• Hey there Guest! This holiday season you have a chance to win some cool AnandTech swag! Check out “The Holiday Hotlist” giveaway, which you can find here.

Intel Cannonlake, Ice Lake, Tiger Lake & Sapphire Rapid Thread

Bouowmx

Senior member
Nov 13, 2016
810
3
116

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
5,805
42
126
Nice, as long as it can be properly cooled and clocks to the moon, I'll take it.
You know, I think to do that they would have to cut the GPU to GT1. Which would be a bit strange to have the lower dies have better graphics. But they could get away with it.

So i9 = 10C20T, i7 = 8C16T, i5=6C12T, i3=4C8T. Mobile would be pretty tough though. 6 cores is really pushing it as it is.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,647
33
126
You know, I think to do that they would have to cut the GPU to GT1. Which would be a bit strange to have the lower dies have better graphics. But they could get away with it.

So i9 = 10C20T, i7 = 8C16T, i5=6C12T, i3=4C8T. Mobile would be pretty tough though. 6 cores is really pushing it as it is.
They wouldn't cut the GPU to GT1.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
5,724
56
126
It'd be over 200 mm2 if they don't do anything....
You don't have the numbers, so its purely speculation. A 9900K that shrunk in size to 50% will end up at 90mm2 or less. You can fit plenty extra in a 10nm 130-140mm2 die. And it would be a perfectly reasonable size.

I think you are counting on your belief that the 10nm won't even bring traditional 50% scaling. I think it will. Because that was their traditional scaling with new processes. They just won't have the extra over that.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,647
33
126
It'd be over 200 mm2 if they don't do anything....
Well it would be the top end SKU which they can charge more for -- exactly the 9900K playbook. If they can get paid more for a 10C part over an 8C part, why not do it?

This would also give them an easy path to upgrade the whole lineup -- i5 = 8C/8T, i7 = 10C/10T, i9 = 10C/20T.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
5,724
56
126
Well it would be the top end SKU which they can charge more for -- exactly the 9900K playbook. If they can get paid more for a 10C part over an 8C part, why not do it?
I think he's saying a GT2 Gen 11 Icelake with 10 cores will end up over 200mm2. I disagree, but he has his beliefs.

But yea, believe it or not, the iGPU is actually used as an upselling point for higher end chips. This is why the 2600K had the GT2 and 2600 GT1. So I don't believe they'll cut the "10900K" to GT1.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
5,724
56
126
Right, I forgot about that.

Still, they don't need to cut. Actually if you are talking about Intel's Gen 9 iGPUs, then GT1 will not save much without severely castrating the GPU. Maybe 10-15mm2 at most. You are overestimating the impact of extra die size. Whatever few single digit $ cost increase there is will be more than compensated by being able to upsell it.

Intel sold 296mm2 Lynnfield for the mainstream market. They still got ways to go.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,647
33
126
Right, I forgot about that.

Still, they don't need to cut. Actually if you are talking about Intel's Gen 9 iGPUs, then GT1 will not save much without severely castrating the GPU. Maybe 10-15mm2 at most. You are overestimating the impact of extra die size. Whatever few single digit $ cost increase there is will be more than compensated by being able to upsell it.

Intel sold 296mm2 Lynnfield for the mainstream market. They still got ways to go.
Summed up simply: The value that the iGPU adds for the bulk of the target markets is far more than what they'd save on manufacturing costs.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
5,805
42
126
Summed up simply: The value that the iGPU adds for the bulk of the target markets is far more than what they'd save on manufacturing costs.
I'm not saying get rid of the IGP, just cut the EU count. I don't think it would really hurt 2D performance all that much.

Intel might feel like they need to go to 10 because of competitive reasons; but I don't think there's going to be any room to raise prices any further than where the 9900K is at now. The cut would help keep the margins close to where they are now.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
5,724
56
126
I'm not saying get rid of the IGP, just cut the EU count. I don't think it would really hurt 2D performance all that much.
It won't cut 2D performance at all(putting aside the fact that any 2D reduction will be close to a failure because its such a basic feature).

You are putting too much emphasis on production cost, and margins, when its not as important as you think it is. The impact on margins will be negligible, if any because a 10 core chip is a low volume CPU. Intel will lose bigger things that way, and that is things like customers that want a GT2 GPU, and increased TTM, because 10+1 doesn't exist, and they have to create a whole new one for it.

Adding extra 2 cores is relatively easy, if you look at the 9900K die. They added an extra column of two cores. Intel clearly made it easy to do, since Skylake has the same configuration. It's foresight.
 
Last edited:

TheGiant

Senior member
Jun 12, 2017
251
8
76
please to which discrete GPU can we compare the gen11 graphics in icelake?
new interesting features?
the 6xx series iGPUs are fantastic for general crowd with the video enc/dec abilities
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
5,805
42
126
You are putting too much emphasis on production cost, and margins, when its not as important as you think it is. The impact on margins will be negligible, if any because a 10 core chip is a low volume CPU. Intel will lose bigger things that way, and that is things like customers that want a GT2 GPU, and increased TTM, because 10+1 doesn't exist, and they have to create a whole new one for it.
Have to figure the people buying the 10 core will either be using the IGP for 2D tasks or will use a discrete card.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,647
33
126
You are putting too much emphasis on production cost, and margins, when its not as important as you think it is. The impact on margins will be negligible, if any because a 10 core chip is a low volume CPU. Intel will lose bigger things that way, and that is things like customers that want a GT2 GPU, and increased TTM, because 10+1 doesn't exist, and they have to create a whole new one for it.
Margins are a function of both production cost and selling price. The error @jpiniero makes is assuming that the 10 core part wouldn't have a positive impact on what Intel could go and charge for the chips.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
5,805
42
126
Margins are a function of both production cost and selling price. The error @jpiniero makes is assuming that the 10 core part wouldn't have a positive impact on what Intel could go and charge for the chips.
I'm also factoring in Matisse when saying margins will take a hit if they don't cut something if they go to 10. Best case is that they will be able to maintain the 9900K price point. Not higher. I would think that perhaps a binned 8 core would do better; but if they feel the need to go to 10 for marketing reasons cutting the IGP would help keep the margins intact.

Remember Intel's server margins are going to be a dumpster fire post-Rome. They are not going to be in the mood to be generous in any market, especially if they don't need to.
 

NostaSeronx

Platinum Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,188
9
106
There is two new cores coming:
- Next Generation High Performance Core which is the successor to Skylake-SP. Which based on timeline is a revised Icelake core for servers set for 2020. This seronx expects four AVX512 FMA per cycle.
- Next Generation Core which uses Next Generation IA that is the successor to Intel 64 Architecture(not Itanium). This core derived from rumors I can find is set for 14-nm first, then a 10-nm shrink. Then a 2.0 core also on 10-nm, then a shrink on 7-nm. The second 10-nm core will be the one that succeeds Icelake-SP. NGC kills off the Atom cores at Intel Foundries, it also will launch with Icelake consumer as the HVM consumer product.
 
Last edited:
Jun 5, 2002
149
1
101
Isn't Keller ARM-specialist? He left AMD because they shelved K12 and focused to Zen and now is joined with Intel. Is NGC ARMV8 or only something similar?
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,647
33
126
There is two new cores coming:
- Next Generation High Performance Core which is the successor to Skylake-SP. Which based on timeline is a revised Icelake core for servers set for 2020. This seronx expects four AVX512 FMA per cycle.
- Next Generation Core which uses Next Generation IA that is the successor to Intel 64 Architecture(not Itanium). This core derived from rumors I can find is set for 14-nm first, then a 10-nm shrink. Then a 2.0 core also on 10-nm, then a shrink on 7-nm. The second 10-nm core will be the one that succeeds Icelake-SP. NGC kills off the Atom cores at Intel Foundries, it also will launch with Icelake consumer as the HVM consumer product.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
5,805
42
126
There have been rumors that Sapphire Rapids might have some amount of x86 breakage but a completely new instruction set is a bit much.

Now a couple of Intel's patents have mentioned converting from x86 (and ARM by the way) to the chip's native instruction set but I am not sure if that's not just in there for completeness.
 

Dayman1225

Senior member
Aug 14, 2017
763
6
96
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Well I can buy the modified Icelake core, because I’ve seen rumours and have been told by some people that some features were pulled into Icelake that weren’t originally meant to be there, however I don’t go around spreading this unless it becomes relevant to the conversation :p as I myself cannot confirm the validity, I very much doubt Atom being replaced though, and for them to go from 10nm to 14nm then back to 10 then 7
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
4,729
6
136
There have been rumors that Sapphire Rapids might have some amount of x86 breakage but a completely new instruction set is a bit much.
No way! I think Intel learned their lesson with Itanium. Switching to a new instruction set would be their end.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY