News Intel Core i9-10900, Core i5-10500 Comet Lake Results Posted

[Zizo007]

Ryzen 4000 is notebook architecture with integrated IGP .... For desktop wait new socket like with new Threadripper. Looks like Ryzen 3 will be final CPU for AM4 with limited backwards compatibility for the older chip sets if want high core count on new cpu (more than 8 )

Ryzen 4000 desktop named Vermeer, Zen 3, is confirmed to be the last CPU for AM4 in 2020, which AMD, via Lisa Su, also said in CES 2020:

https://www.techcenturion.com/amd-zen-3

 

[RodroX]

Ryzen 4000 is notebook architecture with integrated IGP .... For desktop wait new socket like with new Threadripper. Looks like Ryzen 3 will be final CPU for AM4 with limited backwards compatibility for the older chip sets if want high core count on new cpu (more than 8 )

Ryzen 4000 desktop named Vermeer, Zen 3, is confirmed to be the last CPU for AM4 in 2020, which AMD, via Lisa Su, also said in CES 2020:

https://www.techcenturion.com/amd-zen-3

Not only that, AMD words were: socket AM4 for "atleast" till 2020.

I remember some guy in LinusTechTips forum in 2017 saying: "someone give me a real proof socket AM4 will last till 2020", well I guess some manufacture word means more than others (cough, cough, intel...).

Of course a motherboard that was originally designed 3 years ago for a max 8 core Ryzen cpu shouldnt be able to handle a 12 or 16 core cpu, but some A320 with good airflow do, some B350 are a bit better and many X370 are good.
I wonder, why don't you try to put a core i9 9900K on a H110 and see what happend?, ah yeah, no, it wont even boot, well get a B250 or a Z270... no wait, those are all the same socket but still wont boot.

 

[ozboater]

Intel - king of low-res gaming and winter house warming...

AMD - for everything else

 

[DaTut]

@Zizoo007

You are right AMD has the better price per Value. However i have to disagree on the "Gaming" Aspect.
Resolution only slightly changes the load on the CPU.
Much mroe important is the FPS you want to achieve.

It doesnt make sense to aim for higher fps if your Monitor cant handle it.
Playing a game on 144hz (or respectively 144fps, considering you want to achieve the best quality not fake-/calculated pictures by free-/g-/adaptive-sync) on 1080p is way more demanding and heavy on the cpu than 1440p 60hz/fps.

If you aim for higher fps through resolution you should check if your ghrapics card is the bottleneck.

Also regarding your "max turbo":
Yes, AMD's also have high max turbos for single-core performance. And yes, they make up for the missing clockspeed for multithreaded loads with their slightly highe IPC and mostly with the big core count.
However the all-core of ryzen cpu's is still a lot lower, and considering that on a 4 core workload intel only has a slight decrease in clock-speeds AMD's CPU's throttle quite a bit.

And for all fans of small transistor spacing, yes it might fit more cores with lower TDP on it but the smaller you go the less voltage you cna put though. All of you have seen sparks between high-voltage currents. However this also happens for small voltages but the distance has to be extremely small. And if we are talking about nanometers of distances, you can imagine at some point jumping currents might become a problem.
Not saying this is a problem but it could be and therefore its not always best to decreas the size.

Also Ryzen CPU's are freaking huge. I've got a 6th gen i5 6600 and a 1st gen ryzen 1600 and dude....
(The i5 no OC still outperforms the 1600 no OC in most games due to single core performance)
(im using the ryzen for everything else currently)

 

[DaTut]

Intel - king of low-res gaming

Resolution is a smaller factor for the cpu as you migth think. I'd switch to 1440p 120+hz if there where
videocards that can handle it....
until then you better stick with 1080p.

Everyone is super hyped about resolutions but most people couldnt even tell the difference between 2k and 4k if they are not sitting 15inch in front of a 32inch monitor.

Most people love adaptive-/fre-sync because everythign looks smooth. But what if i told you its the the technologie its just the higher visible framerate that is looking great. your card only had to be capable of 60fps on a 60hz monitor wouldnt make much sense to try to gain any more.

If you monitor can only show 60 different frames a second, why would you bother trying to get the card and cpu to calculate more?.

I got a 4K monitor for work but would never game on it as i cant stand the sloppy movement of 60hhz monitors anymore.
sadly there is no way of experienceing more than 60fps on a 60hz monitor so you can only physically test it out.

 

[Olle P]

You don't need a 3900X for gaming, ...

... unless you live stream the gaming session in HD.
That's where Intel's Core i9s really miss out.

 

[TJ Hooker]

There is no way on earth that Intel is making a desktop 10 core 65W, their 8 core 9900K is using close to 300W and require watercooling.

The i9 9900 has a 65W TDP. It will draw more than that while turboing, and most motherboard manufacturers set the turbo boost parameters such that it can turbo more or less indefinitely, so in practice it will usually draw more. But if you were to actually set the parameters to Intel's officially stated values it would have an average power draw under load of about 65W.

Same thing will presumably apply to the 10900. Base clocks are lower to compensate for the increased core count, such that it can still fit within its TDP (I'm guessing also 65W). But as before, most motherboards will probably set their own turbo parameters such that base clocks and rated TDP become largely meaningless.

TL;DR I doubt you'll actually see a 10900 limited to running at only 2.8 GHz in practice.

Also still remains to be seen whether the specs in this article are actually correct.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Resolution is a smaller factor for the cpu as you migth think. I'd switch to 1440p 120+hz if there where
videocards that can handle it....
until then you better stick with 1080p.

Well yes, resolution doesn't directly impact CPU usage. But resolution has a huge impact on GPU usage, so the lower the resolution the less likely you are to be GPU-limited. If your GPU is able to achieve much higher FPS due to lower resolution that will have a significant effect on CPU usage, and as a result can emphasize the performance difference between one CPU and another.

sadly there is no way of experienceing more than 60fps on a 60hz monitor so you can only physically test it out.

I'm nitpicking a bit, but you can still get some of the improvement to input lag that comes with high FPS even without a high refresh rate monitor. Either with Vsync off, or with Vsync on + triple buffering (AMD enhanced sync or Nvidia fastsync).