Thursday, April 30th 2020

Intel 10th Generation Comet Lake Desktop Processors and 400-Series Chipsets Announced, Here's what's New

Intel today launched its 10th generation Core desktop processor family and its companion Intel 400-series chipsets. Based on the 14 nm++ silicon fabrication process and built in the new LGA1200 package, the processors are based on the "Comet Lake" microarchitecture. The core design of "Comet Lake" and its IPC are identical to those of "Skylake," however Intel brought significant enhancements to the processor's clock-speed boosting algorithm, increased core- or thread counts across the board, and introduced new features that could interest enthusiasts and overclockers. The uncore component remains largely unchanged from the previous-generation, with support for DDR4 memory and PCI-Express gen 3.0. Use of these processors requires a new socket LGA1200 motherboard, they won't work on older LGA1151 motherboards. You can install any LGA115x-compatible cooler on LGA1200, provided it meets the thermal requirements of the processor you're using.

At the heart of the 10th generation Core processor family is a new 10-core monolithic processor die, which retains the same basic structure as the previous-generation 8-core "Coffee Lake Refresh" die, and 4-core "Skylake." The cores are arranged in two rows, sandwiched by the processor's uncore and iGPU blocks. A ring-bus interconnect binds the various components. The cache hierarchy is unchanged from previous generations as well, with 32 KB each of L1I and L1D caches; 256 KB of dedicated L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The iGPU is the same Gen 9.5 based UHD 630 graphics. As we mentioned earlier, much of Intel's innovation for the 10th generation is with the processor's microcode (boosting algorithms).
Intel Core i9-10900K 10th Gen Intel Core Desktop Comet Lake Lineup 10th Gen Intel Core Desktop Comet Lake Lineup 10th Gen Intel Core Desktop Comet Lake Lineup

The 10-core die with all its cores enabled is the backbone of the new 10th generation Core i9 series, including the flagship part, the Core i9-10900K, a 10-core/20-thread processor with maximum clock speeds running as high as 5.30 GHz, which Intel claims is the "fastest processor for gaming." All Core i9 SKUs in the series are 10-core/20-thread. The Core i9-10900K is unlocked and features an iGPU. The i9-10900KF is unlocked, but lacks an integrated graphics (it is physically present in the silicon, but disabled). The i9-10900 has an iGPU, but isn't unlocked. The i9-10900F both lacks an iGPU and is multiplier-locked. These chips are priced between $422 and $488 (1,000-unit tray quantities).
Comet Lake Performance in Games and Creating Optimized for Total War Three Kingdoms Optimized to win Remnant from the Ashes Gaming Partners about Intel 10th Gen
The 10th generation Core i7 series, sold at price points under $400, consists of 8-core/16-thread parts with 16 MB of shared L3 cache - the same amount of muscle as the 9th generation Core i9 series. Leading this line is the Core i7-10700K, clocked up to 5.10 GHz. Among the SKUs are the i7-10700K, the i7-10700KF, i7-10700, and i7-10700F.

The 10th generation Core i5 series sees the most bolstering, in our opinion. The popular middle-of-the-market chips are now 6-core/12-thread, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache, across the board (same amount as the 8th generation Core i7 series). Leading the pack is the Core i5-10600K, followed by the i5-10600KF, and i5-10600, i5-10500, i5-10400, and the i5-10400F. These SKUs cover the broadest range of price-points starting at just $157 for the i5-10400F, going up to $262 for the unlocked i5-10600K.

The 10th generation Core i3 series also sees a hefty bit of hardware enhancement. These are 4-core/8-thread parts, with up to 8 MB of shared L3 cache (same as the 7th generation Core i7 series). The i3-10300 and i3-10320 feature 8 MB of L3 cache, while the entry-level i3-10100 features 6 MB of it. The i3-10100 is priced at $122, the i3-10300 at $143, and the i3-10320 at $154. There is no unlocked part in the Core i3 series.

At the bottom of the pile are Pentium Gold socket LGA1200 G6000-series 2-core/4-thread processors with 4 MB of L3 cache, and Celeron G5900 series 2-core/2-thread parts with 3 MB L3 cache.

Intel sticking with 14 nm comes with heavy costs on the energy-efficiency front. All unlocked K-SKUs in the series come with an unprecedented 125 W TDP rating (older generations of Intel LGA115x processors almost never had a TDP rating higher than 95 W). Almost all socket LGA1200 motherboards we've seen so far, barring the Mini-ITX designs, feature at least an 8+4 pin EPS (CPU power) input configuration. The higher-end boards even have dual 8-pin EPS setups akin to HEDT motherboards.
10th Gen Intel Core Desktop Comet Lake Lineup

What's Really New

As we explained earlier, the core IPC of the 10th generation "Comet Lake" microarchitecture is unchanged from the previous generation, much of Intel's innovation is focused on getting the most out of their existing core design. The following is a list of what's really new:
  • HyperThreading across the board: Intel extended HyperThreading to be available across most of their product line. HT was originally reserved for only top-tier parts, but can now be found on the Core i9, Core i7, Core i5, Core i3, and Pentium Gold parts. SMT is a proven way to dial up multi-threaded application performance by leveraging idle hardware resources in a CPU core, and brings about tangible multi-threaded performance uplifts.
  • Up to Three Different Boosting Algorithms: Intel has up to three different clock speed boosting algorithms deployed on various SKUs in the series:
    • Turbo Boost 2.0: This is the most basic boosting technology, available across all 10th gen Core i9, Core i7, Core i5, and Core i3 SKUs
    • Turbo Boost MAX 3.0: Carried over from the Core X HEDT processor family, Turbo Boost Max 3.0 is now available on 10th Gen Core i9 and Core i7 SKUs, enabling higher notches of clock speed than Turbo Boost 2.0, and it also adds "Favored Cores". This makes the operating system aware the two physically-best cores, which can sustain higher boost frequencies better than the rest of the CPU. The goal is to have the OS scheduler prioritize running workloads on these cores, so they can run faster. Windows 10 has had Favored Core awareness since 1609, and Linux x64 kernels since January 2018 have supported it.
    • Thermal Velocity Boost: Carried over from its 9th and 10th generation Core mobile processors, Thermal Velocity Boost is available to 10th generation Core i9 SKUs. The feature enables clock boost speeds even higher than Turbo Boost MAX 3.0, in short bursts, provided your processor's cooling solution is able to consistently keep temperatures below a threshold, and provided a few power targets are met. We confirmed with Intel that for the 10th gen desktop chips, this threshold is set at 70 °C (for the mobile parts it is 65 °C).
  • New Core and Memory overclocking features, including:
    • The ability to enable or disable HyperThreading for individual cores. Until now, you could disable or enable HTT only globally. This comes as a boon for gamers who want to set a few of their cores without HTT, and a few with HTT for streaming applications
    • Enhanced, finer grained voltage/frequency curve controls. Intel is launching a major update to XTU alongside these processors, which lets you set the voltage at individual frequencies, for much finer control of overclocking parameters. This technique was pioneered by GPU vendors and helps reduce power in situations when the CPU is not running at highest frequency. Traditionally you could either program a voltage offset that shifts the whole V-F curve in one direction, or program an override voltage that runs the CPU at the same voltage all the time, wasting tons of energy in the process. Now you may change the shape of the curve, too: undervolt when idle or lightly loaded, but higher voltage when loaded, to reach higher overclocking? It's possible now.
    • The ability to overclock the PCI-Express 3.0 x16 graphics bus (PEG), and DMI chipset-bus. We're not entirely sure how this is accomplished. Both are PCIe-based interfaces, which can only tolerate a few MHz clock variance for high-bandwidth devices such as GPUs. We asked Intel how this works, and they confirmed that "DMI and PCIe are linked. By overclocking one, you are overclocking the other".
  • Physical, packaging improvements: Intel made some improvements to the processor package with an aim of improving heat transfer between the die and the cooling solution. Without changing the Z-height of the package, Intel found a way to thicken the copper IHS, by thinning the silicon die (from 800 µm down to 500 µm; and the fiberglass substrate. Soldered TIM (STIM) sits between the die and the IHS. This should improve heat transfer significantly, as silicon is a thermal insulator, whereas the copper IHS is highly conductive.
  • Native support for DDR4-2933 and higher memory clocks across the board: up to DDR4-4000 for two dual-rank modules, over DDR4-4800 for two single-rank modules, and beyond DDR4-5000 for one single-rank module.
Intel Comet Lake Overclocking Enhancements Intel Comet Lake Thinner die, improved IHS Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 New Comet Lake Desktop Processor Features

The Intel Z490 Chipset

Intel is launching its latest top-tier desktop chipset, the Z490. The Intel 400-series chipset family includes other models, including the B460, and H410, although we're not sure if the latter two will be available at launch. The Z490 leads the pack with maxed out connectivity.

We asked Intel and they confirmed that Z490 is built on a 14 nm production process. It connects to the LGA1200 processor over a conventional DMI 3.0 chipset bus (32 Gbps per direction). Connectivity is an impressive 24 PCI-Express 3.0 downstream lanes, which combined with the 16 PEG lanes from the processor add up to 40 lanes on this platform. Motherboard designers utilize this PCIe lane budget to deploy up to three M.2 NVMe slots, and several high-bandwidth devices such as additional USB 3.2 host controllers, Thunderbolt 3 controllers, 10 GbE networking, etc.

The Z490 integrates a 6-port SATA 6 Gbps AHCI/RAID controller, a 4-port USB 3.2 gen 2 controller with Gen 2 x2 (20 Gbps) capability, up to 12 USB 3.2 gen 1 (5 Gbps) ports, a HD Audio bus with Intel Smart Sound (low-power audio encoding/decoding) capability, which lets you issue voice commands to your PC even in standby mode; and one integrated MAC for either an i225-V "Foxville" 2.5 GbE or cheaper i219-V "Jacksonville" 1 GbE controller. The chipset also comes with preparation for Intel AX201 WLAN card over CNVi interface (802.11ax Wi-Fi + Bluetooth 5).

Availability

Although announced today, the 10th generation Core desktop processors and compatible LGA1200 motherboards should reach markets around the world starting May-June—the K SKUs will reach the market first.

The Complete Slide Deck

New 10th gen Intel Core S-Series Processor Launch Intel 10th Gen, worlds fastest gaming processor Best Overclocking Experience Comet Lake Why Frequency Matters Intel Comet Lake Overclocking Enhancements Intel Comet Lake Thinner die, improved IHS Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 Intel Core i9-10900K Comet Lake Performance in Games and Creating Optimized for Total War Three Kingdoms Optimized to win Remnant from the Ashes Gaming Partners about Intel 10th Gen Gaming Partners about Intel 10th Gen New Comet Lake Desktop Processor Features 10th Gen Intel Core Desktop Comet Lake Lineup 10th Gen Intel Core Desktop Comet Lake Lineup 10th Gen Intel Core Desktop Comet Lake Lineup 10th Gen Intel Core Desktop Comet Lake Lineup
Add your own comment

203 Comments on Intel 10th Generation Comet Lake Desktop Processors and 400-Series Chipsets Announced, Here's what's New

#126
EarthDog
This is an enthusiast site and those who want to game with modern titles will find 4c/8t hold back some games at 1080p and 1440. But we arent talking peoples salaries and 1st/3ed world bullshit... that's just ranting.

That said, I dont like the core/thread war either that amd started. 16c/32t in mainstream is a joke. In fact, I didnt like the 12c/24t part either. 8c/16t is plenty for the next few years.
Posted on Reply
#127
trparky
birdie
I wonder how stating facts and nothing but facts
Because you sound like Intel's marketing department from a few years ago.
EarthDog
That said, I don't like the core/thread war either that AMD started. 16c/32t in mainstream is a joke. In fact, I didn't like the 12c/24t part either. 8c/16t is plenty for the next few years.
I'd have to agree with you on that. The only thing that this so-called "core/thread war" has done has made lower-end products not only cheaper but also a better buy. And in the end, that's all that really matters. People now are getting more for their money.
Posted on Reply
#128
EarthDog
trparky
Because you sound like Intel's marketing department from a few years ago.


I'd have to agree with you on that. The only thing that this so-called "core/thread war" has done has made lower-end products not only cheaper but also a better buy. And in the end, that's all that really matters. People now are getting more for their money.
Absolutely. My only concern is people generically thinking more c/t is better. They are... but if you can use them. For gamers, 4c/8t in 2020 is already long in the tooth... I wouldnt go less than 8/8...6/6 if you didnt have a choice.
Posted on Reply
#129
trparky
Yeah. Before AMD came back and kicked Intel's ass their lower-end Core i3 chips were all nothing more than 2C4T chips, now they're 4C8T chips at nearly the same price. This is double the performance at nearly the same cost, the consumer wins.
Posted on Reply
#130
kapone32
Here is me theoretically a newbie. I want to spend $500 and build a PC for Gaming. I know that I will be upgrading my PC as time goes on. Do I go with the !0th Gen I3 and get a Graphics card (X570 or 1650) or will I go for an AM4 build using a 3400G? The arguments can be had for both sides, neither is a bad choice. However if you look at the argument objectively AM4 offers way more flexibility to the end user than the current Intel lineup. We don't even have B550 yet and there will be another launch in October??? Even the boldest Intel fanboy must be shaking in their boots at the proposition of Zen4 and if it is compatible with X370 or X470 (which would in turn mean B450) and potentially B350......
Posted on Reply
#131
EarthDog
If I'm gaming, clearly intel as you framed it... both are 4c/8t cpus, right? The 1650 and rx 570 are faster than that igpu..

Zen 4 wont be compatible with anything lower than x470 I'd imagine. AMD said through 2020, and zen4 is years away.
Posted on Reply
#132
Vayra86
Intel Press Conference

"Here is what's new, everything is Up To just a hair better than what we did last time. Maybe. If its not too hot"

Seriously I'm gonna call this company Up To going forward.
Posted on Reply
#133
EarthDog
Vayra86
Seriously I'm gonna call this company Up To going forward.
Well, another user on my ignore list for discrimination... :p

I kid...

But seriously... all companies are 'up to' marketers! Think of it like fractions and common denominators....do to one side what you do to the other! Lol.. dont hate... dont discriminate....they all do it. :)
Posted on Reply
#134
Vayra86
EarthDog
Well, another user on my ignore list for discrimination... :p

I kid...

But seriously... all companies are 'up to' marketers! Think of it like fractions and common denominators....do to one side what you do to the other! Lol.. dont hate... dont discriminate....they all do it. :)
There is no hate, its just sad and funny all in one go :p And Intel is doing a fine job making itself look silly lately, so yeah, they're in the crosshairs now.

Btw if you go by those criteria I'm sure this is already the quietest forum on earth for you haha
Posted on Reply
#135
kapone32
EarthDog
Absolutely. My only concern is people generically thinking more c/t is better. They are... but if you can use them. For gamers, 4c/8t in 2020 is already long in the tooth... I wouldnt go less than 8/8...6/6 if you didnt have a choice.
I totally agree with you the 3300 could be a surpriging chip if it let's all cores clock as high as touted on 7nm.
EarthDog
If I'm gaming, clearly intel as you framed it... both are 4c/8t cpus, right? The 1650 and rx 570 are faster than that igpu..

Zen 4 wont be compatible with anything lower than x470 I'd imagine. AMD said through 2020, and zen4 is years away.
I am so sorry I have had a couple Hollandia and enjoyed the offerings of the Government of Canada I meant Zen3 (To be honest it is all a little confusing).
Posted on Reply
#136
EarthDog
Vayra86
There is no hate, its just sad and funny all in one go :p And Intel is doing a fine job making itself look silly lately, so yeah, they're in the crosshairs now.

Btw if you go by those criteria I'm sure this is already the quietest forum on earth for you haha
The polarizing nature of so many users this forum is incredibly off-putting (surely many feel the same about me getting information out, lol)... no doubt. My threads look like swiss cheese sometimes, lol. But hey, if it isn't mitigated... we got to do it. ;)

Yeah, just having a laugh over the 'hate', thing. :p

Seriously though, everyone markets in an 'up to' manner. This has nothing to do with Intel or whoever... THAT is marketing in the 21st century, sadly.
Posted on Reply
#137
IamEzio
birdie
No, users should not buy PCs with as many cores as humanly possible because unused cores are nothing but wasted money. People should always buy what's best for them (in terms of the bang for the buck) for their budget. I do understand that most TPU users are tech-enthusiasts who love to have overpowered PCs because you do it for boasting rights but that's not how the world works! Many people save on food and clothes to be able to buy a PC and you're insisting they should go e.g. buy something like Ryzen 7 3700X? Or companies which buy thousands of PCs for their workers? Why?? All these people will be just fine with Core i3 10300 for the next 15 years. Yes, 15, because I had an Intel Core i5 2500 based PC until August 2019 and it still works perfectly. I replaced it not because I needed MOAR cores or speed but because I wanted a new PC for a change.

Also, please let me remind you about AMD FX-8000 / 9000 CPUs which had MORE cores but ran slower in absolute most tasks than Intel CPUs with twice as fewer cores. So, your argument about having MOAR cores goes out of the window.

And since we've just established that MOAR cores are not that essential we come back to square one.
  • Old bad Sky Lake at 5.3 GHz performs faster than any non-OC'ed AMD CPU in existence in absolute most tasks.
  • AMD does win when MOAR cores are getting used due to power throttling on the Intel side because you can go only so far with power hungry 14nm cores.
  • Intel does have CPUs with much better IPC than Sky Lake: Ice Lake (~18% IPC uplift), Tiger Lake (+15% IPC uplift vs. Ice Lake).
Lastly many people say new games will utilize MOAR cores, which means slower but MOAR cores are better than faster but fewer cores. This is too often not true. Let me explain why:
  • Most game engines have a master thread which synchronizes all other threads load and if this master thread becomes overutilized your additional cores are going to waste.
  • CCX complexes in AMD CPUs mean there's a certain amount of delay in communication between cores which means games have to be specially coded which adds complexity and some game companies will simply not do this work because there's this vendor, which is being mocked at constantly, Intel, which doesn't have inter-CPU cores communication issues. AMD has actually realized that as well and Zen 3 is rumored to have 8-core CCX complexes which solves the issue.
  • A lot of games don't actually need that many cores because they are not complicated enough and programmers have no tasks to run on additional cores. In fact less than 5% of games in 2020 fully utilize more than 6 cores which means Intel Core i9 9700 is doing its job just fine or most four-core CPUs with HT.
Over and out.



Are you following me?

Let me quote myself again: "And 3400G is quite slower CPU-wise than Core i3 10100 because it's Zen+, not Zen 2."
-Old bad Sky Lake at 5.3 GHz performs faster than any non-OC'ed AMD CPU in existence in absolute most tasks.

is this the slide we are looking for?



Do you also work for them?...

- Intel does have CPUs with much better IPC than Sky Lake: Ice Lake (~18% IPC uplift), Tiger Lake (+15% IPC uplift vs. Ice Lake).
Where? do they have a DESKTOP CPU with better IPC then AMD right now? will they have in the following year the year next to it?
If the answer is NO, then whats the point to even bring it up?, Zen 3 is around the corner, rumored to bring a big IPC lift once a gain after they refined the CCX/CCD layout, and with Zen 3 we are talking about September-October time frame.
If Rocket-Lake-S is lower core count, lower frequency but with higher clocks.. what performance benefit will "But my 5.3GHz CPU is best cuz Marketing to me so" crowed will see? they would definitely don't care about PCI-E 4.0 and better IGPU. "Tiger-Lake" when is that? Late 2020 on laptops and ~2021 on desktop? So it will compere with zen 4.....


-
All these people will be just fine with Core i3 10300 for the next 15 years. Yes, 15, because I had an Intel Core i5 2500 based PC until August 2019 and it still works perfectly. I replaced it not because I needed MOAR cores or speed but because I wanted a new PC for a change.
Sorry, but that's a funny comment. you base the fact a new CPU will be "good" for 15 years and you base that on the fact you changed your CPU after 9 Years stating it "wasn't because of performance".
You know what CPU were available 15 Years a go? Athlon 64 x2 and Pentium D, do you really want to use one of those on a modern operation system with a modern browser? not even gaming. the answer would be you don't. in another 6 years, people will look at your beloved i5 2500 the same way as people look today on a c2d, it old, slow and shouldn't be used.
You should also remember that for the most part software takes time to catch up to hardware. 4c/4t was the performance on the mainstream front for a long time, you would not want to target software for people running on 8c/8t CPU's when only 1% of people have those. so you target for the lower end. a 2500 is slower then a modern i3, if you don't game that's fine but lets not pretend that a 2500k is a "decent" gaming CPU in 2020. I had an i5 3470 from the moment it launched. I had it for several years until I changed it to an E3-1270v2 (~i7 3770) I grabbed for cheap on ebay, frame-times in games were much more consistent (and that's with a mid-range GTX970) after the swap.
Every few years the software catches up with hardware improvements. and it will happen sooner then later, in 2010 we said "games don't need more than 2 cores", 3 years later when I swapped my aging E8400 C2D to an i5 3470 (in late 2012 when it launched) the difference was night and day. today people repeat the broken record that games don't use more the 4c/8t, so in a year it would change again to "but games don't use more than 8c8t and so on". Technology is going forward and you can't expect any piece of hardware to stay relevant for ever. even when it comes to office pc's an i5 2500 is starting to show its age, believe me I know having the "pleasure" to use one inside an hp generic sff box on my work pc (thankfully with an SSD). and while it is performance are decent for its age. its nothing to write home about.
Posted on Reply
#138
efikkan
birdie
CCX complexes in AMD CPUs mean there's a certain amount of delay in communication between cores which means games have to be specially coded which adds complexity and some game companies will simply not do this work because there's this vendor, which is being mocked at constantly, Intel, which doesn't have inter-CPU cores communication issues. AMD has actually realized that as well and Zen 3 is rumored to have 8-core CCX complexes which solves the issue.
I'm not sure if I read you correctly, but coding games to be "optimized" for low-level core design "shortcomings" like this is approaching the impossible. And even if so, this would have to be managed by the OS kernel. But regardless, this would be working around poor design choices, and would also require dozens of specially crafted schedulers in each OS. I believe by principle this would be a very bad idea, and would lead to loads of poorly maintained code. Writing good software is complex and messy enough as it is, the last thing we need is more piles of workarounds.

Regarding the Zen 2 design with 2 CCXs per die, this isn't a problem (except for perhaps a few edge cases), and especially not for gaming. Games do as little core to core synchronization as possible, because it's expensive regardless of CPU design, and there are also cascading problems due to OS scheduling overhead. While I do expect Zen 3 will bring some improvements with its 8-core CCXs, but this will be due to more cores sharing L3 and other design improvements. Games are on the other hand very sensitive to memory latency, and within a single frame rendered, a thread will do much more memory accesses than thread to thread communication. What Zen 3 brings in terms of memory controller improvements and core front-end improvements will be deciding factors for gaming performance.

Zen(1) did however have issues with the larger Threadrippers as we know, practically making them useless for gaming. That's real bottlenecking.
Posted on Reply
#139
Octopuss
birdie
$70 is how much people are earning in some African countries in a month. Sometimes it helps to leave the cozy vacuum of your rich american life and realize there's a world outside with actual people and for many of them $70 is a ton of money.
This post makes me leave this thread.
Trolling is one thing.
Bizzare pseudoarguments/comparisons from mental asyllum in Star Trek universe is whole different sport.
Posted on Reply
#140
ARF
The new CPU-Z 1.92.0:

Core i7-10700 ST 568 MT 5625
Ryzen 7 3700X ST 511 MT 5433
Posted on Reply
#141
RandallFlagg
medi01
Check out.
4000 series...
Mainboards...

If you dare...

I hope they come with fire extinguishers... :D
You mean like how fast AMD 4XXX laptops were going to be?

Here's two charts for you, PCMark - overall system performance.
The top one is top performers with the highly vaunted king of laptop chips according to the pundits, er tech sites, the 4800HS.
The chart below it is top performers with an i7-9750H.

And yes I know it's not the CPU itself, but I don't make my own chipsets and drivers. This is what you can expect from an actual laptop right now.

AMD 4800HS:




Last years 9570H Intel based laptops scoring about 20%+ higher:

Posted on Reply
#142
R0H1T
RandallFlagg
The top one is top performers with the highly vaunted king of laptop chips according to the pundits, er tech sites, the 4800HS.
Nope, the current AMD top chip is 4900HS also their best mobile chip is 4900H non S. There's also the fact that Intel chips easily pull 90W in many high/top tier notebooks & that's not really mobile category IMO.
Posted on Reply
#143
IamEzio
R0H1T
Nope, the current AMD top chip is 4900HS also their best mobile chip is 4900H non S. There's also the fact that Intel chips easily pull 90W in many high/top tier notebooks & that's not really mobile category IMO.
Lets not forget PCMark score is also depended on the GPU, and currently the best on a ryzen laptop is a 2060MaxQ compared to 2080's on the intel side.
Posted on Reply
#144
coozie78
When did mobile performance get involved in a thread about desktop parts?
Come on, people, try to maintain some civility and stick to the actual subject at hand, this flame war is getting tedious.
Posted on Reply
#145
Eskimonster
name brands mean nort to me, i want the best gaming experience.
if its Intel its intel, if its AMD,im actually surprised.
Posted on Reply
#146
birdie
IamEzio
...
I don't see any facts, benchmarks or valid data to continue to argue with you. You also didn't really refute any of my arguments and instead veered so far away as to start talking about CPUs from the mid 00s for the lack of better arguments. How does this history tidbit relate to Comet Lake CPUs exactly?

It's a well known fact that CPU performance increases in single threaded mode over the past decade have been minimal (except for AMD but they trailed Intel very hard). In the 90s the performance grew by up to 30% annually but we now live in the 20s. Also there are tasks which run almost at the same speed on Sandy Bridge and Ice Lake when both CPUs are running at the same frequency - the CPUs which are eight years apart. That was unthinkable before the 10s. Don't believe me? Run Fritz Chess Benchmark and see for yourself.

And yes, the picture you've showed perfectly represents normal tasks for > 95% of average people out there. The sad reality which AMD fans don't really like is that multi-core CPUs are mainly necessary for professionals. I didn't know it existed as I've never seen it before. In the top 20 only WinRAR utilizes many cores but out of many dozens of people that I know personally zero run WinRAR regularly.

OBS Studio, ranked 151(!), is surprisingly used by exactly 5% of people, so my estimates are quite on spot. Also, this app works miles better when you have a device capable of HW video encoding, so having more cores even in this application becomes moot at best.
Posted on Reply
#147
RandallFlagg
Here are some facts.

Top benchmarks recorded for PCMark 10, Firestrike Extreme, and Time Spy Extreme.


Posted on Reply
#148
Braggingrights
Win gaming, win the world... is it fair?

If you wanted fair you picked the wrong universe.
Posted on Reply
#149
Shatun_Bear
This release is another version of 2015 Skylake. The power draw is going to be ugly.

14nm in 2020 is a sad state of affairs. I would avoid any of these relic Intel CPUs until they can move to 7nm in 2022.
RandallFlagg
Wow, groupthink is a thing it seems.

So here's a little thought starter.

How does the i5-10400 (65W) stack up to the 3600 (65W)?

How about the i5-10500 (65W)?

How does the i5-10600 (65W) stack up to the 3600X (95W)?

These are all 6C/12T CPUs now and will co-exist at comparable price points. My thought is that in the midrange, Intel's new chips are going to clock AMD's 3XXX offerings (pun intended).
And everyone will still buy Ryzen, because of the lower power draw, much cheaper prices and superior multi-threaded performance.

Just look at Amazon.com best selling processors. 9 of the top 10 is Ryzen I'm afraid.
Posted on Reply
#150
ARF
coozie78
When did mobile performance get involved in a thread about desktop parts?
Come on, people, try to maintain some civility and stick to the actual subject at hand, this flame war is getting tedious.
Choice, competition, alternative. I would take a 35-watt Ryzen 9 4900HS over the 65-watt Ryzen 7 3700X.
The performance is very, very close.

www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-amd_ryzen_9_4900hs-1285
www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-amd_ryzen_7_3700x-929


wccftech.com/amd-ceo-ryzen-cpus-now-account-to-more-than-50-premium-processor-sales-globally-strong-demand-for-ryzen-3000-ryzen-2000-cpus/

No matter how many consumers prefer AMD Ryzen, it seems the market share change just comes slowly.
Even worse, after the original Ryzen first generation release in 2017, AMD actually had been losing market share until some point after beginning of 2019. :confused:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment