Remember RKL?
My guess: 8-12%
Haha seriously. The rumor mill and leak astrologists were just embarrassed by Rocketlake reality but they did not skip a beat doing the same ridiculous thing on Alderlake. SMH.
Remember RKL?
My guess: 8-12%
Haha seriously. The rumor mill and leak astrologists were just embarrassed by Rocketlake reality but they did not skip a beat doing the same ridiculous thing on Alderlake. SMH.
That's every rumor mill and product hype train in the history of the universe. Occasionally they manage to get one right, but they have no shame about being wrong, even if by a massive amount.
For some I suspect there's little joy even if they do manage to get it right, because it's the potential and excitement about what could be that drives people to participate and wrong or right as soon as a product launches, there's always a new hype train for the next product that's just about to depart the station.
There is no issue with a chip consuming even 200W of power as long as the 15W TDP is met (I feel like yelling at AMD, Intel, NVIDIA, shoot, anyone making "processors" for allowing this to ben open definition).
Intel Sapphire Rapids to feature up to 56 cores, 350W TDP and 64GB of HBM2 memory - VideoCardz.com
Intel 4th Gen Xeon Scalable (Sapphire Rapids) More cores, more PCIe lanes, and support for next-gen interfaces. We received an anonymous tip with a slide featuring Intel’s future Xeon platform specifications. The slide is dated, as it still lists the Ice Lake server as a 2020 product, however it...videocardz.com
There you go, 56 cores. Any other questions?
There you go. 80 cores.
Maybe you will see a 500 W off roadmap CPU?
There you go. 80 cores.
It will be up to 80 cores of SPR vs up to 96 cores of Zen 4 EPYC.
Intel's Next-Gen 10nm ESF Based Sapphire Rapids Xeon CPU Die Shot Unveils MCM Design & Up To 80 Cores In 4 Chiplets
New die shots of Intel's next-gen Sapphire Rapids Xeon CPUs have surfaced which show an MCM design that could house up to 80 cores.wccftech.com
From the WCCFTech article (for whatever that may be worth),
" With all four chiplets exposed, we can see that underneath them is a 5x4 core configuration which means each die consists of up to 80 cores. However, the entire 80 core silicon will never be released to the public due to the mesh layout."
"Theoretically, Intel's Sapphire Rapids-SP Xeon CPUs could feature a maximum of 72 cores and 144 threads but we know from previous leaks that the maximum configuration is going to end up at 56 cores and 112 threads."
There you both go, Max 72 cores, retail at 56.
80 might be what's physically there but between yields and power consumption who knows what Intel will do. That slide says 56 cores and 350 W.
Maybe you will see a 500 W off roadmap CPU?
physical evidence is 80 cores, rest is WCCF conjecture. I know which one I would rather trust
Some of the tiles might not be cores.
There are 5 * 4 surface structures visible on the photos. No doubt. However, what are those structures? To me it seems to be a (micro) bump structure not the actual silicon patterns.
Must be the micro bumps, they correlate with the leftover mess on the substrate.There are 5 * 4 surface structures visible on the photos. No doubt. However, what are those structures? To me it seems to be a (micro) bump structure not the actual silicon patterns.
Don't bother, he won't listen.It's not 80 cores, nor even 72. The structures aren't all cores.
It's not 80 cores, nor even 72. The structures aren't all cores.
At 500W Intel needs to switch their codenames to volcanoes instead of bodies of water.
The lakes are suggestive of recommended cooling.
Actually the early RKL-S IPC rumors/speculations were too pessimistic and the first subpar Geekbench entries were misleading. Some expected 10% improved IPC or something like that, in the end we got 15-20% depending on the test. Intel claimed up to 19% improved IPC, so it's clearly not a real up to figure (a real up to would involve AVX512), similar to their UHD750 up to 50% figure which turned out it's an average increase.
really nothing more than a bare minimal monitor driver for the lowest possible cost.
Hope you realize all that "IPC" talk is utterly meaningless without the additional context of power and frequency limits.
Also it does seem ironic to me for "enthusiasts" to even bother discussing the performance of an integrated graphics IP which is literally worst in class by a large margin in terms of framerate per die area and is really nothing more than a bare minimal monitor driver for the lowest possible cost.
That's really all you need. Frame rates, yes, AMD is always going to be faster just because of driver optimizations.