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
POST A COMMENT

176 Comments

View All Comments

  • Qasar - Monday, May 4, 2020 - link

    i dont use the u14s, all but 1 or 2 of them, use the NH-D15 :-) even the lga1366 cpu i still have :-) Reply
  • Alistair - Friday, May 1, 2020 - link

    Yes I actually had some trouble with the 9900k and the U12S, but the U14S is a beast. Reply
  • dew111 - Friday, May 1, 2020 - link

    Yeah the power efficiency reminds me of AMD's graphics with the R9 290X/390X days. We know it's slower, so we'll just throw power at it *shrug* Reply
  • ManuelDiego - Friday, May 1, 2020 - link

    Nice naming schemes! It's not like they could remove the last two digits to make it simpler, those 00 at the end really bring valuable details... Reply
  • Alsw - Friday, May 1, 2020 - link

    Thanks for the update was there any mention of the equivalent Xeon, OEMs I've been in contact with have only been talking about up to 8 core xeons which would seem odd unless worried about hurting xeom w range sales (cascade lakex based)

    For these im looking forward to seeing how they actually perform in various states of turbo for real world use how long each turbo can be sustained is the most important factor for us. Most of. Our workloads are bursty of seconds to minutes but some like FEA, CFD require sustained load for much longer sometimes days!
    Reply
  • npz - Friday, May 1, 2020 - link

    Given the treatment of Z390 and what's been indicated in this article and Gigabyte's, we can likely expect all core turbo with TVB so long as you can dissipate the max 350W with your cooling solution Reply
  • wilsonkf - Friday, May 1, 2020 - link

    Not exactly a good time to release a space heater. Sure, Australians will appreciate ... Reply
  • Slash3 - Friday, May 1, 2020 - link

    Minor correction on page 2:
    "It looks very much like an elongated Comet Lake chip, which it is."

    Should be Coffee Lake. :)
    Reply
  • mode_13h - Saturday, May 2, 2020 - link

    Yeah, that's what I thought.

    A slight point of confusion is that Comet Lake already shipped for mobile. But, I believe they maxed out at 4 cores. So, I wasn't sure if they were implying that there were higher core-count Comet Lake for mobile, but I'm pretty sure not.
    Reply
  • drothgery - Saturday, May 2, 2020 - link

    Comet Lake H maxed at 8 cores
    Comet Lake U maxed at 6
    Ice Lake U and Y top out at 4
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now