Intel Comet Lake Thread

[gorobei]

From the $100 to $350 the new Intel CPUs are very competitive against all Ryzen 3000 in the same budget, except in power consumption and that is not that big of a concern for many.

Example, the new Core i3 lineup is faster in gaming than any Ryzen 1600AF/2600 at the same price points.
the new Core i5 10400F is extremely competitive against Ryzen 3600 both in gaming and MT productivity workloads at the same price point.

And the new Core i7 10700F will be competitive against Ryzen 3700X and 3800X.

while cometlake performance and core/thread count are in the same neighborhood, the price similarity isnt really close when you factor in the cost of cooling and vrms.

for most of the i3/r3 i5/r5 units a $20 4 heatpipe tower cooler will cover most of the cooling needs. for ryzen 3000 6c/12t or 8c/16t a $50 6 pipe tower will let you max out most your loads. but for cometlake once you push into the 6, 8, or 10 cores you will need a $100 nh-d14 class or 240aio to keep from throttling under a sustained load in work apps or certain games.

add in better vrm components for the m/b and better heatsinks for those vrm and you are pushing into 150-200$ class motherboards to not throttle or die prematurely. add a pc case with proper airflow and decent fans, and you are totalling (cooler) +70$, (better motherboard vrm) +80, (better case+fans) +60$. compared to a ryzen system with a b450, midrange tower cooler, and budget/midrange case as the base cost, you are paying an extra 210$ to get cometlake to overclock to its full performance that a properly tuned ryzen gets roughly stock with pbo.

quicksync isnt even a selling point anymore as Adobe is enabling fast hardware encoding on gpu in the upcoming patch.

with z490 not including pcie4 but z590 possibly featuring it, this gen is fraught with caveats.

with all the hidden associated costs, cometlake still ends up overpriced (not excessively but ~200$ is significant). it is better than last gen but only because intel gimped coffeelake by segmenting hyperthreading.

 

[DrMrLordX]

@gorobei

Actually a 3600 doesn't even need a $50 HSF. People often choose those since the stock is so noisy and bad. The problem is you're fighting hotspot temperatures, so using a rinky-dink 90-100W HSF on there may still not give you the temps you want. People get upset by temps over 70C, and frankly I don't blame them.

@IEC

The real problem here is, except for the 10900K, these are all last-gen parts from last year at lower prices. There's nothing new here, at all, and the prices aren't even that compellingly-low. People keep ignoring the reality that the prices listed are tray prices. You will see markups in etail space. The "usual suspects" in the corporate OEM world will probably buy a lot of these, but in the DiY space, Intel is already struggling to sell their product. Comet Lake-S is just going to make things worse for Intel there. By extension, that makes things worse for us, especially if you are a power user looking for new shinies. Bargain hunters who wanted Intel prices to come down might get what they want, but it's not really a slam-dunk for them either.

 

[jpiniero]

Funny, I re-read AT's article and they don't mention the release date.

The "usual suspects" in the corporate OEM world will probably buy a lot of these, but in the DiY space, Intel is already struggling to sell their product.

Intel has been so short in DIY since like November it's tough to say if they are actually struggling and what the demand actually is.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Intel has been so short in DIY since like November it's tough to say if they are actually struggling and what the demand actually is.

It is a struggle regardless. Kind of makes you wonder if Comet Lake-S will be any different. I'm thinking not so much.

 

[jpiniero]

It does suggest that Comet Lake-S was supposed to be released a long time ago, maybe launch at CES.

 

[RetroZombie]

Actually a 3600 doesn't even need a $50 HSF. People often choose those since the stock is so noisy and bad.

That's why i like reviewers when doing cpus comparison use the same cpu cooler for all cpus tested in the review, when not possible use the boxed cooler that came with each cpu.

One way or the other it's easier to understand how each cpu behaves vs others, and if you should buy a better one or replace the stock one.

 

[reqq]

you can run 3900x on stock cooler and its completely silence in games once you fix the fan curve..so ryzen for gamers are incredible good value..

 

[piokos]

while cometlake performance and core/thread count are in the same neighborhood, the price similarity isnt really close when you factor in the cost of cooling and vrms.

Only true for the top SKUs (8-10 cores).
Down the line it's really good, especially with affordable 6C/12T. And they will run on cheap mobos and under very basic cooling (including the stock one).

for most of the i3/r3 i5/r5 units a $20 4 heatpipe tower cooler will cover most of the cooling needs. for ryzen 3000 6c/12t or 8c/16t a $50 6 pipe tower will let you max out most your loads. but for cometlake once you push into the 6, 8, or 10 cores you will need a $100 nh-d14 class or 240aio to keep from throttling under a sustained load in work apps or certain games.

add in better vrm components for the m/b and better heatsinks for those vrm and you are pushing into 150-200$ class motherboards to not throttle or die prematurely. add a pc case with proper airflow and decent fans, and you are totalling (cooler) +70$, (better motherboard vrm) +80, (better case+fans) +60$. compared to a ryzen system with a b450, midrange tower cooler, and budget/midrange case as the base cost, you are paying an extra 210$ to get cometlake to overclock to its full performance that a properly tuned ryzen gets roughly stock with pbo.

Actually the high-core Zen2 (7nm) SoCs need a high-end cooling solution as well. Not because of the nominal TDP or power consumption, but because of heat density. Hence the very high temperatures people see on their 3900X and 3950X.

Also, CPUs are grossly inefficient during high boost and overclocking.
Take 9900K for example. When OC'd over 5.0GHz, it may pull 250W under full load, so you'll need an AiO or some of largest air coolers available (that you also need for a 3950X pulling just 150W).
At the same time, that OC will realistically give you maybe +10% performance over stock settings.
At stock, it will pull around 165W (PL2), which is absolutely fine with a decent $50 tower cooler.
In other words: +10% performance for +50% power draw (and a massively more expensive and complex cooling solution).

quicksync isnt even a selling point anymore as Adobe is enabling fast hardware encoding on gpu in the upcoming patch.

QuickSync (or any other hardware video enc/dec) will always be a selling point, because that's the most obvious gain a PC user can get with an ASIC. Or from the other side: the most wasteful use of a CPU.
If you're watching video often (like youtube, netflix etc) or using some remote desktop (like RDP, VNC) on regular basis, not having a supported video decoder will consume a big chunk of your CPU. Encoding is even worse.

And while CPUs get faster, video quality and resolution also go up.

 

[jpiniero]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1255938562421395456

The 10 core die is measured at 199 mm2.

 

[DrMrLordX]

you can run 3900x on stock cooler and its completely silence in games once you fix the fan curve..so ryzen for gamers are incredible good value..

Case in point, Intel could do people a lot of favors by improving their stock coolers. If the stock cooler on the 10400f or whatever it is winds up being significantly better than the one on the 3600, then that is a selling point. But that's an "if", not a when.

 

[mopardude87]

I can only hope the 16 thread stuff will compete, will be nice to have some price wars again. Not that i am in the market for one with the recent purchase of a 3900x. I could only look forward to more 24 thread upgrades or just ascend to more cores. I rather have 24 insanely fast threads over more cores for at least 5 years. If Intel gives me a faster 24 thread option in a few years will be up to them.

The 16 thread stuff will be the big seller prob by next year if next gen games finally push pass 12 threads. I think they will and if not well if the next gen consoles have 16 threads why the heck would the pc ports not use at least 14 if not more threads? I guess one could get a 3600/i5 Comet
now then ride that into the 4000/Rocket then get whatever best 16 thread option then. I doubt a 3700x/10700k will be a slouch for gaming for at least 3 years. Bet either will do 60fps+ in all games but the worst coded ones.

As for the thread issue, well what can ya do besides get a 3900x/3950x? Gonna be a niche market for anyone wanting more then 10 cores so i guess i could see why Intel capped at 10 cores for now. Well that and the inferno that would result from 14++++. Intel dropping more then 10 cores with Rocket or no? Or would this be in the realm of unknown information at this point?

 

[beginner99]

Here is the reminder of Intel power draw from an older, more civilized age (with a board pumping a little too much voltage into to the CPU)

I mean it makes 100% sense. It's the same uArch on more or less the same process but 10 instead of 4 cores. 110W * 2.5 = 275W. So the actual process +uArch gain since 6700k are a couple 100 ghz and 25W.

 

[mopardude87]

I mean it makes 100% sense. It's the same uArch on more or less the same process but 10 instead of 4 cores. 110W * 2.5 = 275W. So the actual process +uArch gain since 6700k are a couple 100 ghz and 25W.

I think with like my 7700k they even increased efficiency as i recall my 7700k loads up i think to like 91w under like prime95? That is before MCE is enabled of course.

If wrong feel free to link to proof of its actual usage but i do believe its 91w. Loads up to 4.2ghz on all 8 threads before MCE comes into play. Not a fan of how much hotter things get with MCE i nearly hit 90 cel on the 212 while at 4.2ghz its hitting mid 70s? All that for a 300mhz increase? I think Intel cpus shine at the 4.2ghz frequency.

I would be fine if they released like AMD some 4.2ghz processors, i bet then these guys could very well be usable and way more efficient. Its those clocks that are making these things look like Pentium D processors. Lower clocks will really then show how good Ryzen 3000 and its IPC is though so i doubt we will get cheaper lower clocked stuff.

 

[jpiniero]

I would be fine if they released like AMD some 4.2ghz processors, i bet then these guys could very well be usable and way more efficient. Its those clocks that are making these things look like Pentium D processors.

The regular and T parts do have relaxed frequencies and will draw much less at load. But it won't be 35/65W either.

 

[mopardude87]

The regular and T parts do have relaxed frequencies and will draw much less at load. But it won't be 35/65W either.

Yeah i had one of the i5 8400t chips on a cheap Z370 i had sitting around, it ran at 3ghz all core and under a half busted Tisis cooler which is close to that of a NH-D15 the thing stayed passively cooled under 60cel. Only issue is how much they charge for these things, they make almost no sense. Not a bad chip for older games prior to like BF1 for example then for basic usage or for a htpc it was quite dreamy. My friend now uses it with a 3gb 1060 and he is happy with it.

Not sure if i would wanna run under 4ghz for daily tasks/gaming with my own personal rig. They could bin a 10 core 4ghz chip, market it as a cheap standard alternative while The Extreme brand makes its come back with the top chip we got now. As long as the Extreme brand doesn't bring back "extreme" prices then i guess such a idea could work? Not everyone wanting to invest in water cooling or extreme air cooling, i am almost laughing at the behemoth NH-D15 the 3900x i got will get but i know the nature of the beast and how if you wanna play you got to pay!

Not everyone has my pay to play mentality as fun as it can be though!

 

[piokos]

The regular and T parts do have relaxed frequencies and will draw much less at load. But it won't be 35/65W either.

You can always limit an Intel CPU to PL1 (TDP). The CPU will hover 1-2W under the TDP (just like server CPUs do).

Intel made some mistakes and they deserve criticism. They also lag in node density, which means the power consumption figures aren't great compared to TSMC/AMD.
But it's really weird that people attack the boost mechanism. It's a great idea and was such a huge improvement, basically making OC obsolete for most PC users.
Yes, it's hugely inefficient. It should be. Otherwise the "boosted" state would be the default one.

 

[coercitiv]

But it's really weird that people attack the boost mechanism. It's a great idea and was such a huge improvement, basically making OC obsolete for most PC users.
Yes, it's hugely inefficient. It should be. Otherwise the "boosted" state would be the default one.

The boost mechanism and power management in Intel CPUs are great. Normally we should ask them to completely remove thread count limits for boost and just let the cores clock as high as possible within TDP. There's no reason even a 65W TDP locked Intel CPU shouldn't boost beyond 5Ghz in low bursty loads such as web browsing. (as long as bin quality can handle it ofc)

The problem we'll soon see with Comet Lake is the change in power limits, not boost limits. We have gone a long way from the PL2 = 1.25 x PL1 and PL1 Tau of 8 seconds envisioned by Intel engineers for CPUs previous to Coffee Lake and the jaw dropping PL2 = 2 X PL2 coupled with PL1 Tau of 56 seconds which is probably the work of Intel marketing. Do that on a "cheap" 125W cooler and you'll be going down to base clocks in no time.

Intel is trading efficiency for performance and it will show as red hot flags in some reviews and fluctuating performance in others. They should have offered this option as a configuration knob in BIOS/OC software, not as default spec.

 

[RetroZombie]

There's no reason even a 65W TDP locked Intel CPU shouldn't boost beyond 5Ghz in low bursty loads such as web browsing. (as long as bin quality can handle it ofc)

But most of the line is rebrands, can't find anyplace where it states that the comet lake lineup all cpus versions from 10C to 2C are 'new parts'.
That's why only the new ones clock high.

Let's wait for the reviews to see what it ends like, anyway:
10th gen: Comet lake: new part 10C/20T, rest rebrands
9th gen: Coffee Lake: new part: 8C/16T, rest rebrands
8th gen: Coffee Lake: new part: 6C/12T, rest rebrands
7th gen: Kaby Lake: All Sky Lake rebrands
6th gen: Sky Lake: all new parts 4C/8T and 2C/4T

 

[Shmee]

The frequencies on these chips look nice, but I think the lack of PCIe lanes and gen 4 capability is what kills it for me.

 

[lobz]

From the $100 to $350 the new Intel CPUs are very competitive against all Ryzen 3000 in the same budget, except in power consumption and that is not that big of a concern for many.

Example, the new Core i3 lineup is faster in gaming than any Ryzen 1600AF/2600 at the same price points.
the new Core i5 10400F is extremely competitive against Ryzen 3600 both in gaming and MT productivity workloads at the same price point.

And the new Core i7 10700F will be competitive against Ryzen 3700X and 3800X.

Man, the i3 has to go against Ryzen 3100 and 3300X.

 

[lobz]

@gorobei

Actually a 3600 doesn't even need a $50 HSF. People often choose those since the stock is so noisy and bad. The problem is you're fighting hotspot temperatures, so using a rinky-dink 90-100W HSF on there may still not give you the temps you want. People get upset by temps over 70C, and frankly I don't blame them.

@IEC

The real problem here is, except for the 10900K, these are all last-gen parts from last year at lower prices. There's nothing new here, at all, and the prices aren't even that compellingly-low. People keep ignoring the reality that the prices listed are tray prices. You will see markups in etail space. The "usual suspects" in the corporate OEM world will probably buy a lot of these, but in the DiY space, Intel is already struggling to sell their product. Comet Lake-S is just going to make things worse for Intel there. By extension, that makes things worse for us, especially if you are a power user looking for new shinies. Bargain hunters who wanted Intel prices to come down might get what they want, but it's not really a slam-dunk for them either.

NONE of the people I know have any problems with the 3600 using the stock cooler. Zero of them.

 

[OriAr]

But most of the line is rebrands, can't find anyplace where it states that the comet lake lineup all cpus versions from 10C to 2C are 'new parts'.
That's why only the new ones clock high.

Let's wait for the reviews to see what it ends like, anyway:
10th gen: Comet lake: new part 10C/20T, rest rebrands
9th gen: Coffee Lake: new part: 8C/16T, rest rebrands
8th gen: Coffee Lake: new part: 6C/12T, rest rebrands
7th gen: Kaby Lake: All Sky Lake rebrands
6th gen: Sky Lake: all new parts 4C/8T and 2C/4T

All CML-S models use new silicon


Kaby Lake was new silicon over Skylake as well, it had a slight iGPU upgrade and a decent memory controller update.
Lower CFL models use mixture of KBL dies and CFL dies,

 

[DrMrLordX]

NONE of the people I know have any problems with the 3600 using the stock cooler. Zero of them.

It's still a downgrade from the last-gen cooler (no more copper core, louder fan). @VirtualLarry 's 3600 would in no way, shape, or form ever work properly with that cooler. Granted he does crazy stuff but whatever.

 

[AmericanLocomotive]

Actually the high-core Zen2 (7nm) SoCs need a high-end cooling solution as well. Not because of the nominal TDP or power consumption, but because of heat density. Hence the very high temperatures people see on their 3900X and 3950X.

Not really. On the stock HSF with a custom pretty quiet fan curve, my 3900X will max out at around 75-78°C on a 24T full-load encoding job. Yeah it's a little toasty, but at that temperature my chip is still boosting above base clock (usually 3.95-4.00 GHz). The HSF is completely capable of cooling the stock CPU and maintaining advertised performance and then some. I'm used to my i7 laptop screaming away at 95°C playing games, so 78°C maximum load is nice and cool to me.

Assuming the i9-10900 comes with the same HSF Intel's other 65w chips have come with - it's going to be sitting at 2.8Ghz on any kind of sustained all-core load.

 

[coercitiv]

It's still a downgrade from the last-gen cooler (no more copper core, louder fan). @VirtualLarry 's 3600 would in no way, shape, or form ever work properly with that cooler. Granted he does crazy stuff but whatever.

The Wraith Spire was downgraded. The 3600 comes with Wraith Stealth, which IRC always used full aluminum heatsink.