Core i3 is now a Core i7: Intel increases core counts

[NumLock21]

Not much to go on, but a recently leak images shows the Intel's 10th gen Core i3 10100 of being a quad core with HT, that's 4 cores and 8 threads, just like a Kaby Lake  based version of the Core i7. With Core i3 getting an increase in core counts, it's expected that the rest of the CPUs will also get the same treatment. Intel Core i3 10th gen is said to run on the new LGA1159 or LGA1200 socket.

 

 

 

 

https://wccftech.com/intel-comet-lake-10th-gen-core-i3-10100-cpu-leak-multi-threading-support/

[Sir Asvald]

 

[jiyeon]

I'll believe it when I see it, and even if I see it, what are the chances of it being not a 14nm+++++ referesh?

[NumLock21]

Just now, sowon said:

I'll believe it when I see it, and even if I see it, what are the chances of it being not a 14nm+++++ referesh?

It's says it right there in the picture, 4C/8T.

[jiyeon]

Just now, NumLock21 said:

It's says it right there in the picture, 4C/8T.

My point is I don't like leaks and will only trust the real thing.

[GoldenLag]

If this is priced well. This could be a budget champ.

[NumLock21]

10 minutes ago, sowon said:

My point is I don't like leaks and will only trust the real thing.

The pic is from a benchmarking tool that grabs the info directly from the system, it would be pretty difficult to fool it, unless that person has way too much time on their hands and edited that picture.

[The1Dickens]

I feel like Intel is just loosing control of their own product lines. If the i3 has HT, does that mean the i5 will? Why add HT to all the CPUs suddenly, when just last generation they removed it from all but the new i9 series? What happens to the 4c i5 when you can get a 4c i3, if both have HT? They spent that last few generations flooding the market with products for the only reason of charging obscene prices that now their own product lines are likely going to be cannibalizing each other.

[givingtnt]

[NumLock21]

2 minutes ago, givingtnt said:

Going by your post it seems you're not satisfied with what Intel is doing and, you would rather pay $500+ for a Celeron dual core?

[Princess Luna]

Great, HT should be on every SKU if you ask me, no more product segmentation by disabling a feature that could always be present.

[melete]

42 minutes ago, sowon said:

I'll believe it when I see it, and even if I see it, what are the chances of it being not a 14nm+++++ referesh?

Zero chance. It's a 14nm chip, Intel isn't ready for 10nm desktop parts yet.

[Opencircuit74]

*Looks at my i7-6700k with a measly 4 cores and 8 threads*  "You got this buddy, I don't have the budget to replace you."

[givingtnt]

25 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Going by your post it seems you're not satisfied with what Intel is doing and, you would rather pay $500+ for a Celeron dual core?

I like how people invent ideas that are completely unrelated without even having a clue.

[dizmo]

If that's true (which I don't think it is, I'm going with BS on this one) then I think we'd have a new budget gaming chip king.

It'd be interesting to see how it fares against the Ryzen 5 3600.

 

44 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

I feel like Intel is just loosing control of their own product lines. If the i3 has HT, does that mean the i5 will? Why add HT to all the CPUs suddenly, when just last generation they removed it from all but the new i9 series? What happens to the 4c i5 when you can get a 4c i3, if both have HT? They spent that last few generations flooding the market with products for the only reason of charging obscene prices that now their own product lines are likely going to be cannibalizing each other.

What 4 core i5 do you speak of?

Most people didn't really need hyper threading. I think it made sense to leave it off the chips.

If they're altering all chips in the stack, they're not going to cannibalize their sales...

[melete]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

Most people didn't really need hyper threading. I think it made sense to leave it off the chips.

If they're altering all chips in the stack, they're not going to cannibalize their sales...

Honestly, I disagree on hyperthreading. It's not 2011 anymore, hyperthreading is pretty helpful in some situations. It can be disabled if there's an application where it affects performance negatively. Adding hyperthreading to budget parts (it's already on the Pentiums) would be a good move, imo.

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 minutes ago, melete said:

Honestly, I disagree on hyperthreading. It's not 2011 anymore, hyperthreading is pretty helpful in some situations. It can be disabled if there's an application where it affects performance negatively. Adding hyperthreading to budget parts (it's already on the Pentiums) would be a good move, imo.

Hyperthreading is an interesting thing once you get to the 'real high-power computing' market. For almost any consumer workload, hyper threading is awesome, great and at most performance neutral. 

 

However in the HPC crowd it is extremely easy to find/build workloads that show performance regressions once you load more than the physical core # of threads. 

 

So I guess I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that for scientific computing, it isn't as simple (though ofc, leaving HT enabled, setting priority to physical cores, and not spawning more threads than your physical cores IF you need to is a lot less painful than simply not having it available the rest of the time.)

[Okjoek]

14nm+++ AAAAAHHHHHHHHH

[porina]

HT/SMT is a curious feature. It helps some things a lot (e.g. Cinebench), most things a little, some things not at all or even causes negative effects (e.g. FPU heavy compute cases). In my testing, best real world use case you get 50% more performance from HT/SMT. Cinebench R15 and R20 gain in the ball park of 30%. It's clear from AMD's direction, they want to add even more to the core, performance which might only be usefully extracted at higher thread per core counts. It remains to be seen what Intel are doing. Need a refresher on Sunny Cove changes later. I wonder what would happen if we go the other direction, take out HT/SMT. How much space does that save? Does it allow more real cores?

 

Anyway, we have to go back to Kaby lake for quad cores above i3 level.

i5-7600k, 4c4t, 3.8 base, 4.2 turbo, 

i7-7700k, 4c8t, 4.2 base, 4.8 turbo

 

Going to 8th and 9th gen (Coffee Lake) we have the x350k topping the quad core parts:

i3-8350k, 4c4t, 4.0 base, no turbo

i3-9350k, 4c4t, 4.0 base, 4.6 turbo

 

The one in OP

i3-10100, 4c8t, 3.6 base, unknown turbo

 

The model ending 100 implies it is a low end part. It might be interesting to see if they do an i3-10350k. Could be very interesting if they aim for single core 5.0 turbo.

 

[bcredeur97]

i3-> 4c8t

i5 -> 8c8t
i7 -> 8c16t

I wonder if they'll do this... or do 4/8/12 (all with HT)

[porina]

Just now, bcredeur97 said:

i3-> 4c8t

i5 -> 8c8t
i7 -> 8c16t

I wonder if they'll do this... or do 4/8/12

If we're going to guess:

i3 4c8t

i5 6c12t

i7 8c16t

i9 10c20t

[Bananasplit_00]

I have a feeling this IS a real chip but that it's going to be priced so that it just never makes any sense to buy.

 

Also Intel just can't stop making the I7 6700k huh

[Blademaster91]

33 minutes ago, dizmo said:

If that's true (which I don't think it is, I'm going with BS on this one) then I think we'd have a new budget gaming chip king.

It'd be interesting to see how it fares against the Ryzen 5 3600.

Not on 14+++++++ they can't beat AMD on a budget gaming rig, with a Ryzen 5 3600 you can at least run it on the included stock cooler.

33 minutes ago, dizmo said:

What 4 core i5 do you speak of?

Most people didn't really need hyper threading. I think it made sense to leave it off the chips.

If they're altering all chips in the stack, they're not going to cannibalize their sales...

Those people don't need anything more than a dual core either.

But, since AMD has SMT on almost all their CPU's, Intel would actually have some competition if they would add hyperthreading to even the lower end celeron chips.

[QXC]

Thanks AMD!

I don't think they can price this competitively until AMD runs out of 2000 series (And 1000 series!) stock. The 9100F (4C4T) is going for $90 and that's just not a good buy when $20 more will get you a 2600. Or a 2700 for well under $200.

When those are gone, the sub $200 market will be more manageable. I think they'd need to price this around where the 9100F is now and put an overclockable version around $150 to stand a chance. But by the time intel brings these to market, AMD will probably be close to launching the Zen 2 based APUs, and those might have a huge advantage if intel keeps slicing their IGP off of desktop chips.

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, melete said:

Honestly, I disagree on hyperthreading. It's not 2011 anymore, hyperthreading is pretty helpful in some situations. It can be disabled if there's an application where it affects performance negatively. Adding hyperthreading to budget parts (it's already on the Pentiums) would be a good move, imo.

Some. To most people, it's not. There's no point in adding it to chips where it's addition really won't be noticed.

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

Not on 14+++++++ they can't beat AMD on a budget gaming rig, with a Ryzen 5 3600 you can at least run it on the included stock cooler.

 

Those people don't need anything more than a dual core either.

But, since AMD has SMT on almost all their CPU's, Intel would actually have some competition if they would add hyperthreading to even the lower end celeron chips.

The i3 is priced considerably cheaper than the Ryzen 5. So yes, if they keep the same pricing, it's absolutely possible, even if you have to buy a cheap cooler.