Comet Lake-S new socket LGA1200

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/comet-lake-s-lga-1200-400-series-chipset,40221.html

Still 14nm, still DDR4.... Yet, another new socket. Intel, pulling my defeat from the jaws of victory one step at a time.

Edit:. Oh, and still pcie 3... So, what do we need another chipsets for?

Well I am thinking they want a new chipset so they can have a bigger die. Being stuck at 14nm, they will need some surface area for cooling to get 10 cores and 125w TDP at Ryzen 3 beating speeds.

They will probably still chuck a $10 cooler on there, though.
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,491
Well I am thinking they want a new chipset so they can have a bigger die. Being stuck at 14nm, they will need some surface area for cooling to get 10 cores and 125w TDP at Ryzen 3 beating speeds.

They will probably still chuck a $10 cooler on there, though.
Lol, AMD already caught up in power... And we know Intel tdp is.. optimistic, so this should be interesting when it comes out (not sure on release, hopefully by year's end?)
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
5,703
Well that seals the deal. AMD 3700-3900X here I come.
Let me know how that goes, I ordered my 3900x back on July 9'th and it still hasn't shipped.

Edit: Been so long I had to go back and double check the PO and Order#
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,777
Let me know how that goes, I ordered my 3900x back on July 9'th and it still hasn't shipped.

Edit: Been so long I had to go back and double check the PO and Order#

Yikes, where did you order it from? Luckily I have a Microcenter about 25 miles form me.
 

NattyKathy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
1,188
Skylake refresh refresh refresh refresh, now with moar corez and 5!!!Jiggahurtz!!!**


Ok I talk smack, but I am genuinely impressed that Intel has managed to go from 4C/8T @(up to)4.2Ghz all the way to 10C/20T @(up to)5Ghz** on fundamentally the same socket, process, architecture, and power envelope*** with only minor tweaks to each****. Amazing what actual competition will do to a market segment eh? Five and a half freakin years from Bulldozer to Summit Ridge, so glad there's movement in the desktop CPU market again.


**may God save your heatsink if you expect anywhere near 5Ghz all-core

***not if you actually run it near 5Ghz on all cores

****Ok maybe the power envelope has gone up. but hey, five (5) gigahertz!!** and more than twice the cores
 
Last edited:

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,491
Skylake refresh refresh refresh refresh, now with moar corez and 5!!!Jiggahurtz!!!**


Ok I talk smack, but I am genuinely impressed that Intel has managed to go from 4C/8T @(up to)4.2Ghz all the way to 10C/20T @(up to)5Ghz** on fundamentally the same socket, process, architecture, and power envelope*** with only minor tweaks to each****. Amazing what actual competition will do to a market segment eh? Five and a half freakin years from Bulldozer to Summit Ridge, so glad there's movement in the desktop CPU market again.


**may God save your heatsink if you expect anywhere near 5Ghz all-core

***not if you actually run it near 5Ghz on all cores

****Ok maybe the power envelope has gone up. but hey, five (5) gigahertz!!** and more than twice the cores

Kind of makes me said it took AMD coming out with a product to force them to do it and shows you they were milking people for a while. Competition is good, even if you're an Intel fan it is making them push harder and hopefully have to start competing with pricing again.
 

NattyKathy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
1,188

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,491
I just saw it in one of my news feeds and read it. Thought it was interesting. Didn't realize it was common knowledge.
 

power666

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 23, 2018
Messages
113
I do how Intel provides a real reason for the socket change beyond just need more pins for power (which they could do already on existing sockets). Something nice like expanding the DMI link to 8 lanes or expand the number of regular PCIe lanes from the host socket. DDR4 and PCIe 3.0 are still fine today but it'd be nice to hear from Intel that this socket would be around for more than a single generation when they introduce PCIe 4.0 (see the Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge transition) and make motherboard makers plan ahead for PCie 4.0 from the start. Otherwise socket 1200 will just be disappointing like LGA 2066.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,399
Power once again takes a jump, to keep up in the core count?

This feels like lie Phenom II x6, which was a monster, and required 65/95w motherboard owners to upgrade, or take their chances.

I kinda expected Intel to pull this shit, after two iteration on the old socket. It would be nice to actually label their two 8-core parts as 125w, but that will still be lying aboout the new 10-core parts being "125w tdp) :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 204526

Guest
It still feels weird to see Intel faltering like this.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,532
It still feels weird to see Intel faltering like this.
It was like this back in 2005 when the "dual-core" Pentium D was released and was competing with the Athlon 64 X2 to no avail.
The best thing about all of this is the competition, the innovation growth, and the excellent products and prices for us at the end of it all.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
11,573
AMD owns the processors in both game consoles and has wrapped up all tiers of CPU parts value per dollar except the very highest tier at the 9900k - where they can’t compete.

If AMD would have managed to release some sort of new CPU instruction that benefit the next wave (2020 launch) of console oriented game engines that they didn’t share with Intel — the tech world CPU positioning hierarchy could have looked very different in 4 years time as that same instruction set would have encouraged PC gamers to pick up AMD at their next upgrade. As it is - this refresh will probably take the performance crown back from AMD and we will be back to business as normal where Intel leads on speed and AMD leads on price.

Most people don’t need more than 2 cores/four threads for typical PC use. A $50 pentium g4560 with hyperthreading does an amazing job for daily websurfing/media consumption. (2core/4thread)

Moving up the ladder — gamers don’t need more than 8 cores/16 threads - because that’s what next gen consoles from both Sony and Microsoft will use. So that’ll be good for 5 years till say 2025.

So the more cores argument with current tech (and game tech/engines for the next five years (based on console development) has limited appeal.

Realistically without AMD having a unique feature set, for gamers the faster, reasonable core count processor when’s and 8 cores is sufficient. 9900k level processors at 5Ghz are, and will be the best CPU for gamers for the forseeable future/next five years. AMD can’t change that without A. Introducing a unique proprietary instruction set, or B. Increasing IPC OR clock speed about 20%

EDIT: "OR" rather than and.

And it's a true statement. AMD won't shift the market dominance until they have about a 20% lead on Intel. They won't do it by mostly matching Intel. Core count alone won't switch enthusast market space because there just isn't need for more cores at the current technology junction...
 
Last edited:

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
.... 9900k level processors at 5Ghz are, and will be the best CPU for gamers for the forseeable future/next five years. AMD can’t change that without A. Introducing a unique proprietary instruction set, or B. Increasing IPC and clock speed about 20%

What?? no. Increasing IPC AND clock speed by 20% would mean a 44% increase in performance. Zen 1 would match or beat the 9900k with those increases. I think you mean new instruction set, 20% ipc increase OR 20% clock increase.

Even then, there are very few scenarios now where an o/c 9900k beats a PBO 3700x by 20%
 
D

Deleted member 204526

Guest
It was like this back in 2005 when the "dual-core" Pentium D was released and was competing with the Athlon 64 X2 to no avail.
The best thing about all of this is the competition, the innovation growth, and the excellent products and prices for us at the end of it all.
Yup, but it didn't seem like it could happen again after AMD shit the bed with Bulldozer. I thought that was pretty much the death knell for AMD.
 

thesmokingman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
6,617
AMD owns the processors in both game consoles and has wrapped up all tiers of CPU parts value per dollar except the very highest tier at the 9900k - where they can’t compete.

If AMD would have managed to release some sort of new CPU instruction that benefit the next wave (2020 launch) of console oriented game engines that they didn’t share with Intel — the tech world CPU positioning hierarchy could have looked very different in 4 years time as that same instruction set would have encouraged PC gamers to pick up AMD at their next upgrade. As it is - this refresh will probably take the performance crown back from AMD and we will be back to business as normal where Intel leads on speed and AMD leads on price.

Most people don’t need more than 2 cores/four threads for typical PC use. A $50 pentium g4560 with hyperthreading does an amazing job for daily websurfing/media consumption. (2core/4thread)

Moving up the ladder — gamers don’t need more than 8 cores/16 threads - because that’s what next gen consoles from both Sony and Microsoft will use. So that’ll be good for 5 years till say 2025.

So the more cores argument with current tech (and game tech/engines for the next five years (based on console development) has limited appeal.

Realistically without AMD having a unique feature set, for gamers the faster, reasonable core count processor when’s and 8 cores is sufficient. 9900k level processors at 5Ghz are, and will be the best CPU for gamers for the forseeable future/next five years. AMD can’t change that without A. Introducing a unique proprietary instruction set, or B. Increasing IPC and clock speed about 20%

Soapbox much?
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,922
AMD owns the processors in both game consoles and has wrapped up all tiers of CPU parts value per dollar except the very highest tier at the 9900k - where they can’t compete.

If AMD would have managed to release some sort of new CPU instruction that benefit the next wave (2020 launch) of console oriented game engines that they didn’t share with Intel — the tech world CPU positioning hierarchy could have looked very different in 4 years time as that same instruction set would have encouraged PC gamers to pick up AMD at their next upgrade. As it is - this refresh will probably take the performance crown back from AMD and we will be back to business as normal where Intel leads on speed and AMD leads on price.

Most people don’t need more than 2 cores/four threads for typical PC use. A $50 pentium g4560 with hyperthreading does an amazing job for daily websurfing/media consumption. (2core/4thread)

Moving up the ladder — gamers don’t need more than 8 cores/16 threads - because that’s what next gen consoles from both Sony and Microsoft will use. So that’ll be good for 5 years till say 2025.

So the more cores argument with current tech (and game tech/engines for the next five years (based on console development) has limited appeal.

Realistically without AMD having a unique feature set, for gamers the faster, reasonable core count processor when’s and 8 cores is sufficient. 9900k level processors at 5Ghz are, and will be the best CPU for gamers for the forseeable future/next five years. AMD can’t change that without A. Introducing a unique proprietary instruction set, or B. Increasing IPC and clock speed about 20%

Zen 2's IPC is already above Coffee Lake refresh. They don't need more IPC. Clock speed might be the only thing that keeps gaming performance below Intel. The gaming difference tends to dissolve above 1080p. Even in CPU limited gaming scenarios the average difference is barely outside margin of error, with multiple cases where it falls within.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,925
Zen 2's IPC is already above Coffee Lake refresh. They don't need more IPC. Clock speed might be the only thing that keeps gaming performance below Intel. The gaming difference tends to dissolve above 1080p. Even in CPU limited gaming scenarios the average difference is barely outside margin of error, with multiple cases where it falls within.

I have Intel in one out of three (one out of five counting extended family) rigs because of VR. The minimums on a 9700k/9900k can easily be 20% better than a 3900x.

Excluding VR where I get sick if it dips below 90 Hz, yeah, I’d go AMD everytime.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,883
AMD owns the processors in both game consoles and has wrapped up all tiers of CPU parts value per dollar except the very highest tier at the 9900k - where they can’t compete.

If AMD would have managed to release some sort of new CPU instruction that benefit the next wave (2020 launch) of console oriented game engines that they didn’t share with Intel — the tech world CPU positioning hierarchy could have looked very different in 4 years time as that same instruction set would have encouraged PC gamers to pick up AMD at their next upgrade. As it is - this refresh will probably take the performance crown back from AMD and we will be back to business as normal where Intel leads on speed and AMD leads on price.

Most people don’t need more than 2 cores/four threads for typical PC use. A $50 pentium g4560 with hyperthreading does an amazing job for daily websurfing/media consumption. (2core/4thread)

Moving up the ladder — gamers don’t need more than 8 cores/16 threads - because that’s what next gen consoles from both Sony and Microsoft will use. So that’ll be good for 5 years till say 2025.

So the more cores argument with current tech (and game tech/engines for the next five years (based on console development) has limited appeal.

Realistically without AMD having a unique feature set, for gamers the faster, reasonable core count processor when’s and 8 cores is sufficient. 9900k level processors at 5Ghz are, and will be the best CPU for gamers for the forseeable future/next five years. AMD can’t change that without A. Introducing a unique proprietary instruction set, or B. Increasing IPC and clock speed about 20%


IPC and clock speed by 20%? Damn I didn't know they were still that much behind. So are you saying intel beats AMD in games by 20% across the board? Most reviews have the 3900x 5-6% at 1080p. Hardware unbox did 36 games. AT 1440p and above its even less.

Comet lake S is not 10nm. I think you might be thinking about that. Its basically 2 more cores that require new chipset and pin configurations and add 30 more watts at stock. Good luck OCing that thing, will need a chiller.

Not sure why you think AMD needs 20% IPC increase or clock bump. I think you are talking about intel 10nm that is rumored to have 18% IPC increase but those are going to be limited in clock speed as well. Have you see how intel isn't talking much Ghz for 10nm anymore?

By then AMD will be close to releasing Zen 4.
 
Top