• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Discussion Comet Lake Intel's new Core i9-10900K runs at over 90C, even with liquid cooling TweakTown

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

piokos

Senior member
Nov 2, 2018
554
202
86
AMD offers more than a "better value". That's why Intel is in trouble right now. When AMD comes out with Zen3 and all Intel has to counter them is Comet Lake, that just makes things worse for Intel.
No, it won't.
Both companies are able to sell as much as they can make right now.

It doesn't matter if AMD gets an even larger lead. They won't sell more as long as they don't increase their volume potential.
According to whom? AMD isn't running their own fabs anymore. You think TSMC can't keep up with market demand? The absolutely can.
No.
AMD operates within the contracted manufacturing capacity and TSMC 7N is reserved in 100%. That's the whole point.
If there was some free 7N capacity, TSMC would gladly give it to AMD.

According to Q1 statement, they expect 2020 revenue to grow 25+-5% Y/Y. And that includes Xbox and PS5 launches.
AMD grew by 2019 growth was 50%.
Can we just be honest with ourselves here and admit that Intel is not regaining technical dominance in the server market this year?
Why would they need to "regain technical dominance"? It's not a video game about dominance. It's business.
As for planning "to match AMD this year in mobile", I think you are ignoring the significance of Intel needing to actually do that. Mobile is one of AMD's lowest-priority development targets. Why is Intel struggling there?
There's no struggling. Tiger Lake follows a fixed launch schedule.

Intel won't rush with announcing anything until the products are ready. Mobile chips are for OEMs only and Intel usually launches them when PCs are ready to ship.

AMD "launched" Zen2 mobile SoCs in January. It's mid May already.
They showed 2 laptops during the presentation:
- ASUS G14 - the flagship 4800HS model - AFAIK started shipping in April and is mostly out-of-stock already.
- Lenovo Yoga Slim 7 - expected to house 4800U - is still in "coming soon" phase:

There's hardly any -U laptop officially announced at this point. Just leaks mostly.
Yes, we know Comet Lake-S isn't going to be the high-end gaming CPU of choice this year.
Again: it doesn't have to be. People will have to buy it anyway.
Price cuts will only take you so far, and they can do irreparable harm to the brand.
Reality check: Intel cuts prices but still makes a ton of money. AMD doesn't.
Which tells you a lot about how initial MSRP are being set.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,787
2,470
136
Because this.
Are you implying marketing isn't important? Having a baseline performance metric comparing previous-gen uArch serves no purpose at all? If so, then given that there is a negligible chance that process node shrinks and optimisations would ever result in another 5.3GHz single core turbo frequency like we get on 14++, how do you think that uArch improvements would be measured going into the future?
 

uzzi38

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,303
2,422
96
It doesn't matter if AMD gets an even larger lead. They won't sell more as long as they don't increase their volume potential.
No.
AMD operates within the contracted manufacturing capacity and TSMC 7N is reserved in 100%. That's the whole point.
If there was some free 7N capacity, TSMC would gladly give it to AMD.
Oh would you look at that, it's already happening.

There's no struggling. Tiger Lake follows a fixed launch schedule.
Ice Lake was delayed somewhat, even if only a small delay. We're yet to see if Tiger Lake will meet the same fate.

Intel won't rush with announcing anything until the products are ready. Mobile chips are for OEMs only and Intel usually launches them when PCs are ready to ship.
Ice Lake laptops actually released at the end of August if memory serves me correctly, which was a couple of months after the chips were unveiled. So er... considering their very last launch did not follow that pattern I don't think your point hold much weight.
 

piokos

Senior member
Nov 2, 2018
554
202
86
Um Acer Swift 3? Lenovo IdeaPad 5?
15": "no longer available" (discontinued?)
14": "out of stock"

I haven't seen neither in stores.

OK, I forgot about the Swift 3. You win. There's a Ryzen 4x00U laptop available. Uff.
Are you implying marketing isn't important?
Absolutely not. You asked why Intel mentions IPC. So I give you the answer: marketing.

Ice Lake mobile SoCs have low clocks, so Intel probably wouldn't want to brag about that on a slide.
Also the resulting performance is pretty much on par with 10th gen 14nm SoCs (almost as if they did it on purpose).
Having a baseline performance metric comparing previous-gen uArch serves no purpose at all?
It serves the purpose of giving you something to talk about on forums like this one.

Otherwise no, there's very little meaning for consumers. They don't know what IPC is and they shouldn't waste time learning it. It's totally pointless.

Also, as @Zucker2k already said, there's always some compromise between clocks and IPC. It's a conscious design choice.
 

piokos

Senior member
Nov 2, 2018
554
202
86
Ice Lake laptops actually released at the end of August if memory serves me correctly, which was a couple of months after the chips were unveiled. So er... considering their very last launch did not follow that pattern I don't think your point hold much weight.
Ice Lake was launched on 2019-08-01.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
8,689
1,559
126
Intel won't rush with announcing anything until the products are ready. Mobile chips are for OEMs only and Intel usually launches them when PCs are ready to ship.
IMO Intel usually launches when they send the first batch to OEMs, not when the laptops are ready to ship. The OEMs still have to assemble the laptop and send it to retailers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makaveli

rainy

Senior member
Jul 17, 2013
451
288
136
Ice Lake was launched on 2019-08-01.
Not true, it was on 27th May:
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,787
2,470
136
I haven't seen neither in stores.
Just because you haven't seen one in stores doesn't mean that they're not shipping.

Absolutely not. You asked why Intel mentions IPC. So I give you the answer: marketing.
It serves the purpose of giving you something to talk about on forums like this one.

Otherwise no, there's very little meaning for consumers. They don't know what IPC is and they shouldn't waste time learning it. It's totally pointless.
So marketing is important but it's not meant for consumers?
 

piokos

Senior member
Nov 2, 2018
554
202
86
Not true, it was on 27th May:
That was just a general announcement of the architecture. Similarly, we already had this kind of announcement for Rocket Lake S.

Actual chips were launched in August (it's also in the wikichip article) - with final SKU specification and a few 2in1 laptops shown. These laptops appeared in stores in late August/early October, i.e. 1 month after SKU launch.
MS Surface launched on 22 Oct (~2 months).
First mass-market, cheaper laptops (Dell Inspiron, HP 14 etc) joined in November (~2.5 months).
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,052
456
136
But it's TSMC's "technical excellence", not AMD's. That's what I said.
The final product is admittedly better, but without 7N it would be a Zen+ with some IPC improvement (losing core count and power consumption gains).

Do people now get offended when someone says AMD and Intel have equally good architectures? Seriously?
How did we get here? :/
Evidence required, citation needed, etc

Nobody is offended, you are just wrong, totally wrong.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,761
5,739
136
@piokos

Sorry, but I think you are deluding yourself. Intel is going to try selling 14nm CPUs until late 2021 to the desktop segment. That is a very bad plan. Sooner or later, it will catch up with them. It's a testament to their marketing skills that it hasn't thus far. All the competition has to do is keep improving their products while Intel stands still.
 

uzzi38

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,303
2,422
96
But it's TSMC's "technical excellence", not AMD's. That's what I said.
The final product is admittedly better, but without 7N it would be a Zen+ with some IPC improvement (losing core count and power consumption gains).

Do people now get offended when someone says AMD and Intel have equally good architectures? Seriously?
How did we get here? :/
Well done, you have proven perfectly well you have no clue how the industry works. Thank you.
 

BigDaveX

Senior member
Jun 12, 2014
440
210
116
@piokos

Sorry, but I think you are deluding yourself. Intel is going to try selling 14nm CPUs until late 2021 to the desktop segment. That is a very bad plan. Sooner or later, it will catch up with them. It's a testament to their marketing skills that it hasn't thus far. All the competition has to do is keep improving their products while Intel stands still.
To paraphrase Jon Snow, it's a bad plan, but it's still less bad than all the other plans they have. And if 2000-2006 are anything to go by, they know they can withstand a few years of getting their backsides kicked by AMD without taking any serious damage - though that said, everything still depends on them pulling the same rabbit out of the hat with 7nm that they did with 65nm back in the day.
 

phillyman36

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2004
1,705
127
106
At around the 2:04 mark the system shows he is using a 10900k. The temp stays around 100 c the entire video. Didnt mention cooling and a pre launch bios
 
  • Haha
Reactions: spursindonesia

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,589
1,577
136
I'm sure I'm going to waste entirely too much time on this but whatever.

Making CPUs on a lot more dense node is essential to the leadership they have now.
Discussing if AMD's work is worth 37% or 81% is totally pointless. If they stayed on 14nm, they would have a Zen++.
Server chips would stop at 32-cores and miss all the recent cloud and HPC wins AMD had with 64-core models.
3900x and 3950X would not exist. 3700X would pull 200W. APUs would stay at 4 cores and mobile SoCs would probably leave Zen of a more purpose-built architecture.
All speculation on your part. Zen 2 would've looked differently if was stuck on 12nm or couldn't get something better from Samsung. Not as good, but still damn good I'd bet.

That's just weird. Why would I be grateful for a company to do it's job properly? They're making money!

AMD should be this active all the time. They've given us the finger for 10 years and now people are grateful for comeback. That is just bonkers.
It's as if you paid someone to clean your house every few weeks and he didn't turn up for half a year. And when he finally did come, you're suddenly grateful because he helped you find car keys that sunk in dirt.

And how did AMD improve their CPUs on offer between 2011 and 2017? :D
Except AMD wasn't making money. AMD was staring at bankruptcy. They didn't give us the finger for 10 years. They were trying to stay afloat while hoping they would survive until Zen came out.

You keep saying how much money Intel makes. How much did their CPU's improve from 2011 to 2017? Somewhat. But if you wanted more than four cores, Intel would charge you an arm and a leg for that luxury. It was Intel giving us the middle finger during those years. They had the money and means to give us plebs hex cores but just said nope, pay the Intel tax or deal with it.

Because you're accepting AMD selling the same stuff for 5+ years and at the same time criticizing Intel for doing the exact same thing.
The only difference: Intel went into this hiatus with very good CPUs so they kept selling, while AMD got lazy much earlier - so they already had something outdated and it didn't sell.
See above. AMD was in no position to enhance FX much and develop Zen at the same time. That's not getting lazy, that's a design failure. Getting lazy would mean throwing in the towel and not even bothering with Zen. Intel with a great CPU and tons of resources sat on its ass for the most part.

It wouldn't. Even on 12nm, the 2700x was pulling 200W+. Zen 2 cores on 12nm would be huge and won't clock anywhere near 4GHz. People can undervalue TSMCs impact here all they want but without their progress in node development, and Intel's stagnation, crucially, things would have been far different.
It's amazing how people can spew BS to support their argument and hope it sticks. Package power torture test was just under 105W. Before you complain about chilled water, the 8700k in that same chart drew 50w+ more power.

Well yes, AMD would probably have to make a larger socket for a 12/14nm Zen2. It might have been challenging to fit 8 cores (since even on 7N the 8-core chiplet is 80mm2 large).

The biggest issue I have with this AMD/TSMC confusion is that people started to treat these companies as one. Or even worse: to think that AMD is a leader of this partnership.
So they automatically assume that TSMC's 5N or 3N will make future AMD CPUs even better.

The reality is that of course TSMC is dominating this deal and it currently rips AMD on 7N pricing - taking all the profits.
So instead of cheering this situation, AMD fans should probably hope for some diversification - even at the cost of making AMD's lineup slightly less efficient on average.
You don't know that. AMD is not dumb, nor is TSMC. This is a mutually beneficial deal. And I can't make sense of that last part.

Also, I am tired of the ...but 7nm TSMC argument. What if Intel didn't falter with 10nm and was churning out 7nm right now? They'd probably be doing great. What if Intel designed the Cove cores with backport in mind? They would be doing better. Fact is none of that happened, and 7nm TSMC did. That is the reality of where we are. The "What ifs" are just stupid.
 
Last edited:

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,052
456
136
Uh, good talk.
2006 Intel stumbled because a reasonable engineering gamble to leverage an overwhelming process advantage on a radical architecture did not pan out.

2020 Intel:
- Has a process disadvantage, will likely never hold an advantage ever again
- Continues to stick to stale design practices and methods which were advantages with a process advantage, but are now liabilities
- Engaged in a four year series of politicized layoffs which in turn drove out yet more engineering talent
- Still thinks it can rely on its name to attract talent with 30% less pay than all the other companies and therefore fails to attract new talent for boots on the ground
- Is under attack on every market and is outclassed in most of them

My two cents after 16+ years in the industry... works out to 1/8 cent a year.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY