The goal of this review was initially just to benchmark the Core i7-10700 and see where it fits into the market. As our testing results came into focus, it was clear that we had an interesting comparison on our hands against the Core i7-10700K, which we have also tested. In this review the focus will be on the difference between the two, focusing primarily on where the i7-10700 lands compared to the competition, and perhaps some of the complexities involved. Test Setup 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. The Core i7-10700 and Core i7-10700K are both members of Intel’s 10 th Generation ‘Comet Lake’ Core i7 family. This means they are based on Intel’s latest 14nm process variant (14+++, we think, Intel stopped telling us outright), but are essentially power and frequency optimized versions of Intel’s 6 th Generation Skylake Core, except we get eight cores rather than four. Intel 10th Gen Comet Lake

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. 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. 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. Intel classifications are for general, educational and planning purposes only and consist of Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCN) and Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) numbers. Any use made of Intel classifications are without recourse to Intel and shall not be construed as a representation or warranty regarding the proper ECCN or HTS. Your company as an importer and/or exporter is responsible for determining the correct classification of your transaction.

210 Comments

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.

Ghost Recon Breakpoint also sees the 10700K match the 10900K and by extension the 9900K, 9700K and even the 8700K. Again, the 10700K was faster than the 3900X, but this time we're talking about just a 5% performance advantage at 1080p. 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. 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). It's time to make sense of the data. In one side, this is similar to what we saw with the Core i9-10900K. The 10700K simply can't match the value of the competing Ryzen parts in productivity applications. The Core i7-10700K is either on par with the 3700X for a massive 40% price premium or much slower than the 3900X for about the same price. 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.Looking at the average performance across the 7 games tested at 1080p, we see that the 10700K is basically identical to the 10900K and just a whisker faster than the 9900K. The 9700K is also very close in the average, but the 1% low performance was not up to par. Compared to the older Core i7-9700, the 10700 now enables HyperThreading and therefore in some applications a nice performance boost. The single core performance is quite similar. The 10th generation Core i7 "Comet Lake" desktop processor lineup consists of 8-core/16-thread processors, a doubling in thread count over the 9th generation Core i7 8-core/8-thread parts as the company enabled HyperThreading across the entire lineup. The Core i9 lineup is led by 10-core/20-thread parts; the Core i7 is 8-core/16-thread, the Core i5 6-cores/12-threads, and the Core i3 4-core/8-thread. 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 Processors that support 64-bit computing on Intel® architecture require an Intel 64 architecture-enabled BIOS.

Moving on to DaVinci Resolve Studio performance, the 10700K is 6% faster than the 9900K, allowing it to match the 3700X. That still saw it come in 9% slower than the 3900X, but that's not a huge difference, despite not being a great result. The margins were reduced at 1440p and now we see basically no difference in performance between the majority of the CPUs tested. 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) . When compared to the 3900X you're looking at a 7% improvement for the average frame rate and an 8% improvement in 1% low performance. That's a reasonable advantage for gaming.

Tần số turbo tối đa

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.

Jumping up to 1440p reduces the average frame rate and 1% low margin to just 5%, so while the 10700K is clearly faster for gaming, it's not that much faster and in most instances you won't notice the difference. Excellent for Gaming, But... 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. Performance in Gears Tactics also sees the 10700K match the 9900K and 10900K, pumping out 138 fps on average to make it 8% faster than the 3900X at 1080p. That margin is slightly reduced to 6% at 1440p, though the 1% low result is now identical, which means the gaming experience using either CPU will be indistinguishable. Code compilation performance sees the 10700K just edge ahead of the 9900K, making it slightly slower than the 3700X and a whopping 33% slower than the 3900X. So again performance is as expected, but when it comes to serious productivity work Intel appears outgunned by the competing Ryzen processors.

The processor has a 2.90 GHz base frequency and supports a 4.80 GHz single-core max turbo frequency. Intel® Iris® Xe Graphics only: to use the Intel® Iris® Xe brand, the system must be populated with 128-bit (dual channel) memory. Otherwise, use the Intel® UHD brand. Intel processor numbers are not a measure of performance. Processor numbers differentiate features within each processor family, not across different processor families. See http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers.html for details. We found that, in general, more cores do provide better performance in professional tools and when running multiple applications simultaneously.