Intel Comet Lake Packs Up to 10 Cores (Updated)

[CarlBar]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

Not in the context of this discussion. 

 

Care to explain how so...

[SADS]

To be honest, I couldn't care if there was 100 cores on a desktop PC.

 

A 'Normal User' (assuming normal office work and home gamers) doesn't have the use for more than 2-8 cores currently. So it's all in the application performance of single to a few threads.

AMD can load a CPU with all the cores and drop the price all they like, but if people are going to get better frame rates, facebooking and .xls/.doc/.ppt for their buck with Intel then that's where they will go most of the time.

Personally I don't give two f**ks who makes my CPU, I check what will give my games the best fps, buy that and then overclock a little bit

[RejZoR]

25 minutes ago, SADS said:

To be honest, I couldn't care if there was 100 cores on a desktop PC.

 

A 'Normal User' (assuming normal office work and home gamers) doesn't have the use for more than 2-8 cores currently. So it's all in the application performance of single to a few threads.

AMD can load a CPU with all the cores and drop the price all they like, but if people are going to get better frame rates, facebooking and .xls/.doc/.ppt for their buck with Intel then that's where they will go most of the time.

Personally I don't give two f**ks who makes my CPU, I check what will give my games the best fps, buy that and then overclock a little bit

Yeah, working in Word and Facebook really requires anything beyond dual core Celeron lol

 

People are sheep and just go with Intel because idiots parrot only Intel. At the moment, AMD just has better products pretty much through entire product lineup except the very absolute extreme for hardcore rich gamers because of higher clocks. But anyone, even power user gamers will play anything butter smooth even with Ryzen 2700X.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

I did say that I think Zen 2 will have better single threaded and multi threaded performance, but that Intel will still have a advantage in AVX and memory speeds. and i don't see that worth any higher price over performance over AMD.

 

 

also a cheap 16c24t CPU also means cheap 4c, 6c, 8c parts also in the product stack. we could see a 4c8t CPU that beats a 7700k for less then $150

But that isn't what you said in the comment I quoted. Here is the part where you say they will have the same single core performance "From where I see things zen2 will have more core, lower heat, same single coreperformance,  better boost tech, less vulnerabilities. The only thing I see intel doing better at is AVX, and memory speed."

 

I was saying that this statement doesn't make sense because single core performance will increase based on all current evidence. 

[ravenshrike]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

It did not lead them to bulldozer,  their design was not influenced by Intel at all.  

Proper initial design budgets would probably caught the flaws inherent in bulldozer. Guess what they didn't have the money for?

[pas008]

6 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Proper initial design budgets would probably caught the flaws inherent in bulldozer. Guess what they didn't have the money for?

but how did they get it for ryzen?

[pas008]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Yeah, working in Word and Facebook really requires anything beyond dual core Celeron lol

 

People are sheep and just go with Intel because idiots parrot only Intel. At the moment, AMD just has better products pretty much through entire product lineup except the very absolute extreme for hardcore rich gamers because of higher clocks. But anyone, even power user gamers will play anything butter smooth even with Ryzen 2700X.

eh no

single core is king for me cad and gaming so I'll stay with intel until amd can surpass in that area or be within margin of error but offer more cores

if they could have clocked higher i'd probably be on 2700x now

[Tamesh16]

On 3/15/2019 at 8:39 PM, firelighter487 said:

i doubt that will be as cheap as mainstream ryzen or low end threadripper... 

 

intel is doomed. 

but they provide the best clock speeds for gAmErZ for that sick FPS gains 

[The Benjamins]

54 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

But that isn't what you said in the comment I quoted. Here is the part where you say they will have the same single core performance "From where I see things zen2 will have more core, lower heat, same single coreperformance,  better boost tech, less vulnerabilities. The only thing I see intel doing better at is AVX, and memory speed."

 

I was saying that this statement doesn't make sense because single core performance will increase based on all current evidence. 

same as intel, so from zen+ to zen2 its better.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

same as intel, so from zen+ to zen2 its better.

Yeah I have no idea what we are even talking about at this point. I commented on what you said that doesn't make sense. You quote me saying that you didn't say that even though you did so at this point it looks like you dont agree with your original comment which makes this whole conversation kinda pointless. 

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yeah I have no idea what we are even talking about at this point. I commented on what you said that doesn't make sense. You quote me saying that you didn't say that even though you did so at this point it looks like you dont agree with your original comment which makes this whole conversation kinda pointless. 

I wasn't that clear.

 

I think Ryzen 3000s (zen2 CPUs) will have similar single threaded performance vs Intels 9900k or 10, but mostly by the fact intel will clock higher while AMD will have better IPC.

 

I am expecting a 15-25% bump in single thread performance from zen+.

 

so with AMDs 16c vs Intel's 10c I expect AMD winning in basically every area besides some AVX workloads and memory speed.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

I wasn't that clear.

 

I think Ryzen 3000s (zen2 CPUs) will have similar single threaded performance vs Intels 9900k or 10, but mostly by the fact intel will clock higher while AMD will have better IPC.

 

I am expecting a 15-25% bump in single thread performance from zen+.

 

so with AMDs 16c vs Intel's 10c I expect AMD winning in basically every area besides some AVX workloads and memory speed.

They should close the gap on avx2 with the additional fp units added with zen 2. 

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

They should close the gap on avx2 with the additional fp units added with zen 2. 

Ya i know that but its not all work loads as far as i know, so I expect intel to still be ahead in that but not as much ahead.

[pas008]

7 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

They should close the gap on avx2 with the additional fp units added with zen 2. 

 

5 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Ya i know that but its not all work loads as far as i know, so I expect intel to still be ahead in that but not as much ahead.

wasnt it estimated 29% gains and even amd even stated not so fast maybe in certain areas?

cant find the news article that was posted here

[RejZoR]

35 minutes ago, pas008 said:

eh no

single core is king for me cad and gaming so I'll stay with intel until amd can surpass in that area or be within margin of error but offer more cores

if they could have clocked higher i'd probably be on 2700x now

Does 4.7GHz vs 4.3GHz really makes that much of a difference? I very much doubt it. But if that's what you need, then yeah, stay with Intel is it still has the clock edge. Which is why I'm hoping R7 3700X rumors of 5GHz boost clock are true.

[Blademaster91]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

Does 4.7GHz vs 4.3GHz really makes that much of a difference? I very much doubt it. But if that's what you need, then yeah, stay with Intel is it still has the clock edge. Which is why I'm hoping R7 3700X rumors of 5GHz boost clock are true.

In applications like CAD being able to run at 4.7 is a huge difference VS. only getting 4.3 maybe with a lucky chip. I'm expecting AMD getting at least 4.5 but I don't have my hopes up too high as 7nm wasn't anything magical for Radeon vii and Zen was designed for efficiency over clock speed.

[RejZoR]

4 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

In applications like CAD being able to run at 4.7 is a huge difference VS. only getting 4.3 maybe with a lucky chip. I'm expecting AMD getting at least 4.5 but I don't have my hopes up too high as 7nm wasn't anything magical for Radeon vii and Zen was designed for efficiency over clock speed.

It depends. Ryzen 1000 and 2000 series were designed with efficiency in mind, thus such node was used. For Ryzen 3000 series, there are rumors they are using a different process that is geared more towards high clocks. Which would kinda make sense using higher clocked chips for mainstream desktops and more efficient huge core count for Threadrippers and EPYCs...

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

Care to explain how so...

what's to explain?  If you look at the overall advancement of CPU tech over the last 20 years (even the last 5 years), the level of expectation that seems to be expected is unreasonable and outside of general consumer demand.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

Proper initial design budgets would probably caught the flaws inherent in bulldozer. Guess what they didn't have the money for?

Their working capitol was high enough at the time to develop bulldozer,  they chose to buy ATI in 2006 for 5.4B.

[CarlBar]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

what's to explain?  If you look at the overall advancement of CPU tech over the last 20 years (even the last 5 years), the level of expectation that seems to be expected is unreasonable and outside of general consumer demand.

 

 

And again what does any of that have to do with what's being discussed, (how revolutionary the technology being demonstrated in a high clock 10 core part is)? You seem to be arguing a completely different point here to the one i was replying to in the first place.

 

[Zeeus]

On 3/18/2019 at 8:11 AM, Blademaster91 said:

I agree, I'd  much rather Intel just sell the 10 core as 9th gen and make it compatible with existing Z390 boards. I mean most decent Z390 boards should have plenty of VRM's for 2 more cores.

The Intel chips might be a worse pick than zen 2 but it probably wouldn't be much different than 9900k vs. 2700x, 9900k being better for gaming while 2700x is better for tasks that can take advantage of 8 cores.

lmao asking intel to essentially NOT be intel. Good luck lel

[mr moose]

On 3/20/2019 at 2:08 PM, CarlBar said:

 

 

 You seem to be arguing a completely different point here to the one i was replying to in the first place.

 

I have an idea, don't reply to a discussion half way through with a different context in mind and then expect me to bend my previous discussion to address it.

[Blademaster91]

8 hours ago, Zeeus said:

lmao asking intel to essentially NOT be intel. Good luck lel

It wouldn't be any different than the 9th gen being compatible with 8th gen boards. And people always shit on Intel for changing platforms and adding features, which doesn't really matter unless you constantly upgrade.

[thorhammerz]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

And people always shit on Intel for changing platforms and adding features, which doesn't really matter unless you constantly upgrade.

Consider the social platform (and by extension, the audience and its demographics) this thread/discussion is living in , where spending an extra $200 every 1-2 years on a motherboard can send some into a state of palpable consternation.

[Dylanc1500]

2 hours ago, thorhammerz said:

Consider the social platform (and by extension, the audience and its demographics) this thread/discussion is living in , where spending an extra $200 every 1-2 years on a motherboard can send some into a state of palpable consternation.

I accidentally read that as constipation, not consternation. It kind of changed the meaning a bit.