Skip to main content

Leaked Core i9-10900K Review Shows it Barely Surpassing the Ryzen 9 3900X

(Image credit: Teclab Bilibili)

Two weeks ago, video channel TecLab on Bilibili leaked performance figures for the upcoming Intel Core i5-10400, comparing its performance to its predecessor. Now, the channel has done it again, this time outing an early review of the powerful, range-topping Comet Lake-S chip: the Intel Core i9-10900K.

The leaker, who once again uses a disguise to maintain anonymity, posted a video review pitting Intel's latest chip against competing AMD models. In the tests, the leaker compares the Intel Core i9-10900K to AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X and 3950X chips.

Below a gallery with a selection of the results charts:

Image 1 of 13

(Image credit: TecLab, Bilibili)
Image 2 of 13

(Image credit: TecLab, Bilibili)
Image 3 of 13

(Image credit: TecLab, Bilibili)
Image 4 of 13

(Image credit: TecLab, Bilibili)
Image 5 of 13

(Image credit: TecLab, Bilibili)
Image 6 of 13

(Image credit: TecLab, Bilibili)
Image 7 of 13

(Image credit: TecLab, Bilibili)
Image 8 of 13

(Image credit: TecLab, Bilibili)
Image 9 of 13

(Image credit: TecLab, Bilibili)
Image 10 of 13

(Image credit: TecLab, Bilibili)
Image 11 of 13

(Image credit: TecLab, Bilibili)
Image 12 of 13

(Image credit: TecLab, Bilibili)
Image 13 of 13

(Image credit: TecLab, Bilibili)

Intel announced the Core i9-10900K was two weeks ago. The chip packs ten cores with hyperthreading so it can handle 20 threads simultaneously, and it comes with a base frequency of 3.7 GHz and a boost clock of 5.3 GHz. The cores are wired to 20 MB of L3 cache, and the chip carries a TDP of 125W. However, according to past leaks and data from TecLab's testing, the chip appears to consume much more power.

The test results are probably not a huge surprise; the AMD chips excel in threaded applications, and the 10-core Intel Core i9-10900K can't match the 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X in those types of applications. 

However, despite packing two fewer cores, the Intel Core i9-10900K does have its sights on AMD's 12-core 3900X. Intel's Core i9-10900K has hyperthreading, so it doesn't lose out there. Instead, it makes up for its core-count disadvantage with very high boost frequencies of up to 5.3 GHz. 

The Intel chip also takes the edge on its competitors in lightly-threaded tasks. Thanks to its high performance per individual core, the Intel Core i9-10900K also excels in gaming. Of course, it's relevant to note that gaming tests are often done at lower resolutions than you'll play with in practice and with very powerful GPUs, as high framerates tax the CPU most.

(Image credit: Teclab Bilibili)

The slow trickle of Comet Lake leaks are now turning into a full-on flood, so it's rational to expect that Intel-sanctioned reviews will come soon. 

  • Makaveli
    i'll just leave this here.

    itauMt2GmkIView: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itauMt2GmkI&feature=emb_title
    Reply
  • Gurg
    So Wednesday the reviewers are allowed to post their results and everyone will be able to see legit comparisons and reviews?
    Reply
  • exroofer
    Barely surpassing said 3950x in gaming, while getting roflstomped in every other category.
    Quel Surprise!
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    exroofer said:
    Barely surpassing said 3950x in gaming, while getting roflstomped in every other category.
    Quel Surprise!
    The said CPU is the 3900x which is roughly in the same price tier and it beats barely surpasses it in both gaming and "productivity" while the 3900x has 20% more cores....

    Nobody is saying that AMD is so bad that 16 cores are going to match only 10 cores.
    Reply
  • pizza99
    The full set of gaming benchmarks show the 10900k beating the other cpus by 10% at 1440p. So as 1440p benchmarks are bottlenecked by 2080ti's, that's a very good result. So it will be interesting to see what happens when trusted benchmarks are released, if there is such a thing as a trusted benchmark. 11th gen previews seem to show better performance so it might be worth hanging out for them late 2020. I want to see how much headroom there is on 10th gen and what frequency the cpus are running at.
    Reply
  • swingfade
    "Barely surpassing" soooo winning right? it's ok, you can say it, AMD is at 7nm and can't win gaming. All the stick Intel takes for being stuck at 14nm but no one ever asks why AMD (when the whole world has discovered Esports) can't beat 14nm... oh well, there's always 5nm
    Reply
  • Chris Fetters
    TerryLaze said:
    The said CPU is the 3900x which is roughly in the same price tier and it beats barely surpasses it in both gaming and "productivity" while the 3900x has 20% more cores....

    Nobody is saying that AMD is so bad that 16 cores are going to match only 10 cores.
    The R9 3900X is NOT in the same price tier as the i9-10900K... The R9 is $410 atm WITH a cooler, whereas the i9-10900K will be over $500 (significantly so if the i9-9900K was anything to go by; the $488 price on Intel's slides is only for a tray of 1000), and with no cooler. The R9 3900X is going to be at LEAST 25-30% cheaper in total (you're gonna need quite the cooler for that i9). As far as actual, real-world pricing goes, the i9-10900K is going to fall right into the no-man's land in-between the 3900X and 3950X (I'd be expecting $520-550 for the chip and $100 for a good enough cooler, so like $630ish total).

    This CPU is barely beating a much cheaper CPU in gaming (at least at 1440p), while losing everywhere else, and with significantly worse power & thermals to boot (reviewer says a 360mm² AIO is the minimum you need). Not a good look for Intel.
    Reply
  • Gurg
    Chris Fetters said:
    The R9 3900X is NOT in the same price tier as the i9-10900K... The R9 is $410 atm WITH a cooler, whereas the i9-10900K will be over $500 (significantly so if the i9-9900K was anything to go by; the $488 price on Intel's slides is only for a tray of 1000), and with no cooler. The R9 3900X is going to be at LEAST 25-30% cheaper in total (you're gonna need quite the cooler for that i9). As far as actual, real-world pricing goes, the i9-10900K is going to fall right into the no-man's land in-between the 3900X and 3950X (I'd be expecting $520-550 for the chip and $100 for a good enough cooler, so like $630ish total).

    This CPU is barely beating a much cheaper CPU in gaming (at least at 1440p), while losing everywhere else, and with significantly worse power & thermals to boot (reviewer says a 360mm² AIO is the minimum you need). Not a good look for Intel.
    You mean that cheap AMD Wraith Prism air cooler that throttles performance and that everyone that cares about performance is trying to dump on E-bay to help fund buying a decent AIO water cooler? LOL

    The reviews of the 10900K are supposed to go live tomorrow so that should put an end to all this BS.
    Reply
  • refillable
    Gurg said:
    You mean that cheap AMD air cooler that throttles performance and that everyone that cares about performance is trying to dump on E-bay to help fund buying a decent AIO water cooler?
    Are you talking about the 10900K or the 3900X? The stock cooler will run a 3900X at 80C+, but it won't throttle it.
    Reply
  • Gurg
    refillable said:
    Are you talking about the 10900K or the 3900X? The stock cooler will run a 3900X at 80C+, but it won't throttle it.
    https://www.ebay.com/sch/131486/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=Ryzen+9+3900X+Wraith+PRISM+RGB+Cooler
    BShttps://www.hardwaretimes.com/amd-wraith-prism-stock-cooler-vs-360mm-liquid-cooler-ryzen-9-3900x-temps-and-performance/
    Reply