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

[Dr_b_]

The amount of hogwash being spread by AMD fans is simply staggering. Why don't you just skip the news related to Intel and NVIDIA?



1. You're absolutely irresponsibly wrong about that. > 98% of tasks normal users run on a daily basis will run faster if you have 4 fast cores than you have 16 slow cores. Deal with it.

2. In its current form Intel CPUs are the fastest in the world in single threaded performance (for running x86-64 code). This has nothing to do with IPC or anything. I don't give a damn about future AMD or anyone's products. And when you're talking about Zen 3, start talking about Ice Lake which has a much higher IPC than Zen 2 and Tiger Lake which adds up to 20% of performance on top of Ice Lake.



No, they don't. Absolute most people out there do NOT run on a regular basis:

• Compilation
• Rendering
• Video/audio encoding (hardly any users reencode video)
• Scientific research and computations
• AI

These are all extremely specialized tasks for very few people out there - again, just like I said, 2% of the global population using PCs or less. Also, a lot of tasks don't quite scale well when you're adding MOAR cores, e.g. the x265 code can effectively use only 16 cores and adding more on top improves performance in a less than linear fashion.

Why does every discussion about Intel and NVIDIA turn into a cesspool of disinformation, myths and "AMD will work better in the future"? No one cares! People buy products to run them right away.

And speaking of feature completeness.

I've recently bought an AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT video card, based on the SUPER DUPER RDNA 1.0 architecture, which in AMD fans' eyes is the second coming of Christ. What did I get:

• AMD drivers can't control gamma in games which is a must for tons of people
• Fan curve is broken (I'm rocking the latest BIOS and the newest 20.4.2 Adrenaline Drivers)
• Video acceleration consumes more than twice (!) as much power as NVIDIA Pascal on 16nm which was released 4 years ago(!) - 28W vs 12W.
• With the fan stop feature turned on the card runs at staggering 57C (!) while browsing the web while my previous GTX 1060 ran at modest 42C with everything else being equal. As a result my X570 chipset is now running at 65C instead of 58C with an "old" "bad" NVIDIA GPU.

Speaking of the amazing Zen2/X570 combo. In idle it consumes over 25W of power (which is a lot when talking about millions of systems) vs. around 7W for Intel which has a bad "14++++++" node and an even worse 22nm node for its Z390 chipset.

-We don't not understand that single core performance matters. Not disputing that intel can be faster, but you claimed AMD was 20% slower on IPC, where do you get your information from? 20% slower on average with what applications, and what CPUs? I certainly haven't found that to be the case when comparing my Skylake CPUs and AMD CPUs

-Why do you believe that we need to run a dozen BIOS updates to get a stable AMD CPU environment, there have been only 2 EUFI updates for my x570 system which is 3950X on CH8, and it worked fine and was stable on the one it shipped with.

-A lot of tasks do scale with thread count. Intel is releasing a 10 core part here, not a 4 core part. Also, with only 4 cores, you are limited in the number of single threaded apps you can run simultaneously. This isn't a niche domain. Why would anyone advocate just scaling clocks and power consumption in fewer cores versus spreading loads out over multiple threads, this is how we are getting around physical limitations with our current technology. Intel is marketing these products to people that do run lots of apps, they have the word "megatasking" on the product marketing slides.

-Your personal AMD GPU problems are relevant to comparing an AMD CPU and its core performance to Intel CPUs how? If you want to discuss product problems, AMD hasn't been plagued by the numerous security issues that intel has over the past years, and patches for those have slowed intels IPC advantage.

-Intel has had a monopoly over the CPU market for so long, it is stagnating, releasing iterative products on the same process node, without new features, look at the iGPU in these "new" CPUs. The skylake uArch doesn't suck, its just doesn't exist in a vacuum. Everyone is benefiting from reduced prices and competition, and at the risk of angering you further, more cores.

-Power Consumption, you can't ignore that. The only way to beat AMD IPC is via clock speed at the expense of extreme heat and power consumption.

-Im not claiming that AMD will work better in the future, im claiming it is working better now for all the reasons stated, this isnt a myth or a cesspool of disinformation.

Have you got a link to a third-party investigation about this claim - that Intel-based systems are more issue-free?

no it was anecdotal based on my personal experience

 

[Braggingrights]

Power Consumption, you can't ignore that.

I heard they could have found the Higgs years earlier but they were worried about power consumption

 

[kapone32]

Wow that top Intel 10 core is about the same price as the 3900x.

10700KF is the choice for gamers.

That is a very broad statement.

 

[Dr_b_]

I heard they could have found the Higgs years earlier but they were worried about power consumption

Electricity isn't free, and 300W+ is a lot of heat. The LHC isn't left on 24x7 either, and is funded by governments, which aren't coincidentally paying for my electric bill. Got any more pointless analogies?

 

[Gmr_Chick]

Damn, the comments section on this article got me like:

The only thing I will say is that the reviews for these CPUs ought to be REALLY interesting, mostly in regards to thermals.

 

[villa07]

i9-9900KF (16M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.60 Ghz) $463
i7-10700KF (16M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.80 GHz) $349
-$114 big savings

Also not that bad at ALL Core 4.00 GHz.
i5-10400F (12M cache, 6 Cores, 12 Threads, 2.90 GHz) $157

Waiting for 7nm WillowCove 2022 Socket 1700

willowcove is still 10nm, should golden cove with 7nm

 

[medi01]

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

Check out.
4000 series...
Mainboards...

If you dare...

I hope they come with fire extinguishers...

you have 16 slow cores.

Yeah. "Slow cores".
As in "brought to you by clowns thinking Intel has IPC advantage"

 

[SIGSEGV]

DOA
Damn, I don't see a good reason to switch over Intel right now. LOL

 

[ARF]

DOA
Damn, I don't see a good reason to switch over Intel right now. LOL

Z490 supports Rocket Lake, while upcoming Ryzen 4000 will be end of road for AM4 X570.

 

[Houd.ini]

I heard they could have found the Higgs years earlier but they were worried about power consumption

You think CERN don't care about efficiency?

 

[Super XP]

From Anandtech:


These are going to be some hefty motherboards. I’m curious if this will set precedence for future CPU designs.

Any groundbreaking Intel CPU design is years off IMO. We might end up seeing something meaningful sometime in 2022 or 2023.

DOA
Damn, I don't see a good reason to switch over Intel right now. LOL

Here's a Red Flag for Intel.
Ryan Shrout was hired for Chief Performance Strategist at Intel. Performance Strategist? Why does Intel need such a thing? To make slow & old processors look nice & shiny on benchmark & performance graphs/slides perhaps? Currently, anything Intel has out to date is pretty much DOA, they will receive the same scrutiny as AMD once did with its Bulldozer release. Even though AMD cleaned that up quite a bit with Piledriver, as Intel also is attempting to clean up its CPUs, they will still be taglined DOA as AMD's Bulldozer back in the day!!!

Chief Performance Strategist is a Red Flag, they should have called it Chief Performance BullShatter!!!

10700KF is the choice for gamers.

Nobody should be recommending Intel for gamers when you have better processors out to date called AMD Ryzen 3000 series.

 

[efikkan]

Nobody should be recommending Intel for gamers when you have better processors out to date called AMD Ryzen 3000 series.

This is the kind of biased nonsense we don't need in here.
While Zen 2 certainly have multiple advantages, Intel is still better in workloads like gaming, photo editing, video editing, etc.
The right choice depends on the use case of the computer.

 

[Turmania]

You can play on i3 10100 or ryzen 3 3100 and you be just fine. Unless you started doing some other tasks as well. There are other factors people should consider, price,power consumption,cooling and system stability etc.

 

[ARF]

You can play on i3 10100 or ryzen 3 3100 and you be just fine. Unless you started doing some other tasks as well. There are other factors people should consider, price,power consumption,cooling and system stability etc.

Ryzen 3 3100 will produce 15-20 less FPS.

 

[IamEzio]

If that's sad then almost 2 decades as wannabe's must have been downright tragic for the opposition

This comment can might as well be an extension of Intel's marketing division, even if you hate them with all of your hearth.
They had great products at some point. same as Intel and NVIDIA and for most decent companies.

The 2 tragic things here:

1) much bigger and powerful companies trying to bury the "underdog" when it has the better product, with gray area/sometimes on the verge/plain illegal and anti competitive actions. And when the lawsuit comes they just pay and repeat again, because at the end its more profitable to be punished on your actions then to stop doing them. Do you also think Nvidia's GPP was the greatest thing for consumers? or how the "CPU Discounts" to OEM's lower PC prices ? no they don't, Only one benefits from this are Intel and the Marketing department that can literally do anything and people will still think their new Skylake CPU is the best thing ever shouting "Moar GHz" on forums. when in fact AMD currently has the better IPC. Zen 3 is coming, and if "rumors" are somewhat correct, it should have enough performance to make the Lake series finally irrelevant at everything, no matter what "GHZzzzzz" its running at.

2) Intel not pushing the performance farther, only reason they have higher core counts and lower prices is zen, and that's the real tragedy. how can people be fanboys for a company that did everything to milk their costumers in incremental updates just because they could? the only reason technology came so far is because people keep pushing the boundaries of what is possible.
Some people voted with their wallets and refused to upgrade, Many people with Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge didn't have a reason to upgrade to another mainstream platform as paying 350$ for a CPU that is barely twice as fast on the most optimal benchmark, 5 years later was not the Smart move. finally now, that high core count CPU's are mainstream can people upgrade without feeling like they've been ripped off.

This is the kind of biased nonsense we don't need in here.
While Zen 2 certainly have multiple advantages, Intel is still better in workloads like gaming, photo editing, video editing, etc.
The right choice depends on the use case of the computer.

While they hold the gaming crown for the most part, and usually with small margins. when it comes to photo/video editing depending on the software - zen 2 today, is mostly on par/better vs comparable core count Intel CPU's.

 

[WeeRab]

These new top-end Intel space-heaters are dead-in-the-water already.
Proc + M/Board is already $700-$800, then another $150-$200 for a cooling solution. - And you WILL need that to cool them.

All that money to boast about higher FPS at 1080p - Jeez....
Oh! I forgot about the 0.0002% of the population who are 'e-athletes', or the other 0.0002% who sit in their mothers basement running PiFast all day to validate their idiocy.

Just buy AMD and spend the money you would've wasted on Intel on a top of the line graphics card.

 

[Super XP]

This is the kind of biased nonsense we don't need in here.
While Zen 2 certainly have multiple advantages, Intel is still better in workloads like gaming, photo editing, video editing, etc.
The right choice depends on the use case of the computer.

Let's not kid ourselves, and Quite the contrary, the only minor advantage Intel has on AMD is PC Gaming. That's It.
AMD takes the crown in Video/Photo editing along with pretty much everything else.

And with all due respect, please don't call Factual Information, biased nonsense.

Ryzen 3 3100 will produce 15-20 less FPS.

Will you see a difference between 150 FPS vs. 180 FPS? I'll answer that easy question 4U. Absolutely NOT. The very very minor FPS increase you get from using Intel's stove heater is not even worse mentioning nowadays. This ain't AMD Bulldozer vs. Intel.

 

[ARF]

Will you see a difference between 150 FPS vs. 180 FPS? I'll answer that easy question 4U. Absolutely NOT. The very very minor FPS increase you get from using Intel's stove heater is not even worse mentioning nowadays. This ain't AMD Bulldozer vs. Intel.

I have marked the guy above you as a troll and reported it.
Ryzen 3 3100 is the worst that you could ever get. It has 8 cores in 2 4-core CCXs with all the latency associated between them, 2 cores enabled in the first CCX and 2 cores enabled in the second CCX. This is a recipe for disaster in gaming.

Core i3-10100 is a 65-watt part, what stove heater are you dreaming about ?

 

[efikkan]

Let's not kid ourselves, and Quite the contrary, the only minor advantage Intel has on AMD is PC Gaming. That's It.
AMD takes the crown in Video/Photo editing along with pretty much everything else.
And with all due respect, please don't call Factual Information, biased nonsense.

The facts speaks for themselves:

And there are numerous others as well. Zen 2 isn't better in every workload.

 

[Braggingrights]

That is a very broad statement.

But it's exactly the way it'll play out

Electricity isn't free

It is if you have solar panels and Elon Musk on a bicycle peddling like a monkey as a backup generator

 

[kapone32]

I have marked the guy above you as a troll and reported it.
Ryzen 3 3100 is the worst that you could ever get. It has 8 cores in 2 4-core CCXs with all the latency associated between them, 2 cores enabled in the first CCX and 2 cores enabled in the second CCX. This is a recipe for disaster in gaming.

Core i3-10100 is a 65-watt part, what stove heater are you dreaming about ?

Without reviews even your comments can be considered trolling. You have no idea how these will perform.

 

[ARF]

Without reviews even your comments can be considered trolling. You have no idea how these will perform.

I have an idea. You are a troll, also.
Battlefield 1: Ryzen 117 FPS Core i7 140 FPS
Crysis 3: Ryzen 57 FPS Core i7 65 FPS
GTA V: Ryzen 115 FPS Core i7 148 FPS
Witcher 3: Ryzen 55 FPS Core i7 62 FPS

 

[kapone32]

I have an idea. You are a troll, also:

Wow a 4 core first Gen Ryzen CPU that does not do over 4 ghz vs a chip that sold for 2 times the cost and is a refined . You seem to not realize that just from reading and testing that objectively the 7nm chip should have at least a 25% IPC advantage over the chip you are qouting and apparently a 4.5 GHZ all boost clock.

 

[ARF]

Wow a 4 core first Gen Ryzen CPU that does not do over 4 ghz vs a chip that sold for 2 times the cost and is a refined . You seem to not realize that just from reading and testing that objectively the 7nm chip should have at least a 25% IPC advantage over the chip you are qouting and apparently a 4.5 GHZ all boost clock.

You will never see 25% higher performance per clock in gaming. Ryzen 5 1500X is up to 3.7 GHz. Ryzen 3 3100 is up to 3.9 GHz.
But Ryzen 5 1500X has 384 KB L1 cache, while Ryzen 3 1300 has only 256 KB L1 cache.

All performance metrics are already there:

Intel Core i3-10300 Benchmark, Test and specs

The Intel Core i3-10300 is a 4 core processor. It can handle 8 threads simultaneously and was introduced in Q2/2020. The Intel Core i3-10300 is based on the 10. generation of the Intel Core i3 series and requires a mainboard with the socket LGA 1200. The Intel Core i3-10300 scores 1,160 points...

www.cpu-monkey.com

Intel Core i7-7700K Benchmark, Test and specs

The Intel Core i7-7700K was released in Q1/2017 and has 4 cores. The processor can process 8 threads simultaneously and uses a mainboard with the socket LGA 1151. In the Geekbench 5 benchmark, the Intel Core i7-7700K achieved a result of 1,229 points (single-core) or 4,719 points (multi-core).

www.cpu-monkey.com

https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-1500x

https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-3-3100

 

[IamEzio]

The facts speaks for themselves:

And there are numerous others as well. Zen 2 isn't better in every workload.

Oh yes, Facts.. They can go both ways...

I will not even Cherry pick like most do here, and will add this one where a 9900K has a HUGE 5% advantage over the 3900X and margin of error with the 3950X..

The 3900X/3950X has the IPC advantage so even with the lower single core boost, they are as fast on less optimized applications.
And lets not forget that in 3D modeling, a similarly priced 3900X can be 40% Faster, 3950X - 86% Faster.

How can a CPU that is slower in most tasks, be a better than the the CPU is faster in most tasks, even when zen 2 is slower than the comparable Intel CPU, its usually by a small margin.
And the platform is an overall better buy, considering that even if AM4 will be dead next year, you still have an upgrade path from a lower tier Ryzen 3000, or older gen ryzen 2/1000 to a 12c/24 CPU or a 16c/36t CPU Ryzen 3000 or the upcoming 4000. Buying Intel's upcoming platform is not even a guarantee that you could update to a 12c let alone 16c in the long run.

You will never see 25% higher performance per clock in gaming. Ryzen 5 1500X is up to 3.7 GHz. Ryzen 3 3100 is up to 3.9 GHz.
But Ryzen 5 1500X has 384 KB L1 cache, while Ryzen 3 1300 has only 256 KB L1 cache.

All performance metrics are already there:

Intel Core i3-10300 Benchmark, Test and specs

The Intel Core i3-10300 is a 4 core processor. It can handle 8 threads simultaneously and was introduced in Q2/2020. The Intel Core i3-10300 is based on the 10. generation of the Intel Core i3 series and requires a mainboard with the socket LGA 1200. The Intel Core i3-10300 scores 1,160 points...

www.cpu-monkey.com

Intel Core i7-7700K Benchmark, Test and specs

The Intel Core i7-7700K was released in Q1/2017 and has 4 cores. The processor can process 8 threads simultaneously and uses a mainboard with the socket LGA 1151. In the Geekbench 5 benchmark, the Intel Core i7-7700K achieved a result of 1,229 points (single-core) or 4,719 points (multi-core).

www.cpu-monkey.com

https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-1500x

https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-3-3100

Did you really use a 190$ CPU to compare to a 350$ one? and with some random VERY POORLY made video?
Unlike your beloved "Insert some random lake and call it a new product because the road map is a failed mess", zen 2 had major changes in the way its built.
And unlike i7 7700K owners who stuck on 4c8t, the 1500X owners can spend under 200$ to get a new R5 3600. if you have an X370 motherboard with decent VRM you can even install a 3950X on it after a BIOS update. no "x-lake" owner can do that on their mainstream platform.