Max turbo for the 1165G7 is 4.7, but can it maintain that, even in sustained single threaded benchmarks?Based upon the leaked Geekbench score, RKL can hit 5 Ghz but ST could end up being still slower than the 1165G7 because the IPC is lower.
Max turbo for the 1165G7 is 4.7, but can it maintain that, even in sustained single threaded benchmarks?Based upon the leaked Geekbench score, RKL can hit 5 Ghz but ST could end up being still slower than the 1165G7 because the IPC is lower.
If I were Intel, I would be riding 10SF hard and focus all effort on getting desktop and server chips out the door.
30-40% architectural performance improvement from Xe LP over Gen11 says Intel. LPDDR5 support is coming in 2021.
Seems unlikely. I thought RKL was expected to boost lower than Comet Lake due to being a backport of a core that was not designed for 14nm.
Seems unlikely. I thought RKL was expected to boost lower than Comet Lake due to being a backport of a core that was not designed for 14nm.
I am not really interested in multi core productivity apps, so except for the new consoles, I would have been more than satisfied with 8 cores, ~15% IPC gain, and still able to reach 5ghz all core. Now though, I have a feeling 8 cores may be a bit low for gaming going forward.I'm seeing parallels between Tigerlake and Ampere. Both seem to increase power consumption for the performance increases, and both are taking their sweet time getting released. Both also seem to be using benchmarks that use deep learning, and ray tracing to look better than it is.
The increased power consumption for better performance is likely a trend going forward.
Being a backport of a core meant for the next gen process is why it only has 8 cores.
Quite probably. It wasn't Chip Hell. I want to say I saw it on a thread on another site that had a twitter embed, but I'm not sure. Doesn't help that I clear my history often.I believe I remember that "rumor" you're referring to. It was just someone on a Chinese forum speculating about what Intel could do, or what they wanted Intel to do. Not an actual leak.
It's not that I'm looking to beat Intel's legs from under them here, but how long can TGL sustain that all core boost? Especially given how laptops always have gimped cooling solutions, some more than others, and that laptop idles are much higher than desktop equivalents and have less thermal room to play in.Yes, absent limited cooling, Tiger Lake can boost to 4.8Ghz, and AnandTech stated that apparently 5Ghz was not out of reach. In Geekbench TGL had no issue hitting 4.7-4.8ghz.
edit: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/3695518.gb5
Quite probably. It wasn't Chip Hell. I want to say I saw it on a thread on another site that had a twitter embed, but I'm not sure. Doesn't help that I clear my history often.
It's from MebiuW, his 4.7 Ghz Tigerlake turbo boost prediction was spot on when nobody could believe in this. He has a source in the background which he occasionally uses afaik, it's not just a random speculation, although with all of such unconfirmed stuff nothing is safe.
IF 5.5GHz is even close to the real SC clocks then Zen 3 must be packing a hefty punch for Intel to want to push clocks that far, or, to maintain single-thread superiority on desktop instead of mobile, which some speculated could be a possibility seeing how the 1185G7 is turboing to 4.8GHz. All these is assuming these clocks are even realistic in the first place.Do you have a link? And I'll point out that I predicted 4.8GHz for Tiger Lake, yet I still think 5.5 is very unrealistic for Rocket Lake.
IF 5.5GHz is even close to the real SC clocks then Zen 3 must be packing a hefty punch for Intel to want to push clocks that far,
Now though, I have a feeling 8 cores may be a bit low for gaming going forward.
It's from MebiuW, his 4.7 Ghz Tigerlake turbo boost prediction was spot on when nobody could believe in this. He has a source in the background which he occasionally uses afaik, it's not just a random speculation, although with all of such unconfirmed stuff nothing is safe.
Well, Intel is not going to fight an efficiency war with AMD right now. They'll need more cores to do that. Right now, their best option is to push fmax through the roof, power consumption be damned. It's a necessary brute force approach, albeit a temporary one until their process woes are solved. There's no other way around it, save abandoning their fabs or giving up competing altogether.By choosing clocks it also means Rocketlake is going to be actually in a less favorable position against AMD. Intel has to cut cores, and whatever they gain due to using Sunny Cove uarch is mostly cancelled out by Zen 3. The focus on ever unattainable clocks mean power efficiency will further go down.
Well, Intel is not going to fight an efficiency war with AMD right now.
Not saying you are wrong. However, designing a, lets call it "more efficient" core and process does not necessarily mean you can extract still more performance by overclocking. Just look at AMD as an example. Overclocking is not worth it in most cases; you are better served with tweaking ram.Process will only help so far. Dothan faired much better than Prescott, despite using the same 90nm process.
We know from Tremont their 10nm process can be competitive on the density front. It's just their big Cores that suck, and its the insane focus on clocks. Why not 4.5-4.7GHz like AMD? Leave the 5GHz+ for overclockers.
Instead, they overclock it themselves and sell it as 5GHz. Remember when we used to have incredible headroom?
There's high clocks and there are insane clocks. The latter what Intel is purusing right now. Not only it requires more transistors, but with less density.
For example, Ocean Cove should be a 4.5GHz chip with 25% higher perf/clock, rather than a 5.2GHz one with 20% higher perf/clock. Overall it might seem a loss, but not pushing it all the way means users can choose by overclocking. Servers and Laptops will benefit from a better architecture.
I agree completely. I've made this point many times before and been called out for being partial but I can tell you exactly when this new trend of factory overclocked chips began. Do you remember in 2017 when AMD dropped Zen on the desktop? That's when this trend began. The only reason why we're even discussing this right now is because Intel is running on a less efficient process so power consumption is necessarily higher. Look at the current releases from both companies - there's barely any headroom at all. In some ways, this is a consequence of competition; both companies are leaving no headroom for enthusiasts. Performance now relies heavily on cooling capacity, more than anything else.Instead, they overclock it themselves and sell it as 5GHz. Remember when we used to have incredible headroom?
Not saying you are wrong. However, designing a, lets call it "more efficient" core and process does not necessarily mean you can extract still more performance by overclocking
His 4.7GHz "prediction" was him copying DavidBepo. DavidBepo treated it as a prediction. MebiuW paraded that information around Weibo as a leak with his source being Bepo. Eventually he posted Bepo's napkin maths on TGL-U's V/f curve there and he got shut down by the people there who actually knew about Tiger Lake, so he came onto Twitter instead.
I can tell you exactly when this new trend of factory overclocked chips began. Do you remember in 2017 when AMD dropped Zen on the desktop? That's when this trend began.
@DrMrLordX Umm, I don't think Zucker2k is saying Zen itself started the factory overclocked trend. He's saying the release of Zen made Intel release factory overclocked chips in response to it.