• 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."

Intel Cannonlake, Ice Lake, Tiger Lake & Sapphire rapid thread

Page 149 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,016
822
106
Well, there certainly is a comprehension, and/or selective perception problem. Maybe you should examine your own posts. In an unusual moment of rationality and a lull in his usual anti-intel rants, Charlie himself admitted he was wrong, and I posted the direct quote. No ambiguity there.
Lol he even admitted a few months later that he was wrong. He initially told 10nm is dead, he didn't differentiate between 10 and 10+ etc. The killed off first iteration of 10nm would be no news because everyone knew Cannonlake never existed really. He was dead wrong and he knows it. Also the relaxed 10+ was denied by Intel, it was wrong as well.
Guys... I don't wanna accuse you both of being illiterate or trolling, but I don't really have any more ideas. You're quoting a paragraph out of an article and deliberately 'forgetting' what the article states: not just the 10nm process is a failure, but Intel dug themselves into an even deeper hole trying to spin some life into 'a kind of a 10nm' process, instead of cutting their losses, coming back in 2021-2022 with a realisticly designed and obviously very good 7nm process (it's Intel after all, ffs!), and in the meantime leveraging their amazing 14nm achievements (they are really very-very impressive).

You know what? You're right. Charlie admitted he was wrong. Intel didn't kill their 10nm process.... they did something MUCH WORSE with it.
I also hope you're both gonna reply to my post with quoting only this: 'You know what? You're right"

:)
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
967
384
136
So this is basically what all this boils down to folks..... one party is basing their argument on this hysterical piece that can't even pass for a forum post without drawing all kinds of infractions (and they call it an article lol)

Intel’s 10nm is broken and unfixable, two strong economic arguments show why. SemiAccurate has been saying this for a while and now it is time to lay out why 10nm is unlikely to be viable at Intel.

Authors Note: This is not a piece on Intel’s financial outlook, just a piece using financial arguments to analyze a technical point.
.............................................................
Iced Over:

Then we come to Intel’s Ice Lake, the new architecture that succeeded Cannon Lake. It ‘shipped’ in September 2019 after a last minute three month delay. The June ‘launch’ at Computex was supposed to be a hard one but that became a soft August re-launch without any products actually shipping. The messaging that came with it bordered on outright lying but using skewed benchmarks, hidden power consumption figures, and more ‘normal’ practices, they managed to show Ice beat the five-ish year old 14nm Skylake derivatives by a hair.....
https://semiaccurate.com/2019/10/29/intels-actions-on-10nm-are-telling/ Published October 29, 2019.

VS


After years of delays, Intel is finally shipping its 10 nm processors in high volume, and the company is preparing to fire up another fab to produce an even larger volume of 10nm products. Along with producing more of the company's existing Ice Lake-U/Y products, Intel is also planning for server CPUs and GPUs as well, with Ice Lake-SP CPU as well as the DG1 GPU already up and running in Intel’s labs. Meanwhile, even farther out, Intel is eyeing 2021 for the rollout of its EUV-based 7nm process.

During its earnings call on Thursday, Intel said that so far 18 premium systems based on its 10th Generation Core (Ice Lake) processors have been formally introduced and 12 more are expected in 2019. Right now, the company produces all of its 10 nm CPUs in Hillsboro, Oregon and Kiryat Gat, Israel. Starting next quarter, the company expects 10 nm chips to also ship from its Chandler, Arizona, fab, which will increase supply of Ice Lake processors and will get Intel prepared for a broader use of the manufacturing process that had caused company a lot of troubles.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15032/intel-2019-fab-update-10nm-hvm-7nm-on-track Published October 28, 2019.

Now, if myths and conspiracy theories were my thing, I know exactly which of those two articles I would be taking serious enough to be putting my reputation on on a tech forum.
 

maddie

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2010
2,982
1,567
136
So this is basically what all this boils down to folks..... one party is basing their argument on this hysterical piece that can't even pass for a forum post without drawing all kinds of infractions (and they call it an article lol)


https://semiaccurate.com/2019/10/29/intels-actions-on-10nm-are-telling/ Published October 29, 2019.

VS



https://www.anandtech.com/show/15032/intel-2019-fab-update-10nm-hvm-7nm-on-track Published October 28, 2019.

Now, if myths and conspiracy theories were my thing, I know exactly which of those two articles I would be taking serious enough to be putting my reputation on on a tech forum.
Will you accept as a fact the statement that 'Intel has repeatedly over a multi year period, misled (lied?) on the state of their 10nm tech? If yes, then why should we now blindly accept this?
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
967
384
136
Will you accept as a fact the statement that 'Intel has repeatedly over a multi year period, misled (lied?) on the state of their 10nm tech? If yes, then why should we now blindly accept this?
Because Icelake and server chips based on the same core are not based on an "unfixable" process. The new 10nm fab in Chandler is not going to be producing unfixable silicon. At some point, the evidence becomes plain enough to warrant acceptance. 10nm hasn't proven easy to tame but if someone is going to pull it off it's Intel. They've staked their reputation on it and they're finally delivering.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
7,461
951
126
Because Icelake and server chips based on the same core are not based on an "unfixable" process. The new 10nm fab in Chandler is not going to be producing unfixable silicon.
Icelake Server is unlikely to be sold in any volume. The hope was more that Saphhire Rapids would be using small enough chiplets to make it work. But no guarantees on that.

Given the client shortages, it would make sense to expand 10 nm a bit to help ease the shortage and also deal with Cooper Lake hogging up the 14 nm wafers.
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,016
822
106
So this is basically what all this boils down to folks..... one party is basing their argument on this hysterical piece that can't even pass for a forum post without drawing all kinds of infractions (and they call it an article lol)


https://semiaccurate.com/2019/10/29/intels-actions-on-10nm-are-telling/ Published October 29, 2019.

VS



https://www.anandtech.com/show/15032/intel-2019-fab-update-10nm-hvm-7nm-on-track Published October 28, 2019.

Now, if myths and conspiracy theories were my thing, I know exactly which of those two articles I would be taking serious enough to be putting my reputation on on a tech forum.
You said it with your own words. It boilds down to this: you take Intel's word for it. Having this information, your comment means literally nothing to me, when it comes to Intel's 10nm process(es). I could just as well read the transcript of their press conferences and have the exact same value of info you just gave me: zero.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,621
964
136
I hope they do actually ship 10nm parts. I'm sure they will at some point. And I look forward to the reviews when they are finally out the door, and in the wild. But I don't really have a lot of faith in their press releases.
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,016
822
106
Because Icelake and server chips based on the same core are not based on an "unfixable" process. The new 10nm fab in Chandler is not going to be producing unfixable silicon. At some point, the evidence becomes plain enough to warrant acceptance. 10nm hasn't proven easy to tame but if someone is going to pull it off it's Intel. They've staked their reputation on it and they're finally delivering.
Delivering. Hardwareunboxed's test of an Ice Lake laptop vs many others. Result: the Ice Lake chip has very strong single-threaded performance (has to do nothing with the process node). It also does an utter shame of a showing regarding power efficiency. It has no chance in multi-threaded tests vs the other Intel chips in the same power envelope. Wins only in 2 tests, which are ST heavy Adobe software. Please tell me, what is Intel delivering finally? Do you even know what were the charachteristics of their 10nm process supposed to be?

Edit: To express my opinion clearly: they sure killed that 10nm. It's like Charlie told you, that you wouldn't go to the grocery store to do the weekly food run. Then you struggle to go, you get a plastic bag from somewhere, put 2 cans of beans in ot, give it to Charlie and call him a liar.

Video of the testing:
 
Last edited:

ondma

Senior member
Mar 18, 2018
935
195
86
Guys... I don't wanna accuse you both of being illiterate or trolling, but I don't really have any more ideas. You're quoting a paragraph out of an article and deliberately 'forgetting' what the article states: not just the 10nm process is a failure, but Intel dug themselves into an even deeper hole trying to spin some life into 'a kind of a 10nm' process, instead of cutting their losses, coming back in 2021-2022 with a realisticly designed and obviously very good 7nm process (it's Intel after all, ffs!), and in the meantime leveraging their amazing 14nm achievements (they are really very-very impressive).

You know what? You're right. Charlie admitted he was wrong. Intel didn't kill their 10nm process.... they did something MUCH WORSE with it.
I also hope you're both gonna reply to my post with quoting only this: 'You know what? You're right"

:)
Dream on pal.
 

uzzi38

Senior member
Oct 16, 2019
546
538
96
Because Icelake and server chips based on the same core are not based on an "unfixable" process. The new 10nm fab in Chandler is not going to be producing unfixable silicon. At some point, the evidence becomes plain enough to warrant acceptance. 10nm hasn't proven easy to tame but if someone is going to pull it off it's Intel. They've staked their reputation on it and they're finally delivering.
So amongst the facts that:

- The ICL-U silicon that only appears in a couple of dozen of devices, the vast majority of which contain only a half working iGPU and clocks of real products still don't break 4GHz.

- Cooper Lake exists with 56 cores.

- Rocket Lake exists after Comet Lake and is even more 14nm.

- The Gen 12 die Intel were happy about powering on could only 96EUs based off of leaked benchmarks

- DG1 caps out at 128EUs

You guys think 10nm is fine. Seriously, what proof exactly do you have of that?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
14,656
3,608
136
I hope they do actually ship 10nm parts. I'm sure they will at some point. And I look forward to the reviews when they are finally out the door, and in the wild. But I don't really have a lot of faith in their press releases.
Seconded. Intel needs working 10nm in 2020/2021 badly, at least to help them limp into the 7nm era which may not really begin until 2022. And I'm still looking forward to the possibility of 10nm client Xe dGPUs in 2020 even though I'm not holding my breath waiting for it. If the only thing Intel has to offer the market in significant quantity is Cooper Lake and Rocket Lake, then they're in for a shellacking. It will be bad for all of us . . . even AMD fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,529
2,921
136
Seconded. Intel needs working 10nm in 2020/2021 badly, at least to help them limp into the 7nm era which may not really begin until 2022. And I'm still looking forward to the possibility of 10nm client Xe dGPUs in 2020 even though I'm not holding my breath waiting for it. If the only thing Intel has to offer the market in significant quantity is Cooper Lake and Rocket Lake, then they're in for a shellacking. It will be bad for all of us . . . even AMD fans.
They still have room to maneuver. Even on short term, the simple change they're rumored to introduce with Comet Lake should help alleviate their desktop woes, especially in the $200-$300 range. That is, assuming the i3 4c/8t & i5 6c/12t rumor is true.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,406
752
126
Are you really think, that AMD should sell better performing CPUs like TR3 for the same money or even less than TR2?
The bigger issue is that they aren't offering any cheap entry into the platform. It's simply too expensive even for enthusiast and x570 can for some uses cases be limiting (pcie lanes or memory channels).
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
19,800
7,189
136
The bigger issue is that they aren't offering any cheap entry into the platform. It's simply too expensive even for enthusiast and x570 can for some uses cases be limiting (pcie lanes or memory channels).
The 1950x started at $1000. This has 50% more cores, and its not $1500, but $1400, so its less per core than its previous generation and faster.

And if you could afford $1000 2 years ago, $1400 for even a faster proccessor is not bad.
 

yeshua

Member
Aug 7, 2019
125
49
61
itvision.altervista.org
New Tigerlake Geekbench result has just leaked: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/633904

For a more detailed analysis - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/633904.gb5
Actually two results have been published so far.

Given linear scaling the results at 3.9GHz would be impressive 1423 GB5 points which is nothing to sneeze at since it's most likely preproduction silicone. 1065G7 running at 3.9GHz reaches ~1325 points. Multicore results can't be multiplied the same way of course due to thermal constraints.
 

Adonisds

Member
Oct 27, 2019
80
30
51
Why do they care about their stock prices enough to do these 10nm paper launches? Even assuming they have to care, wouldn't paper launches only help the stock prices in the short term, and hurt in the medium term because it's highly inefficient and results in losses building 10nm chips with terrible yields and then having to bribe OEMs to launch them?
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
14,656
3,608
136
Are you really think, that AMD should sell better performing CPUs like TR3 for the same money or even less than TR2?
It's more like . . . if Intel had a competitive product, AMD's prices couldn't creep upwards like that.

New Tigerlake Geekbench result has just leaked: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/633904

For a more detailed analysis - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/633904.gb5
What's with the 398 MHz clocks? No wonder the scores are so low.

Why do they care about their stock prices enough to do these 10nm paper launches? Even assuming they have to care, wouldn't paper launches only help the stock prices in the short term, and hurt in the medium term because it's highly inefficient and results in losses building 10nm chips with terrible yields and then having to bribe OEMs to launch them?
Short-term thinking is endemic in American board rooms. There's probably other, more-specific reasons. But for now, Intel has to save face and keep up that stock price.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY