Intel 10th Gen CPU Specs, i9-10900K Delid, PCIe Gen4 Future, & Overclocking Support
video description
Date: 2020-05-06
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
mapesdhs
Doubtless most are aware of the way some people like to wait for new AMD GPU releases because they hope that will mean NVIDIA will drop their prices, thus allowing them to buy a cheaper NVIDIA card. Watching this video, I couldn't help myself from thinking that hey, it would be good if these Intel CPUs were not entirely garbage, because if AMD drop their prices then I could get a cheaper AMD CPU, which is what I'd rather have. I was just amused that my default CPU choice thinking is no longer Intel; AMD has my mindshare. :D 10900K any good? Well if it means I can get a cheaper 3900X or 3950X then all the better. Intel has done too much nonsense to lure me back yet, especially with its repeated socket changes, security flaws, excessive heat/power issues, PCIe lane crippling and b. s. marketing. Even without AMD reducing its pricing though, none of these new Intel SKUs are appealing; fact is the power consumption and heat on the higher core count parts is still going to be crazy, one will need to get a good cooler to run them, most of the time the quoted boost clocks will just not happen in any useful manner (not with any normal OS setup doing so many things in the background, the socket has hardly any upgrade path, and Ryzen 4K desktop will render all these moot fairly soon anyway. But even so, we know what will happen in reviews, the 10900K will be paired with a 2080 Ti, run at 1080p to give insane fps numbers for esports titles few people really care about who have any sense, and then people will once again start yabbering about Intel being the fastest, even though for anyone on a real world budget it will always be better to buy a cheaper CPU (which includes other/older Intel parts, not just AMD) and spend the saved cash on a better GPU. For those who will inevitably start hyping The Fastest, one should ask them why then they don't own an RTX Titan. Meanwhile, away from games, others will tout lame Photoshop numbers instead, as if shoddily written Adobe apps should still be afforded the time of day. The entire lineup of these CPUs reeks of upselling tactics, especially the absence of K models at the low/mid range. It's hillarious that what was once the i7 7700K is now basically an i3, but it isn't even a K model. If what's being claimed about the AMD 3300X is true then these new i3s, etc. are pointless.
reply
Doubtless most are aware of the way some people like to wait for new AMD GPU releases because they hope that will mean NVIDIA will drop their prices, thus allowing them to buy a cheaper NVIDIA card. Watching this video, I couldn't help myself from thinking that hey, it would be good if these Intel CPUs were not entirely garbage, because if AMD drop their prices then I could get a cheaper AMD CPU, which is what I'd rather have. I was just amused that my default CPU choice thinking is no longer Intel; AMD has my mindshare. :D 10900K any good? Well if it means I can get a cheaper 3900X or 3950X then all the better. Intel has done too much nonsense to lure me back yet, especially with its repeated socket changes, security flaws, excessive heat/power issues, PCIe lane crippling and b. s. marketing. Even without AMD reducing its pricing though, none of these new Intel SKUs are appealing; fact is the power consumption and heat on the higher core count parts is still going to be crazy, one will need to get a good cooler to run them, most of the time the quoted boost clocks will just not happen in any useful manner (not with any normal OS setup doing so many things in the background, the socket has hardly any upgrade path, and Ryzen 4K desktop will render all these moot fairly soon anyway. But even so, we know what will happen in reviews, the 10900K will be paired with a 2080 Ti, run at 1080p to give insane fps numbers for esports titles few people really care about who have any sense, and then people will once again start yabbering about Intel being the fastest, even though for anyone on a real world budget it will always be better to buy a cheaper CPU (which includes other/older Intel parts, not just AMD) and spend the saved cash on a better GPU. For those who will inevitably start hyping The Fastest, one should ask them why then they don't own an RTX Titan. Meanwhile, away from games, others will tout lame Photoshop numbers instead, as if shoddily written Adobe apps should still be afforded the time of day. The entire lineup of these CPUs reeks of upselling tactics, especially the absence of K models at the low/mid range. It's hillarious that what was once the i7 7700K is now basically an i3, but it isn't even a K model. If what's being claimed about the AMD 3300X is true then these new i3s, etc. are pointless.
reply
Dylan
The USB 4. 0 spec is in the works and some servers at torontos IXP have the ports on the boards, standard A port but the C port would likely end up coming in the future. I heard this from my old professor whose main job is system administration. He brought me back a couple stickers because he would regularly fly out. He said they do not function because the spec hasn't been finalized. If that is true it's likely those ports will never be used because they were designed when the spec was calling to use current processors of the time, but like you mentioned Intel is touting using more pins for future protocols and hardware standards, USB 4. 0 is likely being designed around that pin layout now. I'm also speculating that a new storage protocol is in the works, as in NVMe 8. 0 or 16. 0 which would definitely need a larger pin layout and more lanes.
reply
The USB 4. 0 spec is in the works and some servers at torontos IXP have the ports on the boards, standard A port but the C port would likely end up coming in the future. I heard this from my old professor whose main job is system administration. He brought me back a couple stickers because he would regularly fly out. He said they do not function because the spec hasn't been finalized. If that is true it's likely those ports will never be used because they were designed when the spec was calling to use current processors of the time, but like you mentioned Intel is touting using more pins for future protocols and hardware standards, USB 4. 0 is likely being designed around that pin layout now. I'm also speculating that a new storage protocol is in the works, as in NVMe 8. 0 or 16. 0 which would definitely need a larger pin layout and more lanes.
reply
Winnetou17
So, at this point Intel could (should) simply rename the CPUs as not being Core but Skylake. So the top Intel CPU this generation would be Intel Skylake 5900K (skylake - 1000 series, kabylake - 2000, coffee lake - 3000, coffeelake refresh - 4000, whateverlake is now - 5000. This would be clearer, easier while still being accurate & descriptive. You would also be able to say that they reached the Sky. (and can't pass it) Jokes aside, such a bummer that they really cannot do literally anything with 10nm even after this long. The mobile chips from last year (or was it 2 years ago) were promising. Big IPC gains, but rather low frequencies. Which you would hope they would improve over time. I actually feel pity a bit for Intel. The improvements and optimisations they did on this 14nm manufacturing are insane, but. you can't make horses fly.
reply
So, at this point Intel could (should) simply rename the CPUs as not being Core but Skylake. So the top Intel CPU this generation would be Intel Skylake 5900K (skylake - 1000 series, kabylake - 2000, coffee lake - 3000, coffeelake refresh - 4000, whateverlake is now - 5000. This would be clearer, easier while still being accurate & descriptive. You would also be able to say that they reached the Sky. (and can't pass it) Jokes aside, such a bummer that they really cannot do literally anything with 10nm even after this long. The mobile chips from last year (or was it 2 years ago) were promising. Big IPC gains, but rather low frequencies. Which you would hope they would improve over time. I actually feel pity a bit for Intel. The improvements and optimisations they did on this 14nm manufacturing are insane, but. you can't make horses fly.
reply
Krzych
They are right about majority of games being single threaded. This is changing rapidly for modern high-budget games, but the entire rest doesn't get that advancement and vast majority of most played games on PC, which are online games, are typically either very old or build on old engines and you are terribly limited by single-threaded performance of your CPU. The proper way for new gaming CPU to provide any advancement is to increase single threaded performance, because this would increase the performance in all games both old and new, not to slap dozens of unused cores on top of each other. People don't realize it because they base their opinion only on benchmarks made in a few most modern games and apparently think all the games that came out previously stopped to exist, but they are in fact vast, vast majority of the market.
reply
They are right about majority of games being single threaded. This is changing rapidly for modern high-budget games, but the entire rest doesn't get that advancement and vast majority of most played games on PC, which are online games, are typically either very old or build on old engines and you are terribly limited by single-threaded performance of your CPU. The proper way for new gaming CPU to provide any advancement is to increase single threaded performance, because this would increase the performance in all games both old and new, not to slap dozens of unused cores on top of each other. People don't realize it because they base their opinion only on benchmarks made in a few most modern games and apparently think all the games that came out previously stopped to exist, but they are in fact vast, vast majority of the market.
reply
Guest
Happy I bought a 9900k just recently. The thing impresses me heavily for gaming. That's all I use it for. I was gonna go 3800 or 3900 or 3950, but appears 9900k was beating them. I got the KF, and finally got around to building it and got it at 5. 3 with a few bumps in voltage on all cores. My buddy has the 9900K and his got to 5. 1 and oops no more without signifcant volts. Seems the KF is the OC. I could go higher, but I don't see a diff? I have a 144 hz monitor, and everything locks into that. It would go much higher, but for me wanting vsync on (I get woozy without for some reason. meh, as long as I'm at 144, I'm good. When I did take vsync off, I did notice a handful of frames diff on the oc, but going back to my point about 144, it is like whatever. Maybe in future as games push harder, I'll re oc it again, delid whatever.
reply
Happy I bought a 9900k just recently. The thing impresses me heavily for gaming. That's all I use it for. I was gonna go 3800 or 3900 or 3950, but appears 9900k was beating them. I got the KF, and finally got around to building it and got it at 5. 3 with a few bumps in voltage on all cores. My buddy has the 9900K and his got to 5. 1 and oops no more without signifcant volts. Seems the KF is the OC. I could go higher, but I don't see a diff? I have a 144 hz monitor, and everything locks into that. It would go much higher, but for me wanting vsync on (I get woozy without for some reason. meh, as long as I'm at 144, I'm good. When I did take vsync off, I did notice a handful of frames diff on the oc, but going back to my point about 144, it is like whatever. Maybe in future as games push harder, I'll re oc it again, delid whatever.
reply
fredEVOIX
the person told you micro-millimeters probably because it's not the usual measurements used for wafer thickness and he tried to translate it industry uses mils (25, 4 microns) Wafer backgrinding what they/you call thinning/sanding is standard on lots of wafers, funny to see them use it as a feature the no1 reason not to do it is cost, it requires chemicals/heavy machinery and the risk of breakage is way higher, it's at the end of the long and complex process (last thing before dicing) so if one breaks the loss is maximum they lose several thousands dollars in a blink, considering the complexity of the cpus I wouldn't be surprised it costs them the price of a Porsche per wafer broken >
reply
the person told you micro-millimeters probably because it's not the usual measurements used for wafer thickness and he tried to translate it industry uses mils (25, 4 microns) Wafer backgrinding what they/you call thinning/sanding is standard on lots of wafers, funny to see them use it as a feature the no1 reason not to do it is cost, it requires chemicals/heavy machinery and the risk of breakage is way higher, it's at the end of the long and complex process (last thing before dicing) so if one breaks the loss is maximum they lose several thousands dollars in a blink, considering the complexity of the cpus I wouldn't be surprised it costs them the price of a Porsche per wafer broken >
reply
Ashlay
Top in Gaming tests? You mean by 5-10% that no one will notice? Objectively: You cannot notice the difference between OC 9900K and OC/PBO 3900X in gaming, on average, you simply cannot. But you do notice the price - features, MT perf and you might even notice the efficiency. 10900K is a 9900K with 2 more cores and a slightly larger ringbus. it doesn't even support gen4. There is nothing to praise about this product and if anyone thinks it will have any accolade such as 'the king of gaming' they really need to stop and realise just how narrow this 'advantage' is, when you compare the other feature of both platforms.
reply
Top in Gaming tests? You mean by 5-10% that no one will notice? Objectively: You cannot notice the difference between OC 9900K and OC/PBO 3900X in gaming, on average, you simply cannot. But you do notice the price - features, MT perf and you might even notice the efficiency. 10900K is a 9900K with 2 more cores and a slightly larger ringbus. it doesn't even support gen4. There is nothing to praise about this product and if anyone thinks it will have any accolade such as 'the king of gaming' they really need to stop and realise just how narrow this 'advantage' is, when you compare the other feature of both platforms.
reply
dialNforNinja
The new CPUs' parents are also their siblings. well, they call that a new generation in some parts, I guess! Honestly, I care less about whether it's truly a major advancement of technology or just an incremental improvement than whether it raises the performance bar to keep the competition trying, but it looks like this is just catching up and maybe nosing ahead of AMD's current offerings, let alone the new offerings that just started being phased in with the laptop-aimed segment. They'll get you next time, AMD. NEXT TIME!
reply
The new CPUs' parents are also their siblings. well, they call that a new generation in some parts, I guess! Honestly, I care less about whether it's truly a major advancement of technology or just an incremental improvement than whether it raises the performance bar to keep the competition trying, but it looks like this is just catching up and maybe nosing ahead of AMD's current offerings, let alone the new offerings that just started being phased in with the laptop-aimed segment. They'll get you next time, AMD. NEXT TIME!
reply
Mike
As much as they arent AS exciting as they could have been I have to be honest, Intel certainly has gotten some serious extra legs from its 14nm process, but I suspect they COULD have done much of it YEARS ago but chose to keep raping peoples walllets for four cores as long as they could get away with it All that remains is for PSU manufacturers to crack the problem of fitting nuclear reactors into an ATX PSU form factor and for fan manufacturers to fit a silent jet turbine into a 140x140x25 package: )
reply
As much as they arent AS exciting as they could have been I have to be honest, Intel certainly has gotten some serious extra legs from its 14nm process, but I suspect they COULD have done much of it YEARS ago but chose to keep raping peoples walllets for four cores as long as they could get away with it All that remains is for PSU manufacturers to crack the problem of fitting nuclear reactors into an ATX PSU form factor and for fan manufacturers to fit a silent jet turbine into a 140x140x25 package: )
reply
l33t
I have a guess on their 60%. It might be related to multithreading, and someone might have noted that 60% of games implement multithreading(citation needed) within their program. Since multithreading is optimized for single cores than by extension 60% of games would be optimized for single core. Of course that still would beg several questions and would insinuate that any CPU would be optimized, but it makes a plausible bridge between, 60% and optimized and was supposed to be an internal memo.
reply
I have a guess on their 60%. It might be related to multithreading, and someone might have noted that 60% of games implement multithreading(citation needed) within their program. Since multithreading is optimized for single cores than by extension 60% of games would be optimized for single core. Of course that still would beg several questions and would insinuate that any CPU would be optimized, but it makes a plausible bridge between, 60% and optimized and was supposed to be an internal memo.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
