Custom PC - UK (2020-04)

Blender saw the biggest improvements from

overclocking, with the all-core boost frequencies receiving

big lifts. The Core i9-10900X’s time fell from 56 to 47

seconds, the Core i9-10920X’s time dropped from 49

seconds to 37 seconds, and the Core i9-10940X’s time went

from 42 seconds to 35 seconds. The latter was enough

to come within a second of the Ryzen 9 3950X, but the

Core i9-10920X was still a couple of seconds adrift. The

Core i9-10900X, meanwhile, was nowhere near close

enough to matching the Ryzen 9 3950X, being a long

way from worrying AMD’s mainstream Ryzen flagship.

Unfortunately, power consumption was already not one of

Intel’s strong points, and while overclocking the CPUs offered

sizeable gains, it also upped the power draw considerably.

Our test systems sat at load draws of between 345W and

378W at stock speed, but this increased to between 465W

and 576W once the chips overclocked. In comparison, AMD’s

Ryzen 9 3950X peaked at 340W when overclocked.

Conclusion

There’s quite a bit to discuss here, so let’s start with

the Core i9-10900X. Intel’s new 10-core CPU is now

the cheapest current option for entry to its HEDT

platform at just over £600 inc VAT, but there are two

big issues here. While the Ryzen 9 3950X isn’t strictly

a fair comparison, given that it costs £100 more, the

10900X is also completely outperformed by the

£150-cheaper Ryzen 9 3900X in most tests, and it only

starts to become competitive once it’s overclocked.

You should only consider this CPU if you really need

more PCI-E lanes and quad-channel memory support, as

the Ryzen 9 3900X offers far better value. Secondly, while

it’s a better option than the Threadripper 2950X, Intel’s

own Core i9-9900X is still readily available and offers

a cheaper 10-core entry option to the X299 platform.

The Core i9-10920X is slightly more interesting.

At £700 inc VAT, it has the same price as the Ryzen

9 3950X. However, even when overclocked, it

failed to match the AMD CPU in most tests,

only gaining an advantage in Far Cry 5. Our

benchmarks aren’t exhaustive, though,

and the Intel CPU could offer more of an

advantage in other game titles, and in

software such as Adobe Premiere Pro.

However, in our benchmarks

the AMD CPU is undoubtedly

the speed king. It’s important

to consider the mainstream

vs HEDT platform argument

here though. If you really

need those extra PCI-E lanes or

quad-channel memory support, it’s a better

option than 2nd-gen Threadripper, especially as the

Threadripper 2920X now appears to be off sale, and our

10920X sample managed a massive overclock too.

Finally, there’s the Core i9-10940X with its 14

cores and 28 threads. Had this CPU been released

a year ago at this price, Intel would be in a whole lot

less bother, and it wouldn’t have had to contend with

the Ryzen 9 3950X either. Running 14 cores at close

to 5GHz is still an impressive feat, but it’s only this

chip that can square up to the Ryzen 9 3950X.

Thankfully, the price difference between the two CPUs

when we went to press was only a little more than £100.

If you want a PC that hits those maximum frame rates

in all games with the grunt to deal with multi-threaded

workloads occasionally too, it’s a beast, and it will save

you close to £200 compared with the Core i9-10980XE.

Again, though, unless you need the extra PCI-E

lanes and memory channels, the AMD CPU is still a

better buy. You also need to overclock the 10940X

to make it worthwhile, and it’s worth remembering

that Intel’s LGA2066 socket may not have much

of an upgrade path beyond Cascade Lake-X.

ANTONY LEATHER

VERDICT  INTEL CORE i910940X

It’s no Core i9-10980XE, but it nearly matches AMD’s

3950X in content creation and is faster in games.

VERDICT  INTEL CORE i910920X

A reasonable CPU for the cash, especially if you want

quad-channel memory, but it’s still lacking compared with

AMD’s Ryzen 9 3950X.

VERDICT  INTEL CORE i910900X

Not fast or powerful enough to compete with AMD’s

latest mainstream CPUs.

OVERALL SCORE

83 %

PERFORMANCE

41 / 50

FEATURES

15 / 15

VALUE

27 / 35

Intel Core

i9-10940X

OVERALL SCORE

80 %

PERFORMANCE

39 / 50

FEATURES

15 / 15

VALUE

26 / 35

Intel Core

i9-10920X

OVERALL SCORE

73 %

PERFORMANCE

36 / 50

FEATURES

15 / 15

VALUE

22 / 35

Intel Core

i9-10900X

cu

stom PC

ccuu

ssstommPPCC

AP

PROVED

Intel Core i9-10940X

enender saw the biggest improvements fromdersawthebiggestimprovementsfrom

The Core i9- 9 1092 0X

At £700 incc VAT, i t ha

9 3950X..Howeve

failed to matcho th

onlyggaining an

benchmarn ks

anadthe Int

advantag

softwa

Ho

the

t

h

needtho

quad-channelm

option than 2nnd-gen Th

Threadripper 2922 0X now ap

10920X sample mam naged a

Finally, there’stheCore i

cocores and 28 thrres d Hdt

Core i9-10940X

c

us

tom P

C

cc

uuss

stommPP

CC

A

P

PR

OV

E

D

Ble ersawthebiggestimprovementsfro
overclocking,withtheall-coreboostfrequenciesreceiving
big lifts. The Core i9-10900X’s time fell from 56 to 47
seconds, the Core i9-10920X’s time dropped from 49
seconds to 37 seconds, and the Core i9-10940X’s time went
from 42 seconds to 35 seconds. The latter was enough
to come within a second of the Ryzen 9 3950X, but the
Core i9-10920X was still a couple of seconds adrift. The
Core i9-10900X, meanwhile, was nowhere near close
enough to matching the Ryzen 9 3950X, being a long
way from worrying AMD’s mainstream Ryzen flagship.
Unfortunately, power consumption was already not one of
Intel’s strong points, and while overclocking the CPUs offered
sizeable gains, it also upped the power draw considerably.
Our test systems sat at load draws of between 345W and
378W at stock speed, but this increased to between 465W
and 576W once the chips overclocked. In comparison, AMD’s
Ryzen 9 3950X peaked at 340W when overclocked.

Conclusion
There’s quite a bit to discuss here, so let’s start with
the Core i9-10900X. Intel’s new 10-core CPU is now
the cheapest current option for entry to its HEDT
platform at just over £600 inc VAT, but there are two
big issues here. While the Ryzen 9 3950X isn’t strictly
a fair comparison, given that it costs £100 more, the
10900X is also completely outperformed by the
£150-cheaper Ryzen 9 3900X in most tests, and it only
starts to become competitive once it’s overclocked.
You should only consider this CPU if you really need
more PCI-E lanes and quad-channel memory support, as
the Ryzen 9 3900X offers far better value. Secondly, while
it’s a better option than the Threadripper 2950X, Intel’s
own Core i9-9900X is still readily available and offers
a cheaper 10-core entry option to the X299 platform.

X is slightly more interesting.

s the same price as the Ryzen

r, even when overclocked, it

heAMD CPU in most tests,

n advantage in Far Cry 5. Our

s aren’t exhaustive, though,

telCPU could offer more of an

geinother game titles, and in

aresuch as Adobe Premiere Pro.

owever, in our benchmarks

e AMD CPU is undoubtedly

thespeed king. It’s important

toconsider the mainstream

vsHEDT platform argument

herethough. If you really

oseextra PCI-E lanes or

memory support, it’s a better

readripper, especially as the

ppears to be off sale, and our

a massive overclock too.

9-10940X with its 14

oresand 28 threads.HadthisCPU been released

a yearagoatthisprice,Intelwould be in a whole lot

less bother, and it wouldn’t have had to contend with

the Ryzen 9 3950X either. Running 14 cores at close

to 5GHz is still an impressive feat, but it’s only this

chip that can square up to the Ryzen 9 3950X.

Thankfully, the price difference between the two CPUs

when we went to press was only a little more than £100.

If you want a PC that hits those maximum frame rates

in all games with the grunt to deal with multi-threaded

workloads occasionally too, it’s a beast, and it will save

you close to £200 compared with the Core i9-10980XE.

Again, though, unless you need the extra PCI-E

lanes and memory channels, the AMD CPU is still a

better buy. You also need to overclock the 10940X

to make it worthwhile, and it’s worth remembering

that Intel’s LGA2066 socket may not have much

of an upgrade path beyond Cascade Lake-X.

ANTONY LEATHER

VERDICT  INTEL CORE i910940X

It’s no Core i9-10980XE, but it nearly matches AMD’s

3950X in content creation and is faster in games.

VERDICT  INTEL CORE i910920X

A reasonable CPU for the cash, especially if you want

quad-channel memory, but it’s still lacking compared with

AMD’s Ryzen 9 3950X.

VERDICT  INTEL CORE i910900X

Not fast or powerful enough to compete with AMD’s

latest mainstream CPUs.

OVERALLSCORE

83 %

PERFORMANCE

41 / 50

FEATURES

15 / 15

VALUE

27 / 35

IntelCore

i9-10940X

OVERALLSCORE

80 %

PERFORMANCE

39 / 50

FEATURES

15 / 15

VALUE

26 / 35

IntelCore

i9-10920X

OVERALLSCORE

73 %

PERFORMANCE

36 / 50

FEATURES

15 / 15

VALUE

22 / 35

Intel Core

i9-10900X

ccuu

sstommPPCC

AP

PROVED

IntelC

ennder saw the biggest improvements fromdersawthebiggestimprovementsfrom

TheCorei9- 91092 0X

At£700incVAT,i tha

9 3950X.Howeve

failedto matcho th

onlyggainingan

benchmarn ks

andthe Int

advantag

softwa

Ho

the

t

h

needtho

quad-channelm

optionthan2nnd-genTh

Threadripper 292 0Xnowa

10920Xsamplemam nageda

Finally,there’stheCorei

ccores and 28 thr d H dt

Core i9-10940X

cc

uuss

tommPP

CC

A

P

PR

OV

E

D