Intel Core i3s on TSMC 5nm this year, i5 and more on TSMC 3nm in 2022

[Rroff]

The funny thing is, it wouldn’t.

Ivy Bridge-EP has a bit of a trick up its sleeve - the architecture is very amenable to frequency scaling on better silicon and will benefit from that frequency gain in real world performance. As it natively supports quad channel memory amongst other features it isn't held back as other consumer CPUs would be if given similar treatment.

EDIT: Though that would only be true up to 12 cores - beyond that it has some disadvantages a shrink couldn't overcome.

 

[jigger]

Ivy Bridge-EP has a bit of a trick up its sleeve - the architecture is very amenable to frequency scaling on better silicon and will benefit from that frequency gain in real world performance. As it natively supports quad channel memory amongst other features it isn't held back as other consumer CPUs would be if given similar treatment.

7nm Ivybridge would just be another victim of Ryzen, Threadripper and EPYC. It would get slaughtered as badly as all of Intels other arch’s.

 

[Rroff]

7nm Ivybridge would just be another victim of Ryzen, Threadripper and EPYC. It would get slaughtered as badly as all of Intels other arch’s.

Have you actually looked at Ivy Bridge EP in depth? it was hideously over designed for what it is - for instance it was designed for multi-socket systems so in single socket configuration has loads of bandwidth internally under utilised which can be leveraged with a shrink - something many other architectures don't have going for them and would hold them back from significantly benefiting from a shrink.

EDIT: Granted they would have to re-engineer it to take on more modern HEDT platforms - that wasn't what I was suggesting - I was meaning in terms of regular desktop performance.

 

[jigger]

Before the giddiness gets too out of hand, Intel’s move to TSMC isn’t about producing better chips, it’s about muscling away production from AMD and Nvidia over the next decade or so.

 

[Rroff]

Before the giddiness gets too out of hand, Intel’s move to TSMC isn’t about producing better chips, it’s about muscling away production from AMD and Nvidia over the next decade or so.

I find it amusing how my nearly a decade old, 22nm CPU stacks up against the newer stuff - at 4.4GHz which is a mild overclock - brings it inline with 2000 series Ryzen and newer Intel platforms:

https://valid.x86.fr/u28wd2

This CPU is good for at least 4.7GHz (which brings it a hair behind the 3600) and probably more but I don't have the cooling currently, with the 3070FE venting hot air in the CPU area , to sensibly run it above 4.4GHz for 24x7 operation.

You may find benchmarks around the net with the 1650 not doing so well but that is usually the V1 or someone running the V2 on bog standard 1600 or 1866MHz memory which holds them back.

EDIT: Someone's at almost 5GHz http://valid.x86.fr/361enm

Well, technically it is the very same architecture. Only the marketing gives new names (lakes) and the internal widths are increased (few new instructions - AVX2, FMA3) but the changes end there.

Ivy Bridge EP/EX is more a branch off - it has some disadvantages when you scale beyond 12 cores and even at 10 cores starts to drop off a bit - but up to 12 cores the architecture still has a lot going for it. The top tier silicon is rather remarkable actually - light years away from the consumer variants like my 4820K before - but so it should be when you are talking a family of CPUs which were mostly in the 1000s of dollars on release.

 

[Deleted member 209350]

They sold 200mil in 2020 actually.

Sorry I misread, I thought you were referring to the latest models only - not overall iPhone sales

 

[pc-guy]

Sorry I misread, I thought you were referring to the latest models only - not overall iPhone sales

I don’t think Apple gives out that information. Analysts usually use insider information along with what TSMC and apples suppliers do to guess how many units of the newest model is sold each year to gauge Apple’s growth and profit margin etc.

 

[EsaT]

In terms of AMD's business with TSMC, desktop chips are it's smallest allocation. Remember that AMD supply the CPU and GPU for both the PS5 and Xbox Series X, as well as a fairly large server market

Desktop Ryzens use exactly identical chiplets as EPYCs and TSMC has no hand (or even interest) in how AMD bins and allocates them.

 

[Mesai]

Desktop Ryzens use exactly identical chiplets as EPYCs and TSMC has no hand (or even interest) in how AMD bins and allocates them.

Nobody said they did. AMD have an allocated number of wafers at TSMC and of said processed wafers, AMD allocate a small portion to desktop components and a large portion to servers and consoles.

 

[smilingcrow]

Nobody said they did. AMD have an allocated number of wafers at TSMC and of said processed wafers, AMD allocate a small portion to desktop components and a large portion to servers and consoles.

I thought Sony and MS would be ordering and paying for the wafers that they use?
So AMD are paid for the design work and probably a royalty per chip.

 

[pc-guy]

I thought Sony and MS would be ordering and paying for the wafers that they use?
So AMD are paid for the design work and probably a royalty per chip.

He s talking about the GPU I think. But that’s technicality really. Who pays for what. AMD designs the CPU and GPU that goes into the consoles. They are all made by TSMC all take up the exact same fabrication process. It’s neither here or there what brand is slapped on the hardware at the end of an assembly line in China.

but that’s 7nm not 5nm which is what Apple and loads of other phone makers use atm. Who knows, by the time AMD and intel start using 5nm maybe the current usage will move onto something even better.

 

[Grim5]

If this is true, intel is grabbing 5nm to curtail availability to AMD for their Zen4 parts surely rather than really seriously outsourcing their fab.

if they are serious about this why not move the entire line up off.

no

what Intel is doing is letting tsmc make all its low end cpu products which frees up intel fabs to focus just on high end cpu products

remember that for a couple years now intel has had a consistent shortage on its parts, instead of investor billions into more fans to increase production, they are outsourcing the low end product production

 

[Mesai]

I thought Sony and MS would be ordering and paying for the wafers that they use?
So AMD are paid for the design work and probably a royalty per chip.

The consoles have Zen2 and RDNA2 components. AMD design the chips, TSMC produce them, AMD “puts it together” and then those are sold to Sony and MS.

 

[Rroff]

no

what Intel is doing is letting tsmc make all its low end cpu products which frees up intel fabs to focus just on high end cpu products

remember that for a couple years now intel has had a consistent shortage on its parts, instead of investor billions into more fans to increase production, they are outsourcing the low end product production

I wouldn't rule it out to be fair even if not a primary factor - Intel has prior for throwing money around to disrupt competition's supply, etc.

 

[humbug]

The funny thing is - if Intel just re-spun Ivy Bridge-EP on TSMC 7nm, gave it a few IPC tweaks, PCI-e gen 4 and full NVME support, even with just DDR3, it would take a dump on pretty much anything out at the moment.

Is this why you're still rocking an Ivy Bridge? You sound like you're deluded.

Ivy Bridge would need a +90% IPC hike just to match Zen 3.

Ivy Bridge-EP has a bit of a trick up its sleeve - the architecture is very amenable to frequency scaling on better silicon and will benefit from that frequency gain in real world performance. As it natively supports quad channel memory amongst other features it isn't held back as other consumer CPUs would be if given similar treatment.

EDIT: Though that would only be true up to 12 cores - beyond that it has some disadvantages a shrink couldn't overcome.

Is that Intel's "Real World Performance" or Real Real World Performance? I'll take your 5Ghz Ivy Bridge and "Take a dump on it" with my 5Ghz Zen 3.