DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 22,037
- 11,629
- 136
Possibly. AMD still has a 230W PPT part. If Intel dials back the PL2 values a bit, they could slide in under that number.I think ARL will still use more power.
Possibly. AMD still has a 230W PPT part. If Intel dials back the PL2 values a bit, they could slide in under that number.I think ARL will still use more power.
All I care about is power usage and performance. You could have argued that RL was essentially equal, at least in performance, (except for gaming --7800x3D), but that is in flux now because of the stability issues, and what the performance will be with whatever fix is ultimately done. In performance per watt, AMD is clearly ahead.
Might be dependent on OEM firmware.For example, the mobile AMD Ryzen 7950HX, while being more efficient than 13900HX on the full load, has a much higher idle power consumption. As a result, the laptops with 7950HX rarely work longer than 4-5 hours compared to 6-9 hours for Intel.
Meteor Lake low power performance and core to core latencies certainly call into question that notion.Nope. With tiles, they're ahead in technology already.
Has it though? Its an improvement for sure, but the 17W comparison of Lunar vs Hawk Point merely showed it matching AMDs Hawk Point efficiency.Lunar Lake has shown otherwise.
Geekerwan tests show it's Mobile vs Desktop that makes the difference not "Tiles". RPL-S is 7% faster than RPL-H. We never got a Meteorlake desktop chip where we can completely control everything. How are we so sure about it?Meteor Lake low power performance and core to core latencies certainly call into question that notion.
Good point. We just assumed a tile latency "because monolithic must be better."Geekerwan tests show it's Mobile vs Desktop that makes the difference not "Tiles". RPL-S is 7% faster than RPL-H. We never got a Meteorlake desktop chip where we can completely control everything. How are we so sure about it?
We already have data on Meteor Lake. LPDDR5 memory latency from RPL to MTL went from ~100ns to ~140ns.Good point. We just assumed a tile latency "because monolithic must be better."
But the reality is we don't know. As you correctly pointed out mobile has always been less performant than desktop when comparing the same architecture on both.
It is impossible to eliminate it completely. But it's a bigger task on GPU because it requires much higher bandwidth, and on-die will always be lower latency.The "advanced" thing about Intel's tiles shouldn't be likely to make a difference in performance.
What I want to see from Intel (and AMD) moving to better packaging and interconnect is getting rid of the power draw tax of chiplets.
Lunar Lake has a 9W SKU. How low are you looking for and why?The "advanced" thing about Intel's tiles shouldn't be likely to make a difference in performance.
What I want to see from Intel (and AMD) moving to better packaging and interconnect is getting rid of the power draw tax of chiplets.
I don't think they can target mobile until 14A. Mobile designs need to done on mobile-centric higher density libraries. Something they don't have right now.Lunar Lake has a 9W SKU. How low are you looking for and why?
Efficiency is important, sure, particularly for mobile, but they aren’t targeting phones with these chips.
They could, but they won’t.
God help Qualcomm if they did. Intel could release an 8 core 4.5W SoC for Android OEMs and things would become quite interesting.
you don't think TSMC N3 has mobile libraries?I don't think they can target mobile until 14A. Mobile designs need to done on mobile-centric higher density libraries. Something they don't have right now.
Yes, but they won't use TSMC for compute if their process is good. That what he means. Intel still has ways to go before their process is mobile optimized.you don't think TSMC N3 has mobile libraries?
With SKT perf bump, thats already kinda a given imho.... Clearwater Forest will massacre the competition. ...
Thats still the biggest problem with Intel. Brute forcing their way to win with too much muscle power. But considering the skt gains, i'd say it's okay to overlook this (at least this time around).... This weakness won't matter too much for the target market but it'll still do much better and with 50% core count advantage it can also be easily overcome. ...
You weren't happy that I wasn't happy with the P core team a while back. Now you too aren't happy either. A point to ponder!... the only solution is to let it die so you can truly start fresh.
Clearwater Forest doesn't need SMT to win, which is a big deal. This is a perfect Cloud/VM chip.With SKT perf bump, thats already kinda a given imho.
Thats still the biggest problem with Intel. Brute forcing their way to win with too much muscle power. But considering the skt gains, i'd say it's okay to overlook this (at least this time around).
Pay attention. The weakness does not matter in the Zen 5C/CWF market. The Integer performance does though.The day they win over competition with a smaller die, higher ipc, more power efficiency and lower clocks, that would be a true win. That would mark their return to true leadership.
What? I was never happy with the Intel P core team.You weren't happy that I wasn't happy with the P core team a while back. Now you too aren't happy either. A point to ponder!
Sry abt the confusion. I wasn't comparing them with competition. All I meant was, in order to be a true leader, they should pave the way that others follow (like what apple is doing with their M series silicon) and not the other way around, always trying to catch up.The weakness does not matter in the Zen 5C/CWF market. The Integer performance does though.
Very true. But aren't we kinda already stereotyping PTL? Maybe Panther Lake H or U series (maybe) has enough potential to be an excellent Lunar Lake successor. Just sayin' that the possibility exists (esp. due to 18A advantage).Intel arrogantly refuses to see from the eye of it's customers, current and potential ones. When Apple wanted a lower power chip and their closest partner refused to listen, they abandoned them and went in a whole another direction. The fact that they don't have a direct successor to Lunarlake means they haven't learned anything.
PTL-U is the successor to Lunar. 4P+4LPE, igpu, npu all on the 18A die with a secondary for i/o and security stuff. This is the same formula as Lunar...... The fact that they don't have a direct successor to Lunarlake means they haven't learned anything.
Same formula = equal, and PTL-U does not equal Lunar.PTL-U is the successor to Lunar. 4P+4LPE, igpu, npu all on the 18A die with a secondary for i/o and security stuff. This is the same formula as Lunar.
I'm not following your logic here. The XPS 13 current Intel offering uses a 28 W base, 115 W turbo CPU (Meteor Lake 155H). The XPS 15 uses a 45 W base, 115 W turbo 13620H. Both of those use -H chips. Neither of those are the market for the ultra-portable Lunar Lake (8 W to 30 W). Did you mean to mention the Dell ultra-portables like the Latitude 5550 or 7450 that use the -U processors?Mobile power savings talk about eliminating every mW. So why wouldn't a most optimized platform be needed? You should also wonder why Dell isn't planning to use PTL-U for the XPS 13 and continuing with Lunarlake instead, and only XPS 14 and up is using PTL-U.
I'm pretty sure some Panther Lake sku will act an replacement for LNL (primarily due to 18A).I'm not following your logic here. The XPS 13 current Intel offering uses a 28 W base, 115 W turbo CPU (Meteor Lake 155H). The XPS 15 uses a 45 W base, 115 W turbo 13620H. Both of those use -H chips. Neither of those are the market for the ultra-portable Lunar Lake (8 W to 30 W). Did you mean to mention the Dell ultra-portables like the Latitude 5550 or 7450 that use the -U processors?
Plus PTL-U is rumored to be 35% more power efficient than LNL-U. Why wouldn't that be the successor if you claim it is all about eliminating every mW?
That is how I interpret the rumors. But DavidC1 has been going on for months that Panther Lake is not a successor to Lunar Lake (just a couple of many example links are below). I just cannot fathom how an ultra-low power 4+4 Panther Lake-U is not a successor to an ultra-low power 4+4 Lunar Lake-U. My best guess is that DavidC1 is confusing -U chips (lower power, only 2 types of cores) with -H chips (higher power, 3 types of cores).I'm pretty sure some Panther Lake sku will act an replacement for LNL (primarily due to 18A).
Will Lunarlake be a one-hit wonder with no successor like many previous Intel products that was supposed to be great?
Are they so cautious that they can't dedicate a Lunarlake successor?
My guess is if Lunarlake is more popular than Intel expects, then they'll make a derivative of Pantherlake to be a direct successor.*
Because Pantherlake is using the P+E+LPE setup again. It is possible that we need THIRD wildly different SoC. One for server, one for desktops and high performance laptops and one for ultra low power laptops.
*Lunarlake might be a one off thing just to fend off ARM.