• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel 10th Gen Comet Lake thread

Harlequin said:
" series' increased maximum TDP of 125 W"

So TPU are an Intel sales site now? 9900KS run at 300w under all core max boost.....
Click to expand...

I had a chuckle at that line too, they're either idiots or intentionally misleading. Firstly, the 5.3ghz boost seen in the image is single core only, the all core boost is much lower - 4.8/4.9ghz from the leaks I believe. And power consumption will be higher than the 9900k since it's literally an overclocked 9900k.

I don't really know what Intel is playing at here. They are clearly trying to copy AMD and start running single clock speeds that are way above the multi core clock speeds - a cynic would say it's so they can claim crazy numbers that are unrealistic and a cynic would probably be right.
 
Last edited:
Sargatanas2511 said:
You're right, it's 'only' about 250W. A 10 core with higher boost will almost certainly hit over 300W though.
Click to expand...

Yes that is already known. We've already seen Intel's internal slides declaring that the 10 core 10900k reaches 300w power draw under full load where it's boosting to 4.9ghz on each core.

And this Intel's marketing, the least reliable in the industry, actual power draw could be higher than they are publishing. And that is only at all core 4.9ghz - this is a overclocking forum, people here will push for all core 5ghz minimum, probably higher. Probably the overclockers here will make this CPU eat up 400w or more - approaching double the power consumption of a overclocked 16 core 3950x.

Robert896r1 said:
What’s the “dirty trick”???
Click to expand...

Only as dirty as AMD's tricks. It would appear Intel is trying to use voltage adjustments to enable single core clocks to go as high as possible so they can claim to have the fastest clocks, a trick AMD pioneered with Ryzen. As you know with the 9900k, in general you could do an all core overclock to reach the same clocks as the single core boost (5ghz). But now with the adjusted boosting, the 10900k goes up to 5.3ghz single core, which leaves all core overclocks in a tough spot and highly unlikely to reach all core 5.3ghz for most people. Which proves that Intel is using AMD's strategy - removing the overclocking headroom for enthusiasts and gaining the ability to get higher single core clock speeds out of the box.

Most people who overclock a 10900k will see a loss of single core performance, just like Ryzen 3000
 
Last edited:
Sorry for bad choise of words on "dirty tricks"
I meant single core short term boos is all they can bump higher, because tech process is the same. It will look good in description and might or might not help in some games and single thread benchmarks.

Looking at the planned release lineup of 10xxx cpus, there are 10 core, 8, 6, 4, 2, 6SoC, 4SoC, 2SoC models planned. How many different physical chips do they need to cover all this?
Compared to pretty much single 8core Zen2 chiplet AMD makes that covers all non-APU models, even servers and threadrippers.
 
alec said:
Sorry for bad choise of words on "dirty tricks"
I meant single core short term boos is all they can bump higher, because tech process is the same. It will look good in description and might or might not help in some games and single thread benchmarks.

Looking at the planned release lineup of 10xxx cpus, there are 10 core, 8, 6, 4, 2, 6SoC, 4SoC, 2SoC models planned. How many different physical chips do they need to cover all this?
Compared to pretty much single 8core Zen2 chiplet AMD makes that covers all non-APU models, even servers and threadrippers.
Click to expand...
And all of that list with or without HT as well....
 
No, all new CPUs with exception of 2 core celerons have HT enabled.
Turning HT on or off doesn't need new silicon.
But producing lineup of 5 different core counts on monolithic dies... It is wasteful to use 10 core chip as 4 core SKU
 
If those leaked benchmarks are true, then Intel have to price the 10700K/10700KF even lower than the 3700X to have any real chance of competing before the Ryzen 4000 series arrives.
 
Grim5 said:
More benchmarks appear on SiSoft for the 8 core/16 thread 10700 CPUs, appear to show the 10700KF scoring 4% lower score than 3800x and drawding 250w compared to the 3800x's 120w.
Click to expand...

Does anyone really care though? Do people really make their purchasing decisions based on the power draw of the CPU or system, at least at the top end of the market? Once you've built a full system including a heavyweight GPU, the additional draw of the CPU itself will be diminished.

In reality, the power draw and process node differences are just being seized on by the AMD fanboys to beat Intel over the head with.

NinjaCool said:
If those leaked benchmarks are true, then Intel have to price the 10700K/10700KF even lower than the 3700X to have any real chance of competing before the Ryzen 4000 series arrives.
Click to expand...

Define "competing"?

Intel are still faster for gaming, even with the current 9th gen CPUs and will only stretch their lead with the 10th gen. Maybe Ryzen 4000 will change that but it's a total unknown right now.

Again, the AMD fanboys always seize upon the "productivity" benchmarks but, for the majority, these are meaningless. For standard desktop applications, pretty much any modern CPU is more than good enough and, whilst Ryzen murders Intel when it comes to things like rendering or video processing, these are only used by a tiny percentage of users.

For the vast majority of people, gaming is the only performance intensive task they run and Intel are still faster.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Does anyone really care though? Do people really make their purchasing decisions based on the power draw of the CPU or system, at least at the top end of the market? Once you've built a full system including a heavyweight GPU, the additional draw of the CPU itself will be diminished.

In reality, the power draw and process node differences are just being seized on by the AMD fanboys to beat Intel over the head with.



Define "competing"?

Intel are still faster for gaming, even with the current 9th gen CPUs and will only stretch their lead with the 10th gen. Maybe Ryzen 4000 will change that but it's a total unknown right now.

Again, the AMD fanboys always seize upon the "productivity" benchmarks but, for the majority, these are meaningless. For standard desktop applications, pretty much any modern CPU is more than good enough and, whilst Ryzen murders Intel when it comes to things like rendering or video processing, these are only used by a tiny percentage of users.

For the vast majority of people, gaming is the only performance intensive task they run and Intel are still faster.
Click to expand...

yes I do because it means you need better cooling and have to spend more money.

I don't understand people who say power draw doesn't matter. I've seen people with 4.8ghz 10980xe day 500w power draw doesn't matter, $1000 on a custom loop doesn't matter 1200w psu cost doesn't matter
 
Grim5 said:
yes I do because it means you need better cooling and have to spend more money.

I don't understand people who say power draw doesn't matter. I've seen people with 4.8ghz 10980xe day 500w power draw doesn't matter, $1000 on a custom loop doesn't matter 1200w psu cost doesn't matter
Click to expand...

Fine, it matters to you. My point is that it doesn't matter to the majority of users.

Your arguments are specious. We're not talking about 500W CPUs here, we're talking about non-HEDT 9th/10th gen Intel CPUs and their Ryzen equivalents. You don't need a $1000 custom loop to cool an Intel CPU, nor do you need a 1200W PSU to power it.

I'd bet that 99% of Ryzen users on here are using coolers and PSUs that are more than capable of dealing with a more power-hungry Intel CPU.
 
As I said if the leaked benchmarks are true, the 10700KF allegedly draws considerably more power vs an 3800X. Something potentially that big should be taking into consideration in my view as part of the overall package.
 
NinjaCool said:
As I said if the leaked benchmarks are true, the 10700KF allegedly draws considerably more power vs an 3800X. Something potentially that big should be taking into consideration in my view as part of the overall package.
Click to expand...

Clock for clock there no reason that comet lake would draw more power than coffee lake refresh.

If intel is shooting for higher clocks then you’d want to compare an oc’d cfl-r vs cml
 
Vertigo1 said:
Does anyone really care though? Do people really make their purchasing decisions based on the power draw of the CPU or system, at least at the top end of the market? Once you've built a full system including a heavyweight GPU, the additional draw of the CPU itself will be diminished.

In reality, the power draw and process node differences are just being seized on by the AMD fanboys to beat Intel over the head with.



Define "competing"?

Intel are still faster for gaming, even with the current 9th gen CPUs and will only stretch their lead with the 10th gen. Maybe Ryzen 4000 will change that but it's a total unknown right now.

Again, the AMD fanboys always seize upon the "productivity" benchmarks but, for the majority, these are meaningless. For standard desktop applications, pretty much any modern CPU is more than good enough and, whilst Ryzen murders Intel when it comes to things like rendering or video processing, these are only used by a tiny percentage of users.

For the vast majority of people, gaming is the only performance intensive task they run and Intel are still faster.
Click to expand...

A £180 Zen 2 CPU is 90% the performance of a £350 Intel CPU in games, uses far less power and runs cooler. That's competing in one sense, AMD sell FAR more retail CPU's than Intel, that's competing in another sense, AMD's HEDT CPU's utterly humiliate Intel's HEDT CPU's in HEDT performance, AMD's best is 3 times faster than Intel's best and still uses less power.... in how many ways are AMD not competing? Are Intel competitive with AMD?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom