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 i9-10900F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£400PassMark multi-core score:19663N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:5.2 GHzCPU socket:LGA1200TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i9-10900F Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i9-10900F
7.0/10

Overall score

Score
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User 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 56% of models
Score components

40%

6.5

Technical score

25%

6.5

Reviews score

15%

?

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

10%

9.2

User score

â–²Better than 56% 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 51% of models
Score components

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

â–²Better than 51%
6.5

Technical score

Technical score
6.5/ 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 61% of models
Score components

60%

7.3

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 61%
6.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 66% of models

6.5

Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
â–¼Worse than 66%
9.2

User score

User score
9.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 70% of models

80%

9.4

Rating

20%

8.6

Popularity

â–²Better than 70%
?

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 15% 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-i9-10900f
  • intel-core-i9-10900f
  • intel-core-i9-10900f
  • intel-core-i9-10900f
  • intel-core-i9-10900f
intel-core-i9-10900f
intel-core-i9-10900f
intel-core-i9-10900f
intel-core-i9-10900f
intel-core-i9-10900f
Best prices
*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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9-10900F

Technical score
Technical score
6.5/ 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 61% of models
Score components:

60%

7.3

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

6.5
Reviews score
6.5
User score
9.2
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 51% of models
Score components:

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

7.4
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
Intel 400 Series
This processor supports Intel 400 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 61.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% 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
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% 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
19,663
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 19,663 in PassMark, which is higher than 68.3% 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
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
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)
88 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 88 W which is higher than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
?
Show more

Intel Core i9-10900F 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
  • 71.4% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (19,663 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    19,663 vs 11,469
  • 61.1% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,390 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,390 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
  • 26.0% higher user score
    User score
    9.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
    How we count it
    Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
    Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 70% of models

    80%

    9.4

    Rating

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    9.2 vs 7.3
  • 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
  • 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
  • 71.4% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (19,663 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    19,663 vs 11,469
  • 61.1% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,390 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,390 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
  • 18.2% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,024 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,024 vs 2,558
  • 9.2% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,676 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,676 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 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
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS 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 vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 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
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 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
  • 60% more expensive
    Intel Core i9-10900F is more expensive than the average processor (£400 vs £250).
    £400 vs £250
  • 3.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 66% of models

    6.5

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    6.5 vs 6.7
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS 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 vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 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
  • 11.9% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (198 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    198 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
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 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
  • 37.5% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (88 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    88 W vs 64 W

Video reviews

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

7.0
Loki's Channel
≈ estimated
10/04/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks and gaming tests
Verdict
Intel Core i9-10900F is only worth it for multitasking, not gaming, given the price increase.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i9-10900F

  • A cooler is included, so no extra purchase is needed to start.
  • Ten physical cores and 20 threads handle multitasking well.
  • A 5.2 GHz boost clock keeps single tasks moving.
  • All ten cores are performance cores, so every thread runs at full speed.
  • A 20 MB L3 cache holds more data close to the cores.
  • A 65 W base power keeps the chip within a modest power budget.

What we don't like about Intel Core i9-10900F

  • No integrated graphics, so a graphics card is needed.
  • Memory tops out at 2933 MHz, which slows memory-heavy work.
  • PCIe 3.0 limits the speed of newer graphics cards and fast SSDs.
  • Memory capacity is capped at 128 GB.
  • Its premium price is hard to justify for an older platform.

Verdict

Built on the older Comet Lake design, the Intel Core i9-10900F is for a buyer with an existing DDR4 board who wants ten cores. It has ten physical cores and 20 threads, and the boost clock reaches 5.2 GHz. Its 20 MB of L3 cache keeps data close to the cores for heavy tasks. A cooler is in the box, so one less purchase is needed. Memory runs as DDR4 up to 2933 MHz, with room for 128 GB. The trade-offs are age and missing parts: the platform uses PCIe 3.0, the chip is built on 14 nm, and there is no integrated graphics. It suits a buyer who wants a ten-core desktop chip and does not need the newest platform.

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

No results found