The 10700K was also slower than the 9900K in Blender's Open Data benchmark, though we're talking a few seconds here, so performance was basically identical.

The chip is manufactured on 14nm++ process at Intel. The TDP is rated at 65 Watt (PL1) but the PL2 is set to 224 Watt for short term boosts (up to 28 seconds).The reason comes down to what TDP really is. In the past, we used to assume that it was the peak power consumption of the processor was its TDP rating – after all, a ‘thermal design point’ of a processor was almost worthless if you didn’t account for the peak power dissipation. What makes Intel’s situation different (or confusing, depending on how you want to call it) is that the company defines its TDP in the context of a 'base' frequency. The TDP will be the maximum power under a sustained workload for which the base frequency is the minimum frequency guarantee. Intel defines a sustained workload one in which the 'turbo budget' has expired, and the processor will achieve its best frequency above base frequency (but not turbo modes) . Things get worse for Intel in the decompression test where the 10700K is 9% slower than the 3700X and that places it well behind the 3900X, losing by a 39% margin. The 10700K performed as expected in Corona, edging out the 9900K by a slim margin. It was also 14% faster than the 3700X, but 24% slower than the 3900X. An expected result but in the grand scheme of things, not a particularly good result for Intel.

Một số sản phẩm có thể hỗ trợ Hướng dẫn mới của AES với cập nhật Cấu hình bộ xử lý, đặc biệt, i7-2630QM/i7-2635QM, i7-2670QM/i7-2675QM, i5-2430M/i5-2435M, i5-2410M/i5-2415M. Vui lòng liên hệ OEM để biết BIOS bao gồm bản cập nhật Cấu hình bộ xử lý mới nhất.Max Turbo Frequency refers to the maximum single-core processor frequency that can be achieved with Intel® Turbo Boost Technology. See www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/ for more information and applicability of this technology. That advantage disappears at 1440p, here the 10700K is just a few frames faster than the 3900X and again that will see both processors deliver the same gaming experience.

The performance margins seen in Premiere Pro are very similar to those of DaVinci Resolve. The 10700K is able to match the 3700X and that meant it was 6% faster than the 9900K. This article evaluates Intel's Core i7-10700 desktop CPU. We evaluated Intel's Core i7-10700 and compared it to others to determine which provides the best value as a gaming CPU. We shaped our testing methodology to focus on each CPU's attributes rather than solely on benchmarks. Moving on to power consumption, what we see here are total system consumption numbers. The 10700K matched the 3900X at 230 watts and that means in terms of performance per watt Intel is at a significant disadvantage, but that's certainly not news to anyone at this point. Anyway, the 3900X was 60% faster than the 10700K in Blender, so that's a significant advantage in terms of performance per watt. Gaming Performance System and Maximum TDP is based on worst case scenarios. Actual TDP may be lower if not all I/Os for chipsets are used.See http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hyper-threading/hyper-threading-technology.html?wapkw=hyper+threading for more information including details on which processors support Intel® HT Technology.

When looking at single core performance we see that while the 10700K is very strong, it's not exceptional, basically matching the 9900K, 3700X and 3900X.The base frequency is more of a minimum guaranteed frequency, than an absolute 'this is what you will get' value under a sustained workload. Intel likes to state that the base frequency is the guarantee, however if a processor can achieve a higher frequency while power limited, it will - if it can achieve that power value with 200 MHz above base frequency, it will run at the higher frequency. If this sounds familiar, this is how all AMD Ryzen processors work, however Intel only implements it when turbo is no longer available. This ends up being very processor dependent. As usual we'll start with Cinebench R20 multi-core and here we see that the 10700K is indeed able to match the 9900K, with a score of 4985 pts. The 2% increase we see is within the margin of error, even for our 3 run average. Performance in After Effects is average, despite the 10700K offering a 6% performance uplift over the 9900K. That meant it was still slower than the 3700X and 10% slower than the 3900X.