Comet Lake Discussion Thread

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...ics-coffee

It's increasingly looking like Intel's desktop Comet Lake processors, like the mobile chips, will use the same iGPU found in Coffee Lake CPUs.

HP's document for the 288 Pro G6 Microtower PC [PDF] also shows specifications for various 10th Generation Comet Lake processors, as potted by hardware leaker @momomo_us. Given the device's reduced footprint, it's leveraging Intel's 65W models, including the i7-10700, i5-10400, i3-10100 and Celeron and Pentium Gold parts from the same Comet Lake party.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/265467/intel...ore-counts

Marketing materials of Intel's upcoming 10th generation Core "Comet Lake-S" desktop processors leaked to the web confirm the lineup's core-counts. The series will be led by 10-core/20-thread Core i9 processors, with Thermal Velocity Boost frequencies of up to 5.30 GHz. The Core i7 series will consist of 8-core/16-thread processors, with up to 5.10 GHz TVB frequencies. The Core i5 series gets its biggest shot in the arm, with the introduction of HyperThreading for the first time in 8 generations (the last Core i5 desktop processors with HTT were dual-core first-generation Core chips). The 10th gen Core i5 series chips are 6-core/12-thread, with clock-speeds running up to 4.80 GHz.
...
Intel's ability to price the i9-10900K north of $500 will be severely restricted by AMD's positioning of the Ryzen 9 3900X, given that the 12-core chip has sold for around $450 in more than one seasonal sale. A bill-of-materials analysis from February suggests that AMD has given itself "massive" cost-cutting headroom with its chiplet approach, and can aggressively cut prices of the 3900X to compete with the i9-10900K. The same goes for its Ryzen 7 3800X and Ryzen 5 3600X.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/265511/intel...lmost-june

Intel has reportedly split the launch of its upcoming 10th generation Core "Comet Lake-S" processor into two unusually distant dates, April 30 and May 27, 2020. It was earlier believed that the processors would be announced on April 30, with availability "shortly after," (read: within 10-14 days of launch). According to a WCCFTech report, the launch is planned such that April 30 will only see product announcements - the processors themselves, motherboards based on Intel 400-series chipset, and OEM desktops based on the platform. Later on May 29, the processors, desktops based on them, and DIY motherboards, are expected to be available in the retail channel. May 27 will also be the date when reviews of the processors and motherboards go live.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...lease-date

In other news, DigiTimes' sources also said that Intel will finally announce its 10th Generation Comet Lake-S desktop processors and corresponding 400-series chipsets "at the end of April." The date falls in line with a previous claim suggesting April 30 as the potential Comet Lake launch day.

Motherboard deployment will reportedly carry out in in two phases. The high-end Z490 motherboards are scheduled to arrive in the middle of May, while the budget-oriented H470 and B460 motherboards won't land until the end of May, DigiTimes said.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/266023/intel...-and-3600x

The week has begun with sporadic leaks about Intel's upcoming 10th generation Core "Comet Lake-S" desktop processor family, be it pictures of various socket LGA1200 motherboards, or leaked performance scores. Thai PC enthusiast TUM_APISAK posted links to Geekbench V4 entries of a handful 10th gen Core processors. These include the Core i7-10700K (8-core/16-thread), and the Core i5-10600K (6-core/12-thread). Comparisons with incumbent AMD offerings are inescapable. The i7-10700K locks horns with the Ryzen 7 3800X, while the i5-10600K takes the battle to the Ryzen 5 3600X.

The Core i7-10700K scores 34133 points in the multi-core test, and 5989 in the single-core one. The i5-10600K, on the other hand, puts out 28523 points in the multi-threaded test, and 6081 points in the single-core test. Both scores appear to be a single-digit percentage ahead of the AMD rivals in the multi-threaded test. The Intel chips appear to offer slightly better less-parallelized performance owing to higher boost frequencies for single-threaded or less parallelized workloads. These include an impressive 5.10 GHz max boost frequency for the i7-10700K, and 4.80 GHz for the i5-10600K. APISAK also posted scores of the iGPU-disabled Core i5-10600KF, which is roughly on par with the i5-10600K since it's basically the same chip with its eyes poked out.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gigaby...ds-pcie-40

News outlets VideoCardz and BenchLife have leaked images for various upcoming Z490 motherboards from Gigabyte. More importantly, the evidence suggests that while the motherboards support the PCIe 4.0 interface with Intel chips, the functionality isn't accessible yet.

Intel's original plan was to finally bring PCIe 4.0 support on this generation of motherboards. Sadly, the chipmaker ran into some problems with the Comet Lake chipset and just decided to abandon the idea completely.
...
At any rate, it doesn't seem wise to jump on the Z490 Comet Lake bandwagon. On the motherboard side, you're paying extra for a feature that isn't readily available. On the processor side, you'll need to upgrade to a new processor to enjoy a feature that you already paid for, whether that be in the next six months or a year.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...ctionality

VideoCardz has shared photographs of Maxsun's B460 iCraft Gaming Endless (MS-iCraft B460M) motherboard. More importantly, the leaked marketing materials suggest that Intel might enable overclocking on the upcoming B460 motherboards.

https://www.techpowerup.com/266291/intel...x-and-3100

Intel is giving finishing touches to its 10th generation Core i3 desktop processors based on the "Comet Lake" microarchitecture. These upcoming socket LGA1200 processors are 4-core/8-thread, and see the debut of HyperThreading and Turbo Boost technologies to the Core i3 desktop processor brand extension. The i3-10100 is an entry-level part clocked at 3.60 GHz with 4.30 GHz boost; while the i3-10300 is clocked higher with 3.70 GHz nominal and 4.40 GHz boost frequency. The TDP of both parts is rated at 65 W. Besides clock speeds, the two parts are differentiated with L3 cache amount, with the i3-10100 featuring 6 MB, and the i3-10300 featuring 8 MB. Cinebench R20 scores of the two chips were leaked to the web by CPU-Monkey.

The i3-10100 reportedly scores 448 points in the single-thread, and 2284 points in the multi-threaded test. The i3-10300, on the other hand, scores 457 points in the single-threaded test, and 2330 points in the multi-threaded test. The same source also claims to have tested the upcoming 3rd generation AMD Ryzen 3 "Matisse" 4-core/8-thread processor series, with the Ryzen 3 3100 scoring 444 points single-thread and 2154 points multi-threaded; and the Ryzen 3 3300X scoring 491 points single-thread, and 2341 points multi-threaded. If these scores hold true, it's game on between the two companies' entry-level chips.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/266365/intel...ion-leaked

Ahead of its launch, tech publication HD Tecnologia posted the press-deck of Intel's 10th generation Core "Comet Lake-S" desktop processor series, as its launch is imminent (30th April, according to the slides). Right upfront, we see Intel's new retail packaging for the flagship Core i9 parts. Gone is the large acrylic dodecahedron, and in its place is a conventional paperboard-looking cuboidal box with a large triangular cutout window (probably made of LDPE) on the front face, which reveals the processor inside.

The next slide reveals all that's new with the 10th generation Core processor family, starting with clock speeds of up to 5.30 GHz, the desktop debut of Intel's Thermal Velocity Boost technology, HyperThreading being enabled across the board (Core i9 thru Core i3), native support for DDR4-2933, new CPU- and memory-overclocking features, and new platform I/O through the 400-series chipset. Next up, we see overclocker-relevant new features. Apparently, these processors allow you to toggle HyperThreading on a per-core basis. Until now, you could toggle HTT only across all cores. Next up, is "overclocking" for the PCI-Express x16 link (PEG) and DMI chipset bus. There are improved V/F curve controls with this generation. Intel is preparing to announce updated XTU and Performance Maximizer utilities. There are some packaging-level refinements, too, such as a physically thinner die (Z-height), making way for a thicker IHS. The internal TIM is still solder. We now move on to the actual SKUs.
...
The pricing is particularly interesting. The new 10-core flagship Core i9-10900K launches at roughly the same price as the i9-9900K (launch price). The i7-10700K brings i9-9900K levels of performance at prices resembling those of the i7-9700K at launch (around $280). The i5-10600K brings i7-8700K levels of performance at prices similar to the i5-9600K. There are several SKUs detailed in the slides, the one that has our most attention is the i5-10400F (6-core/12-thread under $160). The prices in the slides could be for 1,000-unit tray quantities, retail prices could differ.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/30...hz-10c-20t

The existence and imminent launch of Comet Lake, Intel’s first 10th Generation mainstream desktop CPU family, has been an open secret for several months. But Intel has stayed quiet about the specs and capabilities of the family even as rumors mounted. Now the company is finally talking about the CPUs it will launch later in May. There are some good reasons for Intel enthusiasts to be excited, but we’ve definitely got questions heading into the launch.

Let’s hit the high points first: As anticipated, the Comet Lake S 10th Generation Core desktop CPU family hauls out all the stops in an effort to push frequencies and core counts a little higher. The new Core i9-10900K is a 10C/20T CPU with a boost clock of up to 5.3GHz. That’s a 1.06x increase in top-line clock over the 9900K combined with a 1.25x core count improvement. That’s not an unreasonable level of improvement over the Core i9-9900K given that both are 14nm CPUs.
...
There are several topics Intel hasn’t clarified and didn’t answer questions about during the conference call. No new details about the Z490 chipset or the status of its PCIe 4.0 support were given, even though multiple motherboard OEMs are claiming support for that standard is baked into upcoming boards. There have been rumors of a flaw in the 2.5G Ethernet controller that haven’t been clarified.
...
Comet Lake and LGA1200 will definitely deliver some improvements over 9th Gen, but we want to see exactly how these chips and platforms compare before we say more. One thing we are sure of — anyone planning to play at the top of the Comet Lake stack will want a high-end CPU cooler to make certain they squeeze every last bit of performance out of the chip.

https://www.techpowerup.com/266442/core-...son-leaked

Ahead of its launch a leaked ASUS ROG marketing slide reveals Cinebench R15 performance comparisons between the new Intel Core i9-10900K and AMD's current MSDT flagship part, the Ryzen 9 3950X. The graphs also include Intel's previous gen flagship, the i9-9900K, which should provide a reasonable indication of where the new Core i7-10700K performance could land.

In the single-threaded Cinebench R15 test, the Core i9-10900K scores 222 points, while the 3950X scores 213, which is a 4.22% lead for the new Intel flagship over AMD's. The i9-9900K is 2.81% faster than the 3950X in the same test. The landscape changes completely with multi-thread. Armed with 16 cores and 32 threads, the 3950X tests 48.61% faster than the i9-10900K, and a whopping 94.14% faster than the i9-9900K, which means the 3950X should land around 90% (±5%) faster than the i7-10700K. Core i9-10900K vs. Ryzen 9 3900X should make for a fascinating contest.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/asrock...2vo-10-pin

A giant wave of Z490 motherboards flooded headlines yesterday, accompanying Intel's 10th Generation Comet Lake-S CPU launch. It's no wonder that motherboards, such as the Z490 Phantom Gaming 4SR, went unnoticed. But as spotted by hardware detective @KOMACHI_ENSAKA, ASRock's Z490 Phantom Gaming 4SR comes with Intel's ATX12VO power connector.

The ATX12VO specification is Intel's invention to deviate from the standard 24-pin ATX power connector that has been with us for ages. Basically, Intel's connector removes the 3.3V and 5V rails and only retains the 12V rail. The new standard reduces the bulky 24-pin connector to just a 10-pin connector.

ASRock didn't touch the 8-pin EPS power connector. Although the motherboard manufacturer has sacrificed the 24-pin power connector, there are still a bunch of components that still depend on the 5V rail, and a handful need 3.3V. As such, ASRock placed two 4-pin power connectors on the top right corner of the motherboard that should be used to power SATA drives.

There's also a 6-pin PCIe power connector, which we suspect is there to feed graphics cards in a multi-GPU setup.

https://www.techpowerup.com/266489/asroc...-lake-cpus

Historically, Intel has separated its processors and chipsets that accompany them to overclockable and non-overclockable ones. That means that only the "K" CPUs can be overclocked. With the latest generation, only some parts of the lineup are K CPUs, like the Core i9-10900K, i7-10700K, i5-10600K, etc. Those processors could only be overclocked one put in motherboards based on "Z" chipset, like Z390 and Z490. However, it seems like ASRock has developed a new technology that will overclock non-K CPUs on non-Z motherboards, which is quite impressive.

Called the Base Frequency Boost (BFB) technology, it will allow for overclocking the non-K processors on chipsets like B460 and H470. How will that work you might wonder? Well, ASRock will take the TDP of the CPUs and make it run in the PL1 mode, which increases the processor TDP form 65 W and turns it into a 125 W TDP beast. This will, of course, be user selective and case dependent, meaning that if your cooling system can not handle that much heat coming out from the overclocked processors, it is unlikely that they will reach the peak clocks ASRock can target. You can check out the slide below:

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/266589/core-...n-surfaces

AMD's timely announcement of the Ryzen 3 "Matisse" processor series could stir things up in the entry-level as Intel kitted its 10th generation Core i3 processors as 4-core/8-thread. Last week, a head-to-head Cinebench comparison between the i3-10300 and 3300X ensued, and today we have a 3DMark Firestrike and Time Spy comparison between their smaller siblings, the i3-10100 and the 3100, courtesy of Thai PC enthusiast TUM_APISAK. The two were benchmarked on Time Spy and Fire Strike on otherwise constant hardware: an RTX 2060 graphics card, 16 GB of memory, and a 1 TB Samsung 970 EVO SSD.

With Fire Strike, the 3100-powered machine leads in overall 3DMark score (by 0.31%), CPU-dependent Physics score (by 13.7%), and the Physics test. The i3-10100 is ahead by 1.4% in the Graphics score thanks to a 1.6% lead in graphics test 1, and 1.4% lead in graphics test 2. Over to the more advanced Time Spy test, which uses the DirectX 12 API that better leverages multi-core CPUs, we see the Ryzen 3 3100 post a 0.63% higher overall score, 1.5% higher CPU score; while the i3-10100 powered machines post within 1% higher graphics score. These numbers may suggest that the i3-10100 and the 3100 are within striking distance of each other and that either is a good pick for gamers, until you look at pricing. Intel's official pricing for the i3-10100 is $122 (per chip in 1,000-unit tray), whereas AMD lists the SEP price of the Ryzen 3 3100 at $99 (the Intel chip is at least 22% pricier), giving AMD a vast price-performance advantage that's hard to ignore, more so when you take into account value additions such as an unlocked multiplier and PCIe gen 4.0.

https://www.techpowerup.com/266608/intel...p-revealed

Internal documents of Intel's 10th generation Core "Comet Lake" processor family, leaked by momomo_us, reveal the CPUID, TDP, and configurable-TDP values of the various desktop SKUs. Intel broadly classifies Comet Lake by core-count and companion iGPU tier. The 10-core Comet Lake die ships with 125 W, 65 W, and 35 W TDP, for the K/KF, locked, and T-SKUs, respectively.

https://www.techpowerup.com/266585/intel...able-first

Intel launched its 10th generation Core desktop processor family last week, with the announcement of a staggering 22 SKUs (32 if you count energy-efficient T-SKUs). This got us wondering if some of the deliciously-priced SKUs such as the $157 6-core/12-thread Core i5-10400F would be available in the first wave. Turns out, it might not.

Apparently, Intel has a split launch schedule for these processors, but in the very first wave, only the unlocked K-SKUs will be available in the market. These would include the 6-core/12-thread Core i5-10600K at $262 (1k-unit tray pricing), the 8-core/16-thread Core i7-10700K at $374, and the flagship 10-core/20-thread Core i9-10900K at $488). The three SKUs will be available in markets within May 2020.

Update May 4th: Intel confirmed that the KF-SKUs will also be part of the first wave.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/z490-m...comet-lake

Last week, Intel finally announced its long-awaited 10th Generation Comet Lake-S processors for desktops. Although you can't pre-order the CPUs yet, the Z490 motherboards are up for pre-order today.

https://www.techpowerup.com/266741/msi-s...ke-binning

MSI in its weekly "MSI Insider" livestream shared fascinating insights into the way Intel appears to be sorting out its "Comet Lake" silicon across the various brand extensions of its 10th generation Core desktop processors. Its tech leads Eric Van Beurden and Michiel Berkhout spoke at length about MSI's own evaluation of the trays of Core i5-10600K/KF, i7-10700K/KF, and i9-10900K/KF chips it received (the only unlocked chips across the lineup), which they used as empirical evidence to suggest a model for Intel's binning.
...
In its testing, MSI found that only 2% of the i5-10600K/KF chips went above and beyond Intel specifications, qualifying for Level A. For the i7-10700K/KF, this number stands at only 5%. It's only with the i9-10900K/KF that the number shoots up to 27%. So your chances of getting a golden i5-10600K/KF or i7-10700K/KF are rather slim.

Moving on, a majority of both the i5-10600K/KF and i7-10700K/KF overclock within Intel specifications, with 52% of the i5-10600K/KF qualifying for Level B, and 58% of the i7-10700K/KF. 35% of the i9-10900K/KF qualify for this bin. Lastly, nearly 1/3rd of all three chips fall below Intel specifications, ending up in Level C. That's 31% of the i5-10600K/KF, 32% of the i7-10700K/KF, and 27% of the i9-10900K/KF.

The distribution of the three bins is a lot more uniform with the i9-10900K/KF than it is with the i7-10700K/KF and the i5-10600K/KF, and so MSI suggests that you have a much better chance of landing a good Level B or great Level A chip with the i9-10900K/KF. Level C taking up nearly 1/3rd of all three chips is a cause for concern indeed.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...tress-test

A Chinese Weibo user has pushed a flagship Intel Comet Lake-S CPU to its limits. The tester cooked an Intel COre i9-10900K for a little over 47 minutes with its power draw and maximum temperatures hitting 235W and 93 degrees Celsius (199.4 degrees Fahrenheit), respectively.
...
When you have a processor pulling over 200W of power, the amount of generated heat is going to be off the charts. The tester ran the i9-10900K inside Lenovo's latest Savior Blade 9000K, which is a pre-built machine exclusive to the Chinese market. A Legion-branded 240mm AIO liquid cooler was responsible for keeping the i9-10900K's temperatures in check.
...
If cooling was an important factor before, it's even more crucial with Intel's Comet Lake-S processors.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/leaked...en-9-3900x

Two weeks ago, video channel TecLab on Bilibili leaked performance figures for the upcoming Intel Core i5-10400, comparing its performance to its predecessor. Now, the channel has done it again, this time outing an early review of the powerful, range-topping Comet Lake-S chip: the Intel Core i9-10900K.

The leaker, who once again uses a disguise to maintain anonymity, posted a video review pitting Intel's latest chip against competing AMD models. In the tests, the leaker compares the Intel Core i9-10900K to AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X and 3950X chips.
...
The test results are probably not a huge surprise; the AMD chips excel in threaded applications, and the 10-core Intel Core i9-10900K can't match the 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X in those types of applications.

However, despite packing two fewer cores, the Intel Core i9-10900K does have its sights on AMD's 12-core 3900X. Intel's Core i9-10900K has hyperthreading, so it doesn't lose out there. Instead, it makes up for its core-count disadvantage with very high boost frequencies of up to 5.3 GHz.

The Intel chip also takes the edge on its competitors in lightly-threaded tasks. Thanks to its high performance per individual core, the Intel Core i9-10900K also excels in gaming. Of course, it's relevant to note that gaming tests are often done at lower resolutions than you'll play with in practice and with very powerful GPUs, as high framerates tax the CPU most.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/267399/intel...rt-selling

Intel's 10th generation Core desktop processors started selling as review and retail embargoes lifted earlier today. Despite supply chain constraints, prices of the chips appear surprisingly tame, and close to Intel's announced prices. The retail Core i9-10900K is priced at USD $529 on Newegg, before it quickly ran out of stock. The Core i7-10700K is listed at $409. The mid-range Core i5-10400 is going for $195 (all USD prices without taxes). Across the pond, the i9-10900K is listed for €589, the i9-10900KF for €549, the i7-10700K for €449, the i5-10600K for €309, and the i5-10400F for €183 (all EUR prices inclusive of taxes). Retailers also began shipping socket LGA1200 motherboards for which they started taking pre-orders earlier this month.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/int...u-review/7

Spurred by AMD's unending Ryzen onslaught and its own inability to move forward to a smaller process node and more efficient architecture for the desktop, Intel went for broke with the Core i9-10900K to retain its gaming performance crown.

In fact, the Core i9-10900K is exactly what we would expect from an overclocked 10-core 14nm Skylake derivative: Exceptional performance in gaming and lightly-threaded workloads, competitive performance in multi-threaded work, and downright ugly power consumption and thermal output.
...
If you choose to go the extreme performance route with the 10900K, you'll need to invest in a capable watercooling solution and a premium motherboard to unlock the full performance. The intense power consumption, which topped 320W during stress tests at stock settings, will limit performance tremendously if not adequately cooled, not to mention potentially reduce processor longevity. That makes for a pricey build.

In contrast, the Ryzen 9 3900X comes with a bundled cooler and can be overclocked on less-expensive platforms, while Intel still restricts overclocking to pricey Z-series motherboards. Speaking of which, overclocking the Core i9-10900K is extremely limited with conventional cooling and can result in less performance in some lightly-threaded applications, making it a dubious pursuit.

If you are dead set on the best single-threaded and gaming performance available, regardless of power consumption, heat, and cost, the Core i9-10900K is your chip. However, despite the Core i9-10900K's excellent performance, the slim leads in several key areas won't be perceptible to most users.

Considering the excessive power consumption, heat generation, requirement for pricey supporting components, and lack of PCIe 4.0, most enthusiasts are better served with less exotic alternatives.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/31...ds-matisse

The Core i9-10900K is a step forward for Intel. At $488, it’s a considerably better buy than the Core i9-9900K, which was itself an excellent CPU. Its single-threaded performance is excellent and it’s capable of punching above its weight class on occasion. Skylake was an excellent CPU architecture in 2015 and it remains an excellent architecture in 2020.

And yet, for all these points — and for the first time, arguably, since Ryzen launched — Intel cannot claim to have reclaimed the overall pole position the way it could with the Core i7-8700K or Core i9-9900K when those parts debuted. I expect the Core i9-10900K to retain leadership in areas where Intel has been leading and to compete more effectively with the 3900X than its predecessor, but as far as matching or leading AMD’s 12-core CPU? On the whole, it doesn’t. And while neither Intel nor AMD have made promises about future motherboard support beyond the parts they plan to launch next, if you had to bet on which company would offer support for a wider range of CPU cores over a longer period of time, you’d bet on AMD. Even assuming that our gaming numbers can be increased, this is a CPU that’s going to appeal to a very specific segment.

The bottom line is this: The Core i9-10900K is a powerful, fast CPU, and an illustration of how little gas Skylake and Intel’s 14nm collectively have left in the tank. Rocket Lake, when and if it arrives, will supposedly give us new architectural improvements that may breathe some new life into the node, but the 10900K illustrates that Skylake has taken Intel as far as it can.

Comet Lake may paint a target on AMD’s Matisse, but it doesn’t topple its rival — and while it certainly improves Intel’s overall position, it doesn’t do so to the same degree as the 9900K and 8700K did when they arrived, relative to AMD.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ry...-deal-sale

Today, we dropped our Intel Core i9-10900K review, providing a look at how Comet Lake-S performs. At the same time, the older, but still very competitive, AMD Ryzen 9 3900X has gotten a price drop and is now selling for just $410 on Amazon.

[RolloTheGreat]

It's interesting how intel is starting to fall behind AMD.

Never thought I'd see that in the Beefdozer days.

Saw a leak yesterday of an upcoming AMD chip winning single thread against intel at lower frequency.

When is the last time that happened?

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...cking-asus

Asus has introduced its Asus Performance Enhancement (APE) feature for a selected bunch of Intel 400-series, non-Z motherboards. As reported by BenchLife, the feature is available through a new firmware.

Asus Performance Enhancement is comparable to ASRock's Base Frequency Boost (BFB) that basically overrides a 10th Generation Comet Lake CPUs' PL1 (power level 1) to a higher figure than Intel's predefined value. However, the feature shouldn't be confused with BCLK overclocking, since Intel still locks down the multiplier in non-K chips.

With APE, a locked Comet Lake processor will flaunt higher sustained clock speeds but still run within Intel's parameters, which is likely the reason why Intel has no problem with it. The similarity between APE and BFB is evident; however, ASRock is more generous in terms of support. Asus enables its solution on the B460 and H470 motherboards, whereas ASRock brings support back to Z390 and B365 offerings as well.

https://www.techpowerup.com/267757/psa-t...-with-stim

There are apparently two steppings of the 10th generation Intel Core i5 desktop processor in circulation, and the two have major physical differences, even if their specifications are identical per SKU. These are Q0 and G1. The Q0 stepping of the 10th gen Core i5 is based on the 10-core variant of "Comet Lake-S" silicon, the 200-odd mm² die, which comes with Intel's die-thinning innovation, and more importantly, soldered thermal interface material (STIM). For these chips, four cores on the 10-core die are disabled by Intel to carve out the 6-core/12-thread Core i5 SKU. The G1 stepping, on the other hand, is based on the 6-core variant of "Comet Lake-S," which is similar in design to the 6-core "Coffee Lake" die. The G1-stepping chips lack STIM, and use a thermal paste.

What's more, Q0 and G1 steppings have different SPEC codes. For the Core i5-10400F, the Q0 stepping variant's SPEC code is "SRH79" and the G1 stepping variant's code is "SRH3D." The underside of the processor's package looks different between the two steppings (pictured below). You won't be able to tell the underside of the package through the little window in your processor's retail package, but the SPEC code is printed on the IHS. There's no geographic marker as to which stepping is found in what particular market. Both steppings appear to be distributed uniformly, wherever available. Since Intel is using this stepping-level differentiation only among non-K SKUs, we don't expect the two to have any different performance, but possibly different thermals.

[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.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...-packaging

Intel posted a product change notice (PCN) yesterday announcing that it is axing its specialty dodecahedron packaging for its Core i9-9900K processor. Intel's fancy translucent twelve-sided package debuted with the Core i9-9900K as a response to AMD's elaborate packaging that comes with its Threadripper processors, and like those chips, it didn't have to make room for a bundled cooler, as Intel doesn't include one.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...00/22.html

Averaged over our mix of single/low and multi-threaded applications, the Core i3-10100 shows large gains over the Core i3-9100F. With a 17% lead, the difference is significant, higher than what we got in previous releases, generation over generation. AMD's Ryzen 3 3300X beats the Core i3-10100 by around 9%, and the much more affordable Ryzen 3 3100 is only 3% behind. We reviewed the Core i5-10400F last week; thanks to its six-core/twelve-thread design, it is 22% faster than the Core i3-10100. Overall, the Core i3-10100 offers very decent performance for applications that often rivals that of the more powerful last-generation Ryzen 5/Core i5 models. Now, if you are rendering or encoding video all day, you should of course definitely look at a stronger processor, especially when you make more money the shorter your wait. For the general consumer who browses the Internet and uses Office, or conducts other such tasks, the Core i3-10100 is perfectly sufficient.

When it comes to gaming, the Core i3-10100 does fine. It trades blows with last generation's Core i5 models and is 10% faster at 1080p than the Core i3-9100F. Against AMD Ryzen it does even better, basically matches the Ryzen 5 3600X, and is just a few percentage points behind the Ryzen 9 3900X. The differences are really small when it comes to gaming though, especially at higher resolutions like 1440p and 4K, because the bottleneck shifts to the graphics card and the CPU no longer is the limiting factor. That's why it's a good idea to save as much as possible on the processor, which frees up budget to buy a faster GPU. If you absolutely want to future-proof, a six-core CPU for gaming could be the better choice, but for now, a 4-core/8-thread processor is perfectly sufficient and the wiser investment. AMD's Ryzen 3 3300X is a strong alternative though, especially if you are looking for a more balanced mix between application performance and games and want to save a buck or two.
...
BCLK overclocking adds around 2–3 % real-life performance, which is probably not worth the trouble. AMD's Ryzen 3 3000 series CPUs have unlocked multipliers. Overclocking on the Ryzen 3 3100 yields almost 10%, so it is definitely worth playing with; the Ryzen 3 3300X on the other hand has no headroom. In this Core i3-10100 review, we also tested "stock" performance vs. "Max Turbo," which is the processor running with all its power limits removed. On the Core i3-10100, these are PL1 = 65 W and PL2 = 90 W. If you scan through the charts, you'll see that there's almost no difference between both results. The reason is that the Core i3-10100 doesn't really hit those power limits. If you look at the power consumption page, even the Prime95 stress test only shows minimal differences, so not even that can drive power consumption high enough. This is good news for motherboard choice, as you don't need a board with extra strong VRM, or other fancy tweaking ability. Just pair the CPU with the cheapest board you can find and you'll be good to go.
...
With a retail price of around $130, the Core i3-10100 is a solid successor to the Core i3-9100, but it's under heavy pressure from AMD's recent Ryzen 3 releases. The Ryzen 3 3100 only costs $100 and is not much slower. The $120 Ryzen 3 3300X offers better application performance, and gaming FPS is "close enough." When the Core i3-10100 is installed on a lower-cost motherboard, the 2666 MHz memory penalty causes gaming performance to fall behind even the Ryzen 3 3300X. Unless Intel can drop the price of the Core i3-10100 to around $100, AMD Ryzen is the better option. The only exception is if you do not plan on using a discrete graphics card. Here, the Core i3-10100 is an excellent choice for price/performance because its integrated graphics are good enough for all desktop work and the Quick Sync video engine accelerates video encoding in many applications. AMD Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X lack any sort of integrated graphics, so they must be paired with a graphics card, which makes sense for gaming, but is a waste of money for office and non-gaming consumer systems. AMD does have Ryzen APUs with integrated graphics, but these are quite slow because they are not based on the latest Zen 2 architecture.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...00/22.html

Things are different once you start unlocking the power limit. Intel intended for the Core i7-10700 to operate at 65 W, which is simply way too low for this 8-core/16-thread processor. In order to achieve their 65 W TDP promise, Intel has set the PL1 power limit to 65 W. For short, in bursty workloads the PL2 power limit will override PL1 for a few seconds as it is set at a generous 224 W. Manually adjusting the power limit is possible on all multiplier-locked "Comet Lake" processors; on all motherboards, with all chipsets. While in previous reviews, we saw very little benefit from playing with those power limits, this capability has turned into a wonderful new overclocking knob for the Core i7-10700.

Our "Max Turbo" benchmark run shows impressive results. In applications that scale across all cores the gains are up to 30% (!!); that's better overclocking potential than I've seen in a decade, even on overclocker-friendly processors. Unlike traditional overclocking, unlocking the power limit is guaranteed to leave the processor in a 100% stable configuration because it will continue to use the factory-programmed boost algorithms and voltage-frequency tables—it just works. Unlocking the power limit is best for applications like rendering, encoding, science, and simulation. For low-threaded applications, it makes no significant difference because with those, the power limit is hit rarely, so removing it brings no improvements. Gaming is similar—while it surely doesn't hurt to have a lot of cores available, these are usually only lightly loaded because the bottleneck is at the GPU. At the scientifically important resolution of 720p, we can clearly see that unlocking the power limits helps in some games.

Dialing the power limit up to the maximum has some drawbacks, though. First of all, temperatures will go up. Previously, the processor operated at 65 W, and now, it runs closer to 150 W, even 180 W with Prime95. This energy is converted into heat, which the heatsink has to transport away from the CPU surface. We measured an increase in temperatures from 43°C to 76°C—same Noctua cooler, same fan settings, just with the power limit adjusted. The Core i7-10700 comes bundled with the Intel standard stock heatsink—it won't be powerful enough for the fully unlocked processor. The good thing is that the power limit settings are very fine-grained, in 1 W steps, so you can dial in exactly the power output your cooling solution can handle, and the processor's boost and turbo algorithms will take care of the rest. The beauty of this solution is that you get to keep the boost ladder and all power savings mechanisms at low thread counts. With multiplier-based overclocking, you usually force the CPU to xxxx MHz all the time, losing a lot of power efficiency in the process.

Multi-threaded power efficiency with the power limits unlocked isn't good. It's around 20% lower than with the Core i9-10900K, which disappointed with efficiency, too. Against the Core i5-10600K, the loss in efficiency is 10%. I'm sure there's some headroom for optimizations because you can always lower the voltage a bit through the CPU Voltage Offset option in the BIOS if you want to mess with that. At stock, the Core i7-10700 is very power efficient, though. In our multi-threaded energy efficiency test, which the Zen 2 Ryzens clearly dominate, the Core i7-10700 manages to sneak into 4th place, which is better than the Ryzen 5 3600 and 3600X and right behind the 3900 and 3700X.
...
Looking back at the last paragraphs, it seems the Core i7-10700 ends up as a jack of all trades, but master of none despite its huge overclocking potential. For gaming, the 10600K is just as good and cheaper unless you absolutely want to go 8c/16t for future-proofing purposes. Applications will run just as well for less on the Ryzen 7 3700X; if you have more money to spend, the Ryzen 9 3900X will make a difference. That surprises me a little bit—shouldn't there at least be one scenario where the Core i7-10700 with its amazing performance headroom can make a difference? Did I miss something? I would love to hear your thoughts, let me know in the comments.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...00/22.html

On average, in our mix of single/low and multi-threaded applications, the Intel Core i5-10500 ends up slightly faster than the Core i5-10400, which has the same performance as the i5-10400F we reviewed not long ago. The performance difference is relatively small though—just 3.8%. Considering there's a $10 price difference between both processors, the price delta comes to around 5%, which is not perfect, but close enough to "reasonable." While we don't have last-generation's Core i5-9500 in our test group, we have the i5-9400F, which isn't that much slower than it; here, the difference between the i5-9400F and i5-10500 is a staggering 20%. While that's definitely a nice increase generation over generation, it's not good enough to beat AMD's Ryzen offerings. Both the Ryzen 5 3600 ($175) and Ryzen 5 3600X ($205) have the upper hand, although just barely, by 1% and 3% respectively. An interesting upgrade is the Core i5-10600K, which is 6c/12t, too, but 7% faster because of its 125 W TDP and significantly higher clock speeds; however, it costs an additional $60.
...
The Intel Core i5-10500 retails for around $200, which makes it a little bit more expensive than the Ryzen 5 3600 ($175) and slightly cheaper 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, the i5-10500 is slightly better. The differences are quite small either way. Just like AMD, Intel does include a stock cooler with the Core i5-10500, which definitely helps. The problem is that for the LGA1200 platform, only Z490 motherboards are readily available, and Z490 is expensive. In the last few days, I've seen the first H470 boards pop up, but at $120, these are expensive as well. 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.

If you plan on using the integrated graphics, then buying the Core i5-10500 instead of the Core i5-10400 can make sense; you'll get slightly higher performance and will breaks that psychologically important 3 GHz barrier, but you'll also pay a bit more for it. It seems Intel is trying to place a lot of SKUs in that price range to give you multiple options, hoping you'll dig out some more coins from your couch to get "a little more." By that same logic, the Core i5-10600 for another $20 could be an option, too, as it's 200-300 MHz higher clocked. Our gaming benchmarks show that you really don't need to overspend if you're a pure gamer—the Core i5-10400F is just as fast, and you'll save another $20 because the 10400F lacks the integrated GPU, which isn't useful to you as a gamer—more money for the GPU.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/int...u-review/5

Overall, the Core i5-10600K convincingly offers up the best gaming performance in this price range. We expect gamers to pair a chip of this class with less-expensive GPUs, but that extra bit of performance will be useful if you plan on upgrading to next-gen GPUs like AMD's Big Navi and Nvidia's Ampere.

Flipping over to the geometric mean of our application testing suite, we see that Intel has made great strides in eliminating the massive disparity between its Core i5 series and AMD's Ryzen 5 in multi-threaded applications. The overclocked Core i5-9600K falls far behind the stock 10600K, and overclocking pushes the 10600K far ahead of the 9600K and AMD Ryzen 5 chips alike. A quick look at the stock 9600K's standing against Ryzen 5, not to mention the 10600K, highlights just how much improvement Intel made by enabling Hyper-Threading and increasing clock rates.
...
Overall, Intel's Core i5-10600K offers better gaming performance than the Ryzen 5 processors and minimizes disparities in multi-threaded workloads, earning our Editor's Choice award.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...00/22.html

Intel has positioned the Core i3-10300 at $150, which is simply not competitive given the current market environment. No doubt they'll still sell tons of these to OEMs for prebuilt systems because they can market the Core i3-10300 as a "+200" model number advantage over the Core i3-10100—in real life the differences are tiny. For office systems without a discrete graphics card, I can see how the Core i3-10300 might be desirable, but the Core i3-10100 is still the better buy when looking at price/performance. As long as you don't need integrated graphics, the Core i5-10400F is what you want as you get two additional processor cores, or four threads, for just $10 more. Another strong alternative is the Ryzen 3 3300X, which is $30 cheaper, but faster in applications and close enough for gaming. Another noteworthy option is the Ryzen 5 3600 for $175, but 25% better application performance. Intel definitely needs to reconsider their pricing structure for the Core i3 and Core i5 or it'll be a bloodbath once Zen 3 releases.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/268124/intel...tau-values

Intel today updated the public data-sheet of its 10th Gen Core "Comet Lake-S" desktop processor to reveal precise power limit and tau values of each specific SKU. PL 1 or power level 1 is interchangeable with the processor's TDP as a power value. PL 1 is sufficient for a processor to sustain its base frequency (nominal clocks). For example, a processor with 65 W TDP has PL 1 at 65 W. PL 2 is what affords the processor the power to seek out boost frequencies. This value varies with between model to model, with the unlocked K/KF SKUs getting higher PL 2 values than the locked ones. The company also disclosed Tau. This is a timing variable that tells the processor how long (in seconds) can it stay within PL 2, before having to retreat to PL 1.

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

The Core I7-10700K is a solid workhorse that will excel in all tasks you throw at it. Surprisingly, that also somewhat limits its versatility. It's the ideal choice if your day consists of productivity applications that are both high and low-threaded, mixed in with gaming, and you are willing to spend a bit more for the extra performance. If you're more focused on cost, the Core i5-10600K offers solid value at its price. If you do nothing but rendering all day, the Ryzen 9 3900X is the better option because of its higher thread count. If you're squeamish about overclocking, yet want i7-10700K-like performance, get yourself an i7-10700 and spend a few minutes with its BIOS settings to save yourself $60. If you want the absolute best for gaming, you'll have to cough up another $100 for the Core i9-10900K.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...20/22.html

What is a dealbreaker, though, is pricing of the Core i3-10320. With $160, it is expensive, $40 more than the Ryzen 3 3300X. If you have a discrete graphics card, the 3300X is the better price/performance option. If you're focused on gaming with a GPU, I'd recommend the Core i5-10400F for the same price because it has more cores and threads, resulting in higher performance in both applications and games. Another alternative is the Core i3-10100, which is $30 cheaper, but only 5–6 % slower in apps and games. I could definitely see how people would be willing to spend an extra $10 for slightly higher performance with just the Core i3-10300 and i3-10320 in a vacuum, even if you just get $5 of your money back mathematically. The balance of power in this market segment will definitely shift if Intel can bring the price of their entire Core i3 lineup down by $30 or so and affordable B460/H410 motherboards don't disappoint because most Intel CPUs have something most Ryzens lack: integrated graphics good enough for desktop work, productivity, and Internet browsing.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...apple-imac

Intel brought its 10th Generation Comet Lake-S processors to the mainstream desktop market in April. Nevertheless, the chipmaker is also working behind the scenes to produce custom-tailored chips for its bigger clients. The Intel Core i9-10910 seems to be one of those processors.

The Core i9-10910, (spotted via @_rogame), has surfaced on Geekbench inside an unreleased Apple iMac device, meaning it could be a SKU that will be exclusive to Apple. Being a member of the Core i9 family, the CPU comes with the same base specifications as the other variants. In this case, the processor sports 10 CPU cores, 20 threads and 20MB of L3 cache. Ultimately, the listed clock speeds are what differentiates the Core i9-10910 from its siblings.

According to the Geekbench submission, the Core i9-10910 runs with a 3.6 GHz base clock and 4.7 GHz boost clock. The clock speeds suggest that the Core i9-10910 is fundamentally a higher clocked Core i9-10900. Doing the math, the Core i9-10910 reportedly boasts a 28.6% higher base clock than the Core i9-10900.
...
Why exactly would Apple would put in a custom order? It's hard to say for sure. Cost could be a factor. The Core i9-10910 is probably using recycled silicon that doesn't meet the requirements for the Core i9-10900K. That wouold make the unannounced CPU cheaper to produce.

It would also be more profitable for Apple to use a Core i9-10910 instead of a downclocked Core i9-10900K in its upcoming iMac. Furthermore, slapping a locked processor into the iMac would prevent users from overclocking.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gigaby...ut-a-sweat

Gigabyte demostrated the Aorus liquid cooler's prowess by submitting an overclocked Core i9-10900K for some Prime95 beating for over 30 minutes. The manufacturer overclocked the Core i9-10900K to 5.2 GHz on all ten cores. CPU-Z and HWiNFO64 reported voltages of 1.392V and 1.423V, respectively. During the stress test, the processor pulled over 320W, according to Gigabyte.

Gigabyte offers the Aorus liquid cooler in 240mm, 280mm and 360mm flavors. In the press release, the company didn't specify which model was used for the test. The temperatures ranged from 85 degree Celsius to 96 degree Celsius with a Tjunction max of 115 degree Celsius. Gigabyte has told us that the brand tests a significant amount of samples so this particular Core i9-10900K isn't cherry-binned to make the cooler look good.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/cheape...and-newegg

If you're in the market for an Intel Core i5 processor and looking at the i5-10600K (our review here), you might have noticed that prices are a little steep on NewEgg and Amazon, with the e-tailers asking for $295 and $320, respectively. Both these prices are well above Intel's MSRP of $262, but worry not. You can now score a binned Intel Core i5-10600K that is guaranteed to overclock to 4.7 GHz on all cores at once for just $290. At stock settings, the chip boosts to 4.8 GHz, but Silicon Lottery also allows the 4.7 GHz model to hit 4.8 GHz on two cores, too.

Yes, you read that right. At this time, both NewEgg and Amazon are gauging the prices of Intel chips, which sucks for us consumers. But, Silicon Lottery is happily shipping out Intel Core i5-10600K's for $290 after testing their overclocking capabilities. Sure, that's still above MSRP, but you're getting a tested chip that likely runs better than one off Amazon or NewEgg for less money. Seems like a win-win if you ask me.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...00/22.html

Despite having 10 cores and 20 threads, application performance is relatively low, with the i9-10900 just 4% faster than the Ryzen 7 3800XT and 6% faster than the 3700X. Even more shocking is that the Core i7-10700K is 1.2% faster than the Core i9-10900! Last generation's Core i9-9900K is 7% behind, and the i9-9900KS is 2.5% faster. Intel's flagship, the Core i9-10900K is 11% faster. AMD's Ryzen 9 3900X is 8% ahead, at similar pricing as the i9-10900. The reason why the Core i9-10900 does so poorly is its 65-watt TDP. Because of a generous PL2 power limit of 224 W, the CPU will run almost unconstrained for less than a minute, but once that power budget is used up, the CPU is throttled to respect the 65 W power limit (PL1), which severely cripples performance for long-running workloads. This is "working as intended"—otherwise, Intel wouldn't be able sell the Core i9-10900 as a 65-watt processor. Our Office benchmarks reveal that the power limit is not an issue for light applications that only use up to a few cores. But why would anyone with such a usage profile buy an i9-10900 in the first place?

Things get interesting once you adjust the power limit, which is possible on all motherboards and chipsets, even dirt-cheap H410 boards, using Throttlestop. When unleashed, the i9-10900 delivers truly impressive performance. On average, it runs 10% quicker, which makes it the fastest processor in our test group, faster than all AMD CPUs; the only exception is the Core i9-10900K, which ends up 0.4% faster. Wow! The gains are very dependent on the application profile, though. Highly intensive workloads, like rendering, run up to 40% faster(!), whereas single-threaded apps gain almost nothing. Basically, the higher the theoretical power draw of an app, the bigger the improvement.

Gaming results, on the other hand, show almost no difference between the i9-10900 running at 65 W TDP or unconstrained—seems that gaming doesn't put enough load on the CPU to hit the 65 W limit in the first place. For gaming, the i9-10900 is still an outstanding choice. Even at stock, it is faster than any processor we have ever tested with the exception of the i9-10900K, which is 2.4% faster at 720p. For non-academic resolutions, the difference is less than 1%. This means the i9-10900 is faster than any AMD processor; even last week's Ryzen 9 3900XT is 7% slower at 1080p, and more expensive. It's still important to realize that CPU power isn't that important for gaming, especially at higher resolutions, where the GPU is the bottleneck. For example, a Core i5 or Ryzen 5 is MUCH more affordable, yet the delivered FPS is not that different—if you spend the savings on a faster GPU, the slower CPU and faster GPU will be the combination that gives you more FPS.
...
Power consumption and heat output of the Core i9-10900 at stock are laughable. With just 40°C under load, it runs cooler than all the high-end CPUs in our test group, which is not surprising because of the 65 W TDP. When throttled, it chugs along at relatively low clock and voltage, which makes the i9-10900 the most power-efficient Intel processor. With just 10 kilojoules to complete Cinebench, it is more energy efficient than even the majority of Zen 2 Ryzens. Only the Ryzen 9 3900XT is slightly better at 9.6 kJ. Once you unleash the beast, things are different. Power consumption shoots up to 240 W from 140 W, temperatures rise to 75°C, and energy usage is at 14 kJ for a Cinebench run—but it runs 33% faster, making it a very interesting example to illustrate where the 14 nm process runs out of steam. Is that power increase bad? I'm not sure, doesn't everybody want options? Now you have them. You can run super-efficient and wait longer for calculations to complete or speed things up to Core i9-10900K levels at the cost of higher heat and power, which will be a reasonable tradeoff for many of our readers.

Priced at $440, the Core i9-10900 is expensive if you consider what it offers at stock. Application performance is lower than with the Core i7-10700K, a processor that's $70 cheaper. The Ryzen 9 3900X is $430 and much faster in apps, too. For better price/performance you might even want to look at the Core i5-10600K or Ryzen 7 3700X. Gaming runs great on the Core i9-10900, even with the default power limit. I guess that can justify its price for many gamers. Our gaming results show that the smarter choice is a Core i5-10400F for $160, with savings invested in a faster graphics card. If you are willing to spend 30 seconds in the BIOS, you can turn the i9-10900 into a price/performance monster. With the power limit removed, the CPU will run at its full potential, basically rivaling the Core i9-10900K at much lower pricing, and a heatsink is included, too. While we don't recommend the stock cooler for the maximum power-limit configurations, it's still a possible upgrade path. Use the stock cooler with the TDP raised from 65 W to 100 W until you have more cash available and can buy a decent aftermarket cooler, or even go watercooling.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/core-i...50-dollars

Digital Storm (via @momomo_us) has started to offer the Intel Core i9-10850K as an option for the company's custom built PCs. However, the question still remains whether the deca-core processor is an OEM-exclusive chip or not.
...
According to Intel, the Core i9-10900K's MSRP is between $488 and $499. Therefore, the Core i9-10850K could sell for $446 or $457, depending on which limit you're using for the calculation. Assuming that the Core i9-10850K isn't just aimed at OEMs, it's fair to say that the processor can retail for around $450. As it happens, this would also indicate that Intel's TVB feature costs $50.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...leron-cpus

Intel hasn't said anything about refreshing its 10th Generation Comet Lake-S processors. However, the recent emergence of two unannounced Comet Lake-S Celeron processors certainly raises some eyebrows.

Celerons might be at the bottom of Intel's product stack, but these are some of the best CPUs for entry-level systems. Among this generation, the Celeron G5920, G5900 and G5900T were the only SKUs available. But it would appear that Intel is further expanding the Celeron lineup with the Celeron G5925 (BX80701G5925) and G5905 (BX80701G5905). Both the Celeron G5925 and G5905 are listed at overseas retailer LambdaTek, as first spotted via @momomo_us.
...
The Celeron G5920 and G5900 have a $52 and $42 MSRP, respectively. If we apply the same percentages, the Celeron G5925 could retail for around $54.50, while the Celeron G5905 could cost around $48.60.

LambdaTek doesn't have stock for the Celeron G5925 or the Celeron G5905. The retailer also didn't provide an ETA on when the Celeron chips will be available.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...-retailers

If online retailer listing from across the pond are genuine, Intel has expanded its 10th Generation Comet Lake-S processors with four new CPUs. As first spotted by @momomo_us, the processors reportedly carry the "KA" suffix, which we haven't heard of until today.

The first theory that comes to mind is that perhaps an employee made some typos and wrote KA instead of KF. However, the part numbers for the processors in question seem to dispel that theory. Additionally, the Comet Lake-S processors are now listed at three Lithuanian retailers, which makes the idea of a human error unlikely.

The Lithuanian shops marks the four KA-series processors for the LGA1200 CPU socket, so we're certain that these are Comet Lake-S processors. They also share similar model names to the Core i9-10900K, Core i9-10850K, Core i7-10700K and Core i5-10600K that Intel has already announced.

However, the standout detail here is that these processors are listed with the Core i9 moniker. This makes us doubt their authenticity, since it doesn't make sense for Intel to brand the Core i7-10700K and Core i5-10600K as Core i9 parts given their CPU core counts. For now, take the listings with a grain of salt.
...
PigiauNerasi claims that the four KA-series processors will arrive at the retailer's warehouse by August 9. We've reached out to Intel for comment.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...0-mhz-less

It's been almost three months since Intel launched its Comet Lake-S processors, and now it is adding a product to the lineup: the Core i9-10850K. This chip offers exactly what the top-tier Core i9-10900K chip has aboard, minus 100 MHz on all fronts.

Indeed, that's the only difference between the new i9-10850K and the two-month-old i9-10900K. Both chips have 10 cores with hyperthreading, along with identical caches and TDP's. The i9-10850K simply shaves 100 MHz off the base clock and boost clocks.
...
However, it is known that Intel is pushing the i9-10900K chips to the absolute edge in terms of clock speeds in an attempt to get every last bit of performance out of its current architecture and 14nm process before moving on to the new architecture with Rocket Lake-S. As such, it's possible that Intel is having some problems with the binning process, having chips left over that were set to become i9-10900K's but failed by the tiniest margin.

Therefore, if you plan on overclocking, it's probably best to spend the extra $35 to go for the i9-10900K as you're more likely to get better silicon, but if you plan on leaving the clocks at stock settings, then the i9-10850K might just be a compelling option if the shortages don't throw street pricing out of whack.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...-geekbench

The Intel Core i9-10910, which is believed to be an Apple-exclusive chip, has shown its face on Geekbench 5 again. Without confirmation from Intel, of course, we can't be positive of the accuracy of the results, spotted by @Leakbench. But this allows us to do an early pseudo-assessment of the CPU's performance.
...
The two Geekbench 5 results depict exactly what the specifications already hinted. The Core i9-10910 excelled in single-threaded workloads but ultimately lost to the Core i9-10900 when multi-threaded workloads are involved.

Despite the 28.6% higher base clock, the Core i9-10910 only delivered up to 6.9% higher single-core performance than the Core i9-10900 in Geekbench 5. The tables turned when it comes to multi-core performance though. The Core i9-10900 outperformed the Core i9-10910 by 9.6%.

Assuming these results are correct, it shouldn't be hard to pick between a Core i9-10910 or Core i9-10900. You'd just have to identify the type of workloads you commonly execute on your system. The Core i9-10910 purportedly has better single-core performance, and the Core i9-10900 is expected to offer superior multi-core performance.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-...clude-game

Intel announced its new 10th Gen Core KA (A for Avengers) line of CPUs co-branded with the upcoming Marvel’s Avengers game on Tuesday, posting a trailer to their Twitter that showed off new box art by muralist Tristan Eaton. The actual CPU box shows up at the end of the trailer, and you can kind of make out a mysterious disclaimer in the bottom-left corner. Now, thanks to momomo_us spotting a listing for the CPU at the Vietnamese store KCC Shop, we can see what it says: “Game Not Included.”

That’s an odd choice for such an enthusiast product. Aside from individual retailer decisions- KCC Shop’s listing includes a picture of a corgi dressed like Captain America, but it's unclear if that will be included. If not, the only thing that’s special about this “collector’s edition” processor is the box.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...-dollar500

The Intel Core i9-10850K, which was speculated to be a CPU only available to Intel's OEM partners only, ended up making its way to a U.S. retailer today. Newegg recently put up the deca-core processor for $499.99.
...
In order to avoid cannibalization, Intel gave the Core i9-10850K lower clock speeds. It's likely that the chipmaker is recycling sub-par Core i9-10900K dies to make the Core i9-10850K, which would be a smart way to maximize profits.
...
Intel has set a MSRP between $453 and $464 for the Core i9-10850K. In the real world, however, the Core i9-10850K is selling for $499.99 When it's in stock, the Core i9-10900K retails for $529.99, $30 more than the Core i9-10850K.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel...0k/23.html

If you've noticed the Core i9-10850K clearly beating the Core i9-10900K in some of our tests, also make sure to read the page before this one, where I go into more detail on what happened and why. It opens up interesting conclusions, but either way, the performance difference between the i9-10850K and i9-10900K is almost negligible. If you don't need an i9-10900K for your ego, the i9-10850K will be just as good.

Actually, looking at our power consumption numbers, the Core i9-10850K might be the better choice because it is much more energy efficient. Not as energy efficient in multi-threaded workloads as AMD's 7 nanometer Zen 2 lineup, but not that far away (+25%). For single-threaded workloads, Intel still has the upper hand in energy efficiency, so it really depends on the apps you're running. When considering gaming, CPU energy efficiency isn't that big a deal anyway. With a high-end GPU, CPU power usage makes up maybe 10% of the total system power draw and heat output.

Overclocking potential of our retail Core i9-10850K processor matched the Core i9-10900K almost exactly, which suggests that the i9-10900K is not "special" in any way. Thank to the unlocked multiplier, I reached 5.1 GHz easily, 100% stable with relatively small voltage increases. 5.2 GHz was in reach with a lot of voltage, but overloaded the cooling capability of my Noctua NH-U14S. So if you're planning heavy overclocking, a decent watercooling solution is highly recommended for Comet Lake. Besides the obvious "hobby" justification, I'm not completely convinced overclocking is worth it on either of these 10-core CPUs. For a meager 1% return in games, you'll be fighting temperatures and investing time to get things fully stable. For general applications, the improvement is 6.6%—significant, but is it worth the trouble? Rendering and other highly threaded applications that peg the CPU at 100% for a long time are the only exception. Here, we saw gains north of 10%, which makes overclocking a good idea, especially when time is money. Overclocking on AMD Ryzen isn't more rewarding either. It seems the times of large overclocks for high-end CPUs are over, as manufacturers are getting better and better at squeezing the last bits of performance out of their silicon in the factory.

Just like other Comet Lake CPUs, the highest boost clocks are rarely reached. In our testing, we only saw 5.0 GHz with even just one core active. While hard to measure in action, Intel's inclusions of Turbo Boost 3.0 and Thermal Velocity Boost with the Core i9-10850K are still good because these technologies help improve performance even further. Especially TVB is very elusive because it is active only for short, bursty loads that won't fully load the CPU. Whether it is reasonable to put such short bursts of 5.1 or 5.2 GHz on a specs sheet, even with "up to", is for you to decide.

With a retail price of $450, the Core i9-10850K is $50 cheaper than the Core i9-10900K. That's a 10% reduction in cost for barely a few percent in performance. Definitely consider the i9-10850K if you're in the market for an i9-10900K. What's probably more important than $50 for many people is that availability of the i9-10850K seems to be much better than for the i9-10900K. Especially in the States, as Intel CPU supply is much worse than in Europe, where you can just go out and buy an i9-10900K without having to wait for the stars to align. That's why I'm also not surprised to see terrible pricing in the U.S., no doubt from greedy merchants. Looking at our performance numbers and the pricing, I would definitely prefer the i9-10850K over the Ryzen 9 3900XT, and possibly even the Ryzen 9 3900X, for gaming and general productivity. Professionals working with rendering and simulation apps, or other similarly demanding apps, should definitely consider AMD for their rigs, as the higher thread count can make a difference. We reviewed the Core i9-10900 only recently and liked it very much. However, it's kind of obsoleted by the i9-10850K because of the small price difference. $10 more gets you an unlocked multiplier, much higher base clock, and higher power limit—just the boxed cooler is missing. Definitely worth considering. On the other hand, if the i9-10900 drops to $400, it would compete with the Ryzen 7 3800XT in an interesting reversal of 10-core Intel vs. 8-core AMD at the same price.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/31...se-why-not

The appropriately-named American Portwell Technologies has launched a motherboard with a whopping 20 USB 3.2 Gen 1 (aka USB 3.0) ports hung off the back of it. Granted, most people are going to be looking for a motherboard that’s a little more consumer-focused. But if you needed to hook up a heck of a lot of hardware, this board could handle it.

Well. It could sorta handle it for you. Meet the PEB-9783G2AR:

If you look at the motherboard, there’s a group of four chips on the south end of the board. I’m fairly certain these are repeaters, though I wasn’t able to determine which company built them or what ports are connected to which USB 3.0 lanes.

The motherboard documentation makes no mention of repeaters, but it does split seemingly identical USB 3.0 ports into two different groups:

Why split the ports into two sections like this? Presumably, because there are four ports wired up normally, and the rest of the controllers are split between USB repeaters.
...
Here’s the important thing to know: The motherboard may have 20 USB ports, but it doesn’t have 20 USB 3.0 — excuse me, USB 3.2 Gen 1 — connections on it. According to Intel, the W840E/Q470E chipsets both offer a maximum of 10 USB 3.2 Gen 1 ports and 14 USB 2.0 ports (none of which seem to be in use here). There aren’t very many differences between these two chipsets at all, with the Q470E offering a total of six SATA 6.0Gb/s ports compared with eight on the W480E. The Q470E is part of the Intel Stable Image Platform Program (SIPP) while the W480E is not.

So why bother to highlight a motherboard like this? Mostly because it’s fun. We don’t talk much about the hardware you can find in the odd little corners of computing, but there’s almost always something interesting if you dig around a bit. If you actually had a use for it, you’d want to be careful about hooking up the proper USB ports to ensure maximum performance — assuming it mattered. If you just need to communicate with a lot of USB devices over low-bandwidth ports, even having USB 3.0 included might be overkill.

https://www.techpowerup.com/272489/intel...microscope

Currently, Intel's best silicon manufacturing process available to desktop users is their 14 nm node, specifically the 14 nm+++ variant, which features several enhancements so it can achieve a higher frequencies and allow for faster gate switching. Compare that to AMD's best, a Ryzen 3000 series processor based on Zen 2 architecture, which is built on TSMC's 7 nm node, and you would think AMD is in clear advantage there. Well, it only sort of is. German hardware overclocker and hacker, der8auer, has decided to see how one production level silicon compares to another, and he put it to the test. He decided to use Intel's Core i9-10900K processor and compare it to AMD's Ryzen 9 3950X under a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
...
The results? Well, the Intel 14 nm chip features transistors with a gate width of 24 nm, while the AMD/TSMC 7 nm one has a gate width of 22 nm (gate height is also rather similar). While these are not much different, TSMC's node is still much denser compared to Intel's - TSMC's 7 nm produces chips with a transistor density around 90 MT/mm² (million transistors per square millimeter), which is comparable in density to Intel's 10 nm node used on recent mobile processors. Below you can see the SEM images and comparison made. For more information and details please head over to the source.

Another interesting thing to note here, the gate width is not following the naming scheme as you might have expected. The 14 nm transistor isn't 14 nm in width, and the 7 nm transistor isn't 7 nm wide. The naming of the node and actual size of the node have had a departure a long time ago, and the naming convention is really up to the manufacturer - it's become more of a marketing gimmick than anything else. This is the reason researchers have already proposed another density metric for semiconductor technology other than pure "nm" terms.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.techpowerup.com/276135/intel...f-life-eol

Intel today commenced the process of discontinuation of the "Avengers Edition" SKUs of its 10th Generation Core "Comet Lake-S" desktop processors, through a product change notification (PCN). The said PCN #117894-00 mentions December 16, 2020 as a common date for all four key discontinuation milestones in the product's lifecycle, namely Product Discontinuation Support commencement, Last Product Discontinuance Order (the last opportunity for distributors to place orders from Intel for), the date for these orders to become non-cancelable and non-returnable; and the date for the last order to ship. Normally, the latter two milestones are spaced 6 months and 12 months apart from the date of the product discontinuation PCN. To put this in simpler terms—and unless the PCN doesn't have a typo with its dates—Intel is expeditiously discontinuing its 10th Gen Core "Comet Lake-S" desktop processors, marking them EOL (end of life).

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...-at-amazon

If you're looking for performance on a budget, check out this discount on the Intel Core i9-10850K processor. As of today, it's marked down to $399 from its usual price of $539. When we reviewed this chip back in September, we noted its similarities to the Core i9-10900K in performance while appreciating its lower price point.
...
This edition is compatible with Intel 400 series motherboards. It was first released in July of 2020, making this one of the lowest prices we've seen but still not the lowest price ever for this processor.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...-skyrocket

Chinese media outlet MyDrivers recently reported that Intel's B460 and H410 chipsets are out of stock and could ultimately result in increased motherboard pricing during the first quarter of 2021. We've consulted with our own industry source, confirming that a shortage of lower-end chipsets is taking hold.

It's no surprise that the hardware industry is in a rough place right now, and consumers are the ones to suffer. Now, adding to the pain of the ongoing shortages of graphics cards and AMD processors, Intel's B460 and H410 chipsets might not be far behind. To make matters even worse, PCBs and other electronic components necessary for motherboard manufacturing are either out of stock, or the prices have risen substantially.
...
We've heard through the grapevine that supply for the Z590 chipset will be limited too, although inventory isn't at the point of shortage – all of which is normal surrounding the launch of a new line of chipsets.

However, Intel reportedly recommended that its motherboard partners order more B460 and H410 chipsets in advance because supply will be very tight in the upcoming months. There's no definitive timeline on how long the shortage will last, but it may endure throughout the first quarter of 2021.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/potent...orei9-imac

A mysterious system packing a Core i9-10910 Comet Lake CPU and a (currently unheard of) AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT with 65GB of RAM has been spotted on an Ashes of the Singularity benchmark score. All data indicates this system could possibly be a prototype for the next generation iMac from Apple.
...
What's interesting about this benchmark score is the GPU used in the system, a Radeon Pro RX 5700 XT. This is the first we've heard of such a GPU, so we wouldn't be surprised if this is another Mac exclusive, presumably for the new iMac. If we had to guess, the Radeon Pro 5700 XT is simply a Pro model of the 5700 XT with a lower TDP.
...
So yes, this system could genuinely be a prototype for one of Apple's new iMacs; all the evidence points to it. However, we do have contradicting info that Apple will feature its new M1ARM-based chips in the unit instead. Presumably, this means Apple will launch two different versions of the iMac, one with Intel silicon, and the other with Apple's M1 chips.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/mobile...otherboard

Someone on AliExpress is selling a rather unique processor you won't find anywhere else: a Comet Lake mobile processor with a built-in interposer that allows support for LGA 1151 desktop motherboards. If you want to run an efficient 10th Gen mobile CPU on your desktop, now is your chance!
...
Unfortunately, compatibility with this chip is not as straightforward as we would like it to be. Due to the QTJ2's mobile nature, the chip isn't compatible with LGA 1151 motherboards without a BIOS modification. Luckily, the seller of the chip will happily take in your motherboard's BIOS and customize it for you, so the mobile Comet Lake chip can support your board.

There are other limitations worth mentioning. For cooling, you have to ensure the CPU cooler you use has a flat surface. This means coolers with heat pipes that directly contact the CPU are not an option (like the Hyper 212 EVO), because the QTJ2 CPU does not have an IHS. You need a cooler with a perfectly even surface to ensure the die is cooled properly.

Another issue is chipset limitations. For some reason, the Comet Lake chip can only be supported on select 100 series, 200 series, and 300 series boards (for example Z390 is not supported). So be sure your chipset can support the chip before you make your purchase.

Still, it's cool to see a mobile Comet Lake chip working on a desktop computer. Ironically, this is the ONLY way to get a proper Intel 10nm based chip inside a desktop at this current time.

Desktop variants of Comet Lake and upcoming Rocket Lake chips are still running on Intel's older 14nm process. So if you're desperate to get 10nm working on desktops right now, this is your only option. Just beware this configuration is officially unsupported by Intel and is only supported by third parties, so make sure you know what you're getting into.

[SteelCrysis]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-...ollars-off

As you’ve probably noticed recently, Intel have really begun taking the fight to AMD by cutting the price of its 10th generation processors while the company's competitor deals with Ryzen 5000 shortages.

For the next few hours, you can pick up an Intel Core i7-10700K processor for just $258.99, which takes a huge $77 off the price. That's seriously good value for money on one of Intel's current best CPUs.

In our CPU Benchmarks hierarchy, the i7-10700K generally performs just slightly behind AMD's Zen 3 chips in FHD gaming, and in some cases exceeded them at higher resolutions. While Intel's 11th generation desktop CPUs are set to push Comet Lake a generation behind soon, it's clear that the 10th generation still has some kick to it. And now, it's offering that power at a discount.

You’re going to want to hurry if you want to grab this deal, though, as this sale is set to expire at 9PM PST.