Comet Lake Discussion Thread

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...0k/22.html

The Intel Core i9-10900K is a truly impressive piece of silicon. The company has managed to drag their 14 nm Skylake architecture along since forever, and every single time they managed to add incremental improvements. This time we're getting 10 cores, 20 threads, and higher clock speeds than ever thanks to various nifty boosting algorithms. However, AMD's Zen 2 architecture is strong, and Zen 3 isn't far out, just a few months away. At this point in time, Comet Lake looks like a stopgap that Intel needs to continue shipping product to their customers, while hoping that their 10 nm woes will be fixable, so they can finally innovate again.

We talked about the various boosts, throttles, and limits in this review—these add a certain level of complexity to the processor. Gone are the times where you'd plop in the CPU and it just works. Well, it does work fine, but at lower performance than what would be possible. Comet Lake is the first time I'm seeing a motherboard POST screen prompt "press F3 to ignore Intel's limits for more performance." In the past, these settings were somewhat tucked away, not immediately obvious to the majority of users, but this time it's different. It seems that all parties involved are well aware of the limitations and trying to find a way to work around them without breaking promises and guarantees.
...
The LGA1200 platform brings with it a significant increase in pricing. At this time, the only chipset that's available is Z490, and motherboards are clearly much more expensive than what we've seen in the past for both Intel and AMD. Several new technologies were introduced, like 20 Gbps USB-C and 2.5 Gbps Ethernet, which to the majority of users are as useful as more RGB LEDs. Some motherboards cost up to $1,000, which is plain stupid, don't support this. If you are breaking world records you already have a motherboard sponsor who's giving you these boards for free, and if not, don't even bother and look at options at around $200–$300. Put the saved money to much better use by buying a faster graphics card.

Price-wise, the Core i9-10900K is positioned roughly where I would have expected it. It's sitting at $500, about $100 cheaper than usual, no doubt due to AMD's strong offerings. The AMD Ryzen 9 3900X is currently $430 and a solid choice, with a heatsink included and a lower overall platform cost given you can pair it with B450 and keep overclocking. Expect to save around $120 for a Ryzen 3900X system build; you'll lose some gaming performance, but can make up for that with a faster graphics card. Another alternative is the Core i5-10600K, which is only $265, or roughly half the price of the 10900K—definitely slower in applications, but gaming is close enough. On the other hand, if you are looking to build the fastest-possible gaming system, there is no other choice than the Intel Core i9-10900K.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...0k/22.html

Intel has been under tremendous pressure from AMD in the mid-range segment (around $200–$300). With Zen 2, team red introduced several offerings in this price range, many just $20 apart. All these parts are six-core with twelve threads, the Ryzen 7 3700X is even 8-core, 16-thread. To achieve any sort of competitiveness, Intel had to rethink their policy of reserving HyperThreading to their top SKUs only. This is why, unlike all its predecessors, the Core i5-10600K in this review is a 6c/12t model which had HTT disabled. Intel also pushed the TDP rating from 95 W to 125 W, which created headroom for running higher clock speeds. Last but not least, the full L3 cache is available now, 12 MB instead of 9 MB, to make up lost ground against the 32 MB cache AMD is offering on Ryzen.

When averaged over our application benchmarks, the Core i5-10600K does well, punching far above its weight. It is 6% faster than Core i7-8700K, 5% quicker than Core i7-9700K, and just 8% behind last generation's Core i9-9900K flagship. Only the Core i9-10900K is substantially faster with an almost 30% advantage. Against AMD's lineup, the i5-10600K is surprisingly competitive as well. It's around 5% faster than Ryzen 5 3600 and 3600X, and the eight-core Ryzen 7 3700X is only 8% faster. The differences vary wildly between applications, especially tasks that are easy to parallelize, like rendering, are AMD's strongest suit, and Intel has a clear lead in single and low-threaded apps, which are relevant to the majority of consumers today.

For gaming, the Core i5-10600K is a clear winner. At 1080p, it is faster than any AMD CPU—the Ryzen 9 3900X is beat by 5%. Against Intel's own lineup, the Core i5 does very well too. It is faster than all Gen 8 and Gen 9 processors with the exception of the Core i9-9900KS. The Core i9-10900K is merely 2.5% faster. All these differences are small, barely relevant. As you go up in resolution, the differences shrink even more as the bottleneck moves from the CPU to the GPU. As always, if you are mostly a gamer, definitely try to invest as much money as possible in the GPU, as that's what will be driving your framerates.

Just like in our Core i9-10900K review, power efficiency of the 10600K is lower than its predecessors, which is slightly unexpected. The reason is that Intel is still using the same 14 nanometer production process with exactly the same architecture. Since they are pushing their processors to run at higher clock speeds, they had to bump the voltage slightly to achieve the desired yields. Overall, this results in a loss in energy efficiency of around 10%–20% compared to "Coffee Lake," not a major issue, but definitely worth mentioning. What really surprises me is that Intel did not include Turbo Boost Max 3.0 and Thermal Velocity Boost on the Core i5-10600K. Turbo Boost Max 3.0 is reserved for the Core i7-10700 series and Core i9-10900 series, and TVB only for the Core i9-10900. Yet again we see the typical Intel segmentation pattern here—AMD does the opposite as all their CPUs have all the features, and those little things add up. I have no idea why Intel would not include their two most advanced turbo modes on the Core i5-10600K; it wouldn't have cost them anything, yet provides free performance.
...

Manual overclocking didn't do much for our processor either. Reaching an all-core 4.90 GHz OC on air was easy, but 5.00 GHz was hard, even with a 240 mm AIO. Looking at the increase in power draw and cooling requirements, I don't think either of those scenarios are worth it unless your CPU is sitting at 100% all time time on all cores. It's surprising how overclocking has changed within the last months from "essentially free performance" to "not worth it." Processors from both Intel and AMD are affected. In my opinion, this suggests that CPU makers are tapping more and more into the last bits of headroom left in the product, as they are reaching for the low hanging fruit that is easy to capitalize on. Upping MHz is easier than trying to find some IPC gains in a complete architecture redesign.

Pricing of the Core i5-10600K is good, MUCH better than with previous mid-range CPUs from Intel. The reason is that AMD has strong products in this segment, so Intel was forced to make these concessions. You can now buy a Core i7-8700K or Core i7-9700K equivalent for $100 less than a few weeks ago, and you'll end up with a highly capable gaming rig that's future proof for years to come. What erodes the Core i5-10600K value proposition is that the processor doesn't come with a bundled heatsink—the competition from AMD includes a decent cooler for free, which helps with overall system building cost. The fact that only Z490 is available right now, and that new LGA1200 motherboards are required for Comet Lake, also seriously limits motherboard choices; there is no second-hand availability of these parts, either, though with LGA1200 you'll at least be ready for Intel's next-generation Rocket Lake. While many new motherboards include features like USB-C 20 Gbps and 2.5 Gbps Ethernet, I still feel motherboard pricing has to come down another $20–$40 to be competitive with AMD. Right now, platform cost of Comet Lake is too high, especially when it comes to price-sensitive users. AMD's Ryzen 5 3600 and 3600X are highly competitive, definitely more affordable and only with slightly lower performance, a trade-off that will make sense for a lot of gamers as they can invest the savings in a faster graphics card. If you are looking at building a 1080p gaming rig and feel like a 4c/8t CPU is sufficient, also check out the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X, which is fast enough in games and lets you save another $150 on the CPU, so you can go a tier higher on the GPU. I have a Core i5-10400F on the way, so stay tuned.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...0f/22.html

Averaged over our mix of single/low and multi-threaded applications, the Core i5-10400F ends up pretty much exactly where you would expect it for its MHz ratings. It is clocked considerably lower than the Core i5-10600K (by 11.6%, 100/4300*4800), and average performance in our tests is 11.6% lower, too, a surprising coincidence. I have to admit it felt a lot slower than the Core 10600K when I looked through the benchmarks, but that seems to be a side effect of there being a lot of entries in the bar charts for that range, which makes the performance gap look bigger. Compared to AMD's Ryzen 3600 and 3600X, the 10400F is slightly slower, by 4% and 6% respectively. It depends very much on the workload though, especially tasks that are easy to parallelize, like rendering, are AMD's strongest suit, and Intel has a clear lead in single and low-threaded apps, which are relevant to the majority of consumers today. Performance gains against last generation's Core i5-9400F are impressive because of the added cores and threads; the 10400F enjoys a 15% performance advantage—at similar cost.

For gaming, the Core i5-10400F is a clear winner against AMD. It is faster than any AMD CPU at all resolutions—even the Ryzen 9 3900X is beat by 3%. Against Intel's own lineup, the Core i5 does very well too. It trades blows with last generation's Core i7 and Core i9 models. The Core i9-10900K is merely 5% faster. All these differences are small, barely relevant. As you go up in resolution, the differences shrink even further as the bottleneck moves from the CPU to the GPU. A 6c/12t design is also more future-proof than a 4c/8t CPU, even though I'm personally not a friend of future-proofing as you'll tend to overspend in the long run. As always, if you are mostly a gamer, definitely try to invest as much money as possible in the GPU, as that's what will be driving your framerates. The Core i5-10400F is a great alternative to the i5-10600K—much more affordable, yet with very similar gaming performance, it leaves you with more money for your graphics card.
...
Power efficiency of the Core i5-10400F is much better than with other Comet Lake processors we've tested. One reason is that clock frequencies are much lower, by roughly 500 MHz compared to the Core 10600K and almost 1 GHz compared to the Core 10900K. This move alone brings with it significant power savings because the silicon is now operating closer to its maximum efficiency point. Another factor could be that our previous two reviews (Core 10600K and Core 10900K) were both based on the 10-core silicon, whereas our Core 10400F SRH3D is based on the 6-core design that's possibly even a reused Coffee Lake die. Single-threaded energy efficiency is better than with other Comet Lakes we've tested and slightly worse than what we saw on Coffee Lake. At 1T, energy efficiency is much better than AMD, too. This changes when looking at multi-threaded workloads. Here, Zen 2 shines; the Core i5-10400F is similar to 9th generation processors, roughly 10% more efficient than the other Comet Lake models in our test group. What really surprises me is that Intel did not include Turbo Boost Max 3.0 and Thermal Velocity Boost on the Core i5-10400F. Turbo Boost Max 3.0 is reserved for the Core i7-10700 series and Core i9-10900 series, and TVB only for the Core i9-10900. Yet again we see the typical Intel segmentation pattern here—AMD does the opposite as all their CPUs have all the features, and those little things add up. I have no idea why Intel would not include their two most advanced turbo modes on the Core i5-10400F; it wouldn't have cost them anything, yet provides free performance.
...
With a retail price of around $160, the Core i5-10400F is priced very competitively. It's a little bit cheaper than the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 ($170) and much more affordable than the Ryzen 5 3600X ($205). If you spend most of your time waiting for highly threaded application results, like rendering, a Ryzen will be a slightly better choice. If you're gaming all day, then the 10400F has the upper hand. The differences are quite small either way. Just like AMD, Intel does include a stock cooler with the Core i5-10400F, which definitely helps. The problem is that right now only Z490 motherboards are available for the LGA1200 platform, and these are expensive. While many new motherboards include features like USB-C 20 Gbps and 2.5 Gbps Ethernet, I still feel motherboard pricing has to come down another $20–$40 to be competitive with AMD. At the moment, the platform cost of Comet Lake is too high, AMD definitely has a more cost optimized ecosystem here.

For us, AMD and Intel being neck-to-neck is a great thing as it will result in more innovation and lower prices overall. Ask me now whether I would buy the Ryzen 5 3600 or Core i5-10400F and I wouldn't be able to decide. They are close enough, and the motherboard ecosystem will change soon, too, with the release of AMD B550 and Intel H410. After having thought about it for a little bit longer I feel like I would personally even opt for a Ryzen 3 3300X. It is fast enough for games (I'm not playing 1080p, but 2560x1600), can handle all work-related tasks with ease (I don't do encoding or rendering), and at $120, it's simply too affordable to ignore. I've ordered six more Comet Lake CPUs this morning, so expect more reviews next week.