• 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 247 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
DrMrLordX said:
Did anyone seriously entertain the idea that a product as late as Alder Lake-P or -S would be 14nm? I mean I'm pretty skeptical about Tiger Lake-H (still waiting) but come on, Alder Lake has always been a 10nm product, and Tiger Lake-U would appear to demonstrate that Intel is capable of producing at least something on 10nm.
Click to expand...

Fabbing the GPU on 14 nm makes sense to free up 10 nm wafers, which they will need. Tiger Lake is already murdering their margins, they must be burning a ton of wafers to try to make up for the bad yield.
 
@Antey

Hmm.

Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z490 AORUS MASTER - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z490 AORUS MASTER with an Intel Core i9-10900K processor.
browser.geekbench.com browser.geekbench.com

Or from one of our local posters!

Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7C71 - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7C71 with an Intel Core i9-10900K processor.
browser.geekbench.com browser.geekbench.com

@Zucker2k

The 10900k appears to be just as fast in ST and significantly faster in MT. Something isn't right with that Rocket Lake sample. Might have some ES flaws in it, so I'll try not to read too much into the situation, but Intel's supposed to have that thing ready by Q1 2021.

@jpiniero

Intel doesn't have much 14nm capacity to spare either.
 
jpiniero said:
Well, if the hyperscalers start rolling off Cascade Lake and onto Rome, there'd be plenty of capacity...
Click to expand...

I don't think Intel will let that happen. Even if they have to drive margins below 20%. Whether or not that will be enough is anyone's guess. But Intel will not give an inch.
 
DrMrLordX said:
@Antey
The 10900k appears to be just as fast in ST and significantly faster in MT. Something isn't right with that Rocket Lake sample. Might have some ES flaws in it, so I'll try not to read too much into the situation, but Intel's supposed to have that thing ready by Q1 2021.
Click to expand...

i agree. but that rocket lake ES is 4,98GHz and that cometlake is 5,35GHz... there is a mmmh... 7-8% difference? i hope is not close to final results though.
 
uzzi38 said:
From this one score, AVX-512 looks to be the ONLY IPC uplift.
Click to expand...

Just off-the-cuff, I'm thinking it looks a lot like Cannonlake. We need more samples though. That can't be right.

@Antey

The alleged IPC uplift of Rocket Lake-S should more than compensate for that. Also it only boosts opportunistically in the ST portion of the test. That does not explain why Rocket Lake-S was so slow in MT since a 10900k won't sustain 5.3 GHz in the MT test.
 
DrMrLordX said:
@Zucker2k

The 10900k appears to be just as fast in ST and significantly faster in MT. Something isn't right with that Rocket Lake sample. Might have some ES flaws in it, so I'll try not to read too much into the situation, but Intel's supposed to have that thing ready by Q1 2021.
Click to expand...
The clocks part was always the biggest question mark here, or? The ipc is already baked in, and it must be worth the porting, so, I'm quite optimistic about the outcome of the final product.
 
Zucker2k said:
The clocks part was always the biggest question mark here, or? The ipc is already baked in, and it must be worth the porting, so, I'm quite optimistic about the outcome of the final product.
Click to expand...
> the IPC is slready baked in

Evidently not.
 
DrMrLordX said:
Did anyone seriously entertain the idea that a product as late as Alder Lake-P or -S would be 14nm? I mean I'm pretty skeptical about Tiger Lake-H (still waiting) but come on, Alder Lake has always been a 10nm product, and Tiger Lake-U would appear to demonstrate that Intel is capable of producing at least something on 10nm.
Click to expand...

I know, everyone with some serious thinking expected 10nm from ADL, however Charlie and some other usual suspects tried to defend the 14nm hypothesis till the end:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD_Stock/comments/hr38ko/_/fy2dji2
 
Antey said:
i agree. but that rocket lake ES is 4,98GHz and that cometlake is 5,35GHz... there is a mmmh... 7-8% difference? i hope is not close to final results though.
Click to expand...

A better comparison would be Intels 9900K which boost up to 5.0 Ghz as well and reaches about 1300 ST points, excluding the AES score RKL-S seems to be 10% faster per clock. However this is a stepping 0 and no one knows if this is fully representative, I mean this is the very first result for such high clocked RKL model. The clock speed looks pretty good for a stepping 0.
 
I don’t know why people have high expectations of Rocket Lake in the first place. I highly doubt it will reach Sunny Cove IPC, let alone the >20% improvement that many are expecting. Although this few % improvement in int/float scores surprises me too, it’s hopefully not final performance.
 
mikk said:
A better comparison would be Intels 9900K
Click to expand...

Maybe, though Rocket Lake-S should feature TVB (9900k does not) enabling it to hit ST clocks close to Comet Lake-S at the top end. TVB may not be working in the ES samples yet. Inevitably, the top-end 8c Rocket Lake-S will be compared against Comet Lake-S, and need I point out (again) that the MT score for that Rocket Lake ES is surprisingly low???
 
uzzi38 said:
And you're expecting a 15% IPC uplift between ES and final silicon?
Click to expand...

25% IPC uplift over Skylake isn't realistic. On Geekbench v5 Sunny Cove got a 15% IPC uplift over Skylake (which included a memory advantage), so there is only a 5% deficit.
 
mikk said:
25% IPC uplift over Skylake isn't realistic. On Geekbench v5 Sunny Cove got a 15% IPC uplift over Skylake (which included a memory advantage), so there is only a 5% deficit.
Click to expand...

Rocket Lake-S could have been Willow Cove though. In theory it should be somewhere between Sunny and Willow, depending on what compromises Intel had to make for the backport. Also see commentary by @uzzi38 . The Rocket Lake sample seems to be leaning heavily on AVX512 for its score.

We really need more data.
 
uzzi38 said:
This is the first 9900K score I saw that was close to the average (1340) in single core score: https://t.co/AnT5PNufVH

If you look at the score breakdowns going from the 9900K -> RKL-S, you'll see Crypto doubled, but Int and FP are basically the same.

From this one score, AVX-512 looks to be the ONLY IPC uplift.
Click to expand...
There are enough differences between version 5.0 and 5.2 such that comparing the two is not appropriate. I recall reading about it in the Geekbench release notes.
 
That Rocket Lake system is running memory setup that has high latency or bad bandwidth ( or both ). Look at Navigation sub test, there is just no way Comet is scoring 50% more in a test that is sensitive to memory.

( And Navigation is sensitive to memory, as that is the only test where my 5.1 system can beat AdamK's 5.3 due to tighter latency).

Horrible MT Speech Recognition / Machine Learning scores point to same thing.

Proper testing is needed, not with what is probably botched memory setup. Might as well ran 16GB single stick 2133C30 for what we know to produce these results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top