Skip to main content

Intel Core i7-10700F Cinebench Figures Surface: Performance Near i9-9900K

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

By now, it's no secret that the next-generation Comet Lake CPUs for desktops are coming, as plenty of leaks have made their way onto the internet. Today is another day with yet another leak surfacing, and this time it's about the i7-10700F, courtesy of Korean Quasarzone.

The Intel Core i7-10700F is expected to be an 8-core 16-thread chip, with the leak showing a nominal clock speed of 2.9 GHz. Of course, that says nothing about the boost clocks, but the performance figures shown demonstrate the chip scoring 4781 points in Cinebench R20, with a single-core score of 492 points.

(Image credit: Quasarzone)

For comparison, we've benchmarked the Intel Core i9-9900K (see our i9-10980XE review for the details), and it scored a total of 4997 points in Cinebench R20. That tells us that the performance of the two chips will be quite similar.

Of course, that's no surprise. The i7-10700F's specifications closely match that of the i9-9900K if the rumors are to be believed. The main difference between the two chips is that the i7-10700F appears to have a much lower nominal clock speed at 2.9 GHz instead of 3.6 GHz for the i9-9900K, though that doesn't say much about the boost speeds (and the i7-10700K has been spotted boosting up to 5.3 GHz with a nominal speed of 3.8 GHz). 

Although it's still not entirely clear when the new Intel CPUs will come out, they are predicted to land sometime in April. The reason for taking so long is said to be that Intel is having trouble sorting out the power consumption problems, which comes as no surprise as the i9-9900K was happy to burn through 200W without all too much effort. Intel also isn't expected to be making the jump to 10 or 7nm yet, further complicating the problems.

  • A Stoner
    Intel's 10nm is much like fusion. I wonder which one we will get first.
    I like Intel, so far all my CPUs have come from them since at least 1992.
    But AMD is looking better and better over the last 2 years.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    as the i9-9900K was happy to burn through 200W without all too much effort.
    Links to article that shows that this needed running Prime95,called 95 due to the year it was made with full blast AVX,while the second highest measurement was at 72W...
    I guess everybody has their own ideas about how much effort is a lot of effort.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    TerryLaze said:
    Links to article that shows that this needed running Prime95,called 95 due to the year it was made with full blast AVX,while the second highest measurement was at 72W...
    Just about every 9900k review I have ever seen measured ~130W with little more than baseline performance enhancements enabled.
    Reply
  • AlistairAB
    TerryLaze said:
    Links to article that shows that this needed running Prime95,called 95 due to the year it was made with full blast AVX,while the second highest measurement was at 72W...
    I guess everybody has their own ideas about how much effort is a lot of effort.

    Funny I own a 9900k and you couldn't be more wrong. We are talking about the power consumption of the chip at reviewed settings, which is usually with no turbo limit and unrestricted in the BIOS, 5Ghz all cores.

    If you want to run your 9900k at 3.6ghz to keep it at 95 watts, go ahead, but why did you buy it then? The performance will be worse than Ryzen then.
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    A Stoner said:
    But AMD is looking better and better over the last 2 years.
    my view.
    i wanna build a new pc, but I keep hoping intel releases something worth it..

    between the "fixes" that impact performence and the frequency of new stuff revealed keeps making me question if i should just go for amd.

    I have never once owned an amd cpu.
    Reply
  • alextheblue
    TerryLaze said:
    Links to article that shows that this needed running Prime95,called 95 due to the year it was made with full blast AVX,while the second highest measurement was at 72W...
    I guess everybody has their own ideas about how much effort is a lot of effort.
    Funny, I didn't know they HAD AVX in 1995! Turns out software can be updated. Anyway the torture tests might be the worst case result, but that's at stock settings. Funny enough the AMD chips didn't consume nearly as much power in the same tests. Weird, right?

    Look I think the 9900K is a dynamite chip, but they are power hungry. That's the kind of thing you'd bash AMD for a few years ago. They even eat a lot of power when running other kinds of heavy loads, like 4K video encoding. Especially when you (very reasonably) pair them with a matching high end desktop board, even at default settings. If you pair them with a lower-end board, it would default to more restrictive power settings (and reduce performance under heavy workloads), but it also wouldn't make any sense to do so with such a high end chip.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    alextheblue said:
    Look I think the 9900K is a dynamite chip, but they are power hungry. That's the kind of thing you'd bash AMD for a few years ago.
    AMD got bashed for its astounding power draw because even at 200+W, the FX9650 was still getting outperformed by 50W i3 in many games. The 9900k on the other hand is leading in most games against anything available from AMD, so the high overclock power draw is at least justifiable by real-world performance.
    Reply
  • svan71
    hotaru251 said:
    my view.
    i wanna build a new pc, but I keep hoping intel releases something worth it..

    between the "fixes" that impact performence and the frequency of new stuff revealed keeps making me question if i should just go for amd.

    I have never once owned an amd cpu.


    You need to make the switch, Ryzen 3000 is rock solid and future proof, start with a 6 core and in a few years drop in a 16 core you can't do that with intel, pcie 4.0 your not getting from intel .
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    svan71 said:
    pcie 4.0 your not getting from intel .
    You aren't getting PCIe 4.0 from AMD either unless you buy an X570 motherboard or one of the OEM boards with 4.0 from the CPU-fed slots enabled on B550A. (Or 300/400-series boards with a BIOS using an AGESA version from before AMD decided to kill off 4.0 support on pre-500 boards.)
    Reply
  • nitrium
    A stock AMD 3700X scores 4900 in multi-threaded and 510 in single core on Cinebench at with a TDP of 65W. Yes, I'm sure you can overclock the 10700 and get much higher scores, but you shouldn't have to imo (especially considering how much Intel will likely charge for it).
    Reply