Just: LOL ! Intel is pathetic !

Stay on topic. If someone has an issue with a member, take it to PM's and keep it civil, ignore them, or bring it to a mod.

Newest cpu's from both companies mislead us consumers in terms of tdp. A 65W said to be CPU consumes double that when boosts without overclocking it.now if Intel does bring 135w cpu and it stays within that range at stock boosts i see no problem with it in fact I think it is the ethical way.

AhhzzStay on topic. If someone has an issue with a member, take it to PM's and keep it civil, ignore them, or bring it to a mod.

I guess my earlier warning went for nothing......thread bans and perma bans issued to those that have one thing in mind-to troll and bait

People are so silly, 98% of you don't need in any way PCIe 4, and people are getting angry over this.

GlacierNine[…]
My point was that Intel controls when 10nm is ready. They screwed up by announcing it long before they were ready to ship it, and they got hurt by that.

But Intel doesn't control when PCI-E 5.0 is ready. PCI-SIG does that. And if Intel announces (or leaks) that they're going to implement PCI-E 5.0 in future, then that means they (and PCI-SIG) are both sure that PCI-E 5.0 will be ready to go at that time.

Why am I sure of that? Because there are 900 other companies all involved in the decision making here, and the announcement of PCI-E 5.0 being ready to go, would have only happened after those 900 companies all agreed that PCI-E 5.0 was ready to launch and could be delivered on time.

I still don't get it and I'm same as confused as @fynxer here. I just don't get the correlation you're trying to make.
Where's the connection between Intel announcing to feature PCI-E 5.0 anytime in the future and Intel releasing actual hardware supporting even at least its predecessor?

Are you implying the standard isn't there yet or wouldn't be finished? PCI-E 4.0 was completed already in '17!
And we even have had the surprising situation that PCI-E 5.0 even already saw completion well prior to its actual predecessor reaching the consumer-market. PCI-E 4.0 is complete and ready to manufacture since a while now – and so is PCI-E 5.0. So what are you trying to say?

GlacierNineAll 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.

To be honest and being fair towards their (recent) history with announcements and sporting no actual products following them afterwards, I would doubt that too.
For instance, I wouldn't want to bet even a single dime that Intel is bringing actual hardware supporting anything beyond PCI-E 3.0 prior to nVidia feature PCI-E 4.0 on their cards.

GlacierNineWould 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.

Well, given how Intel managed to fuck up virtually everything the last couple of years (not just after Ryzen but even well before that) …

There's no proper competition-products against anything Ryzen from them with a new approach instead of just warming up their age-old Core-µArch for the next half of a decade. Like getting flexible and sport some bright new ideas and approaches, like get a new mask and just copying AMD with their design. Or even this as some quick-and-dirty-approach. No will to change of their old, filthy corporate habits and behaviour but relying on age-old grey-ish to straight-out illegal practices to stay trying to stay atop at all costs.

See, they've literally fucked up every entry into another lucrative market since the Sandy bridge-era. Their second trying to enter the mobile-market to create a sound sales market for their low-cost Atoms (and competing against ARM) was a flaming desaster from start to finish. Their wireless approach with 3G, 4G and 5G was also a flamign desaster from start to finish. … and given how much they pumped into their dedicated graphics-department to establish any dominance in graphics – and eventually had to end up to just compulsively bound it to other products by implement is as some embedded graphics as their iGPU (Hint: no-one would've bought or featured their graphics within their products unless they were focred to do). Well … Thing is, you can go on and on with so many examples.

Thing is, hey were just plain unable to bring any greater innovative competitive products whatsoever (apart from their CoreµArch; and given Meltdown and alike, even that was cheated on) to enter a new market on their own – like AMD did by bringing Threadripper which wasn't at any road-map nor planned just a few month prior to hit the market with an actual product (and re-define the HEDT-space altogether in one sweep).

So having said that, I would dare to say that chances are that they're also will fuck up that too, yes.
Thing is, their corporate character hasn't changed a bit since the Pentium (4) times and they (just as always) trying to get dirty if there's some competitor which came up with a innovative product they weren't prepared for (Hint: They never were and most likely never will be). They ain't innovating at all.

Smart

goodeedididPeople are so silly, 98% of you don't need in any way PCIe 4, and people are getting angry over this.

Exactly, I don't need PCIe4; I just want a few more lanes to be dedicated to things like NVMe SSDs. I'm not asking for much. Right?

1d10tActually I am :D
No need to fiddling all days, delidding hundred dollar CPU and voiding warranty in process, put extra dollar for cooling, mambo jambo with "AVX offset", just plugged in let auto do the rest. I don't need more headache while running virtual machine.
Just come into my mind, if i7 8700K 6c12t had 3.7Ghz base, i7 9700K 8c 8t had 3.6Ghz base, could that be future i7 Comet Lake would be 10c10t 3.5Ghz base? :rolleyes:

I noticed you don't post any screen shoot, with your 1 core boost. Go ahead post a screen shoot of the awesome "advertised" 4.75 mhz that your Cheery Picked CPU can do! :D Probably cause u can't hummm........Did you join cause yer getting paid to flame threads?

lexluthermiesterSocket 1151 has been going for 5 years.

Only after hacking and modding BIOS to circumvent Intel's artificial limitations devised for making more money from selling new chipsets for rebranded CPUs.

Not much of people runnning "9th" gens on "6th" gen mobos...
www.techpowerup.com/250109/core-i9-9900k-achieves-5-50-ghz-overclock-on-a-z170-chipset-motherboard

And now there's third socket for Skylake arch...

And I'm sure Intel will come out with yet another socket when DDR5 comes out.
Only question is will they do that great innovation by pulling one pin out or sticking in one new pin.
Or cheap out and add incompatibility in firmware...

goodeedididPeople are so silly, 98% of you don't need in any way PCIe 4, and people are getting angry over this.

While little use at the moment, what about three or four years from now?
I think we both agree that good eight (/+) core CPU will easily last that time.
And pretty sure that at that point for example GPUs are quite more advanced than currently.

Wow this post is HOT.

Personal opinion,
I don't really care about LGA1200 because the mass majority almost concluded why Intel keep changing sockets / chipsets.
Just factor that into the cost and , well , cost / performance tells everything.

My concern is, how much thermal density this 10-core has ?
Are we finally getting a portable nuclear reactor ? :roll:

LGA 1200 package (with 9 more pins that the current LGA 1151) do you even math?

CrackongWow this post is HOT.

Personal opinion,
I don't really care about LGA1200 because the mass majority almost concluded why Intel keep changing sockets / chipsets.
Just factor that into the cost and , well , cost / performance tells everything.

My concern is, how much thermal density this 10-core has ?
Are we finally getting a portable nuclear reactor ? :roll:

for real... a 7900x for the masses.

As long as the performance is there and it can handle 32GB across 4 dimms at max OC im sold tho so...

then again i might wait out 10/7nm from intel or the zen 3. With my current OC im sitting at 3700x performance, and I don't need 12 cores so this 2 year old chip in my system looks like it can hang out for another year or so.

Honestly not a great time for CPU buying for the foreseeable unless you're dropping in a 3900x or replacing an old ryzen.

efikkanOptions are always good, especially when user's needs are different :)
But the fact remains, that for many non-synthetic workstation tasks a faster 8-core will often beat a 12-core. A good workstation CPU needs to strike the balance between core speed and core count.

Remember when Intel introduced hyper-threading and multi core to counter Athon64 FX-53? We already reaching pinnacle of MIPS on single core. Bumping clocks and adding performance doesn't instantly translate to "better" performance. What i'm trying to say is 2 core =/ 2 x 1 core, or 2Ghz =/ 2 x 1Ghz, on top of that 1 core multi threading =/ 2 core. Faster core are doable, by reducing some instruction set or making greater L1. Former solution was less attractive as software development grows and more demanding instruction needed and keeping legacy to ensure backward compability ( but seriously, who still use MMX or SSE these days? ). While latter solution would be expensive as greater L1 require more pipelines so bigger fetch and decode is needed.But what do I know, Intel had Jim Keller, he hasn't show his magic yet, it would be great feat in the dawn of monolithic CPU :D

jaggerwildI noticed you don't post any screen shoot, with your 1 core boost. Go ahead post a screen shoot of the awesome "advertised" 4.75 mhz that your Cheery Picked CPU can do! :D Probably cause u can't hummm........Did you join cause yer getting paid to flame threads?

Why should I bragging my puny CPU? You already knew better, or should I say hotter and inefficient ? :D
Funny, i was gonna asked the same thing to other member who posted here :rolleyes:

========

While "majority" wouldn't mind about socket change, a gentle reminder,this is still Kaby Lake...erm...Comet Lake uArch. Intel yet implement their module core with omni path and PCH on die with Ice Lake uArch, so prepare for another socket change :p

phanbueyfor real... a 7900x for the masses.

7900x uses a different architecture and the die is muccccccch larger.
The die size of 7900x is 322 mm²
Source : www.anandtech.com/show/11550/the-intel-skylakex-review-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-and-i7-7800x-tested/6

The die sizes of 8700k and 9900k are 150 mm² and 174 mm² respectively.
Source : en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/coffee_lake

Now , if this comet lake 10 core is a re-re-refresh.
The die size is expected to be 200mm²

The 7900x is a 140W TDP Chip , 140 / 322 = 0.435W / mm²
10 core comet lake is 135W , 135 / 200 = 0.675W / mm²

So in-terms of heat density, 10 core comet lake is 55% more than an 7900x.

Then , thermal conduction is directly proportional to surface area.
So the 10 core comet lake has 38% less surface area than the 7900x
Means the rate of conduction of 10 core comet lake is at least 38% lower than the 7900x

So this thing has 55% more heat density and 38% less thermal conductivity than a regular old 7900x .

Maybe change to "Nuclear Inside" . :)

lexluthermiesterI was implying more Socket 1151 that Socket 1200 is replacing. In the mainstream desktop arena, it been since 2015 with the DDR4 revision in 2017. So it kinda depends on your perspective.

yes I was referring to intel as a whole, 'perspectively' speaking. :D

I thought these (2) slides leaked 6weeks ago in the middle of July.

www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-comet-lake-features-specifications-availability-launch,39848.html

Why are they suddenly NEWS again?
No fault to TPU - Every tech news group is running this story as "brand new". :lovetpu:

Did the story simply move from rumor status to leak status? :p


...looks like I'm late to the party - again. :laugh:

Could next generation be the "Death Lake"

I was heaving a sort of déja vu...

r.h.pMy two cents , these names are just getting better coffee lake , comet lake- s , Icey lake , shiny river , …...

anyway they are still awesome cpus but they cost a lot more than AMD

I'm not sure they will be awesome CPUs actually. Intel's only advantage at 14nm is gaming, where more than about 6-8 threads becomes pointless. Comet lake doesn't really bring anything new to the table other than more cores that games don't use - so a 9700K will still be the default gaming chip for those who only care about gaming - specifically when not streaming because then AMD wins all the benchmarks, not just most of them.

If you want new process and new architecture, Comet Lake isn't it. It's still 14nm and it's still just a minor tweak of the same Skylake architecture from four years ago - with the downside of having to shell out for a new motherboard.

What Intel need to do to compete is sort out their process tech so that they can compete with TSMC, because Ryzen on TSMC's 7nm at 65W (actual) is matching Intel at 125W (claimed), 180W actual. It's kind of embarassing for Big Blue.

Chrispy_I'm not sure they will be awesome CPUs actually. Intel's only advantage at 14nm is gaming, where more than about 6-8 threads becomes pointless. Comet lake doesn't really bring anything new to the table other than more cores that games don't use - so a 9700K will still be the default gaming chip for those who only care about gaming - specifically when not streaming because then AMD wins all the benchmarks, not just most of them.

If you want new process and new architecture, Comet Lake isn't it. It's still 14nm and it's still just a minor tweak of the same Skylake architecture from four years ago - with the downside of having to shell out for a new motherboard.

What Intel need to do to compete is sort out their process tech so that they can compete with TSMC, because Ryzen on TSMC's 7nm at 65W (actual) is matching Intel at 125W (claimed), 180W actual. It's kind of embarassing for Big Blue.

I am no way worried about Intel. They have the money, resources and people to come back up into first place. As most of us know they have hired Keller and Raja who were responsible for Ryzen and Polaris. They have also been very quiet on 10nm for the desktop. Not because they have no response but because they are working on a proper response. Just like how Nvidia made refinements on the RTX series after the reviews stated that AMD's refinements (anti lag etc) made their GPUs better.

Nobody is worried about Intel. They're like Apple in that they can screw up for an entire decade without running out of money and their enormous marketing/media/incentives budgets will allow them to keep shifting inferior products without any issues whatsoever. Look at desktop/laptop sales from the big OEM brands like HP/Dell/Lenovo - or every Macbook sold in the last 2 years with a defective-by-design keyboard. Intel and Apple are fine. Zen2 may be winning the performance/value/sales race at the moment but that won't stop Intel and Apple from making more profit.

There was that article at the beginning of August covered by several sites about the EU's largest retailer publishing sales statistics. One single SKU (Ryzen 3700X, and that's not even AMD's most popular Ryzen) outsold the entire Intel product stack. Very few people want to pay 50% more for a 4-year old tech with serious power and heat issues and up to 25% less performance in multi-threaded productivity tasks. For AMD to gain the upper hand, they have to do this year-after-year across all market segments. That means laptop APUs, their entire GPU product stack, their drivers and platform support, their developer tools, compilers and developer support.

I want AMD to bring full-spectrum competition back to the CPU and GPU industry as much as as the next person, but Zen2 alone isn't enough.

Hahahaa PCI-E 3.0.
Intel inferiority continue.

People repeat No improvements in gaming with PCI-E 4.0.
Actually owners of X299 and Z390 and new Intel chipset are in worse position then I with X99 and Gen 2 Chipset.
I could reach Gen 3 speed with M.2 connected on CPU. They can't reach Gen 4 speed of AMD platform on any way.
Buying Intel is like investing in SATA II platform when SATA III was available.
When SATA III show up motherboard vendors immediately adopt him on new revision of X58 motherboards.
Now PCI-E Interface is important for speed of OS, read, write, copy same as SATA Controller before several years.
Don't forget that when you invest huge money in high end platform. Race in M.2 Gen 4.0 will start very soon.
SATA Ports are important only for storage, everything else depend from PCI-E Interface.

The only hope they have is if socket 1200 supports the future 10nm chips or no one will buy this.

Why would I want a 10 core 14nm+++++ thats 10% more (maybe) performance than the 9900k and the whole platform will be obsolete in 12 months?.

Yikes.

Crackong10 cores 135W ?
we knew the 9900k is 95W and eats > 170W when overclocking
so this 10 core will eat 240W ?

9900KS is 95w based and with workload 195w around.

You're 3900X is almost 400 Watts gaming! Then again it's two 6 cores CPUs working together...

ToxicTaZ9900KS is 95w based and with workload 195w around.

You're 3900X is almost 400 Watts gaming! Then again it's two 6 cores CPUs working together...

You are joking right?

That is Whole System Power Consumption