• 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."

Discussion i7-11700K preliminary results

Page 23 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CHADBOGA

Platinum Member
Mar 31, 2009
2,040
700
136

Panino Manino

Senior member
Jan 28, 2017
399
486
136
Francois flame bait post will just derail this thread. Everyone knows that guy is pro intel.
It was not only him, all the usual suspects were repeating the same about GN.

Because the CPU still didn't "officially released" there are a lot of people still insisting that none of those reviews are valid (or the performance and cost/benefit is misunderstood).
 

Makaveli

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2002
4,295
480
126
It was not only him, all the usual suspects were repeating the same about GN.

Because the CPU still didn't "officially released" there are a lot of people still insisting that none of those reviews are valid (or the performance and cost/benefit is misunderstood).
That I'm aware of all the hardcore intel fans are still in denial about rocketlake.

There is only 5 days left for the delusions to be over. But i'm hoping to keep this thread with some useful information and less flame bait.

As Dullard said do better guys. Leave the rest for WCCTECH.
 

Panino Manino

Senior member
Jan 28, 2017
399
486
136
That I'm aware of all the hardcore intel fans are still in denial about rocketlake.

There is only 5 days left for the delusions to be over. But i'm hoping to keep this thread with some useful information and less flame bait.

As Dullard said do better guys. Leave the rest for WCCTECH.
I think people will still remember and discuss this for months.
You see, every once in a while AMD releases a new AGESA with some improvements, subtle, but real. Some little bug is fixed, some stability is improved, couple with better overall bins means that with time the Ryzen performance improves a tiny bit that some people may be able to notice. People will do the same for Rocketlake, keeping an eye on every new update to see "how the tables will turn" and "be proven right all along".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,146
636
136

"but he needs to learn how to respect people who are doing seriously hard work that he would be totally incapable to do himself, except joining as a marketing person."

The funny thing about this tweet is Francois was a marketing person at Intel.
 

AdamK47

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,527
937
126
The Gamers Nexus thumbnail is low level pandering. It's what Youtubers do to drive clicks.

The thumbnail preys on the emotions of the AMD side who are revelling in the jab made. It preys on the emotions of the Intel side with outrage in the belittling.

Either way, the predator got his prey as is evidence here.
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,051
1,837
126
I mean how long did it take from inception to a product? 2 years?

That's pretty much a straight backport with no optimization.

It's a backport to an older, worse process, and they rushed it doing so. No wonder it's so bad. Also tells us how important process is and it'll get even more important as shrinks get harder.

They have a presentation about Rocketlake and the team that made it happen, and it sounded like they were pretty proud about it. Not sure if they should have bothered, because there's nothing to be proud about this product.

Yea sure you got it done, but it's questionable if it's better. It's a "we did it cause we can" chip.

Good thing it didn't end up worse. Imagine this chip on mobile.
This is an interesting train of though. Maybe from an engineering perspective it was an excellent exercise to take something designed for a completely different process and do the unthinkable by transforming it to work with 14nm. Maybe when someone mentioned it at first, people laughed inside and thought "um, yeah. No way". Not only did they do it (possibly learning a lot in the process) but they also managed to create a viable product from it. From this perspective perhaps they brought out the champagne? I wonder what other engineering teams think about what Intel was able to do with this. Maybe that's where the glory is and we're all complaining about gaming benchmarks for a product that should have been impossible? Is backporting a common thing? Is it easy and no big deal? Or should this chip have ended up in the trash bin but instead they made a viable product?
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
5,730
2,488
136
Maybe when someone mentioned it at first, people laughed inside and thought "um, yeah. No way". Not only did they do it (possibly learning a lot in the process) but they also managed to create a viable product from it.
Hopefully they never have to put that knowledge to use again. If we have to make any more jokes about 14nm+++++++++++++ we'll wear out our keyboards.

It's kind of interesting from an academic perspective, but it's not the type of thing anyone wants to have to do. The real question is that if Intel knew exactly how it would turn out when they made the choice to go ahead with this idea if they'd still go through with it or if they'd do something else instead.
 

Panino Manino

Senior member
Jan 28, 2017
399
486
136

"but he needs to learn how to respect people who are doing seriously hard work that he would be totally incapable to do himself, except joining as a marketing person."

The funny thing about this tweet is Francois was a marketing person at Intel.
FP is funny, he blocked me again because I showed how GN had done the same to AMD plenty of times in the past, even very recently as THIS MONTH! I wonder if he blocked everyone who responded on that thread, and they think we are the ones being stubborn?
No surprises here, what surprised me was the sudden change on tune. I don't get it, last time I had seen his account he said this:

2021-03-21 09.49.46 twitter.com 09b5533dcc98.jpg


It's a new "era", right? AMD is changed and a true competitor and even leader in some areas. Intel changed, and is changing as we could see from the news that the new CEO gave this week, but some people are still adapting to this new reality. Even though they recognize and even praise what AMD is achieving, still, Intel is Intel, they expect that every new Intel launch will crush the competition because this is how the word works.
And this is one of the biggest challenges AMD faces. "The better product don't always wins", right? Even if AMD keeps putting in the market better and cheaper products, many will never buy it because it's from AMD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and CHADBOGA

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,146
636
136
FP is funny, he blocked me again because I showed how GN had done the same to AMD plenty of times in the past, even very recently as THIS MONTH! I wonder if he blocked everyone who responded on that thread, and they think we are the ones being stubborn?
No surprises here, what surprised me was the sudden change on tune. I don't get it, last time I had seen his account he said this:

View attachment 41902


It's a new "era", right? AMD is changed and a true competitor and even leader in some areas. Intel changed, and is changing as we could see from the news that the new CEO gave this week, but some people are still adapting to this new reality. Even though they recognize and even praise what AMD is achieving, still, Intel is Intel, they expect that every new Intel launch will crush the competition because this is how the word works.
And this is one of the biggest challenges AMD faces. "The better product don't always wins", right? Even if AMD keeps putting in the market better and cheaper products, many will never buy it because it's from AMD.
Just ignore the guy. I have seen his resume. The cover letter was longer than the resume. 🚨
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
7,363
2,051
136
Is backporting a common thing? Is it easy and no big deal? Or should this chip have ended up in the trash bin but instead they made a viable product?
If Rocketlake was using a core meant by 14nm and it took lot of planning and thought, then it might have ended up better.

Timeframe suggests it couldn't be. They just ported Sunny Cove and made necessary adjustments to fit on 14nm, likely with repercussions.
 

zir_blazer

Golden Member
Jun 6, 2013
1,014
234
116
I'm actually wondering if the original 10nm Cannonlake (Skylake improved shrink) could have been backported back to 14nm with better results than Cypress Cove. Not sure what was the expected IPC increase on Cannonlake or if the only thing going on for it was adding AVX-512, but Cypress Cove left a lot to be desired by not being substantially faster than what is essencially 2015 Skylake with some Hardware mitigations for Spectre and Meltdown.
This is similar to how AMD could have continued with K10 cores in 32nm like those of the first APU, Llano, instead of going Bulldozer...
 

moinmoin

Platinum Member
Jun 1, 2017
2,414
3,009
106
I'm actually wondering if the original 10nm Cannonlake (Skylake improved shrink) could have been backported back to 14nm with better results than Cypress Cove.
Technically Rocketlake is the exact counterpart to Cannonlake (maybe that's why both names sound like they are related): Whereas Cannonlake is pretty much a straight port of Skylake to 10nm with only minor improvements at best, Rocketlake is pretty much a straight port of Tiger Lake to 14nm with only minor adaptions at best. Like a reverse-tick in pre-Skylake Intel parlance.
 

naukkis

Senior member
Jun 5, 2002
418
273
136
Cannonlake wasn't an option, it barely moved the needle IPC wise as Anandtech observed by running Cannonlake and Kabylake at 2.2Ghz (fixed).
Few percent IPC uplift with AVX512 - at about same size as Skylake. So Intel could have get AVX512, keep 10 or more cores and have plenty of L4 cache for chip as large as Rocketlake - there is at least possibility that it could have much better performing option - at least for gamers.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,023
608
126
This is similar to how AMD could have continued with K10 cores in 32nm like those of the first APU, Llano, instead of going Bulldozer...
I doubt that was possible. The last generation of K10 used on Llano APUs were good in their own right, but also really showed the ultimate limit of the K8 architecture. AMD was barely able to get the K10.5 core over 3GHz, and neither were overclockers. A 3GHz 6C 32nm K10.5 CPU would have been a good offer, but the low frequency would likely have hampered it. Especially compared to Sandy Bridge, which did 5.2-5.3GHz on air cooling.
 

zir_blazer

Golden Member
Jun 6, 2013
1,014
234
116
I doubt that was possible. The last generation of K10 used on Llano APUs were good in their own right, but also really showed the ultimate limit of the K8 architecture. AMD was barely able to get the K10.5 core over 3GHz, and neither were overclockers. A 3GHz 6C 32nm K10.5 CPU would have been a good offer, but the low frequency would likely have hampered it. Especially compared to Sandy Bridge, which did 5.2-5.3GHz on air cooling.
Wasn't Llano made in a manufacturing process, design, whatever, that favoured high density to priorize the GPU side of the APU at the cost of the CPU clocks? Then what we saw in Llano was a nerfed CPU. If it was designed as a CPU only, I suppose it should have been at least equal or better than 45nm Thuban. Your comment pretty much reminds me when the tech industry blamed the Prescott issues on the high leakage of the 90nm process even though both Intel Dothan and AMD K8 Winchester showed improvements in all areas compared to their predecessors, so some people reached the conclusion than what sucked was the Prescott design and not the 90nm process itself.
Also, Llano was delayed by like one or two years. Seems like it was problematic for AMD to get the GPU running on the same die than the CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,353
1,539
136
Honestly this is just a gen later than I thought we should see this. CometLake should have seen our first registerable drop in per core performance. But Ill give Intel kudos (with my usual problem with their outright abuse of TDP) for pulling out all the stops in thinning out the HS and hard capping certain boost modes to maximizing general boost modes to keep their benchmark scores high. But realistically there were only going to stay at the top still using 14nm so far. Specially as Margin driven they are and their desire to cap die size to prioritize server chip manufacturing. Personally I think at this point in time de-prioritizing core count is a massive miss. The extra cores extend their useful lifespan, allow for more defined segmentation. They probably felt that desktop sales would still be pushed by SC performance and felt that their projected IPC increase would outpace AMD. But Steve isn't wrong, outside actual availability, they are going to be missing any real killer reason to purchase their higher end chips, cept maybe quicksync.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,023
608
126
Wasn't Llano made in a manufacturing process, design, whatever, that favoured high density to priorize the GPU side of the APU at the cost of the CPU clocks? Then what we saw in Llano was a nerfed CPU.
Far as I remember, it was the other way round. AMD apparently had trouble with the IGP being built on a CPU prioritizing process, and using SOI. But I can't remember where I read that, so I may be wrong.

I think the main frequency limiter wasn't so much the process, but the rather large (for the time at least) L2 cache.

Your comment pretty much reminds me when the tech industry blamed the Prescott issues on the high leakage of the 90nm process even though both Intel Dothan and AMD K8 Winchester showed improvements in all areas compared to their predecessors, so some people reached the conclusion than what sucked was the Prescott design and not the 90nm process itself.
The Prescott design sucked. Simple as that. Proof? Look at what Dothan achieved on the same process. Especially on desktop (f.x. using the CT479 adaptor). It's not even funny. 115W Prescott matched by a 37W mobile chip.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY