Review Intel 10th Generation Comet Lake-S Review Thread

Page 8 - 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:

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
Let me put it another way, if I'm shopping for 8+ cores because I need the compute power and throughput they provide, why am I concerned about single thread performance? If my main concern is single thread performance, why am I even looking at 8+ core systems? What is the point of making these comparisons?
That's the issue. It's either, or, when it should be both. They're amazing chips for those who get them for throughput-oriented workloads, but are ordinary in most things else. They also suck power at idle, so not suitable for desktop unless being used in a production environment.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
5,078
7,454
136
That's the issue. It's either, or, when it should be both. They're amazing chips for those who get them for throughput-oriented workloads, but are ordinary in most things else. They also suck power at idle, so not suitable for desktop unless being used in a production environment.

Well, obviously you have the right to your opinion, but the vast majority of reviewers that I've seen and DiYers seem to disagree with you. If all you care about is gaming performance today, then yes, Intel is in the lead and I would encourage people who only care about max gaming performance and who typically upgrade the whole system at a time to buy Intel.

But even then, if you're not willing to pay for the max possible performance and are on a budget like most people are, you have to analyze how much you are willing to spend on a CPU and motherboard versus buying a cheaper CPU/motherboard and using that money on upgrading the GPU. At that point you just need to make sure your CPU is fast enough to feed the GPU at the resolution you play at and in this case both Intel and AMD offer cheaper solutions that will allow for better gaming performance by having more money to spend on the GPU and each person will have to plan according to their budget.
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
7,091
619
126
Which is exactly why I say single core performance *does* matter. You just proved my point.

Don't want to put words in Hitman's mouth but I don't think he's saying that at all. Of course ST performance matters. However, Zucker's argument is basically that the 3900X/3950X only have worth for a small subset of desktop users because they have less ST performance than some of Intel's chips and most desktop usage is ST-driven in light workloads. If that is the case, it invalidates a good chunk of Intel's lineup too. I mean really, you're arguing that 12 cores is too much for any but a small niche of users but 10 cores is perfectly normal? If light desktop apps is your use case, just get a cheap 4-core CPU.
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
If that is the case, it invalidates a good chunk of Intel's lineup too. I mean really, you're arguing that 12 cores is too much for any but a small niche of users but 10 cores is perfectly normal? If light desktop apps is your use case, just get a cheap 4-core CPU.
It doesn't. The 10900k dominates in 99% of everything that's not multi-threaded on the desktop, including gaming; and in multi-threading, it only loses to chips with 20% and 60% more cores.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
5,078
7,454
136
It doesn't. The 10900k dominates in 99% of everything that's not multi-threaded on the desktop, including gaming; and in multi-threading, it only loses to chips with 20% and 60% more cores.

Dominates is a bit of an exaggeration:

1592327866928.png

But maybe we can be more specific. I can give you an example of multiple applications/usage scenarios that I use that give me tangible value added benefits from CPUs with many cores all being loaded. From CAD simulations, to transcoding, to compiling, to heavy multitasking without interruption, all enabling me to accomplish significantly more work in a given day and have a 100% smooth computing experience. Now, what is the value add that I would get buying a 10900k over say a R5 3600 or a 10600K or even a 3300x, in a lightly threaded, low compute work environment?
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
Dominates is a bit of an exaggeration:

View attachment 23237

But maybe we can be more specific. I can give you an example of multiple applications/usage scenarios that I use that give me tangible value added benefits from CPUs with many cores all being loaded. From CAD simulations, to transcoding, to compiling, to heavy multitasking without interruption, all enabling me to accomplish significantly more work in a given day and have a 100% smooth computing experience. Now, what is the value add that I would get buying a 10900k over say a R5 3600 or a 10600K or even a 3300x, in a lightly threaded, low compute work environment?
The same apps you added above, and everything else!
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
The apps I added above aren't a lightly threaded, low compute environment, so again, what is the value add that you are arguing for in this environment that a 10900k provides over a much cheaper, lower core count CPU?
The value comes with the performance. In this case, you'd be faster in EVERYTHING. A halo product, should ideally trounce any chip lower than it in the vast majority, if not every app outrightly. Can you say the same about the 3950x without going niche?
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
1592354559860.png

This graph is not even representative. if you take gaming alone, how many individual game titles are people playing? What percentage does that constitute of useful installed apps on the user's pc?
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
5,078
7,454
136
The value comes with the performance. In this case, you'd be faster in EVERYTHING. A halo product, should ideally trounce any chip lower than it in the vast majority, if not every app outrightly. Can you say the same about the 3950x without going niche?

You haven't given any examples whatsoever except to say, it's faster in EVERYTHING! If I look at purchasing a 10900k versus a 3900x, I see no value add for me to spend the additional money on my home/work machine, none whatsoever. I see no value add to spend the additional money on the family PC over a good quad or maybe hex core CPU, none whatsoever. What is the value add for this product? You can't just say it's FASTER, that doesn't mean anything.
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
You haven't given any examples whatsoever except to say, it's faster in EVERYTHING! If I look at purchasing a 10900k versus a 3900x, I see no value add for me to spend the additional money on my home/work machine, none whatsoever. I see no value add to spend the additional money on the family PC over a good quad or maybe hex core CPU, none whatsoever. What is the value add for this product? You can't just say it's FASTER, that doesn't mean anything.
I'm supposed to take your use case and draw general conclusions? Not possible. What you're arguing here is that you're not willing to take an average 5% hit in multithreaded workloads and be faster in almost everything else. Obviously, you have a special use case where that 5% provides more value to you so that's that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: spursindonesia

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,870
3,194
126
But maybe we can be more specific. I can give you an example of multiple applications/usage scenarios that I use that give me tangible value added benefits from CPUs with many cores all being loaded. From CAD simulations, to transcoding, to compiling, to heavy multitasking without interruption, all enabling me to accomplish significantly more work in a given day and have a 100% smooth computing experience. Now, what is the value add that I would get buying a 10900k over say a R5 3600 or a 10600K or even a 3300x, in a lightly threaded, low compute work environment?
You have a correct and valid point. If you need heavy parallelizable work, Ryzen is better all around. The 10900K is just an afterthought without much of a good market.

But, Zucker2k has a valid point too. For a large swath of people, the vast majority of their work is perfectly fine on a 4 core computer, but they occasionally have the need for more power. I'm a great example. Most of my day is spent on a computer (at work and often at home). But, my work is usually light. 4 core processors are great for me. Except, once a month I have a heavy compute task. I might rip some DVDs, perform a heavy Excel calculation, or heck even run some of my own code that needs more muscle. It is great to have backup power available for those situations. Snappy in most work, extra cores available when needed. That is where the i5, i7, and possibly i9 come in.

Now, stop thinking about it like a DIYer, and look at the total system cost for what non-DYI buyers actually buy. Here are all of Dell's desktop computers:
  • Click i3, 10th Generation, and ignore the crap 4 GB model. $470.39
  • Click i5, 10th Generation. $538.99. 2 more cores than the i3 for the cost of dinner. I'm willing do to that.
  • Click i7, 10th Generation. $764.39. 4 more cores than the i3. But also more memory and a SSD. That is a tough choice. 63% more money for double the cores, faster frequencies, more memory, and a decent hard drive. I'd probably do that even if I don't need the other cores.
  • Click i9, 10th Generation. Can't buy. Dell won't have it available for a couple more weeks. Again Hitman, you are correct, the 10900K is not for me.
  • Click Ryzen. Cheapest is $1009.39. Yes, it is quite a better machine. But, I can't possibly justify 2.15x the cost for components I really don't need or even want.
That is where Intel wins: off the shelf good OEM machines. AMD has the high end won. But most of us don't need the high end. Then what is left that isn't high-end and is AMD generally is crap, if anything is available at all. AMD needs to get rid of their low-cost image in low-cost machines. We need a true middle ground machine purchasable today at all OEMs.

Honestly a couple hundred dollars is nothing to a large swath of Americans. That is why the i5 and i7 sell. More future proof, and have the oomph for the few times we need the more power. But, to get a good medium speed AMD system off the shelf is just not easy without looking around a lot.
 

liahos2

Banned
Jan 3, 2020
11
7
51
agree with Zucker2k. Ryzen chips are great for multi threaded workloads. But for me a 10900k would be better. Why? well I'm currently working from home. And I'm forced to remote into my work desktop pc due to compliance reasons. Here 16 cores/12 cores/10 cores are pointless.

Even if I were running apps natively - Bloomberg, Chrome, Acrobat, Outlook, our internal PNL system, maybe One Note, Excel - none of this is going to beat up on a 10900k or 10700k. Heck my 4 core system at work rarely sees CPU utilization hit higher than 40%. I'm probably like 90% of the use case for home pc use. PPL encoding and decoding videos aren't.

What does matter to me at home is gaming. I have a 144hz refresh monitor and am addicted to high fps and min frame times. For that reason and that reason alone I'd get a 10900k.
So then one might say well at 3440x1440p/144hz a gpu is going to be the constraint, not the CPU. That is true, but I typically will do 2-3 GPU upgrades over the lifecycle of a system. So with each upgrade the system becomes less GPU constrained.

FWIW - my 5820k conked out after running it 24/7 for 5 years at 4.5ghz. I brought it to my local microcenter to figure out why its freezing up in bios after unsuccessfully trying to diagnose it myself. I went to the back to check out CPU stock. Guess what? Intel basically sold out at everything below the 10700. AMD stock plentiful.

Hopefully they can fix whatever the issue is in my current system - I wasn't planning on doing a new build until next year. At which point in time I'd look at rocketlake/alderlake/zen 4 and figure out what is going to run my games best.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: spursindonesia

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,984
3,347
136
What does matter to me at home is gaming. I have a 144hz refresh monitor and am addicted to high fps and min frame times. For that reason and that reason alone I'd get a 10900k.
So then one might say well at 3440x1440p/144hz a gpu is going to be the constraint, not the CPU. That is true, but I typically will do 2-3 GPU upgrades over the lifecycle of a system. So with each upgrade the system becomes less GPU constrained.

For older games yes, for future/newer games no.

Also, every CPU of $200-300 and up today is capable of producing 144fps, 99% of the time its the GPU that doesnt, especially in higher resolutions.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
5,078
7,454
136
You have a correct and valid point. If you need heavy parallelizable work, Ryzen is better all around. The 10900K is just an afterthought without much of a good market.

But, Zucker2k has a valid point too. For a large swath of people, the vast majority of their work is perfectly fine on a 4 core computer, but they occasionally have the need for more power. I'm a great example. Most of my day is spent on a computer (at work and often at home). But, my work is usually light. 4 core processors are great for me. Except, once a month I have a heavy compute task. I might rip some DVDs, perform a heavy Excel calculation, or heck even run some of my own code that needs more muscle. It is great to have backup power available for those situations. Snappy in most work, extra cores available when needed. That is where the i5, i7, and possibly i9 come in.

Now, stop thinking about it like a DIYer, and look at the total system cost for what non-DYI buyers actually buy. Here are all of Dell's desktop computers:
  • Click i3, 10th Generation, and ignore the crap 4 GB model. $470.39
  • Click i5, 10th Generation. $538.99. 2 more cores than the i3 for the cost of dinner. I'm willing do to that.
  • Click i7, 10th Generation. $764.39. 4 more cores than the i3. But also more memory and a SSD. That is a tough choice. 63% more money for double the cores, faster frequencies, more memory, and a decent hard drive. I'd probably do that even if I don't need the other cores.
  • Click i9, 10th Generation. Can't buy. Dell won't have it available for a couple more weeks. Again Hitman, you are correct, the 10900K is not for me.
  • Click Ryzen. Cheapest is $1009.39. Yes, it is quite a better machine. But, I can't possibly justify 2.15x the cost for components I really don't need or even want.
That is where Intel wins: off the shelf good OEM machines. AMD has the high end won. But most of us don't need the high end. Then what is left that isn't high-end and is AMD generally is crap, if anything is available at all. AMD needs to get rid of their low-cost image in low-cost machines. We need a true middle ground machine purchasable today at all OEMs.

Honestly a couple hundred dollars is nothing to a large swath of Americans. That is why the i5 and i7 sell. More future proof, and have the oomph for the few times we need the more power. But, to get a good medium speed AMD system off the shelf is just not easy without looking around a lot.

OEM is a whole different ballgame with its own rules and scenarios and Intel largely owns that market, especially if you restrict yourself to Dell only. So while the point is valid, I don't think its relevant for this forum of discussion.

For your DiY example, I understand the benefit of 10 cores even under occasional heavy use, but can you share the value add something like the 10900k will give you over a 3900x or even a 9900K outside of that occasional heavy use? In other words, if the occasional heavy use is the value add, wouldn't a more capable heavy duty processor give additional value in those use scenarios? So what is the balancing value add when the cores aren't used that give you additional value in the 10900k?
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,870
3,194
126
For your DiY example, I understand the benefit of 10 cores even under occasional heavy use, but can you share the value add something like the 10900k will give you over a 3900x or even a 9900K outside of that occasional heavy use?
1) I don't have a DIY example. I was talking about the vast majority of home and business users who aren't DIY.

2) You asked why someone would buy more than 4 cores for light usage. I said why someone would. The difference in price is fairly small and you get some benefits (often better surrounding components with an OEM).

3) The 10900K is clearly better than the 9900K. Faster all-core turbo, 2 more cores, runs with faster memory, all for the same price. The same price makes the 9900K pointless once the 10900K is readilly available next month. Still not a CPU for me or even the majority of people.

4) There is not much 10900K benefit over the 3900x and the 3900x has certain HEDT benefits over the 10900K. Overall, I'd get the 3900x. But, the performance difference and price difference are fairly minimal.

Equally configured OEMs: 10900K $2724.39 (available in July), 3900X $2596.99. You'd have a great computer with both.


 
Last edited:

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
5,078
7,454
136
1) I don't have a DIY example. I was talking about the vast majority of home and business users who aren't DIY.

2) You asked why someone would by more than 4 cores for light usage. I said why someone would. The difference in price is fairly small and you get some benefits (often better surrounding components with an OEM).

3) The 10900K is clearly better than the 9900K. Faster all-core turbo, 2 more cores, runs with faster memory, all for the same price. The same price makes the 9900K pointless once the 10900K is readilly available next month. Still not a CPU for me or even the majority of people.

4) There is not much 10900K benefit over the 3900x and the 3900x has certain HEDT benefits over the 10900K. Overall, I'd get the 3900x. But, the performance difference and price difference are fairly minimal.

Equally configured OEMs: 10900K $2724.39 (available in July), 3900X $2596.99. You'd have a great computer with both.



Ok, if your basing it off of OEM offerings, then we're just talking about different things and I generally agree with you on those points :)