Or Genoa if Intel sputters.But by the time it comes out, it will be competing with Milan, which most likely will have higher clockspeeds.
Or Genoa if Intel sputters.But by the time it comes out, it will be competing with Milan, which most likely will have higher clockspeeds.
There's a better picture on twitter without the orange outline. The outline messes up the calculation a bit. Not that 2mm2 matters.
I did use the picture without the orange outline yesterday and got 45mm².
Didn't debate an Intel rep over this and called him out on his BS or am I thinking of someone else?Intel doesn't show die data for Icelake on their datasheet. I get it. Publicly they shy away from telling press like Anandtech because people start grilling and arguing about it. But why not on datasheets? I know when I post die data on forums the visibility is way, way less than if Intel told it directly.
Didn't Ian debate an Intel rep over this and called him out on his BS or am I thinking of someone else?
Don't take my word on it. It might have been about another company. He wasn't pleased then if he's who I'm thinking of and he wasn't pleased with some asshat who threw some lame credentials around. I want to say it was around the Cascade Lake launch time but like I said, I don't remember very well.No clue. That does sound like something a company trying to hide things will do.
And will be ridiculous for the next several years, IMHO. And that's if Intel can make meaningful changes to their culture.Making matters worse, 64C Zen 3 will be out before anything more than 28C from Intel. This is slowly becoming ridiculous.
Making great products that meet or exceed customer expectations is the only thing that matters.
I've heard some interesting rumors about potential Genoa specifications. Nothing worth sharing because they're fairly outlandish,
Yeah that's been floated a long time now. 128 would/may be later on several generations in. Desktop ryzen will supposedly see an increase in cores as well. There's other stuff but it's so wild I'm putting it in a salt mine. If they can provide the performance each generation alongside core count increases, then I can't complain. If it's just core increases with negligible performance gains then it just becomes a contest who can cram more on a die. I'll probably pick up an Alderlake myself. A midrange chip or low end just to play around with. If it's bad, well, so be it it'll become an htpc.Not super hard what direction they can potentially take. Moving to 96 cores for example. I think I saw 128 cores somewhere but they aren't going to do it on 5nm being that its pretty much like a half node(like 28 to 20, and 14 to 10).
And will be ridiculous for the next several years, IMHO. And that's if Intel can make meaningful changes to their culture.
Pretty sad, but given what we are learning about the inner workings of Intel's management hierarchy and things like the balkanization of the design teams and the manufacturing team.
Silly slogans like "no transistor left behind" is just useless clatter - maybe some young engineers will think it matters, till they get more experience. And what is this constant obsession with Moore's law, who cares?
Making great products that meet or exceed customer expectations is the only thing that matters.
It's pretty ridiculous that AMD still can't beat Intel at gaming, despite them having a brand new architecture on a brand new process. Intel has a 5 year old architecture and even older process, yet still outperform AMD at gaming.
Yeah the i3-10320 performs similar to the 7700K with the new processor sometimes having a 15-30 fps lead in some games (I couldn't find any 10 game comparisons between it and the 6700K), but Intel has also managed to improve on Skylake in all that time, so it's not straight up Skylake. Intel has also improved frequency by a lot. The original 6700K had a base of 4 Ghz with a boost clock of 4.2 Ghz. The i3-10320 boosts from 3.8 to 4.4 Ghz with a super boost of 4.6 Ghz. The 10900K boosts from 3.8 Ghz base to an all core of 4.8 Ghz, turbo boosts to 5.1 Ghz and turbo maxes at 5.2 Ghz.It's pretty ridiculous that AMD still can't beat Intel at gaming, despite them having a brand new architecture on a brand new process. Intel has a 5 year old architecture and even older process, yet still outperform AMD at gaming.
Ok, but the benchmarks I've seen (GN) showed the 3700X either very close to matching or just trailing a 10900K at stock clocks for both processors from Blender, Premier, Chromium compile times, etc. They either trade blows or one edges out the other. 3700X is a 8/16 3.6/4.4 Ghz processor. No idea how well or bad it boosts. Don't own Ryzen, haven't owned an AMD system in a couple decades. The 10900K with its extra 2 cores and higher clocks should put a big gap in your example. Not picking on your post but it wasn't too well thought out and made it seem as if AMD just slapped together some stuff. Personally I'd still not buy an AMD system and I'm on edge of buying a Zen 3 processor unless it addresses the main issues people complain about.AMD wins the MT benchmarks mostly due to higher core counts and not because the Ryzen core microarchitecture is particularly impressive - infact it is pretty average.
AMD's boost algorithm isn't great on Zen2, and should hopefully improve with Zen3, fingers crossed. There's also the issue of the CCX and cache latency which penalizes AMD in gaming. Gaming is pretty latency sensitive. You also forget that Ryzen's only been around for 3 almost 4 years now. There's not a lot of games optimized for it if any that I can think of. Major game developers and even software companies tend to optimize for the dominant CPU vendor. For almost 10 years, Intel remained on top of the hill. They were the king, so it was a no brainer for companies to optimize their software or games for Intel processors.
I don't know much about older consoles. Haven't owned one since the PS2. I hardly ever play games. Maybe an hour two every few months.You mean optimize for Jaguar.
This kneejerk reaction was pretty funny, considering that we were talking about server processors. It's like someone stepped on your toe. It's not AMD's fault that even more than 1,5 years late the best ICL Xeon Intel can come out at the end of 2020 is a 28C chip.It's pretty ridiculous that AMD still can't beat Intel at gaming, despite them having a brand new architecture on a brand new process. Intel has a 5 year old architecture and even older process, yet still outperform AMD at gaming.
load of BS....AMD wins the MT benchmarks mostly due to higher core counts and not because the Ryzen core microarchitecture is particularly impressive - infact it is pretty average.
Well, he's talking about the Zen cores, not AMD's innovations in packaging. In that regard he's right. For example compared to Sunny Cove, Zen 2 lags behind in terms of branch prediction, even though the latter is an improvement over Zen 1. In branch-misprediction sensitive benchmarks Sunny Cove is around 50-100% ahead of Zen 2 and Skylake. From AT's Ice Lake deep dive:load of BS....
Its just the trade offs AMD made to hit what other vendors do with ~5 different dies with in effect one die, its not the core its the package.
if you look at Renoir memory scaling you will see its gaming minimums beat matisse despite 1/4 the cache. If you then look with comparable memory you can see the effects of that cache as matisse beats Renoir.
If AMD chose to do both of those together we wouldn't be talking about this right now would we. And now we can see how just changing the package can have a big over all impact to perception.
Amongst SPECint2006, the one benchmark that really stands out beyond all the rest is the 473.astar. Here the new Sunny Cove core is showcasing some exceptional IPC gains, nearly doubling the performance over the 8550U even though it’s clocked 100MHz lower. The benchmark is extremely branch misprediction sensitive, and the only conclusion we can get to rationalise this increase is that the new branch predictors on Sunny Cove are doing an outstanding job and represent a massive improvement over Skylake.
Because one core is stronger in one area does not make a core overall "average".Well, he's talking about the Zen cores, not AMD's innovations in packaging. In that regard he's right. For example compared to Sunny Cove, Zen 2 lags behind in terms of branch prediction, even though the latter is an improvement over Zen 1. In branch-misprediction sensitive benchmarks Sunny Cove is around 50-100% ahead of Zen 2 and Skylake. From AT's Ice Lake deep dive:
The cores themselves are the result of a strategy which included that higher core count target. Calling them average in isolation is bizarre. Imagine telling someone a team is composed solely of average players, it just so happens these players are exceptional at playing together. The "exceptional" attribute may be exclusive to the resulting system, but such a result still requires special calibration of the individual parts, and that calibration is an attribute of the part, not the system.Well, he's talking about the Zen cores, not AMD's innovations in packaging.