Intel 10th Gen Processor News: Core i9-10900 Engineering Sample Benchmarked

By Niels Broekhuijsen
last updated

An early sample of Intel's upcoming 10th Gen processor is in the spotlight.

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

Rumors of Intel's upcoming desktop Comet Lake CPUs are raining down like cats and dogs. Today, Hong Kong media XFastest (opens in new tab) posted a video where it said the Intel Core i9-10900 ES was subjected to a handful of benchmarks, including a CPU-Z test and CineBench R15, ahead of its release.

Note that this is the "ES" version of the chip, meaning it's an engineering sample. Additionally, there's no "K" or "F," so this should bean overclockable CPU (opens in new tab)with internal graphics.

The video said the base clock speed (opens in new tab) of the chip is 2.5 GHz. That might seem low, but keep in mind that a lot of the leaks about Comet Lake desktop CPUs have pointed to lower nominal clock speeds with more reliance on boost. XFastest's video shows the chip boosting up to 4.4 GHz. The i9-10900 CPU is expected to pack 10 cores (opens in new tab)with Hyper-Threading (opens in new tab) for a total of 20 threads (opens in new tab). 

As far as performance goes, in Cinebench R20 the chip scored 3,714 points. This is a significant step below what the i9-10900F's rumored benchmark score, 4,781. But given that the specifications and boost frequencies seen in this benchmark are below those of earlier desktop Comet Lake rumors (opens in new tab), we suspect that the low performance figures are due to the engineering sample status of the silicon and not representative of what customers will ultimately see. 

Niels Broekhuijsen
Niels Broekhuijsen

Niels Broekhuijsen is a Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware US. He reviews cases, water cooling and pc builds.

10 Comments Comment from the forums
  • joeblowsmynose
    CPUz is reporting max TDP as 65w ... this isn't a "K" or "KF" chip ....

    This doesn't make sense: "Additionally, there's no "K" or "F," so this should bean overclockable CPU with internal graphics. "
    This looks like an actual "non" K part or a mobile part - which explains the lower than expected performance and temps.
    Reply
  • Redneck5439
    This definitely appears to be the upcoming i9 10900. As mentioned above it would be the non "K" version so its not officially overclockable and will more than likely have a TDP of 65W whereas the "K" version as far as I have heard will have a TDP of 125W. Now as we should all know by now Intel's "TDP" is basically meaningless as even the current i9 9900K when overclocked will draw around 300W and this new processor (on the same old 14nm+++++) packing two more cores will draw even more power. Keeping heat dissipation at 125W from a processor drawing over 300W is total bull.

    This particular chip is an engineering sample of the non K version of the upcoming i9 10900 but the overall impression of this chip is it is DOA. The upcoming 10th generation Intel processors will pack more cores than ever before for a mainstream Intel processor but it is simply dead on arrival. In gaming it will more than likely have the same performance as the current i9 9900KS (as games simply can't leverage the extra cores that the 10900 series will boast) and even if it can slightly edge the 12 core R9 3900X with a frequency advantage (in productivity) the improved R9 4900X will be releasing soon after and doubtless will outperform the 10900 series. The Ryzen processors will also be far more efficient requiring less power draw and producing less heat than the 10900 series (7nm+ vs 14nm+++). These 10900 processors will be releasing in April / May and by June / July the new Zen 3 Ryzen processors will be releasing. It is highly doubtful that anyone other than die hard fanboys will rush out to buy the 10900 Intel processors till they see what Zen 3 brings only ~2 months later.

    The facts are:
    #1. The 10900 series won't bring more gaming prowess than the current i9 9900KS.
    #2. They may be able to just edge out the current Ryzen 3900X in productivity, but will more than likely be outperformed by the upcoming Ryzen 4900X by a margin of at least 10% (and probably more than that).
    #3. The 10900 series is going to have massive power draw, the K series will be drawing more than 300W and they will be very hard to keep cool.
    #4. The 10900 series requires a new chipset that will only last 1 generation if Intel actually gets their act together and is able to finally release 10nm in 2021.

    -End takeaway: Those who currently have a i9 9900 series processor will have little reason to "upgrade" with the 10900 needing a new chipset. People looking to build new systems will have much lower costs buying a Ryzen X370 or X470 motherboard and pairing it with an upcoming Zen 3 processor than by buying a brand new expensive Intel motherboard with the newest chipset and a 10900 processor.

    I just don't see anyone buying this processor over the i9 9900KS for gaming, and for productivity it will be thrown against the 4900X in only a couple of months. If the upcoming Ryzen fourth gen 4000 series processors deliver on the suspected 17% IPC uplift and are able to hit 100 - 200Mhz higher clock / boost frequencies as well they may actually edge out Intel in the last area Intel can still claim dominance - gaming. If that happens there will be absolutely no reason to build with the i9 9900 or 10900 series in 2020. No matter how you break it down the 10900 series is simply a rushed, out of place product meant to fill the gap of Intel failing yet again to deliver 10nm high end processors. Other than a bragging point for extreme fanboys to say they have the current "flagship" processor I don't see the 10900 series as having a purpose.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Redneck5439 said:
    Now as we should all know by now Intel's "TDP" is basically meaningless as even the current i9 9900K when overclocked will draw around 300W and this new processor (on the same old 14nm+++++) packing two more cores will draw even more power. Keeping heat dissipation at 125W from a processor drawing over 300W is total bull.
    Cool story brah.. Since when is overclocking a part of TDP?
    Of course O/C will go way way above TDP that's the whole idea.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    Redneck5439 said:
    Now as we should all know by now Intel's "TDP" is basically meaningless as even the current i9 9900K when overclocked will draw around 300W and this new processor (on the same old 14nm+++++) packing two more cores will draw even more power. Keeping heat dissipation at 125W from a processor drawing over 300W is total bull.

    TDP is a meaningless number for enthusiasts who overclock. TDP does matter to OEMs's designing systems, especially mobile platforms. However, where is this 300W figure for the 9900k coming from? THG tested with an all core 5ghz overclock and measured 249W while running prime95 with AVX which is already an unrealistic real world workload. Who managed to get a 9900k to pull 300W with a real application?
    Reply
  • Redneck5439
    TerryLaze said:
    Cool story brah.. Since when is overclocking a part of TDP?
    Of course O/C will go way way above TDP that's the whole idea.

    It matters because most every motherboard out there will apply an "overclock" automatically to the i9 9900K. If you just put the processor in, load bios to set your RAM profile and touch nothing else the vast majority of boards will automatically have the processor running in an overclocked state. Saying that motherboard partners are doing this makes the processor's reported TDP even more meaningless. I can see the argument that OEMs pushing out pre-built systems may follow the TDP and limit the clock speeds, but for anyone building their own rig and just loading into windows you'll have an automatic overclock applied. If you built your system looking at the TDP (and were planning to run at stock) for deciding their cooling solution Intel's TDP is totally meaningless. This isn't new news and has been covered by most reviewers by the way. If you buy a cooler to dissipate 125W of heat plug in a 10900K and figure you'll be fine your in for a lot of thermal throttling. Even the 10900 (non K) will draw much more power than 65W and will require a cooler that can dissipate more than 65W which is why the TDP rating is meaningless.

    Intel isn't alone in this as AMDs TDPs are also deceptive. My 3800X at stock will typically draw less than 105W, and with my 4.5Ghz all core overclock is probably drawing ~160W (torture testing), but the R7 3700X can draw more than its rated 65W even at stock. AMD's TDP is closer to an actual TDP than Intel but neither actually give the real picture. Intel is hands down the worst offender of this though as the 9900K at stock can draw around 200W during Prime 95 torture testing which is much higher than its 95W TDP.

    My bad for the 300W quote for the 9900K. I didn't proof read enough before the post. I was thinking of the 10900 series at 300W+, the 9900K(S) will typically draw around 250W overclocked and under Prime 95 torture testing.

    As far as TDP goes, I would like to see an industry standard set that both AMD and Intel have to follow rather than have both companies play fast and loose with their TDP ratings. Right now Intel tends to be a worse offender of skewing these figures but both companies are guilty of skewing the numbers to look better. There isn't any reason to believe that at some point AMD might really fudge its numbers badly too. There should be an industry standard so neither can get away with it.

    My other points are totally irrefutable though. The 9900KS can easily hit 5.1, 5.2Ghz all core which means it will have the same (possibly better) gaming performance of the upcoming 10900 series. In productivity based applications the extra cores and clock speed of the 10900 series won't mean anything with Zen 3 launching in June / July. The 10900 series is a place holder because Intel was once again unable to bring high end desktop 10nm chips to market.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    Redneck5439 said:
    Intel is hands down the worst offender of this though as the 9900K at stock can draw around 200W during Prime 95 torture testing which is much higher than its 95W TDP.

    Still a useless measure. The fuel economy of a car doing a standing mile while pulling a boat is going to be terrible. That's an actual measure that is repeatable, yet it's still completely useless with no real world equivalent, which is why no one reports such a number in their reviews.

    Redneck5439 said:
    My other points are totally irrefutable though. The 9900KS can easily hit 5.1, 5.2Ghz all core which means it will have the same (possibly better) gaming performance of the upcoming 10900 series. In productivity based applications the extra cores and clock speed of the 10900 series won't mean anything with Zen 3 launching in June / July. The 10900 series is a place holder because Intel was once again unable to bring high end desktop 10nm chips to market.

    Everything about unreleased, unannounced products is irrefutable. All the new 10 series CPU's will have a picture of Sponge Bob on their heat spreader and Intel will include a buy one get one free taco coupon with every retail CPU. Refute that.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Redneck5439 said:
    It matters because most every motherboard out there will apply an "overclock" automatically to the i9 9900K. If you just put the processor in, load bios to set your RAM profile and touch nothing else the vast majority of boards will automatically have the processor running in an overclocked state.
    There are still a good amount of mobos that will default to lock the CPU down to 95W and won't even allow for small boost periods above 95w,a lot of review sites even made whole benchmark runs with such settings were you can see the 9700 be faster than the 9900 in single threaded stuff because the same TDP gets shared to less threads.
    Redneck5439 said:
    Intel is hands down the worst offender of this though as the 9900K at stock can draw around 200W during Prime 95 torture testing which is much higher than its 95W TDP.
    Stock settings can exceed base clocks so you will draw more power,if your cooling can only sustain 95w it will drop to base clocks,that's not thermal throttling these are the specs,you get what you pay cool for.

    Also both turbo and PBO have the same basic idea,if you have saved up some power cache because you were idle for a while exceed your TDP by as much as temps allow for as long as they allow to get stuff done as fast as possible,after that TDP levels off.
    Of course since ZEN is hitting it's limits much sooner and has almost no overclock headroom its boost and sustained numbers are almost the same,intel drops from almost 200 down to 150.
    Which is still plenty above TDP but again is only a suggestion of cooling to sustain base clocks.

    TDPThermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    TerryLaze said:
    There are still a good amount of mobos that will default to lock the CPU down to 95W and won't even allow for small boost periods above 95w,a lot of review sites even made whole benchmark runs with such settings were you can see the 9700 be faster than the 9900 in single threaded stuff because the same TDP gets shared to less threads.

    Stock settings can exceed base clocks so you will draw more power,if your cooling can only sustain 95w it will drop to base clocks,that's not thermal throttling these are the specs,you get what you pay cool for.

    Also both turbo and PBO have the same basic idea,if you have saved up some power cache because you were idle for a while exceed your TDP by as much as temps allow for as long as they allow to get stuff done as fast as possible,after that TDP levels off.
    Of course since ZEN is hitting it's limits much sooner and has almost no overclock headroom its boost and sustained numbers are almost the same,intel drops from almost 200 down to 150.
    Which is still plenty above TDP but again is only a suggestion of cooling to sustain base clocks.

    9900k base clock is 3600MHz. No one is interested in a 9900K at 3600MHz. 5.1GHz is an over 40% increase in clock speed which will have a massive impact on performance. If you want AMD beating performance, then you need to ignore the TDP and accept that you need a quality cooling solution if you want 5GHz clock speeds.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    spongiemaster said:
    9900k base clock is 3600MHz. No one is interested in a 9900K at 3600MHz. 5.1GHz is an over 40% increase in clock speed which will have a massive impact on performance. If you want AMD beating performance, then you need to ignore the TDP and accept that you need a quality cooling solution if you want 5GHz clock speeds.
    Yeah see,now you went from "It matters because most every motherboard out there will apply an "overclock" automatically to the i9 9900K. " to "No one is interested in a 9900K at 3600MHz"
    At default settings with MCE disabled intel still is at the same level or even wins in most benchmarks against a 3700x at default settings so no,you do not need to OC to 5Ghz for AMD beating performance,default non MCE is doing just fine and it does it with low power needs.
    https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-review,6214-6.html
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    TerryLaze said:
    Yeah see,now you went from "It matters because most every motherboard out there will apply an "overclock" automatically to the i9 9900K. " to "No one is interested in a 9900K at 3600MHz"
    At default settings with MCE disabled intel still is at the same level or even wins in most benchmarks against a 3700x at default settings so no,you do not need to OC to 5Ghz for AMD beating performance,default non MCE is doing just fine and it does it with low power needs.
    https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-review,6214-6.html
    Why are you comparing a 3700x to the 9900k? On Newegg right now, a 9900k is $525. The 3900x is currently $480. If you could afford the 9900k, why would you limit your AMD budget to $310? It makes no sense to cross shop a 3700x and a 9900K, when the 3700x's bigger brother is still $45 cheaper than a 9900k.

    I don't agree with your performance assessment to begin with, but even if a I did, if I'm spending 70% more on a 9900k, I expect it to perform far better than "at the same level or even wins in most benchmarks." I expect it to win handily across the board and that isn't happening at TDP.
    Reply