Live data from Hacker News

Intel Core Ultra Series 3 Debut as First Built on Intel 18A

newsroom.intel.com

161–170 of 187 posts

Re: Intel Core Ultra Series 3 Debut as First Built on Intel 18A

#162
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even thier ultra efficent silicon didn't fully solve this; a 16" M4 Pro often outperforms a 14" M4 Max stuck throttling.

Are they throttling with the fan off? Because I don't recall ever hearing the fan on my M3 Max 14" (granted no heavy deliberate computational beyond regular dev work).

No this shows up when you really fully load them and the fans can't keep up. Most people never do, but then why buy the Max?

Re: Intel Core Ultra Series 3 Debut as First Built on Intel 18A

#163
post #144
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lunar Lake had a 40% reduction in PHY power use by using memory directly onto the processor packaging (MoP)...roughly going from 3-4 Watts to 2 Watts...

Do you have more information on that? I have a meteor lake laptop (pre-Lunar Lake) and the entire machine averages ~4W most of the time, including screen, wifi, storage and everything else. So, I dont see how the CPU memory controller can use 3-4W unless it is for irrelevantly brief periods of time.

That's peak usage. I don't know how reduced the PHY power usage is when there aren't any memory accesses. For comparison, the peak wattage of Meteor Lake is something like 30-60 Watts.

https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-whiskeylake-meteorlake...

Re: Intel Core Ultra Series 3 Debut as First Built on Intel 18A

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back when there were MacBooks, it was MacBook (standard model), MacBook Air (lighter variant), and MacBook Pro (more expensive, high-performance variant). Sure, 3 is more complicated than 2, but come on. If you really want to complain, you can go back to the first unibody MacBook, which did not fit that pattern, or the interim period when high-DPI displays were being rolled out progressively, but let’s be serious. Th…

> The fact is that even at the worst of times their range could be described in 2 sentences. It’s a good time to buy one. They are all good. It would be interesting to know how many SKUs are hidden behind the simple purchase interface on their site. With the various storage and colour options, it must be over 30.

Loads, I assume. But those are things like "MacBook Pro M1 Max with a 1TB SSD and a matte screen coating" versus "MacBook Pro M1 with a 256GB SSD and a standard screen". The granularity of say Dell’s product numbers is not enough for that either, and you still need a long product number when searching their knowledge base.

Re: Intel Core Ultra Series 3 Debut as First Built on Intel 18A

#165
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They turned one of the numbers into a letter then started numbering again. They did not. It has been MacOS X 10.0 through macOS 10.15. In never was X.1 or anything like that.

Right. MacOS X was the marketing name. But it was pronounced 10, just a stylization with Roman numerals. The version number the OS reported always said 10.whatever. Exactly as you said.

Yes, and you did sound silly when saying it out loud the official way (OS ten ten ten was a famous one, for Yosemite).

Re: Intel Core Ultra Series 3 Debut as First Built on Intel 18A

#166
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how any of that substantiates "Panther Lake and 18A are just cost cutting efforts vs. Lunar Lake". It mostly just sounds like another boring platform flame.

I'll let Intel speak for themselves here: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/lunar-lakes-...

Again, you're talking about the design of Panther Lake, the CPU IC. No one cares, it's a CPU. The news here is the launch of the Intel 18A semiconductor process and the discussion as to if and how it narrows or closes the gap with TSMC.

Trying to play this news off as "only cost cutting" is, to be blunt, insane. That's not what's happening at all.

Re: Intel Core Ultra Series 3 Debut as First Built on Intel 18A

#167
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll let Intel speak for themselves here: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/lunar-lakes-...

Again, you're talking about the design of Panther Lake, the CPU IC. No one cares, it's a CPU. The news here is the launch of the Intel 18A semiconductor process and the discussion as to if and how it narrows or closes the gap with TSMC. Trying to play this news off as "only cost cutting" is, to be blunt, insane. That's not what's happening at all.

I'm not GP, but I think that it really doesn't matter if Intel is able to sell this process to other companies. But if they're only producing their own chips on it, that's quite a valid criticism.

Re: Intel Core Ultra Series 3 Debut as First Built on Intel 18A

#168
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But like.....what for example. As a normal windows PC user, what kind of software can I run that will benefit from that NPU at all?

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/ai-features https://www.pcworld.com/article/2905178/ai-on-the-notebook-t...

No for sure, but afaik you get all of those features even if you don't have an NPU. And even if you do have one, it's unclear to me which one of them actually use the NPU for extra power or if they all just run on the CPU. Like the thing that is missing for me is "this is the thing that you can only do on a Copilot PC and it's not available otherwise".

Re: Intel Core Ultra Series 3 Debut as First Built on Intel 18A

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But like.....what for example. As a normal windows PC user, what kind of software can I run that will benefit from that NPU at all?

Try searching for some like "My mouse pointer is too small" https://x.com/rfleury/status/2007964012923994364

Incredible. 100% typical microsoft though. I'm a "veteran" windows/xbox developer and none of this surprises me.

Re: Intel Core Ultra Series 3 Debut as First Built on Intel 18A

#170
post #153

Xe3 GPU could be super super super great. Xe2 is already very strong, and this could really be an incredible breakout moment. The CPU are also probably also fine! Intel is so far ahead with consumer multi-chip. AMD has done amazing with having an IOD+CCD (io / core complex dies) chiplet split up (basically having a northbridge on package), but is just trying to figure out how in 2027's Medusa Point they're going to m…

For a laptop chip the optimal dsesign is a single die. Apple, Qualcomm, and AMD agree on this. Chiplets are a last resort when you can't afford a single die due to yield or mask costs.

It feels like a true until it's not problem.

Yes, you do need to spend more energy sending data between chiplets. Intel has been relentlessly optimizing that and is probably the furthest ahead of the game on that, with EIMB and Foveros. AMD just got to a baseline sea-of-wires, where they arent using power hungry PHY to send data, and that is only shipping on Strix Halo at the moment & is slated to be a big change for Zen6. But Intel's been doing all that and more, IMO. https://chipsandcheese.com/p/amds-strix-halo-under-the-hood https://www.techpowerup.com/341445/amd-d2d-interconnect-in-z...

That also has some bandwidth constraints on your system too.

There's the labor cost of doing package assembly! Very non trivial, very scary, very intimidating work. Just knowing that TSMC's Arizona chips have to be shipped back to Taiwan, assembled/packaged there, then potentially shipped where-ever is anec-data but a very real one. This just makes me respect Intel all the more, for having such interesting chips, such as Lakefield ~6 years ago, and their ongoing pursuit of this as a challenge.

So yeah, there are many optimal aspects to a single die. You're making a problem really hard by trying to split it up across chips.

It's not even clear why we want multi chip. As a consumer, if you had your choice, yes, you are right: we do want a big huge slab of a chip. There aren't many structural advantages for us, to get anything other than what we want, on one big chip.

And yet. Your cost savings can potentially be fantastically huge. Yields increase as your square millimeter-age shrinks, at some geometric or some such rate. Being able to push more advanced nodes that don't have the best yields and not have it be an epic fail allows for ongoing innovation & risk acceptance.

There's the modularity dividends. You can also tune appropriately: just as AMD keeps re-using the IOD across generations, Intel can innovate one piece at a time. This again is extremely liberating from a development perspective, to not have to get everything totally right, to be able to suffer faults, but not in the wafer, but at the design level, where maybe ok the new GPU isn't going to ship in 6 months after all, so we'll keep using the old one, but we can still get the rest of the upgrades out.

There's maybe some power wins. I don't really know how much difference it makes, but Intel just shutting down their CCD and using the on IOD (to use AMD's terms) tiny cores is relishably good. It's easy for me to imagine a big NPU or a big GPU that does likewise. I'm expecting similar from AMD with Medusa Point, their 2027 Big APU (but still sub Medusa Halo, which I cannot frelling wait to see).

I think Intel's been super super smart & has incredible vision about where chipmaking is headed, and has been super ahead of the curve. Alas their P-core has been around in one form or another for a long time & is a bit of a hog, and it's been a disaster for shipping new nodes. But I think they're set up well, and, as frustrating and difficult as it is leaving the convenience of a big chip APU, it feels like that time is here, and Intel's top of class at multi-chip, in a way few others are. We are seeing AMD have to do the same (Medua Point).

Optimal is a suboptimal statement. Only the Sith deal in absolutes, Anakin.

Post reply on HN