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

#76
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
jaggerwild, post: 4103517, member: 61229"
I hate to tell you all but there is built in back doors on ALL CPU'S, I find it funny though AMD fans have to post how great there CPU'S R! NO overclocking needed lolz! RYZEN FALL............Here you go AMD lolz! ENJOY!https://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3500-hw-news-lots-of-insecure-bios-drivers-ryzen-3000-binning
Hiding under a rock I see.

including every major BIOS vendor, as well as hardware vendors like ASUS, Toshiba, NVIDIA, and Huawei. However, the widespread nature of these vulnerabilities highlights a more fundamental issue – all the vulnerable drivers we discovered have been certified by Microsoft. Since the presence of a vulnerable driver on a device can provide a user (or attacker) with improperly elevated privileges, we have engaged Microsoft to support solutions to better protect against this class of vulnerabilities, such as blacklisting known bad drivers,” says Eclypsium.
Eclypsium also notes that this issue affects all modern versions of Windows, and that there is currently “no universal mechanism to keep a Windows machine from loading one of these known bad drivers.”
Posted on Reply
#77
lexluthermiester
jaggerwild, post: 4103517, member: 61229"
I hate to tell you all but there is built in back doors on ALL CPU'S, I find it funny though AMD fans have to post how great there CPU'S R! NO overclocking needed lolz! RYZEN FALL............Here you go AMD lolz! ENJOY!https://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3500-hw-news-lots-of-insecure-bios-drivers-ryzen-3000-binning
OH max boost clcok Nun will do the ADVERTISED 4.75MHz lolz!

Um, I hate to break it to you, however all but one of those alleged "backdoors" REQUIRE physical access to the system to exploit. The one that doesn't is easily defeated by disabling all Remote Desktop services and features, assuming you haven't applied the patch from MS.
Posted on Reply
#78
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
lexluthermiester, post: 4103522, member: 134537"
Um, I hate to break it to you, however all but one of those alleged "backdoors" REQUIRES physical access to the system to exploit. The one that doesn't is easily defeated by disabling all Remote Desktop services and features.
Remote services are meant to be used behind a firewall in an intranet, not really for a WLAN/internet.

Ive been disabling remote since WXP had it
Posted on Reply
#79
player-x
Crackong, post: 4103224, member: 185495"
10 cores 135W ?
we knew the 9900k is 95W and eats > 170W when overclocking
so this 10 core will eat 240W ?
Properly, but so what, that's only if you load up all the core's doing OCed video encoding or so, my 9700K@5GHz dose do that to, but if i am gaming my whole system 'only' uses 360W including a slight OCed 1080Ti.

The only important Nr is performance per Watt, and that ratio is still good with a Intel CPU, luckely AMD is doing a whole lot better in that department now to, whit the 3000 series.
Posted on Reply
#80
lexluthermiester
eidairaman1, post: 4103525, member: 40556"
Remote services are meant to be used behind a firewall in an intranet, not really for a WLAN/internet.

Ive been disabling remote since WXP had it
I take it a step further by deleting all three associated services instead of just disabling them, but that's just me.
Posted on Reply
#81
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
lexluthermiester, post: 4103531, member: 134537"
I take it a step further by deleting all three associated services instead of just disabling them, but that's just me.
How do you remove them completely? Let me know So I can do it in 7 etc
Posted on Reply
#82
lexluthermiester
eidairaman1, post: 4103536, member: 40556"
How do you remove them completely? Let me know So I can do it in 7 etc
Open a CLI in admin and type in
SC delete ServiceNameHere
You should have already disabled the services you wish to delete.

Word of caution! Careful what you delete as restoring deleted services can be very difficult and in certain cases requires a fresh install of the OS.
Posted on Reply
#83
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
lexluthermiester, post: 4103537, member: 134537"
Open a CLI in admin and type in
SC delete ServiceNameHere
You should have already disabled the services you wish to delete.
No no i know how to disable services via services.msc, before i do that though i uncheck it in gui means then use services.msc

lexluthermiester, post: 4103537, member: 134537"
Open a CLI in admin and type in
SC delete ServiceNameHere
You should have already disabled the services you wish to delete.
I guess in dos it's easier to remove services than go through regedit.

I use cmd to force defrag my velociraptor.
Posted on Reply
#84
Fatalfury
i feel sorry for motherboard manafactures.
z370 and z390 too quick and now this...

huge losses and unsold inventory of mobo manufactures incoming..
Posted on Reply
#85
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
lexluthermiester, post: 4103537, member: 134537"
Open a CLI in admin and type in
SC delete ServiceNameHere
You should have already disabled the services you wish to delete.

Word of caution! Careful what you delete as restoring deleted services can be very difficult and in certain cases requires a fresh install of the OS.
Oh I back up the registry, Also I use System Restore for drivers.
Posted on Reply
#86
R0H1T
Gungar, post: 4103222, member: 163163"
They already told us they will go directly to PCIE 5.0 in 2021.
Not for consumer chips, no they didn't.
Posted on Reply
#87
_Flare
Skylake 5.0 on the grown up Broadwell process in 2020.
Posted on Reply
#89
Octopuss
Keep shooting yourself in the arse, Intel. I approve.
Posted on Reply
#90
ypsylon
At this moment in time Intel really lost the plot. Being loyal Blue customer for years I raise my hand and say it loud: Intel has nothing worth investing. Whatever segment you pick they are soundly beaten by AMD or ARM. Unless radical new architecture is released in 2020 AMD can easily dominate whole market by end of next year.

This kind of stunt with yet another new socket for clearly inferior silicone vs closest competitor is obvious example of losing capacity to think logically. :kookoo: Even cliche, shooting in the foot, backside and so on don't cut it anymore. There is nothing left to shoot. Now AMD has at least 2 years to milk the market.
Posted on Reply
#91
lexluthermiester
Octopuss, post: 4103594, member: 74316"
Keep shooting yourself in the arse, Intel. I approve.
ypsylon, post: 4103596, member: 101033"
At this moment in time Intel really lost the plot. Being loyal Blue customer for years I raise my hand and say it loud: Intel has nothing worth investing. Whatever segment you pick they are soundly beaten by AMD or ARM. Unless radical new architecture is released in 2020 AMD can easily dominate whole market by end of next year.

This kind of stunt with yet another new socket for clearly inferior silicone vs closest competitor is obvious example of losing capacity to think logically. :kookoo: Even cliche, shooting in the foot, backside and so on don't cut it anymore. There is nothing left to shoot. Now AMD has at least 2 years to milk the market.
Wow, the fanboying never ends.
Posted on Reply
#92
Octopuss
What fanboying? Last time I had AMD-based PC was in 2003 with Athlon XP 1700 or something like that.

Let me specifically quote the part that made me post my comment:
new, LGA 1200 package

Only a mentally deficient person would be happy with Intel doing this crap over and over again.
Posted on Reply
#93
lexluthermiester
Octopuss, post: 4103606, member: 74316"
Let me specifically quote the part that made me post my comment:
new, LGA 1200 package
What's wrong with progress? I mean yeah it would great if Intel stuck with a socket for more than 2 generations of CPU's, but you don't own or run the company.
Posted on Reply
#94
efikkan
jaggerwild, post: 4103517, member: 61229"
I hate to tell you all but there is built in back doors on ALL CPU'S, I find it funny though AMD fans have to post how great there CPU'S R!
If you're worried about backdoors, then there are bigger things to worry about. Windows had have one since the mid 90s, and EFI have a remote patching ability which can be used to add one.

I wouldn't worry about about AMD's BIOS flashing bug, or the various CPU bugs like Spectre, Meltdown and all their siblings. These are all bugs which require you to have direct access or even administrative privileges already (for the BIOS flash). Spectre, Meltdown etc. is basically irrelevant for end users, they require someone to execute their code on your CPU, find something useful, and then somehow extract that data out of your computer. So it basically needs at least one or two other vulnerabilities to even be theoretically feasible. Don't get me wrong; every bug should be addressed, but that doesn't mean it's a big deal for end users. Bugs like this is also why in IT all good security practices are done by doing security in layers, since bugs in applications/services/libraries, drivers, operating systems, BIOS/EFI or hardware level, or of course user error are bound to happen sooner or later.

These bugs are primarily a concern for cloud hosting providers, where any random virtual machine may execute the next code on the same CPU. In theory people could extract tiny fragments of memory, and by luck find something useful. But in practice, dumping a hypervisor's 100s of GB of memory at up to a few kB/s, finding and dumping the all-important (and constantly changing) page table of the VM and then assembling continuous application memory page by page, let's just say that the memory you're dumping will change at a much higher rate than your dumping it.

TLDR; You shouldn't care about these bugs. But Intel and AMD should learn from it.
Posted on Reply
#95
Octopuss
lexluthermiester, post: 4103609, member: 134537"
What's wrong with progress? I mean yeah it would great if Intel stuck with a socket for more than 2 generations of CPU's, but you don't own or run the company.
Your arguments are like from an alternative universe or something. Globally, not just here.
Posted on Reply
#96
FinneousPJ
Well, I'm not impressed. Still waiting for Ryzen 4000 next year.
Posted on Reply
#97
zlobby
Oh, the comments already started? Anyhow...


P.S. I really hate the image size restriction...
Posted on Reply
#98
Tomgang
So intel the joke is on you, now prove me wrong:p. So far 14 NM since 2014 and still counting.

Posted on Reply
#100
CityCultivator
efikkan, post: 4103613, member: 150226"
Spectre, Meltdown etc. is basically irrelevant for end users, they require someone to execute their code on your CPU, find something useful, and then somehow extract that data out of your computer.
Though most end-users are not worth to exploit, all end users who browse the Web execute other people code.
Browsers do know this and did some work to further mitigate the risk of Spectre.
But running other people's code is done everyday. Ad networks and other such third parties are examples of code end users do not explicitly consent for, but do run.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment