Review Intel 10th Generation Comet Lake-S Review Thread

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
Review information on the soon-to-be-released 10th generation desktop lineup, as well as all relevant information will be linked in this thread. OP will be updated as information becomes available in the next few days. Please, post links to reputable sites you want to see in the OP, and I'll add them. Thanks!

Anandtech
Phoronix (Linux Benchmarks)
LTT (YouTube Video)
Gamers Nexus
Euro Gamer
ComputerBase.de
Back2Gaming
HWUB (YouTube Video)
Sweclockers
Nordic Hardware


Reviews Roundup on VideoCardz
 
Last edited:

Magic Carpet

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2011
3,477
230
106
@Zucker2k

Unless you're specifically buying for higher refresh rate gaming, there is no point to pay extra for the Intel platform at this point. Of course there are people like me who might choose Intel anyway for specific "features" but no way I represent the mainstream. Le'ts be objective. Long term as a package, 3900x/AM4 is a better buy, I think that's the main point. Also, I upvotted you to keep it status quo :p
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,592
3,484
136
The difference here is that, the 3900x and the 3950x lose in far more single/lightly threaded scenarios, and not only to the 10900k, but even 6 core and 8 core Intel chips! In other words, your specific workload must be throughput-oriented, and run better on AMD to justify getting the HEDT R9 chips. That's called niche.
You seem to have a very twisted definition of 'niche'. Using a 2080Ti which less than 2% of Steam users have to game at 1080p with reduced settings is the very definition of niche.

On the other hand, Lightroom, Handbrake, compiling large codebase, etc. are things people buying a $400+ CPU with a high number of cores are going to do which are not 'niche' and in those cases the 3900X is up to 20% faster than the 10900K and is cheaper and more widely available to boot.
 

RetroZombie

Senior member
Nov 5, 2019
464
386
96
run better on AMD to justify getting the HEDT R9 chips. That's called niche.

the 3900x and the 3950x lose in far more single/lightly threaded scenarios, and not only to the 10900k, but even 6 core and 8 core Intel chips!

That's your error right there, if there if some application that runs about the same with ~2/4 core cpus has it does with 10 cores, that one should be called the niche, and you should start to discard it because:
- it needs better coding or its going the obsolete route​
- a new better one will be release from the same author or someone will release other that runs better/faster​

There is other point with the useless benchmarks or tests, for example the ones that test single and multithreading performance like cinebench.
Who the hell runs that application (Cinema 4D 3D) in single core?
I understant the test from the interest and curiosity perpective but it ends there. Because let's assume one cpu wins the test by 2x in the single thread test but have less 4x the number of cpu cores vs another, where is the 'winning' result if the applications runs with multiple cores?

So Zucker2k where intel looks some what 'competitive' in the tests it ends up just being an farce.
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
That's your error right there, if there if some application that runs about the same with ~2/4 core cpus has it does with 10 cores, that one should be called the niche, and you should start to discard it because:
- it needs better coding or its going the obsolete route​
- a new better one will be release from the same author or someone will release other that runs better/faster​

There is other point with the useless benchmarks or tests, for example the ones that test single and multithreading performance like cinebench.
Who the hell runs that application (Cinema 4D 3D) in single core?
I understant the test from the interest and curiosity perpective but it ends there. Because let's assume one cpu wins the test by 2x in the single thread test but have less 4x the number of cpu cores vs another, where is the 'winning' result if the applications runs with multiple cores?

So Zucker2k where intel looks some what 'competitive' in the tests it ends up just being an farce.
Parallelization is not as common on the client platform as it is on enterprise. We only entered the 8 core realm on desktop in 2017. The reason why Intel does well on desktop is because they designed a competent arch and put it on a process that enables them to hit near 5GHz on all cores, consistently. Intel has the better solution to today's software environment; fewer, faster cores have always been better on desktop. A 10900k vs 10980XE would probably yield the same end result as a 10900k vs a 3950x. Many slower cores are just not suitable for the desktop.

I think the question needs to be asked. Why did AMD feel the need to push both the 3900x and 3950x from HEDT down to desktop in spite of the existence of the 3800x? The 3800x launched $100 lower than the 9900k. Wasn't a $100 hit enough, if the performance was there? If it's about taking back the desktop performance crown, wasn't the 3900x enough? The answer to these questions, in my opinion, is simple: the fast cores of the /8700k/9900k. The only way the new chips were going to look good against the competition was to raise the cores in each category and showcase multithreaded dominance, and this was exactly what happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ondma

amrnuke

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2019
1,181
1,772
136
The difference here is that, the 3900x and the 3950x lose in far more single/lightly threaded scenarios, and not only to the 10900k, but even 6 core and 8 core Intel chips! In other words, your specific workload must be throughput-oriented, and run better on AMD to justify getting the HEDT R9 chips. That's called niche.

Are you still talking about the 10900k v 3900x v 3950x?

Your specific workload must be throughput-oriented and run better on 10 cores to justify buying the 10900K over a 10700K, right? But that's not the case with the vast majority of desktop user workloads when you're trying to label the 10900K as a value proposition, or a price to performance proposition. Hence, the 10900K is a poor value proposition for most desktop users because they'll rarely need 10 cores/20 threads over 8 cores/16 threads (or even really 6 cores/12 threads). The 10900K, just like the 3900X and 3950X, is for niche cases. Again, it's a bad value proposition, just like the 3900X and 3950X, for most users.

With respect to overall single-lightly threaded scenarios, if you take Puget Systems' test suite (largely lightly-threaded as it is based on Adobe's suite (and I'll even remove CB20 MT from that result and replace it with AnandTech's ST CB20 score) and add in Anandtech benchmarks that are lightly threaded, like y-cruncher ST, Dolphin, GIMP, Digicortex, 3DPM ST, x264, GB4 ST, and all the gaming at 720p/768p, you get an average lead by the 10900K of 9.89% over the 3950X.

In the multithreaded tests like POV-Ray, Blender, Corona, 7-zip combined, y-cruncher MT, 3DPM with AVX, CB20MT, you get the 3950X out on top by 27%.

There are compromises no matter what chip you pick.

And if your argument is that few desktop users are using Blender/Corona, 3DPM, Cinema4D (heavily multithreaded), the same could be said of Agisoft Metashape, Digicortex, Dolphin, x264 HD 3.0, and Far Cry 5 at 720p (very lightly threaded or single threaded).

So again, the argument that there is any one single "best" chip depends ONLY on what your use case is. Period.

And if you simply average out the single/lightly threaded 10900K lead of 9.89% with the MT lead of 3950X you get the 3950X ahead by over 15%. Truly DOMINATION by the 10900K right?
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,592
3,484
136
I think the question needs to be asked. Why did AMD feel the need to push both the 3900x and 3950x from HEDT down to desktop in spite of the existence of the 3800x? The 3800x launched $100 lower than the 9900k. Wasn't a $100 hit enough, if the performance was there? If it's about taking back the desktop performance crown, wasn't the 3900x enough?
Uh, the 3800X is faster than the 9900K/10700K in most things other than gaming.
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,592
3,484
136
In most things? Please share a link and let's analyze the results.
Looking at 3DCenter's compilation of benchmarks, only one outlet compared both the 3800X and the 10700K - the French site Le Comptoir du Hardware.(Google-translated link)

In their testing the 3800X is faster than the 10700K in everything except chess benchmarking. In fact they even have the 3700X faster than the 10700K. Granted their test suite is a bit unconventional(they actually used Cinema4D), but nonetheless it's pretty representative of overall performance.
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
Looking at 3DCenter's compilation of benchmarks, only one outlet compared both the 3800X and the 10700K - the French site Le Comptoir du Hardware.(Google-translated link)

In their testing the 3800X is faster than the 10700K in everything except chess benchmarking. In fact they even have the 3700X faster than the 10700K. Granted their test suite is a bit unconventional(they actually used Cinema4D), but nonetheless it's pretty representative of overall performance.
There should be results out there with the 9900k at stock and overclocked.