Intel Comet Lake Packs Up to 10 Cores (Updated)

[MeatFeastMan]

The worst bit about all this is that people will go and buy the 10 core intel part because 'it's intel' and just completely ignore 16 core zen2. And if you refuse to buy AMD, please...wait for 10nm for goodness sakes. Don't buy this garbage of a cpu. It'll consume more power than my house at 14nm. I urge to people to avoid Skylake refresh number 1000 and just wait. Comet Lake will be even worse power consumption than Coffee Lake because as I said, they are messing people around by making tiny changes to IPC and frequency. It's a joke. And Coffee Lake wasn't exactly...efficient.

[aezakmi]

6 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

The worst bit about all this is that people will go and buy the 10 core intel part because 'it's intel' and just completely ignore 16 core zen2. And if you refuse to buy AMD, please...wait for 10nm for goodness sakes. Don't buy this garbage of a cpu. It'll consume more power than my house at 14nm. I urge to people to avoid Skylake refresh number 1000 and just wait. Comet Lake will be even worse power consumption than Coffee Lake because as I said, they are messing people around by making tiny changes to IPC and frequency. It's a joke. And Coffee Lake wasn't exactly...efficient.

they're buying 9700k for gaming 

 

the joke tells itself every time

[The Benjamins]

16 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Well its still impressive IMO if Intel can push it to 10c/20t on their current node.

Interesting people are whining that 10c/20t isn't enough though lol.

This makes no sense Intel has had 20+ cores on 14nm node for a while now, 10c20t is not impressive on 14nm at all.

 

People are whining because 10c20t is barely going to be able to compete with the competition.

[GoldenLag]

5 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

People are whining because 10c20t is barely going to be able to compete with the competition

if only there was some company that made CPUs just like Intel 

[RotoCoreOne]

Hm... 2 more cores... so i7-10700k 10/10 threads, $499? i9-10900k 10/20 threads $599? i5s will still have 6 cores i'll bet :\. Can't wait for Ryzen 3000

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

This makes no sense Intel has had 20+ cores on 14nm node for a while now, 10c20t is not impressive on 14nm at all.

 

People are whining because 10c20t is barely going to be able to compete with the competition.

 

Intel have, but those 20+ cores were locked to lower frequencies and used in servers were single core performance is not as important as multitasking database requests.   For the vast majority of domestic consumers 4-6 higher clocked cores is ample.  Intel's road map (and product release) follows consumer demand a lot more closely than a bunch of forum enthusiasts believe.   This is why they are still selling and why they are not in a hurry to release but loads of cores at the expense of single core performance.

[Maticks]

Looks like getting into 6Ghz is nearly impossible with current technology at least when not LN2 cooling.

So its how many cores can we shove on this thing

Unfortunately software isn't going to scale given most will use 4-8 cores only.

[The Benjamins]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Intel have, but those 20+ cores were locked to lower frequencies and used in servers were single core performance is not as important as multitasking database requests.   For the vast majority of domestic consumers 4-6 higher clocked cores is ample.  Intel's road map (and product release) follows consumer demand a lot more closely than a bunch of forum enthusiasts believe.   This is why they are still selling and why they are not in a hurry to release but loads of cores at the expense of single core performance.

The point is that a 10c CPU isn't anything new or much of a improvement, its a tiny step forward in a expected direction. and with AMD moving in strides not steps, going from 8c16t to 10c20t is sad to see.

Also at Intel's current pricing this 10c would be expected to be their $500 top tier part. going up against the expected 16c32t AMD part in the same price bracket.

 

The only way for me to not think this 10c is going to be a disappointment is for it to be priced less then $250 with SMT enabled, and I just don't see intel doing that.

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

The point is that a 10c CPU isn't anything new or much of a improvement, its a tiny step forward in a expected direction. and with AMD moving in strides not steps, going from 8c16t to 10c20t is sad to see.

That's not much of a point. You can't ignore intrinsic nature of past multi core processors (especially when they are all locked to sub 3Ghz) when comparing it to current desktop products that all require substantial single core performance at higher clocks.

 

20 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Also at Intel's current pricing this 10c would be expected to be their $500 top tier part. going up against the expected 16c32t AMD part in the same price bracket.

And?

 

20 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

The only way for me to not think this 10c is going to be a disappointment is for it to be priced less then $250 with SMT enabled, and I just don't see intel doing that.

Or going on history it's just going t =o be another part priced accordingly and some people won't like it (due likely to cheaper options) while others think it's perfect.

[The Benjamins]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's not much of a point. You can't ignore intrinsic nature of past multi core processors (especially when they are all locked to sub 3Ghz) when comparing it to current desktop products that all require substantial single core performance at higher clocks.

 

And?

 

Or going on history it's just going t =o be another part priced accordingly and some people won't like it (due likely to cheaper options) while others think it's perfect.

Intel has had 10c CPUs with higher then 4.0 GHz for a while, not sure why you are comparing it to some of the xeons? 7900x?

 

This is just a reason why I think its a sad disappointment.

 

I think its going to be far over priced with no real performance improvement over AMD in any category that can remotely justify the cost.

 

These are all my opinions.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

Intel has had 10c CPUs with higher then 4.0 GHz for a while, not sure why you are comparing it to some of the xeons? 7900x?

The highest clock speed 10 core part prior to the i9 was 3.3Ghz, correct me if I'm wrong but it has only been since q2 2017 that they have managed faster than 3.5Ghz on 10 plus cores.

 

EDIT: and lets not forget their best performance was 28 cores but that was a highly binned chip that required a $1000 water chiller.

 

 

[schwellmo92]

2 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

Intel has had 10c CPUs with higher then 4.0 GHz for a while, not sure why you are comparing it to some of the xeons? 7900x?

 

This is just a reason why I think its a sad disappointment.

 

I think its going to be far over priced with no real performance improvement over AMD in any category that can remotely justify the cost.

 

These are all my opinions.

I think it's more to do with the density of those cores, the many-core options were always on much larger sockets which meant the heat could be spread out much more efficiently. We're already seeing that 8 Intel cores in the mainstream package is producing quite a lot of (dense) heat.

 

As a sizing example this is a HEDT Intel CPU vs a mainstream Intel CPU.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, schwellmo92 said:

I think it's more to do with the density of those cores, the many-core options were always on much larger sockets which meant the heat could be spread out much more efficiently. We're already seeing that 8 Intel cores in the mainstream package is producing quite a lot of (dense) heat.

 

As a sizing example this is a HEDT Intel CPU vs a mainstream Intel CPU.

Hence why nearly all Intel multicore processors were locked to sub 3Ghz clocks.

[Antistatic12]

On 3/16/2019 at 1:36 PM, Blademaster91 said:

Well its still impressive IMO if Intel can push it to 10c/20t on their current node.

Interesting people are whining that 10c/20t isn't enough though lol.

Very true what you are saying. Intel has squeezed literally everything they can. So it as you say is "impressive".
 

On 3/16/2019 at 2:23 PM, BuckGup said:

Can't hear you over 64 core Threadripper and 16 core mainstream Ryzen for around $550 in 2019.

I'm sooooooo hyped for a potential 64core 128 thread monster. 
And to think it has happened in such a short period of time that these core counts have just skyrocketed.

 

[The Benjamins]

1 hour ago, schwellmo92 said:

I think it's more to do with the density of those cores, the many-core options were always on much larger sockets which meant the heat could be spread out much more efficiently. We're already seeing that 8 Intel cores in the mainstream package is producing quite a lot of (dense) heat.

 

As a sizing example this is a HEDT Intel CPU vs a mainstream Intel CPU.

the 2066 package also had a 4c4t CPU, that does not mean that we can't put a 4c4t CPU on a smaller package.

 

The physical size of a 10c20t die didn't really change from 14nm to 14nm+ or how every many +s we are on now.

 

Their is nothing new needed to take the knowledge of the 8c16t die and 12c24t die used on the 2066 CPUs and make a 10c20t die with 2 DDR4 memory channels and a iGPU.

The physical die would be a tighter fit on the existing 1151 socket type, but nothing that challenging.

 

the TDP of a 7900x is 140w with a slight efficiency bump from improved process it can easily be pushed into a 120w window.

 

so again I don't see any innovation here just a mix of existing technology which will be behind AMD.

 

If intel really had to struggle to make a 10c mainstream CPU on 14nm with their existing knowledge I would be even more concerned with the direction of intel

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

the 2066 package also had a 4c4t CPU, that does not mean that we can't put a 4c4t CPU on a smaller package.

 

The physical size of a 10c20t die didn't really change from 14nm to 14nm+ or how every many +s we are on now.

 

Their is nothing new needed to take the knowledge of the 8c16t die and 12c24t die used on the 2066 CPUs and make a 10c20t die with 2 DDR4 memory channels and a iGPU.

The physical die would be a tighter fit on the existing 1151 socket type, but nothing that challenging.

 

the TDP of a 7900x is 140w with a slight efficiency bump from improved process it can easily be pushed into a 120w window.

 

so again I don't see any innovation here just a mix of existing technology which will be behind AMD.

 

If intel really had to struggle to make a 10c mainstream CPU on 14nm with their existing knowledge I would be even more concerned with the direction of intel

Again you are ignoring the nature of the technology,  without making allowances for the fact they haven't been able to push that many cores into the higher clocks and keep the power draw anywhere near stable is not something you can just ignore.

 

If Intel wanted to run 16 cores at 5Ghz they probably could, but it would come at the expense of single core performance. Which would make them the same as AMD and make no sense or extra sales to any of their customers.   

 

 

 

 

[The Benjamins]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again you are ignoring the nature of the technology,  without making allowances for the fact they haven't been able to push that many cores into the higher clocks and keep the power draw anywhere near stable is not something you can just ignore.

 

If Intel wanted to run 16 cores at 5Ghz they probably could, but it would come at the expense of single core performance. Which would make them the same as AMD and make no sense or extra sales to any of their customers.   

 

 

 

 

You keep ignoring that the 7900x and the 9900x exist ALREADY.

 

You take off 2 memory controllers, that saves you some power, heat, and die size.

You reduce the core count from 12 to 10 on the die, that saves space.

You use a more refined 14nm process which saves heat and power.

they should easily able to do a 10c with not much rework.

 

The 9900x is 100mz lower base clock then a 9900k, the 7900x is only 300 mhz lower then a 9900k.

Boost clocks only measure for the single core clock speed so getting near 5 Ghz on one core should still be achievable.

But even so the 9900x has a boost of 4.4 which is respectable.

 

So what is so damn ground breaking about making a slimmed down 9900x die?

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

You keep ignoring that the 7900x and the 9900x exist ALREADY.

Really?

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

The highest clock speed 10 core part prior to the i9 was 3.3Ghz, correct me if I'm wrong but it has only been since q2 2017 that they have managed faster than 3.5Ghz on 10 plus cores.

 

EDIT: and lets not forget their best performance was 28 cores but that was a highly binned chip that required a $1000 water chiller.

 

 

 

The 7900x was released Q2 2017.  I am not ignoring anything.

4 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

 

You take off 2 memory controllers, that saves you some power, heat, and die size.

You reduce the core count from 12 to 10 on the die, that saves space.

You use a more refined 14nm process which saves heat and power.

they should easily able to do a 10c with not much rework.

 

So basically what I said here:

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again you are ignoring the nature of the technology,  without making allowances for the fact they haven't been able to push that many cores into the higher clocks and keep the power draw anywhere near stable is not something you can just ignore.

 

If Intel wanted to run 16 cores at 5Ghz they probably could, but it would come at the expense of single core performance. Which would make them the same as AMD and make no sense or extra sales to any of their customers.   

 

 

 

 

Why would Intel hamstring their single core performance just to put out more cores that aren't in consumer demand.

 

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Really?

 

The 7900x was released Q2 2017.  I am not ignoring anything.

 

So basically what I said here:

 

Why would Intel hamstring their single core performance just to put out more cores that aren't in consumer demand.

 

There is a demand.

Intel should still be able to hit 5Ghz or near it on 1-2c on a 10c which would not hurt there single core performance, so IDK what the issue is here.

 

From where I see things zen2 will have more core, lower heat, same single core performance,  better boost tech, less vulnerabilities. The only thing I see intel doing better at is AVX, and memory speed. 

[mr moose]

51 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

There is a demand.

Intel should still be able to hit 5Ghz or near it on 1-2c on a 10c which would not hurt there single core performance, so IDK what the issue is here.

 

From where I see things zen2 will have more core, lower heat, same single core performance,  better boost tech, less vulnerabilities. The only thing I see intel doing better at is AVX, and memory speed. 

I think the issue here is you are trying to claim Intel should be making something much better because they have had 10 core CPU's in the past.  All I am saying is that is not a logical or rational. Past 10 core parts (and most 4 core and above parts for that matter) were locked down because they can't run at the speeds the general consumer wants in a desktop part.  Now you are trying to argue that you should be able to get 5Ghz on 1 or 2 cores like it's some sort of admiral goal. 

 

Why not make it 5.1Ghz?  Why not 5.2Ghz?    Where is the demand?   If you look at consumer demand you'll see that majority of users can still quite acceptably use 8 year old 4 core parts.  In fact the domestic market is a dead weight in many regards.  If either AMD or Intel relied on consumer demand to push their products forward we'd all still be using 3rd gen i5's and 8350's.   This Idea that Intel are only pushing more cores now because of AMD is a teenager fallacy. Intel don't care about desktop parts as much as you think they do. Even AMD developed Ryzen because it was core to their Epyc business. Intel are always developing more core parts, but they want to keep their single core and IPC above AMD and focus on where the money is (mobile/netbook and data centre). 

 

Even Intel admit PC/desktop is a declining market and data centres are where they are concentrating their efforts.

https://www.intc.com/investor-relations/investor-education-and-news/investor-news/press-release-details/2018/Intel-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-2017-Financial-Results/default.aspx

 

 

 

[GDRRiley]

21 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Though we souldn't forget that even inferior Intel Products sell rathe rwell for whatever reason.

We know that because it already happened back in the early 2000s.

well that was because of some sick bribes to Dell, HP a few other brands. 
I'm just leave this read here https://www.intel.com/pressroom/legal/docs/NY_AG_v._Intel_COMPLAINT.pdf

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

well that was because of some sick bribes to Dell, HP a few other brands. 
I'm just leave this read here https://www.intel.com/pressroom/legal/docs/NY_AG_v._Intel_COMPLAINT.pdf

I've always been the first to point that out, but AMD should have well and truly gotten over it after 19 years. 

 

Also I like the way people dig that up as if it has any effect on the performance or sales of as yet unreleased CPU's.  Why can't people just be happy we have competition and the prices aren't so stupid that only half the population can afford a new PC.  I mean seriously if you can buy a 250GB M.2 for $55 in Australia and you have the choice of 6 or 7 different CPU's (not including the Ryzen 2 about to release and god know what else N and I have in store for us),  why would anyone waste time trying to deride an as yet unreleased product?

[GDRRiley]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

I've always been the first to point that out, but AMD should have well and truly gotten over it after 19 years. 

 

Also I like the way people dig that up as if it has any effect on the performance or sales of as yet unreleased CPU's.  Why can't people just be happy we have competition and the prices aren't so stupid that only half the population can afford a new PC.  I mean seriously if you can buy a 250GB M.2 for $55 in Australia and you have the choice of 6 or 7 different CPU's (not including the Ryzen 2 about to release and god know what else N and I have in store for us),  why would anyone waste time trying to deride an as yet unreleased product?

It hurt them and lead to bulldozer and then eventually to zen. We can't know what would have happened if we never had bulldozer. 

There isn't anything to get over, Intel just did illegal things and should have been punished more but because courts are so slow intel made lots of money with little punishment. 

[CarlBar]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

The 7900x was released Q2 2017.  I am not ignoring anything.

 

Yes you are. Q2 2017 was 2 years ago. Thats an eternity in CPU tech. It's the same time frame as the Ryzen 2000 series.

[Blademaster91]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

I've always been the first to point that out, but AMD should have well and truly gotten over it after 19 years. 

 

Also I like the way people dig that up as if it has any effect on the performance or sales of as yet unreleased CPU's.  Why can't people just be happy we have competition and the prices aren't so stupid that only half the population can afford a new PC.  I mean seriously if you can buy a 250GB M.2 for $55 in Australia and you have the choice of 6 or 7 different CPU's (not including the Ryzen 2 about to release and god know what else N and I have in store for us),  why would anyone waste time trying to deride an as yet unreleased product?

I mean AMD really should have, bulldozer was their own fault and it seems like someone has to bring up AMD making a crappy CPU or GPU being Intel or Nvidia's fault which is pretty biased.

36 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

It hurt them and lead to bulldozer and then eventually to zen. We can't know what would have happened if we never had bulldozer.

Except the low IPC cores with shared resources was completely their fault, and AMD lied about the bulldozer core count.  Maybe people can get over it and enjoy that there is strong competition from both sides.