Intel Announces Its 10th Generation Core Processors "Comet Lake-S" (with flagship Core i9-10900K)

There are 3 kinds of computer parts buyers:

1. the ones that constantly say I have to wait for X or Y generation and see improvements and eventually end up with some overpriced crap

2. the ones that actually buy what they can afford using the best performance per price ratio and end up with current gen mainstream

3. the ones that buy best of the best and never look back

 

My Ryzen 3900x says 105w TDP but using 148w @ stock.... Just saying...

But I don't care, because I have custom watercooling.

 

Amen I know which I am

 

This is not true. This is ONLY true on unlocked K CPUs set on "manual" in BIOS. On non K CPUs, as soon as they reach wattage that Intel claims, they start to downclock to keep the wattage. However, the opposite is true for AMD, they don't even try to care for TDP, they just spit some numbers out and leave it at that. Not that I care for any of this, but there you go.

 

When I was using a 4c/4t Intel i5 760 back in early 2011, I told myself my next cpu would likely be a 6c/12t from Intel in the $150-200 range. I had no idea it would take them nearly 10 procreating years to finally have that. Sorry Intel you had your shot and blew it.

 

I don't think this is entirely accurate except for limited use cases. Intel is the best CPU for gaming at 1080p 144Hz and up, no doubt. If you're 1440p and up, your money saved with AMD is better spent on a higher end GPU as you'll get more performance for the same or less money spent. AMD doesn't just make 12 and 16 core parts. The 8 and below are useful for things other than Cinebench, or we would all still be rocking quad cores. You really have to consider use cases and not over generalize, or you'll end up wasting money without realizing it. I think this lineup from Intel is going to sell well and they'll be excellent processors, but I shudder when I see people building with a top end Intel proc rocking a mid or budget GPU. Their money could have been spent so much better. Not saying that's you of course. What kind of monitor are you running with your setup? Guessing 1080p 240Hz?

 

It used to be true for K CPUs as well - my 4790K never exceeds the rated TDP at stock. It's only in recent times that they've veered off wildly, probably due to competition.

 

im really never understand about "go with ryzen and spend less money"

you need a top ram reaching 3733mhz to give a good performance to him, you need a x470 or x570 motherboard to hit these clocks, in end you will spend more or will have slower performance overall with b450 motherboard and ram at only 3200mhz

 

It's still too expensive, and still the same recycled architecture from 5 years ago. Thanks to the security vulnerabilities, HT is practically worthless. You're lucky to get a 15% improvement from it at this point.

I'd rather save money on a cheaper CPU that can work with a cheaper PSU and cheaper cooling solution, than to gain another 10FPS at a frame rate my display can't even handle anyway.
With today's CPUs, claiming Intel is better for gaming is a lot like comparing a Mustang to a Ferrari. Yeah, the Ferrari is faster, but unless you take your car out on the track (which you probably won't), does it really matter? With day-to-day driving, the Mustang is still fun.

It's not the TDP that matters (not to me anyway) but the fact that all Intel is doing is creating a new socket with higher clocks and calls it a new product. The TDP just simply highlights the fact there is no progress.
Also, AMD has been [rightfullly] ridiculed for the same sort of thing with the FX-9000 series, and for their many GPU rebrands.

 

My PC is a dedicated gaming machine. I don't do anything else with it, so the only thing that matters is gaming performance. As such, I would prefer to upgrade less often and buy the strongest chip for gaming when I do. I haven't upgraded yet because I haven't had to. I had some rough patches in Rise of the Tomb Raider, but other than that, all the games I've been playing run fine on my existing hardware.

I'm not against AMD. I would happily buy their products, but they're more of an all-around value as you pointed out, rather than a halo product for gaming performance. Whoever has the top performing chip at the time I'm ready to upgrade will get my money.

 

This just shows how little you know about the Ryzen platform.
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/t...ng-cooling-part-2.423134/page-92#post-5782814

 

Pricing is not that bad (CPU ONLY)...but the need for a new motherboard (so more $$$) + a hefty cooling solution (more $$$) + unappealing chipset features makes this a bad buy...
At least IF they kept the old socket maybe, just maybe there could be some thinking...

 

Looks like most z490 MB supports pci-e 4.0 with the next cpu refresh. So what other features do you miss on z490?

If you upgrade from an OLD setup, or you are a first time buyer. You'll need a new MB anyway

 

Thermal Velocity Never Getting There

This Intel generation is just sad.
Requirement of new motherboard which has NOTHING extra to the previous socket (other than extra pins...) is just the tvrd on top of a steaming pile of sh.... release.

There will be customers for it because there are enough clowns out there who want to brag about the extra 3 fps, but anyone with a working neuronal net above their neck will stay away from this like it's poison...

Anyway... going back into a Zen state...

 

Before final pricing and benchmarks, the crap-talk starts. Well done sir! you've earned your $ntel paymaster's pretty penny...once again!!

 

Hmm....indeed. Then we have the idiots.

 

I think you'll find that most 'enthusiasts', where they have purchased an Intel CPU, are - indeed - buying those "unlocked K CPU's", and as their many reviews have shown, TDP?...Houston, we have a problem!

 

^^

 

Noobs allways has problems. True story