Intel Core i9-10850K Review: The Real Intel Flagship
by Dr. Ian Cutress on January 4, 2021 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Core
- Z490
- 10th Gen Core
- Comet Lake
- LGA1200
- i9-10850K
Gaming Tests: F1 2019
The F1 racing games from Codemasters have been popular benchmarks in the tech community, mostly for ease-of-use and that they seem to take advantage of any area of a machine that might be better than another. The 2019 edition of the game features all 21 circuits on the calendar for that year, and includes a range of retro models and DLC focusing on the careers of Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna. Built on the EGO Engine 3.0, the game has been criticized similarly to most annual sports games, by not offering enough season-to-season graphical fidelity updates to make investing in the latest title worth it, however the 2019 edition revamps up the Career mode, with features such as in-season driver swaps coming into the mix. The quality of the graphics this time around is also superb, even at 4K low or 1080p Ultra.
For our test, we put Alex Albon in the Red Bull in position #20, for a dry two-lap race around Austin. We test at the following settings:
- 768p Ultra Low, 1440p Ultra Low, 4K Ultra Low, 1080p Ultra
In terms of automation, F1 2019 has an in-game benchmark that can be called from the command line, and the output file has frame times. We repeat each resolution setting for a minimum of 10 minutes, taking the averages and percentiles.
AnandTech | Low Resolution Low Quality |
Medium Resolution Low Quality |
High Resolution Low Quality |
Medium Resolution Max Quality |
Average FPS | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
95th Percentile | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
126 Comments
View All Comments
edzieba - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
I dunno, sounds like an opportunity for ambient-pressure water phase-change cooling to me! Who needs evacuated heat-pipes or vapour-chambers when you can just spray the top of the IHS directly!shabby - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Hey Ian can you put the real cpu wattage in the charts that the cpu used in that test rather than the fake one? We all know this cpu never uses 125 watts.Drkrieger01 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
You either skipped the 'Power Consumption' page, or don't understand CPU TDP ratings. The '125W' rating is the 'non-turbo' rating, meaning power consumed at max non-turbo clock rate. AMD does the same thing, and also has a higher power consumption during turbo (although not anywhere near as much as Intel does).shabby - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Since each benchmark varies it would be nice seeing how much wattage each cpu used during that benchmark.Yes i know amd uses more power during turbo, the 5950x uses 30 watts more than advertised... compared to ~140 watts more that intel advertises their 10850k to use. That quite the difference don't you think?
Drkrieger01 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Unless you're working on a power budget, I honestly wouldn't worry about it. Most review websites don't have the time/man-power to trace the power usage on each benchmark for each CPU. You will also have a variance between processors of the exact same model due to binning/silicon lottery. You're better off planning to use/dissipate the full turbo power of the CPU than hope for lower power. Or just buy an AMD (if you can find one!)eek2121 - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Actually AMD chips use the TDP value as the maximum power value minus the IO power, so all AMD chips use a total of 143 watts at maximim.Flunk - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Intel seems to have six similar i9 SKUs with prices ranging from $453 to $488. Seems rather pointless. Maybe Intel marketing should spend some time thinking about whether or not their insanely complex model scheme is contributing to their lack of sales. AMD has ONE SKU that competes with all of those Intel SKUs. Clock down for lower TDP doesn't need to be an entire SKU.Duwelon - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Whoever comes up with Intel's SKUs must be the same person/people responsible for interfacing with USB Implementers Forum on Intel's behalf. The industry is replete with remarkably confusing naming schemes, seemingly on purpose.DanNeely - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
Making the low power versions use the same model number would be a very anti-consumer move because you'd have no easy way to know if you were getting the 3.7Ghz or 1.9Ghz model. We already have that problem on mobile where two laptops with identical specs perform wildly different because one is running the CPU at 2x the power/performance of the other. Using separate model numbers also lets you bin chips that perform best at low and high power levels separately.The production limit bins (10850K and both IGPless KF models) muddle things up a bit; but Intel's desktop lines are very cleanly broken out vs what they did a decade+ ago with a mess of different similar chips with varying cache sizes and clock speeds but the same core counts; or the ongoing mess of their mobile line (good luck figuring anything out about one of those chips from its model number without looking it up).
Crazyeyeskillah - Monday, January 4, 2021 - link
they have various skus for oem's, system builders, general public, retail products, ect ectCertain OEMs require a non-open market skus to promote their products or run at certain specs that differentiate them from what's available on the open market.