Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

[uzzi38]

B0 doesn't say that much, Intel launched Haswell and Skylake in C0. But even if it's final, this model could be a low end 8+8 version. In this document this ES is named Core-1800. There could be 19xx versions. On Tigerlake-H 8C the 800H SKU is the slowest clocked 8C.

11800H max 4.6 Ghz
11900H max 4.9 Ghz
11980HK max 5.0 Ghz

1800 is just because the base clock is 1800MHz. It has nothing to do with SKUs.

 

[RTX2080]

If 1800Mhz is the base clock, and 4.6 max, overall it looks a bit worrisome, maybe ES2 still has some distance to QS/retail version. I think the low base clock is mostly due to AVX512.

 

[Panino Manino]

You know what MindFactory loves? >>> the free publicity they get just from releasing sales data.

The graphics shows that the sales jumped from day 1 even before people started to notice their data.

 

[eek2121]

Sounds like you want a MacBook Pro or something, I don't think there is a Windows / Linux laptop that light, maybe the Razer Blade?

There isn't any period, the 16" MB Pro is 4.3 lbs and the 15" Razer starts at 4.6 lbs. Only the 13" MB Pro with iGPU is ~ 3 lbs

There are plenty of light laptops, just none with dedicated GPUs. That is the issue, either you get a wimpy 1-2 pounder, or you get a 5-7 pounder to carry around.

 

[Exist50]

If 1800Mhz is the base clock, and 4.6 max, overall it looks a bit worrisome, maybe ES2 still has some distance to QS/retail version. I think the low base clock is mostly due to AVX512.

Since the Atom cores are enabled, AVX-512 would presumably be disabled.

 

[moinmoin]

Personally, from either Intel OR AMD I would like to see:

1. Weight 2-3.5 lbs
2. 8 cores
3. 4K screen
4. Mobile 3060, 3070, 3080 or AMD equivalent.
5. Full keyboard (backlit)
6. 15” (better: 16” using thin bezels)
7. Decent battery life for non-gaming stuff

The closest is MSI Prestige 15 A10SC-014 which is slightly over 3.5 lbs, has only 6 cores and a GTX 1650 so a little outdated.
What's really notable when filtering on Geizhals is how there are no AMD laptops with 4K screens at all (just 3 with 2560x1600 as the highest resolution screen available). I guess that'll change in due time.

 

[mikk]

1800 is just because the base clock is 1800MHz. It has nothing to do with SKUs.

Ok fair point but regardless of this different clocked ES models do exist and until QS stage with a final CPUID clock speeds could change. I'm expecting 5.0 Ghz for the fastest ADL-S boost, it's a 5% clock speed decrease compared to RKL-S. Unless they can reach 20% increased ST with only 4.6 Ghz which I doubt.

 

[RTX]

The reviews are going to be really interesting. These chips appear to perform just as well as Zen 3. We will see how things play out. If Intel can stick with Zen 3 while not having supply issues (and while not sending prices through the roof) they may have a winner.

11400H has 6 MB disabled and still outperforms the 5900HS according to that link. 11980HK's 32EU runs at 1.45Ghz from 1.35Ghz.

 

[uzzi38]

Ok fair point but regardless of this different clocked ES models do exist and until QS stage with a final CPUID clock speeds could change. I'm expecting 5.0 Ghz for the fastest ADL-S boost, it's a 5% clock speed decrease compared to RKL-S. Unless they can reach 20% increased ST with only 4.6 Ghz which I doubt.

I'm also expecting 5-5.1GHz on the GLC cores and 3.8-4GHz on the littles. Just pointing out that the 1800 is entirely unrelated to SKU names is all.

 

[uzzi38]

Oh and as for TGL-H I'm going to wait for proper reviews. While I wouldn't be surprised at all for TGL-H to be better in gaming, I'm not going to take Intel's marketing slides at face value. That Far Cry New Dawn figure in particular has me worried, because that's a game where CML-H demolishes Cezanne already. And when I say demolish, I literally mean 20%-higher-performance-demolish.

 

[dmens]

3.8-4GHz on the littles

Seriously?

 

[uzzi38]

Seriously?

Yes.

 

[dmens]

Yes.

Why would you even expect that to be feasible given the history of Atom designs, never mind think it would a good choice for the product given the absurd power consumption it would require to clock an Atom at anywhere close to that frequency?

 

[jpiniero]

Why would you even expect that to be feasible given the history of Atom designs, never mind think it would a good choice for the product given the absurd power consumption it would require to clock an Atom at anywhere close to that frequency?

You know Intel loves benchmarks. Given we are talking about K parts the power consumption can be... a lot. The 10 nm Atoms right now can do 3.3 and this ES is doing 3.4, so 3.8-4 seems possible with unlimited power draw.

 

[Exist50]

Why would you even expect that to be feasible given the history of Atom designs, never mind think it would a good choice for the product given the absurd power consumption it would require to clock an Atom at anywhere close to that frequency?

Even Tremont on the redacted 10+ node clocks up to 3.3GHz. Process alone should be able to get Gracemont close to 4GHz.

We have a zero tolerance policy for profanity in the tech sub-forums.

Iron Woode
Super Moderator

 

[Mopetar]

Is it that unfeasible when you consider that the little/efficiency cores in mobile phones operate at 2+ GHz these days? Depending on how they're designed or what kind of power envelope they're targeting, even 3.5 GHz isn't outrageous. Even big cores can run pretty efficiently at that speed.

 

[Ajay]

Even Tremont on the redacted 10+ node clocks up to 3.3GHz. Process alone should be able to get Gracemont close to 4GHz.

I don't know why Intel would do this. These are, I thought, supposed to be low power cores.

 

[dmens]

Even Tremont on the redacted 10+ node clocks up to 3.3GHz. Process alone should be able to get Gracemont close to 4GHz.

LOL yeah good luck with that... diminishing returns and all.

 

[uzzi38]

I don't know why Intel would do this. These are, I thought, supposed to be low power cores.

When you have near unlimited power budgets (i.e. desktop) and strong competition (i.e. AMD), why wouldn't you try and squeeze out as much performance as you can?

 

[mikk]

Jasper Lake goes up to 3.3 Ghz on a much worse 10nm process. Intel highlighted ST & frequency increase for Gracemont a long time ago. With this in mind 3.8-4 Ghz isn't far-fetched for a high powered desktop SKU, especially when 1-4C Atom already goes up to 3.4 Ghz on this suspicious low clocked ES.

 

[Exist50]

LOL yeah good luck with that... diminishing returns and all.

It worked precisely that way for Willow Cove over Sunny Cove, and 10ESF should extend the process gap further.

 

[dmens]

It worked precisely that way for Willow Cove over Sunny Cove, and 10ESF should extend the process gap further.

Right, because when fixing a horribly broken process into a somewhat usable one, you can take the same quantitative improvement from that and apply it again and expect that same level of gain once more. If you really believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Also, go look at the power numbers. They stretched the bins but the power is just as high as before.

 

[Exist50]

Right, because when fixing a horribly broken process into a somewhat usable one, you can take the same quantitative improvement from that and apply it again and expect that same level of gain once more.

If you really believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Lmao, so Ice Lake -> Willow Cove went from 4.1GHz to 5.0GHz with 10+ -> 10++, but it's completely unbelievable that Tremont -> Gracement goes from 3.3 -> 4GHz with 10+ -> 10+++?

Actually, your comment implies you're not even aware that Tremont is using 10+ (ICL process).

 

[dmens]

Lmao, so Ice Lake -> Willow Cove went from 4GHz to 5GHz with 10+ -> 10++, but it's completely unbelievable that Tremont -> Gracement goes from 3.3 -> 4GHz with 10+ -> 10+++?

Actually, your comment implies you're not even aware that Tremont is using 10+ (ICL process).

Do you even know in which ways 10+ was broken? Or is everything just a linear extrapolation on one axis? Maybe transistor delay scale differently at different voltage points. Who would've thought?

Anyways, feel free to save this post, I will laugh some more when this monstrosity sees the light of day.

 

[Exist50]

Do you even know in which ways 10+ was broken? Or is everything just a linear extrapolation on one axis? Maybe transistor delay scale differently at different voltage points. Who would've thought?

Anyways, feel free to save this post, I will laugh some more when this monstrosity sees the light of day.

I really shouldn't feed the trolls any further, but Intel showed the VF curve.

Intel details the Willow Cove architecture in Tiger Lake: SuperFin transistors and better VF curves along with an official introduction to Alder Lake

On the occasion of Architecture Day, Intel delved into the underpinnings of the Willow Cove architecture that is set to debut with the Tiger Lake CPUs next month. Willow Cove will use Intel's new SuperFin process technology and will offer a much higher dynamic range in the voltage-frequency...

www.notebookcheck.net

It's actually more significant at lower voltages.