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

241–247 of 247 posts

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

#241

Post by baybal2 »

deepnotderp wrote: post #201
baybal2 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a big problem to make DRAM on pretty much every SOI process, just power consumption and refresh rates will have to be quite big. The problem with MRAM is unreliable reads, they are excellent for low clock speed devices, but as you go into gigahertz range, signal quality of an mram cell begins to degrade, and you have to put a darlington on top of it, or a bicmos transistor, thus negating its cell size advan…

For DRAM are you talking about standard deep tech capacitor dram or FBRAM? Agree with MRAM, but it is also a very immature technology, so there's hope at least. unless you're talking about crossbar crosstalk which can be solved with a diode.

About floating body ram and others that rely on capacitance of the substrate itself rather than a dedicated capacitor

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

#242

Post by deepnotderp »

baybal2 wrote: post #241
deepnotderp wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For DRAM are you talking about standard deep tech capacitor dram or FBRAM? Agree with MRAM, but it is also a very immature technology, so there's hope at least. unless you're talking about crossbar crosstalk which can be solved with a diode.

About floating body ram and others that rely on capacitance of the substrate itself rather than a dedicated capacitor

Ah, I see. But it's not significantly higher than other DRAMs, right? At least last I checked the difference wasn't that big.

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

#243

Post by baybal2 »

deepnotderp wrote: post #242
baybal2 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About floating body ram and others that rely on capacitance of the substrate itself rather than a dedicated capacitor

Ah, I see. But it's not significantly higher than other DRAMs, right? At least last I checked the difference wasn't that big.

I believe that data published by people peddling embedded dram ip is their "best case scenario" with still significant alteration to manufacturing process

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

#244

Post by hvidgaard »

gruez wrote: post #171
hvidgaard wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a thousand cores can brute force its way through anything This is so fundamentally wrong that your complete lack of understanding the underlying math is obvious. Let us use 1024bit RSA as the key to bruteforce. If we use the entire universe as a computer, i.e. every single atom in the observable universe enumerate 1 possibility every millisecond, it would take ~6 * 10^211 years to go through them all. In comparison…

Except you're not bruteforcing through all 2^1024, you're factoring a number, which is much easier and why rsa 768 is broken and rsa 1024 is deprecated.

Do you know how to bruteforce a prime factorization? Because I'm pretty sure from your comment that you don't. The calculation is based on enumrating all prime pairs of 512bit length or less each (the length of the indivitual primes may be longer, but for napkin math it's a very good approximation).

That is bruteforcing. That faster and better methods exists is irrelavent for a bruteforcing discussion, but I do mention in the very next message in that thread that they exist.

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

#245

Post by compuguy »

kakwa_ wrote: post #70
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.

Well actually I think it's more a case of "increase in performance is becoming harder and harder, the technology leader (Intel) is slowly becoming stuck and the competition (AMD) is catching up". Everybody will be more or less at the same level as it requires huge investments to only get a marginal advantage. Apart from games, I would not be that afraid to install recent pieces of software (browser, office suit, os)…

I believe the last big improvement in power consumption was (at least for Intel) was the 5th generation Haswell chips. What they have been doing is cutting back support on older chips (2nd and 3rd generation specifically).

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

#246

Post by compuguy »

bluedino wrote: post #199
kakwa_ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well actually I think it's more a case of "increase in performance is becoming harder and harder, the technology leader (Intel) is slowly becoming stuck and the competition (AMD) is catching up". Everybody will be more or less at the same level as it requires huge investments to only get a marginal advantage. Apart from games, I would not be that afraid to install recent pieces of software (browser, office suit, os)…

Apart from games, I would not be that afraid to install recent pieces of software (browser, office suit, os) on a 10 years old computer (2007 core 2 duo). But in 2007 I would not have thought for a minute that I could do the same on a 1997 computer (Pentium II), and installing 1997 software on a 1987 computer (80386), just no. People like to say a Core 2 Duo can still hang, and while it might be okay for basic tasks…

I agree, these days a Core 2 Duo or a Core 2 Quad is getting long in the tooth. Sandy Lake and beyond are still decent performing chips.

Edit: I guess I was ahead of the curve, because my Core 2 Duo box had 2 Gbs of ram out of the box (upgraded to 4 GBs of ram later, requiring me to reinstall windows to a 64 bit edition, and then swapping the chip for a Core 2 Quad).

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

#247

Post by compuguy »

gfody wrote: post #43
jerf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Honestly The revision-x's are forgettable to begin with, unless you need that many cores (No ECC either).
Post reply on HN