• 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

The "" keeping the value"" argument is really bad (Intel) . Why would I buy a second hand overprices cpu with security flaws and without warranty? Just so I can still stay with Intel?

Either buy the newest stuff from Intel (new cpu and motherboard or go Ryzen) people with their stupid." I have no choice but to stay Intel with this motherboard". Their is always a choice. Just order the 3900x with a b450 motherboard and there you go. 3900x is cheap as f.. K. Lose some fps but gain massive multithreaded score.
 
Because of the new laptop details that are out, we're learning a little bit about how the new Intel thermal velocity boost works - and it requires the CPU to be at low temps. So when you see the 10900k advertised as up to 5.3ghz - that extra 300mhz is based on a temperature scale.

It's +300mhz for CPU temp 45c or below
+200mhz for CPU temp 65c or below
+100mhz for CPU temp up to 85c
+0 for CPU temp over 85c.

So to actually hit 5.3ghz single core you have to keep the 10900k at 45c or below and that's also assuming the PL2 state can supply enough power to sustain the clocks anyway.

That's custom loop territory if you want to get the best out of the 10900k. Also Intel is so concerned with heat that some of it's 10th gen CPU's like the 10900k come with and recommend you use Liquid Metal...
 
Last edited:
Emlyn_Dewar said:
Better keep those laptops outside, in the Arctic.
Click to expand...

And not use the battery :p 135W to boost 1 core to 5.3Ghz wtf. Drawing 100A from the battery would cripple even the best of them requiring replacement (the battery) every few weeks.
 
To echo what I said before about intel being able to improve the thermal density of the chips over the 9900k: https://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3567-hw-news-intel-10-core-thermal-package-change

"The 10-core CPU die will be lower to the substrate, bringing the IHS lower as well. It’s still going to be Intel’s solder solution from the 9900K, but with the die size increasing, the silicon getting closer to the substrate, and the IHS getting pulled in tighter to the CPU, the thermal solution should be overall improved versus the 9900K. The IHS has also been slightly redesigned. More die surface area to spread the heat across will help with the core count increase, as will bringing the silicon closer to the substrate and potentially reducing the silicone adhesive sealant.

The new die size is about 22x9mm, roughly measured, as opposed to 19x9mm for the 9900K and 22x14mm for the 7900X. As we understand it, the solution should be improved relative to the previous CPU. "

Some die level shots and measurements will be interesting. There were so many skeptics on here when I mentioned this :)
 
Robert896r1 said:
To echo what I said before about intel being able to improve the thermal density of the chips over the 9900k: https://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3567-hw-news-intel-10-core-thermal-package-change

"The 10-core CPU die will be lower to the substrate, bringing the IHS lower as well. It’s still going to be Intel’s solder solution from the 9900K, but with the die size increasing, the silicon getting closer to the substrate, and the IHS getting pulled in tighter to the CPU, the thermal solution should be overall improved versus the 9900K. The IHS has also been slightly redesigned. More die surface area to spread the heat across will help with the core count increase, as will bringing the silicon closer to the substrate and potentially reducing the silicone adhesive sealant.

The new die size is about 22x9mm, roughly measured, as opposed to 19x9mm for the 9900K and 22x14mm for the 7900X. As we understand it, the solution should be improved relative to the previous CPU. "

Some die level shots and measurements will be interesting. There were so many skeptics on here when I mentioned this :)
Click to expand...

Well the 10900K should run at 5.3Ghz at 45c or less no problem then... Lets see how true that is when reviewers get their hands on it.
 
Robert896r1 said:
To echo what I said before about intel being able to improve the thermal density of the chips over the 9900k: https://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3567-hw-news-intel-10-core-thermal-package-change

"The 10-core CPU die will be lower to the substrate, bringing the IHS lower as well. It’s still going to be Intel’s solder solution from the 9900K, but with the die size increasing, the silicon getting closer to the substrate, and the IHS getting pulled in tighter to the CPU, the thermal solution should be overall improved versus the 9900K. The IHS has also been slightly redesigned. More die surface area to spread the heat across will help with the core count increase, as will bringing the silicon closer to the substrate and potentially reducing the silicone adhesive sealant.

The new die size is about 22x9mm, roughly measured, as opposed to 19x9mm for the 9900K and 22x14mm for the 7900X. As we understand it, the solution should be improved relative to the previous CPU. "

Some die level shots and measurements will be interesting. There were so many skeptics on here when I mentioned this :)
Click to expand...

Something is wrong. Is impossible the 10-core CPU with IGP been smaller than the 7900X/9900X/10900X. It doesn't add up.

Also 9900K is 177mm2 not 171mm2. :P
 
AFAIK Intel have already confirmed that no 10-core LGA1200 CPU will have an IGP at all, there will only be the 10900F, 10900KF, and possibly a 10900TF, and 10900SF, but the last tow seem less likely given their nature of being low power parts, usually with IGP.
 
Journey said:
AFAIK Intel have already confirmed that no 10-core LGA1200 CPU will have an IGP at all, there will only be the 10900F, 10900KF, and possibly a 10900TF, and 10900SF, but the last tow seem less likely given their nature of being low power parts, usually with IGP.
Click to expand...

So basically they took a 7900X/9900X/10900X chopped it's cache & lanes to sell at the same price as a 10900X....

LOL :D
 
I hope nobody ended up waiting for these chips instead of buying Zen 2 in the middle of last year.

Can't believe we had posts like the below from Intel fanboys in July 2019. Zen 3 is supposed to be out at the end of this year (pre-covid19). I wonder what propaganda Intel will counter that with.

4K8KW10 said:
TBH, I am pleasantly surprised by this lineup. It looks better than AMD's.
We will get a 65W 10-core CPU for 410$ + 120$ board (530 total), instead of a furnace stupid that is the R9-3900X for 500$ + 200$ board (700 total).
AMD's greediness will kill them. :D
Click to expand...

How are your comet lake chips? You must have been using them all this time right? 65W 10 core chip lol.
 
muon said:
I hope nobody ended up waiting for these chips instead of buying Zen 2 in the middle of last year.

Can't believe we had posts like the below from Intel fanboys in July 2019. Zen 3 is supposed to be out at the end of this year (pre-covid19). I wonder what propaganda Intel will counter that with.



How are your comet lake chips? You must have been using them all this time right? 65W 10 core chip lol.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember asking the OP if he's pleased with the line up, Not had a response yet.

Can't think why :p
 
unknown.png
 
150 AMPS at 1.33v so yes 200 Watts.... you will need a good 240 AIO for a 6 core.

Edit, it uses more power than my GPU!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom