Now that the Core i9-10900T has been leaked, it's the Core i5-10500T and Core i7-10700T's turn to shine. Thanks to @TUM_APISAK's most recent findings, the potential specifications for the two looming Comet Lake desktop processors are out there for everyone to see.
In terms of specifications, Intel's T-series chips are very close copies of their regular counterparts. The processors feature the same core count and cache capacity, but because Intel optimizes the chips for low power applications, they come with lower clock speeds.
Traditionally, the T-series processors conform to a 35W TDP (thermal design power) rating. Mind you, that value corresponds to the chip's PL1 (power level 1), which Intel measures when the processor is operating at base clock speed. The PL2 (power level 2) value, which the processor's peak power draw at the Turbo Boost frequency, is the one that Intel doesn't advertise.
As with any unreleased hardware, it's healthy to take the specifications with a bit of salt. There is no guarantee that the utility is always reporting the correct values, and early engineering samples can be deceptive. With that in mind, let's look at what the Core i5-10500T and Core i7-10700T could offer consumers.
View Original
View Original
The Core i5-10500T rocks six cores, 12 threads and a 12MB L3 cache. The hexa-core part seemingly ticks with a 2.3 GHz base clock and 3.81 GHz boost clock. SiSoftware detects the Core i5-10500T with a peak power draw of 93W.
The Core i7-10700T, on the other hand, flexes eight cores, 16 threads and 16MB of L3 cache. The Core i7-10700T allegedly runs at a 2GHz base clock and 4.38 GHz boost. SiSoftware has the octa-core chip with a maximum power consumption of 123W, which surprisingly falls in line with the Core i9-10900T.
The Core i5-10500T and Core i7-10700T score 135.44 GOPS and 151.28 GOPS, respectively. Despite having two more cores, the Core i7-10700T is only up to 11.7% faster than the Core i5-10500T. Of course, we'll have to wait for the reviews to confirm this figure.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
If you need a point of reference, the highest score for a stock Core i5-9600K on SiSoftware is 195.81 GOPS. Therefore, the Core i5-9600K is up to 44.6% and 29.4% faster than the Core i5-10500T and Core i7-10700T, respectively.
Zhiye Liu is a news editor, memory reviewer, and SSD tester at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.
-
King_V Pushing the power boundaries of "optimized for low power" to new and dizzying heights...Reply -
everettfsargent So, you know, I've never been in the loop, so to speak.Reply
But with these so-called low power CPU's, that never seem to have the necessary heat sinks, for 247 operations, at their highest spec'ed turbo frequency, will someone please write reviews stating such?
I really don't care if they have a 666THz turbo bin as it will only do that frequency for like 666 nanoseconds!
Heck, 92W and 123W are, as the headline states, are peak, as in almost instantaneous.
I am of a mind that these low power processors can't even run above their intended base states for 247 operations (e. g. code that occupies all cores/threads at 100% utilization). -
MasterMadBones Reply
An 8750H, which has the same core/thread configuration as the 10500T, will run at around 2.8 GHz all-core on a 35W TDP-down after the PL2 time limit has expired.everettfsargent said:I am of a mind that these low power processors can't even run above their intended base states for 247 operations (e. g. code that occupies all cores/threads at 100% utilization). -
InvalidError So much for the 'T' models being low-power. Who actually buys these things? Looks like Intel is on a quest to find out the absolute limits of what it can get away with on Comet Lake. Get every penny it can before Zen 3 comes out and likely annihilates anything Intel can currently do on 10-14nm.Reply -
King_V ReplyInvalidError said:Who actually buys these things?
Well, this guy:
Which makes me sound repetitive, but honestly, Intel's bringing this kind of parody on themselves. -
King_V Weird, the URL is https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/3vZaAbst7ZFD6lX5AHuUvauQryHOXoWGm7Ptisywth10lqgcqHU361LAD1sra5iZvd8esQ but I know I don't own that image - yet it's visible to me. I simply found it on a Google image search.Reply
If not, I guess I'll try this: