# Intel 10th Generation Comet Lake Desktop Processors and 400-Series Chipsets Announced, Here's what's New



## btarunr (Apr 30, 2020)

Intel today launched its 10th generation Core desktop processor family and its companion Intel 400-series chipsets. Based on the 14 nm++ silicon fabrication process and built in the new LGA1200 package, the processors are based on the "Comet Lake" microarchitecture. The core design of "Comet Lake" and its IPC are identical to those of "Skylake," however Intel brought significant enhancements to the processor's clock-speed boosting algorithm, increased core- or thread counts across the board, and introduced new features that could interest enthusiasts and overclockers. The uncore component remains largely unchanged from the previous-generation, with support for DDR4 memory and PCI-Express gen 3.0. Use of these processors requires a new socket LGA1200 motherboard, they won't work on older LGA1151 motherboards. You can install any LGA115x-compatible cooler on LGA1200, provided it meets the thermal requirements of the processor you're using.

At the heart of the 10th generation Core processor family is a new 10-core monolithic processor die, which retains the same basic structure as the previous-generation 8-core "Coffee Lake Refresh" die, and 4-core "Skylake." The cores are arranged in two rows, sandwiched by the processor's uncore and iGPU blocks. A ring-bus interconnect binds the various components. The cache hierarchy is unchanged from previous generations as well, with 32 KB each of L1I and L1D caches; 256 KB of dedicated L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The iGPU is the same Gen 9.5 based UHD 630 graphics. As we mentioned earlier, much of Intel's innovation for the 10th generation is with the processor's microcode (boosting algorithms). 



 

 

 




The 10-core die with all its cores enabled is the backbone of the new 10th generation Core i9 series, including the flagship part, the Core i9-10900K, a 10-core/20-thread processor with maximum clock speeds running as high as 5.30 GHz, which Intel claims is the "fastest processor for gaming." All Core i9 SKUs in the series are 10-core/20-thread. The Core i9-10900K is unlocked and features an iGPU. The i9-10900KF is unlocked, but lacks an integrated graphics (it is physically present in the silicon, but disabled). The i9-10900 has an iGPU, but isn't unlocked. The i9-10900F both lacks an iGPU and is multiplier-locked. These chips are priced between $422 and $488 (1,000-unit tray quantities). 



 

 

 

 

The 10th generation Core i7 series, sold at price points under $400, consists of 8-core/16-thread parts with 16 MB of shared L3 cache - the same amount of muscle as the 9th generation Core i9 series. Leading this line is the Core i7-10700K, clocked up to 5.10 GHz. Among the SKUs are the i7-10700K, the i7-10700KF, i7-10700, and i7-10700F. 

The 10th generation Core i5 series sees the most bolstering, in our opinion. The popular middle-of-the-market chips are now 6-core/12-thread, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache, across the board (same amount as the 8th generation Core i7 series). Leading the pack is the Core i5-10600K, followed by the i5-10600KF, and i5-10600, i5-10500, i5-10400, and the i5-10400F. These SKUs cover the broadest range of price-points starting at just $157 for the i5-10400F, going up to $262 for the unlocked i5-10600K. 

The 10th generation Core i3 series also sees a hefty bit of hardware enhancement. These are 4-core/8-thread parts, with up to 8 MB of shared L3 cache (same as the 7th generation Core i7 series). The i3-10300 and i3-10320 feature 8 MB of L3 cache, while the entry-level i3-10100 features 6 MB of it. The i3-10100 is priced at $122, the i3-10300 at $143, and the i3-10320 at $154. There is no unlocked part in the Core i3 series. 

At the bottom of the pile are Pentium Gold socket LGA1200 G6000-series 2-core/4-thread processors with 4 MB of L3 cache, and Celeron G5900 series 2-core/2-thread parts with 3 MB L3 cache.

Intel sticking with 14 nm comes with heavy costs on the energy-efficiency front. All unlocked K-SKUs in the series come with an unprecedented 125 W TDP rating (older generations of Intel LGA115x processors almost never had a TDP rating higher than 95 W). Almost all socket LGA1200 motherboards we've seen so far, barring the Mini-ITX designs, feature at least an 8+4 pin EPS (CPU power) input configuration. The higher-end boards even have dual 8-pin EPS setups akin to HEDT motherboards.



 

[subheading]What's Really New[/subheading]
As we explained earlier, the core IPC of the 10th generation "Comet Lake" microarchitecture is unchanged from the previous generation, much of Intel's innovation is focused on getting the most out of their existing core design. The following is a list of what's really new:


*HyperThreading across the board:* Intel extended HyperThreading to be available across most of their product line. HT was originally reserved for only top-tier parts, but can now be found on the Core i9, Core i7, Core i5, Core i3, and Pentium Gold parts. SMT is a proven way to dial up multi-threaded application performance by leveraging idle hardware resources in a CPU core, and brings about tangible multi-threaded performance uplifts.
*Up to Three Different Boosting Algorithms:* Intel has up to three different clock speed boosting algorithms deployed on various SKUs in the series:
Turbo Boost 2.0: This is the most basic boosting technology, available across all 10th gen Core i9, Core i7, Core i5, and Core i3 SKUs
Turbo Boost MAX 3.0: Carried over from the Core X HEDT processor family, Turbo Boost Max 3.0 is now available on 10th Gen Core i9 and Core i7 SKUs, enabling higher notches of clock speed than Turbo Boost 2.0, and it also adds "Favored Cores". This makes the operating system aware the two physically-best cores, which can sustain higher boost frequencies better than the rest of the CPU. The goal is to have the OS scheduler prioritize running workloads on these cores, so they can run faster. Windows 10 has had Favored Core awareness since 1609, and Linux x64 kernels since January 2018 have supported it.
Thermal Velocity Boost: Carried over from its 9th and 10th generation Core mobile processors, Thermal Velocity Boost is available to 10th generation Core i9 SKUs. The feature enables clock boost speeds even higher than Turbo Boost MAX 3.0, in short bursts, provided your processor's cooling solution is able to consistently keep temperatures below a threshold, and provided a few power targets are met. We confirmed with Intel that for the 10th gen desktop chips, this threshold is set at 70 °C (for the mobile parts it is 65 °C). 

*New Core and Memory overclocking features, including:* 
The ability to enable or disable HyperThreading for individual cores. Until now, you could disable or enable HTT only globally. This comes as a boon for gamers who want to set a few of their cores without HTT, and a few with HTT for streaming applications
Enhanced, finer grained voltage/frequency curve controls. Intel is launching a major update to XTU alongside these processors, which lets you set the voltage at individual frequencies, for much finer control of overclocking parameters. This technique was pioneered by GPU vendors and helps reduce power in situations when the CPU is not running at highest frequency. Traditionally you could either program a voltage offset that shifts the whole V-F curve in one direction, or program an override voltage that runs the CPU at the same voltage all the time, wasting tons of energy in the process. Now you may change the shape of the curve, too: undervolt when idle or lightly loaded, but higher voltage when loaded, to reach higher overclocking? It's possible now.
The ability to overclock the PCI-Express 3.0 x16 graphics bus (PEG), and DMI chipset-bus. We're not entirely sure how this is accomplished. Both are PCIe-based interfaces, which can only tolerate a few MHz clock variance for high-bandwidth devices such as GPUs. We asked Intel how this works, and they confirmed that "DMI and PCIe are linked. By overclocking one, you are overclocking the other".

*Physical, packaging improvements:* Intel made some improvements to the processor package with an aim of improving heat transfer between the die and the cooling solution. Without changing the Z-height of the package, Intel found a way to thicken the copper IHS, by thinning the silicon die (from 800 µm down to 500 µm; and the fiberglass substrate. Soldered TIM (STIM) sits between the die and the IHS. This should improve heat transfer significantly, as silicon is a thermal insulator, whereas the copper IHS is highly conductive.
*Native support for DDR4-2933* and higher memory clocks across the board: up to DDR4-4000 for two dual-rank modules, over DDR4-4800 for two single-rank modules, and beyond DDR4-5000 for one single-rank module.



 

 

 

 
[subheading]The Intel Z490 Chipset[/subheading]
Intel is launching its latest top-tier desktop chipset, the Z490. The Intel 400-series chipset family includes other models, including the B460, and H410, although we're not sure if the latter two will be available at launch. The Z490 leads the pack with maxed out connectivity. 

We asked Intel and they confirmed that Z490 is built on a 14 nm production process. It connects to the LGA1200 processor over a conventional DMI 3.0 chipset bus (32 Gbps per direction). Connectivity is an impressive 24 PCI-Express 3.0 downstream lanes, which combined with the 16 PEG lanes from the processor add up to 40 lanes on this platform. Motherboard designers utilize this PCIe lane budget to deploy up to three M.2 NVMe slots, and several high-bandwidth devices such as additional USB 3.2 host controllers, Thunderbolt 3 controllers, 10 GbE networking, etc. 

The Z490 integrates a 6-port SATA 6 Gbps AHCI/RAID controller, a 4-port USB 3.2 gen 2 controller with Gen 2 x2 (20 Gbps) capability, up to 12 USB 3.2 gen 1 (5 Gbps) ports, a HD Audio bus with Intel Smart Sound (low-power audio encoding/decoding) capability, which lets you issue voice commands to your PC even in standby mode; and one integrated MAC for either an i225-V "Foxville" 2.5 GbE or cheaper i219-V "Jacksonville" 1 GbE controller. The chipset also comes with preparation for Intel AX201 WLAN card over CNVi interface (802.11ax Wi-Fi + Bluetooth 5). 

[subheading]Availability[/subheading]
Although announced today, the 10th generation Core desktop processors and compatible LGA1200 motherboards should reach markets around the world starting May-June—the K SKUs will reach the market first.

[subheading]The Complete Slide Deck[/subheading]


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## XL-R8R (Apr 30, 2020)

"...heres whats new"


Seeing as its not 2015; I'm doubting very much is "new".... however, I DO see a lot of the same crap being rebadged and presented with a new name.. and sure, it comes with a bunch of _boost tech, yo*_.... but who cares?





I hate being that person... but.... buy AMD -  or, if you're an Intel fan, wait and pray they bring something out next year with a shot of being "new" and not a rehash of old.


Nothing to see here apart from reactor cores badged as CPU's. 





_Boost tech, yo-_>


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Apr 30, 2020)

From Anandtech:


> Users wanting the 10-core 5.3 GHz will need to purchase the new top Core i9-10900K processor, which has a unit price of $488, and keep it under 70 ºC to enable Intel’s new Thermal Velocity Boost. Not only that, despite the 125 W TDP listed on the box, Intel states that the turbo power recommendation is 250 W – the motherboard manufacturers we’ve spoken to have prepared for 320-350 W from their own testing, in order to maintain that top turbo for as long as possible.



These are going to be some hefty motherboards. I’m curious if this will set precedence for future CPU designs.


----------



## Logoffon (Apr 30, 2020)

If only those 10x00T series processors are not as hard to get as the 9x00T series aside from some OEMs and engineering samples...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 30, 2020)

Three different boost algorithms with velocity boost only on i9, tut way to go Intel.


----------



## Assimilator (Apr 30, 2020)

At least the i5 range is now 6c/12t, no longer 4c/8t - thanks AMD for forcing Intel's hand on more cores and HT on all SKUs. Hopefully with the next gen we will see the end of non-K parts as Intel tries to compete with Zen 3.

Note that the silicon die thinning is, according to Gamers Nexus, only available on the K-series SKUs.


----------



## Dr_b_ (Apr 30, 2020)

Too expensive for what they are


----------



## btarunr (Apr 30, 2020)

Y'all thought the 40 mm fan on AMD X570 motherboards was a putoff? Wait till you see any half-decent Z490 board:









						ASRock Z490 PG Velocita Preview
					

The ASRock Z490 PG Velocita is ready for Comet Lake with Socket LGA 1200. "Velocita" is ASRock's latest edition to the award-winning Phantom Gaming motherboard line and features 2.5 Gb/s LAN, PCIe 4.0 readiness, and an uncompromising VRM thermal solution with three fans.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## ppn (Apr 30, 2020)

i9-9900KF (16M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.60 Ghz) $463
i7-10700KF (16M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.80 GHz) $349
-$114 big savings

Also not that bad at ALL Core 4.00 GHz.
i5-10400F (12M cache, 6 Cores, 12 Threads, 2.90 GHz) $157

Waiting for 7nm WillowCove 2022 Socket 1700


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Apr 30, 2020)

btarunr said:


> Y'all thought the 40 mm fan on AMD X570 motherboards was a putoff? Wait till you see any half-decent Z490 board:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Active VRM cooling and tiny fans. I bet we start seeing more water-cooled boards.


----------



## bug (Apr 30, 2020)

Such minor improvements, I'm wondering if, besides the i5 getting HT, it was really worth designing a whole new lineup.
The only thing this refresh does right is telling us not to expect anything else during the next at least 9 months.

And it would be absolutely hilarious if the motherboards won't work with their next gen (which they probably won't).


----------



## Punkenjoy (Apr 30, 2020)

ppn said:


> i9-9900KF (16M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.60 Ghz) $463
> i7-10700KF (16M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.80 GHz) $349
> -$114 big savings
> 
> ...



Is this really the retail price or it's the pricing when buying in bulk (the 1K in the collumn header make me think this is the OEM/reseller bulk price)


----------



## brian_i6 (Apr 30, 2020)

ppn said:


> i9-9900KF (16M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.60 Ghz) $463
> i7-10700KF (16M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.80 GHz) $349
> -$114 big savings



I have 9900KF and 10700K today and I tested it in professional software (Adobe PS/LR/AE/PP, DaVinci, etc.). I'm sorry I can't give you the exact numbers (NDA), but I can say that i7-10700K really liked it!


----------



## bug (Apr 30, 2020)

btarunr said:


> Y'all thought the 40 mm fan on AMD X570 motherboards was a putoff? Wait till you see any half-decent Z490 board:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tbh that fan by itself wasn't a show-stopper for me. It was the combo of the fan+asking price that did it.


----------



## ARF (Apr 30, 2020)

According to wf:












						Intel 10th Gen Comet Lake-S Desktop CPUs & Z490 Platform Official - First 10 Core, 20 Thread Core i9-10900K Flagship Chip With Up To 5.30 GHz Clocks For $488 US
					

Intel has finally unveiled its 10th Generation Z490 Desktop CPU family, codenamed Comet Lake-S, featuring the flagship Core i9-10900K CPU.




					wccftech.com
				




Wait for reviews and see overall performance. 4.3 GHz Core i3-10100 has to be faster than 3.9 GHz Ryzen 3 3100.
5.3 GHz vs 4.6 GHz. Why can't AMD clock higher?


----------



## bug (Apr 30, 2020)

ARF said:


> According to wf:
> 
> View attachment 153349
> 
> ...


Manufacturing process, most likely. Intel can't clock their 10nm parts as high as their 14nm parts either.


----------



## Raendor (Apr 30, 2020)

10400F seems like a good stopgap option for decent gaming machine until all new stuff like DDR5 and PCI 5.0 will reach us in 22 and become more refined/adequately priced (hopefully) a year after.


----------



## Dave65 (Apr 30, 2020)

I don't see the option for the dual fire extinguishers you will need when your motherboard burst into flames


----------



## bug (Apr 30, 2020)

Dave65 said:


> I don't see the option for the dual fire extinguishers you will need when your motherboard burst into flames


And I don't see a useful post.

+1 for laughing at your own joke. That's never out of place


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Apr 30, 2020)

bug said:


> Tbh that fan by itself wasn't a show-stopper for me. It was the combo of the fan+asking price that did it.


There are multiple fans on that board. There are tiny fans on the VRM chips too. Looks like at least 4 fans. Curious how quiet they will be both now and down the road.


----------



## bug (Apr 30, 2020)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> There are multiple fans on that board. There are tiny fans on the VRM chips too. Looks like at least 4 fans.


The 40mm fan in discussion was about X570 boards 

I see Intel took a page from AMD's book and expects people to pair i3 with high end boards 
At least with AMD you could use previous gen boards.


----------



## _JP_ (Apr 30, 2020)

btarunr said:


> Y'all thought the 40 mm fan on AMD X570 motherboards was a putoff? Wait till you see any half-decent Z490 board:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And Abit isn't around anymore to show these guys how it's done...


----------



## King Mustard (Apr 30, 2020)

Any release dates available?


----------



## ARF (Apr 30, 2020)

King Mustard said:


> Any release dates available?




End of May.


----------



## SamuelL (Apr 30, 2020)

Well this is disappointing. I was hoping for some more aggressive pricing so that AMD would discount the 3900x/3950x...


----------



## PerfectWave (Apr 30, 2020)

I guess if you dont do anything it can boost to 6ghz


----------



## Dave65 (Apr 30, 2020)

bug said:


> And I don't see a useful post.
> 
> +1 for laughing at your own joke. That's never out of place



You're right, not useful at all, but I do love laughing at my own jokes


----------



## trparky (Apr 30, 2020)

Frequency matters? It only matters to Intel because they've not been able to deliver actual better performance, that actual better performance being IPC (Instructions Per Clock). That's all Intel has been able to push lately, there hasn't been any real improvements to the architecture in nearly five years. I'm afraid that we're reliving the days of the Pentium 4 Prescott.

I do have to wonder, is Intel going to have a 240mm radiator and closed loop liquid cooling kit as part of the package when buying a retail chip? Because that's the only way I see being able to cool these chips.



Darmok N Jalad said:


> These are going to be some hefty motherboards.


Oh yeah, the VRMs on these boards are going to have to be pretty beefy.



btarunr said:


> Y'all thought the 40 mm fan on AMD X570 motherboards was a putoff? Wait till you see any half-decent Z490 board:


Oh God. These are going to cost a grunch to buy.


----------



## bug (Apr 30, 2020)

trparky said:


> Oh God. These are going to cost a grunch to buy.


They're going to be expensive on account of 2.5Gbps Ethernet and WiFi6 alone. I really, really don't see how these go with an i3.


----------



## Xex360 (Apr 30, 2020)

Very disappointing pricing, plus you have to get a new board for the generation of CPUs.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Apr 30, 2020)

bug said:


> They're going to be expensive on account of 2.5Gbps Ethernet and WiFi6 alone. I really, really don't see how these go with an i3.


2.5Gbps Ethernet is about $1 more than 1Gbps Ethernet.


----------



## bug (Apr 30, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> 2.5Gbps Ethernet is about $1 more than 1Gbps Ethernet.


See? Moar expensive


----------



## TheLostSwede (Apr 30, 2020)

bug said:


> See? Moar expensive


It's actually even less than that.

$2.40








						Product Specifications
					

quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.




					ark.intel.com
				



$1.72








						Product Specifications
					

quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.




					ark.intel.com


----------



## InhaleOblivion (Apr 30, 2020)

Appreciate the heads up.  Pricing is better than I expected(Thanks AMD), though not much of an upgrade from last gen.  Looking forward to the TPU review of the i9 and i5.


----------



## Tom.699 (Apr 30, 2020)

> Soldered TIM (STIM) sits between the die and the IHS. This should improve heat transfer significantly, as silicon is a thermal insulator, whereas the copper IHS is highly conductive.



Silicon is not a thermal insulator. Its thermal conductivity is better then solder, more than 100 K/mW at 50C while solder is around 60 depending on kind.
Improvement is because solder replaced much worse thermal interface material.


----------



## Turmania (Apr 30, 2020)

I think both CPU prices and especially board prices are too high. Perhaps it has something to do with the ongoing crisis especially for the boards I do not know.


----------



## MrAMD (Apr 30, 2020)

Eh, not a bad refresh really. Rocket Lake is the big boi coming though. Likely this year even. Kaby lake all over again?


----------



## ppn (Apr 30, 2020)

i7-10700F (16M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 2.90 GHz) (4.6 GHz ALL core Boost) $298  Recommended Customer Price Tray Units
AMD RYZEN 7 3700X 8-Core 3.6 GHz (4.4 GHz Max Boost) $298 Newegg

What is not to like.

Yeah motherboards, but if you go for cheaper like MSI Z490A Pro. and stick to this system for 6 years, the price is irrelevant as it spreads over 6 years, and then you sell it at 1/4 price or something.


----------



## ERazer (Apr 30, 2020)

ARF said:


> Wait for reviews and see overall performance. 4.3 GHz Core i3-10100 has to be faster than 3.9 GHz Ryzen 3 3100.
> 5.3 GHz vs 4.6 GHz. Why can't AMD clock higher?



thanks to AMD you would still be suckling on dual core i3 skylakes, ohh yeah still skylake


----------



## R0H1T (Apr 30, 2020)

ERazer said:


> thanks to AMD you would still be suckling on dual core i3 skylakes, ohh yeah still skylake


Hey Intel was peddling "core i7" ULV chips as *2c/4t* up to as late as 2018(?) till KBL-R showed up, if you thought desktop was bad mobile was


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Apr 30, 2020)

I can see AMD moving in and doing a small price drop across the board. As it is now, a 3900X is in the $400 range.


----------



## Turmania (Apr 30, 2020)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> I can see AMD moving in and doing a small price drop across the board. As it is now, a 3900X is in the $400 range.



With those prices intel put up, i would not be surprised if AMD puts up prices a bit up and they could always excuse the virus situation as a back up.


----------



## birdie (Apr 30, 2020)

I'm OK with what Intel has to offer given the fact that the high performance/decent power consumption 10nm node is currenlty out of reach for them but Pentium and Celeron CPUs simply *must not exist*. Running a system with just two physical cores (even if there's HT) in 2020 is a huge PITA.

They could have released a single CPU for crypto-miners or people who just need any CPU to be able to run their system but having 8 of them? A waste of time and resources. It's not like cheap LGA1200 motherboards will get released any time soon.


----------



## Octopuss (Apr 30, 2020)

Skylake is what year again?


----------



## BArms (Apr 30, 2020)

Why the new socket?


----------



## Dr_b_ (Apr 30, 2020)

Price per core is still more expensive on intel, they do value their parts, but with AMD, you get more of them, intel's top part has only 10 cores at a MSRP(TRAY?!) price of $48.8/core, whereas AMDs more expensive 16 core at actual retail cost is $46.12/core.   What is the justification in paying more for fewer cores, that use more power (folks, these parts are going to be nuclear hot and draw significant power), and paying a premium for the privilege of so doing?

Also, there is nothing new here.  If you want to keep TVBoost clocks up sustained you will need a river of LN2.

If you dont care about the cost premium, power consumption (strange that you wouldn't, the cost to operate it isnt free for the majority of people), don't need all those cores, don't need PCIe4.0 which is ahead of its time, and want maximum software compatibility, maybe intel is the way to go.

Ill bet my 16 core 3950X will be faster overall, with less power consumption.  Can't wait for the reviews to validate that.


----------



## coozie78 (Apr 30, 2020)

From the article: Almost all socket LGA1200 motherboards we've seen so far, barring the Mini-ITX designs, feature at least an 8+4 pin EPS (CPU power) input configuration. The higher-end boards even have dual 8-pin EPS setups akin to HEDT motherboards.
Looks like a lot of us will also need to stump up for a high end dual EPS PSU as well, if we decide to adopt these new parts.


----------



## Houd.ini (Apr 30, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> It's actually even less than that.
> 
> $2.40
> 
> ...


How much do you think these 68 cents will translate to in Motherboardish? 20 USD?



Pinktulips7 said:


> AMD Fan Boy/Girls start running b4 too Late!!! Where is AMD???
> 
> 
> Oh It will destroy whatever you have it install Boy...


Grow up.


BArms said:


> Why the new socket?


Because intel, and power consumption, I guess.


----------



## birdie (Apr 30, 2020)

Dr_b_ said:


> Price per core is still more expensive on intel, they do value their parts, but with AMD, you get more of them, intel's top part has only 10 cores at a MSRP(TRAY?!) price of $48.8/core, whereas AMDs more expensive 16 core at actual retail cost is $46.12/core.   What is the justification in paying more for fewer cores, that use more power (folks, these parts are going to be nuclear hot and draw significant power), and paying a premium for the privilege of so doing?
> 
> Also, there is nothing new here.  If you want to keep TVBoost clocks up sustained you will need a river of LN2.
> 
> ...



90% of users out there don't need more than 4 cores, the remaining 8-9% are totally fine with 6 cores and maybe 1-2% of all users actually need 8-core or more parts. Meanwhile everyone on this planet is better off with single threaded performance which Intel still leads in absolutely most use cases. Zen 3 might finally change it (for a while) but it's nowhere to be seen yet and we don't even have any projections or leaks about its performance.

I don't deny that AMD made multicore parts available for the average Joe (which Intel denied us for many years), but the guy still doesn't really utilize them in any capacity.

And yes, this is still Sky Lake, i.e. the 5th iteration of it. The uArch was so great I don't understand why people hate Intel for utilizing it over and over again. It's not like Intel doesn't have anything on their radar, no, Ice Lake has been in retail for more than half a year, Tiger Lake is already in production but it's not known when it will hit the shelves.



Dr_b_ said:


> Price per core is still more expensive on intel, they do value their parts, but with AMD, you get more of them, intel's top part has only 10 cores at a MSRP(TRAY?!) price of $48.8/core, whereas AMDs more expensive 16 core at actual retail cost is $46.12/core.   What is the justification in paying more for fewer cores, that use more power (folks, these parts are going to be nuclear hot and draw significant power), and paying a premium for the privilege of so doing?
> 
> Also, there is nothing new here.  If you want to keep TVBoost clocks up sustained you will need a river of LN2.
> 
> ...



You're paying for absolute best single threaded performance and stable mature platform out of the box. The release of Zen 2 was a lot of pain for the first three months for its early adopters. Intel solutions on the other hand are usually complete and fully functional out of the box and don't need a dozen of BIOS updates to make them work as the vendor intended.

Yes, Comet Lake desktop CPUs will run hot. The people who buy such systems usually know what they are paying for and what they are getting.

Absolute most pro e-athletes run Intel Core i9 9900KS CPUs. Deal with it! No one cares your rig has 64 cores if it gives you 20% less FPS at FHD than the top Intel part. No one.


----------



## dicktracy (Apr 30, 2020)

10700KF is the choice for gamers.


----------



## efikkan (Apr 30, 2020)

Did anyone catch when the review embargo lifts? Some rumors claimed end of May…



coozie78 said:


> From the article: Almost all socket LGA1200 motherboards we've seen so far, barring the Mini-ITX designs, feature at least an 8+4 pin EPS (CPU power) input configuration. The higher-end boards even have dual 8-pin EPS setups akin to HEDT motherboards.
> Looks like a lot of us will also need to stump up for a high end dual EPS PSU as well, if we decide to adopt these new parts.


I do wonder if both are required or not?
Regardless, you don't need a "high end" PSU to have two EPS connectors, even a value PSU like Seasonic Focus GX 550W features this. But a 5 year old PSU might not.
But if you're building a new PC in this price range, you shouldn't skimp on the PSU.


----------



## ARF (Apr 30, 2020)

birdie said:


> 90% of users out there don't need more than 4 cores, the remaining 8-9% are totally fine with 6 cores and maybe 1-2% of all users actually need 8-core or more parts. Meanwhile everyone on this planet is better off with single threaded performance which Intel still leads in absolutely most use cases. Zen 3 might finally change it (for a while) but it's nowhere to be seen yet and we don't even have any projections or leaks about its performance.
> 
> I don't deny that AMD made multicore parts available for the average Joe (which Intel denied us for many years), but the guy still doesn't really utilize them in any capacity.
> 
> And yes, this is still Sky Lake, i.e. the 5th iteration of it. The uArch was so great I don't understand why people hate Intel for utilizing it over and over again. It's not like Intel doesn't have anything on their radar, no, Ice Lake has been in retail for more than half a year, Tiger Lake is already in production but it's not known when it will hit the shelves.



You don't need good single thread performance. If it were the case, a single-core processor would still be good enough.
I am not quite sure that Windows 10 in its current form supports any single-core processor, to begin with.
You need maximum threads, even threadlets if you will

There are rumours about 15-17% IPC improvement + 200-300 MHz uplift with Zen 3.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Apr 30, 2020)

Houd.ini said:


> How much do you think these 68 cents will translate to in Motherboardish? 20 USD?


It doesn't work like that though. Board makers have different SKUs and if you've looked, you'll see that most Z490 boards have 2.5Gbps Ethernet, even what should end up being fairly affordable SKUs. I really doubt there'll be a big markup on any boards for 2.5Gbps Ethernet this time around.


----------



## ARF (Apr 30, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> It doesn't work like that though. Board makers have different SKUs and if you've looked, you'll see that most Z490 boards have 2.5Gbps Ethernet, even what should end up being fairly affordable SKUs. I really doubt there'll be a big markup on any boards for 2.5Gbps Ethernet this time around.




Well, marketing works exactly that way


----------



## coozie78 (Apr 30, 2020)

efikkan said:


> Did anyone catch when the review embargo lifts? Some rumors claimed end of May…
> 
> 
> I do wonder if both are required or not?
> ...




Probably both, certainly both for an overclock, the MB makers aren't providing such beefy VRMs without reason.
True, nobody should be thinking of running a rig based on these parts with a low end PSU, I was thinking of ' older ' systems where the user might upgrade the CPU/MB/RAM and hold the other parts, including the PSU.


----------



## Dr_b_ (Apr 30, 2020)

birdie said:


> 90% of users out there don't need more than 4 cores, the remaining 8-9% are totally fine with 6 cores and maybe 1-2% of all users actually need 8-core or more parts. Meanwhile everyone on this planet is better off with single threaded performance which Intel still leads in absolutely most use cases. Zen 3 might finally change it (for a while) but it's nowhere to be seen yet and we don't even have any projections or leaks about its performance.
> 
> I don't deny that AMD made multicore parts available for the average Joe (which Intel denied us for many years), but the guy still doesn't really utilize them in any capacity.
> 
> ...




Agree that intel is better and more stable out of the box from first hand experience, but its really not that grim as you suggest, i didnt need your exaggerated 12 bios updates to fix anything.  And things are rapidly changing in the world as it adapts to AMD, we will see more mature code and products. 

But outside of the world of gamers who are pro-ethletes, cores matter.  Look at the market, who is buying what with how many cores should tell you what you should know.  If people didn't need more cores, they would all be buying 4 core parts, but they are not.  And talking about niche world of 1-2% of all users, most people aren't pro-gamers.    And if you happen to buy more cores than you need its always nice to have them available, with few penalties, for those times you do need them. 

Can't ignore power consumption either, that is why skylake uArch is a huge problem, its not efficient, not at those clocks.  When you see the reviews, and the ridiculous heat these things are producing, and the huge power consumption, you will understand. 

Where are you getting the 20% less FPS statistics for equivalent parts, you cite a 64 core cpu versus a 8 core cpu, no one, especially an ethlete, is buying HEDT to pro game.  AMD isn't 20% less FPS behind with single core IPC on average.   The 90% of users statistic dont need more than 4 cores is also questionable, these parts aren't marketed towards average consumers.


----------



## ARF (Apr 30, 2020)

Dr_b_ said:


> Agree that intel is better and more stable out of the box from first hand experience, but its really not that grim as you suggest, i didnt need your exaggerated 12 bios updates to fix anything.  And things are rapidly changing in the world as it adapts to AMD, we will see more mature code and products.




Have you got a link to a third-party investigation about this claim - that Intel-based systems are more issue-free?


----------



## birdie (Apr 30, 2020)

The amount of hogwash being spread by AMD fans is simply staggering. Why don't you just skip the news related to Intel and NVIDIA?



ARF said:


> *You don't need good single thread performance. *If it were the case, a single-core processor would still be good enough.
> I am not quite sure that Windows 10 in its current form supports any single-core processor, to begin with.
> You need maximum threads, even threadlets if you will
> 
> There are rumours about 15-17% IPC improvement + 200-300 MHz uplift with Zen 3.



1. You're absolutely irresponsibly wrong about that. > 98% of tasks normal users run on a daily basis will run *faster* if you have *4 fast cores than you have 16 slow cores*. Deal with it.

2. In its current form Intel CPUs are the fastest in the world in single threaded performance (for running x86-64 code). This has nothing to do with IPC or anything. I don't give a damn about future AMD or anyone's products. And when you're talking about Zen 3, start talking about Ice Lake which has a much higher IPC than Zen 2 and Tiger Lake which adds up to 20% of performance on top of Ice Lake.



Dr_b_ said:


> But outside of the world of gamers who are pro-ethletes, cores matter.  Look at the market, who is buying what with how many cores should tell you what you should know.  If people didn't need more cores, they would all be buying 4 core parts, but they are not.  And talking about niche world of 1-2% of all users, most people aren't pro-gamers.    And if you happen to buy more cores than you need its always nice to have them available, with few penalties, for those times you do need them.



No, they don't. Absolute most people out there do NOT run on a regular basis:

Compilation
Rendering
Video/audio encoding (hardly any users reencode video)
Scientific research and computations
AI
These are all _extremely specialized tasks_ for very few people out there - again, just like I said, 2% of the global population using PCs or less. Also, a lot of tasks don't quite scale well when you're adding MOAR cores, e.g. the x265 code can effectively use only 16 cores and adding more on top improves performance in a less than linear fashion.

Why does every discussion about Intel and NVIDIA turn into a cesspool of disinformation, myths and "AMD will work better in the future"? No one cares! People buy products to run them right away.

And speaking of feature completeness.

I've recently bought an AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT video card, based on the SUPER DUPER RDNA 1.0 architecture, which in AMD fans' eyes is the second coming of Christ. What did I get:

AMD drivers can't control gamma in games which is a must for tons of people
Fan curve is broken (I'm rocking the latest BIOS and the newest 20.4.2 Adrenaline Drivers)
Video acceleration consumes more than twice (!) as much power as NVIDIA Pascal on 16nm which was released 4 years ago(!) - 28W vs 12W.
With the fan stop feature turned on the card runs at staggering 57C (!) while browsing the web while my previous GTX 1060 ran at modest 42C with _everything else being equal_. As a result my X570 chipset is now running at 65C instead of 58C with an "old" "bad" NVIDIA GPU.
Speaking of the amazing Zen2/X570 combo. In idle it consumes over *25W* of power (which is a lot when talking about millions of systems) vs. around *7W* for Intel which has a bad "14++++++" node and an even worse 22nm node for its Z390 chipset.


----------



## Braggingrights (Apr 30, 2020)

Dave65 said:


> I don't see the option for the dual fire extinguishers you will need when your motherboard burst into flames


Perhaps they should go with one of those hot noisy Wraiths, not that they are the reason Ryzen's are so unstable


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Apr 30, 2020)

Braggingrights said:


> Perhaps they should go with one of those hot noisy Wraiths, not that they are the reason Ryzen's are so unstable


What a strange comment. Even if AMD’s bundled cooler is noisy, it’s still a bundled cooler. It’s not like Intel is shipping anything with their high-end chips anyway. Anyhow, my Ryzen build does just fine, even while running OCed bargain memory in a $50 motherboard.


----------



## Octopuss (Apr 30, 2020)

birdie said:


> The amount of hogwash being spread by AMD fans is simply staggering. Why don't you just skip the news related to Intel and NVIDIA?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How are you any better than AMD fanboys with these elaborates?


----------



## Braggingrights (Apr 30, 2020)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> What a strange comment. Even if AMD’s bundled cooler is noisy, it’s still a bundled cooler. It’s not like Intel is shipping anything with their high-end chips anyway. Anyhow, my Ryzen build does just fine, even while running OCed bargain memory in a $50 motherboard.


What a strange comment. It's always cited as part of the value proposition, it's garbage of course, barely good enough so you can bleat on about imaginary value isn't better than no cooler at all, I just like my system to run without random reboots, I can even use a nvidia card (shock horror) without any instability


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Apr 30, 2020)

Braggingrights said:


> What a strange comment. It's always cited as part of the value proposition, it's garbage of course, barely good enough so you can bleat on about imaginary value isn't better than no cooler at all, I just like my system to run without random reboots, I can even use a nvidia card (shock horror) without any instability


I doubt my personal experience will change your mind, but I’ve owned some of everything over the years. The differences in stability are negligible (meaning the issues have gone both ways and have been minor). Granted, I have never rushed out to buy anything that just came out. The closest I have come is my 5700XT, but that was cause I got it open box for $270 and was willing to risk it. Even that card has worked perfectly fine for me. As for the wraith cooler, it was certainly handy to have until I decided on a beefier cooler, and I’ve repurposed the fan into my current build, so it’s still somewhat in use today. I’ve tamed the fan speeds so it doesn’t make any more noise than my other fans. But hey, you do your thing, I’ll do mine.


----------



## Braggingrights (Apr 30, 2020)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> I doubt my personal experience will change your mind


Correct, and my mates and I have been around the block too (pardon the pun) and none of us would trust one to our critical comp


----------



## Assimilator (Apr 30, 2020)

btarunr said:


> Y'all thought the 40 mm fan on AMD X570 motherboards was a putoff? Wait till you see any half-decent Z490 board:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How is ASRock's *choice* to put VRM fans on a high-end overclocking board, in any way comparable to AMD's high-end chipset effectively *requiring* active cooling?

Once again, your fanboyism undermines the professional conduct of all the other writers on this site.


----------



## bug (Apr 30, 2020)

MrAMD said:


> Eh, not a bad refresh really. Rocket Lake is the big boi coming though. Likely this year even. Kaby lake all over again?


This year? After they launch these in June? You in the market for a bridge by any chance?


----------



## danbert2000 (Apr 30, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> How is ASRock's *choice* to put VRM fans on a high-end overclocking board, in any way comparable to AMD's high-end chipset effectively *requiring* active cooling?
> 
> Once again, your fanboyism undermines the professional conduct of all the other writers on this site.



Intel may still allow it to be a choice, but I doubt you're going to be able to run the 8c/16t options from this series without some serious power throttling due to VRM issues. So it will still work with no fans, but you won't be touching those stated boost clocks. I think motherboards could get around this by using the most efficient VRMs they can find, but that will bump costs up for the motherboards considerably.


----------



## IamEzio (May 1, 2020)

TBH, Its kinda sad that Intel's whole marketing is a meme for "*look at me there is something I'm still good at*".. considering they're a multi-billion company and such.

Even they know they can't compete with Ryzen, hence the whole recent marking "best gaming cpu", best at "real world performance" etc.
best they have on mainstream platform is 10c/20t cpu, while ryzen is 16c/32t, the 3900X alone  makes the 10c/20t Intel already obsolete at anything beyond pure gaming, and on the higher end 3950X and 3960X makes the whole HEDT line pointless even after they did the 50% price cut on the 18c36t.
Lets be real - *nobody* (as in the "major public", not talking about "PCMR" type of people)  should really cares about Intel's 5% to 10% performance "advantage" at 1080p, the reason people "care" about the gaming advantage is their brand perception/ recognition and obviously OEM ties, and if we were to look at laptops for example, the oems are happy with intel's minimal tweaking on the CPU's, as they can rebrand they same laptop internals with "new cpu" and pretty case.

I might be on "Team Red", But in the the end our power as costumers comes to power when we vote with out wallets, I didn't buy the 3900X from the perspective of "AMD Fanboy", but as a costumer who had an *Intel Ivy Bridge CPU *and were looking for a *major update*, after having the same CPU for more than 5 years (the last year was on an cheap ebay xeon 1270v2 ~ i7 3770), the same reason In 2012 when looking to upgrade my Aging E8400 C2D, I've decided on the i5 3470 and not the equivalent FX bulldozer (as it was already "crap" then..)

AMD may shot themselves in the leg when they made the Bulldozer and let Intel do nothing for years, but as karma goes, Intel did the same when they stopped "innovate" and got stuck on 2 single products, skylake and the failed 10nm node.  good for them that they have enough cash to throw on marketing and OEM designs for years to come (beside many other decent products they have outside of CPU's that make profit).



Assimilator said:


> How is ASRock's *choice* to put VRM fans on a high-end overclocking board, in any way comparable to AMD's high-end chipset effectively *requiring* active cooling?
> 
> Once again, your fanboyism undermines the professional conduct of all the other writers on this site.



You really can't compare, Active cooling on X570 boards is there because latest trends in case airflow is fans stuck on glass leading to no actual airflow on the chipset from your case, they might as-well put some effort and designed a decent cooling solution (GB X570 Xtreme shows it possible) and making note that you need minimal airflow from your case, but they assume (and rightly I would say) that people would put the boards in those no airflow cases and instead of burning them to death they decided to just deal with the fan and peoples complain.  

The Fan on my X570 Master is 99.9% of the time totally off and temps are under control from the case/GPU fans running. Its not perfect but its the price you pay sometimes for being an early adopter. the Chipset itself on Z490 don't support PCI-E 4.0 and will not support it, its the GPU PCI-E x16 stop that is "PCI-E 4.0 Ready", on X570 you already have PCI-E 4.0 (no matter how pointless it is for GPU's and current 4.0 ssd's)  for both the chipset (hence the fan) and nVme/GPU slots. and for people complaining on X570 boards pricing, it seems that Z490 is not better.. it seems that beefy VRM (unlike most z370 boards that fire hazzard) and features does cost money..


----------



## AusWolf (May 1, 2020)

It looks like Intel increased the core count, but drastically decreased the base clock to keep the TDPs under control. The turbo speeds look interesting, though we'll have to wait for the tests to see how long these processors can keep them up, or how far they have to go above TDP with the power consumption in order to keep the turbo frequencies stable. 125 W on the K variants looks dreadful already. My 4-core Kaby Lake i7 runs exactly on TDP (65 W) with an all-core turbo of 4 GHz, and this 10th gen is the same 14 nm process, so I don't have high hopes.

All in all, it's just another uninteresting generation that I'll skip. I'll see what the next one and Ryzen 4xxx brings. I don't need more than 4 cores for gaming just yet anyway.

Edit: as a sidenote, I'd rather have a reasonable base clock on a reasonable number of cores than a low base clock on a million core chip with mystery turbo version whatever.


----------



## B-Real (May 1, 2020)

ppn said:


> i9-9900KF (16M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.60 Ghz) $463
> i7-10700KF (16M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.80 GHz) $349
> -$114 big savings
> 
> ...


Thanks to AMD, you get more cores again. But if you take its AMD counterpart, the 3700X, it is sold under $300 on Newegg. This will be $350. Plusz 65W vs. 125W. A massive NO.


----------



## btarunr (May 1, 2020)

Assimilator said:


> How is ASRock's *choice* to put VRM fans on a high-end overclocking board, in any way comparable to AMD's high-end chipset effectively *requiring* active cooling?


Without effective/active VRM heatsinks on the Z490 platform, you're effectively stuck at stock speeds and without TVB/TBM3 because board manufacturers have been granted control over PL2. They won't enable ≥250W PL2 if they're not sure the VRM/cooling can handle it.

I'm sure reviewers will test 10c Comet Lake's extent of reliance on PL2 to even perform as advertised, let alone manual overclocking. One of the things it should reveal is whether Z490 motherboards "effectively require" active VRM cooling.



Assimilator said:


> Once again, your fanboyism undermines the professional conduct of all the other writers on this site.


Your quick-to-judge reactions are a thin veil for your own fanboyism. Destructive criticism of my work seldom escapes my banstick; and casting aspersions on my professionalism on the basis of my personal comments (in the comments section), never escapes it. You have been warned.


----------



## Braggingrights (May 1, 2020)

IamEzio said:


> TBH, Its kinda sad that Intel's whole marketing is a meme for "*look at me there is something I'm still good at*"..


If that's sad then almost 2 decades as wannabe's must have been downright tragic for the opposition


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 1, 2020)

Wow, groupthink is a thing it seems.

So here's a little thought starter.

How does the i5-10400 (65W) stack up to the 3600 (65W)?

How about the i5-10500 (65W)?

How does the i5-10600 (65W)  stack up to the 3600X (*95W*)?

These are all 6C/12T CPUs now and will co-exist at comparable price points.  My thought is that in the midrange, Intel's new chips are going to clock AMD's 3XXX offerings (pun intended).


----------



## AnarchoPrimitiv (May 1, 2020)

birdie said:


> 90% of users out there don't need more than 4 cores, the remaining 8-9% are totally fine with 6 cores and maybe 1-2% of all users actually need 8-core or more parts. Meanwhile everyone on this planet is better off with single threaded performance which Intel still leads in absolutely most use cases. Zen 3 might finally change it (for a while) but it's nowhere to be seen yet and we don't even have any projections or leaks about its performance.
> 
> I don't deny that AMD made multicore parts available for the average Joe (which Intel denied us for many years), but the guy still doesn't really utilize them in any capacity.
> 
> ...



Have you ever considered that "most people don't need more than four cores", because they didn't have an option to buy more than four cores up until ryzen?  Have you ever considered that software is gearemore toward single thread and Intel NOT because it's the best option, but because Intel monopolized the industry for so long?  You have individuals in this comments section talking about using a build for 5+ years... Do you really think four cores will be enough in even 2 years?  Do you really think with AMD's momentum and stellar multi threaded performance, growing popularity that more and more software, including games, wont start using more threads? 

No offense, but it's so uncanny, that i have to point it out that you're literally echoing what Intel had been telling us before ryzen:  "All you need is four cores, all you need is single thread, etc". It was that hubris and ignorance that dethroned Intel and has them at the point of being a joke to enthusiasts, and you're spewing forth the same exact nonsense... Crazy



birdie said:


> 90% of users out there don't need more than 4 cores, the remaining 8-9% are totally fine with 6 cores and maybe 1-2% of all users actually need 8-core or more parts. Meanwhile everyone on this planet is better off with single threaded performance which Intel still leads in absolutely most use cases. Zen 3 might finally change it (for a while) but it's nowhere to be seen yet and we don't even have any projections or leaks about its performance.
> 
> I don't deny that AMD made multicore parts available for the average Joe (which Intel denied us for many years), but the guy still doesn't really utilize them in any capacity.
> 
> ...



Have you ever considered that "most people don't need more than four cores", because they didn't have an option to buy more than four cores up until ryzen?  Have you ever considered that software is gearemore toward single thread and Intel NOT because it's the best option, but because Intel monopolized the industry for so long?  You have individuals in this comments section talking about using a build for 5+ years... Do you really think four cores will be enough in even 2 years?  Do you really think with AMD's momentum and stellar multi threaded performance, growing popularity that more and more software, including games, wont start using more threads? 

No offense, but it's so uncanny, that i have to point it out that you're literally echoing what Intel had been telling us before ryzen:  "All you need is four cores, all you need is single thread, etc". It was that hubris and ignorance that dethroned Intel and has them at the point of being a joke to enthusiasts, and you're spewing forth the same exact nonsense... Crazy



birdie said:


> 90% of users out there don't need more than 4 cores, the remaining 8-9% are totally fine with 6 cores and maybe 1-2% of all users actually need 8-core or more parts. Meanwhile everyone on this planet is better off with single threaded performance which Intel still leads in absolutely most use cases. Zen 3 might finally change it (for a while) but it's nowhere to be seen yet and we don't even have any projections or leaks about its performance.
> 
> I don't deny that AMD made multicore parts available for the average Joe (which Intel denied us for many years), but the guy still doesn't really utilize them in any capacity.
> 
> ...



Have you ever considered that "most people don't need more than four cores", because they didn't have an option to buy more than four cores up until ryzen?  Have you ever considered that software is gearemore toward single thread and Intel NOT because it's the best option, but because Intel monopolized the industry for so long?  You have individuals in this comments section talking about using a build for 5+ years... Do you really think four cores will be enough in even 2 years?  Do you really think with AMD's momentum and stellar multi threaded performance, growing popularity that more and more software, including games, wont start using more threads? 

No offense, but it's so uncanny, that i have to point it out that you're literally echoing what Intel had been telling us before ryzen:  "All you need is four cores, all you need is single thread, etc". It was that hubris and ignorance that dethroned Intel and has them at the point of being a joke to enthusiasts, and you're spewing forth the same exact nonsense... Crazy



birdie said:


> 90% of users out there don't need more than 4 cores, the remaining 8-9% are totally fine with 6 cores and maybe 1-2% of all users actually need 8-core or more parts. Meanwhile everyone on this planet is better off with single threaded performance which Intel still leads in absolutely most use cases. Zen 3 might finally change it (for a while) but it's nowhere to be seen yet and we don't even have any projections or leaks about its performance.
> 
> I don't deny that AMD made multicore parts available for the average Joe (which Intel denied us for many years), but the guy still doesn't really utilize them in any capacity.
> 
> ...





Braggingrights said:


> What a strange comment. It's always cited as part of the value proposition, it's garbage of course, barely good enough so you can bleat on about imaginary value isn't better than no cooler at all, I just like my system to run without random reboots, I can even use a nvidia card (shock horror) without any instability



I absolutely guarantee that not your real reason, just your pretext.... and if you'd take an hour to study social identity theory and in/out group psychology as it relates to brand loyalty, you can easily spot the textbook examples of people defending their irrational loyalty to brands with rational arguments, which as I previously stated, is not their true reasoning, only their pretext


----------



## Berfs1 (May 1, 2020)

A little off on the Celeron specs, they have 2MB L3 cache, not 3MB, at least that is what Intel ARK is stating.


----------



## Dr_b_ (May 1, 2020)

birdie said:


> The amount of hogwash being spread by AMD fans is simply staggering. Why don't you just skip the news related to Intel and NVIDIA?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




-We don't not understand that single core performance matters.  Not disputing that intel can be faster, but you claimed AMD was 20% slower on IPC,  where do you get your information from? 20% slower on average with what applications, and what CPUs?  I certainly haven't found that to be the case when comparing my Skylake CPUs and AMD CPUs

-Why do you believe that we need to run a dozen BIOS updates to get a stable AMD CPU environment, there have been only 2 EUFI updates for my x570 system which is 3950X on CH8, and it worked fine and was stable on the one it shipped with.   

-A lot of tasks do scale with thread count. Intel is releasing a 10 core part here, not a 4 core part.  Also, with only 4 cores, you are limited in the number of single threaded apps you can run simultaneously.  This isn't a niche domain.  Why would anyone advocate just scaling clocks and power consumption in fewer cores versus spreading loads out over multiple threads, this is how we are getting around physical limitations with our current technology.  Intel is marketing these products to people that do run lots of apps, they have the word "megatasking" on the product marketing slides. 

-Your personal AMD GPU problems are relevant to comparing an AMD CPU and its core performance to Intel CPUs how? If you want to discuss product problems, AMD hasn't been plagued by the numerous security issues that intel has over the past years, and patches for those have slowed intels IPC advantage. 

-Intel has had a monopoly over the CPU market for so long, it is stagnating, releasing iterative products on the same process node, without new features, look at the iGPU in these "new" CPUs. The skylake uArch doesn't suck, its just doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Everyone is benefiting from reduced prices and competition, and at the risk of angering you further, more cores. 

-Power Consumption, you can't ignore that.  The only way to beat AMD IPC is via clock speed at the expense of extreme heat and power consumption.   

-Im not claiming that AMD will work better in the future, im claiming it is working better now for all the reasons stated, this isnt a myth or a cesspool of disinformation.



ARF said:


> Have you got a link to a third-party investigation about this claim - that Intel-based systems are more issue-free?



no it was anecdotal based on my personal experience


----------



## Braggingrights (May 1, 2020)

Dr_b_ said:


> Power Consumption, you can't ignore that.


I heard they could have found the Higgs years earlier but they were worried about power consumption


----------



## kapone32 (May 1, 2020)

Wow that top Intel 10 core is about the same price as the 3900x.


dicktracy said:


> 10700KF is the choice for gamers.



That is a very broad statement.


----------



## Dr_b_ (May 1, 2020)

Braggingrights said:


> I heard they could have found the Higgs years earlier but they were worried about power consumption



Electricity isn't free, and 300W+ is a lot of heat.   The LHC isn't left on 24x7 either, and is funded by governments, which aren't coincidentally paying for my electric bill.  Got any more pointless analogies?


----------



## Gmr_Chick (May 1, 2020)

Damn, the comments section on this article got me like: 




 

The only thing I will say is that the reviews for these CPUs ought to be REALLY interesting, mostly in regards to thermals.


----------



## villa07 (May 1, 2020)

ppn said:


> i9-9900KF (16M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.60 Ghz) $463
> i7-10700KF (16M cache, 8 Cores, 16 Threads, 3.80 GHz) $349
> -$114 big savings
> 
> ...



willowcove is still 10nm, should golden cove with 7nm


----------



## medi01 (May 1, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> How does the i5-10400 (65W) stack up to the 3600 (65W)?



Check out.
4000 series...
Mainboards...

If you dare...

I hope they come with fire extinguishers... 




birdie said:


> *you have 16 slow cores*.



Yeah. "Slow cores".
As in "brought to you by clowns thinking Intel has IPC advantage"


----------



## SIGSEGV (May 1, 2020)

DOA
Damn, I don't see a good reason to switch over Intel right now. LOL


----------



## ARF (May 1, 2020)

SIGSEGV said:


> DOA
> Damn, I don't see a good reason to switch over Intel right now. LOL



Z490 supports Rocket Lake, while upcoming Ryzen 4000 will be end of road for AM4 X570.


----------



## Houd.ini (May 1, 2020)

Braggingrights said:


> I heard they could have found the Higgs years earlier but they were worried about power consumption


You think CERN don't care about efficiency?


----------



## Super XP (May 1, 2020)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> From Anandtech:
> 
> 
> These are going to be some hefty motherboards. I’m curious if this will set precedence for future CPU designs.


Any groundbreaking Intel CPU design is years off IMO. We might end up seeing something meaningful sometime in 2022 or 2023.



SIGSEGV said:


> DOA
> Damn, I don't see a good reason to switch over Intel right now. LOL


Here's a Red Flag for Intel. 
Ryan Shrout was hired for *Chief Performance Strategist* at Intel. Performance Strategist? Why does Intel need such a thing? To make slow & old processors look nice & shiny on benchmark & performance graphs/slides perhaps? Currently, anything Intel has out to date is pretty much DOA, they will receive the same scrutiny as AMD once did with its Bulldozer release. Even though AMD cleaned that up quite a bit with Piledriver, as Intel also is attempting to clean up its CPUs, they will still be taglined DOA as AMD's Bulldozer back in the day!!!

Chief Performance Strategist is a Red Flag, they should have called it Chief Performance BullShatter!!! 



dicktracy said:


> 10700KF is the choice for gamers.


Nobody should be recommending Intel for gamers when you have better processors out to date called AMD Ryzen 3000 series.


----------



## efikkan (May 1, 2020)

Super XP said:


> Nobody should be recommending Intel for gamers when you have better processors out to date called AMD Ryzen 3000 series.


This is the kind of biased nonsense we don't need in here.
While Zen 2 certainly have multiple advantages, Intel is still better in workloads like gaming, photo editing, video editing, etc.
The right choice depends on the use case of the computer.


----------



## Turmania (May 1, 2020)

You can play on i3 10100 or ryzen 3 3100 and you be just fine. Unless you started doing some other tasks as well. There are other factors people should consider, price,power consumption,cooling and system stability etc.


----------



## ARF (May 1, 2020)

Turmania said:


> You can play on i3 10100 or ryzen 3 3100 and you be just fine. Unless you started doing some other tasks as well. There are other factors people should consider, price,power consumption,cooling and system stability etc.




Ryzen 3 3100 will produce 15-20 less FPS.


----------



## IamEzio (May 1, 2020)

Braggingrights said:


> If that's sad then almost 2 decades as wannabe's must have been downright tragic for the opposition



This comment can might as well be an extension of Intel's marketing division, even if you hate them with all of your hearth.
They had great products at some point. same as Intel and NVIDIA and for most decent companies.

The 2 tragic things here:

1) much bigger and powerful companies trying to bury the "underdog" when it has the better product, with gray area/sometimes on the verge/plain illegal and anti competitive actions. And when the lawsuit comes they just pay and repeat again, because at the end its more profitable to be punished on your actions then to stop doing them. Do you also think Nvidia's GPP was the greatest thing for consumers? or how the "CPU Discounts" to OEM's lower PC prices ? no they don't, Only one benefits from this are Intel and the Marketing department that can literally do anything and people will still think their new Skylake CPU is the best thing ever shouting "Moar GHz" on forums. when in fact AMD currently has the better IPC. Zen 3 is coming, and if "rumors" are somewhat correct, it should have enough performance to make the Lake series finally irrelevant at everything, no matter what "GHZzzzzz" its running at.

2) Intel not pushing the performance farther, only reason they have higher core counts and lower prices is zen, and that's the real tragedy. how can people be fanboys for a company that did everything to milk their costumers in incremental updates just because they could? the only reason technology came so far is because people keep pushing the boundaries of what is possible.
Some people voted with their wallets and refused to upgrade, Many people with Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge didn't have a reason to upgrade to another mainstream platform as paying 350$ for a CPU that is barely twice as fast on the most optimal benchmark, 5 years later was not the *Smart move. finally *now, that high core count CPU's are mainstream can people upgrade without feeling like they've been ripped off.



efikkan said:


> This is the kind of biased nonsense we don't need in here.
> While Zen 2 certainly have multiple advantages, Intel is still better in workloads like gaming, photo editing, video editing, etc.
> The right choice depends on the use case of the computer.



While they hold the gaming crown for the most part, and usually with small margins. when it comes to photo/video editing depending on the software - zen 2 today, is mostly on par/better vs comparable core count Intel CPU's.


----------



## WeeRab (May 1, 2020)

These new top-end Intel space-heaters are dead-in-the-water already.
 Proc + M/Board is already $700-$800, then another $150-$200 for a cooling solution. - And you WILL need that to cool them.

All that money to boast about higher FPS at 1080p - Jeez....
Oh! I forgot about the 0.0002% of the population who are 'e-athletes', or the other 0.0002% who sit in their mothers basement running PiFast all day to validate their idiocy.

Just buy AMD and spend the money you would've wasted on Intel on a top of the line graphics card.


----------



## Super XP (May 1, 2020)

efikkan said:


> This is the kind of biased nonsense we don't need in here.
> While Zen 2 certainly have multiple advantages, Intel is still better in workloads like gaming, photo editing, video editing, etc.
> The right choice depends on the use case of the computer.


Let's not kid ourselves, and Quite the contrary, the only minor advantage Intel has on AMD is PC Gaming. That's It. 
AMD takes the crown in Video/Photo editing along with pretty much everything else. 

And with all due respect, please don't call Factual Information, biased nonsense.



ARF said:


> Ryzen 3 3100 will produce 15-20 less FPS.


Will you see a difference between 150 FPS vs. 180 FPS? I'll answer that easy question 4U. Absolutely NOT. The very very minor FPS increase you get from using Intel's stove heater is not even worse mentioning nowadays. This ain't AMD Bulldozer vs. Intel.


----------



## ARF (May 1, 2020)

Super XP said:


> Will you see a difference between 150 FPS vs. 180 FPS? I'll answer that easy question 4U. Absolutely NOT. The very very minor FPS increase you get from using Intel's stove heater is not even worse mentioning nowadays. This ain't AMD Bulldozer vs. Intel.



I have marked the guy above you as a troll and reported it.
Ryzen 3 3100 is the worst that you could ever get. It has 8 cores in 2 4-core CCXs with all the latency associated between them, 2 cores enabled in the first CCX and 2 cores enabled in the second CCX. This is a recipe for disaster in gaming.

Core i3-10100 is a 65-watt part, what stove heater are you dreaming about ?


----------



## efikkan (May 1, 2020)

Super XP said:


> Let's not kid ourselves, and Quite the contrary, the only minor advantage Intel has on AMD is PC Gaming. That's It.
> AMD takes the crown in Video/Photo editing along with pretty much everything else.
> And with all due respect, please don't call Factual Information, biased nonsense.


The _facts_ speaks for themselves:







And there are numerous others as well. Zen 2 isn't better in every workload.


----------



## Braggingrights (May 1, 2020)

kapone32 said:


> That is a very broad statement.


But it's exactly the way it'll play out



Dr_b_ said:


> Electricity isn't free


It is if you have solar panels and Elon Musk on a bicycle peddling like a monkey as a backup generator


----------



## kapone32 (May 1, 2020)

ARF said:


> I have marked the guy above you as a troll and reported it.
> Ryzen 3 3100 is the worst that you could ever get. It has 8 cores in 2 4-core CCXs with all the latency associated between them, 2 cores enabled in the first CCX and 2 cores enabled in the second CCX. This is a recipe for disaster in gaming.
> 
> Core i3-10100 is a 65-watt part, what stove heater are you dreaming about ?



Without reviews even your comments can be considered trolling. You have no idea how these will perform.


----------



## ARF (May 1, 2020)

kapone32 said:


> Without reviews even your comments can be considered trolling. You have no idea how these will perform.




I have an idea. You are a troll, also.
Battlefield 1: Ryzen 117 FPS Core i7 140 FPS
Crysis 3: Ryzen 57 FPS Core i7 65 FPS
GTA V: Ryzen 115 FPS Core i7 148 FPS
Witcher 3: Ryzen 55 FPS Core i7 62 FPS


----------



## kapone32 (May 1, 2020)

ARF said:


> I have an idea. You are a troll, also:



 Wow a 4 core first Gen Ryzen CPU that does not do over 4 ghz  vs a chip that sold for 2 times the cost  and is a refined . You seem to not realize that just from reading and testing that objectively the 7nm chip  should have at least a 25% IPC advantage over the chip you are qouting and apparently a 4.5 GHZ all boost clock.


----------



## ARF (May 1, 2020)

kapone32 said:


> Wow a 4 core first Gen Ryzen CPU that does not do over 4 ghz  vs a chip that sold for 2 times the cost  and is a refined . You seem to not realize that just from reading and testing that objectively the 7nm chip  should have at least a 25% IPC advantage over the chip you are qouting and apparently a 4.5 GHZ all boost clock.




You will never see 25% higher performance per clock in gaming. Ryzen 5 1500X is up to 3.7 GHz. Ryzen 3 3100 is up to 3.9 GHz. 
But Ryzen 5 1500X has 384 KB L1 cache, while Ryzen 3 1300 has only 256 KB L1 cache.

All performance metrics are already there:





						Intel Core i3-10300 Benchmark, Test and specs
					

Intel Core i3-10300 benchmark results and review of this cpu with specs including the number of cores, threads, memory bandwidth, pcie lanes and power consumption. Benchmarks in Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5




					www.cpu-monkey.com
				








						Intel Core i7-7700K Benchmark, Test and specs
					

Intel Core i7-7700K benchmark results and review of this cpu with specs including the number of cores, threads, memory bandwidth, pcie lanes and power consumption. Benchmarks in Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5




					www.cpu-monkey.com
				






			https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-1500x
		



			https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-3-3100


----------



## IamEzio (May 1, 2020)

efikkan said:


> The _facts_ speaks for themselves:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh yes, _Facts.. _They can go_ both ways..._











I will not even Cherry pick like most do here, and will add this one where a 9900K has a *HUGE 5%* advantage over the 3900X and margin of error with the 3950X..





The 3900X/3950X has the IPC advantage so even with the lower single core boost, they are as fast on less optimized applications.
And lets not forget that in 3D modeling, a similarly priced 3900X can be *40% *Faster*, *3950X - *86% *Faster*.*





How can a CPU that is *slower in* *most tasks*, be a better than the the CPU is faster in most tasks, even when zen 2 is slower than the comparable Intel CPU, its usually by a small margin.
And the platform is an overall better buy, considering that even if AM4 will be dead next year, you still have an upgrade path from a lower tier Ryzen 3000, or older gen ryzen 2/1000 to a 12c/24 CPU or a 16c/36t CPU Ryzen 3000 or the upcoming 4000. Buying Intel's upcoming platform is not even a guarantee that you could update to a 12c let alone 16c in the long run.



ARF said:


> You will never see 25% higher performance per clock in gaming. Ryzen 5 1500X is up to 3.7 GHz. Ryzen 3 3100 is up to 3.9 GHz.
> But Ryzen 5 1500X has 384 KB L1 cache, while Ryzen 3 1300 has only 256 KB L1 cache.
> 
> All performance metrics are already there:
> ...



Did you really use a 190$ CPU to compare to a 350$ one? and with some random VERY POORLY made video?
Unlike your beloved "Insert some random lake and call it a new product because the road map is a failed mess", zen 2 had *major* changes in the way its built.
And unlike i7 7700K owners who stuck on 4c8t, the 1500X owners can spend under 200$ to get a new R5 3600. if you have an X370 motherboard with decent VRM you can even install a 3950X on it after a BIOS update. no "x-lake" owner can do that on their mainstream platform.


----------



## Bee9 (May 1, 2020)

efikkan said:


> And there are numerous others as well. Zen 2 isn't better in every workload.


I see your point. Intel made the right marketing moves to target gamers because 66% of the population in the US are consider themselves gamers (1). With competitive gaming becomes so popular, I think they will get back some market share from gamers depending on how many titles are favoring intel processors. 
AMD made their moves by Pricing lower than the competitors (cpu at the same tier) and the single core performance loss is not that much that people are willing to switch. It’s just marketing done somewhat right for both sides. 

At the point of writing this comment, 3900x is hovering at $400 retail price (2) with cooler included while Intel 10900k pricing is at $488 (per slides released in page 1 of this thread).
Davinci resolve users may find Intel new i9 10900K CPU a little faster (3) but at 20% more expensive than AMD, is it worth the cost? Only the end users can tell. Purchasing decision varies base on disposable income. 
Common office workers who deal mostly with Excel spreadsheets will likely enjoy whatever the company gives them and that’s most likely be an Intel machine because of OEM support. But situation may change since more manufacturers are adding AMD to their line up because it’s a little bit easier on the pricing (see recent new AMD laptop with AMD 4000 series cpu). 

With Intel releasing new processors, I expect AMD to further cut the price to become more competitive. And I hope new AMD cpu will have better IPC to compete. 
At this point, you can’t be wrong buying either side because both bring great performance at somewhat acceptable price range. 

I am very happy to see competition because that’s what drive innovations. 





(1) https://www.statista.com/statistics/748044/number-video-gamers-world/
(2) https://www.microcenter.com/product...-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-prism-cooler
(3) https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...ore-X-10000-vs-AMD-Threadripper-3rd-Gen-1630/


----------



## kapone32 (May 1, 2020)

ARF said:


> You will never see 25% higher performance per clock in gaming. Ryzen 5 1500X is up to 3.7 GHz. Ryzen 3 3100 is up to 3.9 GHz.
> But Ryzen 5 1500X has 384 KB L1 cache, while Ryzen 3 1300 has only 256 KB L1 cache.
> 
> All performance metrics are already there:
> ...



All is said was IPC not gaming and that could easily mitigate less L1 cache. We don't have anything concrete on any of the new CPUs until reviews or self testing. Any comment making one seem better than the other without this data can be considered obtuse. There are a ton of variables to these as well. As an example which is faster using the IGPU the 2400G or 7700K? Will the 10300K be faster in IGPU gaming than the 3400G (Which can't seem to found in Canada for decent prices). Will a 3900X with super fast memory and tight timings perform similar to 5 GHZ 9900K. Those 2 scenarios are known to improve performance on the perspective platforms. Then when the Ryzen chips launch will they have the clock speed to make Intel obsolete (In the words of fan boys on both side depending on the year and decade).


----------



## EarthDog (May 1, 2020)

AnarchoPrimitiv said:


> Have you ever considered that "most people don't need more than four cores", because they didn't have an option to buy more than four cores up until ryzen?


weight wut? rukiddingmeh? For Intel, X58 platform had Hexcores out almost 10 years ago. AMD bulldozer was more than that 'on paper' 10 years ago.


----------



## birdie (May 1, 2020)

Yeah, _multicore_ benchmarks for less than _0.5%_ of the world's population and suddenly Zen 2 is the only architecture that matters and Sky Lake v5 is BAAAAAAAD. AMD fans cannot really be rational. If it's MOAR cores AMD is automatically better than Intel and NVIDIA combined. Doesn't matter if those cores go underutilized or not utilized at all for 98% of people out there who run nothing but a web browser (because to be honest most people don't run anything else nowadays as you can do pretty much everything in it, including spread sheets/taxes/banking/viewing PDFs, listening to music and playing videos). What's not covered by the web browser? Viewing photos (but given that most people store their photos in the cloud that becomes murky). Some fill out PDFs in Adobe Acrobat or run full blown Microsoft Office - both these tasks barely require more than two cores. Oh, and BTW browsers have extensively used GPU acceleration for quite some time which means the CPU isn't that important.

Still, _"My super duper 3950X runs Cinebench 20 benchmark faster than the Core i9 10900KF which means INTEL IS BAD DO NOT BUY IT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES"_. It gets even more laughable when most AMD fans can't even name day-to-day tasks they are performing on their 16-core overpowered CPUs. Looks like someone has a lot more money than rationale. Or and _"every user must have a CPU with as many cores as possible"_. Hasn't AMD announced four-cores Ryzen CPUs recently? Oh, wait, they have.


----------



## Bee9 (May 1, 2020)

birdie said:


> Hasn't AMD announced four-cores Ryzen CPUs recently? Oh, wait, they have.


Can you inform us the price of Ryzen 4 cores and to which Intel processors it compete with?


----------



## trparky (May 1, 2020)

AnarchoPrimitiv said:


> You have individuals in this comments section talking about using a build for 5+ years.


I was one of them, I had a 3570K build for nearly five years. Why? Oh yeah... that's because Intel was shoveling the same tired warmed over four core garbage for years that I didn't see a need to upgrade. Why? So, I could get another four core CPU? But then AMD came along and actually forced Intel to innovate and then the 8700K came along with six cores, to which I said... "Self, now is the time to upgrade. There's actually something new here."

Funny how a lack of innovation results in people not wanting to upgrade and thus spend money.


----------



## birdie (May 1, 2020)

Bee9 said:


> Can you inform us the price of Ryzen 4 cores and to which Intel processors it compete with?



Ryzen 3 3300X $120
Ryzen 3 3100 $99

both require a discrete GPU which adds at the very least $80 to the bill (the cheapest modern GPU that I could find on NewEgg).

Intel Core i3 10100: $122 (integrated graphics included).


----------



## trparky (May 1, 2020)

birdie said:


> (integrated graphics included).


Which is damn near useless.


----------



## birdie (May 1, 2020)

trparky said:


> Which is damn near useless.



Intel HD graphics works for absolute most people out there who don't play AAA games. I personally know a dozen people who have nothing but Intel HD graphics on their PCs/laptops and they have nothing to report.


----------



## EarthDog (May 1, 2020)

trparky said:


> Which is damn near useless.


It will put an image on the screen....which is the point. It wont play a ton of games well, but most of those buying these things arent trying to AAA game.


----------



## trparky (May 1, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> It will put an image on the screen... which is the point. It won't play a ton of games well, but most of those buying these things aren't trying to AAA game.


Yes, but if you get either a Ryzen 3200G or 3400G you get the best of both worlds, Ryzen with integrated VEGA graphics that kicks the snot out of anything Intel has as far as integrated graphics.


----------



## EarthDog (May 1, 2020)

trparky said:


> Yes, but if you get either a Ryzen 3200G or 3400G you get the best of both worlds, Ryzen with integrated VEGA graphics that kicks the snot out of anything Intel has as far as integrated graphics.


Good point. 3400G is also like $180 though...


----------



## trparky (May 1, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Good point. 3400G is also like $180 though...


But for about $70 more you actually get graphics hardware that's worth more than a bucket of warm spit.


----------



## birdie (May 1, 2020)

trparky said:


> But for about $70 more you actually get graphics hardware that's worth more than a bucket of warm spit.



$70 is how much people are earning in some African countries in a month. Sometimes it helps to leave the cozy vacuum of your rich american life and realize there's a world outside with actual people and for many of them $70 is a ton of money. In seemingly democratic claiming to be 1st-world country Russia the average montly salary is just $450. In Ukraine it's even less.

Lastly a discrete GPU adds complexity and weight to your build which, shockingly(!) even many Europeans/Americans love to avoid.


----------



## EarthDog (May 1, 2020)

trparky said:


> But for about $70 more you actually get graphics hardware that's worth more than a bucket of warm spit.


And for $10 more than that, you've got a discrete card that will walk that iGPU. 

But seriously, if you are buying potato, cpus, you arent AAA gaming in the first place.


----------



## medi01 (May 1, 2020)

Bee9 said:


> 66% of the population in the US are consider themselves gamers (1).


Citation needed. 

I could imagine "clowns with agenda decided to count everyone who has ever played a computer game, even if just once in his/her life, a gamer".


----------



## kapone32 (May 1, 2020)

birdie said:


> Ryzen 3 3300X $120
> Ryzen 3 3100 $99
> 
> both require a discrete GPU which adds at the very least $80 to the bill (the cheapest modern GPU that I could find on NewEgg).
> ...



So you should compare it to the 3400G then to be fair. but a RX570 new or used would benefit both CPUs (not that you could do anything other than watch Netflix or Disney +) I doubt you could even run Total War Rome (not Rome 2) on that IGPU. But it does help with Adobe Premiere (If you use that) since for the last 2 years Vegas has been $20 on Humble Bundle.


----------



## birdie (May 1, 2020)

kapone32 said:


> So you should compare it to the 3400G then to be fair. but a RX570 new or used would benefit both CPUs (not that you could do anything other than watch Netflix or Disney +) I doubt you could even run Total War Rome (not Rome 2) on that IGPU. But it does help with Adobe Premiere (If you use that) since for the last 2 years Vegas has been $20 on Humble Bundle.



Let me quote myself: "Intel HD graphics works for absolute most people out there who don't play AAA games. I personally know a dozen people who have nothing but Intel HD graphics on their PCs/laptops and they have nothing to report". And 3400G is quite slower CPU-wise than Core i3 10100 because it's Zen+, not Zen 2.


----------



## kapone32 (May 1, 2020)

birdie said:


> $70 is how much people are earning in some African countries in a month. Sometimes it helps to leave the cozy vacuum of your rich american life and realize there's a world outside with actual people and for many of them $70 is a ton of money. In seemingly democratic claiming to be 1st-world country Russia the average montly salary is just $450. In Ukraine it's even less.
> 
> Lastly a discrete GPU adds complexity and weight to your build which, shockingly(!) even many Europeans/Americans love to avoid.



Just buy a 7950 for $50 and be happy. It's Friday the only thing we have to with our PCs in a couple hours is game or encode. Your argument speaks to Ryzen APUs though as if I was looking for a build without a GPU the 2400G and assumedly 3400G are great for that application.


----------



## birdie (May 1, 2020)

kapone32 said:


> Just buy a 7950 for $50 and be happy. It's Friday the only thing we have to with our PCs in a couple hours is game or encode. Your argument speaks to Ryzen APUs though as if I was looking for a build without a GPU the 2400G and assumedly 3400G are great for that application.



Let me quote myself again because probably you're not paying attention:

"Lastly a discrete GPU adds complexity and weight to your build which, shockingly(!) even many Europeans/Americans love to avoid".


----------



## IamEzio (May 1, 2020)

birdie said:


> Yeah, _multicore_ benchmarks for less than _0.5%_ of the world's population and suddenly Zen 2 is the only architecture that matters and Sky Lake v5 is BAAAAAAAD. AMD fans cannot really be rational. If it's MOAR cores AMD is automatically better than Intel and NVIDIA combined. Doesn't matter if those cores go underutilized or not utilized at all for 98% of people out there who run nothing but a web browser (because to be honest most people don't run anything else nowadays as you can do pretty much everything in it, including spread sheets/taxes/banking/viewing PDFs, listening to music and playing videos). What's not covered by the web browser? Viewing photos (but given that most people store their photos in the cloud that becomes murky). Some fill out PDFs in Adobe Acrobat or run full blown Microsoft Office - both these tasks barely require more than two cores. Oh, and BTW browsers have extensively used GPU acceleration for quite some time which means the CPU isn't that important.
> 
> Still, _"My super duper 3950X runs Cinebench 20 benchmark faster than the Core i9 10900KF which means INTEL IS BAD DO NOT BUY IT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES"_. It gets even more laughable when most AMD fans can't even name day-to-day tasks they are performing on their 16-core overpowered CPUs. Looks like someone has a lot more money than rationale. Or and _"every user must have a CPU with as many cores as possible"_. Hasn't AMD announced four-cores Ryzen CPUs recently? Oh, wait, they have.



yes you could consider skylake vX as "BAAAAAAAD", its a stop gap because every other products on the road map never made it to production and was rushed even more so by Zen release.
The only thing that makes it relevant is gaming and some specific applications that it will run better on it thanks to the higher clocks. how can a product that shouldn't had existed in the first place be considered a success? its a success as in Intel has a somewhat competitive and relevant product. as a PRODUCT - sorry but no. And for all of the flack AMD got when they released the pointless FX 9570, Didn't intel recently released a thing they called i9 9900KS ? is that a great product


As for the rest of your comment, you wrote



> Or and _"every user must have a CPU with as many cores as possible"_. Hasn't AMD announced four-cores Ryzen CPUs recently? Oh, wait, they have.



instead of repeating the broken record, The statement should be more like this:



> _every user *should* have a CPU with as *many cores* as possible for *their respective price bracket*_


Obviously the cores themselves should be also competitive, and you cant ignore the fact the core(zen2) - core (9th Gen) are very competitive.

Most people don't need Ryzen 7/9 or any i7. its funny that people only focus on the high end while the low and mid range is where it at.
And the fact is that thanks to Ryzen we have better mid range CPU's, if intel wouldn't follow AMD in core count,* would you still for example buy an 4c/8t i5 in 2020 when you have competitive 6c/12t cpu from AMD, that has similar gaming performance and better overall performance?* I would not. Intel is the one playing catch-up and people should want to buy the better product. if someone buys intel because he doesn't care and want to buy "only Intel" "cuz i herd its better and moar fps" then let it be. but it doesn't make it the better product overall.

*And on the last note. if multi-core is really that irrelevant, Why is an 8c/16t 5GHz CPU is better than 4c/8t 5GHz at pure gaming if "maor cores" is pointless ? maybe we should all use i7-7700Ks and want nothing better. because it is the Intel mindset. they complain about AMD and note how high core count CPU's are pointless, but on the other hand, their "BEST CPU EVER" on the market is the 8c/16t 9900K, that has that much cores only thanks to AMD stepping up the game and becoming competitive again. *And after the 10900KF will be out, it would be the "Intel Holy Grail", the 10c20t CPU, and we will still hear how AMD's high core count CPU's are pointless and how every AMD fanboy is a Cinebench **. did these people never hear about the saying "Don't Piss In The Well From Which You Drink"?


----------



## kapone32 (May 1, 2020)

birdie said:


> Let me quote myself: "Intel HD graphics works for absolute most people out there who don't play AAA games. I personally know a dozen people who have nothing but Intel HD graphics on their PCs/laptops and they have nothing to report". And 3400G is quite slower CPU-wise than Core i3 10100 because it's Zen+, not Zen 2.




The GPU on a 3400G is in the CPU package so no added "weight" (I can;t imagine having a PCIe slot and not using it)


----------



## trparky (May 1, 2020)

IamEzio said:


> would you still for example buy an 4c/8t i5 in 2020 when you have competitive 6c/12t cpu from AMD


Nope, and that's the reason why competition makes things better for the consumer in not just better products but also lower prices. If AMD didn't come back swinging Intel would have had nothing to stop them from raising prices on just about everything including the lower-end Core i3 chips. We can see that in how nVidia prices their high-end GPUs at insane prices all because AMD hasn't really had anything to speak of in the high-end GPU market.


----------



## birdie (May 1, 2020)

No, users should *not* buy PCs with as many cores as humanly possible because unused cores are nothing but wasted money. People should always buy what's best for them (in terms of the bang for the buck) for their budget. I do understand that most TPU users are tech-enthusiasts who love to have overpowered PCs because you do it for boasting rights but that's not how the world works! Many people save on food and clothes to be able to buy a PC and you're insisting they should go e.g. buy something like Ryzen 7 3700X? Or companies which buy thousands of PCs for their workers? Why?? All these people will be just fine with Core i3 10300 for the next 15 years. Yes, 15, because I had an Intel Core i5 2500 based PC until August 2019 and it still works perfectly. I replaced it *not* because I needed MOAR cores or speed but because I wanted a new PC for a change.

Also, please let me remind you about AMD FX-8000 / 9000 CPUs which had MORE cores but ran slower in absolute most tasks than Intel CPUs with twice as fewer cores. So, your argument about having MOAR cores goes out of the window.

And since we've just established that MOAR cores are not that essential we come back to square one.

Old bad Sky Lake at 5.3 GHz performs faster than any non-OC'ed AMD CPU in existence in absolute most tasks.
AMD *does win* when MOAR cores are getting used due to power throttling on the Intel side because you can go only so far with power hungry 14nm cores.
Intel *does have* CPUs with much better IPC than Sky Lake: Ice Lake (~18% IPC uplift), Tiger Lake (+15% IPC uplift vs. Ice Lake).
Lastly many people say new games will utilize MOAR cores, which means slower but MOAR cores are better than faster but fewer cores. This is too often not true. Let me explain why:

Most game engines have a master thread which synchronizes all other threads load and if this master thread becomes overutilized your additional cores are going to waste.
CCX complexes in AMD CPUs mean there's a certain amount of delay in communication between cores which means games have to be specially coded which adds complexity and some game companies will simply not do this work because there's this vendor, which is being mocked at constantly, Intel, which doesn't have inter-CPU cores communication issues. AMD has actually realized that as well and Zen 3 is rumored to have 8-core CCX complexes which solves the issue.
A lot of games don't actually need that many cores because they are not complicated enough and programmers have no tasks to run on additional cores. In fact less than 5% of games in 2020 fully utilize more than 6 cores which means Intel Core i9 9700 is doing its job just fine or most four-core CPUs with HT.
Over and out.



kapone32 said:


> The GPU on a 3400G is in the CPU package so no added "weight" (I can;t imagine having a PCIe slot and not using it)



Are you following me?

Let me quote myself again: "And 3400G is quite slower CPU-wise than Core i3 10100 because it's Zen+, not Zen 2."


----------



## trparky (May 1, 2020)

Me thinks that @birdie is an Intel shill.


----------



## birdie (May 1, 2020)

trparky said:


> Me thinks that @birdie is an Intel shill.



I wonder how *stating facts and nothing but facts* can be considering "a shill" when I'm also rocking a system based on the Ryzen 7 3700X right freaking now.

I now AMD fans hate facts and love illusions or "potential" but I'm sorry I don't buy any of this.


----------



## EarthDog (May 1, 2020)

This is an enthusiast site and those who want to game with modern titles will find 4c/8t hold back some games at 1080p and 1440. But we arent talking peoples salaries and 1st/3ed world bullshit... that's just ranting.

That said, I dont like the core/thread war either that amd started. 16c/32t in mainstream is a joke. In fact, I didnt like the 12c/24t part either. 8c/16t is plenty for the next few years.


----------



## trparky (May 1, 2020)

birdie said:


> I wonder how *stating facts and nothing but facts*


Because you sound like Intel's marketing department from a few years ago.



EarthDog said:


> That said, I don't like the core/thread war either that AMD started. 16c/32t in mainstream is a joke. In fact, I didn't like the 12c/24t part either. 8c/16t is plenty for the next few years.


I'd have to agree with you on that. The only thing that this so-called "core/thread war" has done has made lower-end products not only cheaper but also a better buy. And in the end, that's all that really matters. People now are getting more for their money.


----------



## EarthDog (May 1, 2020)

trparky said:


> Because you sound like Intel's marketing department from a few years ago.
> 
> 
> I'd have to agree with you on that. The only thing that this so-called "core/thread war" has done has made lower-end products not only cheaper but also a better buy. And in the end, that's all that really matters. People now are getting more for their money.


Absolutely. My only concern is people generically thinking more c/t is better. They are... but if you can use them. For gamers, 4c/8t in 2020 is already long in the tooth... I wouldnt go less than 8/8...6/6 if you didnt have a choice.


----------



## trparky (May 1, 2020)

Yeah. Before AMD came back and kicked Intel's ass their lower-end Core i3 chips were all nothing more than 2C4T chips, now they're 4C8T chips at nearly the same price. This is double the performance at nearly the same cost, the consumer wins.


----------



## kapone32 (May 1, 2020)

Here is me theoretically a newbie. I want to spend $500 and build a PC for Gaming. I know that I will be upgrading my PC as time goes on. Do I go with the !0th Gen I3 and get a Graphics card (X570 or 1650) or will I go for an AM4 build using a 3400G? The arguments can be had for both sides, neither is a bad choice. However if you look at the argument objectively AM4 offers way more flexibility to the end user than the current Intel lineup. We don't even have B550 yet and there will be another launch in October??? Even the boldest Intel fanboy must be shaking in their boots at the proposition of Zen4 and if it is compatible with X370 or X470 (which would in turn mean B450) and potentially B350......


----------



## EarthDog (May 1, 2020)

If I'm gaming, clearly intel as you framed it... both are 4c/8t cpus, right? The 1650 and rx 570 are faster than that igpu..

Zen 4 wont be compatible with anything lower than x470 I'd imagine. AMD said through 2020, and zen4 is years away.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 1, 2020)

Intel Press Conference

"Here is what's new, everything is Up To just a hair better than what we did last time. Maybe. If its not too hot"

Seriously I'm gonna call this company Up To going forward.


----------



## EarthDog (May 1, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> Seriously I'm gonna call this company Up To going forward.


Well, another user on my ignore list for discrimination... 

I kid...

But seriously... all companies are 'up to' marketers! Think of it like fractions and common denominators....do to one side what you do to the other! Lol.. dont hate... dont discriminate....they all do it.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 1, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Well, another user on my ignore list for discrimination...
> 
> I kid...
> 
> But seriously... all companies are 'up to' marketers! Think of it like fractions and common denominators....do to one side what you do to the other! Lol.. dont hate... dont discriminate....they all do it.



There is no hate, its just sad and funny all in one go  And Intel is doing a fine job making itself look silly lately, so yeah, they're in the crosshairs now.

Btw if you go by those criteria I'm sure this is already the quietest forum on earth for you haha


----------



## kapone32 (May 1, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Absolutely. My only concern is people generically thinking more c/t is better. They are... but if you can use them. For gamers, 4c/8t in 2020 is already long in the tooth... I wouldnt go less than 8/8...6/6 if you didnt have a choice.



I totally agree with you the 3300 could be a surpriging chip if it let's all cores clock as high as touted on 7nm.


EarthDog said:


> If I'm gaming, clearly intel as you framed it... both are 4c/8t cpus, right? The 1650 and rx 570 are faster than that igpu..
> 
> Zen 4 wont be compatible with anything lower than x470 I'd imagine. AMD said through 2020, and zen4 is years away.




I am so sorry I have had a couple Hollandia and enjoyed the offerings of the Government of Canada I meant Zen3 (To be honest it is all a little confusing).


----------



## EarthDog (May 1, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> There is no hate, its just sad and funny all in one go  And Intel is doing a fine job making itself look silly lately, so yeah, they're in the crosshairs now.
> 
> Btw if you go by those criteria I'm sure this is already the quietest forum on earth for you haha



The polarizing nature of so many users this forum is incredibly off-putting (surely many feel the same about me getting information out, lol)... no doubt. My threads look like swiss cheese sometimes, lol. But hey, if it isn't mitigated... we got to do it. 

Yeah, just having a laugh over the 'hate', thing. 

Seriously though, everyone markets in an 'up to' manner. This has nothing to do with Intel or whoever... THAT is marketing in the 21st century, sadly.


----------



## IamEzio (May 1, 2020)

birdie said:


> No, users should *not* buy PCs with as many cores as humanly possible because unused cores are nothing but wasted money. People should always buy what's best for them (in terms of the bang for the buck) for their budget. I do understand that most TPU users are tech-enthusiasts who love to have overpowered PCs because you do it for boasting rights but that's not how the world works! Many people save on food and clothes to be able to buy a PC and you're insisting they should go e.g. buy something like Ryzen 7 3700X? Or companies which buy thousands of PCs for their workers? Why?? All these people will be just fine with Core i3 10300 for the next 15 years. Yes, 15, because I had an Intel Core i5 2500 based PC until August 2019 and it still works perfectly. I replaced it *not* because I needed MOAR cores or speed but because I wanted a new PC for a change.
> 
> Also, please let me remind you about AMD FX-8000 / 9000 CPUs which had MORE cores but ran slower in absolute most tasks than Intel CPUs with twice as fewer cores. So, your argument about having MOAR cores goes out of the window.
> 
> ...



-Old bad Sky Lake at 5.3 GHz performs faster than any non-OC'ed AMD CPU in existence in absolute most tasks.

is this the slide we are looking for?







Do you also work for them?...  

- Intel *does have* CPUs with much better IPC than Sky Lake: Ice Lake (~18% IPC uplift), Tiger Lake (+15% IPC uplift vs. Ice Lake).
Where? do they have a DESKTOP CPU with better IPC then AMD right now? will they have in the following year the year next to it? 
If the answer is NO, then whats the point to even bring it up?, Zen 3 is around the corner, rumored to bring a big IPC lift once a gain after they refined the CCX/CCD layout, and with Zen 3 we are talking about September-October time frame. 
If Rocket-Lake-S is lower core count, lower frequency but with higher clocks.. what performance benefit will "But my 5.3GHz CPU is best cuz Marketing to me so" crowed will see? they would definitely don't care about PCI-E 4.0 and better IGPU. "Tiger-Lake" when is that? Late 2020 on laptops and ~2021 on desktop? So it will compere with zen 4.....


-





> All these people will be just fine with Core i3 10300 for the next 15 years. Yes, 15, because I had an Intel Core i5 2500 based PC until August 2019 and it still works perfectly. I replaced it *not* because I needed MOAR cores or speed but because I wanted a new PC for a change.



Sorry, but that's a funny comment. you base the fact a new CPU will be "good" for 15 years and you base that on the fact *you *changed your CPU *after 9 Years* stating it "wasn't because of performance".
You know what CPU were available 15 Years a go? Athlon 64 x2 and Pentium D, do you really want to use one of those on a modern operation system with a modern browser? not even gaming. the answer would be you don't. in another 6 years, people will look at your beloved i5 2500 the same way as people look today on a c2d, it old, slow and shouldn't be used.
You should also remember that for the most part software takes time to catch up to hardware. 4c/4t was the performance on the mainstream front for a long time, you would not want to target software for people running on 8c/8t CPU's when only 1% of people have those. so you target for the lower end. a 2500 is slower then a modern i3, if you don't game that's fine but lets not pretend that a 2500k is a "decent" gaming CPU in 2020. I had an i5 3470 from the moment it launched. I had it for several years until I changed it to an E3-1270v2 (~i7 3770) I grabbed for cheap on ebay, frame-times in games were much more consistent (and that's with a mid-range GTX970) after the swap. 
Every few years the software catches up with hardware improvements. and it will happen sooner then later, in 2010 we said "games don't need more than 2 cores", 3 years later when I swapped my aging E8400 C2D to an i5 3470 (in late 2012 when it launched) the difference was night and day. today people repeat the broken record that games don't use more the 4c/8t, so in a year it would change again to "but games don't use more than 8c8t and so on". Technology is going forward and you can't expect any piece of hardware to stay relevant for ever. even when it comes to office pc's an i5 2500 is starting to show its age, believe me I know having the "pleasure" to use one inside an hp generic sff box on my work pc (thankfully with an SSD). and while it is performance are decent for its age. its nothing to write home about.


----------



## efikkan (May 1, 2020)

birdie said:


> CCX complexes in AMD CPUs mean there's a certain amount of delay in communication between cores which means games have to be specially coded which adds complexity and some game companies will simply not do this work because there's this vendor, which is being mocked at constantly, Intel, which doesn't have inter-CPU cores communication issues. AMD has actually realized that as well and Zen 3 is rumored to have 8-core CCX complexes which solves the issue.


I'm not sure if I read you correctly, but coding games to be "optimized" for low-level core design "shortcomings" like this is approaching the impossible. And even if so, this would have to be managed by the OS kernel. But regardless, this would be working around poor design choices, and would also require dozens of specially crafted schedulers in each OS. I believe by principle this would be a very bad idea, and would lead to loads of poorly maintained code. Writing good software is complex and messy enough as it is, the last thing we need is more piles of workarounds.

Regarding the Zen 2 design with 2 CCXs per die, this isn't a problem (except for perhaps a few edge cases), and especially not for gaming. Games do as little core to core synchronization as possible, because it's expensive regardless of CPU design, and there are also cascading problems due to OS scheduling overhead. While I do expect Zen 3 will bring some improvements with its 8-core CCXs, but this will be due to more cores sharing L3 and other design improvements. Games are on the other hand very sensitive to memory latency, and within a single frame rendered, a thread will do much more memory accesses than thread to thread communication. What Zen 3 brings in terms of memory controller improvements and core front-end improvements will be deciding factors for gaming performance.

Zen(1) did however have issues with the larger Threadrippers as we know, practically making them useless for gaming. That's real bottlenecking.


----------



## Octopuss (May 1, 2020)

birdie said:


> $70 is how much people are earning in some African countries in a month. Sometimes it helps to leave the cozy vacuum of your rich american life and realize there's a world outside with actual people and for many of them $70 is a ton of money.


This post makes me leave this thread.
Trolling is one thing.
Bizzare pseudoarguments/comparisons from mental asyllum in Star Trek universe is whole different sport.


----------



## ARF (May 1, 2020)

The new CPU-Z 1.92.0:

Core i7-10700 ST 568 MT 5625
Ryzen 7 3700X ST 511 MT 5433


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 1, 2020)

medi01 said:


> Check out.
> 4000 series...
> Mainboards...
> 
> ...



You mean like how fast AMD 4XXX laptops were going to be?

Here's two charts for you, PCMark - overall system performance.
The top one is top performers with the highly vaunted king of laptop chips according to the pundits, er tech sites, the 4800HS.
The chart below it is top performers with an i7-9750H. 

And yes I know it's not the CPU itself, but I don't make my own chipsets and drivers.  This is what you can expect from an actual laptop right now.

AMD 4800HS:






Last years 9570H Intel based laptops scoring about 20%+ higher:


----------



## R0H1T (May 1, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> The top one is top performers with the highly vaunted king of laptop chips according to the pundits, er tech sites, the 4800HS.


Nope, the current AMD top chip is 4900HS also their best mobile chip is 4900H non S. There's also the fact that Intel chips easily pull 90W in many high/top tier notebooks & that's not really *mobile *category IMO.


----------



## IamEzio (May 1, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> Nope, the current AMD top chip is 4900HS also their best mobile chip is 4900H non S. There's also the fact that Intel chips easily pull 90W in many high/top tier notebooks & that's not really *mobile *category IMO.


Lets not forget PCMark score is also depended on the GPU, and currently the best on a ryzen laptop is a 2060MaxQ compared to 2080's on the intel side.


----------



## coozie78 (May 1, 2020)

When did mobile performance get involved in a thread about desktop parts?
Come on, people, try to maintain some civility and stick to the actual subject at hand, this flame war is getting tedious.


----------



## Eskimonster (May 1, 2020)

name brands mean nort to me, i want the best gaming experience.
if its Intel its intel, if its AMD,im actually surprised.


----------



## birdie (May 2, 2020)

IamEzio said:


> ...



I don't see any facts, benchmarks or valid data to continue to argue with you. You also didn't really refute any of my arguments and instead veered so far away as to start talking about CPUs from the mid 00s for the lack of better arguments. How does this history tidbit relate to Comet Lake CPUs exactly?

It's a well known fact that CPU performance increases in single threaded mode over the past decade have been minimal (except for AMD but they trailed Intel very hard). In the 90s the performance grew by up to 30% annually but we now live in the 20s. Also there are tasks which run almost at the same speed on Sandy Bridge and Ice Lake when both CPUs are running at the same frequency - the CPUs which are eight years apart. That was unthinkable before the 10s. Don't believe me? Run Fritz Chess Benchmark and see for yourself.

And yes, the picture you've showed perfectly represents normal tasks for > 95% of average people out there. The sad reality which AMD fans don't really like is that multi-core CPUs are mainly necessary for professionals. I didn't know it existed as I've never seen it before. In the top 20 only WinRAR utilizes many cores but out of many dozens of people that I know personally zero run WinRAR regularly.

OBS Studio, ranked 151(!), is surprisingly used by exactly 5% of people, so my estimates are quite on spot. Also, this app works miles better when you have a device capable of HW video encoding, so having more cores even in this application becomes moot at best.


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 2, 2020)

Here are some facts.

Top benchmarks recorded for PCMark 10, Firestrike Extreme, and Time Spy Extreme.


----------



## Braggingrights (May 2, 2020)

Win gaming, win the world... is it fair?

If you wanted fair you picked the wrong universe.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (May 2, 2020)

This release is another version of 2015 Skylake. The power draw is going to be ugly. 

14nm in 2020 is a sad state of affairs. I would avoid any of these relic Intel CPUs until they can move to 7nm in 2022.



RandallFlagg said:


> Wow, groupthink is a thing it seems.
> 
> So here's a little thought starter.
> 
> ...



And everyone will still buy Ryzen, because of the lower power draw, much cheaper prices and superior multi-threaded performance.

Just look at Amazon.com best selling processors. 9 of the top 10 is Ryzen I'm afraid.


----------



## ARF (May 2, 2020)

coozie78 said:


> When did mobile performance get involved in a thread about desktop parts?
> Come on, people, try to maintain some civility and stick to the actual subject at hand, this flame war is getting tedious.




Choice, competition, alternative. I would take a 35-watt Ryzen 9 4900HS over the 65-watt Ryzen 7 3700X.
The performance is very, very close.






						AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS Benchmark, Test and specs
					

AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS benchmark results and review of this cpu with specs including the number of cores, threads, memory bandwidth, pcie lanes and power consumption. Benchmarks in Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5




					www.cpu-monkey.com
				







__





						AMD Ryzen 7 3700X Benchmark, Test and specs
					

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X benchmark results and review of this cpu with specs including the number of cores, threads, memory bandwidth, pcie lanes and power consumption. Benchmarks in Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5




					www.cpu-monkey.com
				
















						AMD CEO: Ryzen CPUs Now Account To More Than 50% Premium Processor Sales Globally, Strong Demand For Ryzen 3000 & Ryzen 2000 CPUs
					

In its recent earnings call, AMD's CEO, Dr.Lisa Su, stated that Ryzen CPUs now accounts for 50% of the premium processors sales globally.




					wccftech.com
				




No matter how many consumers prefer AMD Ryzen, it seems the market share change just comes slowly.
Even worse, after the original Ryzen first generation release in 2017, AMD actually had been losing market share until some point after beginning of 2019.


----------



## coozie78 (May 2, 2020)

ARF said:


> Choice, competition, alternative. I would take a 35-watt Ryzen 9 4900HS over the 65-watt Ryzen 7 3700X.
> The performance is very, very close.
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting comparisons, wouldn't it be fun to put one of those mobile chips into a tiny little desktop or Mac style all-in-one? 
That bump in AMD market share coincides nicely with the release of the Zen 3XXX series.
Don't forget, the bulk of the Intel market is with OEMs, most of which know and trust Intel over AMD, as do their customers. The initial Zen release was plagued with issues, something DIY/enthusiasts might tolerate, not so business users. Or their IT departments.


----------



## ARF (May 2, 2020)

coozie78 said:


> Interesting comparisons, wouldn't it be fun to put one of those mobile chips into a tiny little desktop or Mac style all-in-one?
> That bump in AMD market share coincides nicely with the release of the Zen 3XXX series.
> Don't forget, the bulk of the Intel market is with OEMs, most of which know and trust Intel over AMD, as do their customers. The initial Zen release was plagued with issues, something DIY/enthusiasts might tolerate, not so business users. Or their IT departments.




What would happen if AMD overclocks the Ryzen 9 4900H/HS to 105 or 125-watt?


----------



## EarthDog (May 2, 2020)

Shatun_Bear said:


> 14nm in 2020 is a sad state of affairs. I would avoid any of these relic Intel CPUs until they can move to 7nm in 2022.


Funny how well these "relics" keep up in a core for core, thread for thread situation, isn't it? AMD owns price and has for quite a while. It's nice to see them back with a comparable/better cpu which helps drive intel back down to sane.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (May 2, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Funny how well these "relics" keep up in a core for core, thread for thread situation, isn't it? AMD owns price and has for quite a while. It's nice to see them back with a comparable/better cpu which helps drive intel back down to sane.


yeah.. its funny how you can "compete" when you throw power efficiency out the window..


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 2, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Funny how well these "relics" keep up in a core for core, thread for thread situation, isn't it? AMD owns price and has for quite a while. It's nice to see them back with a comparable/better cpu which helps drive intel back down to sane.


Would be except the sane bit of the pricing, these still aren't sane prices.

I wouldn't touch any of this, too dear ,too late, too much power used.
And as for the pciex4 situation , it's going to go exactly the same as AMD'S , the drop in next generation (actual) will be better served by a fan wearing x590 I'd wager, still it's baby steps in the right direction I suppose.

The power draw from an all intel system this fall is going to be exceptionally high to gain that single core 5.3 on i9s only and in general way too high for a marginal win in gaming for it to be worthwhile to me.


----------



## Bee9 (May 2, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> This is an enthusiast site and those who want to game with modern titles will find 4c/8t hold back some games at 1080p and 1440. But we arent talking peoples salaries and 1st/3ed world bullshit... that's just ranting.
> 
> That said, I dont like the core/thread war either that amd started. 16c/32t in mainstream is a joke. In fact, I didnt like the 12c/24t part either. 8c/16t is plenty for the next few years.



Looks like your definition of enthusiast means gamer. Should have changed the site name to gamer power up. 
16 cores mainstream has helped me save a lot of time. I need to do color grading in Davinci Resolve, run photoshop, capture one, and indesign at the same time, while 16 python bots are crawling the internet for information. That’s enough to eat up 16 cores 32 threads and 64GB of RAM. My 8 core machine was not suitable for this workload.

When we discuss a product price/performance, we have to discuss target market’s salaries because that’s how marketing work. There’s a thing called disposable income and that’s a part of purchasing decision making.



medi01 said:


> Citation needed.
> 
> I could imagine "clowns with agenda decided to count everyone who has ever played a computer game, even if just once in his/her life, a gamer".


Come back and read my post again. The citation is at the bottom.


----------



## ARF (May 2, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> This is an enthusiast site and those who want to game with modern titles will find 4c/8t hold back some games at 1080p and 1440. But we arent talking peoples salaries and 1st/3ed world bullshit... that's just ranting.
> 
> That said, I dont like the core/thread war either that amd started. 16c/32t in mainstream is a joke. In fact, I didnt like the 12c/24t part either. 8c/16t is plenty for the next few years.



This is just plain wrong.
We lost several years of development between 2011 and 2017 when Intel had milked the market with quad cores, while AMD discontinued the whole FX line too early.
This is - between Core i7 2600K and Core i7 7700K there was no progress.

Hence, you are confused that a quad core is everything one needs.

It is just the lowest common denominator now.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (May 2, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Funny how well these "relics" keep up in a core for core, thread for thread situation, isn't it? AMD owns price and has for quite a while. It's nice to see them back with a comparable/better cpu which helps drive intel back down to sane.



Oh please.





$ReaPeR$ said:


> yeah.. its funny how you can "compete" when you throw power efficiency out the window..



Perfect response to a desperate Intel defence from him


----------



## Braggingrights (May 2, 2020)

Shatun_Bear said:


> This release is another version of 2015 Skylake. The power draw is going to be ugly.
> 
> 14nm in 2020 is a sad state of affairs. I would avoid any of these relic Intel CPUs until they can move to 7nm in 2022.


Intel win gaming and nobody cares how many AMD fanboyz jump up and down screaming about power

I say moar power, moar heat... moar speed...  how cool does your car engine run? go and put your ear on your big screen TV. if it aint running hot something's wrong Bear


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 2, 2020)

Braggingrights said:


> Intel win gaming and nobody cares how many AMD fanboyz jump up and down screaming about power
> 
> I say moar power, moar heat... moar speed...  how cool does your car engine run? go and put your ear on your big screen TV. if it aint running hot something's wrong Bear


Except no , if you're big telly is running hot and power hungry get a new one, clearly a five hours a week gamer you, and I don't think you have the whole world aligned behind you or AMD wouldn't be taking 50% of sales would they?.

And what happened to the original, your butchering that statement.

Moar core's, moar power, more heat, tut hmmmn what brought that saying out again AHH yes AMD FX series which this is similar to.


----------



## efikkan (May 2, 2020)

Braggingrights said:


> Intel win gaming and nobody cares how many AMD fanboyz jump up and down screaming about power


In the middle of this trench warfare, I'm trying to bring some pragmatism and perspective, because the real world usually needs some nuances and common sense is usually somewhere in the middle.

I certainly expect Comet Lake to be hot, and the extra power draw will certainly be a disadvantage, which the buyer needs to consider along with the other advantages/disadvantages of the product. Still, it's important to remember how much of a difference it is. In stock configuration, the CPUs will draw ~20W more sustained (compared to AMD's counterparts, not counting motherboard etc.). The peak will be a bit more though, but it's important to remember that the peak lasts for a few seconds, and while you have to scale the PSU for peak consumption, your cooling doesn't need to. I'll let each buyer be the judge of whether ~20W extra sustained is enough to be significant for them. If we were talking about 100W extra sustained, I would certainly think it was significant for most buyers.

If you choose to run the CPU without the power limit, then this is on you, not on Intel, as this is technically an overclocked configuration. I would certainly not recommend doing so if you expect a reliable system potentially used for productive use.


----------



## Braggingrights (May 2, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Except no , if you're big telly is running hot and power hungry get a new one, clearly a five hours a week gamer you, and I don't think you have the whole world aligned behind you or AMD wouldn't be taking 50% of sales would they?.


So blah blah blah AMD lose gaming again


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 2, 2020)

Braggingrights said:


> So blah blah blah AMD lose gaming again


Nice , burned lol bye

Oh do re read it I edited a bit.


----------



## Braggingrights (May 2, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Nice , burned lol bye
> 
> Oh do re read it I edited a bit.


I didn't read it the first time... I like my chips like my women, hot!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 2, 2020)

Braggingrights said:


> I didn't read it the first time... I like my chips like my women, hot!


And you will be very happy with your new one then.

Got one quick off the mark though, top end bits in your pc but mid teir CPU, odd.

Not at all like a sh### account.

I'll put you on ignore since your arguments aren't worth sh#t.


----------



## IamEzio (May 2, 2020)

I don't know what dreams people here are living in... the broken record about how Intel *DOMINATES* in gaming.
If 3900X (zen2) on average of 36 different games is *6% slower, not even a 10%.... *than a 9900K..
Consumes less power, and faster on all other tasks, how can you people continue with the broken record of "OMG ONLY INTEL CAN RUN GAMES"
"RYZEN SUCKS AT GAMING", "INTEL SAID RYZEN SUCKz AT REAL WORLD HERE IS A SLIDE THEY DID IN POWERPOINT THAT PROVES IT" "CPUZ THAT CAN'T DO 5GHzzzz ARE BAD" and other crap we saw only it this thread.









						Ryzen 9 3900X vs. Core i9-9900K: 36 Game Benchmark
					

A battle that needs no further introduction, we're pitting the new Ryzen 9 3900X head to head against the Core i9-9900K in 36 games. There's loads of...




					www.techspot.com
				







Now, I don't like to cherry pick, and everyone will find sligthly different benchamrk were the difference might be smaller or bigger.
But it will not change the fact that the differences are minor at best considering the overall picture, even if you people continue to taunt that "Multi-threaded performance are meaningless" while it clear that even your beloved games benefit from it to some degree, an when games become more and more multi-thread aware, and able to utilize it better and better, you should stop pretending that your magical 14nm is anything but what it is. Comet Lake will be great for gaming, that is without a doubt. but Comet-Lake-S is nothing more than an i9-9900KS with 2 more cores, and the gaming performance will be pretty similar. meanwhile Zen 3 is coming sooner than later and should bring another performance improvement. even the gaming gap is closing, even if you don't like it.
Meanwhile Rocket-Lake-S will be lower core count and lower clocks thanks to 10nm. and Tiger-Lake-S ? It's not coming any-time soon..............   




RandallFlagg said:


> Here are some facts.
> 
> Top benchmarks recorded for PCMark 10, Firestrike Extreme, and Time Spy Extreme.
> 
> ...



And now lets play the ignorant game of intel and amd fanboys of cherry picking benchmarks, like this post back that posted PCMark 10 scores showing Intel CPU's filling the top of the chart without Taking into account that its a benchmark that takes into account all aspects of the system, CPU, Storage and GPU. or worse.. 3DMark scores that combines Both the CPU and GPU. Most of the top scores are extreme overclock, You can't prove your point with 3Dmark scores of a W-3175X running at insane Overclock using a chiller or LN2 or whatever. this proves nothing but cherry picking unreasonable scores to prove your bias. 

for comparison, Highest 3970X on 3DMark TimeSpy Extreme is probably running on stock clocks and with 2X 2080 Ti on moderate clocks, how can we even compare that to a w-3175X running at 5.8GHz under Extreme cooling and 4X 1080Ti's running 2400MHz (!) ? how is a system running at Extreme OC, under Extreme cooling, Barely stable enough to complete a Benchmark while pulling 2.5kW at the wall (best case probably) is a testament at how Intel is great at gaming? anyway, This totally proves that Intel is the greatest CPU ever. only problem is it needs to pull 1kW from wall alone.. silly me, such a minor problem (proceeds to order 1800$ motherboard, 4000$ cpu and an an industrial a/c unit to play overwatch between overclock crashes)

Anyway. I should probably be ashamed that I bought a R9 3900X that can barely even run Tetris at 24 Cinematic FPS. I Definitely feel ripped of by AMD.  Should return it for a REAL MANS GAMING CPU for that 6GHZzzzzzz CPU /s


----------



## Shatun_Bear (May 2, 2020)

Braggingrights said:


> I say moar power, moar heat... moar speed...  how cool does your car engine run? go and put your ear on your big screen TV. if it aint running hot something's wrong Bear



I'm sorry to hear you've got one of those janky old plasma TVs in your living room that heat the room as well as offer a blurry picture, but everyone else has moved on from 2010 tech to cooler, more efficient LCDs. So no, my TV is not running hot.



IamEzio said:


> I don't know what dreams people here are living in... the broken record about how Intel *DOMINATES* in gaming.
> If 3900X (zen2) on average of 36 different games is *6% slower, not even a 10%.... *than a 9900K..
> Consumes less power, and faster on all other tasks, how can you people continue with the broken record of "OMG ONLY INTEL CAN RUN GAMES"
> "RYZEN SUCKS AT GAMING", "INTEL SAID RYZEN SUCKz AT REAL WORLD HERE IS A SLIDE THEY DID IN POWERPOINT THAT PROVES IT" "CPUZ THAT CAN'T DO 5GHzzzz ARE BAD" and other crap we saw only it this thread.
> ...



You're right. Last time I checked the gap was 3.8% according to TPU. Three percent! This was after a chipset driver update last year (3900X vs 9900K).


----------



## IamEzio (May 2, 2020)

Shatun_Bear said:


> I'm sorry to hear you've got one of those janky old plasma TVs in your living room that heat the room as well as offer a blurry picture, but everyone else has moved on from 2010 tech to cooler, more efficient LCDs. So no, my TV is not running hot.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. Last time I checked the gap was 3.8% according to TPU. Three percent! This was after a chipset driver update last year (3900X vs 9900K).



The thing is even if its 10%, whatever.
People exaggerate it so much. so many are stuck at 1080p because of "high refresh rate" and "competitive gaming", maybe every GAMER on TPU is a twitch celebrity, streaming sensation. they must use the 1080p GHz.

The reality is that these potato games run just fine on lower end hardware. Even my GTX970 could play the "esports" titles like Overwatch at 120FPS+ on 1440p (with my older E3-1270v2).
This are the same PCMR people that make fun of the Xbox one X and PS4 Pro running games at sub 4K resolution, while they base their whole world view on 1080p gaming.
I don't even get how people can stand 1080p monitors today. I daily a 1440p 27" for last several years. even that is not sharp enough in my opinion. I would like to upgrade to a 32" 4K monitor but prices on monitors are absurd (like more than 1000$ for the U3219Q, the logical upgrade from my U2715h, its a joke when an LG 55" OLED is 1499$). besides that, I also have cheap 27" 1080p monitor that I got for my PS4 Pro as it can't output (thanks Sony very much) 1440p and any half decent 4k display was twice the price. the resolution on this size is a joke.
So my question is - do this people have the most blurry vision or do they stuck on 24" monitors like its 2010??


----------



## Caring1 (May 2, 2020)

Braggingrights said:


> I like my chips like my women, hot!


You left off, Huge, you've already made it clear you love the big ones.


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 3, 2020)

Shatun_Bear said:


> ...
> And everyone will still buy Ryzen, because of the lower power draw, much cheaper prices and superior multi-threaded performance.
> 
> Just look at Amazon.com best selling processors. 9 of the top 10 is Ryzen I'm afraid.



Not that what you are pointing at means anything at all, as it changes from one hour to the next. 

Nor does it have anything to do with the question of performance.

But since you brought it up, lets use those kind of metrics.

All but one of the 12 top selling PCs on Amazon use Intel - and the one AMD is selling down there with recycled business desktops :








All but two of the top 12 selling laptops on Amazon use Intel, and only one of those two uses AMD:







-Three of the four best selling CPUs at Newegg are Intel :


----------



## Braggingrights (May 3, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> And you will be very happy with your new one then.
> 
> Got one quick off the mark though, top end bits in your pc but mid teir CPU, odd.
> 
> ...


I have very specific needs, and that's not how you spell tier

As for your other tears, I would suggest a tissue


----------



## Caring1 (May 3, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Not that what you are pointing at means anything at all, as it changes from one hour to the next.
> 
> Nor does it have anything to do with the question of performance.
> 
> ...


Different metric altogether as Prebuilt systems tend to use what they are told they can.
Consumer built systems use parts they want.


----------



## EarthDog (May 3, 2020)

Caring1 said:


> Different metric altogether as Prebuilt systems tend to use what they are told they can.
> Consumer built systems use parts they want.


They can do whatever they want. However...intel likes to pay off OEM's, so that likely skews things.



Super XP said:


> Currently, anything Intel has out to date is pretty much DOA, they will receive the same scrutiny as AMD once did with its Bulldozer release.


DOA? Lol...

The same scrutiny as bulldozer? Wow, no. The difference is bulldozer was a slug compared to cpus 2/3 generations older, nonetheless the same gen. New intel chips are just as fast or faster in single/lightly threaded apps and some games. Its only in heavily multi threaded loads where SMT shows its mettle. These cpus will be competative, for sure...maybe cheaper for more cores. Bulldozer never was competative and only had price going for it. It was ridiculed for good reason.


----------



## ARF (May 3, 2020)

Leaked benchmarks of Core i5-10400 6C/12T:












						Intel Core i5-10400 6 Core, $180 CPU Benchmarks Leak Out, Faster Than Its Predecessor With Slightly Higher Power Consumption & Temps
					

The first review of the Intel Core i5-10400 6 Core Desktop CPU has leaked out, showcasing a good performance jump over 9th Gen CPUs.




					wccftech.com


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 3, 2020)

ARF said:


> Leaked benchmarks of Core i5-10400 6C/12T:
> 
> View attachment 153667
> 
> ...


But it's competition allows for board And CPU bought within that price.
It's a good chip at too high a price IMHO.

In general any CPU by Intel in the last two years was too expensive for what you're getting, they do not even cost as much to make as it's competition so I wouldn't pay more or at least not this much since tbf to some that single core performance is desirable but hell no it's not worth the cost.

Rocket lake just got driver support in Linux, meaning it's not far out to me and the pciex4 support some boards (490) claim will soon be tested.

They do have redriver chip's don't they?

Or is that going to go into x590?


----------



## ARF (May 3, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> But it's competition allows for board And CPU bought within that price.
> It's a good chip at too high a price IMHO.
> 
> In general any CPU by Intel in the last two years was too expensive for what you're getting, they do not even cost as much to make as it's competition so I wouldn't pay more or at least not this much since tbf to some that single core performance is desirable but hell no it's not worth the cost.




Core i5-10400F should reach the same performance without the iGPU and at $157.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 3, 2020)

ARF said:


> Core i5-10400F should reach the same performance without the iGPU and at $157.


Well great but that's still $57 too dear and $57 is almost a cheap end board.

If you're a budget buyer every $£ counts.


----------



## ARF (May 3, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Well great but that's still $57 too dear and $57 is almost a cheap end board.
> 
> If you're a budget buyer every $£ counts.




In NewEgg, Ryzen 5 1600 is $148, Core i5-10400F will be faster at the some price give or take. Why did you decide that Core i5-10400F should cost $100 ?

I thought you would say that Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 9 3950X are too overvalued and their pricings are 100-200-300$ too high.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 3, 2020)

ARF said:


> In NewEgg, Ryzen 5 1600 is $148, Core i5-10400F will be faster at the some price give or take. Why did you decide that Core i5-10400F should cost $100 ?
> 
> I thought you would say that Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 9 3950X are too overvalued and their pricings are 100-200-300$ too high.


Yes because those are relevant to a i5???

Besides that fair point I underestimated the price of Ryzen but I did pay £80 for a 3700X a 2800X and the same for a 1700X and I would again over this.
Everyone is not me though so I concede fair point.


----------



## ARF (May 3, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Yes because those are relevant to a i5???





Yes because their pricings move the entire lineup's pricing up.



theoneandonlymrk said:


> Besides that fair point I underestimated the price of Ryzen but I did pay £80 for a 3700X a 2800X and the same for a 1700X and I would again over this.
> Everyone is not me though so I concede fair point.



This I don't understand. How did you pay £80 for a 3700X ? Second hand?


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 3, 2020)

ARF said:


> Leaked benchmarks of Core i5-10400 6C/12T:
> ...
> 
> 
> ...



Nice.  Noticing the very high WinRAR and Firestrike / Timespy CPU score.  The 10400F is now almost the equal to the 9700F, better in a few instances.


----------



## Nihilus (May 3, 2020)

Turmania said:


> I think both CPU prices and especially board prices are too high. Perhaps it has something to do with the ongoing crisis especially for the boards I do not know.



The same people that complain about a $150 motherboard and $300 for an 8 Core CPU will think it's reasonable to drop $1000 on a phone.  

Nice try mixing the 'Crisis' in there, though.  Let's just ignore that we had to pay over $300 for a 4/8 cpu just able few years ago.



birdie said:


> These are all _extremely specialized tasks_ for very few people out there - again, just like I said, 2% of the global population using PCs or less. Also, a lot of tasks don't quite scale well when you're adding MOAR cores, e.g. the x265 code can effectively use only 16 cores and adding more on top improves performance in a less than linear fashion.



2% of the global population.
20% of the US population (many here actually have software)
50% of the forum population



ARF said:


> Leaked benchmarks of Core i5-10400 6C/12T:
> 
> View attachment 153667
> 
> ...



Looks very good and should match up to the 3600 nicely.  80*C at 86 watts though - did the Intel box cooler somehow get even worse?!


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 4, 2020)

Nihilus said:


> ...
> Looks very good and should match up to the 3600 nicely.  80*C at 86 watts though - did the Intel box cooler somehow get even worse?!



I suspect  they put the old Intel 1151 cooler on the 10400, and the newer and larger one (or maybe 3rd party one) on the 9700.  The 10400 is drawing 86W at full load, compared to 125W for the 9700, yet the 10400 is getting almost 10 degrees hotter than the 9700.  <-- this is nonsensical.

If the two systems had the same cooling solution that would defy physics, so something there isn't right.


----------



## Braggingrights (May 4, 2020)

The 800 pound gorilla asserts it's authority


----------



## EarthDog (May 4, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> I suspect  they put the old Intel 1151 cooler on the 10400, and the newer and larger one (or maybe 3rd party one) on the 9700.  The 10400 is drawing 86W at full load, compared to 125W for the 9700, yet the 10400 is getting almost 10 degrees hotter than the 9700.  <-- this is nonsensical.
> 
> If the two systems had the same cooling solution that would defy physics, so something there isn't right.


Not really.. wattage isn't temperature. For example, I've seen a 5W IC hit 90c (was a mining ASIC). Another example, which is hotter a yellow flame on a lighter or yellow flames in a bonfire? Answer... they are both the same temperature though clearly a bonfire has more energy.

Long story short, something is going on there outside of wattage.


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 4, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Not really.. wattage isn't temperature. For example, I've seen a 5W IC hit 90c (was a mining ASIC). Another example, which is hotter a yellow flame on a lighter or yellow flames in a bonfire? Answer... they are both the same temperature though clearly a bonfire has more energy.
> 
> Long story short, something is going on there outside of wattage.



That's pretty much what I said.  If everything else is kept the same - same cooler, same thermal paste, same ambient temp, same power curves / fan speeds - then a 125W chip will get hotter than an 85W chip.   They screwed up something on the test, what we'll never know.  This is to be expected of these rogue tests that break NDAs.  Still, the results are an interesting preview.


----------



## EarthDog (May 4, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> That's pretty much what I said.  If everything else is kept the same - same cooler, same thermal paste, same ambient temp, same power curves / fan speeds - then a 125W chip will get hotter than an 85W chip.   They screwed up something on the test, what we'll never know.  This is to be expected of these rogue tests that break NDAs.  Still, the results are an interesting preview.



That seems to be the opposite of what you said, right? wattage /= temperature. You can have less wattage with higher temperatures. What matters is how that energy comes from the substrate and into the cooler.


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 4, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> That seems to be the opposite of what you said, right? wattage /= temperature. You can have less wattage with higher temperatures. What matters is how that energy comes from the substrate and into the cooler.



No.  I never said Wattage=Temperature for one, *you *falsely stated that I said that.  

What I said was:

"I suspect  they put the old Intel 1151 cooler on the 10400, and the newer and larger one (or maybe 3rd party one) on the 9700.  The 10400 is drawing 86W at full load, compared to 125W for the 9700, yet the 10400 is getting almost 10 degrees hotter than the 9700.  <-- this is nonsensical.

*If the two systems had the same cooling solution that would defy physics*, so something there isn't right. "


----------



## EarthDog (May 4, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> No.  I never said Wattage=Temperature for one, *you *falsely stated that I said that.
> 
> What I said was:
> 
> ...


Sorry, I missed the part about the different coolers.


----------



## Nihilus (May 5, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> I suspect  they put the old Intel 1151 cooler on the 10400, and the newer and larger one (or maybe 3rd party one) on the 9700.  The 10400 is drawing 86W at full load, compared to 125W for the 9700, yet the 10400 is getting almost 10 degrees hotter than the 9700.  <-- this is nonsensical.
> 
> If the two systems had the same cooling solution that would defy physics, so something there isn't right.



I was comparing more to the 9400F which is only a few watts less but way less heat.  Could just be fan profiles.

With all things equal, to include fan profiles, cooler size, TIM, etc, power does translate to heat.


----------



## Eskimonster (May 6, 2020)

Zen 2 did not apeal to me much, i think it was the part 9900k still surpassed them. and im kinda sick of the idea of buying a 9900k.
I desided to wait for Zen 3, im am sure i will love it.


----------



## R-T-B (May 7, 2020)

medi01 said:


> Citation needed.
> 
> I could imagine "clowns with agenda decided to count everyone who has ever played a computer game, even if just once in his/her life, a gamer".



I'd say people who try to redefine gamer as anything other than " games on a digital device" are the ones with an agenda.


----------



## Nike_486DX (May 8, 2020)

now imagine that you are pretty much forced to use THAT instead of going red because of their driver issues (amd processor means amd chipset, and that is a pain in the ass). 
Still, Intel is still using *14nm++++++++ *
And it still got Skylake cores

I wonder if there is going to be a Core 2 Duo (remember 2006) this year...


----------



## r9 (May 9, 2020)

Year 2030 intel introduces fastest gaming cpu once again built on 14++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++±+++++++++++++++++++++++nm node.


----------



## Braggingrights (May 9, 2020)

r9 said:


> Year 2030 intel introduces fastest gaming cpu once again built on 14++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++±+++++++++++++++++++++++nm node.


If they are still winning gaming on that then AMD went under


----------



## thebluebumblebee (May 11, 2020)

Do I understand this correctly?  10 months after AMD, with the 3000 series processors and X570 motherboards, brought out PCI express V4, that this "new" chipset from Intel doesn't have it?  10 months is forever in computer time.


----------



## Braggingrights (May 12, 2020)

thebluebumblebee said:


> Do I understand this correctly?  10 months after AMD, with the 3000 series processors and X570 motherboards, brought out PCI express V4, that this "new" chipset from Intel doesn't have it?  10 months is forever in computer time.


Yes that's one reason why Intel doesn't suffer from finicky instability issues


----------



## R-T-B (May 12, 2020)

Braggingrights said:


> Yes that's one reason why Intel doesn't suffer from finicky instability issues



Uh, no.  PCIe has nothing to do with your unsubstantiated claim AMD cpus are unstable.  It's a spec IBM has been using in servers for years.  It works.

I had a first gen Ryzen recently.  Short of the old (and fixed) Linux performance issue, they are rock solid.


----------



## Braggingrights (May 12, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> Uh, no.  PCIe has nothing to do with your unsubstantiated claim AMD cpus are unstable.  It's a spec IBM has been using in servers for years.  It works.
> 
> I had a first gen Ryzen recently.  Short of the old (and fixed) Linux performance issue, they are rock solid.


Uh, yah... rock solid til they aint, wait 5 mins


----------



## EarthDog (May 12, 2020)

R-T-B said:


> Uh, no.  PCIe has nothing to do with your unsubstantiated claim AMD cpus are unstable.  It's a spec IBM has been using in servers for years.  It works.
> 
> I had a first gen Ryzen recently.  Short of the old (and fixed) Linux performance issue, they are rock solid.


Just report the trolling. Have faith that staff takes out the trash eventually. Between misinformation and the bait...he shouldnt be here.


----------



## Braggingrights (May 12, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Just report the trolling. Have faith that staff takes out the trash eventually. Between misinformation and the bait...he shouldnt be here.


Perhaps if we didn't have to put up with the constant baiting from Red team we wouldn't feel compelled to point out how 'jittery' those products can be under certain circumstances and configs... in short don't call down the thunder then whine about a little rain


----------



## agentnathan009 (May 13, 2020)

I think Intel needs to concede that they lost and that they are going the way of Radeon graphics cards from 4+ years ago, hot and loud! Their pitiful attempts to hold onto their FPS lead in games is a joke. I would never in my right mind buy a hot running processor like the 10xx series... I am far more interested in AMD than I ever was given their recent track record and the products that they are putting out that have led to Intel getting a lot of bloody noses in multi-core and multi-threaded applications. And the HEDT market with Threadripper, a CPU that is certainly living up to its name with the 3990X and all at a very affordable price for the computing power versus the Intel equivalent.


----------



## Rocketboy (May 15, 2020)

It consumes a lot of power.


----------

