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

[efikkan]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


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.

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_]

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'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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?



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.



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.

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

 

[Braggingrights]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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'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.

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

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'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.

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

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'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.

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

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'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.

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]

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