Recent benchmark submission shows Intel's upcoming Core i3 will have Hyper-Threading

William Gayde

TS Addict
Staff member

Eagle-eyed Twitter user TUM_APISAK spotted a new submission to the SiSoftware benchmark database that appears to show some performance details of Intel's upcoming Comet Lake Core i3-10100. The 4-core, 8-thread feature is most notable since only two years ago, you would have had to spend about $350 to get that kind of core count. The i3-10100 will launch at roughly $120 or about one third the cost.

The addition of Hyper-Threading to their i3 lineup is certainly a response to the success of Ryzen processors. AMD can offer more cores for less and that has hurt Intel's market share.

The chip on SiSoft's database is likely an engineering sample, so the actual specs and benchmark results may change by launch time. Currently, the chip is running at 3.6GHz with 4x 256kB L2 cache and 6MB of L3 cache. We don't know much about boost clocks, but other leaks have put it at 4.4GHz for this chip.

The Comet Lake platform will be built on Intel's 14nm +++ lithography and will likely feature Hyper-Threading across the board. Rumors show the i5 variant having 6 cores / 12 threads, the i7 having 8 cores / 16 threads, and the i9 having 10 cores / 20 threads. Comet Lake is expected to launch in early 2020.

Permalink to story.

 

Shadowboxer

TS Addict
PC gaming really is separating from general computing. A 4 core 8 thread Intel CPU will be more than enough for most gamers.

I think it’s great, I don’t want to buy some expensive 16 core monster with bundles of RAM just to get the most out of a GPU. Hopefully we can eliminate more CPU overhead in games to save us money, heat and space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loki1944

Gahl1k

TS Enthusiast
PC gaming really is separating from general computing. A 4 core 8 thread Intel CPU will be more than enough for most gamers.

I think it’s great, I don’t want to buy some expensive 16 core monster with bundles of RAM just to get the most out of a GPU. Hopefully we can eliminate more CPU overhead in games to save us money, heat and space.
With next-generation consoles having 8-core processors, I doubt 4 cores will be enough in the foreseeable future.
 

lumbeeman

TS Enthusiast
PC gaming really is separating from general computing. A 4 core 8 thread Intel CPU will be more than enough for most gamers.

I think it’s great, I don’t want to buy some expensive 16 core monster with bundles of RAM just to get the most out of a GPU. Hopefully we can eliminate more CPU overhead in games to save us money, heat and space.
4 core 8 thread CPUs are enough to play yes, but more than enough no way. In some games it is barely enough and from this point forward it would be wise to at LEAST have a 6 core 12 thread.
 

Shadowboxer

TS Addict
Games like Assassin's Creed and Battlefield already saturate up to 12 threads, so, no, 4/8 isn't enough anymore. Consoles have had 8-core CPUs since 2013, and we're finally starting to see the effects of that.
4/8 is enough, I have a quad core hyper threaded CPU and I can play both of those games at 60fps fine. In fact it’s quite obvious that my GPU is the limiting factor in my system.

Some games can deliver better performance with 6/12 than they can on 4/8 but that doesn’t mean 4/8 isn’t enough.

Games aren’t complicated, if a game requires a heavy core count CPU I would say it’s badly optimised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbk34 and Godel

Evernessince

TS Evangelist
PC gaming really is separating from general computing. A 4 core 8 thread Intel CPU will be more than enough for most gamers.

I think it’s great, I don’t want to buy some expensive 16 core monster with bundles of RAM just to get the most out of a GPU. Hopefully we can eliminate more CPU overhead in games to save us money, heat and space.
I would rather they use the CPU to enable new experiences then stagnate. It makes sense for devs to utilize both the CPU and GPU power at their disposal. Given that 6 cores is at the $200 price bracket and lower, you should expect games to take notice of those additional cores.
 

Shadowboxer

TS Addict
I would rather they use the CPU to enable new experiences then stagnate. It makes sense for devs to utilize both the CPU and GPU power at their disposal. Given that 6 cores is at the $200 price bracket and lower, you should expect games to take notice of those additional cores.
It doesn’t make sense for devs to make games that require more than 4 cores or run badly on less than 6 as the vast majority of users have 4 cores or less. I can’t really think of any “new features” in games that would require more than 4 CPU cores. Can you tell me of any you are aware of?

Also, with DX12 and Vulcan we have seen the CPU overhead massively reduced. I’m hoping we can go even further and get to the point where we can get the most out if our games with something basic like an Athlon.

It’s not good for anyone if we are going to need to start buying CPUs with 8+ cores just to get the most out of our GPUs. Especially as graphics cards aren’t going to be getting any cheaper anytime soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loki1944

loki1944

TS Maniac
4 core 8 thread CPUs are enough to play yes, but more than enough no way. In some games it is barely enough and from this point forward it would be wise to at LEAST have a 6 core 12 thread.
Proof? Even 10 year old quad cores can handle modern games; not as well as modern CPUs at lower resolutions, but good enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shadowboxer

loki1944

TS Maniac
It doesn’t make sense for devs to make games that require more than 4 cores or run badly on less than 6 as the vast majority of users have 4 cores or less. I can’t really think of any “new features” in games that would require more than 4 CPU cores. Can you tell me of any you are aware of?

Also, with DX12 and Vulcan we have seen the CPU overhead massively reduced. I’m hoping we can go even further and get to the point where we can get the most out if our games with something basic like an Athlon.

It’s not good for anyone if we are going to need to start buying CPUs with 8+ cores just to get the most out of our GPUs. Especially as graphics cards aren’t going to be getting any cheaper anytime soon.
Exactly; thinking otherwise is ignorance really. Game devs are going to target mass consumers; I.e. 75% of pc gamers per the steam hardware survey.
 

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
Gamers Nexus doesn't even recommend i5's for gaming anymore.
Judging from the 9600K frame times, I tend to agree.
Can you get away with less? Of course, but if you want the most out of your hardware, i7 / R5 is where it's at.
 

bluetooth fairy

TS Booster
Also, with DX12 and Vulcan we have seen the CPU overhead massively reduced. I’m hoping we can go even further and get to the point where we can get the most out if our games with something basic like an Athlon.
With projects like Google Stadia it can happen. Some people say it will take less than two years after the launch to make it really enjoyable with visual settings cranked up to the max.
 

dirtyferret

TS Evangelist
Games like Assassin's Creed and Battlefield already saturate up to 12 threads, so, no, 4/8 isn't enough anymore. Consoles have had 8-core CPUs since 2013, and we're finally starting to see the effects of that.
They utilize threads, they hardly saturate them especially when you consider AC's burden has more to do with horrible DRM. The current console jaguar based CPU needs 8 cores because it's an awful CPU not because games need 8 cores. Intel dual core CPUs ran rings around it at launch. An Intel 4c/8t CPU is enough for 1080p 60fps gaming. If someone has higher demands then obviously they need to build to those requirements.
 
Last edited:

yRaz

Nigerian Prince
They utilize threads, they hardly saturate them especially when you consider AC's burden has more to do with horrible DRM. The current console jaguar based CPU needs 8 cores because it's an awful CPU not because games need 8 cores. Intel dual core CPUs ran rings around it at launch. An Intel 4c/8t CPU is enough for 1080p 60fps gaming. If someone has higher demands then obviously they need to build to those requirements.
Well you also have the issue of lazy devs using threads but not utilizing them fully. We more or less need to brute force our way around developer laziness. Also, adding threads doesn't add anything to the cost of manufacturing the chip. This is a HUGE over simplification, but multithreading is more on the software/firmware side than it is on the silicon die side of things
 
Last edited:

Evernessince

TS Evangelist
It doesn’t make sense for devs to make games that require more than 4 cores or run badly on less than 6 as the vast majority of users have 4 cores or less. I can’t really think of any “new features” in games that would require more than 4 CPU cores. Can you tell me of any you are aware of?

Also, with DX12 and Vulcan we have seen the CPU overhead massively reduced. I’m hoping we can go even further and get to the point where we can get the most out if our games with something basic like an Athlon.

It’s not good for anyone if we are going to need to start buying CPUs with 8+ cores just to get the most out of our GPUs. Especially as graphics cards aren’t going to be getting any cheaper anytime soon.
Mainsteam is $200, which is where 6 cores currently sit. Next generation they will likely be at $100 - 150 (although you can already snag a 2600 and 1600 at these prices).

Features like ray tracing require a lot of CPU overhead and that's why Battlefield recommends an 8 core CPU when RTX is enabled. There are plenty of features that are run on the CPU. Games run things like AI, scripts, pathing, the game engine itself, ect on the CPU. The GPU may be excellent at rendering the game but ultimately it is the CPU that is setting everything up in the background. This is why GPUs are co-processors.

Want more complicated games with advanced weather systems, dynamic wildlife with hunter pray associations, fully dynamic game environments where there is more then just static 3D models and terrain like we have now? As I see it, video games haven't even scrapped the surface of what's possible and for better games we certainly need to utilize the advantages of both components.

People aren't spending more on these higher core count CPUs, they are priced in the same bracket you could have paid for a mainstream processor over the past decade. In fact they are a bit less the way intel had inflated prices a few years back.

Vulcan on DX12 reduce overhead the API's themselves and remove bottlenecks but at the cost of requiring more work from devs. As you can see by the current crop of DX12 games, they are not a silver bullet. Even if we do someday reach a point where DX12 and Vulcan consistently provide those benefits, it only provides more opportunity to use that extra CPU power to make the game more compelling.

GPUs are not a cure all that can do everything a CPU can. It would be wise to utilize each to it's own advantages.