Lets remember not to throw out insults and go back and forth bickering with each other. Please keep the discussion civil and avoid personal attacks, stick to the tech. Thanks. -Moderator Shmee
This. I don't agree with the mods on a lot of things (I've been banned several times, and I disagree with most of the bans , but this is one of the few times I agree with the mods), but this. Personally, in my eyes, it is okay to post your opinion (hopefully it is an educated opinion), but please, don't result to arguments and fighting when you are wrong. If you find yourself wanting to result to name calling or grandstanding in a thread for a vendor such as AMD, Apple, or Intel, just take a break. This is an Intel thread, let's talk Intel chips. On the gazillions of AMD threads (of which I, among others, are a participant of) let's talk AMD chips. On the Apple thread(s), let's talk Apple chips. If you want to talk about all three, maybe consider creating an Apple vs. Intel vs. AMD thread. I'm surprised nobody has done that yet. One of the things that has somehow, someway kept me coming back to these forums, far longer than even my user account has been registered, is the intelligent conversations that have taken place. Can we please try to keep it that way? I mean, if you dislike company X, it isn't like you even need to read the thread about company X...
I have surgery soon and will be off for a month or so...looking forward to seeing the details on all the new chip releases.
At one point we were happy that Alderlake top part might perform like a 5900X.
Why is it so bad that it might perform like a 5950X? Even if it requires 250W to do so, that's a huge jump in one generation.
When it comes to arguments, isn't that called moving goalposts?
It doesn't even look like Alderlake was aiming at desktops at all. A mobile only chip being competitive with the 5950X sounds pretty good to me. How will it do on mobile I wonder hmm?
Oh, and I won't be surprised if the Gracemont-based successor to Jasper Lake has the same 3.9GHz ST, 3.7GHz MT frequency at 10W. It won't be able to maintain 3.7GHz MT in all scenarios, probably only in certain bursty workloads. But that's the whole point of Turbo. Maximizing performance up to the limit of thermals/power.
Every generation since Goldmont it was ~30% perf/clock gain plus whatever clocks needed to get an overall gain of 50%. Goldmont Plus is an overall 50% faster than Goldmont. Tremont is an overall 50% faster than Goldmont Plus. Gracemont will probably do similar.
Have you guys also forgot one of the goals for Gracemont was frequency? You really believe the 6/10W version will have the exact same frequency as Tremont?
Gracemont will likely consume less then that. Intel has a lot of upcoming chips, and Gracemont is a big part of both ADL-S and RPL-S, if not above and beyond. I am personally genuinely looking forward to the power consumption from the small cores.
You cannot talk about the moderators and your issues with them in the public forum.
You want to talk about the specific rules your broke for your vacations?
Create an MD thread and we will tell you.
esquared
Anandtech Forum Director