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

[Bee9]

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

I see your point. Intel made the right marketing moves to target gamers because 66% of the population in the US are consider themselves gamers (1). With competitive gaming becomes so popular, I think they will get back some market share from gamers depending on how many titles are favoring intel processors.
AMD made their moves by Pricing lower than the competitors (cpu at the same tier) and the single core performance loss is not that much that people are willing to switch. It’s just marketing done somewhat right for both sides.

At the point of writing this comment, 3900x is hovering at $400 retail price (2) with cooler included while Intel 10900k pricing is at $488 (per slides released in page 1 of this thread).
Davinci resolve users may find Intel new i9 10900K CPU a little faster (3) but at 20% more expensive than AMD, is it worth the cost? Only the end users can tell. Purchasing decision varies base on disposable income.
Common office workers who deal mostly with Excel spreadsheets will likely enjoy whatever the company gives them and that’s most likely be an Intel machine because of OEM support. But situation may change since more manufacturers are adding AMD to their line up because it’s a little bit easier on the pricing (see recent new AMD laptop with AMD 4000 series cpu).

With Intel releasing new processors, I expect AMD to further cut the price to become more competitive. And I hope new AMD cpu will have better IPC to compete.
At this point, you can’t be wrong buying either side because both bring great performance at somewhat acceptable price range.

I am very happy to see competition because that’s what drive innovations.





(1) https://www.statista.com/statistics/748044/number-video-gamers-world/
(2) https://www.microcenter.com/product...-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-prism-cooler
(3) https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...ore-X-10000-vs-AMD-Threadripper-3rd-Gen-1630/

 

[kapone32]

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

All is said was IPC not gaming and that could easily mitigate less L1 cache. We don't have anything concrete on any of the new CPUs until reviews or self testing. Any comment making one seem better than the other without this data can be considered obtuse. There are a ton of variables to these as well. As an example which is faster using the IGPU the 2400G or 7700K? Will the 10300K be faster in IGPU gaming than the 3400G (Which can't seem to found in Canada for decent prices). Will a 3900X with super fast memory and tight timings perform similar to 5 GHZ 9900K. Those 2 scenarios are known to improve performance on the perspective platforms. Then when the Ryzen chips launch will they have the clock speed to make Intel obsolete (In the words of fan boys on both side depending on the year and decade).

 

[EarthDog]

Have you ever considered that "most people don't need more than four cores", because they didn't have an option to buy more than four cores up until ryzen?

weight wut? rukiddingmeh? For Intel, X58 platform had Hexcores out almost 10 years ago. AMD bulldozer was more than that 'on paper' 10 years ago.

 

[birdie]

Yeah, multicore benchmarks for less than 0.5% of the world's population and suddenly Zen 2 is the only architecture that matters and Sky Lake v5 is BAAAAAAAD. AMD fans cannot really be rational. If it's MOAR cores AMD is automatically better than Intel and NVIDIA combined. Doesn't matter if those cores go underutilized or not utilized at all for 98% of people out there who run nothing but a web browser (because to be honest most people don't run anything else nowadays as you can do pretty much everything in it, including spread sheets/taxes/banking/viewing PDFs, listening to music and playing videos). What's not covered by the web browser? Viewing photos (but given that most people store their photos in the cloud that becomes murky). Some fill out PDFs in Adobe Acrobat or run full blown Microsoft Office - both these tasks barely require more than two cores. Oh, and BTW browsers have extensively used GPU acceleration for quite some time which means the CPU isn't that important.

Still, "My super duper 3950X runs Cinebench 20 benchmark faster than the Core i9 10900KF which means INTEL IS BAD DO NOT BUY IT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES". It gets even more laughable when most AMD fans can't even name day-to-day tasks they are performing on their 16-core overpowered CPUs. Looks like someone has a lot more money than rationale. Or and "every user must have a CPU with as many cores as possible". Hasn't AMD announced four-cores Ryzen CPUs recently? Oh, wait, they have.

 

[Bee9]

Hasn't AMD announced four-cores Ryzen CPUs recently? Oh, wait, they have.

Can you inform us the price of Ryzen 4 cores and to which Intel processors it compete with?

 

[trparky]

You have individuals in this comments section talking about using a build for 5+ years.

I was one of them, I had a 3570K build for nearly five years. Why? Oh yeah... that's because Intel was shoveling the same tired warmed over four core garbage for years that I didn't see a need to upgrade. Why? So, I could get another four core CPU? But then AMD came along and actually forced Intel to innovate and then the 8700K came along with six cores, to which I said... "Self, now is the time to upgrade. There's actually something new here."

Funny how a lack of innovation results in people not wanting to upgrade and thus spend money.

 

[birdie]

Can you inform us the price of Ryzen 4 cores and to which Intel processors it compete with?

Ryzen 3 3300X $120
Ryzen 3 3100 $99

both require a discrete GPU which adds at the very least $80 to the bill (the cheapest modern GPU that I could find on NewEgg).

Intel Core i3 10100: $122 (integrated graphics included).

 

[trparky]

(integrated graphics included).

Which is damn near useless.

 

[birdie]

Which is damn near useless.

Intel HD graphics works for absolute most people out there who don't play AAA games. I personally know a dozen people who have nothing but Intel HD graphics on their PCs/laptops and they have nothing to report.

 

[EarthDog]

Which is damn near useless.

It will put an image on the screen....which is the point. It wont play a ton of games well, but most of those buying these things arent trying to AAA game.

 

[trparky]

It will put an image on the screen... which is the point. It won't play a ton of games well, but most of those buying these things aren't trying to AAA game.

Yes, but if you get either a Ryzen 3200G or 3400G you get the best of both worlds, Ryzen with integrated VEGA graphics that kicks the snot out of anything Intel has as far as integrated graphics.

 

[EarthDog]

Yes, but if you get either a Ryzen 3200G or 3400G you get the best of both worlds, Ryzen with integrated VEGA graphics that kicks the snot out of anything Intel has as far as integrated graphics.

Good point. 3400G is also like $180 though...

 

[trparky]

Good point. 3400G is also like $180 though...

But for about $70 more you actually get graphics hardware that's worth more than a bucket of warm spit.

 

[birdie]

But for about $70 more you actually get graphics hardware that's worth more than a bucket of warm spit.

$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. In seemingly democratic claiming to be 1st-world country Russia the average montly salary is just $450. In Ukraine it's even less.

Lastly a discrete GPU adds complexity and weight to your build which, shockingly(!) even many Europeans/Americans love to avoid.

 

[EarthDog]

But for about $70 more you actually get graphics hardware that's worth more than a bucket of warm spit.

And for $10 more than that, you've got a discrete card that will walk that iGPU.

But seriously, if you are buying potato, cpus, you arent AAA gaming in the first place.

 

[medi01]

66% of the population in the US are consider themselves gamers (1).

Citation needed.

I could imagine "clowns with agenda decided to count everyone who has ever played a computer game, even if just once in his/her life, a gamer".

 

[kapone32]

Ryzen 3 3300X $120
Ryzen 3 3100 $99

both require a discrete GPU which adds at the very least $80 to the bill (the cheapest modern GPU that I could find on NewEgg).

Intel Core i3 10100: $122 (integrated graphics included).

So you should compare it to the 3400G then to be fair. but a RX570 new or used would benefit both CPUs (not that you could do anything other than watch Netflix or Disney +) I doubt you could even run Total War Rome (not Rome 2) on that IGPU. But it does help with Adobe Premiere (If you use that) since for the last 2 years Vegas has been $20 on Humble Bundle.

 

[birdie]

So you should compare it to the 3400G then to be fair. but a RX570 new or used would benefit both CPUs (not that you could do anything other than watch Netflix or Disney +) I doubt you could even run Total War Rome (not Rome 2) on that IGPU. But it does help with Adobe Premiere (If you use that) since for the last 2 years Vegas has been $20 on Humble Bundle.

Let me quote myself: "Intel HD graphics works for absolute most people out there who don't play AAA games. I personally know a dozen people who have nothing but Intel HD graphics on their PCs/laptops and they have nothing to report". And 3400G is quite slower CPU-wise than Core i3 10100 because it's Zen+, not Zen 2.

 

[kapone32]

$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. In seemingly democratic claiming to be 1st-world country Russia the average montly salary is just $450. In Ukraine it's even less.

Lastly a discrete GPU adds complexity and weight to your build which, shockingly(!) even many Europeans/Americans love to avoid.

Just buy a 7950 for $50 and be happy. It's Friday the only thing we have to with our PCs in a couple hours is game or encode. Your argument speaks to Ryzen APUs though as if I was looking for a build without a GPU the 2400G and assumedly 3400G are great for that application.

 

[birdie]

Just buy a 7950 for $50 and be happy. It's Friday the only thing we have to with our PCs in a couple hours is game or encode. Your argument speaks to Ryzen APUs though as if I was looking for a build without a GPU the 2400G and assumedly 3400G are great for that application.

Let me quote myself again because probably you're not paying attention:

"Lastly a discrete GPU adds complexity and weight to your build which, shockingly(!) even many Europeans/Americans love to avoid".

 

[IamEzio]

Yeah, multicore benchmarks for less than 0.5% of the world's population and suddenly Zen 2 is the only architecture that matters and Sky Lake v5 is BAAAAAAAD. AMD fans cannot really be rational. If it's MOAR cores AMD is automatically better than Intel and NVIDIA combined. Doesn't matter if those cores go underutilized or not utilized at all for 98% of people out there who run nothing but a web browser (because to be honest most people don't run anything else nowadays as you can do pretty much everything in it, including spread sheets/taxes/banking/viewing PDFs, listening to music and playing videos). What's not covered by the web browser? Viewing photos (but given that most people store their photos in the cloud that becomes murky). Some fill out PDFs in Adobe Acrobat or run full blown Microsoft Office - both these tasks barely require more than two cores. Oh, and BTW browsers have extensively used GPU acceleration for quite some time which means the CPU isn't that important.

Still, "My super duper 3950X runs Cinebench 20 benchmark faster than the Core i9 10900KF which means INTEL IS BAD DO NOT BUY IT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES". It gets even more laughable when most AMD fans can't even name day-to-day tasks they are performing on their 16-core overpowered CPUs. Looks like someone has a lot more money than rationale. Or and "every user must have a CPU with as many cores as possible". Hasn't AMD announced four-cores Ryzen CPUs recently? Oh, wait, they have.

yes you could consider skylake vX as "BAAAAAAAD", its a stop gap because every other products on the road map never made it to production and was rushed even more so by Zen release.
The only thing that makes it relevant is gaming and some specific applications that it will run better on it thanks to the higher clocks. how can a product that shouldn't had existed in the first place be considered a success? its a success as in Intel has a somewhat competitive and relevant product. as a PRODUCT - sorry but no. And for all of the flack AMD got when they released the pointless FX 9570, Didn't intel recently released a thing they called i9 9900KS ? is that a great product


As for the rest of your comment, you wrote

Or and "every user must have a CPU with as many cores as possible". Hasn't AMD announced four-cores Ryzen CPUs recently? Oh, wait, they have.

instead of repeating the broken record, The statement should be more like this:

every user should have a CPU with as many cores as possible for their respective price bracket

Obviously the cores themselves should be also competitive, and you cant ignore the fact the core(zen2) - core (9th Gen) are very competitive.

Most people don't need Ryzen 7/9 or any i7. its funny that people only focus on the high end while the low and mid range is where it at.
And the fact is that thanks to Ryzen we have better mid range CPU's, if intel wouldn't follow AMD in core count, would you still for example buy an 4c/8t i5 in 2020 when you have competitive 6c/12t cpu from AMD, that has similar gaming performance and better overall performance? I would not. Intel is the one playing catch-up and people should want to buy the better product. if someone buys intel because he doesn't care and want to buy "only Intel" "cuz i herd its better and moar fps" then let it be. but it doesn't make it the better product overall.

And on the last note. if multi-core is really that irrelevant, Why is an 8c/16t 5GHz CPU is better than 4c/8t 5GHz at pure gaming if "maor cores" is pointless ? maybe we should all use i7-7700Ks and want nothing better. because it is the Intel mindset. they complain about AMD and note how high core count CPU's are pointless, but on the other hand, their "BEST CPU EVER" on the market is the 8c/16t 9900K, that has that much cores only thanks to AMD stepping up the game and becoming competitive again. And after the 10900KF will be out, it would be the "Intel Holy Grail", the 10c20t CPU, and we will still hear how AMD's high core count CPU's are pointless and how every AMD fanboy is a Cinebench **. did these people never hear about the saying "Don't Piss In The Well From Which You Drink"?

 

[kapone32]

Let me quote myself: "Intel HD graphics works for absolute most people out there who don't play AAA games. I personally know a dozen people who have nothing but Intel HD graphics on their PCs/laptops and they have nothing to report". And 3400G is quite slower CPU-wise than Core i3 10100 because it's Zen+, not Zen 2.

The GPU on a 3400G is in the CPU package so no added "weight" (I can;t imagine having a PCIe slot and not using it)

 

[trparky]

would you still for example buy an 4c/8t i5 in 2020 when you have competitive 6c/12t cpu from AMD

Nope, and that's the reason why competition makes things better for the consumer in not just better products but also lower prices. If AMD didn't come back swinging Intel would have had nothing to stop them from raising prices on just about everything including the lower-end Core i3 chips. We can see that in how nVidia prices their high-end GPUs at insane prices all because AMD hasn't really had anything to speak of in the high-end GPU market.

 

[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.

The GPU on a 3400G is in the CPU package so no added "weight" (I can;t imagine having a PCIe slot and not using it)

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."

 

[trparky]

Me thinks that @birdie is an Intel shill.