• 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 227 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
IntelUser2000 said:
It's a fair point if you are correct but you can see the breakdown of the clock speeds. That's why median clocks are reported.
Click to expand...
Look at the breakdown of the test I linked. All 3.8GHz.

Geekbench's "breakdowns" aren't done in heavy or even multi-core loads.

You can see the same thing if you check general MTS chips as well btw.

Matisse certainly can't hold 4.35GHz all-core at stock on a 3700X


And this is normal for MTS results.
 
uzzi38 said:
Geekbench's "breakdowns" aren't done in heavy or even multi-core loads.
Click to expand...
That's certainly true. Every time I've run the bench, the clocks listed are always near Single Core Turbo, never what is the average clock-speed on an all-core load. Overall Geekbench is a very bursty load as well, almost not taxing desktop processors compared to some other workloads.
 
uzzi38 said:
Look at the breakdown of the test I linked. All 3.8GHz.
Click to expand...

That's very interesting, thanks.

That just says bad benchmark is bad.

Gideon said:
Overall Geekbench is a very bursty load as well, almost not taxing desktop processors compared to some other workloads.
Click to expand...

Yup, it takes 3-4 seconds to run each test. Plus, Geekbench pretty much scales linearly with clocks meaning it fits in the core caches and doesn't really hit the memory system or even L3, similar to Dhrystone tests.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
That's very interesting, thanks.

That just says bad benchmark is bad.



Yup, it takes 3-4 seconds to run each test. Plus, Geekbench pretty much scales linearly with clocks meaning it fits in the core caches and doesn't really hit the memory system or even L3, similar to Dhrystone tests.
Click to expand...
that would make the 1.25 MB L2 a major advantage in Geekbench.
 
BTW, somebody on twitter shared a slide that's apparently from Intel Russia's roadmap (though it seemed a bit dated).

Now if these year numbers are accurate .... EDIT: it seems they are not, Sapphire Rapid still stated for 2021Q4)

67qedFL.png



EDIT, and here is the complete slidedeck:
https://imgur.com/a/fq7bTFe

So Sapphire Rapid is still coming Q4 2021 ,supporst PCIe4 and DDR5 but will replace Ice-Lake only partiallly (its surprising that Ice Lake should totally succeed Cascade Lake, if this is to be believed):

tNeHQqh.png
 
Last edited:
Anyway, if these slides are accurate, Intel plans to run with Ice-Lake for most mainstream servers at least up to 2023 (e.g. those that fit to Cascade Lake specs, e.g. probably <=32 cores) and Sapphire Rapid will only be an ultra-high-end offering (replaces Cooper Lake and reaches a little bit down from there).

This means that Sapphire Rapid might be competitive in the ultra high-end but In mainstream servers It's almost a full year of Genoa vs Ice-Lake (after a year of Milan vs Ice-lake)
 
Gideon said:
Anyway, if these slides are accurate, Intel plans to run with Ice-Lake for most mainstream servers at least up to 2023 (e.g. those that fit to Cascade Lake specs, e.g. probably <=32 cores) and Sapphire Rapid will only be an ultra-high-end offering (replaces Cooper Lake and reaches a little bit down from there).

This means that Sapphire Rapid might be competitive in the ultra high-end but In mainstream servers It's almost a full year of Genoa vs Ice-Lake (after a year of Milan vs Ice-lake)
Click to expand...
Of course they plan to run Ice Lake SP for few years. Why would they not want to do that? It has to make money.
Which absolutely doesn't mean they won't launch a new generation every year.

Ice Lake U is perfectly capable and SP will be as well.
The only real issue: high core count for monolithic Ice Lake SP. They'll probably want to match Zen2's 64-core as well. We'll see how it goes.
 
piokos said:
Of course they plan to run Ice Lake SP for few years. Why would they not want to do that? It has to make money.
Which absolutely doesn't mean they won't launch a new generation every year.
Click to expand...
They specifically mention Cascade Lake Refresh (which is a refresh of a Skylake-SP refresh ,Cascade Lake) I doubt they would forget to mention an Ice-Lake update
piokos said:
Ice Lake U is perfectly capable and SP will be as well.
The only real issue: high core count for monolithic Ice Lake SP. They'll probably want to match Zen2's 64-core as well. We'll see how it goes.
Click to expand...
Well the slide mentions it in no uncertain terms. Cooper-Lake till Sapphire Rapid launches. Ice Lake goes up to 38 cores max
 
Gideon said:
Maybe it uses exotic packaging? The other guess would be 7nm but that should be near-impossible in 2021.
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose it could be 7nm - that would explain the low volume. On 10nm, one would think the volume would be much higher.
But this slide introduces many uncertainties that, without explanation, just seems to confuse our vision of Intel's roadmap.
 
Gideon said:
Maybe it uses exotic packaging? The other guess would be 7nm but that should be near-impossible in 2021.
Click to expand...
Definitely 10nm. It's got a lot of cores though, and some other interesting things about it, so I'm not surprised it's going to be a kind of premium option.
 
Adonisds said:
Ate those rumors that Ocean Cove will have 1.8x the IPC is Skylake and 7nm will clock even higher plausible?
Click to expand...
When you don't have benchmarks, anything is possible, since no one will know how fast it is or what the IPC is !

Marketing=(1.8x IPC + 5 ghz),

benchmark that no one will ever see = (1.1x IPC + 4 ghz)
 
trexfromouterspace said:
No, you're thinking of Ocean Cove. Ocean Cove was axed, but Ocean Cove is proceeding according to plan.
Click to expand...
Yeah, original Ocean Cove was rumord to have been axed during Krzanich era, whatever is in progress now shouldn't be that.

The same leaker about Core counts and TDP. Sapphire Rapid had better bring massive IPC gains if this is correct:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1268176240097161217

  • CPX : 24C , 165-200W , 4S
  • ICX : 24C , >200W , 2S
  • ICX : 32C , 150-200W 2S
  • SPR : 48C , <200W , 1-2S
  • SPR : 32C , >200W , 2S/4-8S
*not Max cores.
Click to expand...
 
jpiniero said:
In theory Saphhire Rapids uses chiplets, although probably not to the extent that AMD does. Might be similar to the now cancelled Cooper AP which was 56.
Click to expand...
Well, I hope they do. Otherwise, large core count 10nm CPUs will be unobtanium. They've been talking about EMIB and Foveros for long enough.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top