10 cores from Intel for less money (though the lack of an MSRP is a problem for that)? Not knocking a chip down to an i7 with one core that couldn't quite hit 5 GHz?
I would guess Intel is struggling to sell 7 series parts because they don't compete well with AMD. By creating a lower price 9 series part they can try to push their 9 series further down market.
My guess: Intel has a YUUUGE stock of chips that missed the bin and couldn't make it as 10900. Indicative of yield/quality problems as Intel keeps flogging their fabs...
Intel doesn't seem to be having issues with 14nm other than 14nm has it's limits.
The chip probably allowed a sizable improvement in yields. 100MHz doesn't really make that much of a difference in performance but by allowing this they increased sell-able 10 core chips. That last little bit of clock speed is always costly to attain, that's just how it works.
14nm is at its limits. Especially a chip like the 10900K. Period. Of course yields will be better than in 2015, but still not perfect. Looking at the horrible availability of 10900Ks compared to other ones, its pretty obvious the yield could be much better. Seems to be that many chips only barely miss the 10900K requirements and so they simply made a 10850K.
If, as prior commenters say, Google is paying $99 to $140 per hour for doing work online, then it barely matters how much it costs - you could buy one with less than a full day's wages!
The TDP is 125W, if you trust that. But there are differences other than CPU speed. Unlike the 10900K, it's listed as ineligible for vPro or SIPP, and lacks TXT: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
Of course, higher-end Intel CPUs at MSRP are in short supply; the i9-10900K goes for more than £500 in the UK - and even Intel's ARK can only find it at $525 from Walmart (confusingly promoted as "from $599.99", seemingly based on the first offered price, not the lowest): https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
Some of us like living on the edge. Also, black humour is a thing, you know? (Though they'll probably have to change the name now, come to think of it...)
I'll wait for the Core i9-10825K that's 200 MHz lower than the 10900K.
Seriously, though, I appreciate the paragraph about, "why have this chip" and discussing being at the top of the frequency range. What's interesting is if only 100 MHz is enough to account for a considerable amount of chips. Looking at the product stack, I would have expected something more in between the 10900 and 10900K - say 3.2 or 3.3 GHz and 95W TDP. Although that would present a "what do we name it?" conundrum.
AMD releases a near-identical CPU with a minuscule performance bump for the same price - Thanks AMD! Intel releases a near-identical CPU with a minuscule performance drop but a large price drop - Screw you Intel!
Possibly, keep in mind they dont test every chip though and there definitely could be some that overclock just as well as the 10900k, but as always you you take your chances. Probably worth it though if its atleast 10 percent less. You lose 3 percent performance, but your only paying 90 percent as much. That seems like a reasonable enough argument for me, although i'd still recommend going with a Ryzen 7 or Ryzen 9 over it for most things.
They might not thoroughly test every chip, but they have their indicators on which chip is good and which is not. Or which chip can be a 10900K and which cannot.
Ryan, with Intel's offerings getting more diverse, one aspect I keep wondering about is just how much real estate (transistor count or square mm) the respective iGPU occupies, and how much of the TDP it consumes. Do you or Ian have any data on this? Could make for an interesting article! Thanks!
Interesting times. I guess the bottom line is that despite having inferior parts and fab process, Intel still has immense manufacturing capability. They can still sell these odd models because they are able to put parts in sockets and get systems sold. AMD is going to be fundamentally limited by the amount of fab utilization they can get hold of. And they have to compete with Apple's ambitions backed by 10's of millions in smart phone chips. Even if Intel got there through questionable business practices, they are still one of the last few standing and they will be rewarded for it.
I have been true to Intel for a long time. But there is nothing future-proof coming out of Intel these days. When are the new AMD processors out? I can't wait, I want to build a new system but not with yesterday's reheated leftovers.
Still a lot of reliability, optimization and compatibility problems with AMD. Thats why I will rather get a used 9900K or something for 2 years, until Intel finally gets their 10 nm chips out.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
27 Comments
Back to Article
Chaitanya - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
A lot of spam comments.Also what is the point of this CPU?
drothgery - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
10 cores from Intel for less money (though the lack of an MSRP is a problem for that)? Not knocking a chip down to an i7 with one core that couldn't quite hit 5 GHz?surt - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
I would guess Intel is struggling to sell 7 series parts because they don't compete well with AMD. By creating a lower price 9 series part they can try to push their 9 series further down market.pepoluan - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
My guess: Intel has a YUUUGE stock of chips that missed the bin and couldn't make it as 10900. Indicative of yield/quality problems as Intel keeps flogging their fabs...0ldman79 - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
Intel doesn't seem to be having issues with 14nm other than 14nm has it's limits.The chip probably allowed a sizable improvement in yields. 100MHz doesn't really make that much of a difference in performance but by allowing this they increased sell-able 10 core chips. That last little bit of clock speed is always costly to attain, that's just how it works.
Beaver M. - Tuesday, July 28, 2020 - link
14nm is at its limits. Especially a chip like the 10900K. Period.Of course yields will be better than in 2015, but still not perfect.
Looking at the horrible availability of 10900Ks compared to other ones, its pretty obvious the yield could be much better.
Seems to be that many chips only barely miss the 10900K requirements and so they simply made a 10850K.
Chaitanya - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
At this rate we will few more SKUs with 100mhz lower clocks and with SKU no in decrements of 50 in coming months.Eug - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
I'm still waiting for the mythical i9-10910.GreenReaper - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
If, as prior commenters say, Google is paying $99 to $140 per hour for doing work online, then it barely matters how much it costs - you could buy one with less than a full day's wages!The TDP is 125W, if you trust that. But there are differences other than CPU speed. Unlike the 10900K, it's listed as ineligible for vPro or SIPP, and lacks TXT: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
Of course, higher-end Intel CPUs at MSRP are in short supply; the i9-10900K goes for more than £500 in the UK - and even Intel's ARK can only find it at $525 from Walmart (confusingly promoted as "from $599.99", seemingly based on the first offered price, not the lowest):
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/produc...
damianrobertjones - Tuesday, July 28, 2020 - link
"If, as prior commenters say, Google is paying $99 to $140 per hour for doing work online"That's really weird thing to start with? You've almost made your post into spam.
GreenReaper - Tuesday, July 28, 2020 - link
Some of us like living on the edge. Also, black humour is a thing, you know?(Though they'll probably have to change the name now, come to think of it...)
IBM760XL - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
I'll wait for the Core i9-10825K that's 200 MHz lower than the 10900K.Seriously, though, I appreciate the paragraph about, "why have this chip" and discussing being at the top of the frequency range. What's interesting is if only 100 MHz is enough to account for a considerable amount of chips. Looking at the product stack, I would have expected something more in between the 10900 and 10900K - say 3.2 or 3.3 GHz and 95W TDP. Although that would present a "what do we name it?" conundrum.
yeeeeman - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
this need to be 300-350$ to sell well.Foeketijn - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
You don't care about how many you can sell, you care about how many you have you can sell.pepoluan - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
AMD: After releasing their Zen 2 lineup, releases the XT lineup with slightly higher clock speed.Intel: After releasing their "10th gen" (?) lineup, releases the... uh, more of same? lineup ... with slightly lower clock speed.
I just can't.
edzieba - Tuesday, July 28, 2020 - link
Or in other words:AMD releases a near-identical CPU with a minuscule performance bump for the same price - Thanks AMD!
Intel releases a near-identical CPU with a minuscule performance drop but a large price drop - Screw you Intel!
Midwayman - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
This makes no sense as a K chip. Anyone who wants an unlocked chip would know these are the rejects from binning.drexnx - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
maybe for air binning, but leaky chips usually work better for extreme OC efforts.artk2219 - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
Possibly, keep in mind they dont test every chip though and there definitely could be some that overclock just as well as the 10900k, but as always you you take your chances. Probably worth it though if its atleast 10 percent less. You lose 3 percent performance, but your only paying 90 percent as much. That seems like a reasonable enough argument for me, although i'd still recommend going with a Ryzen 7 or Ryzen 9 over it for most things.Beaver M. - Tuesday, July 28, 2020 - link
They might not thoroughly test every chip, but they have their indicators on which chip is good and which is not. Or which chip can be a 10900K and which cannot.eastcoast_pete - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
Ryan, with Intel's offerings getting more diverse, one aspect I keep wondering about is just how much real estate (transistor count or square mm) the respective iGPU occupies, and how much of the TDP it consumes. Do you or Ian have any data on this? Could make for an interesting article! Thanks!flgt - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
Interesting times. I guess the bottom line is that despite having inferior parts and fab process, Intel still has immense manufacturing capability. They can still sell these odd models because they are able to put parts in sockets and get systems sold. AMD is going to be fundamentally limited by the amount of fab utilization they can get hold of. And they have to compete with Apple's ambitions backed by 10's of millions in smart phone chips. Even if Intel got there through questionable business practices, they are still one of the last few standing and they will be rewarded for it.gizmo23 - Monday, July 27, 2020 - link
Intel i7-7700K released Q1 2017. 4 cores 8 threads 4.2 / 4.5 GHz.This article: "a fairly unremarkable processor" ... "fully-enabled 10-core configuration" 10 cores 20 threads 3.6 / 5.0 GHz.
How times have changed...
Peskarik - Tuesday, July 28, 2020 - link
I have been true to Intel for a long time. But there is nothing future-proof coming out of Intel these days. When are the new AMD processors out? I can't wait, I want to build a new system but not with yesterday's reheated leftovers.Beaver M. - Tuesday, July 28, 2020 - link
Still a lot of reliability, optimization and compatibility problems with AMD.Thats why I will rather get a used 9900K or something for 2 years, until Intel finally gets their 10 nm chips out.
Alistair - Thursday, August 27, 2020 - link
there are zero problems with AMD cpus, they are not complicated driver wise like GPUs, what nonsenseblzd - Thursday, July 30, 2020 - link
i9-10850KF for $442 incoming? Come on Intel, you know you want to!Desperate measures on top of desperate measures but you can't blame them for trying.