• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Discussion Intel’s Unified Core

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jan Olšan said:
I don't think that's implied or likely. He would not call it E-Core for nothing.
Click to expand...

It would be odd if he calls Golden Eagle a P-core, because it's really just an Artic Wolf refresh. I know from a very good other source that Copper Shark is a P-core in TTL and Intels first unified core. As I said he might be confused because Copper Shark is also made from the E-core team. The E-core in TTL will be the "old" one from RZL because the more dense version isn't ready.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 511
Sorry to play semantics but how is Copper Shark a unified core if it is glued in the same cpu as an E core ?

It would be the first P core made by the usually E core team, yeah but unified where ?
 
mikk said:
I know from a very good other source that Copper Shark is a P-core in TTL and Intels first unified core. As I said he might be confused because Copper Shark is also made from the E-core team. The E-core in TTL will be the "old" one from RZL because the more dense version isn't ready.
Click to expand...
Have heard the same thing but will wait for confirmation. Initially it seemed the P-core was based on Griffin Cove but recently changed to Coppershark. Jaykihn's info appears to be different, for now at least.
There were rumors saying Intel would relax its client release cadence which might be correct. TTL seems to be mid-2028/around Computex rather than CES 2028 reveal.
A bit odd that P-core variant of Coppershark is ready but E-core variant isn't considering the major differences should be in Cluster-size/cache and density optimization. But TTL is still too far away so there's possibility of changes.
 
Well, it's not like the CSK-P core is ready right now either 😉 I would imagine it's the priority though, so would make perfect sense that Intel might fall back to ARW for both E and LPE cores if necessary.

Thk unified core future certainly has promise. I'm most looking forward to seeing what approach Intel takes - meaningful differences in core architecture implementation resulting in 2x or greater area difference or just simple variations in cache size and clock speed targets? Sadly there haven't been any indicators on that front as of yet. Wht not have some fun speculating though, right?
 
regen1 said:
Have heard the same thing but will wait for confirmation. Initially it seemed the P-core was based on Griffin Cove but recently changed to Coppershark. Jaykihn's info appears to be different, for now at least.
There were rumors saying Intel would relax its client release cadence which might be correct. TTL seems to be mid-2028/around Computex rather than CES 2028 reveal.
A bit odd that P-core variant of Coppershark is ready but E-core variant isn't considering the major differences should be in Cluster-size/cache and density optimization. But TTL is still too far away so there's possibility of changes.
Click to expand...
so TTL is just 6 months later than RZL? sounds fake
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top