Speculation: i9-9900K is Intel's last hurrah in gaming

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Yeah. The Forza Horizon 4 results at 1080p, showing the exact same frame rates, are odd and uncharacteristic. You would normally expect the little gap at 1440p to grow somewhat at 1080p. So I may have overstated my point with that particular result. But my general point is that with modern games you will not see the 50% outliers (such as the very old CS:GO). Rather, the difference will continue to narrow with modern well-written code optimised for Zen.



Well — simply put — if TSMC's entry into the high-performance space with their 7nm HPC process is unable to match Intel's frequencies on 14nm, then they have fallen way short. I think that is a very pessimistic expectation. Make no mistake about it, TSMC is dead set on targeting the HPC market, to ensure further growth and to diversify their customer base away from being overly reliant on the mobile market, and on one single big customer, Apple, in particular.

Also, I suspect that AMD and TSMC have worked on this for a long time, more closely than most analysts realise, with TSMC being well aware of the needs and frequency targets AMD has for their roadmap.

In short, expect TSMC's HPC version of the 7nm process to clock much better than their mobile-oriented mainstream version of the process.



There is a myth that a ring bus is good for gaming. No, it is good for bad code. As far as I understand (as a programmer myself), ring bus is simply more amenable to badly written multithreaded code that has a lot of interdependencies (shared memory accesses) and thus require a lot of synchronisation (locks). Such code does not scale (and high-performance parallel code, such as for server and super-computer, is hence not written like that).

The ring bus architecture may somewhat alleviate such bad code by providing a relatively uniform latency between threads, while the CCX architecture will strongly penalise interdependent threads across CCXs. However, if your code has threads with less interdependency, and keeps the most inderdependent threads grouped within CCXs, you should see better results than the ring bus architecture, as intra-CCX latency can be near optimal within the tightly integrated 4-core complex, with direct connections between cores.

In short, my expectation is that modern game code that is well written and optimised for the Zen architecture will reduce the Intel lead substantially, with the remaining gap mostly due to the frequency deficit.



Your reply seems to be characteristic of many posts here expressing scepticism about what AMD can achieve architecturally. Apart from the Bulldozer years (which was a difficult time for AMD, due to PC market slowdown and market shifts, ATI integration, conversion to a fabless model, big changes in design methodology, settlement of longstanding litigation with Intel, and the death of one their corporate fellows and key architectural contributors, chief architect Chuck Moore), AMD has a long history of beating Intel with architectural innovation.

Personally, I have no doubt that the engineers at AMD are equally as capable when it comes to x86 architecture and system design compared to Intel. There is no reason to believe otherwise. And in this area it is not a question of resources. While their product and market focus may be narrower due to less resources, you can be sure AMD has the lead designers and ground-floor engineers they need to work on the Zen architecture.

So, to be blunt, if AMD is unable to beat 14nm Coffee Lake (a Skylake-derivate with insignificant architectural advances), then they have fallen well short of their target. It is obvious, and has been explicitly stated by AMD executives in presentations and interviews, that Zen 2 targeted 10nm Ice Lake. It makes no sense for AMD to target anything less. It would be defeatist.

By the way, if rumours are to believed, then it looks like Ryzen 3000 will be 8-core, which strongly suggest that AMD no longer think they need a core-count advantage to compete.

Can they execute — unlike in the Bulldozer years? That is the question. AMD's CEO Lisa Su seems confident. She has under-promised and over-delivered so far.

"Oh the code is just badly written". Another argument we have heard from the days of Bulldozer. It doesnt matter whether the code is badly written: "it is what it is" as the saying goes. The simple fact is, in current games, the ring bus *is* a better architecture for gaming. Of course that could change, but there is no guarantee of that.
 

rainy

Senior member
Jul 17, 2013
508
427
136
I suspect we will see a price increase with Zen 2.

I don't think so, they want to have more marketshare.

Btw, AMD would doing well having 40 or a bit over 40 percent margins, when for Intel it is not acceptable because of those very expensive fabs and not to mention a huge R&D budget.
 
Reactions: Tlh97 and Vattila

Ottonomous

Senior member
May 15, 2014
559
292
136
"Oh the code is just badly written". Another argument we have heard from the days of Bulldozer. It doesnt matter whether the code is badly written: "it is what it is" as the saying goes. The simple fact is, in current games, the ring bus *is* a better architecture for gaming. Of course that could change, but there is no guarantee of that.
What if the next generation of games became far more multithreaded optimized, by virtue of next-gen console architectures being based on Zen
 

arandomguy

Senior member
Sep 3, 2013
556
183
116
However, like most technology analysts and avid followers of x86 CPU architecture, I expect 7nm Zen 2 to bring substantial improvements next year, as it will have architectural refinements and — for the first time ever — be manufactured on a process node on par or even ahead of Intel.

If they hit that 15% IPC and 15% clock number that's been said (nice round numbers) they'll achieve parity. At the same time it's going to run into the same issues Intel faces in that overhead elsewhere in the chain is going to cause a diminishing returns issue with respect to end performance numbers.

Also with Intel I'm not so sure if we can assume their next product is going to be as much of a letdown as some saying. Intel has 2 low hanging fruits with respect to performance. One being clawing back Meltdown/Spectre performance loss. The other is better clock and power management (where AMD is actually ahead at the moment, possibly from GPU experience) and implementing similar finer grained autoclocking features. This would be in addition to the usual uarch gains.

As an aside a out there thing Intel could offer is if they did implement variable refresh support in their IGP for next gen and supported GPU pass through.

Meanwhile, it is expected that the next-generation consoles will continue to use AMD semi-custom chips, and that those chips will make use of the Zen CPU architecture. So game developers will increasingly optimise for this architecture, likely an 8-core 2-CCX configuration, similar to what AMD offers in the mainstream.

From what I understand the CPU setup in the current consoles are already 2 separate 4 core clusters.

With that said I don't know if the inter CCX latency is as big of an issue as it's been made out to be. While initially with Zen this was heavily speculated due to the performance increase from pairing with higher speed ram (increasing IF speed) the problem with that was it also improved memory latency. As we see more with the 2700x the improvement in memory latency is big for gaming performance disparity between the two. The biggest improvement from a gaming standpoint for Zen 2 would be improvement on that front from an IPC stand point.

Already, we are seeing parity in performance between Ryzen 2700X and i7-8700K in the most recent titles based on modern game engines optimised for the Zen architecture.

Forza has been used in GPU arguments as well as an example of good optimization and showing what AMDs architecture can do. The problem I have with this reasoning is that if you look at the argument it's basically that games which favor AMD equals good optimization, games that favor Intel/Nvidia equals developer bias or incompetence. To me that seems like confirmation bias based reasoning.

Neither Intel nor AMD is a gaming chip. Because Intel has been the market leader for a decade. Game developers have optimized their games for intel CPU's. Obviously AMD has probably helped out developers to better optimize Ryzen CPU's in the last year. Many of you are computer noobs. The CPU and GPU war dates back decades.

It may not have been their intentions but you could argue the minor changes from Zen to Zen+ predominately benefited gaming.

With that being said for all we know Zen 2 is a very server focused design to fuel their real server push with Rome.

What if the next generation of games became far more multithreaded optimized, by virtue of next-gen console architectures being based on Zen

Both the Xbox One and PS4 are already 8 core designs. With the 9900k both will have core and thread parity in the mainstream segment (albeit at different price points). Speculatively it looks like at least through 2019 both will be competing via core/thread parity in this segment.

Also related to this I'm not sure if people have thought about a possible issue for PC gaming depending on what CPU next gen consoles adopt. If say they adopt 8c/16t Zen 2 designs in the 2.5-3ghz range what would it mean for PC gaming? Unless developers work on around other overheard limitations and still target 30 fps on the consoles with such a CPU say goodbye to 60 fps PC gaming even if you have the highest end CPU.
 

Vattila

Senior member
Oct 22, 2004
805
1,394
136
By the way — ever wondered what Bulldozer was all about?

From the chief architect himself:

"Chuck Moore, chief technical officer of A.M.D.’s technology development group, said a new chip, code-named Bulldozer, “is designed from the bottom up to take advantage of low-power technologies.” Each chip has conjoined cores, the big management portions of the chip, which share some real estate and architecture. There are monitors on the chip that judge how large a computing load is current, and whether it requires a lot of power, or a little. “We’re plowing new ground here,” Mr. Moore said."

https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/amd-betting-on-power-consumption/

We see the fruit of these low-power efforts in Zen.

Today, AMD corporate fellow Sam Naffziger carries the torch for power-efficiency at AMD. He is the brain behind much of the power-efficiency technologies and system control logic (part of Infinity Fabric) that controls power and frequency on AMD's current SoC chips. AMD has a stated efficiency goal and program called 25x20 Energy Efficiency Initiative aiming to achieve 25x power-efficiency by 2020. This will require big advances for Zen 2/3. They claim to be on track.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,168
3,862
136
If they hit that 15% IPC and 15% clock number that's been said (nice round numbers) they'll achieve parity.
.

At 15% better IPC they wouldnt even need a frequency bump..

The 8700K run at 4.3 and the 2600X at 3.9-3.95GHz, if the former had 15% better IPC it should be 23% faster in MT loads but that s simply not the case, difference is 11%, wich is an indication that Intel has only, at best, a few percent advantage in IPC :



https://www.hardware.fr/articles/975-17/indices-performance.html
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Tlh97 and Vattila

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Yes, because you are talking about relatively weak cores based on cat architecture - 8 cores of Zen 2 plus SMT it's a different beast.
We are talking about software supposedly written to take advantage of an 8 core CPU, weak or not.
The software should already be written for 8 cores, so if that were any advantage on the desktop, we should have seen it long ago.
The architecture of the 8 core CPUs in the Xbox/PS doesn't change anything at all as far as the software being written for multiple cores. They are still 8 core CPUs.
 
Reactions: ryan20fun

rainy

Senior member
Jul 17, 2013
508
427
136
If they hit that 15% IPC and 15% clock number that's been said (nice round numbers) they'll achieve parity.

If AMD would deliver 15 percent higher IPC/clocks with Zen 2 that should put them a bit ahead of Intel even in gaming, especially if they could lower latencies as it happened with Pinnacle Ridge.
 
Reactions: Vattila

Ottonomous

Senior member
May 15, 2014
559
292
136
We are talking about software supposedly written to take advantage of an 8 core CPU, weak or not.
The software should already be written for 8 cores, so if that were any advantage on the desktop, we should have seen it long ago.
The architecture of the 8 core CPUs in the Xbox/PS doesn't change anything at all as far as the software being written for multiple cores. They are still 8 core CPUs.
So when do you think that PC games in general will begin to scale better towards 6C/12T or higher? BF5 already provides an example and Intel's forced but lucrative core minimization might not cut
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
So when do you think that PC games in general will begin to scale better towards 6C/12T or higher? BF5 already provides an example and Intel's forced but lucrative core minimization might not cut
Intel now has 8 core desktop chips, so it doesn't matter any more. Plus, Intel's 4 core chips were doing fine anyway.
 

Vattila

Senior member
Oct 22, 2004
805
1,394
136
"Oh the code is just badly written". Another argument we have heard from the days of Bulldozer. It doesnt matter whether the code is badly written: "it is what it is" as the saying goes.

True. I fully concede this point. It is a feature of ring bus that it works better for some legacy code. However, this is actually what I stated — my point being that on modern code the gap will narrow. This isn't speculation. This is already happening.

So, in 2019 we may have a new situation in which Zen 2 beats Intel decisively in modern games, while Intel remains better for titles based on legacy game engines, such as Valve's old "Source" engine used by CS:GO. If the latter ever gets ported to the "Source 2" engine, as seems to be planned for a while now, then you will most likely see the Intel advantage drop. Over time, more and more focus will be on modern titles that are Zen aware.
 
Reactions: Tlh97

Ottonomous

Senior member
May 15, 2014
559
292
136
Intel now has 8 core desktop chips, so it doesn't matter any more. Plus, Intel's 4 core chips were doing fine anyway.
Hopefully zen 2 delivers on the IPC increase so Intel can price them and upcoming generation a bit more sensibly, like with TR2 and Basin Falls. Even if its yet another 14nm CL refresh
 
Reactions: Tlh97 and Vattila

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,505
2,249
136
Hopefully zen 2 delivers on the IPC increase so Intel can price them and upcoming generation a bit more sensibly, like with TR2 and Basin Falls. Even if its yet another 14nm CL refresh

So the goal is to reward the competition buy buying Intel for a lower price point?

It's too early to predict the outcome of the cpu wars at this time. If we look at it as strictly a core wars then probably AMD has the upper hand. If we use the past to predict the future, Intel will stop at nothing to keep ahead of AMD. If we view the cpu market from Zen on it all goes fuzzy and it's not so easy to predict what the future will hold.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
745
348
136
Doubtful. Until AMD can get to 5Ghz, the clockspeed advantage will win out. They'll both be close though, and the Intel lovers will crow, while the Intel haters will find areas of AMD superiority. You know, kind of exactly like how things are now.

Both sides will benefit though with more performance for less $$.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,223
1,598
136
Yes, because you are talking about relatively weak cores based on cat architecture - 8 cores of Zen 2 plus SMT it's a different beast.

It is but you won't find them in the PS5 unless Sony is aiming at a >$700 price point which I doubt. When the PS5 releases, we can assume a desktop 8-core ryzen 3000 series chip will cost $300. Add to that a huge GPU. No, that simply won't be worth it for AMD. Much more likely it's zen 1 based on 16/12nm and possibly only 4 cores. Even that will be a huge jump in CPU performance in recent console history.
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,505
2,249
136
Doubtful. Until AMD can get to 5Ghz, the clockspeed advantage will win out. They'll both be close though, and the Intel lovers will crow, while the Intel haters will find areas of AMD superiority. You know, kind of exactly like how things are now.

Both sides will benefit though with more performance for less $$.

Based on current results it doesn't look like AMD needs to be clock for clock to reach parity with Intel. If AMD was clock for clock with Intel at this time they'd most likely already be in the lead.....As far as I can tell at least.

The internet forum cpu wars will never end no matter who's on top....That's the one thing that will never change.
 

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
I feel like the worst case scenario is Intel has to run a tighter bin on the top CPU to ensure it has the best stock gaming benchmarks. Intel seems to have quite a bit more room to play in that area than AMD does.
 

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
4,172
2,210
136
It will be hard for AMD to beat Intels 9900k in gaming next year. Rumours say there will be roughly a 10% IPC uplift which would give AMD a parity in games. To be able to match Intels 9900k it also requires a frequency uplift to ~5.0 Ghz for 8+ cores which I'm not sure if the first 7nm iteration is good enough. Possibly their mainstream part will get more than 8 cores but it doesn't really help for gaming.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,948
1,640
136
Doubtful. Until AMD can get to 5Ghz, the clockspeed advantage will win out. They'll both be close though, and the Intel lovers will crow, while the Intel haters will find areas of AMD superiority. You know, kind of exactly like how things are now.

Both sides will benefit though with more performance for less $$.
All indications are that Intel's 10nm won't clock near as well as their 14+++ It will be interesting to see enthusiasts opinions when 10nm is released.
 
Reactions: Vattila

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
All indications are that Intel's 10nm won't clock near as well as their 14+++ It will be interesting to see enthusiasts opinions when 10nm is released.
I think it will actually be 10nm+ and it will clock just fine.
I think we will only see a couple of 10nm chips on the first node, maybe even only the one we have now.
 
Reactions: Vattila

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
745
348
136
The internet forum cpu wars will never end no matter who's on top....That's the one thing that will never change.
Yep. Too much self-worth tied up in their purchase decision will keep the wars alive.

All indications are that Intel's 10nm won't clock near as well as their 14+++ It will be interesting to see enthusiasts opinions when 10nm is released.
My guess is that's why they're ramping up 14nm capacity - to continue to maintain clock dominance until they can get value out of 10nm.
 
May 11, 2008
20,041
1,288
126
I hope that’s not the case for intels sake, because Broadwell (1st gen 14nm) was a turd in high performance incarnations.

My 6900k is at 4.2GHz all core and 1.275v (for AVX stability), under loads like handbrake it draws close to 250w at 75c-85c depending on ambient. 4.2 GHz all core is the highest I’ve even gotten any of the multiple Broadwell-E CPUs I’ve had to run stable. That’s with a full custom loop (EK Supremacy EVO, 6x120mm worth of radiator area).


This will be a great time for AMD to grab some market share and feed its R&D budget. But I also think it is important to keep expectations in check, I fully expect intel to maintain a small lead in performance across the board even when compared to 7nm zen 2. And that’s not a knock against AMD, on the contrary it’s impressive.


Seems this is an 10nm cpu :
Core i3-8121U
https://ark.intel.com/products/136863/Intel-Core-i3-8121U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3-20-GHz-

Essentials
Performance
  • # of Cores 2
  • # of Threads 4
  • Processor Base Frequency 2.20 GHz
  • Max Turbo Frequency 3.20 GHz
  • Cache 4 MB SmartCache
  • Bus Speed 4 GT/s OPI
  • TDP 15 W

I read this article from semiaccurate :
https://www.semiaccurate.com/2018/05/29/is-intels-upcoming-10nm-launch-real-or-a-pr-stunt/
I have not really done any research but it seems Charlie has a point.

What SemiAccurate has learned about Intel’s upcoming 10nm ‘release’ paints a contradictory picture for the company. It is the polar opposite of a real launch of a manufacturable product, a PR stunt to keep the stock price from crashing.

Authors Note: This article and analysis would normally be for subscribers only, however we feel a duty to inform the public of the facts in this instance.

Define Real:

In a really nice find, ComputerBase found a Lenovo Ideapad 330 with a 10nm Cannon Lake CPU aboard. This means Intel’s 10nm process is all on track and everything is all right, right? That is the intended message but it both contradicts what SemiAccurate moles have been saying for years now and Intel’s CEO have been saying for weeks, that the 10nm process doesn’t work. But it is coming out, right? Right. So what is actually going on?

When we first heard about this ‘release’ we were immediately skeptical because our sources have not said anything about a breakthrough in the process but they are consistently clear about the intractable problems. So how is Intel doing it? We started digging and found the answers.

The Chip:

The chip in the Ideapad 330 is a Cannon Lake based 10nm CPU from Intel that has been blessed with the marketing name Core i3-8121U. If you look at the main Ark page this part isn’t currently listed but if you search for it specifically you end up on a spec page. There are a lot of interesting bits to be gleaned from this page starting with the name. 8121U connotes a low end i3, the lowest end of the non-crippled all that much range. Think products that go into bottom-feeder special laptops, then step up half of a notch. Volume, not quality.

The specs show it runs at 2.20GHz base with a 3.2GHz turbo frequency all for a TDP of 15W. That 15W is of course stated in the name, the -U suffix is for that TDP, -Y for ~9W parts, and others for higher wattages and/or feature sets. In short while this dual core CPU doesn’t clock that high, it also doesn’t pull much power, about what you would expect. That isn’t bad until you notice a few other bits, first off that the i3-8121U doesn’t have a GPU, it is sold as a 2+0 in the parlance (CPU cores + GPU clusters), something Intel has never done before.

If you look at the two 8th gen parts that bracket the 8121U, you will see that the i3-8109U and i3-8130U are both 14nm chips from the Coffee and Kaby Lake, respectively, families. Both are 2C/4T parts with a GPU although Intel won’t give out any details about what the GPUs are any more. In any case they are at least a 2+1 configuration. What is interesting is that the 8130U runs at 2.2/3.4GHz (Base clock/Turbo clock) but the 8109U is at 3.0/3.6GHz because of a nominal 28W TDP. This should not be a -U CPU but who am I to question Intel’s sane, logical, and not at all random naming schemes?

Can You See The Graphics?:

One thing that is widely known about modern CPUs is that the GPU, where present, can take up a large portion of the TDP. While we won’t get into the nuances of power distribution, cooling, and TDP, lets just assume that half the TDP is for the CPU, the other half for the GPU under normal operation. That means the 10nm 8121U at 2.2/3.2GHz is slower at peak turbo than the 8130U at 2.2/3.4Ghz on an older 14nm process, at the same TDP. Worse yet for the 8121U, the 8130 _HAS_ a GPU. Let us recap, a 14nm CPU with a GPU is faster within a 15W cap than a 10nm CPU without a GPU running at the same 15W.

To make matters more painful, SemiAccurate’s sources say that the 10nm 2+1 die that the 8121U is based on was meant to be a 9W -Y part. Even if this isn’t true, the 10nm 8121U woefully worse than the 14nm parts, somewhere around half the efficiency of the 14nm competition. Chips with two cores at lower speeds and twice the power but without graphics aren’t likely to sell on merit in the open market.

Hang On A Sec:

By now the eagle eyed among you will have noticed we said that the 8121U is a 2+1 die but we are harping on the fact that is doesn’t have a GPU. What’s going on? To be blunt the 8121U does have a GPU on the die, it’s just that Intel can’t actually get it to work. This is entirely consistent with what SemiAccurate has been telling you for years now about the problems with the 10nm process, it was broken then, is broken now, and will be broken for far longer than Intel is admitting to. And they know it. (Note: Go back and look at their promises about 10nm during each of the quarterly analyst calls for the past 3 years, you will see a trend.)

If you think twice the power for all the Wattage is a bad marketing message, think about costs. Crushingly bad yields aside, the 10nm process is vastly more expensive than the 14nm one that the faster competition is built on. Sure you get a smaller die but the 8121U has likely half or more of that die turned off in the form of the GPU. The parts that Intel can effectively sell are about the same area but on a more expensive process than a hypothetical 14nm 2+0 die.

Any guesses what that does to Intel’s ASPs? Add in yield issues and that cost goes up by more than 3x. (Note 2: Yes I know what this intones and am being purposefully optimistic.) And just for giggles, add in the cost of an external GPU, all to go up against a faster, more efficient 10nm part. If you haven’t guessed by now, OEMs aren’t exactly relishing the thought of putting this CPU on the market. It won’t sell, it is inferior to the 14nm parts in literally every way, and costs a large multiple of what they do. There is no win for Intel on 10nm Cannon Lake parts other than as a PR stunt.

Why Now, Why This?:

So why is Lenovo putting this turkey out? Do they have a warehouse full of them that someone else needs the space for? Do they see an up side that isn’t portrayed by the specs, tech, manufacturability, or anything else? Is the device actually real or is it just an error in a database scheduled quarters ago that someone forgot to delete? SemiAccurate once again dug in and found out all the details.

The idea is pretty simple, Intel needs a win to counteract the well deserved pain it is getting from the 10nm meltdown. Since their PR strategy has made them universally hated among the press, there are few sympathetic ears out there other than paid shills. Even the most ardent of sycophants are calling Intel on their spurious claims so for the company, it is put up or shut up time. So Intel is going to make it look like they are putting up while not actually doing so because they can’t. The 10nm process not working is the spanner in the works in case you didn’t get it.

Twist Arm Backwards:

Intel can’t make 10nm parts at economically viable yields. Intel can’t make 10nm parts that have a salable feature set. Intel can’t make 10nm parts that beat their 14nm predecessors. But they can make small numbers of 10nm parts that, when you fuse half the die off, kinda sorta work at twice the power levels of the 14nm parts, just slower. If you take a fraction of the top bin of these parts, you get the killer device known as i3-8121U that literally none of the OEMs want to touch with a 10 foot pole because it will be death on the shelves.

Even if Intel subsidizes these parts to zero or below, the chips wouldn’t sell other than to geeks and reviewers. Why? Because battery life will be abysmal. Even if in real world use the CPU TDP isn’t 2x that of the 14nm parts, it is significantly more, and the external GPU that can never be turned off will eat up a chunk more too. This isn’t going to be a laptop that wins awards and everyone in the supply chain and OEM community knows it. To sell them, Intel needs to twist arms. And that is exactly what SemiAccurate’s sources tell us they are doing.

Stunts Ahoy!:

We are told that this PR stunt is going to be quite bounded for several reasons. First is the cost of making these CPUs, a large multiple of the cost of the 14nm parts. Second is supply, Intel is taking the top bin of the 10nm production lot, screening those, and ending up with the 8121U, two cores and no working GPU. Think about the piles of very expensive sand chunks that didn’t make the cut, a fraction of the top bin is not a huge percentage. Third they won’t sell on merit either to the OEMs or the public so there has to be a lot of subsidy dollars involved, directly or indirectly. SemiAccurate is told that still isn’t enough so Intel is politely applying pressure to grease the OEM wheels.

At this point OEMs are smiling and nodding because they have to. Intel has scraped up about 100K chips that meet the cut to distribute among OEMs. Each OEM has been asked to make one model featuring a 10nm part and to, “Make it look real“. Depending on the number of OEMs that get blessed with these parts, each one should receive between 5-20K chips to sell to the public, then job done. (Note 3: We are told this 100K is a one time deal and will not be followed up by more i3-8121Us or any other 10nm parts until volume production ramps in well over a year)

Officially Intel now has a triumphant launch of 10nm parts across a dozen or so OEMs which has to be real, right? The 10nm parts work, obviously have been in production since late 2017 as Intel said, and the crushing 10nm problems are anything but. Could a dozen OEMs make a dozen laptops if there were really crippling production problems? Intel is going to try and spin the 10nm meltdown as a choice aided by this data point.

A Little Math:

Think back to the past 20 or so chip launches that were actually real, each was preceded by a claim of dozens of OEMs and a wall of laptops sporting the devices. Any guesses what we will see at Computex this year? This whole 10nm ‘launch’ is designed to look real by being designed to look like the past launches even if there is no way it could be. If you look at the numbers, Intel sells about 250M chips a year now, give or take a few tens of millions. Lets call it 667K a day or so, weekends and holidays included.

That means that the 100K 10nm CPUs Intel is forcing OEMs to take account for ~15% of ONE DAY’S production at Intel or 0.0004% of their yearly output. Now think back to Intel’s statement that production has been going on since late 2017 and everything is fine. It took the company six months to make 15% of a single day’s volume with their entire 10nm output. And half of that chip flat out doesn’t work. Still think nothing is wrong with 10nm? Still think it is ‘planned’? Still think they know what the problem is? Still think they have a fix? Still think that production will ramp in 2019 as promised?

Not The End Of This Story:

In the end we have a chip being built on a troubled 10nm process. In six months Intel can make 15% of a day’s production on those production lines. The resultant chips are abjectly broken, they are 2+1 but the +1 doesn’t work which means they are selling a CPU with half the die turned off, an expensive proposition given the cost of the process and the shatteringly low yields. Even with the GPU turned off, the resultant CPU uses twice the power of the 14nm devices to run slower than those with a GPU.

OEMs won’t touch these 10nm parts either voluntarily or with ‘not bribes’ so Intel has to twist arms and force them to make laptops and “Make it ‘look real“. Why? To put out a data point that they can build ‘truth’ and ‘alternative facts’ around when it comes time to talk to analysts. The 10nm Cannon Lake parts aren’t real and never will be viable, financially or technically speaking. Feel free to believe the PR messaging but you can’t say you don’t know what is really going on now.S|A
 
Reactions: Vattila
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |