OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i9-10900 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£380PassMark multi-core score:19096N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:5.2 GHzCPU socket:LGA1200TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i9-10900 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i9-10900
7.1/10

Overall score

Score
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 63% of models
Score components

40%

6.4

Technical score

25%

7.9

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 63% of processors
7.5

Value for money

Value for money
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

â–²Better than 60%
6.4

Technical score

Technical score
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 59% of models
Score components

60%

7.0

Performance

18%

4.2

Architecture

10%

5.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

7.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 59%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 66% of models

80%

8.0

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 66%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-i9-10900
  • intel-core-i9-10900
  • intel-core-i9-10900
  • intel-core-i9-10900
  • intel-core-i9-10900
  • intel-core-i9-10900
intel-core-i9-10900
intel-core-i9-10900
intel-core-i9-10900
intel-core-i9-10900
intel-core-i9-10900
intel-core-i9-10900
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i9-10900

Based on 2 · 1

Reviewers agree gaming performance is excellent, with no one voicing complaints.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9-10900

Technical score
Technical score
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 59% of models
Score components:

60%

7.0

Performance

18%

4.2

Architecture

10%

5.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

7.0

Integrated graphics

6.4
Reviews score
7.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

7.5
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1200
This processor uses the LGA1200 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 5.2% of processors.
Chipset
Z590, H570, B560, H510, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, Q570
This processor supports Z590, H570, B560, H510, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q470, Q570 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 77.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
10
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 10 CPU cores, which is more than 75.2% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
20
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 20 CPU threads, which is more than 84.3% of processors and equal to 5% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.2 GHz which is higher than that of 88.9% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
10x 2.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 10x2.8 GHz which is higher than that of 80.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
19,096
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 19,096 in PassMark, which is higher than 67.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
20 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 20 MB which is larger than that of 78.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
L2 cache
2.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2.5 MB which is smaller than that of 51.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
L1 cache
640 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 640 KB which is larger than that of 73.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is lower than that of 50.3% of processors and equal to 5.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2933 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2933 MHz, which is lower than that of 54% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
2,933 MHz
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is higher than that of 90.5% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 630
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 45.6% of processors and equal to that in 8% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.7% of processors and equal to that of 25.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 79.1% of processors and equal to 0.7% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
224 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 224 W which is higher than that of 94.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i9-10900 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 6 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (10 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    10 vs 4
  • 12 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 18.2% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 66.5% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (19,096 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    19,096 vs 11,469
  • 62.1% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,443 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,443 vs 5,209
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (10x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    10x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 66% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
    LGA1200 vs FP5
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 6 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (10 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    10 vs 4
  • 12 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 18.2% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 4 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 66.5% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (19,096 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    19,096 vs 11,469
  • 62.1% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,443 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,443 vs 5,209
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (10x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    10x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 16.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,988 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,988 vs 2,558
  • 11.5% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,712 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,712 vs 1,535
  • 8% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (529 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    529 vs 490
  • 2.22x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (20 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    20 MB vs 9 MB
  • 66.7% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (640 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    640 KB vs 384 KB
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 3.5x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (224 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    224 W vs 64 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 16.4% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (206 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    206 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 52% more expensive
    Intel Core i9-10900 is more expensive than the average processor (£380 vs £250).
    £380 vs £250
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 16.4% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (206 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    206 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 3.5x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (224 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    224 W vs 64 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
PC Games Hardware
≈ estimated
19/08/2020
Hands-on review · gaming and application benchmarks · power and warranty
Verdict
Intel Core i9-10900 is a good alternative to the 10900K for similar performance, if power limits are unlocked.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
13/07/2020
Review · Power-limit testing
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10900 is a 10-core/20-thread chip that slows down at its default 65W limit, but it performs well once power limits are removed.
7.7
pcgameshardware.de
✓ explicit
19/08/2020
Benchmark test · Gaming focus
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-10900 is a gaming-focused chip that nearly matches the 10900K in games at a lower power limit, but falls well behind in applications.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i9-10900

  • Excellent gaming performance with high boost clocks
  • Effective 10-core/20-thread multitasking for heavy workloads
  • Significant performance gains (up to 40%) when power limits are lifted
  • Includes a stock heatsink and integrated graphics
  • Ideal for small form factor (ITX) builds due to lower default power draw
  • Features Thermal Velocity Boost up to 5.2 GHz without manual overclocking

What customers don't like about Intel Core i9-10900

  • Default 65W TDP significantly limits potential performance 'out of the box'
  • Becomes very hot and power-hungry when power limits are removed
  • Multiplier is locked, preventing traditional overclocking
  • Stock cooler is often considered inadequate for sustained heavy loads
  • Lacks support for PCIe Gen 4, which was available on contemporary AMD alternatives
  • Poor value at stock settings compared to the unlocked i7-10700K or Ryzen 9 3900X

Verdict

The Intel Core i9-10900 is a 10th Gen 'Comet Lake' desktop processor featuring 10 cores and 20 threads, built on a 14nm process for the LGA 1200 socket. It operates at a 2.8 GHz base frequency and can reach a maximum turbo boost of 5.2 GHz via Intel Thermal Velocity Boost, supported by 20 MB of Intel Smart Cache and a 65W TDP. Main pros include its high core count for excellent multitasking, strong single-core performance for gaming, and the inclusion of a bundled thermal solution. However, notable cons include its locked multiplier which prevents traditional overclocking, reliance on an older 14nm architecture compared to competitors, and the requirement for a 400-series chipset motherboard.

Compare Intel Core i9-10900 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i9-10900 and other processors

No results found