Intel 10th Gen Comet Lake thread

[random_matt]

They will just flip the currency sign, what a rip off for a crap chip. Only viable for water cooling.

 

[sideways14a]

What a heap of turd these new intel bits of garbage are....

 

[Pannalicour]

Some Spanish retailers are listing pre orders with prices

i5 10600K 306€
i7 10700K 450€
i9 10900K 570€

And up against 9th gen and zen 2 from the same store:

Ryzen 5 3600 189€
i5 9600K 245€
i5 10600K 306€

Ryzen 7 3700X 326€
i7 9700K: 378€
i7 10700K 450€

Ryzen 9 3900X 480€
i9 9900K: 540€
i9 10900K 570€

https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/ghxenb/comet_lakes_prices_listed_in_the_largest_hardware/

If those prices are true than there is zero reason to buy that 10900k. Why? For games you can buy the 10700k and for multicore the 3900x or 3950x. You want both then 3900x is the smart choice.

 

[FireTwo]

Finally we get some stock realistic numbers and not golden bin overclocks on exotic cooling

ahttps://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-10900k-10-core-cpu-hot-power-hungry-at-stock-benchmarks-reveal/


At stock the 10900k runs at all core 4.8ghz, draws 235w and with a 240mm AIO peaks at 93c.

Thermal velocity boost did not kick in to boost the clock speed because the temperature exceeded the 70c ceiling for Thermal Velocity Boost. To get TVB clock speeds you need a cooler that is 23c better than a 240mm AIO

really hope this is ‘fake news’

 

[Andromeda1983]

I have a gut feeling it isn't fake news sadly

 

[random_matt]

really hope this is ‘fake news’

Nope.

https://www.techpowerup.com/266948/...ed-package-power-reads-235w-temperatures-93-c

Morons will buy these, wait for the "My CPU gets too hot threads, stick around"

 

[alec]

This is stress test load and clocks. Quite far from normal multicore load.

But all be damned, Intel will still be on top of benchmark charts, hammering into zombified minds "Intel fastest for gaming".
9900KS is always at the top in reviews and benchmarks, even as very few were able to buy it, and its not available anymore, and you need to invest its price in cooling.

 

[Andromeda1983]

This is stress test load and clocks. Quite far from normal multicore load.

True but getting those kind of temps on a decent 240mm AIO without the chip being overclocked isn't what I'd call encouraging

 

[Destination]

Nope.
https://www.techpowerup.com/266948/...ed-package-power-reads-235w-temperatures-93-c
Morons will buy these, wait for the "My CPU gets too hot threads, stick around"

Remarkable, the article spins it to suggest its a good thing, sitting at 93 degrees for an hour burning 250 watts.

 

[random_matt]

Remarkable, the article spins it to suggest its a good thing, sitting at 93 degrees for an hour burning 250 watts.

Really? Didn't read that far, lol.

 

[Destination]

To show that the values weren't obtained in a few seconds of test, the AIDA64 Stability Test window keeps a timestamp log and displays time elapsed into the stress. In this particular case, the all-core stress has been running for close to 48 minutes; and yet the processor is keeping up with its advertised all-core boost speed, making this an impressive feat.

Strange way to phrase it, processor manages to maintain its advertised boost for 48 minutes.... while burning the house down....

 

[subbytna]

This is stress test load and clocks. Quite far from normal multicore load.

But all be damned, Intel will still be on top of benchmark charts, hammering into zombified minds "Intel fastest for gaming".
9900KS is always at the top in reviews and benchmarks, even as very few were able to buy it, and its not available anymore, and you need to invest its price in cooling.

Exactly. Now you need to factor in £120+ for a 360 AIO cooler on TOP of the price of the new chip. Lets not forget you also need a new motherboard too. You're going to be looking at £700-£800 for just a mobo, cpu and cooler now (3 components)!

 

[CuriousTomCat]

That's how competition works, you buy the best product, not the brand

Well no, looking at Nvidia's huge market share, people are clearly buying the brand.

AMD have been giving us the best performing GPUs at nearly every price tier for years.

On those previous occasions during the last few decades when AMD held the CPU performance crown, Intel still got the most sales. People buy the brand.

Sad but true.

 

[Grim5]

Well no, looking at Nvidia's huge market share, people are clearly buying the brand.

AMD have been giving us the best performing GPUs at nearly every price tier for years.

Right now, AMD GPU's are being returned are pretty high rates because their drivers don't work. Its really hard to reccomend a product that has poor support.

a lot of Nvidia's sales in the last 6 months at that mid range is down to AMD's poor drivers

 

[VincentHanna]

Also Nvidia's GPU performance far exceeds AMD's current offering....

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I honestly don't understand why some of you think these CPUs will perform poorly?? Look at the reviews with some of the older part such as Core i7 8700K. This is basically what the new Core i5 range is,so they are not going to be that bad. Even the Core i3 CPUs will be close to the Core i7 7700K.

Even the Core i9 9900K is still faster overall as a gaming CPU,and that is where the Core i7 is now at. The only CPUs which might be better overall will be Zen3,but those are still a while away. Zen2 is good,but at least for gaming,Intel still is competitive. Its elsewhere where things are not so rosy for them.

 

[VincentHanna]

No doubt they will be the best gaming CPU in PC's with AIO/water cooling and great case airflow.

Being stuck on 14nm has done Intel no favours though.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Here are some leaked performance numbers for the Core i5 10400:
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/i...-testedmuch-faster-smt-over-core-i5-9400.html

The Cinebench score is not far off a Ryzen 5 3600X.

 

[Deleted User 456458]

I honestly don't understand why some of you think these CPUs will perform poorly?? Look at the reviews with some of the older part such as Core i7 8700K. This is basically what the new Core i5 range is,so they are not going to be that bad. Even the Core i3 CPUs will be close to the Core i7 7700K.

Even the Core i9 9900K is still faster overall as a gaming CPU,and that is where the Core i7 is now at. The only CPUs which might be better overall will be Zen3,but those are still a while away. Zen2 is good,but at least for gaming,Intel still is competitive. Its elsewhere where things are not so rosy for them.

There's either a general lack of understanding about architecture by a vocal few on here or either they're being intentionally obtuse. A lot of the comments in this thread have little merit.

For example; look at the fabricated surprise and awe at the 10core running those temps on a 240 AIO. What is the expectation these people had when a 9900k exhibits similar behavior? Now add 2 more cores to the same node and architecture, what exactly are they expecting?

I mentioned a while back in this thread about how intel could improve on the thermal density vs the 9900k. Same crowd thought those notions to be laughable. Now we learn intel is doing just that.

I just don't understand how some of the membership who have been here for many years with thousand of posts are unable to learn anything useful along the way and drag out the same tropes?

 

[Destination]

Here are some leaked performance numbers for the Core i5 10400:
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/i...-testedmuch-faster-smt-over-core-i5-9400.html

The Cinebench score is not far off a Ryzen 5 3600X.

Its less than that of my wife's 3600 non-X type.
Hers isn't even tuned, its jus throw in the box with a stock amd cooler and left to its own devices.
Scores 480 single and 3540 multi.
That's within range but still the 3600 is 10% in both single and multi, and I'll bet doesn't cost as many watts.
Intel will need massive price cuts if you've to buy a cooler and mobo for these.