Reviewers are going to be pissed if people buy it and post benchmarks. Albeit if those prices are legit Rocket Lake is not going to be all that interesting.
Reviewers are going to be pissed if people buy it and post benchmarks. Albeit if those prices are legit Rocket Lake is not going to be all that interesting.
uzzi38
Platinum Member
- Oct 16, 2019
- 2,624
- 5,892
- 146
Oh and here's some real TGL-H. Boost and base clocks there. Seems like no TVB nor TB3.0 at all any more.
coercitiv
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2014
- 6,187
- 11,859
- 136
First benchmarks ran on recently bought 11700K are in on Hardwareluxx:
moonbogg
Lifer
- Jan 8, 2011
- 10,635
- 3,095
- 136
coercitiv
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2014
- 6,187
- 11,859
- 136
moonbogg
Lifer
- Jan 8, 2011
- 10,635
- 3,095
- 136
Det0x
Golden Member
- Sep 11, 2014
- 1,028
- 2,953
- 136
Geekbench 5 compared to my 5950x
Rocket prettymuch only wins in AES-XTS compared to Zen3
Rocket prettymuch only wins in AES-XTS compared to Zen3
Hulk
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 4,214
- 2,007
- 136
Ah yes. Thanks for reminding me. Don't know how I missed that. Gonna grab me a 11900K the second they are available!
Hulk
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 4,214
- 2,007
- 136
Zen 3 is still a beast but that comparison seems to show a strong 5950X vs a weak 11700K. Of course we don't know how they are clocked, but here's a comparison that shows things as being a bit more equal.
Det0x
Golden Member
- Sep 11, 2014
- 1,028
- 2,953
- 136
Hmm lower score runs higher clockspeed.. Something dont add up here.
4975mhz = 1746 points
4888 mhz = 1806 points
Hulk
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 4,214
- 2,007
- 136
Agreed. That's why we need real, vetted reviews. Geekbench scores are all over the place. When I compare using Geekbench I generally try to use non K parts on Dell or other systems where I know overclocking is difficult, not possible, and/or not worth it to the buyer since they are buying a Dell
Review of a Vaio laptop with the 11375H. PL2 is 65 W. Laptop itself isn't great but the single thread scores are very good.
If only he had run FlopsCPU v1.4 on a locked clock, which measures both single thread IPC and multi-threading.
Last edited:
The 11700K used 192 W at 4.6 (locked ACT) on all cores in Cinebench R23. That's AVX2 I believe and not AVX-512. For 125 W it dropped to 4 Ghz.
Hulk
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 4,214
- 2,007
- 136
I realize I've asked this question before here but I really don't know why Intel spent all of that die space for the larger L2/L3 caches in Tiger Lake (Willow Cove)? The result was an average IPC decrease compared to Sunny Cove. They could have saved a little die space if they held it to 4 cores and/or possibly added a 6 core part.
Perhaps when the 8 core parts come out the larger caches will be necessary to feed the cores?
I just can't seem to wrap my head around it especially when they go back to Sunny Cove for Rocket Lake.
Perhaps when the 8 core parts come out the larger caches will be necessary to feed the cores?
I just can't seem to wrap my head around it especially when they go back to Sunny Cove for Rocket Lake.
I had thought that somehow it helps with the frequency gains they got. Also IIRC Golden Cove's cache sizes are the same as Willow Cove so maybe that had mostly to do with it.
Hulk
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 4,214
- 2,007
- 136
The caches on a processor came into being when there was an imbalance in the speed of processor and the data bus, namely to insure the front end of the CPU has all of the data/instructions it requires to operate optimally.
Are you theorizing that when Sunny Cove gained approximately a 1GHz moving to 10SF that Intel deemed the current cache structure not sufficient? That's a good theory.
I'm thinking it definitely has something to do with the slower memory subsystem on mobile devices because for Rocket Lake they went with Sunny Cove.
No I was thinking that the cache changes were needed to get the frequency increase on 10 nm. That doesn't really make any sense admittingly.
It may just be that the cache structure was intended to give better performance but the L3 speed was butchered to get Tiger Lake out of the door.
Cardyak
Member
- Sep 12, 2018
- 72
- 159
- 106
I’ve been pondering this as well, it seems that the L2 cache in Willow Cove had a very impressive upgrade. (2.5x increase in size for only a 1 cycle increase in latency) but the L3 cache change was so poor it’s actually caused a regression of performance in certain workloads.
I have several theories such as:
1. As jpiniero stated, Intel screwed up the L3 implementation and just rushed it out the door anyway (fairly unlikely)
2. The L3 cache change causes a performance regression in some workloads but an improvement in others, and the regressions are over-represented in AnandTechs review which skews the entire IPC average calculation. Other benchmarks show a slight IPC gain for Willow Cove of around 4%-5% (somewhat plausible)
3. The L3 cache change was inevitable as future core designs scale up. Intel had to bite the bullet and alter the way the L3 cache was implemented at some point in the near future, so they decided to do it now. Maybe it’s one of the those things in design and engineering where you have to go back a step and regress in the short term so you can move forward 2 or 3 steps in the future and gain more performance in the long term. (Personally I think this is the most likely)
Hulk
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 4,214
- 2,007
- 136
Adding on to your #3 do you think that for 8 core mobile Tiger Lake the larger cache structures will really come into play since the data/instruction requirements will be doubled? We'll never know because there will never be a Sunny Cove 8 core mobile part I assume?
uzzi38
Platinum Member
- Oct 16, 2019
- 2,624
- 5,892
- 146
This is accurate as far as TDP for SPR goes: davidbepo (5 GHz overload) on Twitter: "SPR ⚡🔥 is 350W first VERY early number for genoa is Genoa 3,9 (320W)" / Twitter
Don't mind the Bepo maths on performance ratings.
Don't mind the Bepo maths on performance ratings.
Overall, looking at the changes in the CypressCove microarchitecture compared to Skylake, the average IPC increase of 18% should be on the bank because Intel did not introduce such large changes between the previous microarchitecture, which is quite intriguing.
Sunny / CypressCove
5-Way Instruction Assignment (Skylake 4-Way, Haswell 4-Way, SandyBridge 4-Way, Nehalem 4-Way, Conroe (Core 2) 4-Way)
Instruction re-queuing (OoO (ROB)) 352 entries in flight (Skylake 224, Haswell 192, SandyBridge 168, Nehalem 128, Conroe (Core 2) 96)
Scheduler 160 entries (Skylake 97, Broadwell 64, Haswell 60, SandyBridge 54, Nehalem 36, Conroe (Core 2) 32)
Register Files - Integer 280 entries + FP 224 entries (Skylake 180 + 168, Haswell 168 + 168, SandyBridge 160 + 144, Nehalem N / A, Conroe (Core 2) N / A)
Dispatch 10-Way (dispatch from scheduler (execution unit ports)) (Skylake 8-Way, Haswell 8-Way, SandyBridge 6-Way, Nehalem 6-Way, Conroe (Core 2) 6-Way)
X86 Skylake core 217 million transistors
Front-end
Cache L1-32KB 8-Way Instructions
µOP cache of 1536 entries
ITLB 8 entries (2M)
Allocation Queue (IDQ) 64 µOP / thread or 128 µOP single thread
LSD can detect up to 64 µOP loops / thread or 128 µOP single thread
5-way x86 decoder (1 comprehensive, 4 straight)
Back-end
Assignment of 4-Way Instructions
Instruction re-queuing (OoO (ROB)) 224 entries on the fly
Scheduler 97 entries
Register Files - Integer 180 entries + FP 168 entries
8-Way Dispatch (dispatch from scheduler (execution unit ports))
Execution Engine
3x FP-ALU (Arithmetic-logic-floating-point units (2x FMAC 256bit))
1x ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit)
1x StoreData (data warehouse)
3x AGU (2x loading addresses, 1x generating addresses)
Memory subsystem
In-Flight Loads 72 entries (loading in flight with L1D)
In-Flight Stores 56 entries (in-flight storage to L1D)
L1-Data Cache 32KB 8-Way
Cache L2 256KB 4-Way
-------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------
X86 CypressCove core 300 million transistors
Front-end
Cache L1-32KB 8-Way Instructions
µOP cache of 2250 entries
Smarter prefetchers (smarter preselector)
Improved Branch Predictor
ITLB 16 entries (double 2M)
Allocation Queue (IDQ) 70 µOP / thread or 140 µOP single thread
LSD can detect up to 70 µOP loop / thread or 140 µOP single thread
5-way x86 decoder (1 comprehensive, 4 straight)
Back-end
Assignment of 5-Way Instructions
Instruction re-queuing (OoO (ROB)) 352 entries on the fly
Scheduler of 160 entries
Register Files - Integer 280 entries + FP 224 entries
10-Way Dispatch (dispatch from scheduler (execution unit ports))
Execution Engine
3x FP-ALU (Arithmetic logic floating point units (1x FMAC512bit or 2x FMAC256bit)) (in fact it is 1x FMAC512bit + 1x FMAC256bit)
1x ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit)
2x StoreData (data warehouse)
2x AGU (loading addresses)
2x AGU (address generation)
Memory subsystem
In-Flight Loads 128 entries (loading in flight with L1D)
In-Flight Stores 72 entries (in-flight storage to L1D)
48KB 12-Way L1 Data Cache
Cache L2 512KB 8-Way
Sunny / CypressCove
5-Way Instruction Assignment (Skylake 4-Way, Haswell 4-Way, SandyBridge 4-Way, Nehalem 4-Way, Conroe (Core 2) 4-Way)
Instruction re-queuing (OoO (ROB)) 352 entries in flight (Skylake 224, Haswell 192, SandyBridge 168, Nehalem 128, Conroe (Core 2) 96)
Scheduler 160 entries (Skylake 97, Broadwell 64, Haswell 60, SandyBridge 54, Nehalem 36, Conroe (Core 2) 32)
Register Files - Integer 280 entries + FP 224 entries (Skylake 180 + 168, Haswell 168 + 168, SandyBridge 160 + 144, Nehalem N / A, Conroe (Core 2) N / A)
Dispatch 10-Way (dispatch from scheduler (execution unit ports)) (Skylake 8-Way, Haswell 8-Way, SandyBridge 6-Way, Nehalem 6-Way, Conroe (Core 2) 6-Way)
X86 Skylake core 217 million transistors
Front-end
Cache L1-32KB 8-Way Instructions
µOP cache of 1536 entries
ITLB 8 entries (2M)
Allocation Queue (IDQ) 64 µOP / thread or 128 µOP single thread
LSD can detect up to 64 µOP loops / thread or 128 µOP single thread
5-way x86 decoder (1 comprehensive, 4 straight)
Back-end
Assignment of 4-Way Instructions
Instruction re-queuing (OoO (ROB)) 224 entries on the fly
Scheduler 97 entries
Register Files - Integer 180 entries + FP 168 entries
8-Way Dispatch (dispatch from scheduler (execution unit ports))
Execution Engine
3x FP-ALU (Arithmetic-logic-floating-point units (2x FMAC 256bit))
1x ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit)
1x StoreData (data warehouse)
3x AGU (2x loading addresses, 1x generating addresses)
Memory subsystem
In-Flight Loads 72 entries (loading in flight with L1D)
In-Flight Stores 56 entries (in-flight storage to L1D)
L1-Data Cache 32KB 8-Way
Cache L2 256KB 4-Way
-------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------
X86 CypressCove core 300 million transistors
Front-end
Cache L1-32KB 8-Way Instructions
µOP cache of 2250 entries
Smarter prefetchers (smarter preselector)
Improved Branch Predictor
ITLB 16 entries (double 2M)
Allocation Queue (IDQ) 70 µOP / thread or 140 µOP single thread
LSD can detect up to 70 µOP loop / thread or 140 µOP single thread
5-way x86 decoder (1 comprehensive, 4 straight)
Back-end
Assignment of 5-Way Instructions
Instruction re-queuing (OoO (ROB)) 352 entries on the fly
Scheduler of 160 entries
Register Files - Integer 280 entries + FP 224 entries
10-Way Dispatch (dispatch from scheduler (execution unit ports))
Execution Engine
3x FP-ALU (Arithmetic logic floating point units (1x FMAC512bit or 2x FMAC256bit)) (in fact it is 1x FMAC512bit + 1x FMAC256bit)
1x ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit)
2x StoreData (data warehouse)
2x AGU (loading addresses)
2x AGU (address generation)
Memory subsystem
In-Flight Loads 128 entries (loading in flight with L1D)
In-Flight Stores 72 entries (in-flight storage to L1D)
48KB 12-Way L1 Data Cache
Cache L2 512KB 8-Way
Last edited:
Hulk
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 4,214
- 2,007
- 136
To me it looks like Intel has been flip-flopping between front and back end improvements.
Sandy Bridge seemed to focus on the front end. Adding uop cache, improving the branch predictor unit, ring bus, double the decode queue, larger reorder buffer. There were back end improvements but the focus seemed to be feeding the decoders. According to my "work rate" analysis from Anandtech testing (earlier in this thread) that gave Sandy a 11.8% boost over Nehalem.
Then I have a feeling Sandy didn't perform as well as their simulations suggested and they went ahead and found the bottlenecks and made some tweaks with Ivy Bridge, the first and only tick+, and got another 6.7%, or about 19% over Nehalem, which I think is what they were expecting over Nehalem with Sandy in the first place.
With all of this improvement to the front end the back end was now the bottleneck so with Haswell the big change was the execution ports going from 6 to 8. 8.7% uptick for Haswell.
For Skylake the front end was again the bottleneck to the big change was the addition of another simple decoder and other larger structures to support it. 8.9% improvement for Skylake.
With Sunny Cove the backend was again the bottleneck but they learned from Haswell and not only increased the execution ports form 8 to 10, they also made sure those extra ports would be utilized by increase the data and L2 caches, as well as increasing the size of buffers, registers, loads, stores, basically the Haswell and Skylake improvements again in one swoop. 21% improvement, again calculated from Anandtech tests. If I had to guess Sunny Cove is a very front-to-back end balanced design hence the large improvement from Skylake.
I think if Golden Cove will achieve a similar throughput improvement it's going to take a fairly large overhaul. Another simple decoder, two more execution ports, the Willow Cove cache structure, DDR5 memory, and improvement/enlargement of most internal structures. Basically a wider, smarter Sunny Cove with inherently faster main memory access. After Golden Cove I don't know. How much more juice can they squeeze from this design, which dates back to Banias circa 2003? Or maybe they can continue to add decoders, ports, larger structures, and smarter OoO scheduling?
Time will tell.
But back to the point of my post. After Conroe, or a while Intel didn't need to do more than what I would call "half steps." Meaning improve the front or back end massively, but not both at the same time, which is what the did with Sunny Cove due to the threat from AMD.
I expect Golden Cove to be a "full step" ahead.
I don't know a lot about Zen 3 or AMD architectures but they seem to have taken the Core design philosophy and gone hog wild with it. 4 complex decoders and like 14 or 16 or something execution ports? We'll know the "work rate" or "throughput" comparison for Sunny Cove vs Zen 3 in a few weeks with the release of Rocket Lake, but if they are comparable then I think Intel probably has achieved the same result as AMD with a slightly smaller yet smarter design. And importantly possible with more room for improvement going forward. It's all super interesting to follow. What a great race to watch.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter