10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU

Post by zrm » Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #6

leetcrew wrote: post #3

this doesn't quite pass the smell test. I can't quite tell if there's a way to filter out results from overclocked parts in geekbench, but it looks like these results for the i9-10900F are significantly lower than typical results for a stock i9-9900K. hard to believe they would do worse on the same process with more cores.

It also doesn't pass the smell test in that the single core performance is higher than the Ryzen 4900 and it also has both more cores and more threads yet it is far behind on multicore performance? Likely some thread affinity issue that just needs a patch.

Post by charwalker » Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 4:21 PM UTC

Tempest1981 wrote: post #10

piinbinary wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is worth noting that this is the i9-10900F, not the i9-10900k (thank you, Intel, for the lovely naming scheme). I'd expect the -k variant to be at least as fast as the i9-9900k.

Also, 9900 was much easier to say... how do you pronounce 10900? "Ten-thousand-nine-hundred"? Feels tortured. "Ten-nine-hundred"? Yeesh.

Post by taikawatiti » Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

Tempest1981 wrote: post #10

piinbinary wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is worth noting that this is the i9-10900F, not the i9-10900k (thank you, Intel, for the lovely naming scheme). I'd expect the -k variant to be at least as fast as the i9-9900k.

Also, 9900 was much easier to say... how do you pronounce 10900? "Ten-thousand-nine-hundred"? Feels tortured. "Ten-nine-hundred"? Yeesh.

Post by leetcrew » Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 4:47 PM UTC

piinbinary wrote: post #4

leetcrew wrote: post #3

this doesn't quite pass the smell test. I can't quite tell if there's a way to filter out results from overclocked parts in geekbench, but it looks like these results for the i9-10900F are significantly lower than typical results for a stock i9-9900K. hard to believe they would do worse on the same process with more cores.

It is worth noting that this is the i9-10900F, not the i9-10900k (thank you, Intel, for the lovely naming scheme). I'd expect the -k variant to be at least as fast as the i9-9900k.

Post by hajhatten » Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #16

I'm really hoping apple puts these AMD mobile chips in their next MacBook Pro. At the moment I'm not seeing much reason to upgrade from my 2015 model, but if I could have 8 cores, that would a different matter...