• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 130 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The Phantom canyon config is so weird.

U processors don't have PCIE lanes, so PCIE devices go through PCH, as the images show: limited to x4 (unlike desktop, which allegedly gets x8). Normally, a H processor would be more suitable.
2021 is time for next-gen NVIDIA or even Intel GPU, but I can see why Turing is named, as the presentation was given 'today'.
 
There's another NUC called Ghost Canyon coming out, which I believe will offer a 3.0 x16 slot. Uses Coffee Lake-H Refresh. This Phantom Canyon would be an alternative.

Also the Thunderbolt is on the CPU die (for now?) which has 4 lanes.
 
From what I understand, the Phantom Canyon NUC is still a work in progress, very fluid situation with multiple concepts / form factors floating around.
The Ghost Canyon NUC is pretty much finalized and is the next big release (it's going to rock the SFF world).
 
Dayman1225 said:
Looks like Intel is planning a TGL-U (28w) NUC called Phantom Canyon in late 2020/early 2021.

Confirms that TGL mobile supports PCIe Gen 4
Click to expand...

They must be on 10nm, right, considering the names!! (Phantom, Ghost, get it??)

In any case, I can see a nuk for a desktop or enterprise use. I occasionally use a mass spec lab with instruments very crowded together, lots of noise from the fans, and lots of heat produced.. Seems like a nuk would be great for this. Not sure I see the point of a "gaming" nuk though.
 
sam mishra said:
Hmm, Prime95 is also AVX512 if I recall correctly?
Click to expand...

As of 29.5 yes.

ondma said:
They must be on 10nm, right, considering the names!! (Phantom, Ghost, get it??)
Click to expand...

Phantom yes, Ghost no. But yeah, ba dum tsh.

jpiniero said:
I guess the question would also be why they wouldn't use the 35 W 6 core Rocket Lake U instead.
Click to expand...

Um, when is Rocket Lake U even going to be ready for the market? That comes well after IceLake-U/Y's limited release. I think 2020?
 
10++ nm can't come soon enough.
If Tiger Lake is just another ~5% IPC on top of Ice who cares for 5 GHz, 4.5 will suffice, at 3.6 it's already as good as top of the line CPUs:

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-0000-vs-Intel-Core-i9-9900K/m863395vs4028
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-0000-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-3800X/m863395vs4047

Only thing left is power consumption.. and more cores.
Current Ice lake die would grow by what, 20-25% adding 4 more cores? Cut the IGP in half and go for 12 cores monolithic, that's the only way.
 
SAAA said:
10++ nm can't come soon enough.
If Tiger Lake is just another ~5% IPC on top of Ice who cares for 5 GHz, 4.5 will suffice, at 3.6 it's already as good as top of the line CPUs:

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-0000-vs-Intel-Core-i9-9900K/m863395vs4028
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-0000-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-3800X/m863395vs4047

Only thing left is power consumption.. and more cores.
Current Ice lake die would grow by what, 20-25% adding 4 more cores? Cut the IGP in half and go for 12 cores monolithic, that's the only way.
Click to expand...

Math suggests TGL is 17% improvement in IPC over ICL, which is straight up nuts (Intel improving IPC by almost 40% in little more than a year after zero improvement in 4 years is pretty insane).

If RCL is WC like I suspect it is.... 5+ GHz WC is gonna be straight up crazy performance.
 
OriAr said:
Math suggests TGL is 17% improvement in IPC over ICL, which is straight up nuts (Intel improving IPC by almost 40% in little more than a year after zero improvement in 4 years is pretty insane).
Click to expand...
That's what happens when you have IP development gated behind process. Just because there hasn't been a product release doesn't mean that IP development has stopped.

It'll be interesting to see where Intel goes with number of cores across the product line. I've yet to notice a tangible benefit to going beyond quad core for anything other than video transcode. Gaming is at least making markedly better use of additional cores, but gains beyond 6 cores with SMT are still minimal. And that shift only occurred due to the necessity of the PS4/XBox One CPU architecture - the next generation of consoles shifting away from an anemic CPU architecture is going to remove the requirement to highly optimize games for multi-threading.
 
Khato said:
Gaming is at least making markedly better use of additional cores, but gains beyond 6 cores with SMT are still minimal.
Click to expand...

With the increased adoption of low level APIs like Vulkan and DX12, you can expect that trend to increase rather than decrease. As an example, Ubisoft has finished porting over their AnvilNext engine to DX12, which is their main engine for the Assassin's Creed series and the Ghost Recon titles. Ghost Recon Breakpoint will be the first title they release which will run with DX12. Bethesda is also making it a point to port all of their engines over to Vulkan.

And that shift only occurred due to the necessity of the PS4/XBox One CPU architecture - the next generation of consoles shifting away from an anemic CPU architecture is going to remove the requirement to highly optimize games for multi-threading.
Click to expand...

I would hope not. Why waste the amazing progress the gaming industry has had over the years with increased parallelism? There are many incentives to continue on that path with next gen consoles, like more games targeting 60 FPS, more realistic physics simulation etcetera.

Improving multithreading even more would certainly help them to achieve those goals.
 
Carfax83 said:
I would hope not. Why waste the amazing progress the gaming industry has had over the years with increased parallelism? There are many incentives to continue on that path with next gen consoles, like more games targeting 60 FPS, more realistic physics simulation etcetera.

Improving multithreading even more would certainly help them to achieve those goals.
Click to expand...
I doubt they're going to waste the progress made. But if the increased performance of the next generation consoles allows them to meet performance goals using coarse grained/simple multithreading approaches that take a quarter of the time/require less experienced engineers to write? If there's no incentive to extract as much parallelism as possible, they won't.

It's definitely an interesting tangential subject to CPU core counts for the mainstream. Product planning is certainly a responsibility I wouldn't care for - build a product with more cores than maistream workloads make use of results in a marked reduction in margins while not having enough cores means lost sales to the competition. Personally, I've yet to encounter anything that left me wishing for more than 8 cores and hence always wonder at those clamoring for more.
 
OriAr said:
Math suggests TGL is 17% improvement in IPC over ICL, which is straight up nuts (Intel improving IPC by almost 40% in little more than a year after zero improvement in 4 years is pretty insane).
Click to expand...

You can't tell the turbo clock based upon what it says. All it says is that the average is 3.6.
 
I should add that if Tigerlake is using chiplets, they would have an incentive to not hold it back if it's ready because of the better yield they would get.
 
jpiniero said:
You can't tell the turbo clock based upon what it says. All it says is that the average is 3.6.
Click to expand...


Yes but the scores on this site are really good so early in development, it beats the best i7-8565U devices on userbenchmark. The ES samples from Icelake 1 year before launch were much slower clocked, look at this from 11 months ago: https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/10940550

10nm is clearly in much better shape now. I still wonder if Tigerlake is made on 10nm++ or really on 10nm+ as Intel claimed.
 
mikk said:
Yes but the scores on this site are really good so early in development.
Click to expand...

That was what I was sort of getting at - Tigerlake looks like it is further along than you would think. When you will see it is another story, but as I mentioned Intel has an incentive to not hold it back.
 
SAAA said:
Cut the IGP in half and go for 12 cores monolithic, that's the only way.
Click to expand...

If Tigerlake is not monolithic, then cutting the iGPU in half won't help them. I strongly suspect that, in light of Intel's yield problems on 10nm, Tigerlake will use EMIB to connect CPU and SoC die/iGPU in order to reduce die sizes and improve yields. It may just be that they can't reliably produce dice larger than 4c on 10nm in any significant quantity (see delays for Icelake-SP).

Rocketlake is a different issue altogether. Willow Cove implemented on 14nm++(+) as Rocket Lake would be an interesting product. Perhaps too little/too late given that it'll be a 2020 product, but still a step up from Coffeelake/Comet Lake.
 
OriAr said:
Math suggests TGL is 17% improvement in IPC over ICL, which is straight up nuts (Intel improving IPC by almost 40% in little more than a year after zero improvement in 4 years is pretty insane).
Click to expand...

I mean I have said it before. Intel obviously didn't stop cpu uarch development just because of their process issues. A huge jump was to be expected due to what on the desktop will probably end up being half a decade of skylake-cores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top