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

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,618
2,726
136
Not particularly, 8C GC cluster with 24MB L3 is "only" around 10% larger than 8C TKL with 24MB L3, way smaller than Rocket Lake by any measure.

What I mean is that GC Cores are almost double the size compared to Tiger lake Comet Lake at the same node (for example both at 14nm).

We could have a 20 Core 10900K at 10nm at the same size as current AL 8+8.
 
Last edited:

insertcarehere

Senior member
Jan 17, 2013
463
371
136
What I mean is that GC Cores are almost double the size compared to Tiger lake at the same node (for example both at 14nm).

We could have a 20 Core 10900K at 10nm at the same size as current AL 8+8.
Tiger Lake is already on the same node at Intel 10nm and GC is not double the size (~10% w/ L3 cluster) , no products with Willow Cove are out at 14nm. Maybe 20 cores Comet Lake could fit in the same size as AL 8+8 but frankly we wouldn't know since no products* with similar cores are out on 10nm.

*cannon lake excepted.
 
Last edited:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,618
2,726
136
Tiger Lake is already on the same node at Intel 10nm and GC is not double the size (~10% w/ L3 cluster) , no products with Willow Cove are out at 14nm. Maybe 20 cores Comet Lake could fit in the same size as AL 8+8 but frankly we wouldn't know since no products* with similar cores are out on 10nm.

*cannon lake excepted.
Sorry comet lake not tiger lake, my bad

Well since 10nm has almost 2x the density vs 14nm it could be made.
 

Hans Gruber

Golden Member
Dec 23, 2006
1,246
381
136
Sorry comet lake not tiger lake, my bad

Well since 10nm has almost 2x the density vs 14nm it could be made.
For what it's worth. The intel CPU's have at least 50% more chip density than the 7nm Ryzen CPU's. Intel likes to point that out. The power consumption of intel chips, that's another story.
 

arandomguy

Senior member
Sep 3, 2013
555
180
116
Seems like no information was given about the GPU. Not sure if that simply means the current K series releases are just focused on target audiences that they feel won't care or that there's essentially 0 changes over Rocket Lake.

Would've hoped for full HDMI 2.1 (4k/120hz) and an updated encode/decode bloc. Not expecting significant performance differences. On the outside chance maybe something to further help leverage the GPU as an accelerator, we're talking about hybrid architectures as the future after all.

The only thing of note I've found parsing various information is that HDMI 2.1 support is now there, however the huge caveat is that it doesn't seem to support full bandwidth as 4k is still limited to 60hz. As there is no other information I could find it's unclear what features, such as VRR, are supported.

No mention of Quick Sync in the launch slides either. So the video decode/encode bloc I guess would be unchanged from TGL/RKL.
 
Last edited:

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,724
1,354
126
I realize I am in the minority (a big minority), but I honestly wanted a 16 core/24 thread or better that was efficient. My 142 watt 5950x's are killing it in DC, and my EPYC's do geat, but the cheap ones have dried up, so now I want cheap and lots of threads. BTW, I run mine 24/7/365@100% load, so efficiency is a must.
Hell yeah, I am well aware of your beasties and find them invariably impressive, and for VERY good purpose. I'd take one MarkFW over all the miners in the world, you're putting that badass hardware to very real benefit for all of us.

I see a lot of parallels between this recent series of CPUs and the previous tit for tat eras in the industry. The 10900K and 11900K especially remind me of 'Emergency Edition' P4EE lol. A very decent uarch and mature process pushed beyond sanity in an effort to offer at least *something* against the megacore competition on better process tech, and the results were entirely questionable (arguably the only reason for them to exist was extremely poor availability of Zen3, and even then they're still poor value/perf for the vast vast majority of people over an i7 or perhaps even i5 in the case of typical gamers).

The 12900K, I'm hesitant to put in the same category one way or the other until I see what it's like in more sane guise (say set at 5Ghz/4Ghz all core, with good DDR4, and on a decent air cooler). There seems to be something akin to a parabolic efficiency loss in chasing those last few hundred Mhz, though I know for a lot of 'Halo' enthusiast types, they're much less concerned with raw efficiency vs 'look at this record score on whatever'.

Interesting times.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,610
6,406
136
The 12900K, I'm hesitant to put in the same category one way or the other until I see what it's like in more sane guise (say set at 5Ghz/4Ghz all core, with good DDR4, and on a decent air cooler). There seems to be something akin to a parabolic efficiency loss in chasing those last few hundred Mhz, though I know for a lot of 'Halo' enthusiast types, they're much less concerned with raw efficiency vs 'look at this record score on whatever'.
I would definitely put ADL-S in the same category: very decent uarch and mature process pushed beyond sanity to get top spots in the performance charts. There is no sane reason to push 240W TDP on a 8+8 consumer desktop product when the 6+8 mobile product works well at 45W / 65W. Do that on HEDT with a 20+ core SKU, that's something I would like to see.

This thread is very long. You just responded to a post from 2017. That particular user hasn't even posted anything since August.
Don't talk to bots.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
10,324
2,503
136
Intel must have gotten some amount of density increase with I7 versus 10SF given the core sizes.

I would definitely put ADL-S in the same category: very decent uarch and mature process pushed beyond sanity to get top spots in the performance charts. There is no sane reason to push 240W TDP on a 8+8 consumer desktop product when the 6+8 mobile product works well at 45W / 65W.
From Intel's own slide, the 12900K gets an extra 20% in performance going from 125W to 240W in Blender. Might even be a bigger gap with faster memory. That's why. It's not beating anything Zen 3 at 125 W in high threaded apps.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
18,180
7,087
136
Intel must have gotten some amount of density increase with I7 versus 10SF given the core sizes.
That's curious. Going from Cannonlake to IceLake, didn't they reduce density just to achieve a workable node?

What's density look like between 10nm+ and 10SF?
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,308
1,224
126
Intel must have gotten some amount of density increase with I7 versus 10SF given the core sizes.



From Intel's own slide, the 12900K gets an extra 20% in performance going from 125W to 240W in Blender. Might even be a bigger gap with faster memory. That's why. It's not beating anything Zen 3 at 125 W in high threaded apps.
So much about the stated efficency breakthrough...

Beside 241W peak is the same as the 5950X 142W peak provided you read it from right to left...
 

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,295
1,093
136
Seems like no information was given about the GPU. Not sure if that simply means the current K series releases are just focused on target audiences that they feel won't care or that there's essentially 0 changes over Rocket Lake.

Would've hoped for full HDMI 2.1 (4k/120hz) and an updated encode/decode bloc. Not expecting significant performance differences. On the outside chance maybe something to further help leverage the GPU as an accelerator, we're talking about hybrid architectures as the future after all.

The only thing of note I've found parsing various information is that HDMI 2.1 support is now there, however the huge caveat is that it doesn't seem to support full bandwidth as 4k is still limited to 60hz. As there is no other information I could find it's unclear what features, such as VRR, are supported.

No mention of Quick Sync in the launch slides either. So the video decode/encode bloc I guess would be unchanged from TGL/RKL.

GPU clock speeds are known: https://download.intel.com/newsroom/2021/client-computing/12th-gen-processor-product-brief.pdf

Up to 1550 Mhz, this is a 250 Mhz increase from i9-11900K.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,217
725
136
I'm waiting to see some workloads run at the same power for ADL and Zen 3 before I make any judgements.

For example, in a highly MT workload 16 Zen 3 cores running at 4GHz are probably going to be as fast or faster than 8GC's at 5GHz and 8GM's at 3.9GHz. We all know that for MT workloads lots of cores at lower frequency is very efficient. But the 5950X costs more up front so if you don't use the compute like that a lot then it might not be a good buy for you. The 12900K might be a good option if you generally need less compute but then have "bursty" workloads now and then. Like me when I load up a multitrack audio project and need really good ST performance to avoid dropouts. Or editing video and a certain preview effect needs full compute for like 4 seconds.

On the other end of the spectrum cost-wise, we could have the 12900K vs 5800X, now the tables are reversed and perhaps at the the same power performance could swing the other way?

Let's just be intellectually honest and explore all facets of performance and efficiency without bias.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,308
1,224
126
On the other end of the spectrum cost-wise, we could have the 12900K vs 5800X, now the tables are reversed and perhaps at the the same power performance could swing the other way?

Let's just be intellectually honest and explore all facets of performance and efficiency without bias.
5800X has way less cores and is stretched TDP wise, on AMD own settings going from Eco Mode at 80W to default will increase power by 40% for 6% better perfs.

Best comparison is against the 5900X that is also 24T, guess that it s actually Intel s own real contender for the 12900K if we are to look at their pricing.
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,217
725
136
5800X has way less cores and is stretched TDP wise, on AMD own settings going from Eco Mode at 80W to default will increase power by 40% for 6% better perfs.

Best comparison is against the 5900X that is also 24T, guess that it s actually Intel s own real contender for the 12900K if we are to look at their pricing.
Yes. I agree 12900K vs. 5900X will be quite interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

eek2121

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2005
1,413
1,490
136
Intel must have gotten some amount of density increase with I7 versus 10SF given the core sizes.



From Intel's own slide, the 12900K gets an extra 20% in performance going from 125W to 240W in Blender. Might even be a bigger gap with faster memory. That's why. It's not beating anything Zen 3 at 125 W in high threaded apps.
IMO, If you are looking to compare efficiency of the cores, the correct thing to do would be to disable the gracemont cores, and half the 5950X (8 cores vs 8 cores), cap them both at 125W, and test them both and see which one performs better. On the Intel side we don’t have a 16 core GC part. I suspect this isn’t due to power, and more to do with die area. A 16 core GC chip would be huge.

That is why, IMO, the future is the atom core. Atom cores appear to be much more efficient in terms of die area and perf/watt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Hulk

NostaSeronx

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2011
3,321
853
136
At the expense of Single Thread Performance
Jasper Lake-6W has pretty good STP&MTP against Dali-6W.
Alder Lake-N(0+8+(1?)) at a given TDP probably will do what Jasper Lake does against Dali to Mendocino at a given TDP.

Atom is good enough against Zen. Especially at the low-end.
 
Last edited:

nicalandia

Senior member
Jan 10, 2019
388
377
106
That is why, IMO, the future is the atom core. Atom cores appear to be much more efficient in terms of die area and perf/watt.
Atom is good enough against Zen. Especially at the low-end.

Not where money matter as in Xeons, you wont find e-cores on 10nm and 7nm Xeons because they need the absolute best performance to compete with ZEN4/ZEN5 EPYC. They can't do that with Skylake type performance Xeons(they are already getting mauled by Zen3)
 
Last edited:

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,851
2,401
136
AFAIK, The size of Tiger Lake H 32EU was like ~190mm2. Sounds like an ADL-P is a real deal. Almost the same die size, similar manufacturing process but much more powerful and power-efficient. Tiger Lake H wasn't that bad either BTW.
No, it was most certainly not! 🙂
 

NostaSeronx

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2011
3,321
853
136
Not where money matter as in Xeons, you wont find e-cores on 10nm and 7nm Xeons because they need the absolute best performance to compete with ZEN4/ZEN5 EPYC. They can't do that with Skylake type performance Xeons(they are already getting mauled by Zen3)
Rather than have 15*4 GC-Server cores in mesh, would it not be better to have 15*4 Gracemont-Server quad-core clusters in mesh?
Then, Intel won't be sniped by 192C N2 & 96C V1 as well as 64C/96C/128C Zens.

Mind that third "Vec" ALU looks pretty ideal for AMX.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Space Tyrant

moinmoin

Platinum Member
Jun 1, 2017
2,910
3,880
136
Rather than have 56 GC-Server cores in mesh, would it not be better to have 56 Gracemont-Server quad-core clusters in mesh?
Then, Intel won't be sniped by 192C N2 & 96C V1 as well as 64C/96C/128C Zens.
Considering in many typical workloads ST still matters and the huge amount of cores is not so much for MT but rather for consolidating a lot of ST heavy servers, no, going with a massive amount of GM cores wouldn't help Intel much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

ASK THE COMMUNITY