Intel 10nm/7nm CPU/GPU Rumor Thread : Cannonlake, Icelake, Tigerlake, Sapphire Rapids, etc.

even 4% is mostly a stretch according to the GN reviews. alot of times its 1-2%. for $100, huge ripoff. I was expecting 3600XT to compete with a stock 3700x and it just isnt even close. I paid $285 for my 3700x and its light years ahead of the 3600XT even when they get it up to 4.6ghz.
 
It's also annoying that AMD launched this "refresh" before desktop renoir. The 2400g I bought over 2 years ago is still the best APU they have right now.
At this point, it is pretty much too late and most will wait for RKL or Zen 3 before getting a new APU. Missed opportunity imho.
 
Nightfire said:
It's also annoying that AMD launched this "refresh" before desktop renoir. The 2400g I bought over 2 years ago is still the best APU they have right now.
At this point, it is pretty much too late and most will wait for RKL or Zen 3 before getting a new APU. Missed opportunity imho.
Click to expand...
The... rumor site that shall not be named... has benchmarks on the new APUs.

Aside from the Vega GPU block (ugh), they look quite nice, especially when overclocked -- but I'd be willing to bet that a more conservative profile alongside some reasonably substantial cooling would provide very quiet operation as well.

More or less what I'd want from a socketed 10nm or smaller Intel part, if one existed...
 
IdiotInCharge said:
The... rumor site that shall not be named... has benchmarks on the new APUs.

Aside from the Vega GPU block (ugh), they look quite nice, especially when overclocked -- but I'd be willing to bet that a more conservative profile alongside some reasonably substantial cooling would provide very quiet operation as well.

More or less what I'd want from a socketed 10nm or smaller Intel part, if one existed...
Click to expand...

They also aren't going to have the huge cache that the regular Zen2 chips have IIRC.
 
Keljian said:
I have intel because my ryzen 1700 had some compatibility issues with memory and the software I used at the time. In addition to this, when I upgraded to the 9900k the competing processor was the 2800x which wasn’t as fast.

Ryzen still needs fast memory to work optimally (cause of their infinity fabric) and that is a consideration in price also.

The intel processors, for the average person, aren’t that much worse than the AMD chips, if you don’t look at the 14+++ vs 7nm arguments, or clock for clock comparisons.

Also, you can’t overclock AMD chips worth a damn as they clock themselves, intel chips typically can be overclocked at least 10% on their AVX side, and some on their cache side too. This can make them monsters for single (or few) thread performance.
Click to expand...

Memory pricing is coming back down to the point where a decent set of 3600Mhz is only a couple dollars more than a set of 3000/3200Mhz (if any difference at all on sale).
 
kirbyrj said:
They also aren't going to have the huge cache that the regular Zen2 chips have IIRC.
Click to expand...
They don't need it; that cache was / is a hack to overcome the latency penalty incurred by removing the memory controller from the CPU die(s). The APUs are monolithic, which means that they very well could outperform any of AMDs current eight-core parts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
IdiotInCharge said:
They don't need it; that cache was / is a hack to overcome the latency penalty incurred by removing the memory controller from the CPU die(s). The APUs are monolithic, which means that they very well could outperform any of AMDs current eight-core parts.
Click to expand...

Except in programs that favor a large CPU cache :p.

But seriously, I understand what you're saying. If the 4.5Ghz clock speeds are to be believed, it could definitely rival the 8 core Intel parts straight up. The cross CCX latency obviously doesn't help Zen2. Removing that performance penalty could be a big boost. Last I saw the pricing was slightly over $300?
 
kirbyrj said:
Except in programs that favor a large CPU cache :p.
Click to expand...
Sure!

I don't really know what those are, though, for a desktop user. Reading the reviews of the Zen 2 XT, it looks like the advantage is mostly restricted to synthetic workloads. Real-world consumer workloads are likely to be too dynamic to benefit.
kirbyrj said:
But seriously, I understand what you're saying. If the 4.5Ghz clock speeds are to be believed, it could definitely rival the 8 core Intel parts straight up. The cross CCX latency obviously doesn't help Zen2. Removing that performance penalty could be a big boost. Last I saw the pricing was slightly over $300?
Click to expand...
They're still quoting the same synthetics that boost Zen 2's highlights, so it remains to be seen; the bigger advantage is in terms of simply not really giving anything up from a desktop user's perspective.

I'm not expecting the Vega graphics to be much of a standout, and AMDs media transcoding support (whether due to hardware limitations, their drivers, or just reluctant developers) is abysmal relative to QuickSync and especially NVENC, but supposing that's not needed, AMD finally has a decent GPU-less answer. Or one that can use its GPU to drive additional displays separate from the main GPU.
 
Some juicy new rumors for RKL:
https://www.techpowerup.com/269667/intel-core-i7-rocket-lake-chips-to-be-8-core-12-thread

It looks like the i7 will be an 8/12 part. This seems necessary as the i9 maxes out at 8/16 and the i5 will be a 6/12 part as to compete with the next gen R5.
What's more is that i3 and below may be CML refresh. That raises a lot of questions on i/o. No leaks on core count, but if I were to wager a bet, the i3 would be a 6/6 part so as to compete with the next gen 4/8 R3. Pentiums and Celerons would most likely be lower clock/cache 4/8 and 4/4 parts.
20200710_153540.jpg
 
8C/12T? So some cores service 2 threads and some just 1? That seems bananas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Snowdog said:
Or that someone made a mistake in the slide deck.
Click to expand...

it makes sense from a product segmentation point and is technically achievable. It may balance hot spots on the die as well.

They want to keep their i9 flagship brand and RKL is limited to 8/16. The i5 NEEDS to be 6/12 so this seems logical.
 
PhaseNoise said:
8C/12T? So some cores service 2 threads and some just 1? That seems bananas.
Click to expand...
I'm already imagining some adjustment to the physical topology where this might make sense; perhaps some level of cache that is shared between pairs of cores, such that an extra assignable thread between the two could be very well fed.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I'm already imagining some adjustment to the physical topology where this might make sense; perhaps some level of cache that is shared between pairs of cores, such that an extra assignable thread between the two could be very well fed.
Click to expand...

It's not that. It's either:

A) Typo
B) Really stupid gimmick disabling HT on half the cores for another segmentation level (reeks of desperation).
 
Nightfire said:
So any updated guesses on when Intel desktop will actually leave 14nm with the new 7nm delays?
https://www.pcgamer.com/amp/intels-...the-first-casualty-of-the-7nm-node-nightmare/

Alders Lake in 10nm is set to release late 2021/early 2022, but don't be surprised if 7nm delays will cause 10nm shortages in which mobile (Tiger Lake) and server (Ice Lake/Sapphire Rapids) would take priority.
Click to expand...
Who knows at this point, just seem like 1 delay after another. It be nice if Intel is on schedule for a change.
 
Nightfire said:
So any updated guesses on when Intel desktop will actually leave 14nm with the new 7nm delays?
https://www.pcgamer.com/amp/intels-...the-first-casualty-of-the-7nm-node-nightmare/

Alders Lake in 10nm is set to release late 2021/early 2022, but don't be surprised if 7nm delays will cause 10nm shortages in which mobile (Tiger Lake) and server (Ice Lake/Sapphire Rapids) would take priority.
Click to expand...

Tiger lake should be out later this year still, now it will be wait and see to see if they will be available in quantity, also supposedly intel ordered some 160k 7nm wafers at TSMC in an attempt to get more chips in the supply chain, but again, wait and see if it is true and what they will be used for.
 
Which is better: 9400 six cores or 10300, 10100 4 cores 8 threads? Are two true cores better? Not for buying now.
 
singe_101 said:
So what has proven to be better: 9400 six cores or 10300, 10100 4 cores 8 threads? Are two true cores better? Besides locked 7700 vs 8400 and that era.
Click to expand...
Still very much workload dependent. Personally I'd take more physical cores (same argument applies to 6C12T vs 8C8T too), but again, having more physical cores isn't always faster. On Intel at least, HT is great for having extra thread resources where light-weight processes that must run can be parked without having the OS interrupt the core for a context switch.
 
singe_101 said:
Which is better: 9400 six cores or 10300, 10100 4 cores 8 threads? Are two true cores better? Not for buying now.
Click to expand...

Generally HT is worth up to 30% more performance in highly multi-threaded applications. So 1.3 Multiplier.

4C with HT * 1.3 = 5.2

No HT means 1.0 multiplier.

6C without HT *1.0 = 6.

6 Cores without HT, is ahead of 4 Cores with HT.
 
Snowdog said:
Generally HT is worth up to 30% more performance in highly multi-threaded applications. So 1.3 Multiplier.

4C with HT * 1.3 = 5.2

No HT means 1.0 multiplier.

6C without HT *1.0 = 6.

6 Cores without HT, is ahead of 4 Cores with HT.
Click to expand...

For the record, this is a good metric for intel, but not for AMD. Ryzen benefits more like 40% per core with SMT, intel is 25% best case.

https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=838

As long as the code is running from the micro-operations cache, it can execute five instructions per clock, where Intel has only four. [...] floating point code with scalars or vectors [...] will execute on the AMD processor at a maximum rate of four instructions per clock (two additions and two multiplications), while the Intel processor can do only two. [...] The gain in total performance that you get from running two threads per core is much higher in the Ryzen than in Intel processors because of the higher throughput of the AMD core.
Click to expand...
 
singe_101 said:
Which is better: 9400 six cores or 10300, 10100 4 cores 8 threads? Are two true cores better? Not for buying now.
Click to expand...

Even with AMD 6/6 is always better than 4/8 (67% cores). With Intel, you need at least 6/12 to match 8/8 (75% of cores).

The 3300x is able to match the 3500x mostly due to a single ccx and higher clocks. That will most like NOT be the case with Zen 3 if they move to 8 core CCX.

Because of that, I have a feeling that AMD will have a more mainstream 6/6 to fill the gap next gen. Intel 11th gen i3s are rumored to be Skylake-based so it is a good possibility that they will have a 6/6 again as well.
 
No, 6/12 will beat 8/8 on intel in productivity apps and general apps most of the time. Will also produce less heat/use less power.
 
Some info on Tiger Lake which Intel claims is the "largest internode performance boost in the history if the company" CnL and ICL set the bar rather low but it is good to see the improvements and should give Intel the performance lead back on mobile.
https://www.techpowerup.com/270977/intel-10nm-superfin-process-goes-up-against-tsmc-7nm

Of course desktops will have to wait until Alders Gate for that juicy Superfin action as RKL will be 14nm
 
Last edited:
I just want to know if they got VRR working. Toss it into an XPS15 with no discrete GPU and a bigger battery and / or better / quieter cooling.
 
Yes one point a lot of people seem to have missed is that intel bought Altera, so they have fabric/interconnect tech..
 
polonyc2 said:
so Intel is copying AMD
Click to expand...
That would imply that AMD invented chiplets, when they don't even fabricate chips...

The 'chiplet' idea is pretty obvious, or really, not a separate idea to begin with. It's really just a bad one most of the time.
 
Nightfire said:
Newest roadmap and RKL confirmation from Intel:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.to...elease-ahead-of-amd-zen-3-announcement-pcie-4


Although RKL doesn't need 500 series motherboards, it is looking like March 2021 for the 11th gen CPUs.
Click to expand...

I mean I guess that's the smart thing to do. Remind people that you are still here, but I want to see some results before buying. I'm definitely not getting a z590 board. My z490 does everything I need it to do.

I might trade out of my comet lake setup for a Zen 3 depending on how it looks.
 
** Crazy rumor alert **

New leaks and RKL is looking very good.
- Both i7 and i9 will be 8/16
- i7 possibly 5.0-5.2 ghz and i9 upwards of 5.5 ghz
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/r...-for-games-than-the-current-comet-lake-s.html

If it can do near TGL levels of IPC, Intel will surely keep the gaming crown and likely get AMD to drop prices are their new 5000 series (or release a lower clocked version of their 5800x/5600x.
 
Last edited:
Nightfire said:
** Crazy rumor alert **

New leaks and RKL is looking very good.
- Both i7 and i9 will be 8/16
- i7 possibly 5.0-5.2 ghz and i9 upwards of 5.5 ghz
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/r...-for-games-than-the-current-comet-lake-s.html

If it can do near TGL levels of IPC, Intel will surely keep the gaming crown and likely get AMD to drop prices are their new 5000 series (or release a lower clocked version of their 5800x/5600x.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I will believe that when I see it :)
 
Nightfire said:
[...]
- "Double digit" IPC gains. That could be anywhere from 10% - 99% but keep in mind TGL is 18%. "Cypress cove has ICL Core architecture and TGL graphics architecture." Really??
[...]
Click to expand...
Basically means 14nm backports of Ice Lake CPU and Xe IGP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top