Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 247 posts

Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake

#41

Post by zanny »

ant6n wrote: post #27
slededit wrote: post #9

At 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.

Libreoffice has OpenCL acceleration for some spreadsheet operations. With the advent of NVME storage, and the potential bandwidth it yields, I would expect to see database systems emerging that can GPGPU accelerate operations on tables to be way, way faster than what a CPU can handle.

Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake

#42

Post by mappu »

sjtrny wrote: post #36
verroq wrote: post #32

Anyone else get redirected to malware?

Yes! I thought it was my DNS or something. It only happens on mobile.

Anandtech have great content, but their advertising can be... aggressive.

I assume you have an adblocker on desktop but not on mobile?

Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake

#43

Post by gfody »

jerf wrote: post #22
spyhi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's rare these days for Intel to talk more than a generation ahead in CPU architectures. This, to me, looks like the PS2 vs Dreamcast move, where Sony blocked Dreamcast sales with PS2 hype. We've been waiting for 10nm for a while now, and now Intel is essentially confirming "yes, it's really coming this time" where they might not have otherwise--it's hard to not see that as a reaction to Threadripper. At least on…

The Osborne effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect Although it has been deliberately deployed many times now, as you note one example of.

seems like Intel is willing to cannibalize Skylake-X to hurt Threadripper. I think that means Threadripper must be looming large at Intel.

Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake

#44

Post by deepnotderp »

jacquesm wrote: post #13
GuiA wrote: post #10

According 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…

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…

Okay, so the node names are effectively useless at this point. They used to refer to gate length, but no longer, even for Intel. Oh, and Intel's 10nm will actually have lower performance than their 14nm.

Besides, it matters not, the bottlenecks today are in memory and interconnects.

Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake

#45

Post by deepnotderp »

jacquesm wrote: post #13
GuiA wrote: post #10

According 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…

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…

Yeah, so the node names now apparently refer to the "smallest feature size", which is some random thing on the M0 metal layer. Source - from a former Intel engineer for more than a decade

Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake

#46

Post by deepnotderp »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #18
rayiner wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are various limits in play: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/97469-is-14nm-the-end-... . At sub-nanometer we're talking about features of 5-10 atoms across. At that scale you get effects like electrons quantum tunneling between transistors: https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2016/10/6/13187820/o... . We probably won't get there with existing silicon technology.

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.

Yeah, 7nm doesn't mean anything now. Refer to them effectively as product names. Intel is really no better.

The "7nm/10nm" transistor fin pitches are something like ~50 n, and the length is something like 100-150nm

Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake

#47

Post by deepnotderp »

aslkdjaslkdj wrote: post #20
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #18

Earlier 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.

Intel's are actual measurements. TSMC, GF, and samsung are all marketing bs.

They're all marketing, Intel is no exception. At 40nm and over, the Intel node names were larger than the industry average, now it's the other way around.

Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake

#48

Post by iainmerrick »

zanny wrote: post #41
ant6n wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Libreoffice has OpenCL acceleration for some spreadsheet operations. With the advent of NVME storage, and the potential bandwidth it yields, I would expect to see database systems emerging that can GPGPU accelerate operations on tables to be way, way faster than what a CPU can handle.

What on earth are people doing on spreadsheets that needs GPU acceleration??

Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake

#49

Post by frik »

nullnilvoid wrote: post #4

As 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.

Now that Intel got competition again with very competitive new AMD CPUs, Intel is releasing "new" CPU to the public that waited in their basement for some time. AMD CPUs are a lot faster than they hoped, so Intel has to skip one generation.

Re: Intel Reveals Post-8th Gen. Core Architecture 10nm+ Ice Lake

#50

Post by deepnotderp »

slededit wrote: post #9

At 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.

Let's try a compromise, how about multithreaded programs? Or how about programs utilizing less control flow so that static processors (yes, like the infamous VLIW) can extract ilp?
Post reply on HN