Between Tiger Lake to Alder Lake, Alder Lake to Raptor Lake and Raptor Lake to Meteor Lake the second is by far the smallest IPC improvement.
Last edited:
Between Tiger Lake to Alder Lake, Alder Lake to Raptor Lake and Raptor Lake to Meteor Lake the second is by far the smallest IPC improvement.There is a big core IPC increase with Raptor Cove and improvements in performance/watt. Intels says it has a much better CPU cache capability for gamers.
Between Tiger Lake to Alder Lake, Alder Lake to Raptor Lake and Raptor Lake to Meteor Lake the second is by far the smallest 1T performance improvement.
Your second and third option is unknown at this point and not more than a random guess from your side. Meteor Lake might not bring a major CPU IPC upgrade if it's a typical Intel tick core upgrade like Ivy Bridge, Broadwell, Cannonlake. And it remains to be seen if Intels first 7nm/4 product is able to reach the 1T clock speeds of the matured 10ESF/7.
Between Tiger Lake to Alder Lake, Alder Lake to Raptor Lake and Raptor Lake to Meteor Lake the second is by far the smallest IPC improvement.
According to the Anandtech ADL architecture day article there will be three ADL dies. 8+8, 6+8, and 2+8.
Preliminary leak data is showing 12900 as 8+8, 12700 as 8+4, and 12600 as 4+4. https://wccftech.com/intel-12th-gen...k-for-394-euros-core-i5-12600k-for-287-euros/
If these configurations are the real deal then do you think the defect rate for the Gracemont cores is high? I'm wondering why the +4's? Seems like gimping the P's to 6 and 4 makes more sense than cutting back Gracemont, from the 12900 I mean. Unless of course defects are high in the Gracemont cores?
Also, is it all or nothing for Gracemont defect-wise? Meaning either it works (4 cores) or it doesn't?
Appears to work that way on a per module level indeed. But that does seem like a waste, especially considering how AMD handles CCXes in comparison.Also, is it all or nothing for Gracemont defect-wise? Meaning either it works (4 cores) or it doesn't?
If these configurations are the real deal then do you think the defect rate for the Gracemont cores is high? I'm wondering why the +4's? Seems like gimping the P's to 6 and 4 makes more sense than cutting back Gracemont, from the 12900 I mean. Unless of course defects are high in the Gracemont cores?
Didn't want to regress on the number of Big Cores on desktop. Also I saw stuff suggesting that it is possible to have partial cluster, they just aren't likely to do that.
Isn’t 8+4 the area of 9 cores? They wouldn’t have been able to sell 9 cores previously
The die physically is 8+8. If that's what you are asking.
Appears to work that way on a per module level indeed. But that does seem like a waste, especially considering how AMD handles CCXes in comparison.
I have no insider knowledge of the answer. But my main question is why Intel didn't go for 6+16 or 4+24 right away. They've got the core designs, it would be the same amount of physical space, it would be the same hybrid problems to solve. If the Gracemont cores are yielding a bit less, then that would be a good answer to both of our questions and it would be something that Intel could solve with a bit of time and experience.If these configurations are the real deal then do you think the defect rate for the Gracemont cores is high? I'm wondering why the +4's? Seems like gimping the P's to 6 and 4 makes more sense than cutting back Gracemont, from the 12900 I mean. Unless of course defects are high in the Gracemont cores?
I have no insider knowledge of the answer. But my main question is why Intel didn't go for 6+16 or 4+24 right away. They've got the core designs, it would be the same amount of physical space, it would be the same hybrid problems to solve. If the Gracemont cores are yielding a bit less, then that would be a good answer to both of our questions and it would be something that Intel could solve with a bit of time and experience.
I have no insider knowledge of the answer. But my main question is why Intel didn't go for 6+16 or 4+24 right away.
Why would a much smaller core have yield problems when the big doesn't have?I have no insider knowledge of the answer. But my main question is why Intel didn't go for 6+16 or 4+24 right away. They've got the core designs, it would be the same amount of physical space, it would be the same hybrid problems to solve. If the Gracemont cores are yielding a bit less, then that would be a good answer to both of our questions and it would be something that Intel could solve with a bit of time and experience.
But, they are going to be selling 6+8, 2+8, etc. right from the start. I see the desire to go for the 8+8 chip. But, I could really see a 35W to 65 W mobile 4+16 chip going right into SFF computers and companies snatching them up. The entire company that I work at uses 4 core 35 W AMD chips. I could really use more cores for computations.Didn't want to regress on the number of Big Cores on desktop. Also I saw stuff suggesting that it is possible to have partial cluster, they just aren't likely to do that.
6+8 and 2+8 are for mobile. They also have bigger IGP.But, they are going to be selling 6+8, 2+8, etc. right from the start. I see the desire to go for the 8+8 chip. But, I could really see a 35W to 65 W mobile 4+16 chip going right into SFF computers and companies snatching them up.
I don't know the answer to your question. Are they really the same density? Is there something more difficult to produce about Gracemont than Golden Cove? I'm not in the chip production business, so I'm just curious.Why would a much smaller core have yield problems when the big doesn't have?
I think the reason for 8+8 is gaming and maybe marketing. Let's be honest, not many people are that much in favour of this big+little concept, so I don't think they wanted to sacrifice too many big cores in favour of the smaller ones.
I think that's also a reason why the segmentation is mostly done by disabling Gracemont cores first.
Exactly. A mobile 4+16 would be exactly what fits well for me. Intel will be making and selling it, but I have to wait a generation or two.6+8 and 2+8 are for mobile. They also have bigger IGP.
We won't find out their density unless Intel says how many transistors each core has.I don't know the answer to your question. Are they really the same density? Is there something more difficult to produce about Gracemont than Golden Cove? I'm not in the chip production business, so I'm just curious.
I don't have any consumer data to back up my claim(speculation), but most likely you also don't have any data saying the exact opposite.I'd like to see your actual consumer data about people not being in favor of big+little. Or are you just going by forum posters who hate Intel, haven't actually seen any real data, and are quite vocal?
Intel will release 2+8 for ULV, so maybe Raptor Lake will have such a model.Exactly. A mobile 4+16 would be exactly what fits well for me. Intel will be making and selling it, but I have to wait a generation or two.
I have no insider knowledge of the answer. But my main question is why Intel didn't go for 6+16 or 4+24 right away. They've got the core designs, it would be the same amount of physical space, it would be the same hybrid problems to solve. If the Gracemont cores are yielding a bit less, then that would be a good answer to both of our questions and it would be something that Intel could solve with a bit of time and experience.