Friday, August 23rd 2019

Alleged Leaked Details on Intel Comet Lake-S Platform Require... You Guessed It... A New Platform

Intel's development of their Core architecture in the post-Ryzen world has been slow, with solutions slowly creeping up in core counts with every new CPU release - but much slowly than rival AMD's efforts. Before Intel can capitalize on a new, more scalable and power-efficient architecture, though, it has to deliver performance and core count increases across its product line to stay as relevant as possible against a much revitalized rival. Enter Comet Lake-S: the desktop parts of Intel's new round of consumer CPUs, which will reportedly see an increase in the maximum core count to a 10-core design. This 10-core design, however, comes with an increase in power consumption (up to 135 W), and the need, once again, for beefier power delivery systems in a new, LGA 1200 package (with 9 more pins that the current LGA 1151).

The move to a new socket and the more stringent power requirements give Intel the opportunity to refresh its chipset offerings once again. If everything stays the same (and there's no reason it should change), new Z470 and Z490 chipsets should be some of the higher tier offerings for builders to pair with their motherboards. The new Comet Lake-S CPUs will still be built in the now extremely refined 14 nm process, and allegedly keep the same 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes as current Coffee Lake Refresh offerings. The new CPU offerings from Intel are expected to roll out in Q1 2020.
Sources: XFastest, via Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

224 Comments on Alleged Leaked Details on Intel Comet Lake-S Platform Require... You Guessed It... A New Platform

#26
TheLostSwede
Gungar, post: 4103222, member: 163163"
They already told us they will go directly to PCIE 5.0 in 2021.
Uhm, not. That's for servers and possibly some workstation platforms, not consumer products.

trparky, post: 4103231, member: 170376"
What the hell Intel?!?!

Intel is really cheating us here. I'm not really pissed about the fact that it's still PCIe Gen 3 but more pissed about the limited number of lanes especially when AMD offers 24 of them. Again... What the hell Intel?!?!
Technically Intel has 20, as four is for the chipset interconnect, they just call them DMI.
Posted on Reply
#27
trparky
TheLostSwede, post: 4103272, member: 3382"
Technically Intel has 20, as four is for the chipset interconnect, they just call them DMI.
True, but that's four PCIe lanes that are inaccessible to the user.
Posted on Reply
#28
TheLostSwede
trparky, post: 4103277, member: 170376"
True, but that's four PCIe lanes that are inaccessible to the user.
Well, four of AMD's 24 lanes goes to the chipset as well...
Posted on Reply
#29
Chloe Price
Who wouldn't have guessed that it's time for a new motherboard once again :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#30
kapone32
TheLostSwede, post: 4103279, member: 3382"
Well, four of AMD's 24 lanes goes to the chipset as well...
I am thinking that we will still see the southbridge with some extra PCI_E lanes on the nest Intel platform
Posted on Reply
#31
trparky
OK, so here we have it.

Intel: Twenty PCIe lanes from the CPU, four of them connect to the chipset leaving the user with just sixteen PCIe lanes to work with to connect GPUs and NVMe SSDs.
AMD: Twenty-four PCIe lanes from the CPU, four of them connect to the chipset leaving the user with just twenty PCIe lanes to work with to connect GPUs and NVMe SSDs.

AMD gives you four more PCIe lanes. Now that may not seem like much but that's four more PCIe lanes to be dedicated to your system's boot NVMe SSD thus not leaving you hoping that your GPU doesn't bottleneck the NVMe SSD.

kapone32, post: 4103284, member: 181865"
I am thinking that we will still see the southbridge with some extra PCI_E lanes on the nest Intel platform
It doesn't matter, it's still shared and that sucks. You have to share the four PCIe lanes connecting to the chipset with things like SATA, Ethernet, USB, etc.

Yes, lane sharing does happen on AMD; this I understand.
Posted on Reply
#32
yakk
Yup, timing lines up when they probably were organizing the specs and launch...
Posted on Reply
#33
kapone32
trparky, post: 4103286, member: 170376"
OK, so here we have it.

Intel: Twenty PCIe lanes from the CPU, four of them connect to the chipset leaving the user with just sixteen PCIe lanes to work with to connect GPUs and NVMe SSDs.
AMD: Twenty-four PCIe lanes from the CPU, four of them connect to the chipset leaving the user with just twenty PCIe lanes to work with to connect GPUs and NVMe SSDs.

AMD gives you four more PCIe lanes. Now that may not seem like much but that's four more PCIe lanes to be dedicated to your system's boot NVMe SSD thus not leaving you hoping that your GPU doesn't bottleneck the NVMe SSD.


It doesn't matter, it's still shared and that sucks. You have to share the four PCIe lanes connecting to the chipset with things like SATA, Ethernet, USB, etc.

Yes, lane sharing does happen on AMD; this I understand.
This is the reason why I went with Threadripper and have no interest in AM4 or this new platform.
Posted on Reply
#34
Tomgang
I never thought the day would come that I would prefer AMD over intel. But that day has truly come today it seems.

TDP intel 125 watts and that is at base clock. Boost clock watt use will be a lot higher. AMD 7 NM ryzen even the 16 core is only 105 watt TDP. I am not sure about AMD TDP rating if that is for base or boost clock. But other says AMD TDP is for boost ratings. So 125 watt base clock for 10 cores vs. 105 watt (maybe boost clock rating) 16 cores for AMD. That's truly 14 NM vs. 7 NM right there for you. A clear win for AMD.

Intels still on PCIe gen 3 vs. AMD is on PCIe gen 4. AMD wins again.

Core counts. Intel 10 cores vs. AMD 16 cores. Well yeah AMD wins again.

Memory support: Intel still only 2666 MHz vs. AMD 3200 MHz out of box. Sure they can run with faster memory, but here we talk stock. AMD wins again.

Productivity well yeah I think AMD wins yet again.

Game performance this one Intel will win, but not by that much.

Sorry if I sounds like an AMD fanboy now, but intels releases has been a joke lately. I just feel AMD has been way more innovative. Specially with ryzen 3000. Intel has gone from overwhelming to underwhelming in just a few years. There 14 NM releases one after another has become a joke.

No douts that i stick with my choise of getting the Ryzen 9 3950X with a X570 mobo.
Posted on Reply
#35
Octavean
kapone32, post: 4103293, member: 181865"
This is the reason why I went with Threadripper and have no interest in AM4 or this new platform.
Indeed,......

And Threadripper pricing isn't half bad currently. Microcenter has the 2920X for under $300 USD plus something like ~$30 off when bundled with a qualifying motherboard. Threadripper 2950X is ~$599 wih the same $30 off offer.

I'm trying to wait for the Threadripper refresh hopefully some time later this year (October???). I'd rather do that then just jump on the RyZen 9 3900X or 3950X.
Posted on Reply
#36
thesmokingman
kapone32, post: 4103293, member: 181865"
This is the reason why I went with Threadripper and have no interest in AM4 or this new platform.
That's good for you, but for the other 99% of users those 20 PCIE 4.0 lanes hits the sweet spot.

That said, really guys there's a debate about this 20 PCIE 4.0 vs 16 PCIE 3.0 lanes. The 4.0 has not only more lanes but twice the bandwidth.

Gungar, post: 4103222, member: 163163"
They already told us they will go directly to PCIE 5.0 in 2021.
Lmao, they must be whipping Jim Keller to work overtime times 10 for that to happen in time.
Posted on Reply
#37
TheLostSwede
thesmokingman, post: 4103299, member: 91203"
Lmao, they must be whipping Jim Keller to work overtime times 10 for that to happen in time.
I thought he was hired to help them with their new GPU, not CPUs...
Posted on Reply
#38
kapone32
Octavean, post: 4103298, member: 52351"
Indeed,......

And Threadripper pricing isn't half bad currently. Microcenter has the 2920X for under $300 USD plus something like ~$30 off when bundled with a qualifying motherboard. Threadripper 2950X is ~$599 wih the same $30 off offer.

I'm trying to wait for the Threadripper refresh hopefully some time later this year (October???). I'd rather do that then just jump on the RyZen 9 3900X or 3950X.
Exactly prices in Canada suck but the allure of threadripper is stronger than ever. The 1900X is currently $286.97 on Amazon. The 2920X for under $300 would be just short of $375 CAD. The 3900X lists for $699 CAD vs the 1920X for $349.99. To me that makes TR4 an academic choice. Yes the X570 boards have more but other than PCI_E 4.0 TR4 offers the user way more of everything else.

TheLostSwede, post: 4103302, member: 3382"
I thought he was hired to help them with their new GPU, not CPUs...
No you are thinking of Ravi. Keller was hired away from Tesla after the 2nd gen of Ryzen launched
Posted on Reply
#39
TheLostSwede
kapone32, post: 4103303, member: 181865"
No you are thinking of Ravi. Keller was hired away from Tesla after the 2nd gen of Ryzen launched
Keller isn’t saying what he’s working on yet, and maybe he won’t for years.

Here we’re going to make the best possible server, the best possible client. We’re going to build great graphics. We’re participating heavily in the AI revolution. There’s a bunch of interesting problems there. We’re going to do some interesting stuff in that space.

https://venturebeat.com/2018/07/16/why-rock-star-chip-architect-jim-keller-finally-decided-to-work-for-intel/
Posted on Reply
#41
Octavean
One would expect that when the Threadripper refresh is launched the new motherboards will rival the features of the X570 boards.

In addition to that one can hope that a current 2000 series Threadripper will run fine on those new upcoming Threadripper boards. I say this because its likely that 3000 series Threadripper processors will be considerably more expensive then their predecessors currently are.

I'd still probably go for a 12 core 3000 series Threadripper over the RyZen 3900X but I would have to see the performance numbers.

The one thing that is of increasingly less interest to me is what Intel has cooking. Maybe if Intel lowers the price of a 28 Core Xeon W-3175X to that of a 24 Core Threadripper 2970WX it would spark some interest :) Not a fair comparison to be sure but I can buy the Threadripper 2970WX for ~$799 USD whereas the Xeon W-3175X would cost me somewhere near ~$3000 USD.
Posted on Reply
#42
jaggerwild
GlacierNine, post: 4103233, member: 174559"
Please don't confuse Intel's personal manufacturing process upgrade, with their desire to utilise a general standard created and maintained by over 900 companies.

10nm is:
1 - A manufacturing process
2 - Specced out by Intel
3 - Developed by Intel in Intel labs
4 - To make Intel hardware at Intel facilities using Intel-designed equipment.
Intel are are the only party responsible for their 10nm processes success or failure.

In comparison, PCI-E is:
1 - A specification
2 - Specced out by PCI-SIG
3 - Developed with their partners across the entire computing industry, in their facilities, using collaborative expertise
4 - To make industry-standard hardware at the facilities of anyone who wants to make that hardware.

There are over 900 companies in PCI-SIG and when that many businesses are involved, and rely on, the correct engineering of an upcoming standard, you can bet your ass that none of them are going to let a specification or a standard out of the door that they aren't able to practically guarantee will actually work and can actually be built.
PCI-E is owned by Broadcom Inc . PCI-SIG is an "electronics industry consortium" responsible for specifying the Peripheral Component Interconnect, PCI-X, and PCI Express computer buses.
Posted on Reply
#43
Vayra86
Intel: "Look we may not have 10nm. But we dó have 10 cores!"

They also went over 9000. Maybe that's the selling point? As far as Im concerned they can keep this molten swiss cheese.

kapone32, post: 4103309, member: 181865"
He is probably leading their move to 10nm and just like Ryzen keeping everything close to the vest.
Interesting interview there, thx, didn't see that at the time.
Posted on Reply
#44
thesmokingman
TheLostSwede, post: 4103307, member: 3382"
Keller isn’t saying what he’s working on yet, and maybe he won’t for years. [/URL]
You KNOW why he's there right, especially since no one will say exactly what he's doing?
Posted on Reply
#45
Darmok N Jalad
Intel really is hurting in the process department. All their confidence still seems to lie in 14nm. Margins will be lousy on 10 core chips when AMD might be pushing out more than 16 cores by then. And I can’t see Intel squeezing any more clockspeed out of 14nm. It may even go backward with Sunnycove.
Posted on Reply
#46
HD64G
Their 10-core will pale compared to the 16-core monster of AMD. They try hard to remain relevant in desktop and server but Zen2 made on 7nm is very far for them to reach both in efficiency and performance.
Posted on Reply
#47
thesmokingman
HD64G, post: 4103333, member: 95052"
Their 10-core will pale compared to the 16-core monster of AMD. They try hard to remain relevant in desktop and server but Zen2 made on 7nm is very far for them to reach both in efficiency and performance.
The other negative is that everything they sell from now until Keller finishes redesigning their whole architecture, especially moving away from monolithic design will be flawed security wise. It's stupendous when we put it in that context.
Posted on Reply
#48
trparky
And just think, AMD has Zen 3 coming out next year. AMD has their foot firmly planted on the gas pedal and they're showing no signs of letting up.
Posted on Reply
#49
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Darmok N Jalad, post: 4103328, member: 170588"
Intel really is hurting in the process department. All their confidence still seems to lie in 14nm. Margins will be lousy on 10 core chips when AMD might be pushing out more than 16 cores by then. And I can’t see Intel squeezing any more clockspeed out of 14nm. It may even go backward with Sunnycove.
Their arrogance is leading to their fall
Posted on Reply
#50
theoneandonlymrk
GlacierNine, post: 4103267, member: 174559"
All of this is true, but, again, @juiseman was implying that because Intel fucked up the engineering of 10nm, that intel would therefore be incapable of implementing PCI-E 5.0 on time.

Would you, @theoneandonlymrk, please like to explain to me, exactly how juiseman's point is true, bearing in mind that:

1 - designing a controller to implement an existing standard is nowhere near as complicated as building a new semiconductor manufacturing process from scratch
2 - PCI-SIG doesn't release standards that aren't ready to be implemented, whereas Intel *did* announce a 10nm technology that was nowhere near implementation.
Im not here to back his word on it ,i get you and him, I was just adding my opinion.
Which was that Intel's reluctance to advance their architecture is clear to see and detrimental to their profit line.
But why, ask that question, they have not even upped lane count though they are changing the designs ,adding cores , security and even increasing the Gpu capabilities.
Amd did a lot of work to get to zen, The pciex 4 support work should have been mirrored by intel, probably lead by, but no ,they NEED the die space to get anywhere near competitive on core counts which likely has constrained their design, I think 2022 is a pipe dream though because they're going to be too busy and constrained to bring pciex5 to consumer's.

ImHo it will take Intel's new Arch on 7nm euv to make room for that and I don't see that coming before 2023-4.

Just my opinion though feel free to disagree.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment