Dell video reveals 10th-gen Comet Lake desktop CPUs are on their way

midian182

Posts: 9,661   +121
Staff member
Highly anticipated: Intel debuted its 10th-generation Comet Lake laptop processors last summer, but we’re still waiting for any official word on the desktop version of these chips. However, a new YouTube video from Dell suggests it won't be long before they arrive.

In a clip for Dell’s XPS Tower and XPS Tower Special Edition, it's stated that they feature “10th Gen Intel Core Processors,” marking the first time we’ve seen the non-mobile version of these chips. Sadly, the video has just been set to private, but you can view a screen grab of the reveal above.

There has been the X-Series version, including the $1,000 Core i9-10980XE, but Intel says these are 9th-generation CPUs.

It’s thought that there will be over twenty 10th-gen Comet Lake desktop chips, including the 10-core/20-thread i9-10900K that replaces the i9-9900K. Leaks say the flagship CPU will feature 125W TDP, a base frequency of 3.7GHz, and boost to 5.1GHz.

With these processors, Intel will be looking to take on AMD and its third-generation Ryzen CPUs. Team Red has been chipping away at its rival's desktop CPU market share for years, so Intel will be hoping to get back in the game with Comet Lake. The chips will have hyperthreading enabled from the i9-10900K all the way down to the Pentium G6400T, unlike the current-gen, where it’s only on the i9 series. They will also be more competitively priced against Ryzen.

Intel will have its work cut out, though. For a start, while AMD is down to 7nm, Comet Lake is based on a refined version of the 14-nanometer process Intel’s been using since Skylake, meaning they'll have a higher power draw—up to 300W at maximum load. And with the latest Intel chips rumored to arrive in April, it won’t be too long before they’re competing against the fourth-gen Ryzen series, which launch sometime in Q3.

Permalink to story.

 
10900K - 125W TDP, a base frequency of 3.7GHz, 4.8GHz all core boost, 4.9GHz all core velocity boost, 5.1GHz single core boost, 5.2GHz single core boost 3.0 and 5.3GHz single core thermal velocity boost.

So many clocks on one chip.....
 
Hoping the KS version of this chip can hit 5.3GHz - 5.5GHz.
Holy gaming goodness!
 
ZZzzzzZZZZZZzzzzz.....poor Intel, just can't catch-up to AMD no matter what they try. After decades of getting taken by Intel, I don't feel sorry for them. The tic-tok plan was little more than a way to placate the masses with tiny updates to the same old architecture resulting in minuscule improvements.

The 10 series continues the tradition. Now they're pulling out the old P4 trick of increasing clock speeds instead of improving IPC.
 
10900K - 125W TDP, a base frequency of 3.7GHz, 4.8GHz all core boost, 4.9GHz all core velocity boost, 5.1GHz single core boost, 5.2GHz single core boost 3.0 and 5.3GHz single core thermal velocity boost.

So many clocks on one chip.....
Ah, the joys of modern marketing.
 
Hoping the KS version of this chip can hit 5.3GHz - 5.5GHz.
Holy gaming goodness!

You can get a 9900K up to 5.4 GHz with a very high end custom loop and some luck. The problem with this new chip is it's adding two more cores, so heat will increase accordingly. It will be interesting to see what kind of cooling solution is needed to keep temps down.

Mind you, I don't think you'll see much benefit OCing. The chip already boosts to 5.3 GHz out of the box (assuming that all chips are capable of such). Returns over 5 GHz on Intel's current architecture are extremely small to begin with. 3% performance going from 4.8 GHz to 5.2 GHz and a 28% increase in power consumption.
 
Last edited:
You can get a 9900K up to 5.4 GHz with a very high end custom loop and some luck.
The chip already boosts to 5.3 GHz out of the box (assuming that all chips are capable of such).
I was talking about all cores running that at once, like the KS.

Returns over 5 GHz on Intel's current architecture are extremely small to begin with.
This is true, your not gaining much by going from 5.0Ghz to something like 5.3, but you are gaining alot by going from something like 4.7 to 5.3, like with an 8700k build I helped a friend with. He picked up an honest 7-12FPS across the board.

That being said I would like to see these 14NM's hit 5.5GHz, although it might burn a hole in the ozone and awake Godzilla.
 
The more clock speed Intel pile on their 14nm desktop processors the harder it'll be to best them with their own 10nm which can't hit these high clocks.

They face a dilemma. They can't move to 10nm for desktop if it isn't faster. It might save power as TDP rockets on the 10th gen but if they aren't faster it's a step backwards in the fight against AMD.

I think it'll be yet another couple of years before Intel finally move on from 14nm. Quite an incredible situation.
 
At this rate, the 11th gen Intel CPU will double as an Easy Bake Oven. Wanna play some Crysis while you bake those brownies??
 
The big elephant that everybody seems to have forgotten: Does any self-respecting DIY gamer here REALLY buy Dell desktops with their proprietary everything???

PS: Unless they changed that proprietary BS at some point. I couldn't tell because I bought one Dell 20 years ago and never again.
 
I know making any positive noise about Intel v AMD is not allowed, but Intel still tend to perform better than AMD on a per-thread basis and given most games use very few threads they do tend to run faster on Intel CPUs.... I know AMD has PCIE v4, better efficiency, more cores per dollar etc etc etc, but in raw single thread performance you will generally find Intel CPUs are considerably faster.... If AMD could nail this it would be a no-brainer, but they haven't as yet and so it is a much less clear picture than all these comments would have you believe. If it's pure gaming performance you are after regardless of value for money, thermal efficiency, high core counts and all the other stuff an Intel CPU (probably an I9 9900K or i7 9700K if you are on a budget) will still be the best option currently. I suspect these 10-series CPUs will move them even further ahead in the short term. After 4th gen Ryzen launch in Q3 we will see if they have closed this gap - hope so.
 
If it's pure gaming performance you are after regardless of value for money, thermal efficiency, high core counts and all the other stuff an Intel CPU (probably an I9 9900K or i7 9700K if you are on a budget) will still be the best option currently.

Well, if it's pure gaming performance regardless of all other considerations, you are a GTX 2080ti buyer. That's a pretty small subset of gamers, but ok.
 
Boshum - a 9700K is a sub-$400 part so hardly comparable to 2080ti, but I'm not looking for an argument - just trying to counterpoint the rather blinkered comments about AMD and Intel that we see on this and so many other sites.

To back this up I'm including this link to JayZTwoCents and GamerNexus discussing the best CPU to go for at the moment... They even mention the issue with saying anything bad about AMD in this video to try to preempt being flamed...


The other thing I don't understand at the moment is that so much of the bench-marking etc done is now based around cine-bench and blender performance etc, but how many people are really using these sorts of tools? I may be wrong, but surely its a low proportion?
Personally I use a PC for some MS Office tasks, lots of Chrome, lots of Visual Studio and lots of Games and most people I know have very similar workloads (maybe without VS) . Obviously content-creators on YouTube etc are going to want video-rendering performance and so they include these workloads but what percentage of the people watching those videos are doing much of that themselves?
 
10900K - 125W TDP, a base frequency of 3.7GHz, 4.8GHz all core boost, 4.9GHz all core velocity boost, 5.1GHz single core boost, 5.2GHz single core boost 3.0 and 5.3GHz single core thermal velocity boost.

So many clocks on one chip.....
Thermal velocity boost looks like a benchmark enhancement feature for short / bursty workloads, achievable on a still cold system with high end cooling.

It will make benchmark results look good but I somehow doubt most users will see these numbers on their PC during a gaming session.
 
Thermal velocity boost looks like a benchmark enhancement feature for short / bursty workloads, achievable on a still cold system with high end cooling.

It will make benchmark results look good but I somehow doubt most users will see these numbers on their PC during a gaming session.

Meanwhile Ryzen wasn't hitting regular boost, remember? In fact you're lucky it hits boost for half a second before dropping. Intel does boost far better. How do I know? Because I've never heard that about Intel before. And if they have they fixed the issue, because the internet took a dump on AMD for not doing it. Now THAT was marketing. Confirmed!

Velocity and boost in general is for short boosts on 1 or 2 cores like it's always been, and to say it's for benchmarks and games is silly at best. In fact the X470 I'm gonna buy has had 15 BIOS updates since 2018! Insanity! I know 4 of them were to fix boost alone! Intel is still better for 80% of consumers. It's simply plug and play unlike Zen. Boost and all!
 
If you compare the CPU's core for core and thread for thread, its pretty close.
The 6/12 8700K and 6/12 3600X are very similar in performance, as are the 8/16 9900K and 8/16 3800X.
The Intel's are better gamers by a good amount, and AMD's are better for production tasks by a little, in some tests Intel still wins actually, with most wins going to AMD, but again, neither victory is substantial. This notion that Ryzen is just more spectacular in every way is just AMD hype and rhetoric, and I am getting a little annoyed with the brand humping.
Before the red tide attacks me like usual, I admit AMD's 7NM process is sweet, their Ryzen chips are nothing short of awesome and there is no doubt AMD will start increasing market share on both personal and business computing, but to say they are just heads and tails better is not true and anyone dismissing that is just choosing to believe what they want to believe, and not the actual data/results/benchmarks.

Yes, when you get to the Ryzen chips packing a bazillion cores and threads they are incredibly impressive for production purposes and amazing value for the money, but a 3900X ain't exactly cheap @ $425, and for gamers, and from a gaming perspective a 3900X gets you about 8700K gaming performance.
Not saying Ryzen doesn't make sense in some gaming builds pending the overall cost or people doing gaming builds should go Intel, but for everyday computing, and for most folks, both companies still offer compelling options, especially if your a gamer, which, many folks are.
 
Back