Karlston Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Intel Comet Lake-S prices have leaked, and it looks like AMD will win in price again Come on, Intel (Image credit: Intel) Historically speaking, the Intel vs AMD battle has typically played out like this: Intel was more expensive while offering top-end performance, while AMD processors were much more affordable. But, that's changed recently, with AMD providing better performance and prices, while Intel is just expensive – and it doesn't look like that's about to change. Renowned leaker @momomo_us spotted EU pricing for a pretty wide range of 10th-generation Intel Comet Lake processors from the low-end Celeron G5900 to the mid-range Intel Core i5-10600. And well, they're pretty expensive. This pricing leak places the Intel Core i5-10500 at €252 (about $270, £210, AU$412), which is far more expensive than even the Ryzen 5 3600X which is currently €225 (about $240, £190, AU$370) on German retailer CaseKing. Now it's very likely that Intel could pull out a single-core win over AMD's chips, but even with Hyperthreading, it probably won't win in multi-core workloads. That's not even considering the elephant in the room that is AMD Ryzen 4000. We still haven't seen Intel announce a release date for its Comet Lake processors, and it's very possible that they'll have to face up directly against AMD's Zen 3 processors. If that happens, AMD's refinement of its 7nm architecture could see IPC improvements that put Intel's chips to shame. It's very possible, however, that these leaked prices are simply wrong – keep in mind that Intel did absolutely slash prices on its 10th-generation Core X processors when it knew they wouldn't compete with Threadripper 3rd Generation. Either way, we won’t know what the actual prices for Intel’s 10th-generation processors will look like, we just hope they’ll be affordable and Intel won’t price itself out of relevance. Via PCGamesN Source: Intel Comet Lake-S prices have leaked, and it looks like AMD will win in price again (TechRadar) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israeli_Eagle Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Tho the Ryzen 3600X is also somehow a weird CPU, because... 3600X - 6/12 cores - 95W TDP -vs- 3700X - 8/16 cores - 65W TDP Hmmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlston Posted February 22, 2020 Author Share Posted February 22, 2020 41 minutes ago, Israeli_Eagle said: Hmmmmm... That is odd, same fab, same clock, same architecture, one 8-core chiplet in each... but more cores with lower TDP, and fewer cores with higher TDP. Counterintuitive. Perhaps the 3700X is using chiplets specially selected for high power efficiency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israeli_Eagle Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 31 minutes ago, Karlston said: That is odd, same fab, same clock, same architecture, one 8-core chiplet in each... but more cores with lower TDP, and fewer cores with higher TDP. Counterintuitive. Perhaps the 3700X is using chiplets specially selected for high power efficiency? No clue... 3600X has theoretically a higher base clock, tho also nothing different because my 3700X was never under 4.0 GHz anyway thanks to a good Noctua cooler. Ok, the 3700X costs more of course. Here's the comparison: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-3700X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X/4043vs4041 But I got right now rating 'UFO' for Desktop and Workstation, probably because of Samsung NVMe SSD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berdi Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 if you ask me, i say, manufacturing process is NOT 100% efficient (including intel). so, chiplets rated lower quality (with defective core/s) are used in lower end cpus... that way the manufacturer reduces waste... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israeli_Eagle Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 37 minutes ago, berdi said: if you ask me, i say, manufacturing process is NOT 100% efficient (including intel). so, chiplets rated lower quality (with defective core/s) are used in lower end cpus... that way the manufacturer reduces waste... That makes sense! Because usually cores are also only powers of 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlston Posted February 22, 2020 Author Share Posted February 22, 2020 37 minutes ago, Israeli_Eagle said: Because usually cores are also only powers of 2 Actually multiples of 2. 6 isn't a power of 2, not an integer one anyway. 1 hour ago, berdi said: if you ask me, i say, manufacturing process is NOT 100% efficient (including intel). so, chiplets rated lower quality (with defective core/s) are used in lower end cpus... that way the manufacturer reduces waste... Quite right. It can also go the other way when there's higher demand for lower end chips, then functioning cores may be disabled, and/or released at a lower clock than they're capable of. The latter is what overclockers like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israeli_Eagle Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 26 minutes ago, Karlston said: Actually multiples of 2. 6 isn't a power of 2, not an integer one anyway. Exactly, they have technically cores as powers of 2!! Because of that CPUs usually have only 1, 2, 4 , 8 etc cores. The same I remember from 3 core CPUs, actually 1 core was simply damaged & disabled. Plus of core groups, so nowadays they cannot cut 1 and instead only 2. As result you get then a cheap 6 cores CPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3175x175(CURRENT).thumb.jpg.b05acc060982b36f5891ba728e6d953c.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.