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

141–150 of 163 posts

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

#141

Post by oh-4-fucks-sake »

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…

Nice background. Thank you. What's interesting to me is that the world's "leading" chipmaker got caught off-guard by lacking multithreading performance. You'd think that these world experts wouldn't have that blind spot.

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

#142

Post by coreblocks »

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.

I have a feeling we will see a bunch of AMD vulnerabilities revealed in the coming years. Researchers haven’t really had time to study AMD’s micro architecture yet and it was not really a priority because of low penetration in the server market. In theory intel should have less bugs since they have massive design verification teams.

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

#143

Post by coreblocks »

rbanffy wrote: post #121
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If my workflow didn’t depend on proprietary tools from stubborn companies I would be looking to buy high end ARM like ampere for my workstation. But I’m stuck on x86 for now :/

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

#144

Post by ac29 »

rbanffy wrote: post #129
ac29 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Moore's law I think is widely misunderstood as computer chips doubling in speed every two years (or something to that effect). In fact, what it says is that the number of transistors doubles every two years, which is still roughly true. In 2020, its hard to buy single-threaded CPU speed by just throwing more transistors on a chip, which is why most performance gains have been found in multithreaded workloads (because you can trivially get more CPU cores by putting more transistors on a chip).

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

#145

Post by SECProto »

lm28469 wrote: post #114
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…

> 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...

Yup, I play Overwatch at ~100fps at 1440p on an intel 2500k from 2011. CPU might matter for other games, but not the ones I play.

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

#146

Post by IanCutress »

paulpan wrote: post #127
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 improvemen…

>'Superfin seems to be marketing hype' Superfin is the main reason why Tiger Lake is getting a 10-20% frequency boost over Ice Lake. That SuperMIM cap isn't just for show.

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

#147

Post by GloriousKoji »

Wandfarbe wrote: post #59

When i read comments here i'm wondering how and why people are either for or against intel? IF i need to upgrade, i will check the current situation and will buy the best cpu in comparison to my needs and price. If it means that i need tons of core because of my workload i might choose a threadripper. Do i need to compile often and i know a specific intel cpu will save me ton of time waiting but it costs more? Fine.…

Asides from 486 to Pentium III, I've been using AMD since the K7. Intel has been the 800lb gorilla with lots of questionable anti competitive business practices. For the most part Intel already has market dominance and better performance so engaging in such to such underhanded behavior to secure their position doesn't sit well with me.

I'm also an ATi fan and since they merged with AMD it doubles me down on loyalty.

With Ryzen and Vega/Navi it's a lot easier to recommend AMD products. While they might not have the peak absolute performance their value is much better than the other alternatives. Unlike when AMD went with the Bulldozer architecture, I always died a little inside when I had to recommended an Intel Core i3/i5 over AMD's offerings.

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

#148

Post by rbanffy »

coreblocks wrote: post #143
rbanffy wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If my workflow didn’t depend on proprietary tools from stubborn companies I would be looking to buy high end ARM like ampere for my workstation. But I’m stuck on x86 for now :/

Same here. If I had a reason to justify it, I'd have gone with a POWER9 box from Raptor.

Unfortunately for my home datacenter, everything my Xeon deskside, my i5 Mac and my i3 Dell can't do, I can easily enough spin up a cloud instance and do there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

#149

Post by rbanffy »

ac29 wrote: post #144
rbanffy wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Moore's law I think is widely misunderstood as computer chips doubling in speed every two years (or something to that effect). In fact, what it says is that the number of transistors doubles every two years, which is still roughly true. In 2020, its hard to buy single-threaded CPU speed by just throwing more transistors on a chip, which is why most performance gains have been found in multithreaded workloads (because…

I would love if I could find where my OS could collect informations on how long my CPUs stall for lack of proper execution ports, lacking parallelism in the code, L1-3 cache misses and so on.

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

#150

Post by mkj »

rbanffy wrote: post #149
ac29 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moore's law I think is widely misunderstood as computer chips doubling in speed every two years (or something to that effect). In fact, what it says is that the number of transistors doubles every two years, which is still roughly true. In 2020, its hard to buy single-threaded CPU speed by just throwing more transistors on a chip, which is why most performance gains have been found in multithreaded workloads (because…

I would love if I could find where my OS could collect informations on how long my CPUs stall for lack of proper execution ports, lacking parallelism in the code, L1-3 cache misses and so on.

If you're on Linux look at

  perf list
then

  perf top -e [...]
Post reply on HN