Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

[JoeRambo]

FYU regarding the memory, The 12900k result is with DDR5, but with standard JEDEC timings (CL40).

That is bad news for Intel actually. Cause web sites that produce results that are irrelevant for enthusiasts ( like Anandtech ) use official speeds and JEDEC timings. And those results are then used forever by forum members.

They need to sell the chip for around the same price as the 11900k.

Not sure if You are seriuos or sarcastic here, Intel will sell chip that is faster than 5950x for 11900K prices? LOL.

 

[eek2121]

That is bad news for Intel actually. Cause web sites that produce results that are irrelevant for enthusiasts ( like Anandtech ) use official speeds and JEDEC timings. And those results are then used forever by forum members.



Not sure if You are seriuos or sarcastic here, Intel will sell chip that is faster than 5950x for 11900K prices? LOL.

Yes. Intel isn’t dumb, they know AMD is going to launch a faster part before the end of the year. It won’t be close to the cost of the 5950X, that’s fore sure.

 

[exquisitechar]

Yes. Intel isn’t dumb, they know AMD is going to launch a faster part before the end of the year. It won’t be close to the cost of the 5950X, that’s fore sure.

Lol, you will be seriously disappointed by ADL-S pricing. Who cares if AMD releases a faster part, when V-Cache SKUs will be expensive too?

 

[eek2121]

Lol, you will be seriously disappointed by ADL-S pricing. Who cares if AMD releases a faster part, when V-Cache SKUs will be expensive too?

Don't even try to claim you know Intel's pricing. I know for a fact they haven't set a price yet.

 

[dr1337]

Don't even try to claim you know Intel's pricing. I know for a fact they haven't set a price yet.

And yet you're claiming that you know intel is going to price adl competitively? Sounds like you should be taking your own advice here.

 

[eek2121]

And yet you're claiming that you know intel is going to price adl competitively? Sounds like you should be taking your own advice here.

Where did I ever claim that? The only thing I’ve stated is it will cost less than the 5950X.

 

[dr1337]

Where did I ever claim that? The only thing I’ve stated is it will cost less than the 5950X.

And the other poster insinuated it would cost more and then you berated them even though both of you are just speculating. After all where did exquisitechar claim to know intels pricing?

 

[dullard]

Intel tends to pick price brackets and sticks with them, give or take a small change here and there. For example, here are all of the equivalent top i7 (_700K) models at release. Each of these are within 20% of the original 2700K price. This is usually the case for any other line (i5, i3, etc).

CPU	Price	Price Change
2700K	$ 332.00
3770K	$ 332.00	$ -
4770K	$ 339.00	$ 7.00
4790K	$ 339.00	$ -
5775C	$ 366.00	$ 27.00
6700K	$ 339.00	$ (27.00)
7700K	$ 350.00	$ 11.00
8700K	$ 359.00	$ 9.00
9700K	$ 374.00	$ 15.00
10700K	$ 374.00	$ -
11700K	$ 399.00	$ 25.00

The only times when Intel varies from this pattern is
(A) A whole new group is introduced, such as when the i9 chips were added, they were priced higher than the i7 chips.
(B) A whole new processor design comes out. For example, the P4 was a different price structure from the P3.

Will Alder lake fit into category (B)? We can only speculate, but I will assume no. If that assumption is true, then the 12700K will be similar to the 11700K in pricing probably a bit higher due to chip demand. The 12900K will probably be similar to the 11900K in pricing, etc.

 

[Mopetar]

I'm pretty sure E-cores will be energy efficient in mobile, but on the desktop their aim will be to maximize area efficiency instead.

Even if P-core is twice as power efficient than E-core at high clocks, the 4x E-core complex is still twice as area efficient.

The point I was trying to get at is that if you push anything past it's sweet spot the efficiency goes out the window.

Take Apple's M1 which delivers better performance than the Intel chips it replaced at a fraction of the power. Dump twice as much power into it and it probably doesn't get anywhere near double the performance. Maybe it's only an extra 15%. If you looked at the efficiency there it's nowhere near as impressive.

It still being area efficient means they can push it beyond the point of efficiency to try to scrape out every last bit of performance possible, but now we're talking about the chip as a whole and how it performs as opposed to the core itself.

The post I was responding to was trying to make a point that the efficiency core was less efficient than the big core. Yeah obviously if you push it beyond its limits the efficiency disappears, but that's a stupid way of looking at that core, just like trying to make statements about the efficiency of an M1 pushed to 4 GHz (or as close as it can get) as though that's the way it should be evaluated.

 

[dullard]

The point I was trying to get at is that if you push anything past it's sweet spot the efficiency goes out the window.

But how would forums operate if we considered reality? We thrive on putting our favored chip in a good light and the unfavored chip in a bad light.

 

[RanFodar]

Lol, you will be seriously disappointed by ADL-S pricing. Who cares if AMD releases a faster part, when V-Cache SKUs will be expensive too?

As far as I'm concerned, Intel will always stick to their price brackets. Why are you assuming that Intel will increase their ADL prices, if the motherboard prices will go even higher because of upgraded I/O?

 

[exquisitechar]

Intel tends to pick price brackets and sticks with them, give or take a small change here and there. For example, here are all of the equivalent top i7 (_700K) models at release. Each of these are within 20% of the original 2700K price. This is usually the case for any other line (i5, i3, etc).

CPU	Price	Price Change
2700K	$ 332.00
3770K	$ 332.00	$ -
4770K	$ 339.00	$ 7.00
4790K	$ 339.00	$ -
5775C	$ 366.00	$ 27.00
6700K	$ 339.00	$ (27.00)
7700K	$ 350.00	$ 11.00
8700K	$ 359.00	$ 9.00
9700K	$ 374.00	$ 15.00
10700K	$ 374.00	$ -
11700K	$ 399.00	$ 25.00

The only times when Intel varies from this pattern is
(A) A whole new group is introduced, such as when the i9 chips were added, they were priced higher than the i7 chips.
(B) A whole new processor design comes out. For example, the P4 was a different price structure from the P3.

Will Alder lake fit into category (B)? We can only speculate, but I will assume no. If that assumption is true, then the 12700K will be similar to the 11700K in pricing probably a bit higher due to chip demand. The 12900K will probably be similar to the 11900K in pricing, etc.

You may as well count the Alder Lake i9 as “a whole new group”, it’s a gigantic increase in MT performance compared to Rocket Lake and AMD has already set the expectations for the pricing of such a CPU with their 16 core ones being $750/800. Why do you think Intel would settle for pricing so much lower? Last time they had a significant ST/per core performance advantage while matching the core count of AMD, they released the 9900k with 2 more cores than the 8700k at a new tier entirely. Alder Lake is so much more than the 9900k, with the massive increase in the number of cores with the introduction of the P-Core/E-Core split.

Sure, the i7 flagship CPUs’ prices were more or less static for a while, but the performance increases were meager too. They kept selling 4 core CPUs that had gotten tiny and underpowered considering the node shrinks that were being achieved, at more or less 2700k prices. That was pretty nice for Intel, still. With AMD’s resurgence, they stopped doing that and we got 6, then 8 cores. However, they charged a premium over AMD for CPUs with the same number of cores right up until they no longer had the performance advantage that allowed them to do that and their roles were reversed. Considering this, I don’t see why you think they will sell highly competitive new CPUs for much less than AMD and less than what they’re really worth looking at current CPU prices.

 

[dullard]

You may as well count the Alder Lake i9 as “a whole new group”, it’s a gigantic increase in MT performance compared to Rocket Lake and AMD has already set the expectations for the pricing of such a CPU with their 16 core ones being $750/800. Why do you think Intel would settle for pricing so much lower? Last time they had a significant ST/per core performance advantage while matching the core count of AMD, they released the 9900k with 2 more cores than the 8700k at a new tier entirely. Alder Lake is so much more than the 9900k, with the massive increase in the number of cores with the introduction of the P-Core/E-Core split.

Sure, the i7 flagship CPUs’ prices were more or less static for a while, but the performance increases were meager too. They kept selling 4 core CPUs that had gotten tiny and underpowered considering the node shrinks that were being achieved, at more or less 2700k prices. That was pretty nice for Intel, still. With AMD’s resurgence, they stopped doing that and we got 6, then 8 cores. However, they charged a premium over AMD for CPUs with the same number of cores right up until they no longer had the performance advantage that allowed them to do that and their roles were reversed. Considering this, I don’t see why you think they will sell highly competitive new CPUs for much less than AMD and less than what they’re really worth looking at current CPU prices.

I have no crystal ball and I can certainly be wrong here. I can only base my assumption on three things:

1) Intel doesn't just charge for more cores. Despite what it looks like, the number of cores went from 4 to 8 on that chart, and performance more than doubled (nearly tripled in many benchmarks), yet the price was relatively constant. https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2775?vs=2659

2) Intel has already publicly claimed that 10 nm will be a low profit node. Low profit flies in the face of the concept of drastically increased prices. https://www.anandtech.com/show/15580/intel-cfo-our-10nm-will-be-less-profitable-than-22nm

3) AMD has a competitive chip now and they didn't for much of that table above.

All combined, I don't think Intel will increase prices much. They probably will raise prices ~$10 here and there. But I don't foresee massive price hikes.

 

[jpiniero]

I say it could go either way. Intel sort of raised prices quite a bit when they brought out the i9 brand because up to that point the i7 got the full die.

9700K = No HT, cut L3
10700K = 2 less cores and cut L3
11700K = Gear 2 at stock (so not much but they did also raise the MSRP by 25 bucks)
12700K = Only one small cluster, cut L3

The Alder Lake die is likely to be near Rocket Lake's size on a much worse yielding node.

 

[Hulk]

If AMD is actually making a significant dent into Intel market share then they might price ADL more competitively. On the other hand if they feel as though they are going to get the orders from Dell, Lenovo, HP, etc... then they might keep prices on the higher end of the spectrum. Of course actual ADL performance vs AMD across the stack will also figure into this logic.

 

[jpiniero]

If AMD is actually making a significant dent into Intel market share then they might price ADL more competitively. On the other hand if they feel as though they are going to get the orders from Dell, Lenovo, HP, etc... then they might keep prices on the higher end of the spectrum. Of course actual ADL performance vs AMD across the stack will also figure into this logic.

What the OEMs pay is completely separate from MSRPs.

 

[coercitiv]

The post I was responding to was trying to make a point that the efficiency core was less efficient than the big core.

And the point I was trying to make was you were both correct since you were talking about (slightly) different things. When operating with a very high power budget, the E-core will be "half" as power efficient as the P-Core but still "twice" as area efficient. (using quotes since these are very rough numbers, "for illustrative purposes only").

We need to move away from the power efficiency paradigm as a way to describe Intel hybrid approach. Area efficiency is a much better model, it fits perfectly with their design goals and will also explain the different behavior in mobile vs desktop (energy efficiency vs. maximized throughput).

Yeah obviously if you push it beyond its limits the efficiency disappears, but that's a stupid way of looking at that core

It's not stupid when that's exactly how ADL-S will operate in SKUs with 125-170W TDP. The very high power budget will allow both core types to clock past their efficiency sweet spot. With 170W TDP you get more than 9W per core. Even if you purposely skew the power allocation to the big cores, for 12W per P-core you still get 6W per E-core, meaning 24W per cluster. That's double the power density over Golden Cove, and over double the power over desktop Jasper Lake featuring 4x Tremont (10W TDP with iGPU).

Fun fact, we may end up with the E-core cluster being thermally limited before P-Cores under all-core AVX loads. Crazy stuff.

 

[dullard]

Fun fact, we may end up with the E-core cluster being thermally limited before P-Cores under all-core AVX loads. Crazy stuff.

Which is why it will be operating far below it's max frequency when fully loaded. That is, it will be much further down on the chart, into regions where it is more efficient.

 

[Hougy]

Intel tends to pick price brackets and sticks with them, give or take a small change here and there. For example, here are all of the equivalent top i7 (_700K) models at release. Each of these are within 20% of the original 2700K price. This is usually the case for any other line (i5, i3, etc).

CPU	Price	Price Change
2700K	$ 332.00
3770K	$ 332.00	$ -
4770K	$ 339.00	$ 7.00
4790K	$ 339.00	$ -
5775C	$ 366.00	$ 27.00
6700K	$ 339.00	$ (27.00)
7700K	$ 350.00	$ 11.00
8700K	$ 359.00	$ 9.00
9700K	$ 374.00	$ 15.00
10700K	$ 374.00	$ -
11700K	$ 399.00	$ 25.00

The only times when Intel varies from this pattern is
(A) A whole new group is introduced, such as when the i9 chips were added, they were priced higher than the i7 chips.
(B) A whole new processor design comes out. For example, the P4 was a different price structure from the P3.

Will Alder lake fit into category (B)? We can only speculate, but I will assume no. If that assumption is true, then the 12700K will be similar to the 11700K in pricing probably a bit higher due to chip demand. The 12900K will probably be similar to the 11900K in pricing, etc.

The price of the 2700K inflation adjusted is $395

 

[coercitiv]

Which is why it will be operating far below it's max frequency when fully loaded. That is, it will be much further down on the chart, into regions where it is more efficient.

At 5-6W per core? The i7 10900 at 65W TDP has 2.8Ghz base clocks. That's 2.8Ghz for 5-6W per core, on 14nm Skylake. For the K processors Gracemont will often sustain that max MT multi, which is rumored to be 3.6-3.7Ghz.

 

[lobz]

The price of the 2700K inflation adjusted is $395

a fair point

 

[Hulk]

What the OEMs pay is completely separate from MSRPs.

Interesting. Please explain further.

I would expect the bulk pricing Dell or HP pay for various AMD/Intel parts to be significantly less than retail, of course. What I didn't expect and don't understand is how for example, Intel could price 12900K higher for OEM's than what AMD is charging for the 5950X for OEM but charge less retail yet on the retail side have the 12900K priced lower than 5950X retail. Or vice-versa.

So assuming the 12900K and 5950X are competitors would it be possible for the 12900K to be priced higher retail than the 5950X but lower than the 5950X for OEM's?

What I'm trying to communicate is that I would expect the relative AMD/Intel pricing structure to maintain relative parity from retail to OEM sales.

But I have nothing to base this on other than my limited economic knowledge.

I'd be very interested in reading about how this actually works.

 

[eek2121]

Interesting. Please explain further.

I would expect the bulk pricing Dell or HP pay for various AMD/Intel parts to be significantly less than retail, of course. What I didn't expect and don't understand is how for example, Intel could price 12900K higher for OEM's than what AMD is charging for the 5950X for OEM but charge less retail yet on the retail side have the 12900K priced lower than 5950X retail. Or vice-versa.

So assuming the 12900K and 5950X are competitors would it be possible for the 12900K to be priced higher retail than the 5950X but lower than the 5950X for OEM's?

What I'm trying to communicate is that I would expect the relative AMD/Intel pricing structure to maintain relative parity from retail to OEM sales.

But I have nothing to base this on other than my limited economic knowledge.

I'd be very interested in reading about how this actually works.

If you sign an agreement to sell X amount of units within the next Y amount of time, you'll receive a rebate. At least that is how Intel used to do it. The rebate depends on the number of processors you sell, and the actual rebate amounts aren't privy to the public, but the discount can be significant. In the past a $350 CPU the sold moderately would cost an OEM such as Dell almost half that (around $190-$210), while in their (the OEM's) BOM they would charge you the retail price. I imagine an OEM that sells several hundred thousand 12900ks will be able to lower their ASP to around $300 or so. I do NOT expect the 12900k to cost more than $580 (and less with discount resellers like Amazon, the 11900k is $488 right now for example, but the MSRP is actually $550), but we will see. Note all after rebate are ASP (average selling price), so when you multiply that by X amount of units, it adds up pretty quickly. Note that some companies will offer you discounts for buying a large number of units, but Intel, to my knowledge (at least when I worked with them) they don't do that. Perhaps someone here works with Intel currently and can provide insight as to whether they do this.

Please note that my knowledge is pretty out of date. I got out of that game a few decades ago.

 

[lobz]

If you sign an agreement to sell X amount of units within the next Y amount of time, you'll receive a rebate. At least that is how Intel used to do it. The rebate depends on the number of processors you sell, and the actual rebate amounts aren't privy to the public, but the discount can be significant. In the past a $350 CPU the sold moderately would cost an OEM such as Dell almost half that (around $190-$210), while in their (the OEM's) BOM they would charge you the retail price. I imagine an OEM that sells several hundred thousand 12900ks will be able to lower their ASP to around $300 or so. I do NOT expect the 12900k to cost more than $580 (and less with discount resellers like Amazon, the 11900k is $488 right now for example, but the MSRP is actually $550), but we will see. Note all after rebate are ASP (average selling price), so when you multiply that by X amount of units, it adds up pretty quickly. Note that some companies will offer you discounts for buying a large number of units, but Intel, to my knowledge (at least when I worked with them) they don't do that. Perhaps someone here works with Intel currently and can provide insight as to whether they do this.

Please note that my knowledge is pretty out of date. I got out of that game a few decades ago.

No, that is absolutely not how Intel used to do it. Anyway, since they can't legally and so openly do what they used to do anymore, they have learned and got really good at going after the decision makers in a company. While still not legal in every aspect, it's like illegal prostitution - it takes two and if both individual parties are happy (who cares about the family or the state), you rarely get into official trouble.

 

[cortexa99]

Another i7-12700 result

Intel preparing Alder Lake KF-Series lacking Xe GPU, Core i7-12700 leaks again - VideoCardz.com

Six Intel 12th Gen Core CPUs spotted, including KF-Series According to a leak from Komachi, Intel will be launching a KF series based on Alder Lake silicon. The leaker has a list of upcoming Alder Lake CPUs from an unknown source. Komachi sources are usually tied to manufacturer websites or...

videocardz.com