Can you answer my question? What GPU clock did this sample run with? What memory speeds did it use? If you don't have these two substantial infos, how can you moan about the GPU score? You said the score is comparable, zero improvement. All the G1 Icelake powered DDR4 devices on Notebookcheck scored between 1500-1600, the RKL sample is 20% faster than this, this is zero for you. In general you are way too serious about these leaks.It's way slower than it should be. 64EU Gen 11 is 2x 24EU Gen 9, but a 32EU Gen 11 is 20-30% faster than 24EU Gen 9.
It's scores are comparable to 32EU Gen 11, meaning zero improvement.
Even the top leaked TGL iGPU scores are 20-25% behind the level it should be. 5800+ FS score and 1700+ TS score should be doable as a 28W part. The best TGL gets 4500 FS and 1290 TS.
Unless they want to surprise us or something its not looking very good for samples leaking this late.
Just a thought, maybe Rocketlake will mirror Prescott. Hot with little to no gains.
Can you answer my question? What GPU clock did this sample run with? What memory speeds did it use? If you don't have these two substantial infos, how can you moan about the GPU score? You said the score is comparable, zero improvement. All the G1 Icelake powered DDR4 devices on Notebookcheck scored between 1500-1600, the RKL sample is 20% faster than this, this is zero for you. In general you are way too serious about these leaks.
I see 4 scores for G1 Icelake Firestrike on NBC, 1443/1468/1614/1673. 1746 would only be about 5% faster than the Dell. Graphics is pretty similar.
Clocks and Memory Speed on the Rocket were likely low, but they would be low on the Icelake models too. I think the whole purpose of backporting Gen12 was to get the updated features than actual performance gains in IGP gaming.
Regardless all the Xe GPUs are seriously underperforming. If the reddit post is true, then they are still seriously struggling with the drivers. The compiler scheduling is both a curse and a blessing. Do it right and you save power and area, and it also encourages the developer of the hardware to make proper drivers since its such a performance critical feature. But if you screw it up, you can royally screw it up.
Using my thread as an example doesn't help your argument. First of all, I'm not an AMD fan. I'm not an obtuse moron who has some misguided allegiance to a multi billion dollar company who's only real obligation is to it's stock holders. Any preference I have toward recommending AMD to others is purely based on it's price to performance ratio. If Intel were superior in price to performance I'd happily recommend them instead.Apparently, a lot of AMD fans replace a CPU yearly (or even more often: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/my-new-ryzen-5-3600-hits-4-5-ghz-1-28v.2581268/).
Just look around on forums like this one.
I tend to look for patterns, because its often not deviated. The low Tigerlake scores were not only consistent, but even back then were not far from official unveiling. I had to conclude its pretty close to a final driver. I just had a difficult time thinking 2-3 months before a release they could possibly not have a relatively finished driver. 2-3 months before release is for polishing, not for fixing critical bugs!A month ago I told you I haven't seen a driver which is close to final. Your answer: I do not believe drivers will improve it significantly.
I tend to look for patterns, because its often not deviated. The low Tigerlake scores were not only consistent, but even back then were not far from official unveiling. I had to conclude its pretty close to a final driver. I just had a difficult time thinking 2-3 months before a release they could possibly not have a relatively finished driver. 2-3 months before release is for polishing, not for fixing critical bugs!
He also believed 2.7/4.3 is the final clock speed and we won't see a faster one which obviously wasn't correct. It isn't meaningful, he don't have more informations.Even leakers like rogame thinks the same way. He believes 4700 Firestrike is pretty close to a final score. If its truly 2x, we should be seeing close to 6000.
As I said this device might have run at 15W because of the subpar physics CPU score (25W Icelake is faster), 15W I7-1065G7 scores sub 4000. If not, something is fishy there anyways unless TGL-U is slower than Icelake.And the 6300 3DMark 11 score, sheesh, that's terrible! It should be(and I don't mean to bring memes but) 9000!
To be honest they could do this to some extend. Are you aware that most of the leaks didn't even have a CPU Turbo in these 3dmark leaks? Only a very small amount of them had a turbo. It's like they tried to hide the high Turbo as long as possible.They want to be a leader in graphics and all they can show is the same crappy drivers? Do they want us to think they are hiding the best drivers or something and giving the worst for leakers?
I'd say, a potential of almost 100% variance in the TDP is the biggest unknown factor with these comparisons right now. If it's 15W, I'll happily be the first one to say: it's a freaking beast!Looks like the I7-1165G7 device which is floating around is a DDR4 device!
I don't know what DDR4 speeds it is using but even if it's using DDR4-3200 Renoir with LPDDR4-4266 has a major benefit in these GPU tests. There are not enough details available from these leaked scores, TDP is also an unknown factor.
4.8GHz on a broken 10nm process? Impossible!!There is another entry with a 4.8 Ghz boost for the i7-1165G7. It is expected that the 4.7 or 4.8 Ghz boost is Intels Thermal Velocity Boost, this would explain the changing turbo speeds in all these entries. I wonder if the i7-1185G7 supports an even higher TVB.
Good question. However, something tells me this high of a frequency bodes well for the future of the process. I've always wanted to see Intel's process engineers tame this beast so we can see its full potential unleashed.Yea, but where are the 6 and 8 core chips. after what 3 years of modifications to the process?
Are you saying their parametric yields were fine but their functional yields were in the gutter?Frequency hasn't really been the problem, it's always been about yield. Of course if you are actually intending to sell the product, you need to make sure you get enough chips that can pass the validation.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|J||Question Intel Q4 Results||CPUs and Overclocking||152|
|Question Intel K vs. non-K CPUs||CPUs and Overclocking||25|
|T||Question How does the Intel CPU "Ring" work?||CPUs and Overclocking||15|
|G||Question Intel 12th to 13th generation performance comparison||CPUs and Overclocking||187|
|G||Question Could Texas Instruments buy Intel? Would it want to?||CPUs and Overclocking||26|