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

Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 163 posts

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#121

Post by rbanffy »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #7
xyst wrote: post #2

I won't be buying Intel CPUs for years to come. Haven't upgraded since 2016. Years of "incremental" improvements while still advertising $1000+ CPU prices has deterred me for quite some time. Intel fanboys might eat it up though. Given their history of significant delays in the current roadmap, how does this compare to their competition who is quickly advancing on 10nm? Also what is this internal naming schema? > The…

I don't understand why the pricing of Intel's enthusiast CPUs should affect your buying decision if you're not in the market for an enthusiast cpu. That being said, if what you've got is working for you I certainly support the idea of sticking with it.

Maybe we should call these "Gaming CPUs", as it seems to be the most common usage they get, by far.

As someone who's really enthusiastic about CPUs, but not at all about gaming (we have things called "workstation" and "playstation" for a reason) I'm really pending towards AMD in the x86 space, because they have some really interesting parts in their EPYC line (and some pretty amazing deals in their APUs). Having said that, if x86 compatibility is not my goal, POWER9 also looks pretty cool too, as do all the ARM-based server chips that popped up recently. I also find the LinuxONE Community Cloud machines to be very interesting (I just wish I could have a zSeries of my own in a 19" server tower chassis). It's really sad the desktop or deskside workstation market these days is mostly x86. It's boring.

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#122

Post by 013a »

kev009 wrote: post #89
013a wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel's CPUs today are still king when it comes to single-thread workloads, like gaming. The main difference in the past two years has been that AMD has taken the lead in multi-thread performance, and that's scared Intel so much that they've significantly improved multi-thread performance and price across the board. The difference is quite stark, in both directions [1]: AMD destroys Intel in anything that benefits fr…

By the time you subtract all the sub-prime performance from their vulnerabilities, this isn't actually true on properly patched operating systems. They took a sub-prime loan on validation, sacrificing security in the process, and the result is chips marketed and sold as something they are not. There really should be government-level lawsuit and restructuring at intel right now.

Any modern (ie 2020) third-party benchmarks ran against these processors have the vulnerability patches applied. They're factored in.

Yes, Intel will often cite performance characteristics without the patches applied, and shame on them for that. And, Yes, it would be interesting to know how much of Intel's performance lead pre-Ryzen was due to this bad speculative execution microcode; it seems likely that AMD wasn't as far behind as everyone thought, but the past is the past.

But the debt is now paid, and Intel still leads in single-core performance. Really, they've never not led in single-core performance (maybe going back to the late-90s Athlon days they were trailing). That's something an Intel shill would tell you, but it's also something anyone can find out just by looking at the benchmarks or doing their own testing. Marketing is mostly lies, but those lies stop when I hold the silicon in my hands.

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#123

Post by ac29 »

y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #102
richthegeek wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first CPU at age ~8 was a Pentium Pro, followed by a Pentium II. That was the last Intel CPU I ever owned. I stuck on an FX8350 for a while, and it was never the bottleneck for gaming performane compared to the GPU. For a non-enthusiast, AMD has been a great choice almost for my whole life.

I've gone back and forth over the last 3 decades. My dad has been an employee at Intel since 1995, so I started with the original Pentium and basically upgraded my CPU every year from the 90s to the mid 2000s. I don't engage in fanboyism, I just like to have the best bang for my buck. So I've had a few opportunities to try AMD CPUs - mainly the Athlon series (Thunderbird, XP, and 64 series). My biggest issue with the…

At various times in their history where AMD was behind in core design, manufacturing, or both, they cranked power (and thus heat) up to fairly obscene levels to attempt to compete with Intel. That's not the case now with Zen and TSMC 7nm - you cant really compare an AMD CPU now to one even 5 years old, much less 20 years old.

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#124

Post by trimbo »

x87678r wrote: post #105

I have a Intel i5 2500 that I paid $209 for in April 2011. I'm looking at new i9 desktop chips and they're like 50% faster. 10 years? WTF? The laptop chips are barely faster. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900-vs-...

I consistently recommend Hennessy and Patterson's Turing Award Talk[1] as a good overview of the past, present and future of chip performance.

[1] - This will take you directly to the meat of the discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LVeEjsn8Ts&t=28m10s

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#125

Post by hddherman »

londons_explore wrote: post #51
hddherman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40% single thread increase, but most likely 100+% increase in core count. CPU manufacturers did not slap more cores on a CPU to get high benchmark scores, it's just one of the few viable options for increasing CPU performance.

Check top/task manager from time to time. It's pretty rare any desktop applications use more than 2 or 3 cores to the max. That means those extra cores won't really help day to day performance.

My workloads are more of an outlier when compared to the general PC user crowd, but I do keep an eye on my CPU usage and it is often between 25-100% CPU usage, depending on the situation.

Workloads, where more cores really help out, are:

* re-encoding video files to save disk space (it's amazing what speeds I can reach with my Ryzen 5 2600X here!)

* IntelliJ (startup, indexing)

* running tests (can be configured to be very parallel)

* running JS heavy sites, like Jira (you would be surprised at how resource intensive websites can be nowadays)

* running more than one Electron based app (Spotify, Slack are surprisingly CPU intensive, especially if you have poor/no GPU acceleration support)

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#126

Post by rbanffy »

billti wrote: post #81
londons_explore wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check top/task manager from time to time. It's pretty rare any desktop applications use more than 2 or 3 cores to the max. That means those extra cores won't really help day to day performance.

If you’re a dev (as I’m sure many here are), many big builds will max all cores for extended times. I had to up the cooling in my machine as building Chromium would regularly peg all 8 core for hours, causing thermal throttling to kick in and lower clock speeds.

Sometimes I manage to extract a little more performance by shutting down virtual cores to get lower thermal stress and better cache hit ratios. It's a very YMMV thing that depends on pretty much everything from the CPU microarchitecture and built-in power management all the way to the size of the fan, whether you polished the heat spreader on the CPU to the programs you are running and what the data they are processing looks like.

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#127

Post by paulpan »

xyst wrote: post #2

I won't be buying Intel CPUs for years to come. Haven't upgraded since 2016. Years of "incremental" improvements while still advertising $1000+ CPU prices has deterred me for quite some time. Intel fanboys might eat it up though. Given their history of significant delays in the current roadmap, how does this compare to their competition who is quickly advancing on 10nm? Also what is this internal naming schema? > The…

Traditionally Intel's "nm" measurements have always deviated a bit from their competitors, ala TSMC and Samsung. In short Intel 10nm ~ TSMC 7nm and Intel 7nm ~ TSMC 5nm. But with the recent announcement that the 7nm will be delayed, it means TSMC will for sure take the node crown. https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/7_nm_lithography_process

I think the most notable is part is that Tiger Lake will be a minimal CPU improvement (Sunny Cove ~ Willow Cove cores), and the main selling point will be the Xe graphics and support for Thunderbolt 4, LPDDR5, etc. Superfin seems to be marketing hype but will see when benchmarks come out.

The main question is, will Tiger Lake will enough for next year? AMD's Renoir follow up is reportedly retaining the Vega graphics but will further improve the CPU microarchitecture from Zen2 to Zen3. Techspot just published an apples-to-apples comparison that shows, if all things equal except the CPU, the AMD 4800H is 10-60% faster than the i7 10750H...that's a huge chasm. https://www.techspot.com/review/2075-same-laptop-different-c...

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#128

Post by zepearl »

013a wrote: post #68
xyst wrote: post #2

I won't be buying Intel CPUs for years to come. Haven't upgraded since 2016. Years of "incremental" improvements while still advertising $1000+ CPU prices has deterred me for quite some time. Intel fanboys might eat it up though. Given their history of significant delays in the current roadmap, how does this compare to their competition who is quickly advancing on 10nm? Also what is this internal naming schema? > The…

Intel's CPUs today are still king when it comes to single-thread workloads, like gaming. The main difference in the past two years has been that AMD has taken the lead in multi-thread performance, and that's scared Intel so much that they've significantly improved multi-thread performance and price across the board. The difference is quite stark, in both directions [1]: AMD destroys Intel in anything that benefits fr…

> The 10900k is better than the 3900x for gaming, but its also a ~$120 up-sell

Is it correct to think that compared by work-done-by-watt AMD is currently better than Intel? (in this example Intel's 10900k uses 250-300W [1], AMD's 3900x uses 140-170W [2]?)

In my case I use often many threads/processes (generated by databases and/or my Python programs that usually spawn as many subprocesses as possible without overloading the CPU) and as my PC/server is next to my desk then if the performance difference is not too great my priority is usually for a CPU that gets less hot/is more efficient (because the fans have to work less therefore the box is less noisy, additionally the room heats up less which makes me suffer less during summer).

[1]: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-10900k-cp...

[2]: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-r...

Thx

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#129

Post by rbanffy »

ac29 wrote: post #113
lagadu wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you looked at what you wrote? 40% increase is MASSIVE. Not only that but multi threaded the increase is in the several hundred percent range.

40% is pretty big, but over 7 years that's not much. It wasn't that long ago that 40% increases were happening every 2 or 3 years.

Gordon Moore would be very disappointed with 40% every 2-3 years. OTOH, he would probably like how GPUs are progressing.

Even though I'd say benchmarking fp16 GFLOPS against fp64 ones is cheating.

Re: Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed

#130

Post by ac29 »

x87678r wrote: post #105

I have a Intel i5 2500 that I paid $209 for in April 2011. I'm looking at new i9 desktop chips and they're like 50% faster. 10 years? WTF? The laptop chips are barely faster. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900-vs-...

We've reached a point where you really can't get that much more frequency out of chips, and there's only so much you can do to attempt to get more done per clock cycle. Especially now that its made clear that much of these attempts lead to the various speculative execution bugs like spectre that have been discovered over the past few years.

The days where clock speeds on processors was doubling every year or two are long gone, and its not because chip makers have gotten lazy.

Post reply on HN