so it's been almost 10 months since the launch of amd's third generation ryzen
processors and it crapped all over intel we all
knew it in fact intel was sitting there hoping that
their coffee lake cpus like the 9900k would compete against
the best that amd had to offer but that wasn't enough in fact what they're
trying to do right now is come up with another 14nm
called comet lake but look all jokes aside i need to level with you guys
intel might not publicly admit it but they know their new desktop cpus are in
a really bad place right now they're doing everything they possibly
can to stop bleeding until a new architecture and a new
manufacturing process is ready remember amd had to go through this
years ago in fact they had to last six years on 32
meters until ryzen arrived and what's really
interesting is that this is the sixth year
that intel is on 40 nanometers but let's also not forget that the fx series from
amd was targeted towards the market that was
more value focused which kept fans happy one of intel's
major problems is nearly every single one of amd's 3rd
gen ryzen processors are on sale right now
this isn't an official price cut but it still makes things look very different
right now than when comet lake was first announced
a few weeks ago so can intel overcome that
we're about to find out my friends but first a quick message from our sponsor
the new fantax p300a enclosure is a great value airflow focused frame
thanks to the all new mesh front panel that is a single piece of metal for
highest mesh area and durability the inside is nice
and simple plus an exhaust fan is included check out the p300a
down below alright so this video is going to be more benchmark focused and
if you're looking for more information about the
architecture and about the processors that intel has announced
make sure to check out our explained video i've made a dedicated one covering
all of the new cpus and you can check it out right over here
even though they're going to be almost two dozen new comet lake cpus available
today intel sent us two of them the core i9
10900k which is the flagship and the core i5 10600k
a more affordable option both are
completely unlocked for overclocking but where they end up against amd is
very interesting you see the core i9 10900k is replacing the i9
9900k with more cores and higher clock speeds
but with a price of 490 it's up against a
pretty tough competitor and that's the ryzen 9 3900x
which usually goes for about 500 but lately i've been seeing it floating
around for between 400 and 440 it'll be interesting to see
if those sales continue and if it actually does
intel is going to be fighting an uphill battle against a processor that has
a efficient manufacturing process with more threats and a much lower price
tag as for the i5-10600k well as a replacement for the 9600k it
looks pretty good by offering double the number of threads and slightly higher
frequencies technically it's going head-to-head
against the six-core 12-threaded 3600x but through the miracle of sales it's
going for just 205 dollars these days so that means
the 10600k ends up almost hitting the same price
as the um yeah the eight core 16 thread ryzen 7 3700x
which used to hit the 330 mark but prices have dropped below 300 now there
are a few things that i want to mention about these prices before going any
further first of all sales don't last forever so
the ryzen 3000s might rise in cost but i'm not entirely sure about that
also some of them are pretty old as far as processors go
and amd did say that they will launch the zen 3 this year
so until next gen ryzen cps roll out this is the perfect
opportunity to keep those prices low and really put the hurt on intel
now as for intel prices let's just say that
i'll believe them when i see them online so
take that with a grain of salt another thing i want to talk about is clock
speeds because on these new cpus there is a ton of variables when it
comes to hitting intel's advertised frequencies
especially with the core i9-10900k it actually has a ton of different
frequencies many of which you've probably seen on
past intel cpus and all of them are dependent on variables like power
temperatures and workload so there's a base frequency of 3.7 gigahertz
and the usual turbo boost 2.0 which can bring a single core up to 5.1 gigahertz
turbo boost 3.0 then enhances the capability
by finding the fastest core and boosting that one to even further
to 5.2 gigahertz in single threaded workloads
then there's all core turbo frequency of 4.8 gigahertz
which is the theoretical maximum sustained clock speed
when all cores and threads are fully loaded the new addition here is what
intel calls thermal velocity boost and it takes
frequencies to the next level but only in very short bursts on your
cpu's two best cores and under strict circumstances it'll
only be enabled if these cpu temps is 70 degrees celsius or less and the
cpu's power package allows for higher speeds
speaking of those boost levels i should also mention that each motherboard
manufacturer has a different way of addressing them and many tend to
operate outside of intel's predefined limits so for
example asus automatically enables their multi-core enhancement
which artificially enhances scores meanwhile the latest version of
gigabytes bios extends power limits so these new cpus will operate at higher
power thresholds for longer periods of time we always
stick to intel's predefined stock settings so
let's see what that translates to in terms of clock speeds first of all
you can see here that the two best course on the 10900k
i have over here is number four and number five those are the only ones
that'll hit 5.3 gigahertz on a single core by charting temperatures
and clock speeds over time on a single core
you can see that speeds hitting that 5.3 gigahertz mark
but only occasionally this might only tell half the story though since
our one second polling rate likely isn't picking up some millisecond changes in
speed so the 10900k could be hitting the high
ratio more often than we see but if you look towards the center of
the chart temperatures on this core rose a bit which likely meant another
windows process started eating up some resources
since temperatures stayed below 60 degrees celsius and package power was
super low as well technically the frequencies should have
stayed between 5.1 gigahertz and 5.3 gigahertz
but they didn't honestly this just shows just how damn picky intel's boost
algorithm is but what about multi-core workloads like maya render
well starting things off with a default fan speed profile on the asus
motherboard and a noctua u12s that i'm using here
things got interesting temperature spiked before
the heatsink fans could catch up but then they leveled out way under
intel's 70 degree threshold for thermal velocity boost as for clock
speeds well the first 30 seconds shows clocks
hitting really impressive speeds as intel's short duration power limit
gives a more relaxed setting but that also caused the temperature to
increase then intel's long duration power limit sets
in and frequencies and temperatures go to a nosedive with the 10900k varying
between 4.1 and 4.2 gigahertz but what happens when
we add more cooling would the chips stay at higher speeds
well i stuck two fans running 100% on the u12s
and the temperatures never got above 75 degrees celsius
which should mean we'd hit higher average clock speeds right
well no after that short burst of speed it leveled out around 4.2 gigahertz
again which is way under intel's 4.8 gigahertz claim
but there's nothing new about that this seems to be more about package
power limits rather than temperatures getting intel cpus to hit their turbo
frequencies on a constant basis usually involves overclocking and what
about the 10600k well it doesn't have thermal velocity
boost or turbo boost max 3.0 and its behavior was quite different
it's all core speeds remained really consistent over the course of the test
so now that we have a better understanding of how these cpus behave
let's dive into the benchmarks but before that i'll pause here for a bit
just so you can go over our test system configuration
so feel free to pause go over all the setups
yeah okay so starting off with cinebench single core
and this is one area where intel has always been strong
even though amd has made some really big steps towards improving
their performance here but moving on to multi-core workload and
well intel's comet lake is a big improvement over their previous
generation but in comparison to amd it just
isn't enough one of the biggest concerns here is the 10600k
which has the same number of processing threads as the 3600x
still falls short moving on to real world testing the first thing that i
wanted to tackle is adobe premiere pro since it's been through a couple of
really important revisions lately that we needed to talk about let's start
things off with the baseline rendering without any hardware acceleration
this situation perfectly illustrated what would happen with a multi-pass
render or with encoding options that only support software encoding
here intel's pane is pretty evident and while the 10900k loses
the 10600k gets absolutely creamed it barely offers any better performance
than the 9600k this next test shows how currently intel
can leverage their quick sync feature to accelerate video encoding
sure their cpus are ahead but look a bit closer and there's
obviously no reason to spend more money on an i9
since the integrated graphics module becomes the bottleneck but adobe has
been pretty busy lately rolling out hardware acceleration for more than just
intel in its latest release and 14.3 beta both
amd and nvidia gpus are able to offer hardware acceleration which will even
the playing field in a big way let's take a look at how
that turns out with an rtx 2080 ti installed so
this came as a bit of a surprise while intel has completely lost their massive
lead they're still able to stay ahead of amd
why let's drill down a bit to see what's
actually happening here here you can see that in the current hardware accelerated
build the intel gpu is responsible for video decoding
the nvidia card takes care of some copying tasks and the cpu crunches
through encoding and a bunch of other things
switching over to the 14.3 beta allows every resource to be properly used in
parallel that means video encode is being done by nvidia's
and bank encoder the intel graphics takes care of
decoding and the cpu is still being used but a lot less than before so the
integrated gpu is still used here and allows comet lake to stay
in front by a bit this also makes me really interested to
see how amd's apus do here moving on to resolve and here the intel
cpus are pretty competitive but not by all that much the close
results are because this program is really gpu dependent when its hardware
acceleration is enabled basically you have the gpu working away
at almost 100 while the cpus only deal with light
workloads as for the rest of tests well what you
see here is a really similar situation playing out
again and again in any situation where there's an all-core load amd
completely dominates anything intel can offer
meanwhile in mixed workloads like you find in some programs
intel stays ahead but really not by all that much for example
would i buy the 10900k or the 10600k over the 3900x
or the 3600x for something like metashape well based on andy's current
prices absolutely not because the ryzen series
would give me more quality core flexibility
for other programs too rather than just being strong in one area
as a matter of fact depending on where the 10 600 case retail price lands
it might have a really big problem with the 3700x
even for lightly threaded workloads switching to blender
it's a switch back to the pain game for intel versus amd but
to their benefit the new i9 and i5 cpus do offer a lot more performance than
coffee lake that'll be a big deal for intel buyers
and applications like autodesk maya but all in all it just feels like amd
has a better rounded lineup that balances multi-core domination with
very good single core results moving on to gaming and this is
an area where intel claims their i9 10900k is the fastest cpu that has ever
been created well let's put those claims to the test
and yeah it looks like these results really
do put things into perspective don't they
modern warfare does seem to really like high core counts and speeds
but it's the only game in the situation i mean sure the 10900k and the 10600k do
provide really good frame rates but those small
chart differences doesn't lead to a subjectively better experience in any
way even the one percent lows are pretty
identical across the board i could have loaded things in intel's favor by
benchmarking at a low resolution but that's just not a realistic situation
for someone spending hundreds of dollars on a cpu
as it stands we're using the most powerful gpu on the market right now
and using it at 1080p yeah it just it still becomes a bottleneck look if
you only want a system for gaming purposes
avoid the 10900k the 3900x the 3700x the 10600k
or any other high-end cpu for that matter just get yourself an affordable
processor and maximize on your graphics card
budget and thank us later so with that out of the way i think it's
time to tackle something that a lot of people were concerned about
when they heard intel was going to push higher core counts
and higher frequencies on the same old 14 nanometer process
and that is temperatures and power consumption back at the beginning of
this video we've already seen that temperatures
are fairly manageable with a decent air cooler like the noctua u12s
it also feels like intel throttles their clock speeds based on
power consumption rather than heat so what does that really mean well taking a
look at the package power over time it really conveys an interesting story
starting with the 10900k and already there's a problem that was
evident earlier this thing sucks down a huge amount of
electricity in the first 30 seconds of all core load yep that's about 225
watts and since most synthetic benchmarks like
cinebench don't take that long to complete this out-of-spec
behavior will artificially inflate intel scores
luckily this won't impact our results since most of our tests are real-world
scenarios that take a while to complete now after
that huge boost it's almost like an algorithm saying
whoops i shouldn't be doing this and stamped things back in line to the
rated 125 watts remember this is supposedly an intel's
defaults without any motherboard specific enhancements enabled
but looking at this makes me wonder if the asus board
isn't still doing something behind the scenes now taking a look at the 10600k
and because it doesn't have the turbo boost max 3.0
or thermal velocity boost its behavior is a lot more predictable it remains
flat 100 watts through the entire test and what does that mean for power
consumption of the whole system well over the course
of a 15-minute test both of those processors are relatively
efficient all things considered but just like we saw there's a lot more
to it with the core i9 10900k if we factor
peak power consumption into that equation
the 10900k gets all bent out of sorts this actually pisses me off right now
since this can totally throw off power supply calculations and
it can also push less capable heat sinks right off the edge
on that note i think it's time to wrap up this review while the addition of new
cores and threads make these new cpus a bit
more competitive in my opinion it's too little and way way too
late because intel had the opportunity to stop their bleeding back when
coffee lake was launched but instead it was the same old
endless identical refreshes basically intel buried their heads in sand
and let ryzen walk all over them now comet lake can be really really fast in
some situations but it feels like a generation behind at
prices that have already been undercut by some amd cpu sales
it's also coupled to a z490 platform which brings absolutely
nothing new to the table but what if they're wearing any sales
well i'd still recommend the ryzen 9 3900x over the core i9 10900k because
it's just a versatile all-round processor the same story goes for the
3600x i still recommend that cpu over the core
i5 10 600k competition is good though so i
guess the best thing i can say about these new processors is
they're causing lower rising prices and hopefully intel can adjust their
strategy to somehow compensate before zen 3 hits so that's it for me
guys thank you so much for watching stay safe spend responsibly and i'll
talk to you guys in the next one