News Intel Comet Lake-S Arrives: More Cores, Higher Boosts and Power Draw, but Better Pricing

[InvalidError]

You don't pay extra. They come for free.

It does not come for free, boards with CPU-less update support cost $10-20 more than comparable boards without that feature. If I have to pay $10-20 extra either way, I'd rather have a B550 motherboard with guaranteed out-of-the-box support for everything current and get PCIe4 that will be useful for the next 10 years as a bonus than a previous-gen motherboard with CPU-less update unlikely ever be useful more than once.

Why are we suddenly talking about the general population?

Because the PC market is much larger than the sliver of enthusiasts. Business-wise, it makes little to no sense to tie one hand behind your back to cater to a barely visible minority. It is also much easier, cheaper and more profitable for motherboard manufacturers to support only two generations per board.

 

[refillable]

It does not come for free, boards with CPU-less update support cost $10-20 more than comparable boards without that feature. If I have to pay $10-20 extra either way, I'd rather have a B550 motherboard with guaranteed out-of-the-box support for everything current and get PCIe4 that will be useful for the next 10 years as a bonus than a previous-gen motherboard with CPU-less update unlikely ever be useful more than once.

No they don't. The Gaming Plus that I have costs the same as the ASUS B450 Prime or the Gigabyte B450 Gaming X. They have very similar feature set and VRM design. You have the choice of spending around $100 going with a hypothetical B550 board and that's perfectly fine. Others prefer not to and they can. That liberty of choosing is why AM4 is superior.

Because the PC market is much larger than the sliver of enthusiasts. Business-wise, it makes little to no sense to tie one hand behind your back to cater to a barely visible minority. It is also much easier, cheaper and more profitable for motherboard manufacturers to support only two generations per board.

While I agree, it makes no sense to bring that argument here. I was strictly objecting to your claims that it's better to have biannual motherboard cycles because CPU launches on AM4 are "a mess". It's not, and you always have the option to avoid the mess by buying the right board.

This is the Intel equivalent to the FX 8370 launch.

Not really, I think it's still a bit better than FX 8370. At least some of these can go toe to toe in lightly threaded and multi threaded performance on the same price albeit with 2-3 times more power. The FX 8370 had absolutely nothing except discounts and rendering performance. I think Cascade Lake X would fit into the description better, but that's closer to FX-8150 than the FX 8370.

 

[mdd1963]

I'll withhold judgement until I see some Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 5 comparisons with other processors, and, some real numbers on power drawn at the wall...

If the 10700KF matches or outperforms the 'old' 9900K, that's a pretty decent gaming rig for $349 , remembering that that none of AMD's processors can match it yet in pure gaming frame rates... (Yes, I know that assorted Ryzens are better in Cinebench and Blender, etc...) If Ryzen 4000 desktops can match the 10700K overall, including in gaming, and for less money, that would be great, inspiring Intel to lower prices, perhaps translating into a mini-price war, which is good for everyone....

 

[mdd1963]

Intel's Comet Lake lineup for desktop PCs lands with a surprisingly strong mix of cores, performance and pricing, but there's a few gotchas.

Intel Comet Lake-S Arrives: More Cores, Higher Boosts and Power Draw, but Better Pricing : Read more

Page 1 typo...

"Intel's partners released 50 new Z290 motherboards, many of which now come with 2.5GBe connectivity.

 

[jkflipflop98]

So many AMD fanbots.

 

[drivinfast247]

So many AMD fanbots.

Still nowhere near as many Intel fanboys.

 

[cyrusfox]

Hi there! Just my opinion but my immediate reaction to this was "Not impressed with this at all" I think if you already have an intel board like a z370 there's no reason to upgrade. There's nothing remotely exciting about this release. It's the same as last year and the year before. Then add to the fact that their chips are going to run hot. It's just physics. It's the same 14nm process and they added 2 more cores. On top of that Intel does not provide a cooler. You should buy a water cooling solution for these 14nm processors with 8+ cores. Especially if any of you extreme enthusiast wanna do any overclocking. Or just get a giant fan and rack it in your datacenter. Unless you don't care for being able to hear.

For me I decided to give AMD a try as I like their vibe. It's pretty cool. Been doing Intel for the past 2 decades and they have now recently (2-3 years) become boring. Intel had a very good run. AMD has the latest technology. It's exciting. Why put money down on something that is 2-3 years old. To me that's not a very good investment. Of course everyone has their preferences.

Kk,
Cya

I have a Z390 and a 9900kf, I am looking forward to a 10900K variant. My use is single thread heavy, I do appreciate the cores anytime I need to transcode the kids performance for the grandparents. There are plenty of people just like willing to upgrade. These will seel like hotcakes if there is any availability.

My question is will intel retain the gaming crown with Zen 3 release? We'll have to wait till the end of the year(or whenever Zen 3 makes its debut to find out).

Computers aren't an investment(quite literally the worst investment ever), like cars aren't an investment, they are a depreciating tool, some hold there value far longer than is reasonable(Devil Canyon), others you have to pay someone to take them off your hands(e-waste). At least car scrap metal holds its value so disposing of dead cars isn't burdensome.

 

[dimar]

I'm on 9900K, but the next upgrade will likely be an AMD platform after few more generations.

 

[chalabam]

Only 10 cores, and a decade old PCI-E 3, and too much money for a CPU that will probably last until 2030, when PCI-E 5 is already around the corner, and next gen consoles come with 8 cores.

Bad deal.

 

[PCWarrior]

even the i3 was 182w peak at stock speeds. gonna need water-cooling for an i3 at this point.

This is a mistake in the article. As other tech websites and youtube channels state, the 182W peak power pertains to the hexacore i5 10600K, not the quad core 10320. But even without such confirmation, guys, I am sure you have a mind. Please put it in use. The 7700K on 14nm+ would draw a maximum of 95-100W (and that with all cores clocked at 4.4GHz, with Prime 95 with AVX on). And now you honestly believe that the i3 10320 with the same microarchitecture and similar frequencies, and on the much improved 14nm+++ node would draw nearly TWICE as much? Ridiculous...

 

[RodroX]

About the "news" I guess theres no much point in discussing soo hard about TDP, real power drawn, higher boost clocks, OC and even performance when the product is not even available. Lets have some patient and wait the reviews with the product in hands.

AMD had a few problems with each launch of a new Ryzen series and thier previous AM4 platform, but eventually every CPU was able to work on most if not all AM4 motherboards out there. I guess people tend to forget about Intel problems. I mean its only a few clicks away to search this same forum and find lots of users asking for help with thier "new" core iX 9xxx cpu even now in 2020.

 

[TerryLaze]

Intel is basically in the same place AMD was in with the Bulldozer series of CPUs: it has to release something new. Of course, Intel is also about 10X the size/profitability of AMD. And so we get a power increase, slightly higher performance, same old architecture with a few minor tweaks and two more cores.

How are the two anywhere near the same?
Intel made twice the profit in the last two years than what they did the years before ZEN released,they don't need to release anything,they don't need to release anything for the next two years and they would still maintain their profit average.
They CAN release another 14nm "gen" because they already got feedback from their business partners and know that they are going to sell every last unit they can produce.
Intel can afford to release this product because zen didn't even start to make the smallest dent into intel's sales but quite the opposite,somehow ZEN's release increased the sales of age old intel CPUs.
Which is something a lot of people here had prognosed,everybody was waiting for zen, to then get intel's response to it,which people thought would be cheaper CPUs which kinda came true.

About the "news" I guess theres no much point in discussing soo hard about TDP, real power drawn, higher boost clocks, OC and even performance when the product is not even available. Lets have some patient and wait the reviews with the product in hands.

But they are available,there is only going to be minimal if any change from what we have now so we know exactly how they will perform with all the good and all the bad.

 

[InvalidError]

But they are available,there is only going to be minimal if any change from what we have now so we know exactly how they will perform with all the good and all the bad.

Comet Lake has in-silicon mitigation for a handful of flaws, so there could be some significant improvements in cases where software mitigation is no longer necessary.

 

[King_V]

250w for STOCK speeds!!! so prob breaking 300w with any type of overclocking. even the i3 was 182w peak at stock speeds. gonna need water-cooling for an i3 at this point.

the fx series when it got this bad would only run on a select few motherboards that could handle the power draw. the intel fanboys threw around terms like space heater and many others to describe how crazy these power levels are. so new socket, expensive mobo to deliver the power, water cooling just to run at stock speeds and this is a big fat NOPE for me.

something tells me though that these new chips will get a good spin from the fan boys. i mean come on who doesn't need an extra space heater in the basement. that's a heck of a value feature from intel........blah blah blah

I've abused this meme before regarding Intel's modern CPUs, and I'll abuse it again.

 

[larkspur]

Intel is basically in the same place AMD was in with the Bulldozer series of CPUs: it has to release something new.

I'm not sure why I keep seeing this comparison. Bulldozer's FX 8170 was 8 "cores" (4 modules). Piledriver's FX 9590 was 8 "cores" (4 modules) with much higher clocks and some minor arch improvements. Intel's Skylake i7-6700k was 4 cores (8 threads) for $339. Intel's Comet Lake i7-10700k is 8 cores (16 threads) for $374.

The performance difference between the FX 8170 and the FX 9590 is nowhere near as big as the difference between the i7-6700k and the i7-10700k. It's like no comparison at all. Skylake is definitely old, and it will be very interesting to see the new arch in Rocket Lake, but considering they've doubled the cores and threads and have much higher boost clocks in the same i7 pricing tier, I'd say comparing them to where AMD was with Bulldozer/Piledriver/etc. is ridiculous.

 

[King_V]

The point being that they have to release something new, and HAVE to crank the clocks up in order to keep up, and thus pour out crazy amounts of heat.

Not that every single detail is exactly the same.

 

[PapaCrazy]

The Intel CPU line is beginning to look like the stereo market... 200W.. no 250W... no, 300W of power! It amazes me that to do some math, a CPU would require the sort of power my stereo does to produce a room full of pressure.

But it does raise one point, those stereo wattage "ratings" are typically overstated, based on peak rather than sustained power. I have to wonder if the same is true for the truly horrifying power draw numbers of 300W for the 10 core. Perhaps that is only a short peak, and coolers won't be tasked with the Sisyphean task of cooling 300w for extended duration. That must be hell on a mobo too.

 

[xxsk8er101xx]

I have a Z390 and a 9900kf, I am looking forward to a 10900K variant. My use is single thread heavy, I do appreciate the cores anytime I need to transcode the kids performance for the grandparents. There are plenty of people just like willing to upgrade. These will seel like hotcakes if there is any availability.

My question is will intel retain the gaming crown with Zen 3 release? We'll have to wait till the end of the year(or whenever Zen 3 makes its debut to find out).

Computers aren't an investment(quite literally the worst investment ever), like cars aren't an investment, they are a depreciating tool, some hold there value far longer than is reasonable(Devil Canyon), others you have to pay someone to take them off your hands(e-waste). At least car scrap metal holds its value so disposing of dead cars isn't burdensome.

Cool you do you! When you buy something, whatever it is, that is an investment. What is your yield from that investment. For me upgrading my computer will yield my ability to play games, participate in folding at home, and run the VMs I need to run to assist in my professional services and expertise in my field. The yield of your investment does not always equate to a financial outcome. Thinking about it in terms that an investment is being smart about your money. The pros and cons of your investment. The yield or outcome of your expenditure.

Investing in Computers? 7 Questions to Consider

Hopefully that will be helpful for you.

 

[InvalidError]

The point being that they have to release something new, and HAVE to crank the clocks up in order to keep up, and thus pour out crazy amounts of heat.

The difference between AMD's faildozer series and Intel's i-series is that Intel's i-series is still competitive with Ryzen in most tasks while faildozer was struggling to keep up with Intel's i3 even when overclocked to 5GHz. AMD simply wasn't a viable option beyond ultra-low-budget for most uses.

Intel is nowhere near being in AMD's situation, its 8th-10th gen chips can still give AMD's similarly priced chips a run for their money.

 

[larkspur]

The point being that they have to release something new, and HAVE to crank the clocks up in order to keep up, and thus pour out crazy amounts of heat.

Not that every single detail is exactly the same.

It should be obvious that every player in the CPU industry HAS to release something new. It's how they compete. If we only compare i7-9700k with the i7-10700k we find that the Comet lake chip has double the threads, higher base and boost clocks, 4mb more L3 cache and has the exact same MSRP as the Coffee Lake refresh. All of that adds up to significantly higher performance, especially multi-thread performance. Sure, the power draw is very high! But considering we the consumers are still getting big performance differences out of the same pricing tier while Intel is still using 14nm... that's very impressive. Yay competition!

Anyway, back to the comparison with BD... During the BD/PD FX series at no time did AMD add additional modules or threads. Going from BD to PD spanning 2011 till Ryzen's launch in 2017 saw very small performance gains. Going from original Skylake in 2015 to Comet Lake in 2020 is like night and day! If we only look at Skylake vs Kaby Lake then yeah, I could see a comparison to AMD's FX 9590. Bump up the clocks, higher performance with higher power draw. But Intel has been adding cores, HT, cache and clocks. It's a ridiculous comparison.

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

AMD all-core overclocks are more like 4.2-4.3GHz, and stock is only 100MHz lower. So, bump up those clocks for AMD and it can close the last remaining gap.

Interesting you mention that cause I thought I saw an article from Tom's about somebody pushing the r3-3100 to 4.5 ghz all core.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Interesting you mention that cause I thought I saw an article from Tom's about somebody pushing the r3-3100 to 4.5 ghz all core.

R3 3100 is a 4-core/8-thread chip -- very different from an 8-core/16-thread chip (or dual chiplets).

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

How are the two anywhere near the same?
Intel made twice the profit in the last two years than what they did the years before ZEN released,they don't need to release anything,they don't need to release anything for the next two years and they would still maintain their profit average.
They CAN release another 14nm "gen" because they already got feedback from their business partners and know that they are going to sell every last unit they can produce.
Intel can afford to release this product because zen didn't even start to make the smallest dent into intel's sales but quite the opposite,somehow ZEN's release increased the sales of age old intel CPUs.
Which is something a lot of people here had prognosed,everybody was waiting for zen, to then get intel's response to it,which people thought would be cheaper CPUs which kinda came true.


But they are available,there is only going to be minimal if any change from what we have now so we know exactly how they will perform with all the good and all the bad.

I'm rolling my eyes, here. I'm not saying the whole company outlook is the same, I'm saying that architecturally and process technology, they're in a relatively similar position. Bulldozer was a flawed arch, running on an outdated lithography, and power use went up drastically over time. Obviously Skylake isn't a flawed arch as such, but the 14nm lithography is comparatively ancient -- five years old now. Even with tweaks, it's old.

So to push to higher performance, Intel is packing in two more cores and increasing clock speeds, which means power goes up. And if you push all-core overclocks to 5.3GHz or whatever, don't be surprised to see power use jump into the 200+ watt range. Just like the old 5GHz FX-9370. AMD was obviously different in that it didn't add cores -- it just cranked up clocks and power use. SAME NET RESULT: more power, because the market wanted something new. Intel's CPUs are still WAY BETTER than Bulldozer stuff (Piledriver if we're being precise), but compared to five years ago, things have not progressed that much. We've multiplied core counts by 2.5X, clocks have increased by 20%, and power has potentially doubled as well.

And let's also be clear that the 250W PL2 figure is probably only going to be hit for very short periods of time on the 10900K. Like, seconds at most. The CPU has to be below 70C or you won't get 250W, and if you do hit 250W the temperature will jump past 70C possibly in fractions of a second. We really need to see what real-world performance and clockspeeds and power look like before drawing final conclusions. But Intel is definitely hurting on process technology right now, and has been for two years.

 

[jeremyj_83]

I'm rolling my eyes, here. I'm not saying the whole company outlook is the same, I'm saying that architecturally and process technology, they're in a relatively similar position. Bulldozer was a flawed arch, running on an outdated lithography, and power use went up drastically over time. Obviously Skylake isn't a flawed arch as such, but the 14nm lithography is comparatively ancient -- five years old now. Even with tweaks, it's old.

So to push to higher performance, Intel is packing in two more cores and increasing clock speeds, which means power goes up. And if you push all-core overclocks to 5.3GHz or whatever, don't be surprised to see power use jump into the 200+ watt range. Just like the old 5GHz FX-9370. AMD was obviously different in that it didn't add cores -- it just cranked up clocks and power use. SAME NET RESULT: more power, because the market wanted something new. Intel's CPUs are still WAY BETTER than Bulldozer stuff (Piledriver if we're being precise), but compared to five years ago, things have not progressed that much. We've multiplied core counts by 2.5X, clocks have increased by 20%, and power has potentially doubled as well.

And let's also be clear that the 250W PL2 figure is probably only going to be hit for very short periods of time on the 10900K. Like, seconds at most. The CPU has to be below 70C or you won't get 250W, and if you do hit 250W the temperature will jump past 70C possibly in fractions of a second. We really need to see what real-world performance and clockspeeds and power look like before drawing final conclusions. But Intel is definitely hurting on process technology right now, and has been for two years.

Write up from Dr. Ian Cutress at Anandtech:

"Ultimately the thing mainly going for the new hardware is that turbo frequency, up to 5.2 GHz on favored core or 5.3 GHz when under 70ºC. Just looking at the raw CPU data on paper, and some might consider the 10900 series a raw deal.

It should be noted that Intel has different PL2 recommendations for each of the overclockable processors:

• Core i9-10900K: TDP is 125 W, PL2 is 250 W, Tau is 56 seconds
• Core i7-10700K: TDP is 125 W, PL2 is 229 W, Tau is 56 seconds
• Core i5-10600K: TDP is 125 W, PL2 is 182 W, Tau is 56 seconds

Normally the recommended PL2 value is 1.25x the TDP, but in this case Intel is increasing the recommended values. This won’t stop the motherboard manufacturers from completely ignoring them, however.

Also, PL2 and Tau are based on a comparative power load that is defined as a function of a power virus, typically 90-93% or so. This means a complete power virus will go beyond this." https://www.anandtech.com/show/15758/intels-10th-gen-comet-lake-desktop/3

Sounds to me like Intel is going full on FX-9370 with these chips and saying power be damned we want the highest per-core performance possible for this architecture. Difference here is the 10900k has a 3.7GHz base clock vs the FX-9370's 4.7GHz base clock.

 

[larkspur]

Intel's CPUs are still WAY BETTER than Bulldozer stuff (Piledriver if we're being precise), but compared to five years ago, things have not progressed that much.

Have not progressed that much in 5 years? For a similar price to an i7-6700k, you will be able to get a i7-10700k with double the cores, double the threads, higher clocks, more cache... I mean the benchmarks I am linking below speak for themselves. Since the i7-10700k is not yet available to benchmark, I used the i9-9900k since it has the same core/thread count. I mean look at the multi-threaded tests! Well beyond double the performance for the same price. And that is still while being stuck on 14nm and on the same arch. If you told me in 2015 that Intel would more than double its multithreaded CPU performance while on the same node and same architecture and same price point there's no way I'd believe you. Comparing these gains with BD/PD is ridiculous.
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2260?vs=2263

Now let's go back to 2011 during Intel's big heyday and compare the i7-2600k with the i7-6700k (it's roughly the same amount of time). Single thread performance improved nicely, but look at the multi-threaded tests. Far less than double the performance gains. Pretty skimpy actually. So to summarize, Intel has actually gained more multi-thread performance in the last five years at the same price point while mired on the same node and same architecture than they did in 2011-2015 when they went from 32nm to 22nm to 14nm and three different uArchs (SB, Haswell, Skylake). Saying that they "have not progressed that much in 5 years" is deceptively ignoring multi-threaded performance at the same price point.
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2413?vs=2260