That, makes some sense. I'd be surprised if Adler Lake is able to be ramped up enough to displace all desktop processor needs from 14nm parts.
Hi, you seem to have been disconnected from the current state of affairs in Intel silicon development, so here's a quick refresh from Intel themselves:
They've fixed something with Tiger Lake, and yields have significantly improved as well as per their latest statements (iirc they've said something that sounds kind of like roughly 2x ICL-U yields on launch).
Leaks point to 10nm++(Tiger Lake) clocking roughly 10 percent higher than 10nm+(Ice Lake). So temper your expectations of "sky high" clock speeds from the 10nm generation.
For sure by now pentium iv users are already running their cpus at 10Ghz.
Why are they on a processor that can only retire at most 3/4ths a AMD64 instruction or 1.5 of two IA32 instructions? In reference to the microarchitecture at 4.5 GHz the core at 9 GHz provides; 4x 64-bit ALU, 1x 64-bit L-AGU, 1x 64-bit S-AGU per clock. It is also the part that consumes the least power, the microarchitecture w/o the core is 15x as power hungrier than just the core.
Suggesting that a relatively power hungry, higher clocked CPU gets a couple of percentages lead in some single-threaded workloads and software with glacier slow developers (hello Adobe!), all the while being severely outclassed in basically every other area despite costing more than its competitors makes people here frustrated, well, that painful disconnection from reality only speaks volumes of your true frustrations, although I guess that wasn't your intention 😉Times change, 10nm or 7nm may be in a much better place sooner than we think. Either way I think it's great that Intel's 5 year old architecture is still best in class in single threaded workloads, versus the competition's brand new architecture. I suspect you're frustrated by this, hence the condescending tone in your post. We'll see who has the last laugh
I don't have a problem with Intel's progress with TGL, at least as far as we know based on base clocks & those inventory stocks which are presumably twice the volume ICL had prior to launch. (I still have a problem with the lack of performance demos - especially in the context of Renoir, but that is just my opinion).
I believe he's simply saying that because 7nm is just around the corner, 10nm's impact window is closing so it won't be as productive as their previous nodes. This makes a lot of sense, but I expect 10nm to continue improving, ala 14nm, and help carry Intel's future chip loads.
I partially agree. Yes, it's about financial impact, window is closing with 7nm around the corner, but his message is also about 7nm being their prime candidate for getting back into the game. It signals trust in early 7nm results. The great 14nm saw multiple improvements as it was their only node to use for everything. This will not be the case now, if 7nm is done well then server & mobile will need to jump there immediately. Even desktop might see a net gain in ST performance if clock regression is matched by IPC jump.
I don't agree or disagree with any of this. But until I see a chip on 10nm or 7 nm from Intel, that not 4 cores and 25 watts or so (their only 10 nm product I have seen), I just have no faith in them.
Technically, the renewed push roadmap started in 2019.
That is one year after 7nm goes HVM and one year before 5nm goes HVM. Which means in two years we will be entering Intel's 5nm territory.
Facebook
Twitter