Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 25,752
- 14,783
- 136
well, and it came out almost at the end of 2019, so thats my point. It could be another year until we see 10+I think ICL is 10nm at this chart.
10+ is TGL.
well, and it came out almost at the end of 2019, so thats my point. It could be another year until we see 10+I think ICL is 10nm at this chart.
10+ is TGL.
Early August is hardly the end of the year.well, and it came out almost at the end of 2019, so thats my point. It could be another year until we see 10+
I dont think the interpretations in here are correct. I think there will be 10nm desktop next year. Got some confirmation of that last night.
Non NUC
That’s true, could be a limited release to one OEM like cannondale. Maybe no customer was interested in a 26 core part.
Can you give me a source or confirmation for this? From my informations I have Alder Lake-S is in the works, the next step after Rocket Lake-S.
and now the Intel machine is in high gear,.
if they fake the 10nm news, that will be the end of Intel as we know it today
From the same article, Intel has said that yield improvement on 10nm is ahead of schedule.
I think ICL is 10nm at this chart.
10+ is TGL.
No it won't. They already fudged on Cannonlake and got away with it. They have delayed IceLake-SP interminably and gotten away with it. Sapphire Rapids, which originally was supposed to be a major architectural change for Intel, turned out to be mostly IceLake with different packaging, and nobody has turned on them over that either. The only thing that can end Intel is competition.
Via sources unnamed.. Sapphire Rapids was converted to be the >76-core Icelake-AP part.Where did you read that SR is basically ICL?
Basically the only infos we have about Sapphire Rapids is the support of DDR5 and PCIe 5. Obviously the Icelake IMC don't support DDR5, they need more than Icelake in a different package for this change. Claiming "it turned out to be mostly Icelake in a different package" is FUD at this point.
It is neither. It is either SunnycoveX or WillowcoveX. Client(Corename) cores are mostly-inclusive with small caches, while server(CorenameX) cores are mostly-exclusive with big caches.Is it Sunny Cove or Willow Cove? It isn't a drastically new uarch regardless.
Is it Sunny Cove or Willow Cove? It isn't a drastically new uarch regardless.
edit: okay I'm going to retract that statement since it looks like Sapphire Rapids is actually Willow Cove:
Any news of the x variants?It is neither. It is either SunnycoveX or WillowcoveX. Client(Corename) cores are mostly-inclusive with small caches, while server(CorenameX) cores are mostly-exclusive with big caches.
The X-class cores are internally called "Super Core", even though they never choose to use that in marketing. Then, there is also TremontX, not sure if they are calling "Super Atom". I don't think they are internally calling the Server-class Atom cores, Super Atom like they did for converged core plan w/ SkylakeX/SunnycoveX/CannonlakeX(never appeared)/WillowcoveX.
The x-variants aren't going to be on the 272-nm(low power track library), but rather on mid-power/mid-perf(340-nm) to high-perf(408-nm).Any news of the x variants?
Is Intel working on improving gaming performance or better say latency?
that avx would be starved even with ddr5 8CHThe x-variants aren't going to be on the 272-nm(low power track library), but rather on mid-power/mid-perf(340-nm) to high-perf(408-nm).
Gaming isn't the concern for any of the corex models. It is all about crunching those universal-emulation simulations.
Potentially, looking at SkylakeX, at four 256-bit units that can fuse into two AVX512 for SunnycoveX. Port0/Port1 being the first AVX512 unit and Port5/6 being the second AVX512 unit.
1x full-ISA AVX512 on average for older SkylakeX/Sunnycove to 2x full-ISA AVX512 on SunnycoveX. Anything to get to full throughput across all AVX3 levels: 128b(4), 256b(4), 512b(2). Which I believe the ultra-wide WillowcoveX(&Willowcove-client) will solve.
No news. If Intel follows recent patterns, the "X" platform will be based off the server CPU not the client CPU. The client CPU will likely continue to exceed the performance of the 'X" series in games.Any news of the x variants?
Is Intel working on improving gaming performance or better say latency?
The INQ article refers to this info on WikiChip: https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/2336...r5-pcie-5-0-for-2021-granite-rapids-for-2022/Is it Sunny Cove or Willow Cove? It isn't a drastically new uarch regardless.
edit: okay I'm going to retract that statement since it looks like Sapphire Rapids is actually Willow Cove:
News | Latest tech news & rumours | Trusted Reviews
Read about the latest tech news and developments from our team of experts, who provide updates on the new gadgets, tech products & services on the horizon.www.theinquirer.net
Looks like Sapphire Rapids is turning out more like Tiger Lake-SP than anything else.
that avx would be starved even with ddr5 8CH
I am getting sick of it, with my CFDs every new CPU is more powerful yet they didnt solve mem bandwitch or frequency or ECC check...
This is all speculative.
3DPM in general does not use main memory for much of anything. It creates random particle positional/movement data and then processes the data according to different particle movement models. There are six different models it uses. We had a pretty good thread on that around here with Dr. Cutress not so long ago, which is why you now have a v2.1 instead of the original, horribly-unoptimized 3DPM.
Would the same apply to Intel's SVT codecs?
the SVT is fantastic, i5 6600K does a job of 6950X before, not even talking about what monster became of 3900XWould the same apply to Intel's SVT codecs? If you look at this link, Phoronix has a comparison benchmark of the before and after of the AVX2 performance enhancements in the first graph for SVT-VP9. You can see the 9900K for instance went from 57.83 to 176.91 FPS, a 3 fold increase.
And the low end Core i5 8400 had a slightly larger improvement from AVX2.
These slides look suspicious to me.Intel’s Entire 10th Gen Comet Lake Desktop CPU Lineup Leaked
It's been rumored in multiple places that the i3 and i5 and i7 will get HT. That's also logical, as this would make the CPUs very competitive again. Pretty much go-to at every price point, if you do gaming the majority of the time. Productivity wise AMD would still be recommended (but the difference in low- and mid-range would be much smaller).These slides look suspicious to me.
Why do 9500, 9500T, 9700 and 9700T have HT?
Are they really going to use 6+2 dies for quad and even dual core models?!
Yep, prices will have to be adjusted. Action - reaction. Where will it end?It's been rumored in multiple places that the i3 and i5 and i7 will get HT. That's also logical, as this would make the CPUs very competitive again. Pretty much go-to at every price point, if you do gaming the majority of the time. Productivity wise AMD would still be recommended (but the difference in low- and mid-range would be much smaller).
The i9 would still be in a really odd place though. It won't be any faster in gaming than the 8 core and those 2 extra cores would still lose quite badly to AMD's 12 (let alone 16) cores in all heavily threaded workloads.
AMD would probably still have to adjust some prices in the mid- and low end (at the very least 3600X and 3800x).