still their 10 core absolutely is going to need water isn't it? I haven't followed Comet much since i heard about 14nm.
Need, no, but you will want a decent cooler for sure. 200+ W.
^^^
You'd want Z anyway to get faster memory. I believe you are still limited to 2666 without it.
You'd want Z anyway to get faster memory. I believe you are still limited to 2666 without it.
Isn't Intel upping the officially supported memory on Comet?
I got one of those which is the Raijintek Tisis . Scored it on Black Friday. Figured i would have some fun passively cooling a cpu for a change and for stock in theory it should handle a 9900k if i decided at one point and time to jump on one.
Kind of wanting a 3900x but this 10700k might win me over. I got a feeling unless some magic is happening with 14nm then the 10900k is certainly not working on air cooling. Big screw up from Intel would be not releasing B460 motherboards day one alongside their x490. Talk about a way to perhaps push me and many others over to team Red. You could pair a 3900x with a $115 board which is a nice bonus there.
I may eat my words, but if prices go up, I will stop buying. I have more than enough power for the next 10 years.I suspect that Intel’s flagship 10 series will be slightly faster than Intel’s 9 series, provided you have a beefy enough cooler. It won’t be “magic” however. There aren’t any further process node gains to be had on 14nm. Any gains made will be by sacrificing power efficiency and by tweaking boost clocks.
The real issue is that these chips are landing too late. Zen 3 (Ryzen 4000) is likely going to be announce at Computex. I can guarantee you that, just based on TSMC’s published information, Ryzen 4000 series desktop will be at least 20% faster than Ryzen 3000. Where does that leave Intel? Like the Pentium 4, these chips will run hot and consume too much power, and they will be lacking in performance. Intel won’t lead in any benchmark, even low res low detail gaming.
Intel has about a year and a half left to pull a rabbit out of their hat. At that point, even 10nm won’t save them, as AMD will be on 5nm. After that, their marketshare is in free fall. That should scare all of you. Remember Opteron? Don’t think the same thing won’t happen to Intel, it has. Itanium comes to mind.
Once Intel loses it’s remaining mojo, prices are going to go up.
Left is Comet Lake-S apparently. Seems Intel is indeed laying the groundwork for Rocket Lake-S to use chiplets.
Fixed pricing, very good supply control, controlled performance jumps in new gen products combined with frequent chipset changes in terms of compatibility. In other words they kept perceived value constant through a combination of lackluster upgrades and low supply for older parts.(how does Intel manage that for that matter?).
Maybe. I'm kind of wondering if 10c Comet Lake-S uses one ringbus for all cores.
And 10 core ring was done already in Ivy Bridge-EP back in 2012 or so.
I think what @DrMrLordX refers to is the dual ringbus implementation of HCC Broadwell E chips. But I don't recall at what core count HCC started.Broadwell E, i7 6950x 10 core has the ringbus.
Itanium isn't really a valid comparison, since that chip's marketshare was virtually non-existent to begin with. AMD were ahead of Intel almost continuously from 2000 to 2006 - barring a period of 18 months or so where Intel raced ahead thanks to P4 Northwood turning out well, and AMD stumbling due to 130nm troubles - and Intel's marketshare never went into "freefall" during that period. AMD's marketshare percentage never got out of the low-mid twenties.Intel has about a year and a half left to pull a rabbit out of their hat. At that point, even 10nm won’t save them, as AMD will be on 5nm. After that, their marketshare is in free fall. That should scare all of you. Remember Opteron? Don’t think the same thing won’t happen to Intel, it has. Itanium comes to mind.
Now they aren't in "very rude health" anymore though, most of the debt has been paid back this year and credit rating was upgraded to BB (two steps short of a straight invest suggestion) only days ago.AMD were behind Intel for eleven years and are now in very rude health.
Ah, no, "very rude health" is another way of saying "extremely good health". Should have used a more common euphemism.Now they aren't in "very rude health" anymore though, most of the debt has been paid back this year and credit rating was upgraded to BB (two steps short of a straight invest suggestion) only days ago.
Ah thanks, learned something new then.Ah, no, "very rude health" is another way of saying "extremely good health". Should have used a more common euphemism.
Itanium isn't really a valid comparison, since that chip's marketshare was virtually non-existent to begin with. AMD were ahead of Intel almost continuously from 2000 to 2006 - barring a period of 18 months or so where Intel raced ahead thanks to P4 Northwood turning out well, and AMD stumbling due to 130nm troubles - and Intel's marketshare never went into "freefall" during that period. AMD's marketshare percentage never got out of the low-mid twenties.
I'm not sure why some people seem to think that Intel being behind AMD for four or five years (even if you're generous and count from the arrival of the first Zen) is somehow going to be a disaster they can't recover from, when AMD were behind Intel for eleven years and are now in very rude health.
I think what @DrMrLordX refers to is the dual ringbus implementation of HCC Broadwell E chips. But I don't recall at what core count HCC started.
I suspect that Intel’s flagship 10 series will be slightly faster than Intel’s 9 series, provided you have a beefy enough cooler. It won’t be “magic” however. There aren’t any further process node gains to be had on 14nm. Any gains made will be by sacrificing power efficiency and by tweaking boost clocks.
The real issue is that these chips are landing too late. Zen 3 (Ryzen 4000) is likely going to be announce at Computex.