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

  • mode_13h - Saturday, May 2, 2020 - link

    > The new CPUs have the LGA1200 socket, which means that current 300-series motherboards are not sufficient, and users will require new LGA1200 motherboards. This is despite the socket being the same size.

    "despite the socket being the same size"? What an odd point to make. As if to say the new socket would only be justified if it had different physical dimensions.
  • Deicidium369 - Saturday, May 2, 2020 - link

    The socket is only marginally larger - its only 49 additional pins - the holes for the coolers are identical - which is what was meant.
  • Kevin G - Monday, May 4, 2020 - link

    Even the CPU packages are the same. They reduced the size of the center area for small SMD capacitors for additional pads. A few spots on the edges gained some pads too. It just isn’t obvious unless you look closely that they are different.
  • mode_13h - Saturday, May 2, 2020 - link

    > This should have a negligible effect on core-to-core latency which will likely not be noticed by end-users.

    Oh? You mean *you* can't notice an extra 20 nanoseconds between when you click the mouse and the dialog closes?

    Seriously, I get that you guys are under deadline, but that wasn't worded well. You ought to talk about its potential power & performance impact, so people will understand what significance it has. Latency is such a generic concept and covers such a range of issues that just citing latency as a concern doesn't tell someone anything who's not already "in the know".
  • Fataliity - Saturday, May 2, 2020 - link

    You have to wait for a review to actually know how it will be affected.

    That was just an assumption, as you can see they don't have a chip to test yet.
  • Spunjji - Monday, May 4, 2020 - link

    Amusing that this aspect isn't getting much focus. Launch now, allow benchmarks... some other time
  • Peskarik - Saturday, May 2, 2020 - link

    As a new system (MoBo + Proc) is it even worth buying this over 9900K?
  • mode_13h - Saturday, May 2, 2020 - link

    > 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.

    It was pretty much the same with Sandybridge and Ivy Bridge. Except, I'm not sure if any of the *original* Sandy mobos would support PCIe 3.0 with an Ivy CPU. However, I have a 2600K in a board that would support PCIe 3.0 if I put an Ivy in it.
  • Deicidium369 - Saturday, May 2, 2020 - link

    Makes no sense for the Z490 to have PCIe4. These are primarily for Comet Lake. Rocket Lake will support PCIe4 on the Z590 - can't imagine someone buying this with a Comet Lake to upgrade 6 months later to Rocket Lake S. Makes no sense - and when I get Rocket Lake I would not put in on the 490 - regardless of whether it supports PCIe4 or not.

    Would have made more sense to have the Z490 be the Z470 - support for CML, no PCIe4 and the Z490 being for Rocket Lake with PCIe4. Not sure it makes much sense for an entirely different chipset generation for Rocket Lake 6 months later.
  • just4U - Sunday, May 3, 2020 - link

    From the article: "The new CPUs have the LGA1200 socket, which means that current 300-series motherboards are not sufficient, and users will require new LGA1200 motherboards.."
    ---

    Oh phew.. for a minute there I thought we were going to need new motherboards!
    (… Yes I am in denial)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now