Update, March 03: There are new values for the _rogame hardware sneaker for Intel's upcoming CPU flagship Core i9 10900K, this time in 3DMark Firestrike and with a Z490 mainboard from ASrock (via Wccftech).
His result of 28,940 points in the physics test is very close to the 28,462 points that Twitter user Apsiak had already indicated a few weeks ago (see the original article below).
So there is still a lot of evidence close duel with AMD's current Ryzen 3000 CPUs like the Ryzen 9 3900X. The 10900K has two cores less than the 3900X (ten instead of twelve), but is likely to clock higher.
In addition to the power consumption, the price will also be another important factor. The 3900X is currently around 460 euros, while Intel's current top model with eight cores in the form of the Core i9 9900K is available from around 530 euros.
Fire strike
i9-10900K 10C / 20T 3.7GHz base 5.1GHz boost
ASRock Z490M Pro4
2x8GB DDR4 3200MHz
Physics score: 28940
Previous physics score with 4x16GB DDDR4 2666MHz: 28988
3900X 2X16GB 3200MHz: 29955
3900X 2X16GB 3400MHz: 30084
3900X 2X16GB 3200MHz: 30415 pic.twitter.com/9GfiQoSNUA– _rogame (@_rogame) March 1, 2020
Original article, February 5th: Intel's Comet Lake-S processors seem to be getting closer and closer, because recently the leaks have accumulated to the Core-i-10000 series, including the new mainstream flagship Core i9 10900K.
There are several current entries for the processor in the 3DMark benchmark database.
Ryzen in front in Time Spy Extreme
In 3DMark Time Spy Extreme, Twitter users and hardware leaks _rogame Core i9 10900K and Ryzen 9 3900X face each other.
The Ryzen CPU has two cores and four threads more, the Intel processor clocks higher and has also been tested with somewhat faster RAM.
The test setup:
- Core i9 10900K: 10C / 20T, 3.7 / 5.1 GHz, 4×16 GB DDR4 @ 2,666 MHz
- Ryzen 9 3900X: 12C / 24T, 3.8 / 4.6 GHz, 4×8 GB DDR4 @ 2,400 MHz
In a pure CPU comparison, the 3900X beats the 10900K by 7.3 percent – 6,570 versus 6,124 points. Also regarding the average frame time – how long it takes to compute an image (in this case) via CPU – AMD's twelve cores are ahead by 6.8 percent (53.3 ms versus 57.1 ms).
|
benchmark |
||
|---|---|---|
|
Core i9 10900K |
||
|
Ryzen 9 3900X |
Fire Strike and Time Spy speak for the Intel CPU
The results in 3DMark Fire Strike and Time Spy, on the other hand, are in favor of the 10900K, like the Twitter user known in hardware circles Apsiak setting out.
|
benchmark |
||
|---|---|---|
|
Core i9 10900K |
||
|
Ryzen 9 3900X |
At least in the class up to 500 euros (3900X around 480 euros, 10900K allegedly $ 495), the battle for the top performance does not seem to be decided for the time being. The energy requirement could tip the scales.
Power dissipation factor
AMD specifies a power consumption (TDP) of 105 watts for the Ryzen 9 3900X. Overall, the Ryzen 3000 processors are considered very energy efficient thanks to the 7 nm production.
The Core i9 10900K with a TDP of 125 watts should look different. Just like its predecessor, the Core i9 9900K (S) (95/125 Watt TDP), it is also manufactured using the aged 14 nm process and even clocks a little higher. It can therefore be assumed that energy requirements and waste heat will also increase.
