[AT] Intel trying to release 7 nm in 2021

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,359
887
136
It isn't the PL2 being set to 210w that is the problem.
The problem is the Tau value being set to the maximum instead of the 24-28s as per Intel spec; Turbo is not meant to be indefinite, rather for a defined maximum period.
Both of them are the problem, as they are directly linked and should be calculated relative to each other: if the average cooler can handle PL2 = 1.25X PL1 for 28 seconds then increasing PL2 to 2.2X PL1 will require a drastically lower Tau around 5 seconds.
 

clemsyn

Senior member
Aug 21, 2005
383
1
81
Doubt they wlil release on 2021, if they go TSMC then maybe... maybe like 2025
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
5,308
261
136
Doubt they wlil release on 2021, if they go TSMC then maybe... maybe like 2025
No, Intel is not going with TSMC. How they heck is TSMC supposed to match Intel's demand for something like 8 fabs?!
 
Apr 27, 2000
12,759
1,563
126
Turbo is not meant to be indefinite, rather for a defined maximum period.
It is if it helps you win some launch-day benchmarks in reviews.

Doubt they wlil release on 2021, if they go TSMC then maybe... maybe like 2025
If Intel can't launch 7nm EUV in 2021 then they're dead meat. You can't be out of the fab game for that long and still be competitive. 14nm + low-yield 10nm won't help them forever. Even Samsung will have left them in the dust by that point.

Intel has to execture in 2021, period. No question about it.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
4,913
511
136
It is if it helps you win some launch-day benchmarks in reviews.
The problem is people think the PL1/PL2 and IME exist for us to tweak. So guys like that can go hey it's the mobo manufacturers that are causing all the issues. They aren't those settings are meant for the OEM's to customize their CPU's based on available cooling and power allowances. Intel intended from the start to set PL02 to 210w (removing any power limits) and IME on (to uncap time). Anyone that can look at the 210w setting for a 90w CPU and not immediately see that Intel is recommending if not fully establishing the settings for this CPU to way exceed its rated usage to win benchmarks as the end all be all enthusiast CPU is in denial. It doesn't even start with the 9900k. Intel while working on Coffee Lake stopped posting the different power and speed settings for different levels of core usage (while always advertising the almost impossible to hit 1T Turbo) on the 7k series. They knew what they were going to do and started hiding information about it specifically to create this grey area where a 90w CPU could use nearly twice its rated power to make sure they won the multithreaded benchmarks and have few delve to much into it.
 

JDG1980

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2013
1,657
174
136
Honestly, this is a stupid argument and you're just running in circles. All you guys are doing is picking on the 9900K because you can. Guess what? The people buying that chip really don't give a flying funk about how much wattage is consumed. It's really meant for being over-the-top gaming chip to please those what want the fastest at all cost. It's like saying "OMG my Ferrari gets 12 miles to gets 12 miles to the gallon, but the Mustang gets 20!!!!!". The 9900K serves it's purpose. No one is picking up this chip to browse the web or use Office, lol.e
The problem isn't that the 9900K uses a lot of power. The problem is that Intel was not particularly honest and forthright about how much power it uses.

If Ferrari listed their car at 20 mpg and you actually got half that at the default settings, then yes, people would complain about it (and they'd probably get in trouble with the EPA).
 
Jul 25, 2001
10,248
47
91
The problem isn't that the 9900K uses a lot of power. The problem is that Intel was not particularly honest and forthright about how much power it uses.

If Ferrari listed their car at 20 mpg and you actually got half that at the default settings, then yes, people would complain about it (and they'd probably get in trouble with the EPA).
Right, but you still haven't proven the correlation on loss of sales to such a insignificant thing such as chip nm sizing and the general public's perception and how it affects overall sales. Example, take a look at all of the media attention and negativity that Volkswagen received. They were still #2 in overall car sales last year and actually UP 1% year over year in overall global sales. Mercedes was also up 1% YOY in global sales.

https://www.best-selling-cars.com/global/2018-full-year-international-global-top-car-brands/

Another example is Microsoft Vista. OMG, do you know how many people here trashed it and said MS was going down and everyone was going to move to Linux/Apple? They got so much crap, but they still have, what, 90% of the market?

But you guys actually think that the 9900k or difference between 14 and 10/7nm is going to make the mass majority of the market shift their purchase? IF you asked 1000 people out in the public what a nanometer is, how many do you actually think know what the hell it means?

The power of brand recognition, history and marketing is strong. Also, most software developers recommend Intel and so do most PC vendors. I'm not saying anything against AMD, as I currently and have used their chips in the past, but some people are not separating actual customer perception and purchasing history, with their own personal feelings towards the subject.
 

TheELF

Platinum Member
Dec 22, 2012
2,875
128
126
The problem isn't that the 9900K uses a lot of power. The problem is that Intel was not particularly honest and forthright about how much power it uses.
They were as honest and forthright about how much power it uses as possible,the 9900k is supposed to run at 3,6 base clock and boost up to 5Ghz on as many cores and as long as possible depending on the cooling and other factors it's not supposed to run at 5Ghz period,you can't put a fixed number on this no matter how much you try ,if you use the maximum it's unfair because a lot of people will not use the CPU in that way if you use the minimum it's also not fair because nobody will use it that way,they came up with an average number that does reflect a usual workload on that CPU as seen by them.

It's the same thing AMD does,they only state the default power usage while it's pretty much understood by everyone that you have to overclock it as soon as you get it.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,359
887
136
But you guys actually think that the 9900k or difference between 14 and 10/7nm is going to make the mass majority of the market shift their purchase? IF you asked 1000 people out in the public what a nanometer is, how many do you actually think know what the hell it means?
First of all, this thread was created to discuss Intel's 7nm in the context of their own 10nm development woes. If you don't care about the importance of process nodes and consider neither does the market, then what are you even doing in this thread?

Second of all, we're not picking on 9900K, which happens to be the best performing mainstream desktop CPU of today no matter the TDP settings you make it work with, we're picking on Intel for manipulating review test data and public perception while also setting a dangerous precedent for the future (they're not alone in this, MB makers and AMD are also partially responsible). If we really must endure a car analogy for every controversial subject, we're not discussing the loss in sales VW took as a direct result of cheating their way through emission compliance tests, we're discussing the fact that VW executives are getting jail sentences for it and major cities around the world are moving to ban diesel engines.

The power of brand recognition, history and marketing is strong. Also, most software developers recommend Intel and so do most PC vendors. I'm not saying anything against AMD, as I currently and have used their chips in the past, but some people are not separating actual customer perception and purchasing history, with their own personal feelings towards the subject.
Yeah, here's some illustrated history, marketing, brand recognition and people's feelings on nanometers.

GamersNexus' tracked audience sales for people who think nanometers are sexy:



Mindfactory.de - one of the largest retailers in Germany - total sales of CPUs for people who may or may not know if a nanometer is edible or not:



Amazon.com best selling CPUs at the time of this post, sales for people who wouldn't recognize a nanometer if it hit them in the face:



Is Intel really feeling the pain in terms of sales? NO, with the current market conditions (demand bigger than their 14nm capacity) and the tight grip it still has on laptop CPU sales, good grip on OEM channels and the server market, it's still doing mighty fine. Desktop sales are only a fraction of the total addresable market for their CPUs. But if you are convinced people don't understand this market, both us here and laymen on Amazon, then you are having difficulties separating actual customer perception and purchasing history from your own personal feelings towards the subject.

Make no mistake: the nanometers are coming.
 
Last edited:

JDG1980

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2013
1,657
174
136
Right, but you still haven't proven the correlation on loss of sales to such a insignificant thing such as chip nm sizing and the general public's perception and how it affects overall sales. Example, take a look at all of the media attention and negativity that Volkswagen received. They were still #2 in overall car sales last year and actually UP 1% year over year in overall global sales. Mercedes was also up 1% YOY in global sales.
So what? Are you arguing that it's OK to commit consumer fraud as long as you get away with it?
 
Apr 27, 2000
12,759
1,563
126
they came up with an average number that does reflect a usual workload on that CPU as seen by them.
No they didn't. They came up with a number that exactly represents the power limit for the CPU when using the PL1 setting from their own documentation (see @coercitiv 's post above). Too bad few, if any, Z390 boards adhere to that spec, instead defaulting to a PL1 of 160W. User-selection is required to get the 9900k to stick to its listed TDP.

edit: AMD doesn't do the same thing, either. AMD's TDP listing is more of a cooling requirement.
 
Last edited:

TheELF

Platinum Member
Dec 22, 2012
2,875
128
126
No they didn't. They came up with a number that exactly represents the power limit for the CPU when using the PL1 setting from their own documentation (see @coercitiv 's post above). Too bad few, if any, Z390 boards adhere to that spec, instead defaulting to a PL1 of 160W. User-selection is required to get the 9900k to stick to its listed TDP.

edit: AMD doesn't do the same thing, either. AMD's TDP listing is more of a cooling requirement.
Who on earth buys a z board and expects it to be setup for power saving by default?
You get a z board to get the best possible performance including even overclocking your CPU you don't get it to save power.
If you want to save power you look at mobo benchmarks/reviews and see which one has the lowest power draw with stock settings.

"AMD's TDP listing is more of a cooling requirement."
Which goes out the window as soon as the build is ready in 99% of cases because you are forced to push it as high as it goes for it to be a reasonable buy.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
18,178
2,133
136
"AMD's TDP listing is more of a cooling requirement."
Which goes out the window as soon as the build is ready in 99% of cases because you are forced to push it as high as it goes for it to be a reasonable buy.
No, only if you are an avid gamer. At stock they do quite nicely (talking 1080p at high settings). So mainstream people are quite happy with the money they save. If you are am avid gamer, you probably buy Intel, and overclock it as well to get every last FPS out of it.

I can get a 1950x 16c/32t threadripper NEW for about what a 9900k costs. And most of mine are not OC'ed, and I don't care, I need cores and threads.

Don't give me this 99% garbage.
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
828
121
136
So the 210W recommendation for the 9900K came from Intel based on the 210W power consumption of an entire Ryzen system? Fascinating, are you making this up as you go along?
It looks like it, doesn't it? See below.
Nah, let's go back to how Intel calculated PL1 and PL2 for their 9th gen premium desktop parts, you're not getting out of this one by pointing fingers in the distance.
The fact that you want to highlight the 9th gen's departure from the usual 1:1.25 PL1:pL2 ratio is in fact the answer that seems to be eluding you, and which I've already argued. What number is Intel to aim against when AMD has no fixed power consumption number for PBO? Is it 105w? 150w? 210w? Okay, you tell us.

The 9900k was not released in a vacuum. It had the 8700k and the 2700x to contend with. It handled the 8700k easily due to superior binning, resulting in higher turbo profiles, and higher PL2 watts to support the higher turbos and higher core count - naturally.
cfl_turbo_v2.png
9thGenTurbos2.png

I know the idea that Intel went with 210w PL2 due to the fact that a Ryzen 2700x system can consume that much running multithreaded tasks may sound ridiculous. But as has been pointed out, AMD got clever by not exposing XFR2 and PBO consumption numbers as a fixed number. It simply leaves the overclocking up to the system based on thermal headroom. The result is that based on the cooler one opts to go with, these chips can push voltages up to 1.45+v, and it shows. But what AMD doesn't say, can still be measured at the system level and that's important because at the end of the day it's platform against platform. So if you're Intel labs, what do you do about a platform that can pull 210w? You adjust accordingly. You don't pick 210w because the 2700x consumes 105w, you adjust to the levels you know the chip can consume given the right conditions, all based on your own simulations in the lab.

@Topweasel says 210w recommendation is to allow the 9900k to run at 4.7GHz all the time. But that's simply a case of the 9900k running into motherboard maker's TAU=28 Seconds TAU=Unlimited. When properly configured, a 9900k should still turbo to 4.7GHz ACT (All Core Turbo), the only difference is that it'll be for not longer than 28 seconds (iirc), if operating conditions allow it to turbo that long in the first place. In any case, whether the 210w recomended PL2 review setting was to allow the 9900k to turbo all day or not, the aim is the same - to dominate the 2700x, which it does even with PL1 @ 95w.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,418
263
136
No, only if you are an avid gamer. At stock they do quite nicely (talking 1080p at high settings). So mainstream people are quite happy with the money they save. If you are am avid gamer, you probably buy Intel, and overclock it as well to get every last FPS out of it.

I can get a 1950x 16c/32t threadripper NEW for about what a 9900k costs. And most of mine are not OC'ed, and I don't care, I need cores and threads.

Don't give me this 99% garbage.
Exactly. I have a 2600X that I paid $180 for. Using the stock cooler. Any gaming I do is at 4k, and it works just great. Spending $500 or more for a CPU, then another pile of money for custom cooling, all to run video games on a potato monitor at 1080? I just don't get it.
 
Apr 27, 2000
12,759
1,563
126
Who on earth buys a z board and expects it to be setup for power saving by default?
Again, good job twisting a point. Find me one board that DOESN'T default to a 160W PL1 for the 9900k. Go on, do it. Z390 or otherwise. 9900k obviously has to be on the supported CPU list.

Can you? I can't.

Secondly, sticking to the TDP on the box isn't "power saving". Running the CPU with a power limit 65W above the rating on the box isn't "normal". Except for the 9900k, of course.

"AMD's TDP listing is more of a cooling requirement."
Which goes out the window as soon as the build is ready in 99% of cases because you are forced to push it as high as it goes for it to be a reasonable buy.
What does that have to do with anything? The 2700x is probably run at stock with the stock cooler more so than with aftermarket coolers running fixed overclocks of 4.3 GHz or higher. What does that tell you? It's "just fine" the way it is.

AMD rates ALL their CPUs - from the lowly R3s on up to the R7s - with a TDP that tells you how much cooling capacity is required to allow it to run at stock settings. Period. The stock cooler meets that TDP rating. It has nothing to do with averaged power consumption or whatever else you're asserting here. It also has nothing to do with the user behave you allege above.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,570
315
126
In "fairness", if you buy an K processor you are going to overclock it anyway. I do wonder what the default settings are on the non-K 9th gen processors.

But yes they did do it for benchmark reasons for the most part.
 
Jul 25, 2001
10,248
47
91
So what? Are you arguing that it's OK to commit consumer fraud as long as you get away with it?
You completely missed the point. I wasn't advocating fraud or saying it's OK. I was showing you an example where the customer seems to not care about the MPG rating scandal and continue to buy VW. My point being, just because Intel may be struggling with producing 10/7nm chips, doesn't mean the general public actually cares or is even educated on the matter. They will most likely still purchase Intel because, well, It's Intel to them.
 
Feb 23, 2017
636
578
106
In "fairness", if you buy an K processor you are going to overclock it anyway. I do wonder what the default settings are on the non-K 9th gen processors.

But yes they did do it for benchmark reasons for the most part.
Wasn't there some research conducted that showed 80% of K CPU owners did not overclock? There's a large bunch of folk out there that will buy the most expensive simply because they assume price = quality; that the product is not targeted at them is a minor irrelevance.
 

TheELF

Platinum Member
Dec 22, 2012
2,875
128
126
Again, good job twisting a point. Find me one board that DOESN'T default to a 160W PL1 for the 9900k. Go on, do it. Z390 or otherwise. 9900k obviously has to be on the supported CPU list.

Can you? I can't.
What does that change?What even is that?Do people even care?
I said that someone searching for low power consumption will look at reviews and get a board with low consumption, and you can search for a mobo that has lower defaults and uses less power using the same CPU,here the difference is 33% between the lowest and the highest.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14111/the-gigabyte-z390-aorus-pro-wifi-motherboard-review/5
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,570
315
126
Wasn't there some research conducted that showed 80% of K CPU owners did not overclock? There's a large bunch of folk out there that will buy the most expensive simply because they assume price = quality; that the product is not targeted at them is a minor irrelevance.
I dunno about that, but since it is the fastest at each level I could see people buying and not overclocking. And some OEMs do use it, like Apple has been using the K models (including the 9900K) as the upgrade option on the 27 inch iMacs.
 
Apr 27, 2000
12,759
1,563
126
What does that change?
Everything. You can't actually tell what kind of power draw to expect from the chip looking at Intel's TDP rating for the 9900k (or the 8700k, though it was somewhat less egregious). You have no idea what kind of cooling to spec for the chip. At least not without reading several reviews first, and figuring out how to configure your board's power limits.

As for "searching for a board with lower power limits", I don't think those even exist, at least not among the boards that officially support the 9900k.

Wasn't there some research conducted that showed 80% of K CPU owners did not overclock? There's a large bunch of folk out there that will buy the most expensive simply because they assume price = quality; that the product is not targeted at them is a minor irrelevance.
The 9900k performs quite well when not overclocked, assuming you leave the PL1 defaults alone at 160W. It boosts like crazy given enough cooling. Turning it into a 200W+ CPU via overclocking doesn't get you that much more performance. It does get you some, I won't deny it. But it's still quite good at stock (just not a 95W CPU!).
 

tomatosummit

Junior Member
Mar 21, 2019
10
6
41
I dunno about that, but since it is the fastest at each level I could see people buying and not overclocking. And some OEMs do use it, like Apple has been using the K models (including the 9900K) as the upgrade option on the 27 inch iMacs.
We've got a couple of those new 5k imacs at work and they're "custom" units. Utility programs seems to show them as limited to 65w and they don't sustain anything close to 4.7ghz all core. [edit] more like an i9 9900.

As for K series, in general it's just the best cpu available and things like that German retailer shows that the majority of intel's sales are only the K parts. The marketing machine has done it's job and made them the only attractive part for most of the line up for retail sells. I build pcs here at work using K series and don't overclock them for example. The same thing for the release schedules as well. This year a 10 core i7/i9 10700k will release with one other binned cpu and early next year the majority of the parts will release for enterprise oems and such.
 
Last edited:

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
4,913
511
136
It looks like it, doesn't it? See below.

The fact that you want to highlight the 9th gen's departure from the usual 1:1.25 PL1:pL2 ratio is in fact the answer that seems to be eluding you, and which I've already argued. What number is Intel to aim against when AMD has no fixed power consumption number for PBO? Is it 105w? 150w? 210w? Okay, you tell us.

The 9900k was not released in a vacuum. It had the 8700k and the 2700x to contend with. It handled the 8700k easily due to superior binning, resulting in higher turbo profiles, and higher PL2 watts to support the higher turbos and higher core count - naturally.



I know the idea that Intel went with 210w PL2 due to the fact that a Ryzen 2700x system can consume that much running multithreaded tasks may sound ridiculous. But as has been pointed out, AMD got clever by not exposing XFR2 and PBO consumption numbers as a fixed number. It simply leaves the overclocking up to the system based on thermal headroom. The result is that based on the cooler one opts to go with, these chips can push voltages up to 1.45+v, and it shows. But what AMD doesn't say, can still be measured at the system level and that's important because at the end of the day it's platform against platform. So if you're Intel labs, what do you do about a platform that can pull 210w? You adjust accordingly. You don't pick 210w because the 2700x consumes 105w, you adjust to the levels you know the chip can consume given the right conditions, all based on your own simulations in the lab.

@Topweasel says 210w recommendation is to allow the 9900k to run at 4.7GHz all the time. But that's simply a case of the 9900k running into motherboard maker's TAU=28 Seconds TAU=Unlimited. When properly configured, a 9900k should still turbo to 4.7GHz ACT (All Core Turbo), the only difference is that it'll be for not longer than 28 seconds (iirc), if operating conditions allow it to turbo that long in the first place. In any case, whether the 210w recomended PL2 review setting was to allow the 9900k to turbo all day or not, the aim is the same - to dominate the 2700x, which it does even with PL1 @ 95w.
Tau gets set to unlimited because of turning on another feature Intel recommends which is the I believe its called MCE (Multi-core enhancement).

The issue is in comparison to AMD. AMD if forthcoming about power usage and clock speeds across its rated specs at each of the max settings its under its rated clock speed. It then uses PBO1/2 and XFR1/2 to offer additional performance on top of its rated performance for a small time when needed if using a 105w cooler or longer or infinite if using better cooling. Intel doesn't make that information available. They no longer tell people what the inspec 95w 2-4-6-8 8 core clocks and base turbo are. Partially because anything they try to run under its rated spec is going to give AMD a lot of room to match them. Coffeelake has one great advantage and that is clock speed. 95w neuters that. So again they hide pertinent information, they hide true power requirements (which is probably more of a OEM thing, lots less OEM purchases if they go above x W TDP), so no one knows what they should expect.

No one here is trying to suggest the 9900k isn't what it is, it's probably the best 8c chip on the market considering all variations including HEDT. But to accomplish that Intel for the 90th time had to do something unscrupulous for almost no reason. Getting rid of information a couple of gens earlier shows some real intent there as well. But if this was a 120w-130w CPU that sometimes popped up 140w on all core turbo, they would get a few guys saying that is too power hungry and that would be it. The only thing that people would wonder about would be is wondering if they might have to dial back Comet Lake. But no what is going to happen is Comet lake will be sold as a 95-100w CPU, it will tank when capped, and in its defualt K setting it will this time allow it to run even higher for an infinite amount of time. My biggest problem with this whole thing is how far from its rating people will need to get extra cooling for it to avoid slamming against the thermal wall of the CPU and staying there any time they are doing something multicore intensive.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,570
315
126
We've got a couple of those new 5k imacs at work and they're "custom" units. Utility programs seems to show them as limited to 65w and they don't sustain anything close to 4.7ghz all core. [edit] more like an i9 9900.
As you can get the TDP as high as you want (heh), you can set it lower if you want as well. So that's likely what Apple is doing, setting the 9900K to 65W max.

Speaking of Apple, the 10 nm fiasco almost certainly is the final straw for Apple to dump Intel for their own processors. It's only matter of time now, and 7 nm isn't going to arrive in time.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS