• 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 208 - 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
3,518
2,898
136
Taking away his exaggeration, what’s the more reasonable performance estimate?
The numbers witeken mentioned may not be far off, based on the fact that RKL is a CML successor. Any further flagship product will need to beat 10c/20t in ST performance, MT performance, or both.

So we know RKL is 8c/16t, and we know MT performance must be at least equal to CML 10t/20t. That means RKL must somehow make up for a 20% core count deficit, which in turn requires 25% more performance per core. It's unlikely it will clock higher under heavy workloads, so we're looking at 25% IPC uplift just to match CML. And here we are, right in the middle of witeken's 20-30% IPC estimate.

Having said that, Intel needs to design the **** out of this 14nm port to make a worthwhile product against their own 2019 2020 SKUs. (in terms of MT perf)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7 and SAAA

SAAA

Senior member
May 14, 2014
430
45
91
That: 25% better IPC is a plausible average after 5 years of wait. Golden cove would have been better but they have to keep something for the 10 or 7 nm node jump, right?.

Also If anyone here seriously believes a full backport of Willow isn't possible to do and won't reach 5GHz on 14nm +++ they are wrong. I mean every single arch Intel did worked on -two- nodes at every time:

- Sandy Bridge 32 nm then Ivy Bridge 22 nm
- Haswell 22 nm then Broadwell 14 nm
- Skylake 14 nm then… uhh... Cannonlake 10 nm

They were all mostly forward ports to a new node, with some minor changes or addition to the core itself.

Skylake on 10 nm, Cannonlake, clocked risibly and yielded even worst meanwhile on 14 nm +++ it's pulling 5.3 GHz and 10 cores dices with Comet lake. Yes, Icelake is faster, Tiger lake even more but they are on 10 nm +/++.
Is there any reason for why a backport, on a relaxed node and with less hotspots won't clock as well? It's all better except for power and area consumption, the only reason to move back to 8 cores honestly.
Think like if they backported Haswell on 32 nm: it would have clocked to 5GHz as easy as Sandy… sure AVX2 would have burned terawatts then, but on desktop who cares if you get top performance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: yeshua

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
7,452
948
126
The numbers witeken mentioned may not be far off, based on the fact that RKL is a CML successor. Any further flagship product will need to beat 10c/20t in ST performance, MT performance, or both.
I will say that is not entirely true. Intel could have cut back to 8 cores because of the shortage and because they decided against 10 cores in mobile. Of course the shortage should be gone because of the virus but when Intel started they wouldn't have known that obviously. It would mean a tatical retreat from DIY but it's not like they haven't already done that from not supplying the market for several months now. Need to see how big the Comet Lake-S supply ends up being.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,404
743
126
I will say that is not entirely true. Intel could have cut back to 8 cores because of the shortage and because they decided against 10 cores in mobile. Of course the shortage should be gone because of the virus but when Intel started they wouldn't have known that obviously. It would mean a tatical retreat from DIY but it's not like they haven't already done that from not supplying the market for several months now. Need to see how big the Comet Lake-S supply ends up being.
Yeah your reasoning does make some sense but I'm still doubtful.

That's not the all-core turbo for Comet Lake-S. Not even the 10900K. Care to guess how much power it'll burn doing that?

I think there's far too much optimism surrounding Rocket Lake-S.
Theoretically it could be golden/willow cove on 14nm without AVX512 or very high avx offset. After all intel did made a point that willow cove and forward will be more decoupled from process. That was in fall 2018 if I remember correctly. So RKL end of 2020-early 2021 would fit into such a planning rather well. Still if that is the case I wonder what took intel that long to backport. It seems a little late and I can only think that intel has limited 10nm and will use that for server and mobile only. Desktop might actually never see a 10nm product (best case scenario) or intel starts to shift desktop one node behind everything else (worst case scenario).
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
14,592
3,559
136
Theoretically it could be golden/willow cove on 14nm
Most early bets were Sunny Cove. I would be shocked if it were Golden. Willow seems like the best-case.

After all intel did made a point that willow cove and forward will be more decoupled from process.
Saying that publicly doesn't mean it's a slam dunk development-wise. Intel is struggling to launch Comet Lake-S on time. It's going to be 5 months late, and they aren't even using a new core design. That gives me little to no confidence that Rocket Lake-S will hit the streets in January 2021. If it is also 5 months late, that would put it in June 2021, which would be dangerously close to a Q4 Alder Lake-S launch. Assuming that isn't also late. If Intel can launch Alder Lake-S with something other than embarassingly low volumes in Oct. 2021, launching Rocket Lake-S in June 2021 makes almost no sense. Might as well pull the plug on the entire thing by that point.
 

SAAA

Senior member
May 14, 2014
430
45
91
That's not the all-core turbo for Comet Lake-S. Not even the 10900K. Care to guess how much power it'll burn doing that?

I think there's far too much optimism surrounding Rocket Lake-S.
As long as Intel themselves binned the cores to reach 5.3 GHz each stable there's no reason to believe anyone won't just turn on MCE or overclock and let it burn 300W at 5.3 all core. If it's too hot maybe pull down to 5.2 or 5.1 but it's all about cooling then. If the same motherboards are supporting 8 cores Rocket Lake they'll be beefy enough to power it, maybe I'm wrong and it ends up with 4.5GHz all core for most but that would make it still much faster in single thread and pretty close in multi to a 10 core granddad. The single core turbo bin will tell us once we hear it: every single CPU over the last 10 years could be overclocked to match it under all core operations, if we hear of a 4.x or 5.x turbo someone will run it at that speed regardless of power.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
14,592
3,559
136
As long as Intel themselves binned the cores to reach 5.3 GHz each stable there's no reason to believe anyone won't just turn on MCE or overclock and let it burn 300W at 5.3 all core.
Yeah that's what I figured would be the power draw. Go go custom water.
 

witeken

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2013
3,874
149
106
In any case, time is still a bit of an issue if they started in 2019.
The presentation that contained the Tweakers Rocket Lake roadmap dates from ~Jan/Feb'19. The roadmap itself could even be from 2018. So they likely did not start in 2019.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coercitiv

uzzi38

Senior member
Oct 16, 2019
524
470
96
The presentation that contained the Tweakers Rocket Lake roadmap dates from ~Jan/Feb'19. The roadmap itself could even be from 2018. So they likely did not start in 2019.
That same roadmap listed 10 cores for Rocket Lake if memory serves me correctly.

Clearly it went through some changes.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,518
2,898
136
That same roadmap listed 10 cores for Rocket Lake if memory serves me correctly.

Clearly it went through some changes.
The point was Intel was likely already talking to clients about RKL in 2018. Why start work on it later in 2019?
 

inf64

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2011
2,941
1,359
136
The point is that 14nm 8C/10C even based on a Golden Cove will not be competitive Vs 16C(+) Zen3 derivatives on 7nm+. It will be brutally bad in perf./watt if intel clocks it high enough to get the ST parity and brutally bad in just overall performance if intel clocks it low to constrain power draw issues. We are talking about a core that was targeted at 10nm or even 7nm and backporting it to 14nm. It will be HUGE on 14nm - TGL 4C with iGPU is 150mm^2 , imagine 8 TGL cores with bigger iGPU but on 14nm, yikes.
 

Zucker2k

Senior member
Feb 15, 2006
967
384
136
The point is that 14nm 8C/10C even based on a Golden Cove will not be competitive Vs 16C(+) Zen3 derivatives on 7nm+. It will be brutally bad in perf./watt if intel clocks it high enough to get the ST parity and brutally bad in just overall performance if intel clocks it low to constrain power draw issues. We are talking about a core that was targeted at 10nm or even 7nm and backporting it to 14nm. It will be HUGE on 14nm - TGL 4C with iGPU is 150mm^2 , imagine 8 TGL cores with bigger iGPU but on 14nm, yikes.
Well, either Intel is bluffing or they've done the math and the backport checks all the relevant numbers. 14nm is not a magic node, however, if there's ever a process that could deliver, it's it. I'm just waiting patiently to see the RKL-S chip drop, and by Jove, I'd be very surprised if that 8 core chip doesn't best the 10900K in both single/multithread, as well as gaming. Otherwise, what's the use in releasing such a chip? They'd be better off sticking to the CML-S and slashing prices until next year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coercitiv

inf64

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2011
2,941
1,359
136
Well, either Intel is bluffing or they've done the math and the backport checks all the relevant numbers. 14nm is not a magic node, however, if there's ever a process that could deliver, it's it. I'm just waiting patiently to see the RKL-S chip drop, and by Jove, I'd be very surprised if that 8 core chip doesn't best the 10900K in both single/multithread, as well as gaming. Otherwise, what's the use in releasing such a chip? They'd be better off sticking to the CML-S and slashing prices until next year.
Maybe intel figured out that RKL is just better than CML-S, who knows. I think that chances are that 8C RKL-S being better than 10C CML-S are big, BUT the chip will be huge and I'm doubtful about performance draw of such a behemoth as TGL core on 14nm with all that cache will be just huge. I guess we will have to wait and see, it wouldn't surprise me to see AMD even delay Zen3 parts to 2021 due to this virus outbreak crisis.
 

SAAA

Senior member
May 14, 2014
430
45
91
The point is that 14nm 8C/10C even based on a Golden Cove will not be competitive Vs 16C(+) Zen3 derivatives on 7nm+. It will be brutally bad in perf./watt if intel clocks it high enough to get the ST parity and brutally bad in just overall performance if intel clocks it low to constrain power draw issues. We are talking about a core that was targeted at 10nm or even 7nm and backporting it to 14nm. It will be HUGE on 14nm - TGL 4C with iGPU is 150mm^2 , imagine 8 TGL cores with bigger iGPU but on 14nm, yikes.
What would work better then after Comet lake 10 core: a 12 core with same speeds or a 10 core-5.4 GHz Lava lake extreme ultimate edition?
They could choose to lose on both ST and MT performance or have a chance to get ST lead again, assuming Zen 3 doesn't manage 5GHz boosts, not to talk fixing a lot of security issues in one move with the new arch.

The iGPU will be a bit smaller if they use 32EUs on desktop rather than 96 like mobile TGL, even backported on 14 nm it would be roughly the same area as current IGPs.

7700 is 125 mm^2, 8700 is 151 mm^2 and 9900k is 177 mm^2. The soon to be released 10900k will probably fall in the 200-205 mm^2 range, that's ~13 mm^2 for each additional core on average.

Even with +40% transistors for each core a Willow cove core would end up about 18 mm^2 on 14 nm, the delta is 5 mm^2, times 8 cores makes 40 additional mm^2.

Rocket lake without additional IO and features over Comet Lake could end up between 215 to 225 mm^2.
IMHO a plausible and better choice than a 225 mm^2, 12 core Skylake with inferior ST performance.
 

dmens

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2005
1,914
138
106
So we know RKL is 8c/16t, and we know MT performance must be at least equal to CML 10t/20t. That means RKL must somehow make up for a 20% core count deficit, which in turn requires 25% more performance per core
I think your use of the word "must" is fundamentally flawed in this case. :grinning:
 
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
14,592
3,559
136
Well, either Intel is bluffing or they've done the math and the backport checks all the relevant numbers.
. . . or they're desperate, Rocket Lake-S will not meet expectations, and they'll mothball claiming the launch would be too close to Alder Lake-S to be justifiable.
 

exquisitechar

Senior member
Apr 18, 2017
336
300
106
Well, either Intel is bluffing or they've done the math and the backport checks all the relevant numbers. 14nm is not a magic node, however, if there's ever a process that could deliver, it's it. I'm just waiting patiently to see the RKL-S chip drop, and by Jove, I'd be very surprised if that 8 core chip doesn't best the 10900K in both single/multithread, as well as gaming. Otherwise, what's the use in releasing such a chip? They'd be better off sticking to the CML-S and slashing prices until next year.
Rocket Lake-S is probably an afterthought, Rocket is more important in laptops. After all these years, 14nm (which make up the vast majority of Intel’s volume) parts get a meaningful improvement and new features, which is much needed for Intel when AMD is releasing Renoir and even more competitive parts down the line. On desktop you also get new features and better ST performance than CML-S even if it’s 8 cores, and RKL-S will be flat out superior when it comes to CPUs with 8 or less cores (most of the market). AMD is currently unbeatable when it comes >8 core “mainstream” desktop parts/MT performance, maybe Intel has just given up on that market for now.

I don’t deny the possibility of >=10900K MT performance, but I’m not convinced by this reasoning. Reading docTB’s comments on RKL, I think that people who expect a WC backport with 25% higher IPC than CML and similar clock speeds are in for a disappointment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spursindonesia

mopardude87

Senior member
Oct 22, 2018
991
287
96
Consumers still expect competitive products from Intel? 🤪
I am almost hoping Comet can compete with 3000 series, i do think the 4000 series will have people forgetting Comet in a hurry though. All i care about by end of year is having a 8c/16t chip whichever is fastest in gaming assuming a game warrants a upgrade from my current 7700k. I won't pay a huge premium for it, but if your chip is going to be hotter then Hades and be on 14nm, that thing better at least be priced competitively. I doubt it will but who knows. I got all year to wait, good things come to those who wait.
 

mikk

Platinum Member
May 15, 2012
2,630
547
136
From sharkbay:

Rocket Lake Processor 14nm
UP3 BGA1540 15W 6C/GT1
S LGA1200 35W~125W 8C/GT1

AVX2 / AVX-512 : YES
1st/2nd level cache : 48/32 KB, 0.5MB


Tiger Lake Processor 10nm
UP4 BGA1598 9W 4C/GT2
UP3 BGA1499 15~28W 4C/GT2
H BGA1787 45W 8C/GT1

AVX2 / AVX-512 : YES
1st/2nd level cache : 48/32 KB, 1.25MB


As for RKL this is Sunny Cove L1/L2 Cache size not Willow Cove, so either they have downscaled the RKL Willow Cove cache size or it is a Sunny Cove port.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
14,592
3,559
136
H BGA1787 45W 8C/GT1
I'm still very skeptical about this part. That never showed up on even the most-optimistic of Intel roadmaps. Great for them if it's real.

As for RKL this is Sunny Cove L1/L2 Cache size not Willow Cove, so either they have downscaled the RKL Willow Cove cache size or it is a Sunny Cove port.
The plot thickens.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY