What will be the clock when single threaded? Can we get above 5GHz finally?
Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake
31–40 of 247 posts
Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake
#32Anyone else get redirected to malware?
Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake
#33According to the table in the article: - 2011: 32nm - 2012: 22nm - 2014: 14nm - 2018?: 10nm I don't know much about foundry processes, but it seems that it's taking more and more time for lesser and lesser gains, right? At this rate, how long until we reach sub nanometer? What are the physical limits on these processes, and does it have any implications for end users? Will we be using 2nm CPUs for 50 years? Would lov…
Going from 14nm to 10nm increases the number of transistors per mm from 37 to 100 millions. That's a huge difference!!
Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake
#34At this point real compute happens on the GPU. I think we'll see a shift to major apps being driven by GPGPU. The CPU's performance has started matter less and less.
I've never run a piece of software that used a GPU for anything other than rendering. I believe I'm part of a very large majority.
If you'd like to, these links will let you do so from the comfort of your (desktop) browser.
Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
The step from 14 to 10 nm is huge . Both from a technological perspective on the manufacturing side as well as on the effect it will have to the number of transistors on a die and the power consumption of those transistors. Remember that power consumption and the number of transistors are related to the surface area so there is a square factor in there. 14 nm ^2 = 196, 10 nm ^2 = 100, so that's almost a doubling of t…
While true, the same math holds for 22 nm^2 (484) to 14 nm^2 (196). Real world gains will never be as high as the math suggests, as you get into leakage currents etc.
Sure, I never meant to imply that previous process steps were much smaller, just that this one is still formidable in its own right. Real world gains will not be 100% but they're a very large fraction of that. Obviously any technological advance in a mature industry is going to show reduced return on investment at some point, it's rather surprising that the ROI on these process shrinks is still worth it given that we are now well beyond what was thought to be possible not all that long ago.
Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake
#36Anyone else get redirected to malware?
Yes! I thought it was my DNS or something. It only happens on mobile.
Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake
#37At this point real compute happens on the GPU. I think we'll see a shift to major apps being driven by GPGPU. The CPU's performance has started matter less and less.
Right on. Core speeds are not getting any faster. Chips with thousands of cores are the future. Intel is way behind in this area
A quick look at AWS shows probably 5 out of 100 services that use GPU as their main resources whereas all of the others use CPU's.
Machine learning may be all the hype right now, but it is still suboptimal for most software demands.
Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake
#38As a consumer, it's great to see competition picking up in the CPU market. Intel does not seem to be able to hold the edge in node process as tsmc and Samsung are matching intel. It has to resort to architecture design.
Wow. Great comment.
Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake
#39What will be the clock when single threaded? Can we get above 5GHz finally?
We have been over 5ghz for a decade, it just takes ln2 to do it.
We aren't going to see ludicrously high clock rates for the foreseeable future. There are a lot of compounding factors as to why, but the biggest ones are the pressure for efficiency driving designs that aren't dumping higher and higher voltage to get frequency, the diminishing returns on voltage vs frequency (see Ryzen, where a 20% improvement in clocks costs about a 50% increase in power draw across all skews, and similar situations happen with Intel).
That being said, a 4ghz Skylake core crushes a 4ghz Core 2 core. Depending on your benchmark used it can perform anywhere from 80% to upwards of 170% faster per clock. You don't get as dramatic year over year improvements increasing the the per cycle performance, but innovations leading up to ~2004 (or 06 for the multicore boon) were just stuffing power hungrier and hotter transistors on smaller dies.
Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read on HN, a couple months ago, these numbers no longer represent the physical size of anything but are now just a marketing label, a sort of 'performance equivalent to a theoretical size of'. Anyone know if there's any truth to this? Might try to find the comment later when I have time.
Think of them as relative indications of feature size and of spacing between identical parts (arrays if you want to use a software analogy), so even if an actual transistor will not be 10 nm or 14 nm their relative sizes will relate on one axis as 10 nm to 14 nm. Keeping the numbers from a single manufacturer will definitely aid in the comparison. There is a ton of black magic going on here with layers being stacked…
I've seen that video several times now and it just doesn't cease to amaze me.
It's really a must-see for anyone interested in processor technology.
Oh!, there's a new video! awesome!