Intel’s 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by outworlder » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #96

derefr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One oft-stated reasoning is that people who currently don't have much money (e.g. college students) can build a PC with a motherboard socket targeted by both low-end and high-end CPUs; and then select, for now, the (cheap) low-end CPU. Then, a few years later, when they're working and have more money, they can replace it with the high-end version. I'm not sure how common this actually is in practice, but it seems log…

it's great if you decide to upgrade your CPU a couple years later and you motherboard is still compatible, but imo this is not a good reason to choose a particular platform in the first place. you never know when the CPU manufacturer is going to drop support for that chipset. even if the new CPU does support the old chipset, you might be sacrificing some new features or leaving some performance on the table. plus if…

They usually don't drop support for chipsets. They move to a new socket.

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

#112

Post by paulie_a » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

richthegeek wrote: post #79

paulie_a wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile amd has been cleaning their clock for decades at a better price point. Literally there were people born that can legally drink now. Intel is the grey goose of chips. Amd gets the job done

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 actually like the P2 and working with smp clerons. But the AMD dx was a nice chip too

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

#113

Post by ac29 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

lagadu wrote: post #55

Causality1 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. My old self-imposed rule was that upgrading was a waste of money unless I could get at least twice the performance. Manufacturers have generated high benchmarks by throwing "moar cores" at it but even the best chips have barely a 40% single-thread increase over my seven year old Haswell build.

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.

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

#114

Post by lm28469 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

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…

> But, Intel wins when gaming; usually by around 5-10%.

It's measurable but is it significant ? True cpu bottleneck is a thing of the past for 99.9% of the games and 99.9% of people. By the time you're cpu limited you're in triple digits fps territory in 1440p. Even 5 years old cpus aren't that far from today's best: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryze...

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

#115

Post by jagger27 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

KMnO4 wrote: post #65

SaltySolomon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its quite possible to build an AMD-Hackintosh, its quite in stlye really.

I would absolutely love to do this but AMD is somewhat annoying when running MacOS. 1. Really bad VM support. No Hypervisor framwork, which means problems with Docker (apparently some workarounds for Docker specifically, but not 100% stable). Things like Parallels Desktop, Android VMs, etc won't work. 2. Problems with Adobe suite apps crashing on boot. Some patches exist but last I checked there was nothing for Light…

iMessage works in my experience, not sure where you heard that.

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

#116

Post by Symmetry » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #96

derefr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One oft-stated reasoning is that people who currently don't have much money (e.g. college students) can build a PC with a motherboard socket targeted by both low-end and high-end CPUs; and then select, for now, the (cheap) low-end CPU. Then, a few years later, when they're working and have more money, they can replace it with the high-end version. I'm not sure how common this actually is in practice, but it seems log…

it's great if you decide to upgrade your CPU a couple years later and you motherboard is still compatible, but imo this is not a good reason to choose a particular platform in the first place. you never know when the CPU manufacturer is going to drop support for that chipset. even if the new CPU does support the old chipset, you might be sacrificing some new features or leaving some performance on the table. plus if…

AMD is pretty good about sticking with motherboard sockets and maintaining firmware compatibility. The motherboard I got with my 1st generation Ryzen is handling my 3rd generation chip just fine, though admittedly I'm missing out on PCIe 4.

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

#117

Post by wtallis » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 5:19 PM UTC

johnsoft wrote: post #94

culturestate wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We have a formal process for what types of things are lakes vs. bays vs. peaks," Tripp told us. However, he didn't elaborate on what that process was. "Different components are named after different geographic areas." https://www.tomshardware.com/news/decoding-intel-code-names

Just about every product since 2015 has been a lake. I'd guess "lake" is the code word for "just overclock last year's chip and call it a day"

The CPUs have been lakes. Their memory and storage division uses stream, pass and -dale. Server chipsets are -burg, Ethernet controllers are -ville. All of these suffixes are still in active use for new or upcoming products.

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

#118

Post by deburo » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #37

apotecaryman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood this idea that someone feels sleighted for something out of their price range that they perceive should be valued lower for their benefit while complaining that the company is setting up prices for their benefit too. Is it grounded on facts or mostly an emotional response?

Exorbitant prices on warmed-over revisions of yesterday's product in a market devoid of competition broadcasts "we've stopped trying because we own the market" . Yes, that can trigger an emotional response in people.

>we've stopped trying because we own the market

I always laugh at that take. Imagine working for Intel today and hear people complain you're not even trying.

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

#119

Post by ac29 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #90

hobofan wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They help the industry and help finance the lower-end models Do they though? From how most companies operate that I've seen from the inside, I would assume that such a market response would shift their focus towards high-end models, and low-end models will be neglected. Sure, there is somewhat of a technology trickle down towards lower-end models over time, but that seems to be driven on an industry/supplier/compet…

> The only way this would apply would be through shared overhead, which given that we are talking about different product lines often tends to be minimal. this is very much not minimal in the CPU business though. intel's entire line of (consumer) desktop parts is different bins of the same chip. they wouldn't be able to offer an i3 for $120 if they weren't also selling i9s for $500. and they probably couldn't sell co…

> intel's entire line of (consumer) desktop parts is different bins of the same chip.

Is that true? Intel's 14nm yields are high enough that it wouldnt really make sense for the dirt cheap quad core processors to secretly be 8 core processors with half the cores (and cache) disabled.

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

#120

Post by hmexx » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 5:37 PM UTC

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-...

Things have indeed slowed down but you're cherry picking numbers. +50% single-thread but +200% in multi-threaded!