Intel Comet Lake-S Review Kit Gets Unboxed, shows Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K
Click here to post a comment for Intel Comet Lake-S Review Kit Gets Unboxed, shows Core i9-10900K and Core i5-10600K on our message forum
cryohellinc
Last time I saw this type of packaging, it was Red.
DaLoona
The packaging says : Gaming happens with Intel. They should have added: But your still better of with an AMD.
And no I am not a fan boy, I just buy the best price/performance cpu I can get.
jwb1
BUT MORE CORES!!!
loracle
On same category Intel still way better than AMD in games, that's the reality until now 🙂.
asturur
the it 7820 all core 4.7 has to be faster than all core less than 4.7 gigahertz. The 3+ year old is just to make an argument, because we all know that intel in the last 3-4 years did not improve in IPC at all.
So this is the perfect way to loose credibility. saying `slower` without saying that you are probably talking about few fps on full hd resolutions.
Also if you wanted to improve in gaming, moving from an 8 core intel to a 12 core amd, is a silly move and you gained exactly what you wanted to gain. 4 extra cores.
schmidtbag
I have a very hard time believing you bought an AMD CPU. You spread more hype about Intel's upcoming products than Intel themselves.
Regardless, you're probably losing what, 5-10FPS when you're likely in the hundreds? Wow, what a major loss...
If you don't know what you would have gained from a 3900X then why did you "buy one"? You know very well that your 7820X would've been as good or better for gaming. Already having a good Intel CPU like a 7820X and replacing it with a high-end Ryzen strictly for gaming purposes is just plain stupid.
JamesSneed
Thats not really true though. Intel is better in very high FPS situations. When you move to 2k or 4k there isn't much difference and its not so much GPU bottlenecks. AMD simply has a little bit of a latency issue using chiplets so they can't hit those high FPS like Intel does in some cases. I highly suspect zen3 this fall will fix that latency issue at least for 8-cores and under that is if the rumored single 8-core ccx is true.
jwb1
Actually, there is evidence to suggest that Intel CPUs in games have also better frametimes than AMD CPUs, so it isn't just that Intel can have higher FPS, but the games feel smoother.
BTW: https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-core-i9-10900k-overclocked-to-5-4-ghz-scores-3k-points-in-cinebench-r15
5400mhz at 1.35V. Gonna be interesting to see how hot that is.
schmidtbag
There is also evidence suggesting the opposite...
RyuzakiL
I thought these two trolls "jwb1" and "karma777police " are already banned from the forum? I never read anything good on their post as all are a product of their subjective insane minds. Anyway, I'm not getting my hopes up with these another Skylake rehash, someone wake me up when Intel was able to get their Arch on 7 or 5nm process. Thanks.
SamuelL421
I'd like to give some perspective here. I have the opportunity to try out a lot of hardware because of my work - we see a lot of server hardware and have several clients who require high end workstations. Disclaimer -I have not tried out any of the Intel 10-series parts, either the x299 refresh or (obviously) the upcoming socket 1200 desktop parts, or any of the TR40 platform / comparable X399 Rome Epyc parts. That said, I have used, tested, or personally own: 7700k, 8700k, 9900k, various X299, various current Xeon "Platinum", "Gold", and "Silver" parts, 1950x, 2700x, 2950x, 3950x, various 1st gen Epyc parts. In my experience, the average user isn't going to notice an appreciable difference between any of these with the exception of 7700k (4c/8t is notably slower in some tasks), Xeon Silver (due to low base clocks), and 1950x (too many quirks to be a good daily driver).
If you're a competitive gamer who needs (?) 200+fps at 1080p, you probably want mainstream Intel. If you need to do any serious work tasks, absolutely go for AMD or any HEDT / server parts. If you're gaming at 1440p or 4k along with other general work/computing tasks - get an 8+ core part from either company, the best that your budget allows and ideally made in the past 2 years. Honestly, I don't think many would notice a difference between 12, 16, 18 cores and a recent 6 core part outside of scenarios like streaming, media encoding, and running VMs.
I personally prefer AMD these days due to performance per $ concerning workstation tasks, but you really cannot go wrong with any newer chip with many cores 🙂
jwb1
People don't get banned because you don't agree with their views or opinions.
Reddoguk
Intel may have a slight edge in gaming but at what cost?
If you don't care about heat, power usage and security holes then go ahead and buy Intel 14nm++++++++++++++++.
Honestly though i no longer care about which CPU is best for gaming because they are all pretty good these days.
My next upgrade will be the best all round chip not the best fps possible chip.
Seriously what i want is either a 4700X or 4900X as i believe they will be plenty fast enough while using "hopefully" only 65w or close.
jwb1
AMD has its own "security holes". And Intel is fixing theirs in-silicon with every new CPU launch and revision.
asturur
@jwb1 is not about views or opinions, some posts are actually flame starters. For no reason.
Not speaking about you now in this particular thread.
Also just to remember that intel nomenclature is 14nm++ they never moved to the third +. And comet lake and rocket lake will still be named 14++. the 14++++++++++++++++ isn't that funny.
DaLoona
AMD has its own "security holes". And Intel is fixing theirs in-silicon with every new CPU launch and revision.
Only difference is that Intel has about 15 of them for every single one AMD has........
"That leaves us with the question: Which company is more secure? The question might seem pedantic when we consider that Intel currently has 242 publicly disclosed vulnerabilities, while AMD has only 16 (a 15:1 difference in AMD’s favor)"
From: https://www.tomshardware.com/features/intel-amd-most-secure-processors
And AMD is fixing them on a hardware level too
"Although not as affected as Intel, AMD is also bringing hardware fixes to bear on its new-generation hardware."
From: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-intel-processor-security/
Just be glad there is another cpu company, like AMD is and that we are not all Intel fanboys, like you are apparently, otherwise we still would be stuck on 4 core cpu's priced 2 -3 times more then they are today.....
I bet that 10900K 14nm+++++++++++++ would be around €1200,- or more then, IF it would even be around for the normal desktop. Most likely it was to be an HEDT cpu if AMD hadn't be around, so Intel could screw you over again with the price/corecount, like they have been doing the last years.
Just look at the 10980XE, which is just a 9980XE, only they suddenly could slash the price by $1000,-.....
People don't get banned because you don't agree with their views or opinions.
Oh and btw everyone is entitled to its own opinion, but yours is just blatantly biassed and not very well substantiated, you know, just like bs......
jwb1
Everyone has their own biases, just like you do. I'm mostly just comfortable with Intel. I've been with Intel for a long time, because I haven't seen any pull to switch yet in my case. And budget doesn't really affect me. And there is always these caveats with AMD. Admittedly, they are getting a lot better with their CPUs and the motherboard problems. I've owned AMD in the past. Bought their first multicores and loved them. I also don't let "security" issues bother me. Everyone knows I don't think they are a big deal on either side. I would buy either Intel or AMD if they had security holes, just so long as there were some form of mitigations. There is obvious hypocrisy though in regards to the security issues, as they both have them. And the argument of well one has more than other is pretty weak. They are both bad. And neither company has actually had any reports of actual use of the holes.
I have agreed with many of the criticisms of Intel in the past: price, paste instead of solder, holding back hyperthreading, playing it safe. And sure, I'd love if they got off 14nm, and they probably do to - it doesn't look that great for progress. I'm pretty sure if they could, they would have already. On the issue of cores, well like I've said. More cores, IMHO, does not equal the better product necessarily. Of course the AMD fanboy's like to think it does. In fact, the design of Ryzen and its more core approach has actually made it a limiting factor in other areas like frequency and latency. Frequency, latency, and IPC matter in ALL cases, more cores in SOME cases. And to be honest, I think if you need a ton a cores, that is best reserved for both brands higher end enthusiasts areas, HEDT. Most people in those areas would benefit because they would be doing a lot more than just gaming and streaming. They would benefit from other things those have like quad channel, etc.
Nowhere have I ever said AMD should not exist or that I would never buy AMD. I just go after the fanboy's because they are the most obnoxious and vocal group and they seem to think AMD is god like for some reason. If they were in Intel's position, they would have been doing the same thing. They are not saints. And even when Intel does things, like they are doing now, giving more cores, lowering prices, giving hyperthreading to lower SKUs, fixing security holes, etc it is never good enough. So yeah, there are definitely people that actually want Intel to fail. And these are the same people who are always saying we can't let AMD fail or else it will be really bad. The same can be said for Intel, people. My lord.
Says the guy who said this:
I love the internet. o_O
