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

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
7,250
1,839
136
Intel's roadmaps nowadays change faster than teenage girls change boyfriends.

As it stands:

2018 BTS
-8 core Coffeelake desktop
-Whiskey Lake(15W U)
-Amber Lake(Core M, 5W)

2018 Q4
-Cascade Lake-SP/X

2019 Q1
-8 core Coffeelake H laptop

2019 Q2
-Comet Lake U

2019 BTS?
-Icelake S
-Icelake U and Y

2019 Q4
-Icelake-SP
 
  • Like
Reactions: kostarum

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
8,911
1,645
126


Nude of Cannonlake. It's so tiny! The best part - roughly 2/3 of the die is disabled on the 8121U.
 

Jackie60

Member
Aug 11, 2006
118
46
101
I see. So 8 core is miraculously going to be in high demand from all these 'business professionals'? Or is that 8 core just wasn't in high demand until intel side saddled one with their brutal igp? Nah, today an 8 core with an igp will fill a small niche but nothing of substance. Most needing 8 cores will be looking at attaching a dGPU.
I use my PC mostly for gaming but I’d love my 5960X to have an IGP despite owning 1080TI SLI. For everything apart from gaming an igp is fine and when I retire the system from frontline gaming use I would still be able to use it without additional cost or buy a near useless low end discrete GPU.
 

CakeMonster

Senior member
Nov 22, 2012
999
86
91
I might be in the minority but I'm still craving to upgrade my desktop gaming rig at least every other year. What kind of improvement can I realistically expect in 2019 and 2021 if I got a 8700K last year?
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
8,911
1,645
126
I might be in the minority but I'm still craving to upgrade my desktop gaming rig at least every other year. What kind of improvement can I realistically expect in 2019 and 2021 if I got a 8700K last year?
2019 - zero
2021 - depends on how much better threaded games get in that timeframe.
 

Lovec1990

Member
Feb 6, 2017
88
17
51
From Intel yes, but from AMD you could expect to have 7nm 5+GHz Zen2.
For 3700X these clocks i expect:

4,700 MHz (1 core),
4,600 MHz (2 cores)
4,500 MHz (3 cores)
4,500 MHz (4 cores)
4,500 MHz (5 cores)
4,500 MHz (6 cores)
4,400 MHz (7 cores)
4,400 MHz (8 cores)
 

maddie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2010
3,387
2,332
136
For 3700X these clocks i expect:

4,700 MHz (1 core),
4,600 MHz (2 cores)
4,500 MHz (3 cores)
4,500 MHz (4 cores)
4,500 MHz (5 cores)
4,500 MHz (6 cores)
4,400 MHz (7 cores)
4,400 MHz (8 cores)
I'm trying to reconcile this prediction with this info from Wikichip for GloFlo 14nm vs 7nm.

Provides 40% higher performance or 55% lower power over their 14nm



Assuming that 95W is the top 8 core CPU, and using the 2nd best, 1700X @ 3.4/3.8, your predictions seem very low, especially for single core.
 

maddie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2010
3,387
2,332
136
At what frequency level though. Intel for instance has claimed big gains in transistor performance but the top OC speed hasn't moved much since Sandy Bridge.
Frankly, I've become very skeptical of Intel claims. Their density values for example. Real world appears not even close to theoretical.
 

Dayman1225

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2017
1,007
591
106
Frankly, I've become very skeptical of Intel claims. Their density values for example. Real world appears not even close to theoretical.
On their CPUs yes, on chips like FPGAs and the Nerumorphic chip they are pretty close to reality
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
7,250
1,839
136
On their CPUs yes, on chips like FPGAs and the Nerumorphic chip they are pretty close to reality
And Atom chips. Although focusing on density to gain an advantage that doesn't help main products was a mistake.

Assuming that 95W is the top 8 core CPU, and using the 2nd best, 1700X @ 3.4/3.8, your predictions seem very low, especially for single core.
Transistor level performance translates little into frequency at post 4GHz levels and especially minimal the close you get to 5GHz.

Intel has been basically eating into overclock headroom to gain frequency increases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,723
1,115
136
I'm trying to reconcile this prediction with this info from Wikichip for GloFlo 14nm vs 7nm.

Provides 40% higher performance or 55% lower power over their 14nm

Assuming that 95W is the top 8 core CPU, and using the 2nd best, 1700X @ 3.4/3.8, your predictions seem very low, especially for single core.
This is usually measured at a very low frequency, most likely somwhere aroun 2.5 ghz and doesn't need to scale at all to higher frequencies. So 40% higher performance at iso-power at 2.5 ghz means at 3.36 ghz it will consume as little as it does at 2.5 ghz 14nm, right now. that is obviously great for a 2700 non-x 65w part but doesn't say much about max frequency and power increase by frequency.
 

naukkis

Senior member
Jun 5, 2002
405
255
136
This is usually measured at a very low frequency, most likely somwhere aroun 2.5 ghz and doesn't need to scale at all to higher frequencies. So 40% higher performance at iso-power at 2.5 ghz means at 3.36 ghz it will consume as little as it does at 2.5 ghz 14nm, right now. that is obviously great for a 2700 non-x 65w part but doesn't say much about max frequency and power increase by frequency.
40% more to 2.5GHz is 3.5GHz.

GF estimate for 14nm cpu clock frequency was >3GHz, and for 7nm CPU it is 5GHz. That's base frequencies, AMD got turbo boost frequencies way over and probably could do it again with 7nm cpu's.

Soc graph isn't whole picture of GF 7nm advantage over 14nm, for high performance cpu they could use 9t cells where needed:



With 7nm AMD have massive potential to increase clocks, if they miss 5GHz target they screw it badly.
 
Last edited:

NostaSeronx

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2011
3,216
733
136
With 7nm AMD have massive potential to increase clocks, if they miss 5GHz target they screw it badly.
Or, they go for a shrink to get a lot more ALUs, AGUs, FPUs, Larger than Bulldozer-Excavator BP, Phatter L1D cache, Phatter L1I cache, maybe add SMT4, etc. Zen is server orientated but it lacks in comparison to the resources Bulldozer-Excavator gave it units. So, a bigger Zen is definitely in the works.

There is only three dimensions for AMD; Area, Power, Performance. Performance is work per cycle, Power is energy per cycle, and Area is the usual mm squared. All of those are getting improved upon, mostly perf and area. Power investment is largely left for the Next-Gen CMT Pre-Intel VISC project.

One of the title product names will have super cores from Intel by the way. Expect maybe 128-bit units; 64-bit Int+64-bit Float. It is definitely based on Itanium/Bulldozer/Multistar/Tahoe design. (Explicit Multithreading/EPIC, VISC L2/L3 Front/Back end, Clustered Execution L1/L0/EX, etc)

With all the Meltdown and Spectre stuff, there is going to be some awkward designs coming.
 
Last edited:

ksec

Senior member
Mar 5, 2010
420
116
116
Transistor level performance translates little into frequency at post 4GHz levels and especially minimal the close you get to 5GHz.
That is half correct as in, transistor level performance translated little into frequency at any Ghz levels. That is why GF did explicitly said while there are 40%+ performance they have no idea how this would translate into real world silicon, Because it depends on Design, uArch, power and different set of trade off.

I think AMD are being very careful with 7nm anyway. Not to chase for high clock speed at the expense of yield. They still have 7nm+ / Zen 3 to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
825
126
I might be in the minority but I'm still craving to upgrade my desktop gaming rig at least every other year. What kind of improvement can I realistically expect in 2019 and 2021 if I got a 8700K last year?
As someone who does pretty much everything still running on an OC'd 2500k, I would ask most people what exactly are you doing that you need the top of the line every other year? Maybe it's age, but it just doesn't make sense to upgrade all the time. You ask about 'improvements' but short of high end video editing, CAD and things of that nature, what exactly does a home user do that needs any of it at this point. Gaming isn't raising the bar much at all and hasn't in many years. (Serious question as I can't justify upgrading when everything I want to do works fine - and I do quite a bit).
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
As someone who does pretty much everything still running on an OC'd 2500k, I would ask most people what exactly are you doing that you need the top of the line every other year? Maybe it's age, but it just doesn't make sense to upgrade all the time. You ask about 'improvements' but short of high end video editing, CAD and things of that nature, what exactly does a home user do that needs any of it at this point. Gaming isn't raising the bar much at all and hasn't in many years. (Serious question as I can't justify upgrading when everything I want to do works fine - and I do quite a bit).
Really the "upgrade every year" thing is mainly about keeping up with Joneses at some level. It's just like when anyone sees a new product and then claims theirs is now obsolete. It isn't of course, but something new that is faster that it can be compared to and found wanting.

Comparison is really the root of much unhappiness. In a digital age where you can go online and compare instantly to a near infinite supply of other people and their toys, the comparison mindset isn't a healthy one.

I am doing everything on ~2008 Core 2 Quad (Q9400@3.2GHz). I don't care that other people have faster computers. I only care that I can't run new games on it, so I am looking to upgrade (just waiting for GPU/Memory pricing to return to reality).

I hope to get 10 years out of my next PC as well.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY