Intel kills 10nm ?? oO

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I was waiting for Ryzen 3000 and also had an eye on CFL too,but my old IB based Xeon E3 1230 V2(a Core i7 3770) rig hit some problems,so I had to upgrade at the end of 2018,a year earlier than I wanted to. I was looking at the Intel CPUs too,but the price went to stupid levels during that time(even a Core i5 8400 went past £200),and I got a Ryzen 5 2600 for under £140. The Core i7 8700 non-K I was looking at was at least £300(the price went up) - I don't overclock now as I like SFF rigs,and CBA TBH. The timing was all wrong,but the only alternative was probably to throw money away on old parts.

I wasn't just gaming on my rig,the non-gaming performance was also important especially in certain packages like DxO,so maybe different than many TBH(there was only a 10% difference in batch export speed between a Core i7 8700K and a Ryzen 5 2600X). However,one of the games I play is Fallout 4,and it's one of the worst with Ryzen(it works better on Skylake),and I tested it when I did my Ryzen 5 2600 review. I would actually get stutters with the IB Core i7,but I didn't with the Ryzen 5 2600 - I was getting upto 30% improvements in the minimums and the gameplay was far smoother.Frametimes were far more consistent. I hazard a guess,that perhaps a Core i7 8700 might have been around 20% better than the Ryzen 5 2600? But at under £140 against £300(at least) it wasn't worth it for me,and the Core i5 8400,would have been slower in other stuff for me and cost more money.

The game wasn't re-installed between CPU changes BTW and I was using the same SSD.There was other things which significantly improved too,like generating new meshes via bodyslide which seem to really swamp the CPU - I found with the Ryzen 5 2600,and on Skylake based CPUs,performance seems massively improved over using SB/IB - more physical cores does not seem to be the only reason. I think it might be extension support.

Anyway,going back to newer CPUs,Intel is introducing SMT support on Core i5s with its next launch,so if the Core i5 10600K is a £200 6C/12T CPU,which can be overclocked to 5GHZ,its going to be quite a good choice IMHO.

 

[Journey]

Anyway,going back to newer CPUs,Intel is introducing SMT support on Core i5s with its next launch,so if the Core i5 10600K is a £200 6C/12T CPU,which can be overclocked to 5GHZ,its going to be quite a good choice IMHO.

Even at £200 it's not a great choice, you can buy a Ryzen 5 3600 for £145, or the Ryzen 5 1600 AF for £85. Silicon lottery aside, we all know the Ryzen 5 4600 will be there obvious choice, which will be out but the time Intel get the LGA1200 chips too market.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Even at £200 it's not a great choice, you can buy a Ryzen 5 3600 for £145, or the Ryzen 5 1600 AF for £85. Silicon lottery aside, we all know the Ryzen 5 4600 will be there obvious choice, which will be out but the time Intel get the LGA1200 chips too market.

It depends when the Ryzen 4000 CPUs are released - if you are a gamer that is running older games,it will still be quicker than the Ryzen equivalents,and have enough threads to do OK in newer ones. It will still be the choice between a CPU which does better now or one which will have a longer lifespan. Personally I would have a cut price Ryzen 7 3700X myself,but I don't just game. I hope the Ryzen 5 4600 does work in my motherboard,but that depends if AMD will support three generations of CPUs on the B450.

 

[Grim5]

Intel 'ahead' in gaming, sure. But read the friggin graphs and the context.

Intel's 9900K is about 3-4% faster than a 3900X on average and only when using a 2080 Ti @ 1080p res... this is when comparing a large suite of games (10+). they're basically neck and neck. So much for Intel 'still king in gaming' misleading BS.

it's like Ferrari and Lamborghini fighting over who's the fastest when the difference is 0.1seconds

 

[jigger]

it's like Ferrari and Lamborghini fighting over who's the fastest when the difference is 0.1seconds

But only if you fit one with a set of tyres that cost 5x the price of the car and would be happy to make a terrible sacrifice on cornering, braking and wet performance.

Intel, the non thinking man’s choice.

 

[Destination]

But only if you fit one with a set of tyres that cost 5x the price of the car and would be happy to make a terrible sacrifice on cornering, braking and wet performance.

Intel, the non thinking man’s choice.

I think it is more one doesn't have any locks on it anymore
and uses twice the fuel

 

[chrcoluk]

Retail CPUs are only bought by enthusiasts who represents a very small sector of the market. Intel still has 70-80% of the OEM and system integrator market (which is huge) and can’t keep up with demand. It will take time and increased fabrication capacity to dethrone Intel. Can that be done before Intel have a true next gen product? Doubtful.

This ^^

The gaming retail sector, generates hype and PR. But the profits are in OEM and servers. 95% of volume is in those areas.

Sometimes Gibbo reveals on here the size of his wholesale orders and consider that OCUK as far as I know is the biggest PC seller in the UK, (at least as a specialist PC seller), the numbers are a fraction of what can be shifted on servers in a single week.

The thing with node sizes, when i buy a cpu, I dont care, all i care about is performance, price, heat, power consumption. Of course node sizes does affect these things, but it can be overcome in other parts of the process, it is not the sole factor. I think the biggest problem intel probably have right now is yields, large die's is leading to short supply of expensive products.

Progress for intel is going to be a new cpu with significantly reduced TDP/heat. That in turn will allow them to increase core count which I admit is the all new rage right now, and then they will be considered back in the game by the content creation industry. Essentially they need to get another core2, sandy bridge type cpu out of the door. They in pentium 4 mode right now.

 

[faceman123]

This ^^

The gaming retail sector, generates hype and PR. But the profits are in OEM and servers. 95% of volume is in those areas.

Sometimes Gibbo reveals on here the size of his wholesale orders and consider that OCUK as far as I know is the biggest PC seller in the UK, (at least as a specialist PC seller), the numbers are a fraction of what can be shifted on servers in a single week.

The thing with node sizes, when i buy a cpu, I dont care, all i care about is performance, price, heat, power consumption. Of course node sizes does affect these things, but it can be overcome in other parts of the process, it is not the sole factor. I think the biggest problem intel probably have right now is yields, large die's is leading to short supply of expensive products.

Progress for intel is going to be a new cpu with significantly reduced TDP/heat. That in turn will allow them to increase core count which I admit is the all new rage right now, and then they will be considered back in the game by the content creation industry. Essentially they need to get another core2, sandy bridge type cpu out of the door. They in pentium 4 mode right now.

even if intel does release more cores lower tdp etc, is it to little to late now ( for us enthusiasts/gamers ) AMD can at will make 64core/128core mainsteam ( essentially making Threadripper mainstream) and if they do find themselves slighly behind they will sure have the best bang for buck, The IPC imo is dead - onces software and games prefer more cores.

 

[chrcoluk]

The opinion of performance per core been dead we can disagree on, I will acknowledge its importance will diminish as time moves forward, but there is still many pieces of software that are bottlenecked by the performance of a cpu core.

The main reason ryzen is so much better than the FX chips, is its performance per core took a huge step forward, the FX chips still had 8 core variants. If the current ryzen chips had say 16/32 spec with FX level of core performance, they would be a flop in my opinion.

The clear benefit of more cores for home users is going to be the ability to do things like have background software sucking up resources whilst in a game, and not having that game impacted by that. The obvious example is of course streaming, but even simple things like leaving chrome running in the background would be a valid example as well. I have noticed PC specific discussion forums, seem to be very heavily populated by c9ontent creators, and that does skew things a bit since content creation, typically will absolutely love core count. But content creation is not gaming, it is also not representative of generic desktop use such as web browsing, watching videos, typing emails etc.

A recent article by level1tech highlighted this, the article concentrated on "real world" usage rather than cinebench synthetic tests which the industry has become addicted to and he acknowledged for general desktop responsiveness, performance per core is king, however he also pointed out that the top end ryzen chip he had the 3900X was matching up to the 9900k in that type of usage so had per core parity in his opinion. Of course given that the 3900x runs cooler and has much better multi threaded performance over the 9900k, it is the superior chip as he said. But he also acknowledged he still needed to do his scenario testing on the lower end ryzen chips which had lower clock speeds.

In my mind there is no doubt AMD have that momentum and will be the market leader for at least in the medium term, but at the same time I am not going to become some kind of brand fan boy, start slamming intel, and claiming that AMd is some kind of god, at the end of the day, they are the same as intel and will want to make as much money as possible. The next set of cpu's price will go up again, and we will a shift from both companies based on their market position, intel prices will start to come down at some point as they will need to sell themselves to the people who have moved over to AMD.

There is also the subject of the security flaws which at this moment of time, if you apply all mitigations, it absolutely destroys performance on intel, as far as I know its now standard practice in the review industry to have these enabled, so recent and new tests will be on effectively crippled intel chips, I expect people still using these chips or buying them are turning off the mitigations and as such getting better results than the likes of gamersnexus and level1tech. Phoronix reported a 9900K e.g. loses 28% performance fully patched vs unpatched in some scenarios, which is huge, and a user on techreport forums reported his games were a stutter fest, he then ran inspectre, disabled the mitigations, and the games became butter smooth. But with that said a 9900k wont have a 28% gap over a 3900X, as that also loses 6% to the mitigations so the gap would be closer to 20%.

 

[Orange Nexus]

What intel needs to kill is the 14nm. Like Boeing needs to kill 737 MAX. Incidentally, the processor at the heart of the 737 MAX is intel 80286.

 

[4K8KW10]

Intel is changing the CEO from February 15th, and planning to go N5 and N3 TSMC.

TSMC To Produce Intel Core i3 CPUs on 5nm Process Node in 2H 2021, 3nm Mainstream & High-End CPUs Enter Mass Production in 2H 2022
TSMC To Produce Next-Gen Entry, Mid & High-End Intel Core CPUs on 5nm & 3nm Process Nodes Starting 2H 2021 (wccftech.com)

"
Press Release - Intel has outsourced the production of about 15-20% of its non-CPU chips, with most of the wafer starts for these products assigned to TSMC and UMC, according to TrendForce’s latest investigations. While the company is planning to kick off mass production of Core i3 CPUs at TSMC’s 5nm node in 2H21, Intel’s mid-range and high-end CPUs are projected to enter mass production using TSMC’s 3nm node in 2H22.

In recent years, Intel has experienced some setbacks in the development of 10nm and 7nm processes, which in turn greatly hindered its competitiveness in the market. With regards to smartphone processors, most of which are based on the ARM architecture, Apple and HiSilicon have been able to announce the most advanced mobile AP-SoC ahead of their competitors, thanks to TSMC’s technical breakthroughs in process technology.

With regards to CPUs, AMD, which is also outsourcing its CPU production to TSMC, is progressively threatening Intel’s PC CPU market share. Furthermore, Intel lost CPU orders for the MacBook and Mac Mini, since both of these products are now equipped with Apple Silicon M1 processors, which were announced by Apple last year and manufactured by TSMC. The aforementioned shifts in the smartphone and PC CPU markets led Intel to announce its intention to outsource CPU manufacturing in 2H20.

TrendForce believes that increased outsourcing of its product lines will allow Intel to not only continue its existence as a major IDM, but also maintain in-house production lines for chips with high margins, while more effectively spending CAPEX on advanced R&D. In addition, TSMC offers a diverse range of solutions that Intel can use during product development (e.g., chiplets, CoWoS, InFO, and SoIC). All in all, Intel will be more flexible in its planning and have access to various value-added opportunities by employing TSMC’s production lines. At the same time, Intel now has a chance to be on the same level as AMD with respect to manufacturing CPUs with advanced process technologies.
"