Since Intel explicitly advertises the Core i9-10900K as a gaming CPU, I first measured something in gaming. We still remember the two comparisons of 720p and 1080p. I took this a bit further and measured 720p with three different quality settings, as well as 1080p, 1440p and 2160p with maximum quality and power consumption at the same time.
If you put the average values on a bar, you’ll also see that the Core i9-10900K doesn’t swallow as much in the GPU limit under Ultra-HD as it does in the fully unleashed frame tornado on 720p. At first glance, you might even find this really good, but…
…if you convert this to FPS per Watt, the 720p version is almost twice as efficient! With increasing GPU load the power consumption decreases significantly, but the “efficiency” decreases with it. But this effect affects all CPUs – more or less and it also occupies the “background noise”, which such a CPU always produces on the power supply.
The next graphic shows very clearly why I have invested so much time in all the real-world applications. The first five entries up to and including Creo 3D only load 4 cores or less. So the generated maximum of 41 watts is a good indication that the Core i9-10900K can be quite economical, if not all pots are hanging on the injector. However, if you let all 10 cores run free, it almost becomes malicious. The maximum 255 watts are only briefly reached, as Intel itself has communicated, despite chillers and bad intentions to top this. This only works when you manually put your hand on it, but do you want to do that at all?
Finally, I have summarized the countless power consumption measurements once again and compared them with the values of the Ryzen 9 3900X. What Intel really has under control and what AMD still has to work on with the large desktop CPUs is the power consumption in idle. There really are worlds in between here. The i9-10900K also clearly has the edge in normal construction or drawing everyday life and this edge only ends when you start playing. And it reverses itself the more strongly to the backlog, the more cores are really used to capacity.
This humid and happy power-drinking binge culminates in the 253 watts already mentioned, whereby this is a rather short pleasure. But you can easily squeeze 215 and more out of the i9-10900K, as long as the cooling plays along. If you then look at e.g. Blender, the picture is rather disastrous, because the i9-10900K even needs 47 watts more power than the Ryzen 9 3900X for the slightly worse render time. This explains why Intel promotes this CPU so much for gaming, whereas you have to stay fair and can find many applications where it still performs well even in the semi-professional sector.
.
The area of video-encoding I even deliberately left out at the end, especially since NvEnc on the GeForce RTX will soon outstrip the classic CPU-encoding. You don’t have to heat up the environment, even if it can be done more efficiently.
You don’t have to write much more to the power consumption, because even Intel knows the strengths and weaknesses of this CPU only too well. You don’t have to be gloating by using more negative examples, but rather concentrate on what is at least approximately equivalent. However, these are scenarios where you don’t really need a 10-core. Find the contradiction…
- 1 - Introduction and test setup
- 2 - Graphic benchmarks: Gaming
- 3 - Graphic benchmarks: Workstation Real-Time 3D
- 4 - Graphic benchmarks: Workstation Composite
- 5 - CPU benchmarks: Composite und I/O
- 6 - CPU benchmarks: Rendering
- 7 - CPU benchmarks: Compute and HPC
- 8 - Power Consumption
- 9 - Summary and Conclusion
Kommentieren