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 i9-10900E review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£410PassMark multi-core score:18785N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:4.7 GHzCPU socket:LGA1200TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

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

6.9/10

Overall score

Score
6.9/ 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 57% of models
Score components

40%

6.4

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

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 57% of processors
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 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 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.9

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

â–²Better than 54%
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 58% of models
Score components

60%

6.9

Performance

18%

4.2

Architecture

10%

6.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 58%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £410
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
    Loading category ranking...

    Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9-10900E

    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 58% of models
    Score components:

    60%

    6.9

    Performance

    18%

    4.2

    Architecture

    10%

    6.0

    Memory & PCIe

    7%

    6.8

    Power & Thermal

    4%

    7.9

    Platform

    1%

    7.1

    Integrated graphics

    6.4
    Reviews score
    7.2
    List score
    ?
    Value for money
    Value for money
    7.4/ 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 54% of models
    Score components:

    70%

    6.9

    Overall score

    30%

    8.4

    Price

    7.4
    Processor type
    embedded
    This processor belongs to the embedded processor class, which is less advanced than that of 93.1% of processors and equal to that of 6.9% of processors.
    industrial/edge
    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, B560, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q570
    This processor supports Z590, B560, Z490, H470, B460, H410, Q570 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 63.6% 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
    This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.4% 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
    4.7 GHz
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.7 GHz which is higher than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 4% 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
    18,785
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor scores 18,785 in PassMark, which is higher than 66.4% 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)
    ?
    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), VC-1
    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)
    ?
    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
    yes
    This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
    Show more

    Intel Core i9-10900E 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
    • 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
    • 63.8% higher PassMark score
      This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,785 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
      18,785 vs 11,469
    • 56.7% higher multi-core score
      This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,162 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
      8,162 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
    • Supports memory overclocking
      This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
    • 6.8% higher boost clock
      This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
      4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
    • Modern CPU socket
      This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
      LGA1200 vs FP5
    • 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
    • 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
    • 63.8% higher PassMark score
      This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (18,785 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
      18,785 vs 11,469
    • 56.7% higher multi-core score
      This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,162 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
      8,162 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
    • 6.8% higher boost clock
      This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
      4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
    • 13.1% better single-core performance
      This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,894 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
      2,894 vs 2,558
    • More advanced Turbo Core
      This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
      Intel Turbo Boost Max 3
      3 vs 2
    • 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
    • Less advanced microarchitecture
      This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
      Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
    • 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), VC-1 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), VC-1 vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
    • 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
    • Weaker security extensions
      This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
      AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
    • Narrower instruction support
      This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
      MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
    • 10% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
      This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (441 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
      441 vs 490
    • 64% more expensive
      Intel Core i9-10900E is more expensive than the average processor (£410 vs £250).
      £410 vs £250
    • Weaker security extensions
      This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
      AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
    • Narrower instruction support
      This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
      MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
    • More limited crypto acceleration
      This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
      AES vs AES, SHA
    • 10% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
      This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (441 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
      441 vs 490
    • 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 (206.1 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
      206.1 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), VC-1 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), VC-1 vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
    • 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

    Third-party reviews

    What customers like about Intel Core i9-10900E

    • High core count with 10 cores and 20 threads for strong multitasking performance.
    • Competitive multi-threaded performance, notably faster than the i9-10900T variant.
    • Integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 allows for operation without a dedicated GPU.
    • Lower 65W TDP makes it more suitable for thermally constrained or embedded environments compared to 'K' series models.
    • Includes support for Intel Turbo Boost Max 3.0 and Thermal Velocity Boost technologies.

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

    • Locked multiplier prevents traditional overclocking, limiting performance gains for enthusiasts.
    • Lower base clock (2.8 GHz) compared to the unlocked i9-10900K.
    • Default 65W power limit can 'throttle' or restrict performance under heavy, sustained workloads.
    • No support for PCIe Gen 4.0, which was a standard feature on competing AMD chips of that era.
    • Some users report high operating temperatures even with liquid cooling under specific workloads.
    • Lacks ECC memory support, which may be a drawback for certain workstation or server applications.

    Verdict

    The Intel Core i9-10900E is a 10th-generation Comet Lake processor designed for embedded systems, featuring 10 cores and 20 threads with a base frequency of 2.80 GHz and a maximum turbo frequency of 4.70 GHz. Built on 14nm lithography with a 65W TDP, it includes 20 MB of Intel Smart Cache, supports up to 128 GB of dual-channel DDR4-2933 memory, and integrates Intel UHD Graphics 630. Its primary advantages include high multi-threaded performance for heavy multitasking and energy efficiency suitable for thermal-constrained environments. However, its main drawbacks are the locked multiplier which prevents overclocking, a lower peak clock speed compared to the enthusiast-grade i9-10900K, and reliance on the older PCIe 3.0 standard.

    Compare Intel Core i9-10900E 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 i9-10900E and other processors

    No results found