It appears that the first gaming benchmarks for Intel’s upcoming high-end CPU, the Intel Core i9 10900K, have been leaked online. These results come from TecLab which has published its review article earlier than anticipated.
Unfortunately, TecLab has not compared the Intel i9 10900K against the Intel i9 9900K. Instead, the publication benchmarked the following three CPUs: Intel i9 10900K, AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and AMD Ryzen 9 3950X.
Naturally, we’ll be focusing on the PC gaming benchmarks tests. And to no one’s surprise, Intel’s latest high-end model is faster than both of AMD’s offers. Well, with only one exception.
TecLab has tested Far Cry 5, GTA 5, Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, Metro Exodus, Tomb Raider 9 and Borderlands 3.
The Intel i9 10900K is faster in all of the aforementioned games, except of GTA5. Surprisingly enough, both the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and AMD Ryzen 9 3950X are faster in this particular game. And we’re talking about a 8fps difference here.
But anyway, most of us expected the Intel i9 10900K to be faster than AMD’s CPUs. The big question, however, is whether there is any significant performance difference between the i9 9900K and the i9 10900K. Furthermore, publications should be conducting their benchmarks in really low resolutions, preferably at 720p. Current games can be GPU-limited at 1080p, even on an NVIDIA RTX2080Ti. Thus, benchmarks at lower resolutions can give a better understanding of the performance differences between two or three CPUs.
Thanks Videocardz
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
“Leaked”
Intel, you keep using that word. I don’t it means what you think it means.
Based on pre-order pricing, the 10900K is going to be at least $100 more than the 3900X, and the 10700K is about the same price (~$525 for the i9, ~$425 for the i7 and R9). Honestly, this doesn’t really change much from where we were with the 9900K. It’s great that you’re getting 2 more cores vs the old i9, but I don’t see the extra 5%-15% gaming performance as being worth it unless you’re going for competitive gaming (e.g. 1080p low-med on a 240hz monitor).
Plus AMD has plenty of advantages outside of pure performance (PCIe 4.0, more power efficient chips, better security, better upgradability since their prices go down over time).
And is going to compete with the new ryzen coming out to the end of the year, that also was leaked that has a 20% improvement over the current gen.
Ya I thought about mentioning that, but the claimed 20% increase is just a rumor. Zen 2 was rumored to hit 5GHz before launch, so I’ll believe it when I see it.
Yes , but it will come with a performance gain anyways, it should be enough to close the gap, probably at better price.
Sure, but Zen 2 is already very competitive and as I said I’d rather wait for actual performance numbers before commenting on Zen 3.
AMD is way ahead than Intel as of now !~
Useless.
A few percentages advantage for much more power draw still not supporting pcie 3.0,much higher temperatures still more pricier than the equivalent alternative all of this and still 14nm…
Not a amd fanboy i have a 9700k but i think intel are like headless chickens that have been caught with their pants down when ryzen started hitting the market especially zen 2.
announce me when the real test come out 😉
Yup, saw this news before.
It looks like the tested sample seems to be a “retail” version, which means Intel has chosen this carefully, cheery picked it somehow ?
But despite that, TecLab has summarized the results, and according to them the i9 10900K’s power consumption and temperature are again very high, and it also requires a high-end 360mm AIO water cooling, lol.
Did anyone notice one thing, the slight extra Gaming performance does come with a Higher Power consumption though, which makes little sense, given AMD CPUs are more power efficient. From the chart we can see its 338 Watts for the INTEL processor, measured from the wall.
Like John said, they should have tested this on a 720P resolution instead. This INTEL CPU is not worth buying, imo, when we can easily get a higher core count and a power efficient processor from AMD.
Especially since it uses more power than the 3950X which has 6 more cores.
Indeed. A 10 core CPU sipping more power than a 16 core processor.
They can only use 14nm for so long… Pretty soon you will have to have a 400+nm cooling solution to keep the CPU’s cool enough to play stressful games if Intel continues it’s 14nm++++++++++++ Trend…
Indeed !
How the days have turned. Once power hungry AMD CPU is efficient now and opposite for intel!!
Hey, it looks Disqus is now back online, including notifications. It looks like they have fixed the bug.
Meaningless leak. Looking forward to real Ryzen 4800X vs. i7 10700K benchmarks in a few months though.
China number one.. They have to have the “news” first… every time
5% increase over 9900K i guess. boring as hell
8fps pffft.
Where I live the price difference between the 3900X and the new 10 core intel listing is AU$220.
If you were smart that $220 could be put towards a better gpu and you would get way more than an 8fps increase.
Intel may be faster but it fails because of the price they are trying to sell it at, Needs to be at least at 3900X prices in my opinion. I would rather get the 12 core cpu and save a few hundred towards a faster gpu.
1440p CPU benchmarks, now I’ve seen it all.