Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

[DrMrLordX]

In short, it is classic paper lounch.

It's not really a paper launch if they have the chips ready to meet demand on launch day, or at least can ship in volume (assuming they find demand like AMD did with Vermeer; you can't say Vermeer was a paper launch just because it was sold out). That they choose to meet the needs of a narrow segment of the market does say something about the total volume they intend to ship.

 

[jpiniero]

Intel Launches Xeon W-3300: Ice Lake for Workstations, up to 38 Cores

www.anandtech.com

Intel launches the Ice Lake Xeon W. Goes up to 38 cores but Intel is mainly focusing on the 32 core. Also confirms the low frequency possible on Ice Lake - the top 4 top out at 4 Ghz.

 

[Racan]

Tiger Lake i9 11900KB tested inside the Beast Canyon NUC. Hardware Canucks also compared it to a desktop i9-11900K cooled by a Noctua NH-U12S:

 

[mikk]

In short, it is classic paper lounch.

95 percent of users do not need the most expensive motherboards, and especially not the most expensive CPU models.

Intel Alder Lake S Launch - Only Enthusiast CPUs and Z690 Chipset between Oct. 25 and Nov. 19 in 2021, the rest is coming later | igor´sLAB

Disclaimer: The following article is machine translated from the original German, and has not been edited or checked for errors. Thank you for understanding!

www.igorslab.de

It's certainly not a paper launch if we can buy K models only this year, a lot of people will be happy with that. Also this was already known from some leaked roadmaps or Moore's Law Is Dead that we will only get K-models this years. The rest will follow in Q1 2022, this is nothing new.

 

[lobz]

It's certainly not a paper launch if we can buy K models only this year, a lot of people will be happy with that. Also this was already known from some leaked roadmaps or Moore's Law Is Dead that we will only get K-models this years. The rest will follow in Q1 2022, this is nothing new.

Exactly. By that logic, Zen 3 would also have been a paper launch. Launching with the K series is completely fine.

The real question will be the availability. X299 was a paper launch even after almost a year. Hopefully ADL will be _actually_ available for Christmas. I can't wait for all the Christmas tales of ADL taking down Zen3 Not having anything 'new' for the holiday season is a big-big, or rather a HUGE miss from AMD, regardless of what they can (or can't) bring in the near future. Any sort of announcement or communication trick won't cut it.

Edit: I wanna ask this again - where the heck is @Zucker2k or @eek2121 again, when I'm criticizing AMD?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Edit: I wanna ask this again - where the heck is @Zucker2k or @eek2121 again, when I'm criticizing AMD?

Something something @ShintaiDK something something eh I got nuthin

 

[repoman27]

I added the new Xeon W-3300 parts to a list of Ice Lake server SKUs I had in order to get a better idea of where they slot into the stack. Figured I'd post it here in case anyone else finds it useful.

Segment	SKU	Cores	Base (GHz)	Single Core Turbo (GHz)	All Core Turbo (GHz)	Cache (MB)	TDP (Watts)	Support for Intel Optane Persistent Memory 200 Series	Intel SGX Enclave Capacity (Per Processor)	Recommended Customer Pricing (USD)	Stepping
Xeon Platinum	8380	40	2.3	3.4	3.0	60	270	Yes	512 GB	$8,099	D2
Xeon Platinum	8368Q	38	2.6	3.7	3.3	57	270	Yes	512 GB	$6,743	D2
Xeon Platinum	8368	38	2.4	3.4	3.2	57	270	Yes	512 GB	$6,302	D2
Xeon Platinum	8362	32	2.8	3.6	3.5	48	265	Yes	64 GB	$5,448	D2
Xeon Platinum	8360Y	36	2.4	3.5	3.1	54	250	Yes	64 GB	$4,702	D2
Xeon W	3375	38	2.5	4.0	3.3	57	270	No		$4,499	D2
Xeon Platinum	8352S	32	2.2	3.4	2.8	48	205	Yes	512 GB	$4,046	D2
Xeon Platinum	8358	32	2.6	3.4	3.3	48	250	Yes	64 GB	$3,950	D2
Xeon Platinum	8358P	32	2.6	3.4	3.2	48	240	Yes	8 GB	$3,950	D2
Xeon Platinum	8352M	32	2.3	3.5	2.8	48	185	Yes	64 GB	$3,864	D2
Xeon W	3365	32	2.7	4.0	3.5	48	270	No		$3,499	D2
Xeon Platinum	8352Y	32	2.2	3.4	2.8	48	205	Yes	64 GB	$3,450	D2
Xeon Platinum	8352V	36	2.1	3.5	2.5	54	195	Yes	8 GB	$3,450	D2
Xeon Gold	6348	28	2.6	3.5	3.4	42	235	Yes	64 GB	$3,072	D2
Xeon Platinum	8351N	36	2.4	3.5	3.1	54	225	Yes	64 GB	$3,027	D2
Xeon Gold	6338N	32	2.2	3.5	2.7	48	185	Yes	64 GB	$2,795	D2
Xeon Gold	6338T	24	2.1	3.4	2.7	36	165	Yes	64 GB	$2,742	M1
Xeon Gold	6338	32	2.0	3.2	2.6	48	205	Yes	64 GB	$2,612	D2
Xeon Gold	6314U	32	2.3	3.4	2.9	48	205	Yes	64 GB	$2,600	D2
Xeon Gold	6342	24	2.8	3.5	3.3	36	230	Yes	64 GB	$2,529	M1
Xeon W	3345	24	3.0	4.0	3.7	36	250	No		$2,499	D2
Xeon Gold	6354	18	3.0	3.6	3.6	39	205	Yes	64 GB	$2,445	D2
Xeon Gold	6346	16	3.1	3.6	3.6	36	205	Yes	64 GB	$2,300	D2
Xeon Gold	6334	8	3.6	3.7	3.6	18	165	Yes	64 GB	$2,214	M1
Xeon Gold	6330N	28	2.2	3.4	2.6	42	165	Yes	64 GB	$2,029	D2
Xeon Gold	6336Y	24	2.4	3.6	3.0	36	185	Yes	64 GB	$1,977	M1
Xeon Gold	6330	28	2.0	3.1	2.6	42	205	Yes	64 GB	$1,894	D2
Xeon Gold	5320T	20	2.3	3.5	2.9	30	150	Yes	64 GB	$1,727	M1
Xeon Gold	5318S	24	2.1	3.4	2.6	36	165	Yes	512 GB	$1,667	M1
Xeon Gold	5320	26	2.2	3.4	2.8	39	185	Yes	64 GB	$1,555	M1
Xeon Gold	6312U	24	2.4	3.6	3.1	36	185	Yes	64 GB	$1,450	M1
Xeon Gold	5318N	24	2.1	3.4	2.7	36	150	Yes	64 GB	$1,375	M1
Xeon Gold	6326	16	2.9	3.5	3.3	24	185	Yes	64 GB	$1,300	M1
Xeon W	3335	16	3.4	4.0	3.7	24	250	No		$1,299	M1
Xeon Gold	5318Y	24	2.1	3.4	2.6	36	165	Yes	64 GB	$1,273	M1
Xeon Silver	4316	20	2.3	3.4	2.8	30	150	No	8 GB	$1,002	M1
Xeon Gold	5317	12	3.0	3.6	3.4	18	150	Yes	64 GB	$950	M1
Xeon W	3323	12	3.5	3.9	3.7	21	220	No		$949	M1
Xeon Gold	5315Y	8	3.2	3.6	3.5	12	140	Yes	64GB	$895	M1
Xeon Silver	4314	16	2.4	3.4	2.9	24	135	Yes	8 GB	$694	M1
Xeon Silver	4310T	10	2.3	3.4	2.9	15	105	No	8 GB	$555	M1
Xeon Silver	4310	12	2.1	3.3	2.7	18	120	No	8 GB	$501	M1
Xeon Silver	4309Y	8	2.8	3.6	3.4	12	105	No	8 GB	$501	M1

D2 stepping is 40C XCC, M1 stepping is 28C HCC.

 

[Asterox]

Ok, it could be worse.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1420993036423684096

 

[JoeRambo]

That's not even bad tho? Less SKUs means more chips in SKUs that matter to enthusiasts. What's the point to release whole lineup when mfg is limited and top of the line chips are unavailable?
I would not have minded if AMD had 5950x available earlier at the cost of lower tier CPUs that are of no interest to me personally?

 

[Asterox]

That's not even bad tho? Less SKUs means more chips in SKUs that matter to enthusiasts. What's the point to release whole lineup when mfg is limited and top of the line chips are unavailable?
I would not have minded if AMD had 5950x available earlier at the cost of lower tier CPUs that are of no interest to me personally?

Enthusiasts, blah they are in very negligible quantities or numbers.

You cant live without Intel K CPU-s, and especially for gaming with inaccessible graphics cards+crazy prices.

 

[jpiniero]

I am expecting the rest of the S lineup (and P and the Rocket Lake Refresh assuming it's true) to launch at CES.

 

[RTX2080]

I don't know if this has been posted before:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1418462625600442368

 

[TheF34RChannel]

I am on the fence here about the following: personally I have no usage for the hybrid CPU's (Alder/Meteor/whatever) but there'll come a time when my current setup won't suffice.

Hence I'm considering getting an i9-10900K 10C part and a Z590 Apex of Strix board with a fast RAM kit (not interested in DDR5 for a long while) and use that until there'll be proper enthusiast CPU's for desktop again (if ever...).

Either that of wait and see how these hybrid ones will fare in a few generations time.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I am on the fence here about the following: personally I have no usage for the hybrid CPU's (Alder/Meteor/whatever) but there'll come a time when my current setup won't suffice.

Hence I'm considering getting an i9-10900K 10C part and a Z590 Apex of Strix board with a fast RAM kit (not interested in DDR5 for a long while) and use that until there'll be proper enthusiast CPU's for desktop again (if ever...).

Either that of wait and see how these hybrid ones will fare in a few generations time.

I mean there's nothing really wrong with a 10900K if it does what you want. But there are plenty of "proper enthusiast CPUs for the desktop" on the market right now. And if you like a 10900k you'll probably be okay with an Alder Lake when you just disable the Gracemont cluster. Which, I imagine, will be possible.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

I mean there's nothing really wrong with a 10900K if it does what you want. But there are plenty of "proper enthusiast CPUs for the desktop" on the market right now. And if you like a 10900k you'll probably be okay with an Alder Lake when you just disable the Gracemont cluster. Which, I imagine, will be possible.

Oh that's absolutely possible, however I'm rather liking the 10C at high frequency idea and Alder Lake is 8C tops. I should have added that in the original post, my apologies.

 

[coercitiv]

Oh that's absolutely possible, however I'm rather liking the 10C at high frequency idea and Alder Lake is 8C tops. I should have added that in the original post, my apologies.

It amazes me just how little some people value the 40%+ IPC advantage Golden Cove will have over Skylake.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Oh that's absolutely possible, however I'm rather liking the 10C at high frequency idea and Alder Lake is 8C tops. I should have added that in the original post, my apologies.

10900k will be slower in ST and MT than 12900k with Gracemont disabled.

 

[Gideon]

It amazes me just how little some people value the 40%+ IPC advantage Golden Cove will have over Skylake.

10900k will be slower in ST and MT than 12900k with Gracemont disabled.

Yeah, going for 10900K especially when upgrading from 8700K is an odd move instead of getting Alder Lake. It will absolutely be faster even when disabling all the small cores (which I'm pretty sure can be done in BIOS)

 

[blckgrffn]

Yeah, I get the idea of scratching the itch but I'd just do what some others here did after seeing 10th gen and wretched 11th gen - get a 9900K to drop into your current board and flip the 8700k. Should be doable for $100 or less and you get a new shiny thing for a bit while you wait.

Now, I personally think the 8700K is a fine CPU. Roughly equivalent to a $200+ 10600K even today and you could have had it for what feels like forever at this point.

That's solidly in my "you can probably wait to see Ryzen 3D and ADL results" zone which I'd say is ~3600 Ryzen or better, and at 6C/12T and lots and lots mhz it fits the bill.

Plus, some people here are likely to drop sick 5950x's and 5900x's! That's the only reason I have 5800x now Oh yeah, and my son has a 8700K due to this as well

 

[trexfromouterspace]

It amazes me just how little some people value the 40%+ IPC advantage Golden Cove will have over Skylake.

1.4 * 8 = 11.2, which is obviously less than 10. Looks fine to me.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

It amazes me just how little some people value the 40%+ IPC advantage Golden Cove will have over Skylake.

With so little known right now, where does the mentioned 40% actually come from architecturally? It feels like a hopeful estimation pulled from the air that is being thrown around on the internet. It's an honest question, not making fun of anyone.

10900k will be slower in ST and MT than 12900k with Gracemont disabled.

Possibly to likely. It's the mere 8C that doesn't appeal to me. It feels like going from 6 to 8 isn't fruitful. However I realise I should be looking beyond that mere number and at the the whole thing.

Yeah, going for 10900K especially when upgrading from 8700K is an odd move instead of getting Alder Lake. It will absolutely be faster even when disabling all the small cores (which I'm pretty sure can be done in BIOS)

Thank you for the reply, that goes towards everyone by the way.

Yeah, I get the idea of scratching the itch but I'd just do what some others here did after seeing 10th gen and wretched 11th gen - get a 9900K to drop into your current board and flip the 8700k. Should be doable for $100 or less and you get a new shiny thing for a bit while you wait.

Now, I personally think the 8700K is a fine CPU. Roughly equivalent to a $200+ 10600K even today and you could have had it for what feels like forever at this point.

That's solidly in my "you can probably wait to see Ryzen 3D and ADL results" zone which I'd say is ~3600 Ryzen or better, and at 6C/12T and lots and lots mhz it fits the bill.

Plus, some people here are likely to drop sick 5950x's and 5900x's! That's the only reason I have 5800x now Oh yeah, and my son has a 8700K due to this as well

Ha ha fair enough and the 8700K is a fine chip indeed! My rush came from a 10900K Maybe becoming unavailable when Alder Lake launches. Luckily I did have the common sense to ask the more clever than me people on this forum. Your replies help greatly.

 

[IntelUser2000]

With so little known right now, where does the mentioned 40% actually come from architecturally? It feels like a hopeful estimation pulled from the air that is being thrown around on the internet. It's an honest question, not making fun of anyone.

It might sound high, but competition-wise, 40% is actually low. Rocketlake is 18% over Skylake, so to achieve 40% you need about the same gain. With variants of Zen 3 coming with amazing technologies like the V-cache Intel should be scared if that's all they achieve.

Another thing is that there's the Intel slide which say it'll be up to 20% faster in single thread. Before all the weird super high Cinebench leak, we thought it was a reasonable expectation. I personally expected/wanted 25% gains per clock with slightly lower clocks. If you believe the Cinebench leak, Golden Cove might achieve 30-35% gain over Sunny Cove!

No one outside of associates close to Intel and the Intel architects know what the gains are. Consider that Skylake is also a 5-year old architecture.

MT performance also has to be considered with Gracemont. Using them for just background tasks will be of minimal benefit. No, with Skylake+ performance and full support for AVX2 they'll be a powerful adder to MT performance.

 

[SAAA]

It might sound high, but competition-wise, 40% is actually low. Rocketlake is 18% over Skylake, so to achieve 40% you need about the same gain. With variants of Zen 3 coming with amazing technologies like the V-cache Intel should be scared if that's all they achieve.

Another thing is that there's the Intel slide which say it'll be up to 20% faster in single thread. Before all the weird super high Cinebench leak, we thought it was a reasonable expectation. I personally expected/wanted 25% gains per clock with slightly lower clocks. If you believe the Cinebench leak, Golden Cove might achieve 30-35% gain over Sunny Cove!

No one outside of associates close to Intel and the Intel architects know what the gains are. Consider that Skylake is also a 5-year old architecture.

MT performance also has to be considered with Gracemont. Using them for just background tasks will be of minimal benefit. No, with Skylake+ performance and full support for AVX2 they'll be a powerful adder to MT performance.

On one side 40% would be more than what they achieved in 5 years until Skylake, on the other hand if the Gracemont leaks are true, with Atom pushing higher than Skylake IPC on common code, then a 4 times bigger core managing maybe 40% more would look very bad.

Of course even just 30% faster single-thread and 30% higher top clocks results in far better absolute performance, but at the cost of 4 times the area and power?

From a mathematical stand point that factor should give a 100% faster core (square root of area), assume it's not really doable with a finite amount time/money/brainpower and about 25-35% is left on the table (some will be recovered with hyper-threading of course). Now it's "only" a 50-60% better core, the leak with 1.325*1.18 =1.56% faster than Skylake would fall nicely in that range.

 

[Rigg]

Alder Lake looks promising but i think delaying the release of PCIE 4.0/DDR4 motherboard chipsets untill 2022 is a blunder. I doubt early DDR5 is going to be either good, plentiful, or apropriatly priced vs good DDR4 when these initial SKU's release. In addition, PCIE5 is likely to significanlty increase the cost of the motherboards while most likely being pointless during the time period the platform will be relevent. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the crap entry level stuff on z690 costing $250ish with more capable boards being well over $300. If TDP is also being pushed (requiring more expensive cooling) the platform cost is going to be way too high. Maybe this matters less when people are willing to pay out the butt for GPU's but I don't like the trend. Hopefully they at least keep the prices competitive on the CPU's even if they have a bit of an edge.

 

[dr1337]

Alder Lake looks promising but i think delaying the release of PCIE 4.0/DDR4 motherboard chipsets untill 2022 is a blunder.

If this is true the only good reason I could imagine is that the ddr4 platform won't be specced as good as the ddr5 ones. It really does seem like doing ddr5 first is a huge missed opportunity to make a lot of money. Releasing the ddr4 boards first while also having the same socket upgrade path to ddr5 with just a mobo swap a few months down the line to me sounds like the default strategy intel would have used; a staggered release would generate many extra/repeat sales.