• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 420 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

eek2121

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2005
1,291
1,370
136
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 :D
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.
 

moinmoin

Platinum Member
Jun 1, 2017
2,771
3,669
136
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The closest is MSI Prestige 15 A10SC-014 which is slightly over 3.5 lbs, has only 6 cores and a GTX 1650 so a little outdated.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

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,252
1,063
136
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

Member
Nov 5, 2020
48
17
41
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

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,817
3,654
116
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

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,817
3,654
116
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,237
819
136
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

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
10,105
2,364
136
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

Senior member
Aug 18, 2016
331
352
136
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and uzzi38

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
6,180
3,012
136
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

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
9,482
3,950
136
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

uzzi38

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,817
3,654
116
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

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,252
1,063
136
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.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,237
819
136
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

Senior member
Aug 18, 2016
331
352
136
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

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,237
819
136
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

Senior member
Aug 18, 2016
331
352
136
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.


It's actually more significant at lower voltages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7 and mikk

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,237
819
136
I really shouldn't feed the trolls any further, but Intel showed the VF curve.


It's actually more significant at lower voltages.
And where do you think the transistors are operating at when Atom is clocked over 3ghz? Stop trolling yourself LOL
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY