The Intel Core i9-10850K, which was speculated to be a CPU only available to Intel's OEM partners only, ended up making its way to a U.S. retailer today. Newegg recently put up the deca-core processor for $499.99.
Intel's Core i9-10850K is the 10th Generation Comet Lake-S family's newest member. As such, the processor is still based on the 14nm process node and lives on the new LGA1200 platform, just like any other Comet Lake-S CPU. The flagship Core i9-10900K is the closet relative to the Core i9-10850K, since both processors are manufactured with similar ingredients. They each feature 10 CPU cores, 20 threads and up to 20MB of L3 cache.
In order to avoid cannibalization, Intel gave the Core i9-10850K lower clock speeds. It's likely that the chipmaker is recycling sub-par Core i9-10900K dies to make the Core i9-10850K, which would be a smart way to maximize profits.
Intel Core i9-10850K Specifications
| Processor | Cores / Threads | Base Clock (GHz) | TBMT 3.0 Clock (GHz) | TVB Clock (GHz) | L3 Cache (MB) | Graphics | TDP (W) | Pricing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core i9-10900K | 10 / 20 | 3.7 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 20 | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | 125 | $488 - $499 |
| Core i9-10900KF | 10 / 20 | 3.7 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 20 | N/A | 125 | $463 - $474 |
| Core i9-10850K | 10 / 20 | 3.6 | 5.1 | 5.2 | 20 | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | 125 | $453 - $464 |
| Core i9-10900 | 10 / 20 | 2.8 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 20 | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | 65 | $439 - $449 |
| Core i9-10900F | 10 / 20 | 2.8 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 20 | N/A | 65 | $422 - $423 |
| Core i9-10900T | 10 / 20 | 1.9 | 4.6 | N/A | 20 | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | 35 | $439 |
The main difference between the Core i9-10900K and Core i9-10850K comes down to 100 MHz across the base, Turbo Boost 3.0 and Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB) clocks. The lower clock speeds aren't enough to warrant a TDP (thermal design power) decrease, however, as the Core i9-10850K is still rated for 125W. You can drop the Core i9-10850K down to 95W, but that means you'll be gimping the chip down to 3.3 GHz.
Intel has set a MSRP between $453 and $464 for the Core i9-10850K. In the real world, however, the Core i9-10850K is selling for $499.99 When it's in stock, the Core i9-10900K retails for $529.99, $30 more than the Core i9-10850K.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Zhiye Liu is a news editor, memory reviewer, and SSD tester at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.
-
logainofhades Hard pass. If I really needed that many cores, I would just go with a 3900x, for less.Reply -
NightHawkRMX With what they are actually selling for its like 6% cheaper for 2% clock speed reduction.Reply
Why does this CPU need to exist? It's basically identical to a 10900k. -
logainofhades ReplyNightHawkRMX said:With what they are actually selling for its like 6% cheaper for 2% clock speed reduction.
Why does this CPU need to exist? It's basically identical to a 10900k.
Because of poor yields, and these chips not quite reaching whatever standard they set, for the 10900k. -
deesider Reply
3900X is better value, but these Intel cpus provide the best of both worlds - fastest single thread performance by a decent margin, plus lots of cores if needed. Lots of power draw and heat too, but can't win them all.logainofhades said:Hard pass. If I really needed that many cores, I would just go with a 3900x, for less. -
logainofhades Anyone needing that many cores/threads, is going to be doing tasks that aren't exactly single performance dependent, so the 3900x would still be the superior option. Intel really needs to get off of 14nm++++ like yesterday.Reply -
deesider Reply
No doubt anyone regularly using 10+ cores would benefit the more from a 3900X. But anyone more regularly using a single threaded application (which is typical) and occasionally multi-threaded would benefit more from a 10850 (real life use cases aren't multi-threaded benchmarks). Sure, it's not great value, but an extra few hundred bucks isn't really a big deal - easy to spend that on a night out, with nothing to show for it the next day.logainofhades said:Anyone needing that many cores/threads, is going to be doing tasks that aren't exactly single performance dependent, so the 3900x would still be the superior option. Intel really needs to get off of 14nm++++ like yesterday.
If Intel can get their 10nm to work at 5 GHz it could blow AMD out of the water. But seems that's in the distant future... -
watzupken Reply
I agree that Intel is still hanging on to single core advantage, however when it comes to multicore performance, there are a lot of reviews out there that shows that the 12 cores 3900X being the better performer in most cases. And as you rightfully mentioned, Intel needed to blow the power requirement just to maintain their lead on single core performance by means of pushing for extremely high clockspeed.deesider said:3900X is better value, but these Intel cpus provide the best of both worlds - fastest single thread performance by a decent margin, plus lots of cores if needed. Lots of power draw and heat too, but can't win them all.
In addition if you look beyond the cost of processor itself, you need to also have a good motherboard to keep up with the power requirement of the i9 processors and that supports faster ram. A good Z490 board is not cheap, while you can get a B550 or older X470 board at a lower price that works with the Ryzen 3900X. -
Conahl Replydeesider said:If Intel can get their 10nm to work at 5 GHz it could blow AMD out of the water. But seems that's in the distant future...
if amd could get zen 3 up to 5ghz, that could really blow intel out of the water :-) intel NEEDS its clock speeds to keep any performance advantage it has. but for that performance, who wants a space heater sitting beside them? -
NightHawkRMX Clockspeed isn't everything. If AMD could reduce latency and increase ipc (which I expect with next gen) they don't need to hit 5ghz.Reply