• 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’s surprise Ryzen killer

pc-guy said:
the big little (BL) design will be limited by the number of big cores available for games etc.

I think the video mentioned that it is 8 big core and 8 little core. that processor will give you similar performance to what the Zen3 8c part and defintely will be behind 12c part - assuming the 10nm superfin is on par in terms of transistor size as TSMC 7nm. 10nm SF maybe be a superior node, but intel has consistently said it is not as refined and doesnt yield as well.

issue with BL design is that you deploy it against an all big core design where wattage draw doesnt matter ie gaming pc, workstations, rendering machines, you will loose out to the all big core (comparing 8B+8L with 16C AMD). the BL just wont have the same amount "horse power".

honestly, intel is better off marketting these designs to laptop sector than trying to bring them onto desktop space. desktop space they need to upper their big core counts to more than 8c to realistically compete. if they are offering only 8 big cores then it is going to be game over for them...no pun intended.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
The main reason I can see for a BL design on desktop parts is marketing, so they can say they have 16 cores.
So they get to produce a cheaper chip but still label it as 16 core.
I wonder how much die space they save and therefore cost by gimping these chips?
With their manufacturing in crisis and up against a resurgent AMD who have a 16C desktop part there must have been pressure to rush out any old 16C chip.
I honestly can't see why else they are doing this.
When AMD move to 5nm God know what Intel will do to try and market their stuff versus AMD, who will surely be able to hit at least 24C/48T for desktop parts.
Maybe they'll release a 24C Little.Tiny architecture using all Atom cores! :) That will be the true heir to Bulldozer. Ha ha.
Or they can resurrect Larrabee and sell it as a 64 core CPU! On 14nm of course. :)

When Trump loses the election, maybe he can go and work for Intel as he would do well running their social media campaign.
"These are the best chips ever. How to I know? Because God told me. These are real American chips that don't need virus protection. Just take the virus on the chin like a man and get on with it."
 
smilingcrow said:
I wonder how much die space they save and therefore cost by gimping these chips?
With their manufacturing in crisis and up against a resurgent AMD who have a 16C desktop part there must have been pressure to rush out any old 16C chip.
I honestly can't see why else they are doing this.
Click to expand...

i think the little core is tiny, i think it doesnt have any FP processors. and I believe Intel is doing this is mainly to bring some kind of balance in their fabrication. they are struggling with yield and get the fabrication working on 10nm and 7nm so they need to bascially look at getting that expensive cost back somewhere else, using cheaper fabrication node such as 14nm on the little core maybe the answer. or using the semi-defuncted 10nm and 7nm dies as little core. who knows, I suspect it is all cost driven as opposed to innovation.
 
pc-guy said:
i think the little core is tiny, i think it doesnt have any FP processors. and I believe Intel is doing this is mainly to bring some kind of balance in their fabrication. they are struggling with yield and get the fabrication working on 10nm and 7nm so they need to bascially look at getting that expensive cost back somewhere else, using cheaper fabrication node such as 14nm on the little core maybe the answer. or using the semi-defuncted 10nm and 7nm dies as little core. who knows, I suspect it is all cost driven as opposed to innovation.
Click to expand...
Has it been confirmed that they are using an MCM approach with the little cores on a separate chip? Wow!
 
Dave2150 said:
AMD must be doing something wrong if they still can't match or beat Skylake's gaming performance
Click to expand...
Or maybe AMD are doing something right by prioritising performance for actual workloads, not a teeny niche of the market of playing silly games. Funny how PC gaming performance is so important when that's the only thing Intel can still cling to.
 
pc-guy said:
i think the little core is tiny, i think it doesnt have any FP processors. and I believe Intel is doing this is mainly to bring some kind of balance in their fabrication. they are struggling with yield and get the fabrication working on 10nm and 7nm so they need to bascially look at getting that expensive cost back somewhere else, using cheaper fabrication node such as 14nm on the little core maybe the answer. or using the semi-defuncted 10nm and 7nm dies as little core. who knows, I suspect it is all cost driven as opposed to innovation.
Click to expand...

pc-guy said:
https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-12th-gen-core-alder-lake-s-supports-ddr5-memory
https://wccftech.com/intel-alder-lake-next-gen-desktop-cpus-lga-1700-socket-support-confirmed/
the same information about core config has been around for ages - as early as feb 2020...
Click to expand...
Those links don't mention MCM or using 14nm at all so seemingly it's monolithic.
Not sure how they could use semi-defunct chips in this case as they are using a new core so they won't be in any other products at that point!
I re-read your post and realise that you were speculating.
 
yes i was speculating what they might be doing. i dont believe they can yeild sufficient amount on their 10nm process. so to bring the product to a performance level that is satisfactory and still has a profit margin on it, i think they must be doing somehting like i said to drive cost down.
 
Until Intel launches something new it's hard to see anyone in their right mind buying an Intel cpu when AMD beats it in literally everything
 
I can see rocket lake actually reclaiming gaming crown based on the Zen 3 figures as seems to be mostly 5-10 % ahead of 10900K but only looks to be 8 cores max so back to square 1 where AMD is the better overall CPU and offers much better multi core performance.
 
Toasty said:
I can see rocket lake actually reclaiming gaming crown based on the Zen 3 figures as seems to be mostly 5-10 % ahead of 10900K but only looks to be 8 cores max so back to square 1 where AMD is the better overall CPU and offers much better multi core performance.
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely. Tiger lake CPU in terms of IPC is a step back from the age old skylake architecture on 14nm. So it will take intel quite a few generations to perfect that 10nm and architectural design. They are moving to 7nm after alder lake which is the only other 10nm. Their 7nm is in as bad shape as their 10nm if not worse.

So I don’t expect anything good coming out of intel for a long while. This whole BL core design has been derived out of necessity rather than innovation
 
Last edited:
Toasty said:
I can see rocket lake actually reclaiming gaming crown based on the Zen 3 figures as seems to be mostly 5-10 % ahead of 10900K but only looks to be 8 cores max so back to square 1 where AMD is the better overall CPU and offers much better multi core performance.
Click to expand...

Rocketlake is no improvement on Icelake, except for power efficiency. Its Skylake on 10nm
 
It’s back-ported Willowcove which is Tigerlake, point being if they can keep the clock speed up on 14 nm they still might be able to re-claim gaming at the expensive of everything else as these gaming margins on average don’t seem to be a large lead it’s in the realm of possibility.

10900K overclocked 5.2-5.3 all core will still probably be quicker for gaming as essentially no overclocking headroom on Ryzen now and those benches were using 3600 memory and 1800 Fclk which is what most users can reasonably expect.

All this is very niche of course but will be interesting to see what happens.
 
Roadrunner_668 said:
i was going to maybe build a pc wit htthe new amd chip in it, an 8 core maybe, but would it be better to wait for intel to release something new do you think?
Click to expand...
No. The new stuff from Intel is going to be DOA in the face of Zen 3. That being said, it doesn't mean Intel isn't a viable option in some circumstances. If Zen 3's numbers prove to be accurate in the real world, then AMD win every single performance metric. But they're doing so with a price bump, and motherboards have seen an increase in price too. AMD is not as "cheap" as it once was.

So it comes down to the age-old question: what are you building the PC for and what is your budget?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom