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

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

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

View attachment 153667

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yes because those are relevant to a i5???

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

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]

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

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]

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.

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

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

View attachment 153667

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

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]

...
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]

The 800 pound gorilla asserts it's authority

 

[EarthDog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. "

Sorry, I missed the part about the different coolers.

 

[Nihilus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Braggingrights]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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