shows Comet Lake - the successor to Coffee Lake-R - is expected in Q2 2020, that's the second quarter of next year. This is in line with rumors that passed earlier. Comet Lake will still be a generation that is fabbed at 14 nm.

14nm in 2020... Jesus Christ, Intel.

I assume 10nm will be all named XXXX pond and 7nm XXXX puddle. There is a lake in Australia called Lake Disappointment. Intel might be having to use that soon for a name.........

shows Comet Lake - the successor to Coffee Lake-R - is expected in Q2 2020, that's the second quarter of next year. This is in line with rumors that passed earlier. Comet Lake will still be a generation that is fabbed at 14 nm.

https://media.tenor.com/images/d42cc3996ced9cdb0bf181f3723ce430/tenor.gif

Third Party manufacturer roadmaps aren't exactly that authoritative of a source of information, just saying.

If Intel shipped their CPUs with an AIO cooler, I wouldn't tell them a thing. As those things coming with a stock tiny cooler is a joke at this point. And they really seem to be stuck with this 10nm process, should just focus on 7nm UV.

Yeah... not impressed.

Tbh i don't understand people crying about 14nm. It's just a number for fuck sake, the more important is power which these monsters clearly have. You keep whining that intel is using his 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ architecture, so what? Do you got 60% lower power than AMD? No? Is its TDP 300W? No is max GHZ stuck at 3,5GHZ? no..so where the fuck is problem. (Oh and i own Ryzen 2700, before you tell me am brainwashed intel fan)

Jespi:

Tbh i don't understand people crying about 14nm. It's just a number for frack sake, the more important is power which these monsters clearly have. You keep whining that intel is using his 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ architecture, so what? Do you got 60% lower power than AMD? No? Is its TDP 300W? No is max GHZ stuck at 3,5GHZ? no..so where the frack is problem. (Oh and i own Ryzen 2700, before you tell me am brainwashed intel fan)

i9 9900k is advertised as a 95W TDP part but in reality, pulls double of that power from the wall. If you lock both 2700 (65) and 9900K (95) to they're respective TDP, the performance difference is small and negligible compared to their price difference (the 9900k costs more than double here). Also, making a bigger chip (supposed to have 10 cores) on the same 14nm node will render worse yields over the last generation (due to bigger die size, space on waffer and math) witch in turn will drive cost of those chips high. If you think Intel is expensive now, wait for the next generation. New nodes are getting more and more expensive, and the only way of getting good yields is by making small chips. Preferably make small chips with the important stuff and the I/O on older efficient nodes. Wait, isn't that what AMD is proposing with Zen 2? Ya, Intel is the dinosaur in the room. AMD GPU division is far from Nvidia, but if they apply the same technical expertise on their future GPUs (after Navi, maybe), they might catch Nvidia (if they're not planing something multi chip already).

Jespi:

Tbh i don't understand people crying about 14nm. It's just a number for frack sake, the more important is power which these monsters clearly have. You keep whining that intel is using his 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ architecture, so what? Do you got 60% lower power than AMD? No? Is its TDP 300W? No is max GHZ stuck at 3,5GHZ? no..so where the frack is problem. (Oh and i own Ryzen 2700, before you tell me am brainwashed intel fan)

You sound like an online FPS Rager.

Jespi:

Tbh i don't understand people crying about 14nm. It's just a number for frack sake, the more important is power which these monsters clearly have. You keep whining that intel is using his 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ architecture, so what? Do you got 60% lower power than AMD? No? Is its TDP 300W? No is max GHZ stuck at 3,5GHZ? no..so where the frack is problem. (Oh and i own Ryzen 2700, before you tell me am brainwashed intel fan)

As a 1700 owner myself, You must admit that you need to overclock your CPU a lot, to reach the power requirements a 9900k has on unlimited motherboards. I am at +600Mhz and still 40W less then the unlimited 9900k, so a 10 core 9900k CPU would be 180W or very close to the i9-9980XE, have fun overclocking or cooling that, without water or noisy fans.

I think there is a TIPO- the new architecture name should be "Came Late" and not "Comet Lake". You can Google search it: https://www.google.com/search?q=Intel%27s+Came+Late

Jespi:

Tbh i don't understand people crying about 14nm. It's just a number for frack sake, the more important is power which these monsters clearly have. You keep whining that intel is using his 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ architecture, so what? Do you got 60% lower power than AMD? No? Is its TDP 300W? No is max GHZ stuck at 3,5GHZ? no..so where the frack is problem. (Oh and i own Ryzen 2700, before you tell me am brainwashed intel fan)

You wouldn't have had that nice Ryzen 2700 now, if AMD hadn't moved/advanced from 32nm and only offered incremental performance increase each year or so.

Disable Intel Management Engine, purge hardware vulnerabilities, add some decent graphics and I would listen to your song Intel.

Jespi:

Tbh i don't understand people crying about 14nm. It's just a number for frack sake, the more important is power which these monsters clearly have. You keep whining that intel is using his 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ architecture, so what? Do you got 60% lower power than AMD? No? Is its TDP 300W? No is max GHZ stuck at 3,5GHZ? no..so where the frack is problem. (Oh and i own Ryzen 2700, before you tell me am brainwashed intel fan)

You're missing the point here... AMD has very little to do with this. The problem here is Intel hasn't done anything interesting to their architecture since 2015 (at least not interesting in the sense that it benefits consumers). By the time Comet Lake is released, that'll be 5 years of pretty much the same thing. Intel has repeatedly delayed 10nm, which does not inspire confidence in customers or investors. The only interesting thing Intel has done was fit more cores in a socket (and that is pretty much the only place where AMD has any relevance), but, they really dampened that interest by artificially locking out chipsets [EDIT] and keeping very high prices.

TLD LARS:

As a 1700 owner myself, You must admit that you need to overclock your CPU a lot, to reach the power requirements a 9900k has on unlimited motherboards. I am at +600Mhz and still 40W less then the unlimited 9900k, so a 10 core 9900k CPU would be 180W or very close to the i9-9980XE, have fun overclocking or cooling that, without water or noisy fans.

I sure will have fun with the most powerful CPU at the given time. Power need not be a constraint when wanting performance. Just as long as its allowed to be tapped into. Hence I personally haven't jumped onto AMD's bandwagon yet. Their offerings aren't up to my stuff yet when Intel offers more performance to be unlocked just at the cost of better cooling.... I'll take that....even if it is a bit more money in the beginning. Longevity to me wins over 40+ Watts of load difference in a huge performance delta to begin with. I have 47 fans in my system and its more quiet than a person whispering something to you three feet away. I guess it's all in what you either spend your money on and or what you perceive to be factual. Because noise is easily relegated by making sure you do the right things.....like buying the right fans. The cost of my fans in my system costs more than some people actual SYSTEM entirely, so i say again I guess it's all in how you "want" as opposed to how you just do.

schmidtbag:

You're missing the point here... AMD has very little to do with this. The problem here is Intel hasn't done anything interesting to their architecture since 2015 (at least not interesting in the sense that it benefits consumers). By the time Comet Lake is released, that'll be 5 years of pretty much the same thing. Intel has repeatedly delayed 10nm, which does not inspire confidence in customers or investors. The only interesting thing Intel has done was fit more cores in a socket (and that is pretty much the only place where AMD has any relevance), but, they really dampened that interest by artificially locking out chipsets [EDIT] and keeping very high prices.

Agree, but intel is still stomping the performance area in AMD's facials.... Overclocking is just something I personally have grown to love and that's just what AMD doesn't offer. Seems like their products are already on the brink of collapse when it comes to pushing their hardware any further than stock speeds. I would love for them to come out and take over fifty plus percent of the market back so that intel has no choice but to make some serious changes or fall flat on their faces..... I guess we will surely get a challenge between them when AMD's new line drops on both the threadripper and Zen. I am truly wanting something "EPIC" (no pun intended) from AMD just to put Intels foot back into their mouths....

Intel's roadmaps are no longer as reliable as they once were. Intel's still scaling up to effect their contract work without the negative impact that that has caused for the last year (on top of fab scale issues). but it does need noting that Intel's fab is denser than TSMC...but as TSMC is far better than "good enough" and nabs clockspeed and power efficiency Intel is in a pickle. particularly from large scale enterprises under pressure for carbon reduction. which is mandated by everyone except the U.S. and China.

DeskStar:

Agree, but intel is still stomping the performance area in AMD's facials.... Overclocking is just something I personally have grown to love and that's just what AMD doesn't offer. Seems like their products are already on the brink of collapse when it comes to pushing their hardware any further than stock speeds.

You say that as though clock speed is the only thing that matters. I respect that you are an OC enthusiast and I agree Intel is better for that, but that doesn't mean Intel is "stomping the performance area", at least not in a way that's actually relevant to the vast majority of consumers (including enthusiasts). Once you get to 16+ cores, your clock speed begins to be limited by power delivery and thermals anyway. If money and heat dissipation isn't an issue to you then sure, go for Intel, but as far as I'm concerned, paying nearly double for a few extra hundred MHz just isn't worth the money at all, especially when you account for things like spectre and meltdown. If bragging rights is all you care about, have at it - not my money being burned. When it comes to getting the best OC on "lesser" CPUs (that may have 8 or fewer cores), Intel starts to make more sense. But, nobody is impressed about reaching 5GHz on a 8700K or 9900K, since it's relatively easy to do as long as you don't cheap out on parts. It isn't really going to meaningfully improve your gaming framerate vs maybe a 4.5GHz CPU and it isn't really going to handle multithreaded tasks better than a 4GHz CPU with more cores. Again, not saying there's anything wrong with your interests, but you seem to be elevating Intel's clock speeds higher than they earned.

Jespi:

Tbh i don't understand people crying about 14nm. It's just a number for frack sake, the more important is power which these monsters clearly have. You keep whining that intel is using his 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ architecture, so what? Do you got 60% lower power than AMD? No? Is its TDP 300W? No is max GHZ stuck at 3,5GHZ? no..so where the frack is problem. (Oh and i own Ryzen 2700, before you tell me am brainwashed intel fan)

While you are basically right, and I for one am often not impressed by useless advances that are there to just sell this year's model over last year's, but with Intel the opposite is true: Intel has made a habit of offering no to little improvement and / or innovation. So don't ask me if I'd have a 60% lower power CPU with AMD, ask Intel if we couldn't have Intel's performance at 60W less if they finally advanced in production nodes. And there the answer could be yes. So your statement should actually go towards Intel, not people who'd want Intel to offer improvement. 😉

DeskStar:

...................... ................................ I have 47 fans in my system and its more quiet than a person whispering something to you three feet away. ............................ ..................................

/offtopic GEEZUS!!! And here I thought I had too many fans in my TT X9 but then I looked and saw you have a CaseLabs STH10. Ok, 47 fans make sense now! That case is pure pr0n!