Intel Core i7-10700 vs Core i7-10700K Review: Is 65W Comet Lake an Option?
by Dr. Ian Cutress on January 21, 2021 10:30 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Core i7
- Z490
- 10th Gen Core
- Comet Lake
- i7-10700K
- i7-10700
Conclusion: TDP is Not Fit For Purpose
In years gone by, processors were sold with a single frequency and power rating. It was very quickly realized that if a processor could effectively go to sleep, using either lower voltage or lower frequency (or both) then a lot of idle power could be saved. Going the other way, processor designers realized that for temporary short bursts, a core could run at a higher frequency before it reached a thermal limit. Also, using a multi-core processor meant that either the power budget could be shared across all the cores, or it could be focused in one.
Both AMD and Intel have noticed this over time, and both companies have different attitudes on how they report numbers relating to ‘base frequency’ and related power as well as the bursty ‘turbo frequency’ and related power. Out of those four metrics, the only one Intel doesn’t provide is turbo power, because from their perspective it is system dependent.
Intel lets motherboard manufacturers determine how long a system can turbo for, and what that budget is. Intel encourages motherboard manufacturers to over-engineer the motherboards, not only for overclocking, but for non-overclockable CPUs to get the best performance for longer. This really messes up what the ‘default out-of-the-box performance’ should be if different motherboards give different values. The trend lately is that enthusiast motherboards enable an unlimited turbo budget, and the user building their system just has to deal with it.
This means that users who buy the Core i7-10700 in this review, despite the 65 W rating on the box, will have to cater for a system that will not only peak around 215 W, but sustain that 215 W during any extended high-performance load, such as rendering or compute. We really wished Intel put this 215 W value on the box to help end-users determine their cooling, as without sufficient guidance, users could be hitting thermal limits without even knowing why. At this point, 'Intel Recommended Values' for turbo time and budget mean nothing outside of Intel's own OEM partners building commercial systems.
Core i7-10700 vs Core i7-10700K Performance
In the review we highlighted that these two processors have a peak turbo frequency difference of 300 MHz and an all-core turbo frequency difference of 100 MHz. The fact that one is rated at 65 W and the other is rated at 125 W is inconsequential here, given that most end-user motherboards will simply enable turbo all the time. This means the performance in most of our tests between the two is practically identical, and consummate to a 100-300 MHz frequency difference.
In practically all of our tests, the Core i7-10700K is ahead by a super slim margin. At $387 for the 10700K compared to $335 for the 10700, the performance difference is not enough to warrant the $52 price difference between the two. Performance per dollar sides mostly with the Core i7-10700, although users getting the i7-10700K will likely look towards overclocking their processor to get the most out of it – that ultimately is what to pay for.
The other comparison point is with the Ryzen 5 5600X, which has two fewer cores but costs $299. In practically every test, the increased IPC of the Ryzen over Intel means that it sits identical with the Core i7 processors, AMD is cheaper on list price, and at a much lower power (AMD will peak around 76 W, compared to 215 W). AM4 motherboards are also abundant, while corresponding Intel motherboards are still expensive. The problem here however is that AMD is having such high demand for its product lines right now that finding one in stock might be difficult, and it probably won’t be at its recommended price.
Users in this price bracket have a tough choice – the more efficient AMD processor that might be in stock, compared to the Intel processor that will be in stock but more cooling will likely be required.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
210 Comments
View All Comments
sjkpublic@gmail.com - Friday, January 22, 2021 - link
Yes. There is an issue with power consumption. And that is a lead into the real story. Intel has been at 14nm for 3 years now. Historically that time frame is unheard of. Some may say the complexity of the Intel CPU die is partly to blame. Some may say it is no wonder that Apple went to M1. Everyone will say Intel has dropped the ball.DieselPunk - Saturday, January 23, 2021 - link
Wow, here's a shock. Modern games get very little difference from CPUs as they are all GPU bound. And a good high end GPU is going to burn far more coal than a CPU ever will.As a gamer, WTF do I care about CPU power usage for? When I run out of coal there is still lots of gasoline 😎
headmaster - Saturday, January 23, 2021 - link
it's a great post admin thanks for ithttps://www.snapseedforpcguide.co/
yankeeDDL - Saturday, January 23, 2021 - link
Is it fair to say that the 10700 is on par (at best) or slower (in most multi-threaded scenarios) than the Ryzen 5600X, despite using roughly 2X the power?Makste - Saturday, January 23, 2021 - link
Put the number of cores into consideration as another factor, and then come up with your own conclusion.HarkPtooie - Sunday, January 24, 2021 - link
I registered just to post this: you're nuts.I just measured my "65W" i7-10700 non-K while stress testing it, and it eats 165 W at the wall plug. 64GB RAM, good quality Corsair 450W PSU.
Then I compared to to my "65W" Ryzen 3700X, 32GB RAM = 157 W. That one has an expensive fanless Seasonic 500W PSU which nominally better efficiency at these power draw levels.
So the difference is 10W and may as well be attributed to PSU quality, RAM consumption and whatnot.
If you are going to make wild speculations whose veracity anyone can check, you might want to go over your material a bit better.
Smell This - Sunday, January 24, 2021 - link
LOL
mmm ... Let me see.
Three feature writers at AT versus some 'anecdotal' FUD-peddling troll on the Internet. The Universe will make the call.
The 65w 8c/16t AMD Ryzen 3700X, fully loaded, pulls 90w. There is also a fancy multi-colored chart for you!
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen...
The i7-10700, in this article, pulls 197w to 214w. Ooops.
Psssst ___ By the way, my local MicroCenter (Duluth) offers the AMD Ryzen 3700X at $299 after $30 off, and the i7-10700 for $280 after $120 off. My-my-my, how the mighty has fallen . . .
HarkPtooie - Tuesday, January 26, 2021 - link
So you are saying that their wattmeters are right and mine is wrong because... appeal to authority?It may be that my Ryzen draws 90 W, but from the looks of it, the i7 is not far off. 10 more watts, not 130.
The universe will indeed make the call.
Spunjji - Wednesday, January 27, 2021 - link
Plausible explanations for the discrepancy, in order of likelihood:1) The unspecified stress test you're using isn't actually stressing the 10700 very heavily.
2) You're not measuring like-for-like in some other way - be it components or configuration.
3) Your wattmeter is poorly calibrated (This level would be a reach).
4) You're simply not being honest (I don't like to assume this, but you seem aggressive about people questioning your implausible conclusions).
Implausible explanations:
1) Every review on the internet performed with calibrated equipment, specified configurations and specified software loads is somehow wrong and you are right.
Everett F Sargent - Wednesday, January 27, 2021 - link
I'll go as far as requiring/requesting/asking for their MB model (an exact model number and manufacturer thereof). Without that one key piece of information, I have concluded the following: Using a Z490 or other relatively high end LGA 1200 MB indicates that the i7-10700 will run at or significantly above 200W in continuous 247 operation.Remember this user claims to be using a 450W PSU, so very likely not a Z490 MB, so indicative of a rather low end system (e. g. no medium to high end GPU, not that that matters as these are essentially CPU tests unless stated otherwise in this review).
I believe their power number but I don't believe that they are testing on a medium to high end LGA 1200 MB. In other words it is all about the MB default settings for PL1, PL2 and Tau and not the CPU itself.