched to buying AMD (Ryzen) system since Zen+ and they do not plan on going back to Intel unless AMD goes rogue (complacent with tech and price). Even at my own household, we have built 5 or 6 systems and none of them are Intel.
Because you've got the people who will spend any amount of money to get 5fps more in their games so they can smugly tell everyone who they've got the best.
Ryzen 5000 series is significantly faster than Intel's i9-10900k in all games though I haven't seen compared with overclocks. The Intel gets good at rendering/encode but I'd rather buy old Xeons with Chinese motherboards for those loads
I was considering 10850k as an upgrade option when I it for $400. It's undeniably significantly better deal than 10900k at $530.
But ultimately decided that it's just not good enough for an upgrade because it still doesn't support PCIE 4 so if I upgrade I would have to upgrade again very shortly.
Would have to wait for 5900x availability or maybe intel will come up with something better.
Disagree. Right now I have the same Skylake cores running 5Ghz and the same PCIE 3, the same everything and it's still fine except I have less cores.
With 5900x I'll get better single thread and multi thread performance as well as PCIE4 which is really important for future GPU's and upcoming upgrades unlike PCIE5 which isn't important at all at this point in time.
PCI-e 4.0 was going to be 'critical' for GPUs to get best performance from a 3080/3090...; instead, it was/is still a non-player. Maybe that will change for next gen. Maybe not.
Inconsistency error on the second page: the 10850K and 10900K swap colors in the graphs.
With regards to the intercore latency, what is the internal bus topology like in the 10 core Comet Lake? Last I heard, Intel was still using the ring topology for client processors but did they finally add a second ring similar to what they did for the medium and high core core count Xeons pre-Sky Lake? That'd explain why two of the cores seem off from the rest (and I would presume the GPU and PCIe controller would also sit on that same ring).
I genuinely appreciate the detail put into this article, but it's amusing that it was prompted by what amounts to little more than a bait-and-switch on their top-end product. 😬 The way I'm looking at it, they either used the early reviews to lie about the price of their *theoretical* flagship CPU, or they used the early reviews to lie about the power characteristics of their *actually available* flagship CPU.
Either way, the end result remains the same: never trust Intel PR, and avoid their products unless you like to use your PC as a small household water heater.
All companies lie and do questionable stuff, all that matters is what you getting for the money.
And in winter small house heater in much appreciated when running script overnight allows you to avoid using house air heater in the room ;D
I think 10850k could be a pretty good deal if $400 or cheaper and you can't wait for AMD availability.
But I think it's only viable option for those who still rocking DDR3 or those who have no PC at all for the rest of us waiting is better. CPU upgrade is just not worth it as long as you have anything Skylake based on zen2 based.
" All companies lie and do questionable stuff " not compared to intel, they have been pretty much lieing for how many years now about how its 10nm tech is coming along.
Intel should remove integrated GPU from all high end CPU's. It's completely pointless. No one is using $500 CPU and using integrated graphics. Silicone is better spent on better CPU.
good to see anandtech still has the biggest gap between quality of articles and quality of comment section
running a 9900K with integrated here, the computer is for audio production and has no use for a graphics card. intel outperforms ryzen for this workload too.
Sorry to disappoint if you've been hiding under a rock for a couple of years, but this is no longer the case, check any recent Scan dawbench articles...
I said "outperform" not "slower." Besides, when I built my PC the only AMD that actually was faster than it was the 3900X, which you couldn't buy anywhere at the time. In fact, I still can't get one locally.
What a joke, I can find exactly one officially certified AM4 motherboard and it's mini ITX. Again, we need these for work. I'm not going to run an uncertified, unsupported setup.
zoolook is right, temps, you do seem pretty ignorant if you think just because intel has thunderbolt, it out performs amd, but you dont say how. thunderbolt has nothing to do with how fast a comp is, its a connection interface for external devices, like usb.
Thanks and Happy New Year! @Ian and all, one question I had for a while is why Intel or AMD don't use the approach that Qualcomm (with help from ARM and TSMC) started with their 865 SoC? AFAIK, they specifically designed and made one of the four big cores as the core with the highest performance and frequency, and the 888 and others are now using that approach even more formalized by having a single X1 core alongside the 3 A78 big cores. So, is an approach like this - one dedicated high frequency, larger cache etc core plus 5, 7 and 15 others- possible and feasible in x86/x64 CPUs, and if so, why isn't it used? Thanks!
The windows scheduler was not good enough to properly allocate workloads to the best cores, losing out on performance and efficiency. Intel believes that the scheduler will be good enough when they launch their 12th gen CPUs using Golden Cove and Gracemont cores.
What all these graphs show me is that AMD's Zen 3 CPU architecture is a heck of a lot better than Intel's 10th Gen Comet Lake CPU architecture.
The 8-core 5800X is within spitting distance of the 10-core 10850K is many benchmarks, and way ahead of it in many others. You pay less upfront, you pay less in power/cooling, and you get better/same performance! Even in multi-threaded benchmarks where the AMD CPU has two fewer cores, but better overall performance.
Hopefully Intel get's their Tiger Lake desktop CPUs (or whatever Lake naming variation the 11th Gen stuff will be) sorted out soon. The only thing holding AMD back right now is supply issues (and a lack of support from the big OEMs like HP, Dell, Compaq, etc).
2021 will be an interesting time for those upgrading desktops... :)
"Hopefully Intel get's their Tiger Lake desktop CPUs (or whatever Lake naming variation the 11th Gen stuff will be) sorted out soon" Rocket Lake 11900K is the top SKU and wrecks the 5800X
"The only thing holding AMD back right now is supply issues (and a lack of support from the big OEMs like HP, Dell, Compaq, etc)" Compaq? really? You know that Compaq was bought by HP... Maybe Lenovo would have been a better choice there...
Intel provides designs for OEMs - have been doing this since the ultralight era - Intel makes it easy for OEMs to introduce a design using Intel SOCs. AMD does not do this - which is AMD's failing - the OEMs have to spend their own money designing a platform for AMD - and at some point hopefully recoup their investment - the sales volume for AMD is low enough that it often doesn't.
Chicken and Egg - OEMs won't introduce high end AMD designs due to cost, consumers won't be able to purchase a high end AMD - and will instead purchase an Intel.
IF AMD started providing designs and packages of components (like the 1W display for Ice Lake and Tiger Lake 13") to the OEMs - then AMD can start to expect higher end designs, rather than some 15" chassis from 3 years ago - by relieving the OEMs from spending $$ to engineer AMD designs, AMD would remove that burden, and also somewhat dictate what tier these designs go into ... provide the same design to all OEMs (just like Intel does)
This is not bashing AMD - they are missing several tricks to get their product in the high end laptop sector... it's not bribing or anything else - it is SMART BUSINESS.
IF AMD wants it's SOCs in high end designs like the Dell XPS - then it's not difficult to see the path forward.
TGL added integrated pcie4, Thunderbolt 4, Wifi6 and lpddr5, and already has avx512, dlboost... all in a laptop chip. When will the competition have those features?
Interesting that I've seen quite a few high end AMD OEM systems, they can just reuse the design of the Intel counterpart, change is just the mobo and CPU, which doesn't influence Form factor much since can get mobo with same Form factor.
So let me get this straight: A CPU with 65% more cores, 100% more power consumed, and with a 50% greater price than their competitor's smallest and cheapest CPU, is being outperformed or equalled by that little CPU.
"Intel likes to point out it has another 24 PCIe 3.0 lanes through the chipset, however this is limited by the DMI/PCIe 3.0 x4 uplink to the processor."
Ok, through a switch, but perhaps the OEMs would have to add a switch on the motherboard if Intel only provided four lanes. Seems like a reasonable feature.
I loved the article. Well-written, very informative, and entertaining. Also little is ever written when it comes to binning. It's great to hear Ian's thoughts on this and the lengths Intel has been going to in order to stay competitive. Ian presented the facts of the case. We are the jury and make our own decisions.
"For v2.1, we also have a fully optimized AVX2/AVX512 version, which uses intrinsics to get the best performance out of the software."
Hmm, err, none of the CPU's in this review support any of the AVX-512 instruction set afaik.
Pointless to compile explicit AVX-512 instructions or use the AVX-512 compiler flag. We know this because compiling something on an AVX-512 aware CPU will work on an AVX-512 machine but will surely crash on a non-AVX-512 CPU. So the best you can say in this review is that AVX2 was enabled as all of the tested CPU's support AVX2.
Now when Rocket Lake comes out then you have an AVE-512 aware CPU. I really don't care what you all do. But if you are going to use/build custom code then use it in a pure AVE-512 compiled code. Four word versus eight word vectors (assuming 64-bit FP code). That then isolates the AVX-512 advantage which should be ~2X faster (eight/four) afaik.
Oh and the CPU speeds would have the same for all tests. Otherwise you will have to factor in those different CPU clocks. Yes to the slower clocks for AVX2/AVX-512 instructions as per the MHz offsets versus non-vectored code.
Sorry to nit-pick, Ian, but the original definition of the dark silicon was the area of the chip for which there is not enough power or thermal budget to power at the same time as the rest of the chip, instead that of structures that are purposefully added to improve thermal management. The paragraph makes the distinction unclear in my opinion.
I bit of an overreaction in the comments here. I have one of these with a noctua nh-d15 and it has no problem keeping it cool. And it's not like it have to ramp up the fans either. Is really quiet.
An amd cpu might be a better choice of you can get one. But that's not an easy task.
‘While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS, and most users will fall back on JEDEC supported speeds’
Hogwash.
Ultimately, very few non-enthusiasts read Anandtech. So, citing the people who are not your audience is plain fallacious.
Secondly, no one needs to go to JDEC to gain stability, nor wants to, unless they’re in ECC land. If they didn’t bother to read their motherboard vendor’s supposed RAM list that shouldn’t be a ball and chain around our necks.
Want JDEC? Fine. Do two rounds of tests. Otherwise, stick with the actual sweet spot in terms of price and performance. That is never JDEC.
"‘While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS, and most users will fall back on JEDEC supported speeds’"
Ummmm..... no. I guess you guys haven't bought a computer in a long time from a vendor. Or even realize that people that do make their own, do apply it because every single guide on youtube, every tech site, every how to blog, shows it. So your assumption is just that, and not realistic.
It's just like saying very few users download video card drivers and just use what's built into Windows. So that's how were going to test. Really?
No. Very few users will buy a 10850-K because it's an enthusiasts chip meant to be overclocked. So if you are reviewing an enthusiasts chip, maybe you should benchmark it like someone that knows what they bought.
About that line on IBM's z-Series processors: I thought about that, but decided against getting one of those. The design of the z-series clashes with the design of my furniture, and the price with the size of my bank account (:
Is the TRUE Copper still a good cooler? How does it compares to today offerings? I mean, yeah, it is 2Kg of copper, bug there is also more than 10 years of evolution in cooler design. I'm asking because, holy shit, those temperatures are terrible.
"With the Ryzen 7 5800X, there’s no worrying about excessive power or thermals, which in of itself is perhaps peace of mind.
On performance against AMD, the 5800X wins on single threaded loads by 15-20% and encoding, while the 10850K wins on rendering multithreaded workloads like Blender by up to 10%. "
Oh my god it is amazing how the tables have turned so fast. Intel is the hotter, power hungrier, with slower but more cores at the same price point now.
Availability of Intel CPU's obviously varies a lot across regions. Here in Denmark there is ample supply of the i9-10900K, which is prices 60 euros higher than the i9-10850K. Is it worth it? Before I read the article I would have said "Probably not", but the lower temperatures definitely makes paying a bit more for at better binned CPU a reasonable proposition.
I purchased a 10850k for $380 from BH Photo a couple of months ago. I have a Kraken x73 on it with thermal grizzly paste. I still can't overclock or it'll cook everything. Temps can jump 20 degrees instantly.
I also bought this CPU but a few weeks ago for that price as well, still waiting for it to arrive though, but I think at that price point there is no better option at the moment, not only because AMD isn't in stock but if you are not using it exclusively for gaming it will for sure offer better future performance at 10c/20t than 6c/12t
I think a lot of people are forgetting how important it is for a vendor to have products to sell. Ryzen 3 can whup Comet Lake on benchmarks all day, but Newegg has exactly zero 5000-series CPUs in stock while they'll ship a 10850k right now for $430. In reality, that means the AMD competition is the 3800X ($417) / 3700X ($325). Those are cheaper, more efficient, and run cooler, but they are also definitely slower (10-15%) at most tasks. The significantly more expensive 3900X ($543) is a step above on many computational tasks and would be my personal choice, but it's still slower than the 10850k at gaming. Buyers don't love getting 2019's leftovers at or above launch MSRP, either, even if they are actually still a good value. That's why it looks like Intel has a good product for its needs. Gamers are likely to choose the Intel CPU, as are some less-hardcore enthusiasts who don't want to wait for current-gen tech. Once AMD stocks the shelves with Zen 3, Intel will have to do better. Until then, it's hard to say a product that you can't buy is better than one you can.
or, one can just be patient, and wait. no one i know who playes games, and is looking for an upgrade is even considering intel now. their current system is fine, so they will be waiting till zen 3 is instock and upgrade then.
During the course of four or five years of using a 5900x, it would pay for itself many times over by using less electricity vs 10850K. Even the 10900K would make up the price difference over the 10850K. Maybe Intel owns stock in power companies? :D
I have an i9-10850k and have yet to see my temps go above 79c stock clock, 85c overclocked to 5.0ghz all cores. This is with a cheap $80 deepcool captain aio. My Cryorig R1 maintains lower temps than this but has more noise due to being a heat pipe air cooler. Thorough review, but I have a problem with the CPU cooler they are using. Thermalright's website even says it is meant for an i7 CPU. The Thermalright True Copper is not meant for this TDP. Also, the cooler has been documented on several occasions to have improper machining on the base.
They need to use a proper cooler, just do a quick youtube search of all the overclocking videos for the i9-10850k and none will have temps near this.
Is that 5nm “speed shift” difference, down from the 16nm of 10900K, relevant/noticeable for intensive home office type use? That graph seems to be excluded from any further discussion, and in fact 10900K is still recommended over 10850K if price is similar enough in the conclusion.
In my case, the price difference is very small, and I was going to get the 10900K variant. But that Frequency Ramp graph is causing some doubts.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
126 Comments
Back to Article
YB1064 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Thermals look horrendous! 102 C even when throttled is bad. Even with water, I don't think you will see much improvement. Better have a chiller on hand!GeoffreyA - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
The sun should buy a few million of these fellows. Will help a lot with temperature when sunspots get too cool.at_clucks - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Nooo, as the article puts it, it's "not as bad as it sounds". People just needlessly freak out when they processor FREAKING BOILS WATER on "an open test bed with a chunky copper cooler" and needing 270W at full load. But in reality it's just "more about thermal gradients inside the processor and how easily the thermals can move" so it's all good. I can feel the temps dropping just by reading these comforting words.I guess the only thing that can make a current gen Intel CPU look good is another current gen Intel CPU. Here's hoping that they get their act together for the next gen(s) or we'll keep having to read reviews where Intel competes against Intel as the only way to get some praise.
at_clucks - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Read the comment above as if there was an edit button to fix all the grammatical... inconsistencies.1_rick - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
It's no worse than the article itself.Smell This - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
as the article puts it, it's "not as bad as it sounds"_______________________________________
Sadly, the presentation makes it much worst. Bad enough smoked with the Ryzen 5900x ... there is little to no downward price pressure on an 18-month old AMD 3900x at $499.
Even worst --- 18 months ago the HEDT Intel 12/24 i9-79xxX was $1,190 and was slobber-knocked by the 3900x . . .
GeoffreyA - Wednesday, January 6, 2021 - link
"Here's hoping that they get their act together"Rocket Lake should cover the ground performance-wise, but it's going to be disastrous when it comes to power and heat. Would be nice to see Sunny Cove running on 7 or 5 nm, but I suspect even there, Zen 3 would use less power, owing to its more economical design.
powerarmour - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
It's a genuinely horrible CPU compared to the competition, Intel have regressed so much on performance-per-watt that even Apple are stealing their lunch now.shelbystripes - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
It’s embarrassing (for Intel) how easily Apple justified the Intel-to-ARM switch with the M1. Stagnation is a bitch.Operandi - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Part stagnation part major technological fumbles. Intel definitely played it safe on the architectural level but you could argue that was the right call given the state of the market. What is really killing them is the dropped ball on the fabrication front.Regardless though Apple's move to their own designs was going to happen even if Intel was stumbling all over the place, that move has been planned for over a decade.
Deicidium369 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
And TSMC is really killing the fabrication front with the inability to ship anything in meaningful numbers - due to a extremely fragile supply chain - other than Apple - everything else in still on some variation of TSMC's 10nm class process - they call "7nm"sadick - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
You are right, but Intel desktop CPUs are manufactured on the 14nm process since 2014!!! Ok, it's 14++++ now, but what an evolution, I'm very impressed ;-)I'm not an AMD fan boy, actually using a i7-9700k!
regsEx - Thursday, January 7, 2021 - link
At least they are much cheaper. 10-core 10850K cost same as 6-core 5600X.Impostors - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
So is apple? Lmfao you thought they were making the chips? TSMC isn't behind on production, they are the production for literally everyone, from PC to mobile.name99 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
"you could argue that was the right call given the state of the market"Only if you drank your own koolaid about the end of Moore's Law...
Remember a book called _Only the Paranoid Survive_? About how in High Tech there are *constant* upsets and changes, nothing ever stays the same?
Hmm, if only someone at Intel had read that book and though "Gee, this seems to describe an industry very much like the one in which we operate"...
0ldman79 - Saturday, January 9, 2021 - link
Playing it safe would have been fine if they had a product to release afterwards.Thing is they didn't. They got so cocky they screwed up their fabs, reached too far while physics are only getting tougher to overcome.
TSMC made 7nm work, whether it hit their target density and speed goals or not it works. Intel had a goal and rather than back off as needed to release a product they kept fighting to hit an ego check-mark. When 10nm didn't work they should have backed off the density and tried again in order to release a product. Ultimately that's what they had to do but they did it 3 years too late.
WaltC - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
M1 has very little in software and hardware compatibility to recommend it, however. Those are the #1 reasons people buy computer systems--raw performance is merely icing on the cake. AMD blows the M1, and Intel CPUs, away, imo. As it sits today, the M1 is not competitive with AMD (or even Intel, actually) in terms of multithreaded performance desktops & enterprise-level offerings. I very much doubt Apple will be going there--but we shall see...M1 as it sits is a good beginner's start...let's see where it goes from there.Great_Scott - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
The techie rant from the early 2000's is coming to pass, finally.So many programs are either mobile or browser-based that the M1 is going to get a pass on compatibility.
Apple got lucky on the timing, in other words.
name99 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Geniuses (and genius companies) make their own timing...Seems kinda bizarre to consider the rise of mobile computing as an exogenous factor when discussing Apple!
Calin - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
Just read an article about Flash no longer being supported... and it was instead replaced by HTML5 and the like...Guess that genius companies really are lucky indeed ;)
zodiacfml - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
While it is true that AMD's current available Ryzen mobile at 7nm is superior to the M1 at 5nm, you have to consider that M1 is Apple's entry level. Things will get more interesting once AMD gets into 5nm and Apple releases bigger M1Alistair - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
That is not true at all. Everything works on the M1, I have an M1 Mac Mini and a PC and have no problems. The issue is Apple's lack of expansion and lack of GPU performance. Games for example that are not on the Mac, not because of M1's performance (which is excellent) but because of M1's lack of GPU performance vs a basic video card, and the lack of the basic GPU expansion options. Also Mac OS sucks compared to Windows imo, but the Mac Mini hardware and M1 CPU performance are A+. Hopefully Apple doubles the GPU options and performance quickly.Meteor2 - Thursday, January 7, 2021 - link
Yes, I thought that a very strange statement too. Rosetta2 exists and it works.JayNor - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
compared to the competition that can't respond to the WFH and educational demand?Qasar - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
still better then a company that fell asleep, and stagnated the cpu industry. intels lack of innovation, and reliance on its process tech, is what has caused intel to be in the position it is now in.powerarmour - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
Can you actually buy an Intel motherboard at the moment?, shortages are very apparent there too.regsEx - Thursday, January 7, 2021 - link
Apple doesn't have any high performance CPU.JessNarmo - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
420mm AIO with bare die liquid metal here we come!But jokes aside good 360 AIO with liquid metal should keep it quite easily under 80C at all times.
Anytime you see significant temperatures liquid metal helps disproportionately more, because it's thermal conductivity grows with temperature unlike thermal pastes. It drops 20C from 80C on paste and 30C from 100C on paste.
Still I'd rather wait for 5900x
Deicidium369 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Did you see the cooler?http://thermalright.com/product/true-copper/
passive design
lopri - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
I have been looking for that cooler. Does anyone know where to find one?edzieba - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
I dunno, sounds like an opportunity for ambient-pressure water phase-change cooling to me! Who needs evacuated heat-pipes or vapour-chambers when you can just spray the top of the IHS directly!shabby - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Hey Ian can you put the real cpu wattage in the charts that the cpu used in that test rather than the fake one? We all know this cpu never uses 125 watts.Drkrieger01 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
You either skipped the 'Power Consumption' page, or don't understand CPU TDP ratings. The '125W' rating is the 'non-turbo' rating, meaning power consumed at max non-turbo clock rate. AMD does the same thing, and also has a higher power consumption during turbo (although not anywhere near as much as Intel does).shabby - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Since each benchmark varies it would be nice seeing how much wattage each cpu used during that benchmark.Yes i know amd uses more power during turbo, the 5950x uses 30 watts more than advertised... compared to ~140 watts more that intel advertises their 10850k to use. That quite the difference don't you think?
Drkrieger01 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Unless you're working on a power budget, I honestly wouldn't worry about it. Most review websites don't have the time/man-power to trace the power usage on each benchmark for each CPU. You will also have a variance between processors of the exact same model due to binning/silicon lottery. You're better off planning to use/dissipate the full turbo power of the CPU than hope for lower power. Or just buy an AMD (if you can find one!)eek2121 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Actually AMD chips use the TDP value as the maximum power value minus the IO power, so all AMD chips use a total of 143 watts at maximim.Flunk - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Intel seems to have six similar i9 SKUs with prices ranging from $453 to $488. Seems rather pointless. Maybe Intel marketing should spend some time thinking about whether or not their insanely complex model scheme is contributing to their lack of sales. AMD has ONE SKU that competes with all of those Intel SKUs. Clock down for lower TDP doesn't need to be an entire SKU.Duwelon - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Whoever comes up with Intel's SKUs must be the same person/people responsible for interfacing with USB Implementers Forum on Intel's behalf. The industry is replete with remarkably confusing naming schemes, seemingly on purpose.DanNeely - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Making the low power versions use the same model number would be a very anti-consumer move because you'd have no easy way to know if you were getting the 3.7Ghz or 1.9Ghz model. We already have that problem on mobile where two laptops with identical specs perform wildly different because one is running the CPU at 2x the power/performance of the other. Using separate model numbers also lets you bin chips that perform best at low and high power levels separately.The production limit bins (10850K and both IGPless KF models) muddle things up a bit; but Intel's desktop lines are very cleanly broken out vs what they did a decade+ ago with a mess of different similar chips with varying cache sizes and clock speeds but the same core counts; or the ongoing mess of their mobile line (good luck figuring anything out about one of those chips from its model number without looking it up).
Crazyeyeskillah - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
they have various skus for oem's, system builders, general public, retail products, ect ectCertain OEMs require a non-open market skus to promote their products or run at certain specs that differentiate them from what's available on the open market.
Machinus - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Put that piled higher and deeper to use and write an article about how binning affects IC design, before the variability in lithography. Other PhDs read this site tooFreckledTrout - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Its the top chart on the the second page. The AIDA stress tests where we are looking at around 260 watts.Machinus - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
There's a whole article in the chart?j@cko - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Nice try Intel. This reminded us of AMD during those FX days when they had nothing good to compete with Intel. Intel's complacency has proven to be quite costly and made some consumers quite bitter toward them. It's gonna take some time to fix that and win back consumer trust and confidence. For example, our company has switched to buying AMD (Ryzen) system since Zen+ and they do not plan on going back to Intel unless AMD goes rogue (complacent with tech and price). Even at my own household, we have built 5 or 6 systems and none of them are Intel.DannyH246 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Yawn. More Intel crap.Desierz - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
I wonder what Rocket Lake temps will be like..goatfajitas - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
hotGrayswean - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Hence the name.Deicidium369 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
same as here if you use the same janky passive HSFzodiacfml - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
why even work on this? Ryzen 5000 series?1_rick - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Because you've got the people who will spend any amount of money to get 5fps more in their games so they can smugly tell everyone who they've got the best.lopri - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
I see Ryzens beating this thing by sizeable margins in games.zodiacfml - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Ryzen 5000 series is significantly faster than Intel's i9-10900k in all games though I haven't seen compared with overclocks. The Intel gets good at rendering/encode but I'd rather buy old Xeons with Chinese motherboards for those loadsV3ctorPT - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
In gaming the real star is the 5600X... awesome performance for its price, for a 65W(!) CPU...lmcd - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
It's basically an 80W CPU though lolCrazyeyeskillah - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
my 5600x is 10-20c hotter than my 3600 clock for clock on the same exact rig and watercooler.JessNarmo - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
I was considering 10850k as an upgrade option when I it for $400. It's undeniably significantly better deal than 10900k at $530.But ultimately decided that it's just not good enough for an upgrade because it still doesn't support PCIE 4 so if I upgrade I would have to upgrade again very shortly.
Would have to wait for 5900x availability or maybe intel will come up with something better.
edzieba - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
The same argument can be made for the 5900x and PCIe 5 (or DDR 5). There will always be a new protocol, or new interface, or etc on the horizon.JessNarmo - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Disagree. Right now I have the same Skylake cores running 5Ghz and the same PCIE 3, the same everything and it's still fine except I have less cores.With 5900x I'll get better single thread and multi thread performance as well as PCIE4 which is really important for future GPU's and upcoming upgrades unlike PCIE5 which isn't important at all at this point in time.
MDD1963 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
PCI-e 4.0 was going to be 'critical' for GPUs to get best performance from a 3080/3090...; instead, it was/is still a non-player. Maybe that will change for next gen. Maybe not.Kevin G - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Inconsistency error on the second page: the 10850K and 10900K swap colors in the graphs.With regards to the intercore latency, what is the internal bus topology like in the 10 core Comet Lake? Last I heard, Intel was still using the ring topology for client processors but did they finally add a second ring similar to what they did for the medium and high core core count Xeons pre-Sky Lake? That'd explain why two of the cores seem off from the rest (and I would presume the GPU and PCIe controller would also sit on that same ring).
Spunjji - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
I genuinely appreciate the detail put into this article, but it's amusing that it was prompted by what amounts to little more than a bait-and-switch on their top-end product. 😬 The way I'm looking at it, they either used the early reviews to lie about the price of their *theoretical* flagship CPU, or they used the early reviews to lie about the power characteristics of their *actually available* flagship CPU.Either way, the end result remains the same: never trust Intel PR, and avoid their products unless you like to use your PC as a small household water heater.
JessNarmo - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
All companies lie and do questionable stuff, all that matters is what you getting for the money.And in winter small house heater in much appreciated when running script overnight allows you to avoid using house air heater in the room ;D
I think 10850k could be a pretty good deal if $400 or cheaper and you can't wait for AMD availability.
But I think it's only viable option for those who still rocking DDR3 or those who have no PC at all for the rest of us waiting is better. CPU upgrade is just not worth it as long as you have anything Skylake based on zen2 based.
Qasar - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
" All companies lie and do questionable stuff " not compared to intel, they have been pretty much lieing for how many years now about how its 10nm tech is coming along.GeoffreyA - Wednesday, January 6, 2021 - link
Maybe Intel should go into the geyser business ;)zamroni - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Intel should remove the low spec on die integrated gpu and replace it with more powerful gpu chiplet.JessNarmo - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Intel should remove integrated GPU from all high end CPU's. It's completely pointless. No one is using $500 CPU and using integrated graphics. Silicone is better spent on better CPU.heftig - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
I am, actually. For a soho+media server and distcc host which only needs a GPU for whatever can't be done over SSH.temps - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
good to see anandtech still has the biggest gap between quality of articles and quality of comment sectionrunning a 9900K with integrated here, the computer is for audio production and has no use for a graphics card. intel outperforms ryzen for this workload too.
powerarmour - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
Sorry to disappoint if you've been hiding under a rock for a couple of years, but this is no longer the case, check any recent Scan dawbench articles...temps - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
Sorry but most of us professionals have moved to Thunderbolt interfaces. How can Ryzen outperform Intel at something it can't support?Qasar - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
so because ryzen doesnt support thunderbolt, the whole platform is slower? thats just stupidtemps - Wednesday, January 6, 2021 - link
I said "outperform" not "slower." Besides, when I built my PC the only AMD that actually was faster than it was the 3900X, which you couldn't buy anywhere at the time. In fact, I still can't get one locally.Zoolook - Wednesday, January 6, 2021 - link
You seem pretty ignorant, there are plenty of am4 motherboards with thunderbolt support.temps - Wednesday, January 6, 2021 - link
What a joke, I can find exactly one officially certified AM4 motherboard and it's mini ITX. Again, we need these for work. I'm not going to run an uncertified, unsupported setup.Qasar - Wednesday, January 6, 2021 - link
zoolook is right, temps, you do seem pretty ignorant if you think just because intel has thunderbolt, it out performs amd, but you dont say how. thunderbolt has nothing to do with how fast a comp is, its a connection interface for external devices, like usb.temps - Wednesday, January 6, 2021 - link
I already said my audio interface needs Thunderbolt... so really, a Celeron outperforms AMD for my requirements. Good job reading. Good day.TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
They did, they were called HDET, and you whined they were too expensive.eastcoast_pete - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Thanks and Happy New Year! @Ian and all, one question I had for a while is why Intel or AMD don't use the approach that Qualcomm (with help from ARM and TSMC) started with their 865 SoC? AFAIK, they specifically designed and made one of the four big cores as the core with the highest performance and frequency, and the 888 and others are now using that approach even more formalized by having a single X1 core alongside the 3 A78 big cores. So, is an approach like this - one dedicated high frequency, larger cache etc core plus 5, 7 and 15 others- possible and feasible in x86/x64 CPUs, and if so, why isn't it used? Thanks!Otritus - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
The windows scheduler was not good enough to properly allocate workloads to the best cores, losing out on performance and efficiency. Intel believes that the scheduler will be good enough when they launch their 12th gen CPUs using Golden Cove and Gracemont cores.Otritus - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Furthermore, Intel already uses a 1+4 design in their Lakefield processors. So, 1+n designs are possible on x86.It's 2021, when will Anandtech get an edit button.
phoenix_rizzen - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
What all these graphs show me is that AMD's Zen 3 CPU architecture is a heck of a lot better than Intel's 10th Gen Comet Lake CPU architecture.The 8-core 5800X is within spitting distance of the 10-core 10850K is many benchmarks, and way ahead of it in many others. You pay less upfront, you pay less in power/cooling, and you get better/same performance! Even in multi-threaded benchmarks where the AMD CPU has two fewer cores, but better overall performance.
Hopefully Intel get's their Tiger Lake desktop CPUs (or whatever Lake naming variation the 11th Gen stuff will be) sorted out soon. The only thing holding AMD back right now is supply issues (and a lack of support from the big OEMs like HP, Dell, Compaq, etc).
2021 will be an interesting time for those upgrading desktops... :)
Deicidium369 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
"Hopefully Intel get's their Tiger Lake desktop CPUs (or whatever Lake naming variation the 11th Gen stuff will be) sorted out soon" Rocket Lake 11900K is the top SKU and wrecks the 5800X"The only thing holding AMD back right now is supply issues (and a lack of support from the big OEMs like HP, Dell, Compaq, etc)" Compaq? really? You know that Compaq was bought by HP... Maybe Lenovo would have been a better choice there...
Intel provides designs for OEMs - have been doing this since the ultralight era - Intel makes it easy for OEMs to introduce a design using Intel SOCs. AMD does not do this - which is AMD's failing - the OEMs have to spend their own money designing a platform for AMD - and at some point hopefully recoup their investment - the sales volume for AMD is low enough that it often doesn't.
Chicken and Egg - OEMs won't introduce high end AMD designs due to cost, consumers won't be able to purchase a high end AMD - and will instead purchase an Intel.
IF AMD started providing designs and packages of components (like the 1W display for Ice Lake and Tiger Lake 13") to the OEMs - then AMD can start to expect higher end designs, rather than some 15" chassis from 3 years ago - by relieving the OEMs from spending $$ to engineer AMD designs, AMD would remove that burden, and also somewhat dictate what tier these designs go into ... provide the same design to all OEMs (just like Intel does)
This is not bashing AMD - they are missing several tricks to get their product in the high end laptop sector... it's not bribing or anything else - it is SMART BUSINESS.
IF AMD wants it's SOCs in high end designs like the Dell XPS - then it's not difficult to see the path forward.
JayNor - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
TGL added integrated pcie4, Thunderbolt 4, Wifi6 and lpddr5, and already has avx512, dlboost... all in a laptop chip. When will the competition have those features?RSAUser - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
Interesting that I've seen quite a few high end AMD OEM systems, they can just reuse the design of the Intel counterpart, change is just the mobo and CPU, which doesn't influence Form factor much since can get mobo with same Form factor.powerarmour - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
Just wait until you see the power consumption numbers for Rocket Lake then, you'll then see who wrecks what.Makaveli - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Where did you see a 11900k which is unreleased at the moment wrecking a 5800x? Those leaked geekbench scores lol? Citation needed.AndrewJacksonZA - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
So let me get this straight: A CPU with 65% more cores, 100% more power consumed, and with a 50% greater price than their competitor's smallest and cheapest CPU, is being outperformed or equalled by that little CPU.OK, right on.
JayNor - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
"Intel likes to point out it has another 24 PCIe 3.0 lanes through the chipset, however this is limited by the DMI/PCIe 3.0 x4 uplink to the processor."Ok, through a switch, but perhaps the OEMs would have to add a switch on the motherboard if Intel only provided four lanes. Seems like a reasonable feature.
Hulk - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
I loved the article. Well-written, very informative, and entertaining. Also little is ever written when it comes to binning. It's great to hear Ian's thoughts on this and the lengths Intel has been going to in order to stay competitive.Ian presented the facts of the case. We are the jury and make our own decisions.
simpleinhibition - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
This review is only 6 months after launch. I remember a time when anandtech spent more time doing launch day articles and less time tweetingmrvco - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Very diplomatic review, but Intel has become the Dodge of CPUs.Everett F Sargent - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
"For v2.1, we also have a fully optimized AVX2/AVX512 version, which uses intrinsics to get the best performance out of the software."Hmm, err, none of the CPU's in this review support any of the AVX-512 instruction set afaik.
Pointless to compile explicit AVX-512 instructions or use the AVX-512 compiler flag. We know this because compiling something on an AVX-512 aware CPU will work on an AVX-512 machine but will surely crash on a non-AVX-512 CPU. So the best you can say in this review is that AVX2 was enabled as all of the tested CPU's support AVX2.
Now when Rocket Lake comes out then you have an AVE-512 aware CPU. I really don't care what you all do. But if you are going to use/build custom code then use it in a pure AVE-512 compiled code. Four word versus eight word vectors (assuming 64-bit FP code). That then isolates the AVX-512 advantage which should be ~2X faster (eight/four) afaik.
Everett F Sargent - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Oh and the CPU speeds would have the same for all tests. Otherwise you will have to factor in those different CPU clocks. Yes to the slower clocks for AVX2/AVX-512 instructions as per the MHz offsets versus non-vectored code.TeXWiller - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Sorry to nit-pick, Ian, but the original definition of the dark silicon was the area of the chip for which there is not enough power or thermal budget to power at the same time as the rest of the chip, instead that of structures that are purposefully added to improve thermal management. The paragraph makes the distinction unclear in my opinion.anarfox - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
I bit of an overreaction in the comments here. I have one of these with a noctua nh-d15 and it has no problem keeping it cool. And it's not like it have to ramp up the fans either. Is really quiet.An amd cpu might be a better choice of you can get one. But that's not an easy task.
Oxford Guy - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
‘While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS, and most users will fall back on JEDEC supported speeds’Hogwash.
Ultimately, very few non-enthusiasts read Anandtech. So, citing the people who are not your audience is plain fallacious.
Secondly, no one needs to go to JDEC to gain stability, nor wants to, unless they’re in ECC land. If they didn’t bother to read their motherboard vendor’s supposed RAM list that shouldn’t be a ball and chain around our necks.
Want JDEC? Fine. Do two rounds of tests. Otherwise, stick with the actual sweet spot in terms of price and performance. That is never JDEC.
Oxford Guy - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
JEDEC, rather. Not even spelling the acronym is par for the course given how irrelevant it is for enthusiasts.As for ‘supposed’, that’s auto-defect.
Dug - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
"‘While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS, and most users will fall back on JEDEC supported speeds’"Ummmm..... no.
I guess you guys haven't bought a computer in a long time from a vendor. Or even realize that people that do make their own, do apply it because every single guide on youtube, every tech site, every how to blog, shows it. So your assumption is just that, and not realistic.
Dug - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
And that wasn't directed to anarfox, but Anandtech. No edit in 2021!Oxford Guy - Thursday, January 7, 2021 - link
Anarfox? Your reply was in response to my post.Dug - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
It's just like saying very few users download video card drivers and just use what's built into Windows. So that's how were going to test. Really?No. Very few users will buy a 10850-K because it's an enthusiasts chip meant to be overclocked. So if you are reviewing an enthusiasts chip, maybe you should benchmark it like someone that knows what they bought.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, January 7, 2021 - link
"It's just like saying very few users download video card drivers and just use what's built into Windows. So that's how were going to test. Really?"Good point.
eastcoast_pete - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
About that line on IBM's z-Series processors: I thought about that, but decided against getting one of those. The design of the z-series clashes with the design of my furniture, and the price with the size of my bank account (:boozed - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
So, what you're saying is that I should buy a Ryzen 5000?lucasdclopes - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Is the TRUE Copper still a good cooler? How does it compares to today offerings? I mean, yeah, it is 2Kg of copper, bug there is also more than 10 years of evolution in cooler design.I'm asking because, holy shit, those temperatures are terrible.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, January 7, 2021 - link
"there is also more than 10 years of evolution in cooler design"Can't overcome the laws of physics.
lucasdclopes - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
"With the Ryzen 7 5800X, there’s no worrying about excessive power or thermals, which in of itself is perhaps peace of mind.On performance against AMD, the 5800X wins on single threaded loads by 15-20% and encoding, while the 10850K wins on rendering multithreaded workloads like Blender by up to 10%. "
Oh my god it is amazing how the tables have turned so fast.
Intel is the hotter, power hungrier, with slower but more cores at the same price point now.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, January 7, 2021 - link
Unless the power consumption is equivalent it's not a win.29a - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
"So why test it at all? Firstly, because we need an AI benchmark, and a bad one is still better than not having one at all."I can't disagree with this statement enough, bad data is worse than no data.
Cullinaire - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Shades of Prescott?😆
Crazyeyeskillah - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
i used to own a PresHottTheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
I’d rather PresNotGeoffreyA - Wednesday, January 6, 2021 - link
Somewhat reminiscent.BGADK - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Thank you for an interesting article.Availability of Intel CPU's obviously varies a lot across regions. Here in Denmark there is ample supply of the i9-10900K, which is prices 60 euros higher than the i9-10850K. Is it worth it? Before I read the article I would have said "Probably not", but the lower temperatures definitely makes paying a bit more for at better binned CPU a reasonable proposition.
Betabacker - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
I purchased a 10850k for $380 from BH Photo a couple of months ago. I have a Kraken x73 on it with thermal grizzly paste. I still can't overclock or it'll cook everything. Temps can jump 20 degrees instantly.Nirkon - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
I also bought this CPU but a few weeks ago for that price as well, still waiting for it to arrive though, but I think at that price point there is no better option at the moment, not only because AMD isn't in stock but if you are not using it exclusively for gaming it will for sure offer better future performance at 10c/20t than 6c/12tceomrman - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
I think a lot of people are forgetting how important it is for a vendor to have products to sell. Ryzen 3 can whup Comet Lake on benchmarks all day, but Newegg has exactly zero 5000-series CPUs in stock while they'll ship a 10850k right now for $430. In reality, that means the AMD competition is the 3800X ($417) / 3700X ($325). Those are cheaper, more efficient, and run cooler, but they are also definitely slower (10-15%) at most tasks. The significantly more expensive 3900X ($543) is a step above on many computational tasks and would be my personal choice, but it's still slower than the 10850k at gaming. Buyers don't love getting 2019's leftovers at or above launch MSRP, either, even if they are actually still a good value. That's why it looks like Intel has a good product for its needs. Gamers are likely to choose the Intel CPU, as are some less-hardcore enthusiasts who don't want to wait for current-gen tech. Once AMD stocks the shelves with Zen 3, Intel will have to do better. Until then, it's hard to say a product that you can't buy is better than one you can.Qasar - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
or, one can just be patient, and wait.no one i know who playes games, and is looking for an upgrade is even considering intel now. their current system is fine, so they will be waiting till zen 3 is instock and upgrade then.
gregerst - Tuesday, January 5, 2021 - link
During the course of four or five years of using a 5900x, it would pay for itself many times over by using less electricity vs 10850K. Even the 10900K would make up the price difference over the 10850K. Maybe Intel owns stock in power companies? :Ddwillmore - Wednesday, January 6, 2021 - link
FWIW, your y-cruncher link goes to a file on your C drive: file:///C:/Users/admin/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/www.numberworld.org/y-cruncherShowtime - Friday, January 8, 2021 - link
What cooler was used for this review?hellocopter - Wednesday, January 13, 2021 - link
Who in their right mind would buy anything Intel over AMD? Things are getting rather embarrassing for Intel..sonicmerlin - Sunday, January 17, 2021 - link
I bought a I5-2500k for $200 back in the day when it was top of the line... when did CPUs become so expensive...?FluxApex - Monday, March 8, 2021 - link
I have an i9-10850k and have yet to see my temps go above 79c stock clock, 85c overclocked to 5.0ghz all cores. This is with a cheap $80 deepcool captain aio. My Cryorig R1 maintains lower temps than this but has more noise due to being a heat pipe air cooler.Thorough review, but I have a problem with the CPU cooler they are using. Thermalright's website even says it is meant for an i7 CPU. The Thermalright True Copper is not meant for this TDP. Also, the cooler has been documented on several occasions to have improper machining on the base.
They need to use a proper cooler, just do a quick youtube search of all the overclocking videos for the i9-10850k and none will have temps near this.
Quartz11 - Tuesday, March 23, 2021 - link
Is that 5nm “speed shift” difference, down from the 16nm of 10900K, relevant/noticeable for intensive home office type use? That graph seems to be excluded from any further discussion, and in fact 10900K is still recommended over 10850K if price is similar enough in the conclusion.In my case, the price difference is very small, and I was going to get the 10900K variant. But that Frequency Ramp graph is causing some doubts.