- Apr 27, 2000
Technically Intel has been producing 7nm consumer CPUs since 2017. You couldn't realistically buy one though, and if you could, you'd regret it.
That's almost certainly never happening. At 4.5GHz-plus frequencies CPUs just run into serious thermal issues that can't be solved using air cooling. That's why both AMD and Intel's high clocking CPUs are using nearly 200W to do so. At 6GHz it might be 500-700W.6GHz for 5nm, maybe?
I don't believe the top clocks will impress. However, overall it looks pretty nice. Tigerlake has 10% higher clocks while its IccMax has been reduced by 15-20%.I don't have a problem with Intel's progress with TGL, at least as far as we know based on base clocks & those inventory stocks which are presumably twice the volume ICL had prior to launch.
In the short term I think you're correct. But in the long term there are many many innovations that can be implemented to mitigate heat issues. More exotic materials can be explored, and Jim Keller himself has said that Intel is investing huge amounts of research into this field, and that we'll see "interesting" things over the next decade.That's almost certainly never happening. At 4.5GHz-plus frequencies CPUs just run into serious thermal issues that can't be solved using air cooling. That's why both AMD and Intel's high clocking CPUs are using nearly 200W to do so. At 6GHz it might be 500-700W.
That doesn't change the fact that its just a waste to use that much power for so little gain.In the short term I think you're correct. But in the long term there are many many innovations that can be implemented to mitigate heat issues.
I'm not sure where all this clock speed pessimism is coming from, and I think Tiger Lake should help align expectations accordingly. My personal stake in the ground is 4.8GHz (ignoring TVB) if anyone wants a juicy quote for their signature.
No, I think the question isn't whether they'll get back to 5GHz, but rather if and when they'll go beyond that. 6GHz for 5nm, maybe?
At the very least it suggests they have some form of silicon backDoesn't the existence of PVC kits suggest that the 7nm process is well on its way?
Just around the corner - that's exactly where I'm shaking my head reading this. More than 2 years in any consumer product is really not just around the corner, otherwise Zen 4 is also just around the corner.I believe he's simply saying that because 7nm is just around the corner, 10nm's impact window is closing so it won't be as productive as their previous nodes. This makes a lot of sense, but I expect 10nm to continue improving, ala 14nm, and help carry Intel's future chip loads.
Even though 10nm has proven to be such a pain for Intel, I'm happy they didn't scrap it because I think it's the node that's positioned to combine the highest density/frequency, since it's expected that 7nm and below should not clock as high due to overall heat and hotspots arising from the higher densities. I think the positive news on 10nm in recent weeks is going to continue as Intel continues to tweak the node.
I'm leaning towards 4.3GHz being top clock for the U. Whatever it can achieve at base clocks change totally when looking at peak clocks, when looking at 4-plus GHz frequencies.*As for singlethread something in the 4.5 Ghz-4.7 Ghz range might not be too far-fetched for the upper Tigerlake-U models.
I was referring to single thread boost frequency, of course. I expect to be called an optimist for saying even that much. 4.8GHz multicore would be delusional. But we should see soon enough.Do you refer to Singlethread of multithread (sustained clock speed). As for singlethread something in the 4.5 Ghz-4.7 Ghz range might not be too far-fetched for the upper Tigerlake-U models. We have had A0/B0 stepping models with 2.7/4.3 Ghz while the recently leaked QS models have a higher base of 2.8 Ghz and 3.0 Ghz (the faster i7 ones), I have to assume the singlethread clock speed has been improved as well. As for multithread we should wait, this can vary from device to device.
I don't see that happening for several reasons. They haven't had a gap that small since they started inflating PL2. With increased competitive pressure, they have no reason to substantially reverse that trend now. Hell, if Willow Cove clocks that poorly, then AMD will undoubtably have the single thread performance crown. Even more generally speaking, such low clocks would mean a continuation of the outright pathetic performance scaling we've seen over the last half a decade or so.I expect similar to Kabylake. A 28W model has 3.5GHz base clocks and 4GHz Turbo clocks.
If...If 7nm is going to fill out the entire stack, doesn't that mean 6-7 fabs? And, in pretty short order too.
Who in their right mind would buy comet lake then?Intel i225 "Foxville" 2.5GbE PHY Has a Flaw Affecting Performance, "Rocket Lake-S" 2H-2020 Production Confirmed | TechPowerUp}
Very late Q2 2020 or Q1 2021 for Rocket Lake confirmed if this is a real slide. Article talks about production being 2H20, so release will come right at the end or after that.
In that case it'd be all the more surprising if Rocket Lake would end up even remotely on-time. I know that the board and the investors are buying the very same obvious crap since 2017's Cannon Lake from quarter to quarter, but why should we?More like it's actually on-time as opposed to Come-ith Late.
No. As of Q4'18 (Last time Intel updated this slide) Intel "only" had 3 14nm Fabs online, though I imagine pretty large fabs at that and since then they have expanded the capacity of those fabs.If 7nm is going to fill out the entire stack, doesn't that mean 6-7 fabs? And, in pretty short order too.
Almost certain I'm taking the bait here, but this is an interesting post regardless.In the realm of crazyness. Got this dropped...
Project << Starwars Moon? >>
ISA << IA-FUTURE >>
Node << Intel 5nm >>
From the later cove core to the above is the equivalent aggregate perf/watt enhancement of P5 on 0.8 μm to the later cove core. <== Other than the vague info.
5nm development has started.
5nm memories will be next.
5nm logic will be after.
5nm microarchitectures+other ip after that.
w/ the launch being a short time from now in a foundry very, very near....
Regardless, I'm going to distance myself even further from these "intel" people.
Where I found it didn't specify what Cove core it was talking about on the roadmap. Other than it was later rather than earlier, since we only know about Goldencove, I originally had Goldencove in the spot.Okay so first of all - This sounds far to good to be true. You mean the gap in perf/watt on the latest cove compared to this new super-secret architecture is better than all of the perf/watt increases from the latest Cove to the P5? First of all can you clarify what the phrase "Later cove core" means? Are we referring to Sunny, Willow, Golden, or even something later?
Anything canned between May 3, 2013 to June 21, 2018 might be back on the table. Also, compared to previous architectures this one has the most funding comparatively. The architecture is being worked on by all teams with C2DG/Haifa team being in command seat from the get-go. Rather, than build it at Folsom or Oregon and have Haifa fix it if it isn't feasible for production. It is particularly an all-in architecture, much like how AMD went with Zen.Surely the designs for Intel's 5nm architectures are way to far out to really offer any granular detail on performance metrics?
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Discussion [SA] Intel should not launch Ice Lake-SP||CPUs and Overclocking||1|
|News [Intel] Murthy is out||CPUs and Overclocking||7|
|S||Question Taiwan Report: Intel has reached an agreement with TSMC||CPUs and Overclocking||117|
|J||Question Two Intel Desktop CPUs: 2014-era Core i7 vs 2020 (current) Core i3?!||CPUs and Overclocking||9|
|J||Question Intel Q2: 7 nm in bad shape||CPUs and Overclocking||247|