3000 / 2300 = 1.304x not 2.000x.Can't use base frequencies because according to that Icelake is at half the clocks of Tigerlake and we know that's not true.
3000 / 2300 = 1.304x not 2.000x.Can't use base frequencies because according to that Icelake is at half the clocks of Tigerlake and we know that's not true.
There is when it comes to motherboards. We've already seen problems with Z490 boards not supporting the 10900k (for instance) due to the high PL2 values and long tau periods. An OEM that wants to supply a bare minimum spec board for AM4 never has to worry about sustained power draw of more than 142W through the socket. And that's for a 16-core monstrosity. Plus we haven't seen what happens when Intel tries to dissipate that much power on 10nm on a desktop-sized die (40c Ice Lake-SP is massive . . . and 380W).
You would think so. But if that is the case, why is Intel shooting straight for 250W PL2? Is that what they have to do to beat AMD in some benchmarks? Ice Lake-SP is already pulling monstrous amounts of power while still losing benchmarks to competitor's server CPUs from 2019.
Pretty much. During Sandy/Ivy/Etc times it was Intel that intentionally limited power consumption of its chips because their advantage was huge. Intel was great, I could use a picopsu with a cheap board to run their fastest sku without worrying of frying my board. Now things have turned around. Now I have to think, count and tinker!But if that is the case, why is Intel shooting straight for 250W PL2? Is that what they have to do to beat AMD in some benchmarks?
I know. Has the consensus around here changed about TDP is not equal to power consumption though? Intel's PL2 have a 56 second default duration which the AMD camp loves to see in reviews but then turn around and trash when it comes to these sort of discussion. PL2 x Forever is not an Intel feature, neither is unlocking power on AM4 boards, which actually pushes Zen 3 chips beyond 142W PPT.Incorrect. None of the AM4 CPUs have a TDP over 105W. They have a PPT of 142W.
I stand corrected.You can get 8 cores @ 65W. Ryzen 3700X, APUs, etc.
You would think so. But if that is the case, why is Intel shooting straight for 250W PL2? Is that what they have to do to beat AMD in some benchmarks? Ice Lake-SP is already pulling monstrous amounts of power while still losing benchmarks to competitor's server CPUs from 2019.
Personally I fail to understand why you keep trying to trigger people into an AMD discussion on this thread. First the remark about the AMD 142W PPT power limit being somehow equivalent to Intel's PL1 limit, and now a vague remark that TDP is not equal to power consumption combined with this gratuitous suggestion that the "AMD camp" uses PL2 limit as reference for Intel power consumption and PL1 as reference for performance benchmarks. I guess this has to be done, let's talk Intel vs. AMD power management.I know. Has the consensus around here changed about TDP is not equal to power consumption though? Intel's PL2 have a 56 second default duration which the AMD camp loves to see in reviews but then turn around and trash when it comes to these sort of discussion.
Ice Lake is not on 10SF/10ESF. Intel is also pushing Ice Lake to absurd limits in order to be competitive. Sapphire Rapids should give us a better picture of efficiency going forward.
I know. Has the consensus around here changed about TDP is not equal to power consumption though?
Pretty much. During Sandy/Ivy/Etc times it was Intel that intentionally limited power consumption of its chips because their advantage was huge. Intel was great, I could use a picopsu with a cheap board to run their fastest sku without worrying of frying my board. Now things have turned around. Now I have to think, count and tinker!
That's right. I have doubts that Alder Lake S will get the performance per watt crown back, but I hope, that I am wrong. Again, my main complaint is that all action I've seen in the last few years have only been happening in the mobile space. I wish, I could buy say, a Tiger Lake part for my desktop today, but I can't. And I absolutely despise mobile designs with noisy fans. I've moved to ARM for all my mobile needs, pretty much, because it's damn silent 24/7 365 a year, no matter what the workload and no need to clean the fans, no matter how dusty is the environment.Moving from 65nm -> 45nm -> 32nm -> 22nm gave Intel some massive advantages in perf/watt over previous nodes 14nm extended that advantage versus Intel 22nm once they had it working properly. That Intel is sticking with such high TDPs and PL2 values tells me that even 10SFE isn't going to offer them huge perf/watt advantages over 14nm, at least not compared to past node transitions.
We don't know a whole lot about 10SF or 10SFE's voltage/clockspeed curve in all-core turbos approaching 5 GHz (or whatever it is that Alder Lake-S attempts with its flagship SKU); that being said, Intel launching yet another SKU with a TDP of 125W (or higher!) and a PL2 that is twice the TDP ought to tell you something about pushing things to absurd limits.
Are you serious? On the one hand, you have a company selling a CPU that will not under any circumstance exceed 135% of TDP unless you start messing with UEFI settings. Then you have Intel which can (with current products like the 10900k and 11900k) reach 200% of TDP for nearly a minute, and that's on boards that actually obey Intel's own tau specs. Many boards have a limitless tau unless you tinker with them to defeat that behavior.
Intel can not, under any circumstance, behave as though their products are even remotely better-behaved in the power consumption department!
Moving from 65nm -> 45nm -> 32nm -> 22nm gave Intel some massive advantages in perf/watt over previous nodes 14nm extended that advantage versus Intel 22nm once they had it working properly. That Intel is sticking with such high TDPs and PL2 values tells me that even 10SFE isn't going to offer them huge perf/watt advantages over 14nm, at least not compared to past node transitions.
That's just the pcb, right? Not the actual die?There's only one Ice Lake 4+2 LP die (stepping D1) and one Ice Lake PCH-LP die (stepping D0) from which Intel currently makes 4 platforms (ICL-U/UN/Y/YN) and at least 15 SKUs. The N models use smaller "nano" packages, and it's amazing to me that to date there does not appear to be a single photo of those packages anywhere on the internet. For some reason, iFixit didn't bother to publish pictures as part of their usual teardowns. I almost disassembled some of my customers' machines to snap a few pics but couldn't justify pulling off the heat sinks for the sake of my own curiosity. Anyway, mostly similar specs, but not the same product:
ICL-Y, BGA1377, 26.5 mm x 18.5 mm
ICL-YN, BGA1044, 22 mm x 16.5 mm
ICL-U, BGA1526, 50 mm x 25 mm
ICL-UN, BGA1344, ?? mm x ?? mm
The dimensions I quoted are for the package/organic substrate, yes, not the silicon die. These are all multi-chip SoC packages containing both the CPU die and PCH.That's just the pcb, right? Not the actual die?
Isn't cpu connected to PCH using DMI? basically glorified PCIE. I doubt distance matters a lot, compared to usual latencies of PCIE.
3000 / 2300 = 1.304x not 2.000x.
The board real estate matters a lot to some OEMs, especially in products like tablet PCs and 2-in-1s.
Just to clarify: The fully integrated FCH was introduced in Kabini within 2013.They'd have saved lot more space if it integrated the PCH like everyone did since 2017. AMD did that with Raven Ridge.
Just to clarify: The fully integrated FCH was introduced in Kabini within 2013.
They'd have saved lot more space if it integrated the PCH like everyone did since 2017. AMD did that with Raven Ridge. Alderlake better have active interposer using Foveros like Lakefield, without the downsides of course.
what a bucket of redacted
I am gonna be direct- so many women at "leader" positions is for me clearly the reason why Intel is in this crap
Pat good luck, those are very hard to fire even if they don't deliver- my own expecience- social manipulation, decieving, blatant lying, being in every project where don't even have to be to get the credit or silent leave those which don't run too well t not ruin their rep
compare this conversation to Jim Keller or Lisa Su
I don't wish Intel bad but with this stuff it is a big no
Profanity (even abbreviated) is not allowed in the tech forums.
Furthermore, your misogynistic beliefs/viewpoints are not welcome on the
forums, period.
AT Mod Usandthem