Intel Core i7-10700 vs Core i7-10700K Review: Is 65W Comet Lake an Option?
by Dr. Ian Cutress on January 21, 2021 10:30 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Core i7
- Z490
- 10th Gen Core
- Comet Lake
- i7-10700K
- i7-10700
CPU Tests: Encoding
One of the interesting elements on modern processors is encoding performance. This covers two main areas: encryption/decryption for secure data transfer, and video transcoding from one video format to another.
In the encrypt/decrypt scenario, how data is transferred and by what mechanism is pertinent to on-the-fly encryption of sensitive data - a process by which more modern devices are leaning to for software security.
Video transcoding as a tool to adjust the quality, file size and resolution of a video file has boomed in recent years, such as providing the optimum video for devices before consumption, or for game streamers who are wanting to upload the output from their video camera in real-time. As we move into live 3D video, this task will only get more strenuous, and it turns out that the performance of certain algorithms is a function of the input/output of the content.
HandBrake 1.32: Link
Video transcoding (both encode and decode) is a hot topic in performance metrics as more and more content is being created. First consideration is the standard in which the video is encoded, which can be lossless or lossy, trade performance for file-size, trade quality for file-size, or all of the above can increase encoding rates to help accelerate decoding rates. Alongside Google's favorite codecs, VP9 and AV1, there are others that are prominent: H264, the older codec, is practically everywhere and is designed to be optimized for 1080p video, and HEVC (or H.265) that is aimed to provide the same quality as H264 but at a lower file-size (or better quality for the same size). HEVC is important as 4K is streamed over the air, meaning less bits need to be transferred for the same quality content. There are other codecs coming to market designed for specific use cases all the time.
Handbrake is a favored tool for transcoding, with the later versions using copious amounts of newer APIs to take advantage of co-processors, like GPUs. It is available on Windows via an interface or can be accessed through the command-line, with the latter making our testing easier, with a redirection operator for the console output.
We take the compiled version of this 16-minute YouTube video about Russian CPUs at 1080p30 h264 and convert into three different files: (1) 480p30 ‘Discord’, (2) 720p30 ‘YouTube’, and (3) 4K60 HEVC.
7-Zip 1900: Link
The first compression benchmark tool we use is the open-source 7-zip, which typically offers good scaling across multiple cores. 7-zip is the compression tool most cited by readers as one they would rather see benchmarks on, and the program includes a built-in benchmark tool for both compression and decompression.
The tool can either be run from inside the software or through the command line. We take the latter route as it is easier to automate, obtain results, and put through our process. The command line flags available offer an option for repeated runs, and the output provides the average automatically through the console. We direct this output into a text file and regex the required values for compression, decompression, and a combined score.
AES Encoding
Algorithms using AES coding have spread far and wide as a ubiquitous tool for encryption. Again, this is another CPU limited test, and modern CPUs have special AES pathways to accelerate their performance. We often see scaling in both frequency and cores with this benchmark. We use the latest version of TrueCrypt and run its benchmark mode over 1GB of in-DRAM data. Results shown are the GB/s average of encryption and decryption.
WinRAR 5.90: Link
For the 2020 test suite, we move to the latest version of WinRAR in our compression test. WinRAR in some quarters is more user friendly that 7-Zip, hence its inclusion. Rather than use a benchmark mode as we did with 7-Zip, here we take a set of files representative of a generic stack
- 33 video files , each 30 seconds, in 1.37 GB,
- 2834 smaller website files in 370 folders in 150 MB,
- 100 Beat Saber music tracks and input files, for 451 MB
This is a mixture of compressible and incompressible formats. The results shown are the time taken to encode the file. Due to DRAM caching, we run the test for 20 minutes times and take the average of the last five runs when the benchmark is in a steady state.
For automation, we use AHK’s internal timing tools from initiating the workload until the window closes signifying the end. This means the results are contained within AHK, with an average of the last 5 results being easy enough to calculate.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
210 Comments
View All Comments
HarkPtooie - Saturday, January 30, 2021 - link
Noteworthy points:It is an i7-10700F
On a Gigabyte B460M
Populated with 4x16 GB DDR-3000
With an ancient Quadro K2000 and an NVMe SSD.
Hyperthreading is disabled.
I use it for running FEA simulations aside my Ryzen workstation, and it performs like a champ. The cheap&old wattmeter hoovers around 157 W or so during simulations. 100% CPU load.
So I take it that if I got the Z490, the CPU would draw 60W more. Would it go faster?
Qasar - Saturday, January 30, 2021 - link
as Spunjji said Harkptooie, practically every review out there, says the opposite of what you are.so, who is correct then ?
HarkPtooie - Sunday, January 31, 2021 - link
Oh, they do? Be a sport and link me to all those reviews.TechPowerUp puts it at 2W above the 3700X at stress test.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-1...
Annnnd... that's it. The rest I find are all "compare" sites listing numbers culled from manufacturer sites.
And here comes Anandtech and tells me that my eyes are deceiving me and that my CPU is actually pulling twice as much as I am observing.
The explanation of which would be that better mobos have a power setting that allows it to draw much more than default, with no obvious benefits? I don't get it.
Everett F Sargent - Sunday, January 31, 2021 - link
Well, now you are almost there. Wherever there is. that is.Watts (power) * Time (seconds) = Energy (e. g. kWh) used
Power (W) versus frequency (Hz) is highly nonlinear (concave up and more so the closer you get to the redline). Your cooling solution can only dissipate so much power per unit time in 247 continuous operation, at a low enough core temperature.
This is all really basic stuff.
So, it will take longer to complete a fixed task at 125W then that same fixed task at 250W (all other things being equal), wherein the first task is running at 4GHz and the 2nd task is running at 5Ghz. These are only example numbers btw.
That TechPowerUp review has plenty of fixed task benchmarks (on the other pages) wherein the total time (in seconds) is given. You might want to check out those pages also.
They use four settings on a Z490 MB. The one that is closest to the out-of-box MB tests mentioned here is their "The third data point (blue bar) sees us relaxing the power limits to enable the maximum turbo frequency available for this processor." or what those bar charts are labeled as "Core i7-10700 Max Turbo" ...
It is a real shame that more sites don't do thorough enough reviews. So, for example, on this review on the 2nd page ...
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16343/10700KInte...
That is a fixed time test and not a fixed task test. That should have been explained in this review.
Maybe this site will do better next time, by using a low end out-of-the-box MB in addition to their high end out-of-the-box Z490 MB. Report frequency, power, energy and time for all tests/tasks. Use proper recording of all these to get a more complete picture of what the heck is going on (time series and integrals thereof even).
My formal and informal (or on the job) training in doing scientific experiments goes back almost fifty years now. Not that that means anything on the internet. :/
Qasar - Sunday, January 31, 2021 - link
HarkPtooie toms hardware, gamers nexus, redgamingtech, moores law is dead. all pretty much say intel uses more power then amd. in some cases, quite a bit more.so either you have your system set up differently, and are forcing it to use the power it does, and the rest, let the board run as it see's fit, as you said : The explanation of which would be that better mobos have a power setting that allows it to draw much more than default, with no obvious benefits? I don't get it. " actually there is a benefit, when intel's cpus are allowed to use as much power as it can and wants, the performance goes up.
but what ever, you believe what you want.
HarkPtooie - Monday, February 1, 2021 - link
Yes, they do - but they do not say that the i7-10700 non-K uses twice the power of an equivalent Ryzen. That is exclusive to this article, and the explanation is that here they use "boost max all the time" BIOS settings that are not quite the nominal default for this CPU.This is overclocking.
Personally I turn it around and think "I am impressed at the performance Intel managed to squeeze out of this CPU at this power level, considering the process node disadvantage".
I am no fanboy. I usually buy AMD because bang/buck. This time I needed AVX-2 without having to tinker with experimental settings, which is the case with AMD+ANSYS.
HarkPtooie - Monday, February 1, 2021 - link
Ah - so the thing is that my CPU runs default as Intel intended it out of the box, whereas this review uses special motherboard settings that overdrives into a "use any power you need" zone where the max turbo runs all the time?Okay. That would explain things.
That Intel uses more power than AMD is not surprising since there is a substantial difference between 10 nm and 7 nm. And I am well aware that they cheat the numbers to look better - but that does not change the fact that nominally my 10700 draws about as much as my 3700X - and performs more or less equally. A bit faster single-thread, a bit slower multi-thread.
What this review amounts to is "If you reach inside your system and boost the shit out of your i7, it draws much more power than Ryzen." - why not go all the way and overclock them to 6 GHz and shriek about how the Intel draws 800W while the AMD only needs 600W?
Everett F Sargent - Monday, January 25, 2021 - link
What MB are you using and/or can you set PL!/PL2 in your BIOS settings? The article is suggesting that on higher end MB's, or some such, the PL1/PL2 settings are set to infinity or can be changed in the BIOS settings (even on a non-K CPU). PL1 is 125W so it appears that your MB has that limit.Everett F Sargent - Monday, January 25, 2021 - link
OK, made a mistake, the i7-10700 has a PL1 value of 65W and a PL2 of 224W and a PL1 Tau of 28s (those appear to be nominal or default values). Still curious as to the MB and accessible BIOS settings. Also is there any system software to see these settings (e. g. like AIDA64). TIAHarkPtooie - Tuesday, January 26, 2021 - link
I did not set any PL. The systems are default except for the RAM speed with is set by XMP to 3000 and 3200 MHz respectively.Should I interpret it as "during certain settings, the i7 can be made to consume vastly more power than it does by default"? That seems contrived.
All I know is that their power consumptions as measured for the whole system are roughly on par during conditions where incidentally the i7 also outperforms the Ryzen in single-thread applications. It is not a bad CPU.