Powercolor RX 6700 XT Hellhound Spectral White review
Resident Evil Village: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Enermax LIQMAX III aRGB 240mm review
PCIe Resizable BAR Performance AMD and NVIDIA benchmarks
Guru3D Rig of the Month - April 2021
Intel Core i7 11700KF processor review
Acer Predator Apollo and Predator Talos DRAM Review
ASUS TUF Z590-Plus WIFI review
ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Phantom Gaming D OC review
Enermax Aquafusion 360 review LCS
Intel Comet Lake 10 Core Procs in 2020 - Socket 1200?
One does wonder where these roadmaps come from. Over at XFastest a new one was posted, indicating that the procs mentioned yesterday will not arrive before 2020. Comet Lake does have a design with a maximum of 10 cores and 20 threads, the pin count now is rumored to be LGA 1200.
The information got provided to XF though an anonymous email and did not indicate a source, so take all this with a good pinch of salt again. The form and style of the slides certainly do match previous Intel media decks. The images show an up to 10 cores and 20 threads proc series, Wi-Fi 802.11ax, RST 17, and more. The socket would be LGA 1200, the highest TDP 125W and all that would be paired with an Intel 400 chipset.
The unconfirmed slide shows Comet Lake will be launched in the first quarter of 2020, but it does not list the detailed model of the processors, nor can it verify or confirm the authenticity of the i9-10900KF model. I am just posting this as-is. Have a peek at the slides, courtesy of XFastest.
$749 Ryzen 9 3950X Beats $2000 Intel Core i9-9980XE (18-core) in Geekbench Test - 06/13/2019 03:07 PM
AMD is on track releasing some interesting new processors, at this weeks announcements you've learned about the Ryzen 9 3950X. A Geekbench test surfaced, and guess what? The processor giving a $2,00...
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X: Overclocked to 5 GHz Allcore faster than Intel Core i9 - 06/13/2019 09:01 AM
You've been able to read up on a lot of news and article about the pending Ryzon Series 3000 processors. The one proc that made a lot of news is, of course, the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X, however at the eve...
Intel Core processor with 10.000 naming Shows up - 04/30/2019 09:06 AM
Yes, what if you run out of series numbers like Core i9 9900K? Move another digit or go back to the drawing board with a new naming? Well, it appears Intel will be doing the first and could be using a...
Intel combines Optane memory and Intel QLC 3D NAND storage - 04/10/2019 07:36 PM
Intel released details about a new SSD called Optane H10. This is not just an SSD as it uses both Intel's QLC flash memory and 3D Xpoint (also known as Optane). Available in m.2 format, and uses the ...
Intel Core i7-9750H and GeForce GTX 1650 Perfs leaks though marketing material - 04/08/2019 12:56 PM
In the Asia region, a number of presentation slides have leaked, they originate from MSI and shows some numbers based on a laptop with the pending Core i7-9750H and GeForce GTX 1650....
asturur
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 2010-05-12
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 2010-05-12
#5690474 Posted on: 07/12/2019 07:59 AM
Intel is making a big mistake here. If I was them I would kill socket for 9900k and lower SKUs and bring 2066 socket to mainstream therefore people who already have that socket do not have to buy new mobo. New chipset is fine but same socket so newer CPU can work on new and older mobo. That would be the smartest thing to do. Also lower the price of 2066 socket CPUs to match Zen 2 and case closed. They don't have to worry about core count cause they already have that with 2066 socket. If they want to release an updated CPU sure, to gain some performance and have higher clock speed.
Since 2066 socket already have core count, if they are any smart they would offer 18/36 core CPU for $499 to undercut Zen 2 big time. AMD cannot squeeze more than 16 cores on the current AM4 socket and Intel's 18 Cores for $499 would seriously hurt AMD. Then offer 16/14/12/10/8 cores and each SKU seriously undercut Zen 2.
In nutshell Intel Strategy for near future should be
More cores for less money
Quad Memory Channel vs. Dual Memory Channel again for less money
Cheaper 2066 socket motherboard compared to X570
Single CPU performance given clock speed won't suffer compared to Zen 2 as it already beats Zen 2 in gaming
This would hurt AMD big time.
In mean time work on new gen. CPU (10nm).
Seems an extreme plan.
This would be everything but not smart.
Intel is making a big mistake here. If I was them I would kill socket for 9900k and lower SKUs and bring 2066 socket to mainstream therefore people who already have that socket do not have to buy new mobo. New chipset is fine but same socket so newer CPU can work on new and older mobo. That would be the smartest thing to do. Also lower the price of 2066 socket CPUs to match Zen 2 and case closed. They don't have to worry about core count cause they already have that with 2066 socket. If they want to release an updated CPU sure, to gain some performance and have higher clock speed.
Since 2066 socket already have core count, if they are any smart they would offer 18/36 core CPU for $499 to undercut Zen 2 big time. AMD cannot squeeze more than 16 cores on the current AM4 socket and Intel's 18 Cores for $499 would seriously hurt AMD. Then offer 16/14/12/10/8 cores and each SKU seriously undercut Zen 2.
In nutshell Intel Strategy for near future should be
More cores for less money
Quad Memory Channel vs. Dual Memory Channel again for less money
Cheaper 2066 socket motherboard compared to X570
Single CPU performance given clock speed won't suffer compared to Zen 2 as it already beats Zen 2 in gaming
This would hurt AMD big time.
In mean time work on new gen. CPU (10nm).
Seems an extreme plan.
This would be everything but not smart.
NCC1701D
Senior Member
Posts: 244
Joined: 2015-05-20
Senior Member
Posts: 244
Joined: 2015-05-20
#5690641 Posted on: 07/12/2019 05:44 PM
How does the clock speed a proc can hit work in relation to fab size in nm? Are they not directly related? Always wondered how Intel can reach such high clock speeds when there are smaller nm dies that can't push past a certain point.
How does the clock speed a proc can hit work in relation to fab size in nm? Are they not directly related? Always wondered how Intel can reach such high clock speeds when there are smaller nm dies that can't push past a certain point.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 5812
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 5812
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5690649 Posted on: 07/12/2019 05:58 PM
That's pretty much exactly why I made my comment about Intel's 10nm being ready, but not capable of sustaining the high clock speeds. There's only so much you can do to force physics to behave the way you want. Intel can make 10nm chips but because of stuff like quantum tunneling, they can't push the voltage high enough to maintain the clock speeds people are expecting. And since they aren't doing anything to improve IPC (beyond shrinking the die by 4nm), it doesn't make sense to release any high-end or overclockable chips because the overall performance will be worse than their existing 14nm node.
Ironically, they've just been digging themselves into a deeper hole by bumping up the clocks every generation they couldn't get 10nm out the door.
How does the clock speed a proc can hit work in relation to fab size in nm? Are they not directly related? Always wondered how Intel can reach such high clock speeds when there are smaller nm dies that can't push past a certain point.
That's pretty much exactly why I made my comment about Intel's 10nm being ready, but not capable of sustaining the high clock speeds. There's only so much you can do to force physics to behave the way you want. Intel can make 10nm chips but because of stuff like quantum tunneling, they can't push the voltage high enough to maintain the clock speeds people are expecting. And since they aren't doing anything to improve IPC (beyond shrinking the die by 4nm), it doesn't make sense to release any high-end or overclockable chips because the overall performance will be worse than their existing 14nm node.
Ironically, they've just been digging themselves into a deeper hole by bumping up the clocks every generation they couldn't get 10nm out the door.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 13323
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 13323
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5690652 Posted on: 07/12/2019 06:03 PM
It's semi related. Cell libraries can be optimized for switching speed, density, power, etc. Critical path weighting/optimization becomes a big factor too - keeping the entire chip in sync, designing stages for that, etc. Typically a transistor can switch a lot faster then what a processors rated clockspeed but everything else keeps it limited.
How does the clock speed a proc can hit work in relation to fab size in nm? Are they not directly related? Always wondered how Intel can reach such high clock speeds when there are smaller nm dies that can't push past a certain point.
It's semi related. Cell libraries can be optimized for switching speed, density, power, etc. Critical path weighting/optimization becomes a big factor too - keeping the entire chip in sync, designing stages for that, etc. Typically a transistor can switch a lot faster then what a processors rated clockspeed but everything else keeps it limited.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2013-03-10
Is it so that Intel won't switch to a new architecture (would be about the time) before they can make the CPUs using the smaller process technology? So, if they can't get it up, they will just keep refining the old Core arch, and increase the core count by two, the MHz by 200, or something.