Rage3D Discussion Area

Rage3D Discussion Area (http://www.rage3d.com/board/index.php)
-   General Hardware (http://www.rage3d.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Intel 11x00 Gen thread (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=34052106)

badsykes Jan 12, 2021 01:44 AM

Intel 11x00 Gen thread
 
https://wccftech.com/intel-rocket-la...arks-ces-2021/

I am looking to upgrade my Ryzen 1700...I hope the prices on 8c cpus will drop with RKL release.I may want to actually keep myself on DDR4 until the DDR5 matures.Not sure if i want to do another Ryzen 1 experimental platform.I am not so entuaziastic anymore to be in the experimental zone and also paying money.

KAC Jan 12, 2021 01:48 AM

Yes I am buying this on day 1. Seems like the right thing to do. :bleh:

Trunks0 Jan 12, 2021 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badsykes (Post 1338260155)
https://wccftech.com/intel-rocket-la...arks-ces-2021/

I am looking to upgrade my Ryzen 1700...I hope the prices on 8c cpus will drop with RKL release.I may want to actually keep myself on DDR4 until the DDR5 matures.Not sure if i want to do another Ryzen 1 experimental platform.I am not so entuaziastic anymore to be in the experimental zone and also paying money.

We are all hoping for prices of everything to chill and supply to normalize. Should make the 3700 take a dip though. So nice upgrade in your future.

demo Jan 12, 2021 02:51 AM

I'll probably get one since I already have a board that supports it but geez those results are pretty lack luster considering current gen is already on par with 5900x for gaming.

Nagorak Jan 12, 2021 04:11 AM

If the improvements are that small I'm not sure whether it's going to be a better option than a 10850K right now. I guess "just for gaming", since you don't need the extra 2 cores for most games, but from a standpoint of both gaming and other uses where those cores come into play, it doesn't look that great.

I guess there's PCIE 4.0. Really sucks that is not supported on 10000 series.

Trunks0 Jan 12, 2021 04:57 AM

Well how much more can we really expect Intel to pull out of 14nm right? The jump to 10nm failed and now they are stuck on 14nm till they can ramp up 7nm and 5nm. Which if we are lucky, we will see Intel's 5nm this year.

SuperGeil Jan 12, 2021 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks0 (Post 1338260174)
Well how much more can we really expect Intel to pull out of 14nm right? The jump to 10nm failed and now they are stuck on 14nm till they can ramp up 7nm and 5nm. Which if we are lucky, we will see Intel's 5nm this year.

The huge process advantage Intel has had for so many many years is gone and it shows. They are never going to get it back either as the amount of money and time needed to ramp more complicated nodes is exponentially increasing and we can conclude the golden years of Intel are past because of this.

Rocket Lake looks like a 200w disappointment.

demo Jan 12, 2021 06:04 PM

Their approach with Alder Lake is a bit concerning for desktop too. 8 big + 8 little makes sense for mobile power savings, but it seems like it'll just be a hinderance for desktop.

SuperGeil Jan 12, 2021 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demo (Post 1338260432)
Their approach with Alder Lake is a bit concerning for desktop too. 8 big + 8 little makes sense for mobile power savings, but it seems like it'll just be a hinderance for desktop.

Alder Lake shows they are more concerned with ARM than AMD. Which is wise, because they would rather lose market share to AMD and keep x86 strong.

metroidfox Jan 12, 2021 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demo (Post 1338260432)
Their approach with Alder Lake is a bit concerning for desktop too. 8 big + 8 little makes sense for mobile power savings, but it seems like it'll just be a hinderance for desktop.


Why is it a hindrance?

Leprechaun Jan 12, 2021 08:55 PM

Everyone: 14nm is long dead
intel: HMB

Intel deserves an award for squeezing blood out of a stone.

If the price is right though it would be worth getting

Trunks0 Jan 12, 2021 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metroidfox (Post 1338260457)
Why is it a hindrance?

Because give me 16 big cores. Im plugged into the wall, I don't care about power saving's.

metroidfox Jan 12, 2021 11:06 PM

Yeah, but the way things are done, 8 cores currently contain all this extra logic for routing between high power, and low power states.


With this big.little design, you take away that complexity (may imply higher clockspeed too), and if you really don't care about power, can have all high power, and 8 low power cores on.

Nunz Jan 13, 2021 05:24 AM

I'm hoping we see some big changes after Alder Lake. Rocket Lake looks quite mediocre, but then again Intel could be trolling with those benches. I can't see where Intel is going to find a ton of IPC or clock-speed gain compared to Comet Lake, but maybe they'll surprise us.

I don't care if it's 14nm, 7nm, or 22nm. Give me the fastest performance for gaming. My 9900K for all the "omg it runs so hot!" whining that was talked about, runs extremely cool on an all-core overclock. Now that Ryzen chips are hitting 70c+ just gaming, suddenly temps and hot running chips aren't that big of a deal anymore :lol:

Gimme some SPEED.

badsykes Jan 13, 2021 11:03 AM

Intel CEO Bob Swan to Step Down Effective February

SirBaron Jan 13, 2021 12:51 PM

Intel is also getting TMSC to make their CPU's, so they better make more fabrications plants pronto or a tight market is going to become even tighter :bleh:

Nunz Jan 13, 2021 02:47 PM

The main take away of Intel going to TSMC, is that any chip released this year will be bad. Rocket Lake and potentially Alder Lake will be DOA. The goal is that Intel will have their consumer chips on TSMC 3nm in 2022, so they'll just float the next year; hopefully working on a chip design to come back with a punch in 2022.

AMD better get their money together, because Intel still has plenty of cash to start buying out production and locking out AMD. As for the rest of us, prepare for price increases.. TSMC has a monopoly on the manufacturing market now. We are all ****ed. I said this would be a concern if Intel started outsourcing, and looks like it's come to fruition.

Trunks0 Jan 13, 2021 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirBaron (Post 1338260635)
Intel is also getting TMSC to make their CPU's, so they better make more fabrications plants pronto or a tight market is going to become even tighter :bleh:

They are already building the fabs for 7nm and 5nm. The problem is it won't be ready till the end of this year and next year(2022). And who knows was the capacity will be initially.

But because they are continuing to ramp down 14nm and are already struggling to keep up with 14nm demand they had to contract it out. So they are using TSMC for 14nm CPU's AND are going to use TSMC for 7nm for their Xe GPU's.

And it's already a tight market. Global shortages of Intel CPU's have been a plague for years now. Especially in the enterprise and laptop market. It's at least partially why AMD is making such huge gains.

dodger Jan 13, 2021 04:49 PM

Yeah you know its bad when even non CPU chips are in such short supply that car plants have been shutdown over them:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/tech/...age/index.html

A computer chip shortage has shut down the Louisville, Kentucky, Ford plant this week, the latest shutdown because of an industry-wide problem that is expected to spread to many other auto plants in the coming months.

Nagorak Jan 14, 2021 01:58 AM

I still don't understand how Intel has failed so badly on the fabrication side. That was like their crown jewel, and over the course of a decade it went straight to ****. Yes, as chips get smaller process shrinks become more challenging, but TSMC seems to be firing on all cylinders, so it's not like no one else managed to do it.

I don't know how Samsung stacks up against Intel, but I'm guessing it's still better than Intel's 14nm. So, seriously, wtf happened?

acroig Jan 14, 2021 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nagorak (Post 1338260826)
I still don't understand how Intel has failed so badly on the fabrication side. That was like their crown jewel, and over the course of a decade it went straight to ****. Yes, as chips get smaller process shrinks become more challenging, but TSMC seems to be firing on all cylinders, so it's not like no one else managed to do it.

I don't know how Samsung stacks up against Intel, but I'm guessing it's still better than Intel's 14nm. So, seriously, wtf happened?

They (fab) could not get 10nm to work AFAIK.

GTwannabe Jan 14, 2021 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acroig (Post 1338260863)
They (fab) could not get 10nm to work AFAIK.

Intel got greedy with both an aggressive density increase and new materials. 10nm works, but the yields and clockspeed were not good vs. 14nm.

acroig Jan 14, 2021 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTwannabe (Post 1338260988)
Intel got greedy with both an aggressive density increase and new materials. 10nm works, but the yields and clockspeed were not good vs. 14nm.

Ah, ok, thanks for reminding me.

Trunks0 Jan 14, 2021 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTwannabe (Post 1338260988)
Intel got greedy with both an aggressive density increase and new materials. 10nm works, but the yields and clockspeed were not good vs. 14nm.

It also took AGES for Intel to get it working. By the time they did, the rest of the industry had leapfrogged it to 7nm.

Nunz Jan 14, 2021 03:59 PM

You can't compare Intel 10nm to TSMC 7nm. The numbers don't match in that way. Intel's 10nm smaller than it sounds by the "10" number. It's very close or slightly smaller than Samsung 8nm, if I'm not mistaken. There was a very good article that talked about this, but that was years ago..

Trunks0 Jan 14, 2021 04:56 PM

A difference of no consequence as Intel failed entirely.

metroidfox Jan 14, 2021 05:10 PM

Yeah, the downfall of Intel's fabs is not as pronounced as most make it seem. At worst, the competition has caught up.

They all use different transistor measurements to quantify their process node, and Intel's is by far the most aggressive.

10 years ago, Intel was leaps-and-bounds better than anyone else, including AMD/GF.

It's probably better for us that the market is this way now.


Here is a reference on how process node naming works https://www.extremetech.com/computin...-nodes-defined

Nunz Jan 14, 2021 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks0 (Post 1338261040)
A difference of no consequence as Intel failed entirely.

It's certainly a difference. The 14nm process Intel uses is much smaller than what that "14" number let's off. The competition has caught up, sure, but Intel isn't so desperately behind that they are ****ed for good. The 10900K is still very competitive. I think the 11900K is Intel throwing filler chips out while they work on their real response. I could see this happening in 2022 as well, and then the hammer in 2023.

The main thing, is that Intel has another ~2 years before they start looking at points of no return, and since Intel has already made some moves to correct some of the issues they're currently facing, rather than continuing to grind as they have for the past 4-5 years .. I'd say they will be fine.

The new CEO may very well make some major moves in the next couple weeks/months.

Trunks0 Jan 14, 2021 08:20 PM

They will be fine. But Intel's 10nm **** up was epic. Resulting in them having to use TSMC's 7nm till they can get their own 7nm and 5nm production fabs up and running.

Nunz Jan 14, 2021 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks0 (Post 1338261076)
They will be fine. But Intel's 10nm **** up was epic. Resulting in them having to use TSMC's 7nm till they can get their own 7nm and 5nm production fabs up and running.

Yeah I think that's certainly evident. My knowledge of how these fabs work is limited, but if you struggle at 10nm, I don't really know how you can say "**** it" and skip to a more challenging, denser node, and expect to not have the same or more issues. This is where my concern for Intel grows.

It's also why I think Samsung sucks and will continue to. If their 8nm is crap (which it is) then why would I expect their 5nm to be any better?

SuperGeil Jan 14, 2021 09:28 PM

Nunz, we know Intel's 14nm process is more advanced than the number suggest. I think the industry as a whole understands this... hence the ++++'s at the end. The amount of space between the transistors is much smaller than other's processes. It's well understood that their 14nm node is insanely dense. That does not do anything for power. Which is why rocket lake has two less cores than comet lake.

The biggest reason why Intel has dominated with the Core CPU line is because of their insane process advantage. There was a time where they were making 65nm Core's vs Athlons 90nm. I think they even reached 45nm for a brief time before AMD could even leave 90 completely. AMD fab technology was no slouch, but that just goes to show how much more advanced Intel was.

The point is, they don't have a process advantage anymore. Chances are they will never get back either. Moores law is dying and they have to get more creative with how they make CPU's. Which is why we are going to see stranger architectures come about from both AMD and Intel going forward. Even if they were making Rocket lake on 10nm like it was planned, it still would not be enough to convincingly beat AMD, as we see with Tiger Lake struggling against AMD.

For the last 5 years they have been poorly mismanaged. They should have saked Bob over a year ago.

KAC Jan 14, 2021 09:33 PM

What I don’t understand is why they got a CEO with software experience leading a hardware engineering company. I see it as a recipe for disaster.

Nunz Jan 14, 2021 09:44 PM

Their 14nm is more advanced than the number suggests not because of the + refinements Intel has made, but because each fab defines their process by different standards, and Intel has always been by-far the most aggressive in that definition. Intel 10nm may very well be smaller than TSMC 7nm due to this. I'm not saying that's the case, but simply an example. What Intel defines as 14nm would potentially be called TSMC 18 or 20nm.

Regardless, I don't think power is necessarily the reason for the reduction in cores. I think the yields are better and it saves Intel money since their 14nm fabs are slowly reducing in capacity. The 10900K is fairly well binned (hence the sales of the 10850K for a price reduction) and I think it's taking too many waifers to pump out big chips of that size. The reduction to 8cores for right now fits perfectly with the new consoles and will be the mainstream chip to buy if you want Intel. They still have the HEDT line for higher core counts if you so choose.

I'm very much interested in what Intel releases to succeed the 10980XE and the LGA2066 chips. There are rumors it will be moving to a new chipset (X299 has been around for a long time now) and will make some significant strides in platform features. The mainstream consumer chips don't need to be higher than 8core since Intel sells 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 core HEDT processors.

The 10900K ate into the 10900X sales and really made that chip obsolete/DOA from the beginning. Maybe the reduction to 8cores is an acknowledgement of that. Who knows.

Completely agree that they've been mismanaged for a while now. They rode the laurels of their obliteration of AMD for far too long and became complacent.

SuperGeil Jan 14, 2021 09:54 PM

Ok. It's understood Intel fab tech is advanced. The numbers are not apples and apples. They still lost their advantage. It's not a debate about the intricacies of their node tech. They are behind now in process advantage, at best case they are even. :)

They back-ported Rocket Lake to 14nm from 10nm, because of yields. They cut two cores because the power envelope was too high.

Nunz Jan 15, 2021 05:21 AM

Why are you just repeating everything I've said? Clearly from reading this thread, some did not understand that the numbers are not comparable from one fab to another. I've also acknowledged that Intel lost their fab lead, and I said myself that if they don't have a competitor in two years time, and get their fabrication technology back under control, then Intel will be in real danger.

Just because I don't hate Intel because it's the flavor of the day, does not mean I cannot recognize the mistakes.

demo Jan 15, 2021 11:01 AM

The fact intels 14nm chips can compete and beat zen 3 is testament to their engineering prowess.

Mangler Jan 15, 2021 11:24 AM

Guise, I'm lazy, why is z590 a thing?

Didn't z490 already have pci-e 4.0 support?

demo Jan 15, 2021 11:43 AM

Yes but only 20 pcie lanes direct from CPU - so a x16 GPU slot and an m.2 drive. The lanes from chipset are still pcie 3.0 (DMI link x4).

On Z590 the chipset lanes are also pcie 4.0. (DMI link x8).

demo Jan 15, 2021 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metroidfox (Post 1338260479)
Yeah, but the way things are done, 8 cores currently contain all this extra logic for routing between high power, and low power states.


With this big.little design, you take away that complexity (may imply higher clockspeed too), and if you really don't care about power, can have all high power, and 8 low power cores on.

That's an interesting thought. I hadn't looked at it that way. The 8 big cores may benefit from not needing low power logic... hrmm.

demo Jan 15, 2021 11:56 AM

Not much info on new architecture but it seems L1 and L2 cache have been doubled on RKL. FYI


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. Copyright 1998-2011 Rage3D.com