The Competition

So here’s the big question – how does Intel’s hardware stack up against the Zen 2 processors from AMD. For this, we’re going to do some price-to-price comparisons.

At ~$430, the Core i9-10900F goes up against the R9 3900X

Battle at ~$430
Intel
Core i9-10900F
AnandTech AMD
Ryzen 9 3900X
$422 Price $432
14++ Lithography 7nm
10C / 20T Cores 12C / 24T
2.8 GHz Base Frequency 3.6 GHz
65 W TDP 105 W
5.1 GHz Favored Core (TB3) 4.6 GHz
2 x DDR4-2933 DRAM Support 2 x DDR4-3200
PCIe 3.0 x16 PCIe Support PCIe 4.0 x24


In this instance, Intel has the higher turbo favored core and lower TDP, but AMD has the much higher base frequency, PCIe 4.0 support, and faster memory.

At ~$180, the Core i5-10500 and i5-10400F go up against the popular Ryzen 5 3600:

Battle at ~$180
Intel
Core i5-10500
Intel
Core i5-10400F
AnandTech AMD
Ryzen 5 3600
$192 $152 Price $173
14++ 14++ Lithography 7nm
6C / 12T 6C / 12T Cores 6C / 12T
3.1 GHz 2.9 GHz Base Frequency 3.6 GHz
65 W 65 W TDP 65 W
4.5 GHz 4.3 GHz Favored Core (TB3) 4.2 GHz
2x DDR4-2666 2x DDR4-2666 DRAM Support 2x DDR4-3200
PCIe 3.0 x16 PCIe 3.0 x16 PCIe Support PCIe 4.0 x24

The Core i5-10500 has the higher turbo frequency, but don’t forget this is Zen 2 vs Skylake, and Zen 2 has the higher IPC, so that turbo deficit in frequency might actually still be a win for AMD. The fact that the base frequency is in AMD’s favor considerably, plus the DDR4 support and PCIe support, means that the AMD chip is likely the option here. The i5-10400F is in a similar boat, but at least the deficits it does have come with a price reduction.

How about some halo against halo comparison? The Ryzen 9 3950X and 3900X vs the Core i9-10900KF ?

Halo vs Halo
Intel
Core i9-10900KF
AnandTech AMD
Ryzen 9 3900X
AMD
Ryzen 9 3950X
$472 Price $432 $722
14++ Lithography 7nm 7nm
10C / 20T Cores 12C / 24T 16C / 32T
3.7 GHz Base Frequency 3.8 GHz 3.5 GHz
125 W TDP 105 W 105 W
5.2 GHz Favored Core (TB3) 4.6 GHz 4.7 GHz
4.8 GHz All-Core Turbo (TB2) 4.0 GHz 3.9 GHz
250-350W ? All-Core Turbo Power 136 W 125 W
2x DDR4-2933 DRAM Support 2 x DDR4-3200 2 x DDR4-3200
PCIe 3.0 x16 PCIe Support PCIe 4.0 x24 PCIe 4.0 x24

Some users will state that the 3900X is the better comparison, only being $40 cheaper, so I’ve included it here as well. Ultimately the thing mainly going for the new hardware is that turbo frequency, up to 5.2 GHz on favored core or 5.3 GHz when under 70ºC. Just looking at the raw CPU data on paper, and some might consider the 10900 series a raw deal.

It should be noted that Intel has different PL2 recommendations for each of the overclockable processors:

  • Core i9-10900K: TDP is 125 W, PL2 is 250 W, Tau is 56 seconds
  • Core i7-10700K: TDP is 125 W, PL2 is 229 W, Tau is 56 seconds
  • Core i5-10600K: TDP is 125 W, PL2 is 182 W, Tau is 56 seconds

Normally the recommended PL2 value is 1.25x the TDP, but in this case Intel is increasing the recommended values. This won’t stop the motherboard manufacturers from completely ignoring them, however.

Also, PL2 and Tau are based on a comparative power load that is defined as a function of a power virus, typically 90-93% or so. This means a complete power virus will go beyond this.

Final Thoughts

Intel is caught between a rock and a hard place. With its main competitor offering sixteen cores on its mainstream platform and on a better process node, Intel’s struggles with its 10nm process means that the company has to rely on old faithful, 14nm, another time. Unfortunately old faithful is showing its age, especially combined with the fifth generation of Skylake, and all Intel can do is apply new optimizations to get the best out of the chip.

This is to be fair, if I was in Intel’s shoes, what I would probably be doing as well. Rearchitecting production lines to start testing for favored cores isn’t as straightforward as users might think, and then adding in more control logic for Thermal Velocity Boost also means expanding out the firmware and driver support too. Adding in things like DMI/PEG overclocking, per-core HT selection, and VF curves, help with keeping the platform interesting.

In an ideal world, on the desktop Intel would be on its second generation of 10nm hardware by now. We would also be on Ice Lake or a post-Ice Lake microarchitecture, and this would be the suitable entry point for PCIe 4.0 connectivity. As it stands we need to wait, and now we have a new motherboard line with partial PCIe 4.0 support for a product that doesn’t exist yet. Unfortunately this is where I think Intel has made its biggest mistake, in having a new socket/chipset combination straddle the generations between PCIe 3.0 and PCIe 4.0. This is going to create a lot of confusion, especially if some of the new motherboards that are designed to meet ‘PCIe 4.0 specification’ end up not working all that well with the future Rocket Lake product. It’s not a hurdle I would like to come across if I was in the target market for this hardware. I would have, if possible, used the previous socket for another generation and then made the change over for PCIe 4.0 and a new socket with Rocket.

While Intel is announcing the hardware, the exact time it will be on shelves is unknown. Typically with these launches we will have a sense of when review samples will be arriving and when the hardware will go on shelves. At this point I still have open questions with Intel as to when that is – I guess that the online retailers will know when their stock is in place and it will be shown on their websites today.

Socket, Silicon, Security, Overclocking, Motherboards
Comments Locked

174 Comments

View All Comments

  • Korguz - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    news flash for you there BenSkywalker, you are an intel shill more then most on here, your previous posts have shown this, i dont think i have ever seen you say anything positive about amd ever yet, you constantly praise intel. intel screwed up, they lied about 10nm being on track/time, stuck mainstream at quad core, lies about how much power its cpu uses, and still rehashing the same base architecture for how long now ?? like Spunjji mentioned, he didnt say your issue was made up, and i dont remember any mechanical hdd getting to a usable desktop in 14 seconds either, one of my comps here still uses such a hdd, and when i turn it on, i forget about for a few mins, as there is no way it would be at the desktop that fast. i just mentioned that i have an amd system as well, with no issues with ram speed. and maybe you were accused of being an intel shill,. because of your previous posts, show you are. good luck with your system, how you get it figured out the way you want it.,
  • BenSkywalker - Thursday, May 7, 2020 - link

    An Intel shill that spends his money on AMD......

    I've posted on two threads involving CPUs that I can recall, one in a gaming build article where I pointed out flat out wrong information and pointed out Intel was faster for gaming and cheaper, all facts, and some raging spaz shill took issue, and this one, and that's all I can think of.

    I don't care enough about the CPU market to shill anything ever, just don't like BS being spread.
  • rabidpeach - Friday, May 8, 2020 - link

    so you bought a shit motherboard and didn't verify it could run the faster rams?
  • Valantar - Monday, May 4, 2020 - link

    That's an ill-fitting metaphor - soups and stews generally _improve_ in flavor as they sit. Yesterday's soup is likely to taste richer and better than one made today (at least if the soup is made from scratch and not some over-processed crap).

    CPU architectures have no such luck.
  • azfacea - Friday, May 1, 2020 - link

    i9 is the new i7. i7 is the new i5. interesting that intel now has hyper threading across the board on these *new* i7s. Gee i wondder why
  • Spunjji - Friday, May 1, 2020 - link

    It's almost like they've been compelled by some invisible force to stop artificially segmenting their products to the Nth degree.
  • Deicidium369 - Monday, May 4, 2020 - link

    Yeah, no other Industry does that - it's not like Toyota sells multiple versions of the same vehicle - no "trim" levels that add additional mechanical and cosmetic changes. Not like Gulfstream sells multiple sizes of jets ... yeah where Intel is getting this crazy idea is unknown.
  • Spunjji - Monday, May 4, 2020 - link

    Did I say no other industry does that? Did I say only Intel do that?
    Or did I perhaps imply that competition from AMD has forced them reduce the extent to which they do it? 🤔

    Intel have always taken the piss with how they go about this practice, seemingly in order to push unsuspecting customers further up the product ladder than they actually need to go. The fact that car manufactures engage in the same predatory practices doesn't magically make it okay for Intel. Talking about Gulfstream jet sizes is even more laughable because they're *literally physically different objects*, as opposed to a CPU where the exact same piece of fully-functioning silicon has features lazered off "because marketing".

    You really are just Gondalf with better Turing Test scores.
  • arashi - Monday, May 4, 2020 - link

    Did gondaft get banned?
  • Spunjji - Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - link

    Didn't even know you could! Perhaps someone tripped over the power cord of the system running the rudimentary AI that fuelled it.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now