276°
Posted 20 hours ago

Intel Core i7-10700 Desktop Processor 8 Cores up to 4.8 GHz LGA 1200 (Intel 400 Series Chipset) 65W, BX8070110700

£9.9£99Clearance
ZTS2023's avatar
Shared by
ZTS2023
Joined in 2023
82
63

About this deal

The Core i7-10700 and Core i7-10700K are both members of Intel’s 10 th Generation ‘Comet Lake’ Core i7 family. This means they are based on Intel’s latest 14nm process variant (14+++, we think, Intel stopped telling us outright), but are essentially power and frequency optimized versions of Intel’s 6 th Generation Skylake Core, except we get eight cores rather than four. Intel 10th Gen Comet Lake

Intel classifications are for general, educational and planning purposes only and consist of Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCN) and Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) numbers. Any use made of Intel classifications are without recourse to Intel and shall not be construed as a representation or warranty regarding the proper ECCN or HTS. Your company as an importer and/or exporter is responsible for determining the correct classification of your transaction. When looking at single core performance we see that while the 10700K is very strong, it's not exceptional, basically matching the 9900K, 3700X and 3900X. Looking at the average performance across the 7 games tested at 1080p, we see that the 10700K is basically identical to the 10900K and just a whisker faster than the 9900K. The 9700K is also very close in the average, but the 1% low performance was not up to par. The chip is manufactured on 14nm++ process at Intel. The TDP is rated at 65 Watt (PL1) but the PL2 is set to 224 Watt for short term boosts (up to 28 seconds). The V-Ray performance is very typical of what we've seen so far. Here the 10700K is 4% faster than the 9900K and that meant it was almost 30% slower than the Ryzen 9 3900X.

In Shadow of the Tomb Raider the 10700K was just a few frames off the pace of the 10900K and about 6% faster than the 3900X. Moving to 1440p we find that the 10700K is no faster than the 3900X, 3950X and 10900K, all delivering virtually identical performance.

System and Maximum TDP is based on worst case scenarios. Actual TDP may be lower if not all I/Os for chipsets are used.

Intel® Software Guard Extensions (Intel® SGX)

The understanding of the way that Intel references its TDP (thermal design point) values has gone through a mini-revolution in the last few years. We have had an almost-decade of quad-core processors at around 90 W and 65 W, and most of them would never reached these numberseven under turbo modes - for example, the Core i5-6600K was rated at 91 W, but peak power draw was only 83 W. This has been the norm for a while, until recently when Intel had to start boosting the core count. As we have slowly gone up in core count, from 4 to 6 to 8 and now 10, these numbers have seemed almost arbitrary for a while. As usual we'll start with Cinebench R20 multi-core and here we see that the 10700K is indeed able to match the 9900K, with a score of 4985 pts. The 2% increase we see is within the margin of error, even for our 3 run average. The goal of this review was initially just to benchmark the Core i7-10700 and see where it fits into the market. As our testing results came into focus, it was clear that we had an interesting comparison on our hands against the Core i7-10700K, which we have also tested. In this review the focus will be on the difference between the two, focusing primarily on where the i7-10700 lands compared to the competition, and perhaps some of the complexities involved. Test Setup

Asda Great Deal

Free UK shipping. 15 day free returns.
Community Updates
*So you can easily identify outgoing links on our site, we've marked them with an "*" symbol. Links on our site are monetised, but this never affects which deals get posted. Find more info in our FAQs and About Us page.
New Comment