• 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

Vertigo1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is the way I see it.
 
Robert896r1 said:
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
Click to expand...

They are drawing higher because the boost clocks are higher. The 10700k is boosting to the level of a 9900ks but it doesn't have the good binning of the 9900KS so probably has higher voltages and thats why it pulls 250w @ stock.
And as we've heard from motherboard vendors, the 10900k pulls over 300w @ stock.

Vertigo1 said:
I'd bet that 99% of Ryzen users on here are using coolers that are more than capable of dealing with a more power-hungry Intel CPU.
Click to expand...

Some users here are using the out of the box ryzen cooler which isn't capable of handling much more than 105w. And outside these forums probably more than half of ryzen sales are using the box cooler.

And dunno about the ice chiller you are in, but when its 35c outside my 360mm wasnt even capable of handling an overclocked 8700k which only pulled 200w
 
Last edited:
10900k appears on Firestrike

10900k @ 5.1ghz boost (i assume this is stock): 28940
9900ks @ stock: 26600
3900x @ stock: 29950
my 3950x @ all core 4.3ghz: 35000


9fo4gsp2t1k41.png
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
10900k appears on Firestrike

10900k @ 5.1ghz boost (i assume this is stock): 28940
9900ks @ stock: 26600
3900x @ stock: 29950
my 3950x @ all core 4.3ghz: 35000


9fo4gsp2t1k41.png
Click to expand...

Considering that is with using a 2080 Ti, i'd consider that a complete rubbish score to be honest. Clock is unknown of course, but i doubt anyone would leave that score public unless the cpu was clocked as high as it could be.

This is my score with a 3950x but using a 1080 Ti. https://www.3dmark.com/fs/21375567
 
All comes down to price for these really.

Looks like Intel is pushing clocks to the max so 10 core will be closer to the 3900X but using 300W+ when overclocked. Still can’t see them worth buying outside of the top end parts though as AMD will be cheaper perform almost as well and have better upgrade path.

Will they change pricing or just slot the 10 core on top.

Gaming they might be little more ahead as I can see that velocity boost kicking in for short benchmark runs that will be pushed in reviews.

10 core interesting for novelty purpose to see if they have improved process further and 5.3+ is easier to achieve as recently tested about 10 R0 and 9900KS and they would all do 5.3 around 1.385v

Z490 looks to be another dead end platform like Z270 where lasts for 1 Generation.
 
Pannalicour said:
Why do they compare firestrike? Firestrike doesn't scale that wel with cores. They should use cinebench or something.
Click to expand...

Yet still loses considering the same applies to 3900X & 3950X...

My stock 3900X with 3800C16 ram on air does over 30000 physics on FS with 5700XT AE while the D15 just idles....
 
Panos said:
Heh, apparently Intel would try to have 10nm+ ready for later in the year release, but it will be worse than 22nm & 14nm even on desktop chips
https://wccftech.com/intel-10nm-is-going-to-be-less-productive-than-22nm/

If so that makes Z490 the new Z270. EOL within 6 months.
Click to expand...

At least the CEO has come out and admitted that their 10nm node is garbage tier and it's worse than 14nm.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/i...til-late-2021-will-regain-leadership-with-5nm

Additionally In their CFO's own words, he admits that Intel cannot compete with AMD, and they don't expect to be able to compete until Q4 2021, then in 2022 they hope to retake the lead with 5nm.

As sad as it seems, you have Intel's top senior executives basically saying don't buy our products. This is a big change from the marketing team just a few months ago that tried to claim they were the best.

Imagine being so disillusioned that you would still buy a 10th gen CPU now after you already know the the day you that Z490 motherboard, it's already EOL and even Intel's CEO and CFO is saying don't buy our CPU's.
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
At least the CEO has come out and admitted that their 10nm node is garbage tier and it's worse than 14nm.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/i...til-late-2021-will-regain-leadership-with-5nm

Additionally In their CFO's own words, he admits that Intel cannot compete with AMD, and they don't expect to be able to compete until Q4 2021, then in 2022 they hope to retake the lead with 5nm.

As sad as it seems, you have Intel's top senior executives basically saying don't buy our products. This is a big change from the marketing team just a few months ago that tried to claim they were the best.

Imagine being so disillusioned that you would still buy a 10th gen CPU now after you already know the the day you that Z490 motherboard, it's already EOL and even Intel's CEO and CFO is saying don't buy our CPU's.
Click to expand...

Even worst. To combat the 4800H on laptops now Intel released the 10980HK, a 300W CPU for laptop!!!!!!!!
Assuming it can boost more than 10 seconds given the heat it would generate.

Thats beyond ridiculous tbh.
https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-10980hk-vs-amd-ryzen-7-4800h-8-core-mobility-cpu-benchmarks/

And still barely any faster in multithread than the 4800H a CPU with more powerful iGP and consumes less than 1/5 the power
 
So we know Intel are skipping 10nm on the desktop and won't be 7nm ready until the end of 2021.

If you think the power draw of 10th Gen looks bad, just wait for the 14nm last hoorah 12-16 core monster next year.
 
sadbuttrue said:
So we know Intel are skipping 10nm on the desktop and won't be 7nm ready until the end of 2021.

If you think the power draw of 10th Gen looks bad, just wait for the 14nm last hoorah 12-16 core monster next year.
Click to expand...

They can back port an architecture with better Ipc which would give thermal headroom. Bigger dies and more surface area to dissipate heat is also an option. It won’t be good for them in any case. Good to see the ceo being open for a change though.
 
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...
honestly this post sounds like FANBOY defending the undefendable. for a good decade, intel has not innovated and had been taking their customers for granted.

If AMD is not competing how do you explain the huge increase in AMD's market shares. I think total CPU market share including enthuasits and system builder, AMD has gone from 4% to the high 20%. I would guss if you take system builders out of equation that % is way up there. I am sure overclockers can shed light on their sales figures in the last 2-3 quarters of AMD related components and systems vs intel and that would also be quite indicative.

Not sure what numbers or articles you are reading or even how you are touching on the general consense.
 
jigger said:
LOL 14Nm Core2.

Actually, Netburst might do alright on 22nm...
Click to expand...

I would like to see how close to 10Ghz Netburst would get on newer nodes. I mean it would still be terrible but still, would be an interesting technical exercise.

It would seem to me that Intel are stuck on 14nm until they have a fully functioning 7nm process, so another gen or 2 probably.
 
peahead said:
No way am i jumping on another dead end platform from intel. i will be moving to AMD in the future.
Click to expand...
I was just thinking that from perspective of new buyer Ryzen 4000 on AM4 is also a dead end platform. There will be no upgrade path.
The only difference is Pcie4 in favor of AMD.
 
alec said:
I was just thinking that from perspective of new buyer Ryzen 4000 on AM4 is also a dead end platform. There will be no upgrade path.
The only difference is Pcie4 in favor of AMD.
Click to expand...

4 generations of CPU's on the AM4 socket, that's enough, isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom