News Four Intel 10th Gen Comet Lake CPUs Benchmarked Before Release

[Admin]

Someone in China apparently benchmarked the upcoming Intel Core i5-10400, i5-10500, i7-10700 and i5-10600 CPUs

Four Intel 10th Gen Comet Lake CPUs Benchmarked Before Release : Read more

 

[Gurg]

So the 10700 non-K beats the 3700x in Time Spy and Extreme the two measures closer to gaming. Also almost 10% increase over 9700k. The 10700k when overclocked with decent motherboard and memory should be a great CPU for gaming.

 

[[dev]]

So the 10700 non-K beats the 3700x in Time Spy and Extreme the two measures closer to gaming. Also almost 10% increase over 9700k. The 10700k when overclocked with decent motherboard and memory should be a great CPU for gaming.

10% ?? Incredible difference LOL
Don't you need another motherboard for that 10% ??

 

[mdd1963]

10% ?? Incredible difference LOL
Don't you need another motherboard for that 10% ??

I rather doubt many 9700K owners are participating in any CPU/mainboard upgrades this year....(and any that do, certainly are not doing so for any sort of 'my Battlefield 5 frame rates are not fast enough' cause)

 

[st379]

So the 10700 non-K beats the 3700x in Time Spy and Extreme the two measures closer to gaming. Also almost 10% increase over 9700k. The 10700k when overclocked with decent motherboard and memory should be a great CPU for gaming.

10700 is 16 threads. It is suppose to be better than the 9900k without overclock not the 9700k.
Probably the 10700k = 9900ks.
i5 10600=8700k performance with minor ipc improvement if at all.
lga 1200.
I really don't see it selling well because of the new motherboard and high price.
People with i3 or pentium can't upgrade to these new cpus without a new motherboard.
Intel should not have change motherboard. It is skylake cpu they could make it work on lga 1151.

 

[al_capwn]

I think the biggest thing 10th-gen Intel CPUs will bring to the table is a lower price (I hope). Here's to waiting for 10nm from Intel, or smaller, for desktop. I'm glad AMD is putting up fantastic competition.

I don't see upgrading my CPU until DDR5 is mainstream, and to see what Intel and AMD offers, in the foreseeable future.

 

[bit_user]

Intel should not have change motherboard. It is skylake cpu they could make it work on lga 1151.

Core uArch and socket have almost nothing to do with each other.

Your complaint would certainly apply to Coffee Lake (where Intel could've retained the same socket for an unprecedented 4 generations), but Intel is now finally making I/O changes that necessitated a new socket.

Comet lake tried to move to PCIe 4.0. Rocket Lake doubled the DMI datapath, upgraded its CPU-direct PCIe lanes to 4.0, and added another x4 for NVMe storage.

 

[bit_user]

I think the biggest thing 10th-gen Intel CPUs will bring to the table is a lower price (I hope).

Nope. These are 14 nm CPUs, meaning the cost structure won't change relative to Coffee Lake Refresh CPUs. That's not to say they won't be cheaper, but Intel could more easily just drop prices on their current gen.

What's worse is that having more cores per CPU should actually make them more expensive (assuming Intel is able to hold its margins constant).

Here's to waiting for 10nm from Intel, or smaller, for desktop.

Intel's CFO recently said that 10 nm would be less profitable, for them. You can bet they'll push the higher production costs onto consumers, to the extent they can. Only stiff competition from AMD can hope to keep that in check.

 

[TerryLaze]

Nope. These are 14 nm CPUs, meaning the cost structure won't change relative to Coffee Lake Refresh CPUs. That's not to say they won't be cheaper, but Intel could more easily just drop prices on their current gen.

What's worse is that having more cores per CPU should actually make them more expensive (assuming Intel is able to hold its margins constant).

More cores per money=cheaper,at least for the consumer.
There has never been a CPU gen from intel that had prices based on production costs...

Intel's CFO recently said that 10 nm would be less profitable, for them. You can bet they'll push the higher production costs onto consumers, to the extent they can. Only stiff competition from AMD can hope to keep that in check.

Less profitable does not mean higher production costs,the stiff competition from AMD made intel have twice the profit as usual with 14nm so it's only logical to assume that 10nm is not going to make as much again,intel has to assume that profit will go down again to the usual ~10bil.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263565/intels-net-income-since-2004/

 

[Gurg]

Nope. These are 14 nm CPUs, meaning the cost structure won't change relative to Coffee Lake Refresh CPUs. That's not to say they won't be cheaper, but Intel could more easily just drop prices on their current gen. What's worse is that having more cores per CPU should actually make them more expensive (assuming Intel is able to hold its margins constant). Intel's CFO recently said that 10 nm would be less profitable, for them. You can bet they'll push the higher production costs onto consumers, to the extent they can. Only stiff competition from AMD can hope to keep that in check.

Actually I believe you are wrong. Keeping on 14nm means that Intel has been able to continue using much of the same equipment this whole time. So in an accounting sense it is now fully depreciated so Intel's manufacturing costs are going down significantly. A semiconductor chip plant basically needs to replace lots of existing equipment each time they move to a smaller production size for improved tolerances. Additionally yields per wafer improve and can be maximized the longer the process is in production.

In a financial sense the shift to 10nm will result in higher production costs due to the accelerated depreciation on the new replacement fab equipment needed to improve tolerances. Additionally the yield of good chips per wafer is much lower when moving to a new production size initially improving over time. Both of those factors outweigh the increased number of chips that can fit on the wafer. Since Intel is still looking to reduce to 7nm or lower in the coming years means that depreciation cost of new equipment will remain high for the entire shorter run at 10 nm compared to the long run at 14nm. Intel will also have trouble achieving the same high yield percentages it is currently getting from its long run at 14nm.

That wafer that Intel was letting the media handle and take pictures of a month or two ago was most likely a reject with only around 20% or fewer good chips that didn't justify cutting the low number of good chips out for use and would have been scrapped. Usually with low yield wafer, the fewer good chips do not perform that well either.

 

[st379]

Core uArch and socket have almost nothing to do with each other.

Your complaint would certainly apply to Coffee Lake (where Intel could've retained the same socket for an unprecedented 4 generations), but Intel is now finally making I/O changes that necessitated a new socket.

Comet lake tried to move to PCIe 4.0. Rocket Lake doubled the DMI datapath, upgraded its CPU-direct PCIe lanes to 4.0, and added another x4 for NVMe storage.

If Amd can do it Intel can do it. Not to mention 1151v2 cpu not supported on 1151v1.
I remember that when the new cpu arrived someone release a bios update for 1151v1 that make those cpu work on it.

 

[bit_user]

More cores per money=cheaper,at least for the consumer.

What?

I mean, if you're assuming the prices for each segment carry over from Coffee Lake R, then the per-core cost will indeed be lower. However:

1. Comet Lake Pricing has yet to be established.
2. @al_capwn was clearly talking about CPU pricing - not per-core pricing.

There has never been a CPU gen from intel that had prices based on production costs...

Prices increased in Coffee Lake and again with Coffee Lake Refresh... and you don't think that had anything to do with them adding more cores in each market segment?

Less profitable does not mean higher production costs,

There are a number of factors cited, though it's true that he doesn't come right out and say that the marginal cost is higher.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15580/intel-cfo-our-10nm-will-be-less-profitable-than-22nm​

Regardless of exactly where/how they're getting pinched, it's only logical to expect they will pass as much of that onto customers as they think they can get away with. This is Intel we're talking about.

 

[bit_user]

Actually I believe you are wrong. Keeping on 14nm means that Intel has been able to continue using much of the same equipment this whole time. So in an accounting sense it is now fully depreciated

And that's different from Coffee Lake Refresh, how?

I follow the argument, but you're at least a couple years late with it. I'm sure their 14 nm is mature and fully-amortized, for a long time now.

 

[bit_user]

If Amd can do it Intel can do it.

No, AMD did not add lanes. Intel added a total of 8 lanes from the CPU (doubling DMI width and adding x4 for CPU-direct storage).

Not to mention 1151v2 cpu not supported on 1151v1.

That's the case I was saying you should have made. There have been several boards which actually supported both CPUs. I would agree with you on that one.

 

[deepblue08]

I am almost impressed that Intel is able to push this much performance from their inferior nm process. I expect great things from them once they do roll out their next die shrink though.

 

[grimfox]

IMO

I don't see the pricing on these being competitive with AMDs Chips. The 9700k is already $100 more than AMDs 3700x. I don't see the 10700 being much cheaper if at all than the 9700k. We could be surprised when the consumer parts hit shelves with much higher clocks giving them an edge over AMD, but I think that's doubtful. With a gaming grade board we could also seem some improvements in performance. Dell motherboards aren't exactly known for great performance, longevity sure. Those factors might decrease or over come the small gap in performance between the 10700 and 3700x but I don't think many people are going to be willing to spend another $100 for 2-10%. That's only considering the processor. Getting a new motherboard is going to add another $30-100 over the cost of a similar 3700x build. $130-200 for 2-10% performance. That's a tough sell for me.

/IMO

 

[jgraham11]

Its funny, if you actually look at the article they are talking about, (link in article), it shows power consumption under an Aida64 workload, the 10700 almost double the power compared to the 3700x. The 10700 almost consumes as much power as the 9900k!

 

[st379]

Its funny, if you actually look at the article they are talking about, (link in article), it shows power consumption under an Aida64 workload, the 10700 almost double the power compared to the 3700x. The 10700 almost consumes as much power as the 9900k!

It make sense. It's 9900k without oc. Same power consumption is expected.

 

[jgraham11]

It make sense. It's 9900k without oc. Same power consumption is expected.

My point being that the 9900k is a 95W (unless its ouf of the box, with a locked PL2, in that case its closer to a 150W) rated part yet the 10700 is a 65W rated part. Never mind, I found in the article it actually states before the summary table that the 10700 had its power limit unlocked, interesting that despite this, it says the 10700 is a 65W part multiple times throughout the article:

"According to the results from the review, the i7-10700 is slightly faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, another 65W chip. " The truth is that the 10700 is overclocked beyond its 65W limit.

"The i7-10700 will reportedly come with eight cores, 16 threads and 16MB of L3 cache. This model seemingly operates within the 65W envelope and has a 4.6 GHz all-core boost. " Again implying that these test results are from a stock configuration, which is not the case.

Paul, just stop putting out these articles that try to cast Intel in good light when the reality is that they are being slaughtered by the AMD competition!

 

[st379]

"The i7-10700 will reportedly come with eight cores, 16 threads and 16MB of L3 cache. This model seemingly operates within the 65W envelope and has a 4.6 GHz all-core boost. " Again implying that these test results are from a stock configuration, which is not the case.

Paul, just stop putting out these articles that try to cast Intel in good light when the reality is that they are being slaughtered by the AMD competition!

Rule of thumb : Intel official TDP*3=real TDP

 

[EPIC123]

10% ?? Incredible difference LOL
Don't you need another motherboard for that 10% ??

He doesn't have to buy another cpu if he doesn't want to LOL