• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285k 'Arrow Lake' Discussion/News ("15th gen") on LGA-1851

You can keep repeating that as often as you like, but it doesn't make it true.

Golden Cove had significant improvements:

Oh yeah look, a wider more parallel version of something that looks rather similar to the Skylake design. You can keep arguing it’s not the case, but that’s been the Intel strategy.
 
Oh yeah look, a wider more parallel version of something that looks rather similar to the Skylake design.
May as well call it Haswell then, because Skylake was just a slightly wider more parallel version of something that looks like Haswell.
(Which in turn was a Wider version of Ivy Bridge)


You can keep arguing it’s not the case, but that’s been the Intel strategy.
And why is identifying bottlenecks in an existing architecture and fixing them in improved versions such an issue for you?

Why don't AMD get the same criticism from you? After all Zen 4 is just a wider version of Zen 3, itself a wider version of Zen 2, itself just a manufacturing/packaging change compared to Zen+/Zen



Don't get me wrong, I absolutely get the hate for Kaby Lake/Coffee Lake/Comet Lake which was essentially just rebranding of Skylake, but you can't continue to apply that ad-infinitum to everything since
 
Last edited:
May as well call it Haswell then, because Skylake was just a slightly wider more parallel version of something that looks like Haswell.
(Which in turn was a Wider version of Ivy Bridge)



And why is identifying bottlenecks in an existing architecture and fixing them in improved versions such an issue for you?

Why don't AMD get the same criticism from you? After all Zen 4 is just a wider version of Zen 3, itself a wider version of Zen 2, itself just a manufacturing/packing change compared to Zen+/Zen

Just calling it as it is. I have called the P core version .X ringbus+Atom in the past.

Intel had its tick tock strategy and dropped the tick. Now the strategy is tock plus E cores and accelerators, but ultimately the goal will be a ground up new architecture with scalability.

Also, Intels current desktop design isn’t an issue for me at all. Intel have to work with the hardware they have and the situation is what it is.

Rroff and I were discussing the merits and drawbacks of Intel dropping HT from its desktop parts. Intel will be killing HT for a reason.
 
Last edited:
May as well call it Haswell then, because Skylake was just a slightly wider more parallel version of something that looks like Haswell.
(Which in turn was a Wider version of Ivy Bridge)



And why is identifying bottlenecks in an existing architecture and fixing them in improved versions such an issue for you?

Why don't AMD get the same criticism from you? After all Zen 4 is just a wider version of Zen 3, itself a wider version of Zen 2, itself just a manufacturing/packaging change compared to Zen+/Zen



Don't get me wrong, I absolutely get the hate for Kaby Lake/Coffee Lake/Comet Lake which was essentially just rebranding of Skylake, but you can't continue to apply that ad-infinitum to everything since

He's right, Zen 2 is a significant enhancement of Zen 1, Zen 3 a significant enhancement of Zen 2, Zen 4 a significant enhancement of Zen 3 and it looks like Zen 5 is a significant enhancement of Zen 4.

Zen 1 was a different architecture to Excavator which was a significant enhancement of Piledriver which was a rebranded slightly improved Bulldozer.

Golden Cove is a different architecture to Skylake. However 12'th gen, 13'th gen and 14'th are nothing more than rebranded slight improvements on Golden Cove, 12'th gen, Arrow Lake, 15'th Gen looks like its a significant enhancement on Golden Coved.

AMD do put more work in to each new CPU they release while still keeping long term socket compatibility, amazing... while Intel use the 'Add more cores' Strategy, Ironic.... But Golden Cove is not Skylake. :) Had you said Raptor Lake is the same as Golden Cove i would have agreed, it is...

PS: i hate Intel's core naming scheme, its hard to keep up with it, the numbers game, Zen 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Is nice and easy to keep up with.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised HT has been around for this long. I thought its days would be numbered soon as multi-core became the norm.​

HT has a lot of benefits beyond just raw performance. Ignoring the advent of E cores for a moment even in situations where HT can't contribute to increasing performance on a task if you have all physical cores loaded up on a task system responsiveness can suffer, enable HT and you lose maybe 5% performance on that task but system responsiveness is still maintained at a reasonable level, etc.

Same with gaming up to a point - while less noticeable at 60FPS/60Hz if a CPU is heavily tied up on its physical cores to get a certain level of performance it is noticeable with high frame rate gaming, enabling HT to ease the load off some cores a bit makes a difference to the feel of the game despite not necessarily having an impact on the frame rate. (I'm not entirely sure what is going on underneath there).

EDIT: I'm wondering if Intel's motivations aren't more about protecting their other markets than actually HT having had its day.
 
Last edited:
With plenty of Ecores available HT isn’t really needed and if Ecores keep improving at the rate they are then P cores may end up going too.
 
Then you suffer the latency’s of a mesh topology and require more memory channels.

You mentioned this mesh nonsense before and were clearly were shown that it's ring topology being used.

Show us how Mesh is being used in ADL/RPL/RPL-S. Not by your gut feeling but by technical documentation that you clearly must have found to be so adamant in your position. Not need to reply with anything but technical findings please.
 
With plenty of Ecores available HT isn’t really needed and if Ecores keep improving at the rate they are then P cores may end up going too.

You are always going to have the ability to have more smaller cores which are missing some features and/or cache which will be E cores vs P cores. Or like with Zen 4 and Zen 4C which are effectively a type of E core where the thread director can identify what can run without being penalised on different core types and utilise for best effectiveness which mostly works except with the most complex workloads or where all workloads require the full cache for best performance.
 
You mentioned this mesh nonsense before and were clearly were shown that it's ring topology being used.

Show us how Mesh is being used in ADL/RPL/RPL-S. Not by your gut feeling but by technical documentation that you clearly must have found to be so adamant in your position. Not need to reply with anything but technical findings please.

I have many times…. Google Intel Atom.
 
I’m looking forward to the new Intel chips. Not had an Intel since 5930K:X99, really hope they put out a platform like that again, 40 gen5 PCIe off the CPU + quad channel RAM at Less crazy prices than the workstation stuff.
 
I have many times…. Google Intel Atom.
*Yawn*



1720009788157.png

And even with Arrow Lake's planned changes.... guess what, still a Ring Bus


1720009891146.png



Also:
Effect of E-Cores on Ring Clock


1720009960622.png
 
*Yawn*



1720009788157.png

And even with Arrow Lake's planned changes.... guess what, still a Ring Bus


1720009891146.png



Also:
Effect of E-Cores on Ring Clock


1720009960622.png

Yawn, did you even read that…
 
Back
Top Bottom