Who says Lunar Lake is using 18A?while Lunar Lake will be production ready in 2024 on 18A
Though that aside, the comment about LNL coming "further ahead" compared to ARL is interesting. Maybe an H1 launch for ARL, and H2 for LNL?
Who says Lunar Lake is using 18A?while Lunar Lake will be production ready in 2024 on 18A
You poor... unsuspecting soul..."important features (...) like silencing dog barking or lawnmowers"
I'm not sure what to think about this being the only use case mentioned for the upgrades of their chips...
Who says Lunar Lake is using 18A?
Though that aside, the comment about LNL coming "further ahead" compared to ARL is interesting. Maybe an H1 launch for ARL, and H2 for LNL?
True, there's usually a ~1Q gap between shipping to OEMs and systems on shelves. Surely they'll want LNL laptops on shelves for Black Friday, but if they only manage to ship at the way end of 2025, that's not awful. If ARL is even 1Q prior, it will probably be actually available sometime H2.Production readiness to me doesn't sound like Lunar will actually be released in 2024, even though I'd agree they want to make it sound like it would be.
"& Beyond". That column is not just LNL, same as the previous one isn't just MTL.Intel said Lunar Lake is using 18A.
View attachment 74555
So you're suggesting that the slide should be interpreted such that the nodes shown underneath the product names are of no relation to the products themselves and are simply presented there for timeline's sake? E.g. Lunar Lake could use 20A but 18A is shown under that portion of the slide only because it becomes production reading in 2024+? If this is the case, then the slide could have been clearer if they split out the product timeline with the node timeline instead of lumping them together as if to suggest the products are being paired with the nodes underneath them."& Beyond". That column is not just LNL, same as the previous one isn't just MTL.
There isn't no relation, but they're lumping together multiple things in one column, and likely leaving out some as well (e.g. N6 and N5/N4 for MTL/ARL). Like how Meteor Lake isn't using N3 despite it being listed in the "Meteor Lake & Arrow Lake" column. And yes, I agree that's somewhat confusing, and they could have structured the slide better.So you're suggesting that the slide should be interpreted such that the nodes shown underneath the product names are of no relation to the products themselves and are simply presented there for timeline's sake?
I think lunar lake will use tsmc n3eThere isn't no relation, but they're lumping together multiple things in one column, and likely leaving out some as well (e.g. N6 and N5/N4 for MTL/ARL). Like how Meteor Lake isn't using N3 despite it being listed in the "Meteor Lake & Arrow Lake" column. And yes, I agree that's somewhat confusing, and they could have structured the slide better.
The most recent rumors pegged LNL as being on N3. With other rumors also claiming N3 for ARL compute dies, it doesn't seem implausible.
Looks like you missed my previous post. I believe there is high confidence LNL will be on 18A based on the Intel slide I posted from last month.There isn't no relation, but they're lumping together multiple things in one column, and likely leaving out some as well (e.g. N6 and N5/N4 for MTL/ARL). Like how Meteor Lake isn't using N3 despite it being listed in the "Meteor Lake & Arrow Lake" column. And yes, I agree that's somewhat confusing, and they could have structured the slide better.
The most recent rumors pegged LNL as being on N3. With other rumors also claiming N3 for ARL compute dies, it doesn't seem implausible.
I also believe that just like Intel 4, Intel 20A will not be a “full process”, so only high perf Arrow Lake CPU chiplet will be made with it. Intel 18A, akin to Intel 3, will provide rest of the missing libraries. IFS is focusing on 18A for this very reason. Edit: This is how Intel is doing “5 processes in 4 years“, by doing couple of partial ones.
Ok, I didn’t pay attention to that nuance. Thanks for pointing it out!There must be a reason for the order in why External is shown before 18A.
I think this is a bit of a reach. If LNL was coming in 2024 with 18A, then why does that slide talk say "Between Now & 2025"? And if that "Future Client" chip is indeed Lunar Lake, why leave it unnamed? I'm not going to say it's impossible, but it would be odd that's Intel's being so cagey about it.Looks like you missed my previous post. I believe there is high confidence LNL will be on 18A based on the Intel slide I posted from last month.
This I can definitely see. The only thing known to be on 20A is an Arrow Lake compute die. No reason then to support anything more than they do for Intel 4.I also believe that just like Intel 4, Intel 20A will not be a “full process”, so only high perf Arrow Lake CPU chiplet will be made with it. Intel 18A, akin to Intel 3, will provide rest of the missing libraries. IFS is focusing on 18A for this very reason. Edit: This is how Intel is doing “5 processes in 4 years“, by doing couple of partial ones.
That would be interesting. If the process is ready for it, monolithic would certainly be better for PnP, but it would also be a repudiation of the MTL-style chiplet approach.Another gut feel I have, though I could be completely wrong, LNL (or a low end version of it) may end up being monolithic to better compete with M series.
If 18A is manufacturing ready in H2 2024 (which usually means end 2024), all/most 18A products including LNL, Future Rapids, as well as any IFS customer chips will arrive in 2025. So “Between Now & 2025” is totally apt. To further stress the point: Intel 4 is manufacturing ready “today“ (= Q4 ‘22 when that talk was given), and MTL is expected late ‘23. The dates in that slide relate to the process, not the products built using them.think this is a bit of a reach. If LNL was coming in 2024 with 18A, then why does that slide talk say "Between Now & 2025"? And if that "Future Client" chip is indeed Lunar Lake, why leave it unnamed? I'm not going to say it's impossible, but it would be odd that's Intel's being so cagey about it.
MTL style chiplet approach is quite valid and elegant, but it‘s probably not the best choice for very low power devices, 15W and below where every W counts. It could be monolithic or have fewer tiles, perhaps merging CPU, GPU? I think there will still be LNL products built in fully flexible MTL like style, but maybe not at the lowest end. Of course, I could be totally wrong, it’s just a hunch.That would be interesting. If the process is ready for it, monolithic would certainly be better for PnP, but it would also be a repudiation of the MTL-style chiplet approach.
Pretty sure this is all going through more or less the same marketing team. But ok, guess we'll just have to wait and see.Exact future names are often left out because one part of Intel may not know exactly what another part of Intel may have already disclosed.
I feel like memory controller is the big question. Significant latency and power considerations with having it on a different die and lesser node. Think the GPU will be almost always be separate, especially since it seems to be sticking with TSMC for now.It could be monolithic or have fewer tiles, perhaps merging CPU, GPU?
Do you have comprehension issues? For team working on AVX-512 Genoa is the clear winnerPhoronix AVX-512 performance review for SPR and Genao. As I thought, the gloating about Genao's AVX-512 performance being superior to SPR was too quick.
AVX-512 Performance Comparison: AMD Genoa vs. Intel Sapphire Rapids & Ice Lake Review - Phoronix
For reasons independent of the specific AVX-512 implementation. Genoa is benefiting from more cores, memory bandwidth, better node, etc. Not a magical AVX-512 implementation as some were claiming.For team working on AVX-512 Genoa is the clear winner
I am sorry, come again? Who came on top of the Chart on That Review? Does it matter how AMD is able to implement AVX-512 When at the end of the day large corporation look at CTO? Do they even care about how the core is built?For reasons independent of the specific AVX-512 implementation. Genoa is benefiting from more cores, memory bandwidth, better node, etc. Not a magical AVX-512 implementation as some were claiming.
Since you've spent the last few months explicitly talking about how AMD's implemented AVX-512, then yes, I think it's relevant to bring up. If you want to talk actual platform performance and value, fine, but you know that hasn't been the extent of the recent rhetoric.Does it matter how AMD is able to implement AVX-512 When at the end of the day large corporation look at CTO? Do they even care about how the core is built?
Do you always move the goalposts to have the last word and try and support your position ?Since you've spent the last few months explicitly talking about how AMD's implemented AVX-512, then yes, I think it's relevant to bring up. If you want to talk actual platform performance and value, fine, but you know that hasn't been the extent of the recent rhetoric.
If you want to be picky then, let's do that. We know that AMD implements a double pump AVX-512(two AVX-256).. I have said it many times, it's not the best implementation as compared to Intel, but it works just fine for most AVX-512 Worloads, there are a few regression on that benchmark due to that and even then AMD is still coming up on top.Since you've spent the last few months explicitly talking about how AMD's implemented AVX-512, then yes, I think it's relevant to bring up. If you want to talk actual platform performance and value, fine, but you know that hasn't been the extent of the recent rhetoric.
In case you weren't aware, holding people to their original statements is the opposite of moving the goalposts. Are you seriously going to claim no one's been talking about AMD's AVX-512 implementation?Do you always move the goalposts to have the last word and try and support your position ?
That's a distinctly different tone than has been the norm over the past few weeks/months. Why else would it be remotely notable?know that AMD implements a double pump AVX-512.. I have said it many times, it's not the best implementation as compared to Intel, but it works just fine for most AVX-512 Worloads