ItsReallyMe

Level 5
Should I wait before building my new PC to put a core i9-10900K?
What is the expected price for core i9 10900K
 

Dex4Sure

Level 2
I really wanted to go with Ryzen but I am going to do something that need Intel CPU for stability!
Well, AMD CPU's are just as stable as Intel CPU's... And when you come to ask this to security oriented forum, I must say that Intel CPU's have architectural flaws that make them more vulnerable to hardware exploits than AMD. I would simply not buy Intel CPU until they have designed new architecture, and that might still take years before its out. I wouldn't want to buy Intel CPU just to see it getting lower performance overtime due to security patches and mitigations... This has been the trend for Intel CPU's based on Skylake core, and don't see it changing. Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake and even Whiskey Lake are all still based on same Skylake core, which itself is heavily based on previous Intel architectures dating back all the way to 2011 Sandy Bridge.
 

ItsReallyMe

Level 5
Well, AMD CPU's are just as stable as Intel CPU's... And when you come to ask this to security oriented forum, I must say that Intel CPU's have architectural flaws that make them more vulnerable to hardware exploits than AMD. I would simply not buy Intel CPU until they have designed new architecture, and that might still take years before its out. I wouldn't want to buy Intel CPU just to see it getting lower performance overtime due to security patches and mitigations... This has been the trend for Intel CPU's based on Skylake core, and don't see it changing. Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake and even Whiskey Lake are all still based on same Skylake core, which itself is heavily based on previous Intel architectures dating back all the way to 2011 Sandy Bridge.
Are they going to change the architecture on core i9 10900K?
 

Dex4Sure

Level 2
Are they going to change the architecture on core i9 10900K?
Nope. Its just another Skylake refresh by another name and probably on 14nm+++++++ or whatever Intel calls their outdated manufacturing process by now. AMD is on TSMC 7nm already, been there for almost a year by now...
 

SumTingWong

Level 24
Verified
Well, AMD CPU's are just as stable as Intel CPU's... And when you come to ask this to security oriented forum, I must say that Intel CPU's have architectural flaws that make them more vulnerable to hardware exploits than AMD. I would simply not buy Intel CPU until they have designed new architecture, and that might still take years before its out. I wouldn't want to buy Intel CPU just to see it getting lower performance overtime due to security patches and mitigations... This has been the trend for Intel CPU's based on Skylake core, and don't see it changing. Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake and even Whiskey Lake are all still based on same Skylake core, which itself is heavily based on previous Intel architectures dating back all the way to 2011 Sandy Bridge.
Ryzen is a new architecture than Intel bleeding edge 14mm architecture. Give it couple years later then we will see Ryzen vulnerabilities.

I would wait for Ryzen 4000 series because AMD will going to reckon Intel 10th gen.

The i9 10900k is the i9 9900k with 2 more additional cores. Same bleeding edge 14mn architecture technology and vulnerabilities. The i9 9900k is already hot so adding 2 more additional cores bring it up to 10 cores total will going to make it runs hotter than i9 9900k.

The price of i9 10900k is going to be expensive so that will going to make you think twice do I want used Ryzen 9 3900x, 3950x, or i9 9900k or brand new Ryzen 4000 series. I definitely would go Ryzen 9 3900x if the price is the same as i9 9900k if you are looking for a budget cpu upgrade. The Ryzen 9 3900x at the moment is $470. When Ryzen 4000 series launch, it will be lower for 3900x and 3950x.

The i9 10900k is beating Ryzen 9 3900x in dollar per performance, but if you care performance per dollar than used 3900x or 3950x or Ryzen 4000 series.
 

Dex4Sure

Level 2
Ryzen is a new architecture than Intel bleeding edge 14mm architecture. Give it couple years later then we will see Ryzen vulnerabilities.

I would wait for Ryzen 4000 series because AMD will going to reckon Intel 10th gen.

The i9 10900k is the i9 9900k with 2 more additional cores. Same bleeding edge 14mn architecture technology and vulnerabilities. The i9 9900k is already hot so adding 2 more additional cores bring it up to 10 cores total will going to make it runs hotter than i9 9900k.

The price of i9 10900k is going to be expensive so that will going to make you think twice do I want used Ryzen 9 3900x, 3950x, or i9 9900k or brand new Ryzen 4000 series. I definitely would go Ryzen 9 3900x if the price is the same as i9 9900k if you are looking for a budget cpu upgrade. The Ryzen 9 3900x at the moment is $470. When Ryzen 4000 series launch, it will be lower for 3900x and 3950x.

The i9 10900k is beating Ryzen 9 3900x in dollar per performance, but if you care performance per dollar than used 3900x or 3950x or Ryzen 4000 series.
To be fair, AMD does not even need to combat Intel's 10th (although ofc they will), because 3900X and especially 3950X are simply out of reach for Intel. 10 core Intel CPU or not. 14nm is not bleeding edge, don't care how many + you add there. 14nm is ancient by today's standards and shows just how far behind Intel is compared to TSMC these days. TSMC is moving to 5nm on mobile side already this year for Apple, while they are using refined 7nm for other customers of theirs, with AMD being one of them. AMD is benefiting greatly from TSMC's massive lead over Intel in manufacturing process. In 2021 AMD will most likely be using TSMC 5nm on their desktop parts already, while Intel MAYBE has gotten their desktop parts over to 10nm. But it might be even in 2021 they still use the ancient 14nm which is laughable really.

And again, that's not defense against Intel's architectural flaws. They are using very old architecture at this point and it makes perfect sense to go with newer architecture from AMD now than buy Intel with their outdated architecture. The only thing Intel is faster at, by maybe 5% is gaming... And 5% is next to nothing. AMD uses less power, runs cooler, has better performance/price ratio, uses more up todate architecture, is more futureproof and less vulnerable to hardware exploits... I mean if this doesn't convince you to go AMD, you gotta be an Intel fanboy.

I used Intel products when they were lot better than AMD. Now I use AMD because they are better. Brand fanboying is the most stupid thing there is.
 

SumTingWong

Level 24
Verified
To be fair, AMD does not even need to combat Intel's 10th (although ofc they will), because 3900X and especially 3950X are simply out of reach for Intel. 10 core Intel CPU or not.
The i9 10900k will beat 3900x.

14nm is not bleeding edge, don't care how many + you add there. 14nm is ancient by today's standards and shows just how far behind Intel is compared to TSMC these days.
14nm is on the bleeding edge.

Intel 14nm is on the bleeding edge. 5th gen, 6th gen, 7th gen, 8th gen, 9th gen, and now 10th gen. Intel try to hang onto the 14nm as long as possible and by the time Intel is going to 12 or 10nm, AMD will be on lower nanometer. Lower nanometer = better performance, higher efficiency, and better thermal. The i9 9900k speak from itself. The 10900k will going to be faster than i9 9900k for about 2% better in single core and 30% on multi core but you are going to need a better cooling to cool down the 10900k because it will runs hotter than 9900k. In addition, a new motherboard for the same 14nm architecture with a different chipset, and higher electricity bill because 10900k can sap more than 125Watts TDP. IPC from Intel 9th to 10th gen is not even great at all.
 

Dex4Sure

Level 2
The i9 10900k will beat 3900x.



14nm is on the bleeding edge.

Intel 14nm is on the bleeding edge. 5th gen, 6th gen, 7th gen, 8th gen, 9th gen, and now 10th gen. Intel try to hang onto the 14nm as long as possible and by the time Intel is going to 12 or 10nm, AMD will be on lower nanometer. Lower nanometer = better performance, higher efficiency, and better thermal. The i9 9900k speak from itself. The 10900k will going to be faster than i9 9900k for about 2% better in single core and 30% on multi core but you are going to need a better cooling to cool down the 10900k because it will runs hotter than 9900k. In addition, a new motherboard for the same 14nm architecture with a different chipset, and higher electricity bill because 10900k can sap more than 125Watts TDP. IPC from Intel 9th to 10th gen is not even great at all.
First of all, depends on the workload. On multithreaded workload, nope.... 3900X will still beat 10900K. Single threaded yes, but only slightly... 3900X was not that far from 9900K in IPC and if 10900K really is only 2% faster in single threaded performance its a very, very tiny upgrade. Then factor in the likelihood of security patches and threat mitigation updates to quickly eat those 2% performance gains in the next years and you already start to see why this is a bad deal.

14nm is "bleeding edge" only for Intel. We are talking about 5 year old manufacturing process. Its by no means bleeding edge by today's standards. TSMC and Samsung are both far ahead these days, at 7nm EUV and beyond. If Intel doesn't catch up soon, they might have to ditch their own foundries and start to use TSMC or Samsung as well. Will be a costly endeavor for them, considering how much money they have invested into their foundries. AMD did that years ago when they ran out of options due to financial reasons, and its paid off now.

30% faster on multicore than 9900K won't be enough to even match 3900X, let alone 3950X. And AMD will have their 4000 series out as an answer soon enough as well. On workstation side the difference is even more staggering, with 64 core 128 thread Threadripper totally destroying Intel's offerings, including all Intel's server CPU's (Xeons). If Intel is only able to increase their IPC by 2% in their 10th gen, AMD has a real chance to overtake them even in single threaded performance this year. AMD has been increasing their own IPC much faster in each generation than Intel now.

Again, nothing is stopping Intel from also using TSMC 7nm instead of their own crappy 14nm+++++. Its not an argument in Intel's favor to point out AMD has "unfair" advantage. Its entirely Intel's responsibility to keep up with rest of the market, and if they fail to do so then they are not getting my money. Simple as that. Excuses or no excuses. NVIDIA beats AMD despite being on 1 generation older manufacturing node on GPU side, they don't need to make up excuses despite being on TSMC 12nm instead of TSMC 7nm. It showcases if the architecture itself is efficient, it can still beat rival whose using smaller (more advanced) manufacturing process.

Not to mention 10900K is probably gonna be so overpriced you can get 3950X for same price, especially once 4000 series launch 3000 series prices will go down noticeably.
 

koloveli

Level 2
When Brazil returns to employ, even recently launched processors will cost so much that it would be cheaper to travel to the United States and purchase there.
Here in Brazilian lands products cost 2 to 3 more, for exemple one TV 1.600 in EUA, in Brazil 4.000 or more :eek:
 
Top