Review Anandtech: Intel Core i7-10700 vs Core i7-10700K Review

[Heartbreaker]

A bit late, but nice to see rare review of the non-K version of this processor.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1634...e-i710700k-review-is-65w-comet-lake-an-option

TLDR: If you aren't overclocking, this has nearly identical performance to the K version.

I know some see that as a forgone conclusion. But I don't think the 10600 would do as well vs the 10600K.

The conclusions goes on the standard rant on the TDP. But I wish reviewers would shut up about this. Do you want Intel to start locking these to 65W?? The fact that you can run them at full power, and max out all core loads is what makes these CPUs worthwhile:

This means that users who buy the Core i7-10700 in this review, despite the 65 W rating on the box, will have to cater for a system that will not only peak around 215 W, but sustain that 215 W during any extended high-performance load, such as rendering or compute. We really wished Intel put this 215 W value on the box to help end-users determine their cooling, as without sufficient guidance, users could be hitting thermal limits without even knowing why. At this point, 'Intel Recommended Values' for turbo time and budget mean nothing outside of Intel's own OEM partners building commercial systems.

 

[blckgrffn]

Yeah, I think we aired a lot of opinions already here on this thread:

Question - Intel vs. AMD CPUs - out of the box POWER DRAW

I was surprised, after I read in the recent review, that if you place Intel CPU in the out of the box motherboard, it will draw over 200W instead of advertised 65W. I have a fresh experience with three different CPUs from the new AMD 5000 series, out of the box they run at their advertised...

forums.anandtech.com

For me, it's rather the lack of new information in the review and just the ever present issues with controlling a Intel CPU power usage (Did you enable "multicore enhancements" in the BIOS? Some mobo's use this as excuse to set PL2 duration to forever! super clear.) that make the article such a one shot - if he uses a different motherboard with defaults the results might be quite different. Seemingly huge YMMV on the data in the article.

That and the fact there is no exploration of what power usage is at 65W PL1 to compare what to expect from an OEM setup beyond "lower performance" it seems like somewhat wasted opportunity to add something to conversation.

 

[gdansk]

I think out of the box the motherboard vendors should try to keep them limited to reasonable power consumption. Intel should allow this as default behavior for K/F/KF models but not the regular models.

Obviously they are allowing it because it looks good in benchmarks and the chips are capable of it, so why not? Bit annoying that you have to pay attention if you want your CPU to operate as specified, however.

 

[UsandThem]

Yeah, that Anandech comparison / review arrived just a bit late. (I posted about TechPowerUp's comparison of the two back in July).

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/the-intel-i7-10700-not-k-review-techpowerup.2582978/

 

[jpiniero]

I think out of the box the motherboard vendors should try to keep them limited to reasonable power consumption. Intel should allow this as default behavior for K/F/KF models but not the regular models.

Obviously they are allowing it because it looks good in benchmarks and the chips are capable of it, so why not? Bit annoying that you have to pay attention if you want your CPU to operate as specified, however.

Board makers of Z boards are assuming that people buying those are either going to overclock or are okay with the PL2 being at max. OEMs don't use Z unless it's a gaming focused computer, they use H or Q.

Really what you are paying for with the 10700K versus the 10700 is the extra all core frequency you get from overclocking. Which on most chips you might get 5 Ghz all core without raising the voltage too much.