-
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.
Rocket lake leaks
- Thread starter pc-guy
- Start date
Will be interesting to see how TSMC handle Intel.
They surely know they are not a long-term customer, so prioritising them over established customers is a mistake they won't make.
On the other hand they have potentially have deep pocket and high volume, so TSMC can hardly afford to ignore them either.
They surely know they are not a long-term customer, so prioritising them over established customers is a mistake they won't make.
On the other hand they have potentially have deep pocket and high volume, so TSMC can hardly afford to ignore them either.
Speaking of leaks, there have been some Alder Lake ones too.
https://twitter.com/9550pro/status/1368224604074827780/photo/1
So it looks like Intel expect to compete with Cezanne 8C/16T with a 2C BIG cores plus 8c little cores, at least at 15W. Brave or foolish?
10nm, using half little cores and still can't match AMD tdp haha
Only i3 is going to TSMC. That's nothing.
Ill hand it to you dave you dont give up do you i also notice you never replied to the help what was offered on your mates imaginary 5800x
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 1,702
- Location
- Doon the watah ... Scotland
Hard to tell at this stage, but as I understand it , the big and small cores are hyperthreaded, so thats 20T in total versus 16T of the Cezanne ? Then factor it against what the workload will be ... in a lightweight office environment, multiple small cores may well outperform the larger cores in terms of temp/power/speed. I would doubt though that the 2C+8c would beat out the Cezanne in all out heavy workload like rendering and benchmarking.
I still don't get it.
I do get that a smaller core uses less power when its used for just browsing the net or watching Youtube., at most you only need a couple of little cores for that and its only helpful on very low power devices, its the difference between 4 watts and 2 or 3 watts. Fine.
But on a Desktop? and up to 8 little cores?
That to me just seems like cramming more cores into your silicon because yer can't do it with full size cores.
I do get that a smaller core uses less power when its used for just browsing the net or watching Youtube., at most you only need a couple of little cores for that and its only helpful on very low power devices, its the difference between 4 watts and 2 or 3 watts. Fine.
But on a Desktop? and up to 8 little cores?
That to me just seems like cramming more cores into your silicon because yer can't do it with full size cores.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 53
Does that not really depend on which route Intel take going forward. The reality is that it looks like Intel might take the AMD route and become a designer rather than manufacturer. The issue then becomes that too much of the world's designers are too dependent on TMSC (which appear to be the only manufacturer that push out these more advanced processes). Global Foundries, Samsung etc still have not managed to achieve the feat that TSMC has, especially at any real scale.
It is however worth pointing out that much of these new advanced EUV processes that TSMC use are all very dependant on ASML (who are actually a Dutch company).
Ice Lake SP 10nm benchmarks leak
32 core model is just on par with current gen 32 core EPYC, 64 core Ice Lake again just on par with 64 core EPYC BUT this model uses double the power.
this is getting ridiculous for Intel, their 10nm process is ****, double the power draw and only just matching old EPYC server cause 3rd Gen EPYC launching in a few weeks
https://wccftech.com/intel-3rd-gen-...inum-8352s-8352y-32-core-cpu-benchmarks-leak/
32 core model is just on par with current gen 32 core EPYC, 64 core Ice Lake again just on par with 64 core EPYC BUT this model uses double the power.
this is getting ridiculous for Intel, their 10nm process is ****, double the power draw and only just matching old EPYC server cause 3rd Gen EPYC launching in a few weeks
https://wccftech.com/intel-3rd-gen-...inum-8352s-8352y-32-core-cpu-benchmarks-leak/
portable mobile laptop designed architecture arrogantly ported to desktop with hope that ipc and clocks on 8 big cores will just be good enough for games. Big.little has little benefit to desktop and absolutely no benefit to gamers.
None of this is a surprise anymore, look at the 10nm alder lake laptop model specs, the 8 core models have much higher tdp than current 7nm AMD 8 core models, that's how **** Intel's 10nm node is
Last edited:
I've seen this reported in a few different places. Makes sense for them to diversify the risk really, particularly with the 10nm issues they had. I'm a bit torn, because more competition is good, but if they're all competing for the same production process then the demand could inflate prices.
I suppose it depends on what gets manufactured where.
Also, past consoles have had mid life refreshes and die shrinks, so the whole landscape could look different next year.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 53
I think that is a little unfair. Lots of processes run on your PC in the background that simply don't require big cores. Even when you are running a game, your PC is doing much in the background that simply does not require access to things like AVX. The big little future is definitely not just for mobile, and it makes sense for everything to embrace that. In this multicore world, having smaller cores handling these tasks also mean that the heat budget can be offset for work which does need access to a larger instruction set.
Lots of processes but nowhere near the core count on any modern CPU. These processes are at least hundreds and they switch rapidly from core to core.
The only reason that Intel will use BIG.little is to save some die area and keep the costs minimal.
But of course, they stand no chance performance-wise against Zen 4 and Zen 5.
BIG.little on desktop is like Bulldozer's modules and threads.
A one size fits all strategy is rarely best. You would get diminishing returns (bearing in mind that outright performance is not the only metric) by just cramming more and more cores into a cpu, but obviously it depends on workloads.
It's easy to make it sound like a cop out because everyone thinks of mobile phones and power saving, but how many cores and what type do you actually need? If you can achieve the same results with a smaller silicon budget then it's less efficient.
Of course if could just be a design princple that intel are applying across multiple stacks for multlple sectors, and it may well turn out to be far from optimal for a desktop 'power user' (whatever that is). We'll see!
Wouldn't the same be true if you had, oh i don't know... 12 big cores? even 8, or 6, how many do you need for these background tasks? the only time i even see my CPU go much over 1% when just mulling over the internet is when MS security scan runs a quick one every other day.
They ain't a replacement for big cores, these little cores, are they? I would hope not tho i suspect they are.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 53
Big little is coming to AMD as well. This is not purely an Intel thing. It's like chiplets and packaging innovations. All the companies out there doing development know that these technologies are the future.
Whilst you are of course right that these processes keep moving between cores, the light background processes are numerous and will still take advantage of a multicore design.
Big little is coming to AMD as well. This is not purely an Intel thing. It's like chiplets and packaging innovations. All the companies out there doing development know that these technologies are the future.
Whilst you are of course right that these processes keep moving between cores, the light background processes are numerous and will still take advantage of a multicore design.
Didn't AMD say they looked at it and they ain't going to bother? i think the words they used are something along the lines of "we don't feel the need to get our core count up on paper"
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 53
Not that I am aware. Hey AMD are even looking in the ARM direction.
Lots going on at the moment affecting all the key providers out there. It's an exciting time, and I am glad we are finally getting some good development and competition as the last few years has been pretty awful on the hardware side.