# Intel Rocket Lake-S Platform Detailed, Features PCIe 4.0 and Xe Graphics



## AleksandarK (Mar 22, 2020)

Intel's upcoming Rocket Lake-S desktop platform is expected to arrive sometime later this year, however, we didn't have any concrete details on what will it bring. Thanks to the exclusive information obtained by VideoCardz'es sources at Intel, there are some more details regarding the RKL-S platform. To start, the RKL-S platform is based on a 500-series chipset. This is an iteration of the upcoming 400-series chipset, and it features many platform improvements. The 500-series chipset based motherboards will supposedly have an LGA 1200 socket, which is an improvement in pin count compared to LGA 1151 socket found on 300 series chipset.

The main improvement is the CPU core itself, which is supposedly a 14 nm adaptation of Tiger Lake-U based on Willow Cove core. This design is representing a backport of IP to an older manufacturing node, which results in bigger die space due to larger node used. When it comes to the platform improvements, it will support the long-awaited PCIe 4.0 connection already present on competing platforms from AMD. It will enable much faster SSD speeds as there are already PCIe 4.0 NVMe devices that run at 7 GB/s speeds. With RKL-S, there will be 20 PCIe 4.0 lanes present, where four would go to the NVMe SSD and 16 would go to the PCIe slots from GPUs. Another interesting feature of the RKL-S is the addition of Xe graphics found on the CPU die, meant as iGPU. Supposedly based on Gen12 graphics, it will bring support for HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.


 

Some things like Direct Media Interface (DMI) will double the bandwidth and now there will be eight links present, compared to four of the previous platforms. Announced at CES 2020, ThunderBolt 4 will also be present along with USB 3.2 20G. Additionally, Intel Software Guard Extensions (SGX) have been removed to improve the security of the platform, as the SGX has proved to be quite vulnerable to many kinds of attacks and exploits. There are some updated media encoding standards as well, like 12-bit AV1/HEVC and E2E compression.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## TristanX (Mar 22, 2020)

I doubt it will be backported to 14nm. Backporting CPU core and GPU core is way too much, especially that Willow Cove need large caches (for example for AVX 512). There may be two platforms at the same time: cheaper 400 series for big volume, and pricier 500 series for enthusiasts.


----------



## Flanker (Mar 22, 2020)

Cool, when can we expect reviews and benchmarks?


----------



## Object55 (Mar 22, 2020)

Flanker said:


> Cool, when can we expect reviews and benchmarks?



And mitigations ?


----------



## Space Lynx (Mar 22, 2020)

Does anyone know what HBR3 means?


----------



## ncrs (Mar 22, 2020)

Object55 said:


> And mitigations ?



They removed SGX outright from the platform so it's a start...


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 22, 2020)

TristanX said:


> I doubt it will be backported to 14nm. *Backporting CPU core and GPU core* is way too much, especially that Willow Cove need large caches (for example for AVX 512). There may be two platforms at the same time: cheaper 400 series for big volume, and pricier 500 series for enthusiasts.


You don't necessarily have to have AVX512 in desktop or notebook chips & no we've seen this happen before as well, *IIRC* Maxwell was backported to 28nm. Intel needs this & it's certainly *cheaper than trying to fix* the train wreck that is *10nm* right now.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 22, 2020)

Many things announced, leaked, etc, few actually released.


----------



## Flanker (Mar 22, 2020)

ncrs said:


> They removed SGX outright from the platform so it's a start...


I don't think I understand it correctly, but it sounded like "our security guard did a lousy job, so we removed him." Shouldn't a flawed security feature be replaced by something better instead of just removing it?


----------



## bug (Mar 22, 2020)

Flanker said:


> I don't think I understand it correctly, but it sounded like "our security guard did a lousy job, so we removed him." Shouldn't a flawed security feature be replaced by something better instead of just removing it?


When your "security guard" doubles as a backdoor (or several), getting rid of it makes sense.


----------



## notb (Mar 22, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> You don't necessarily have to have AVX512 in desktop or notebook chips & no we've seen this happen before as well, *IIRC* Maxwell was backported to 28nm. Intel needs this & it's certainly *cheaper than trying to fix* the train wreck that is *10nm* right now.


Man... you're writing posts from mid 2019 at best. 10nm is profitable already and used for mainstream chips.


----------



## bug (Mar 22, 2020)

notb said:


> Man... you're writing posts from mid 2019 at best. 10nm is profitable already and used for mainstream chips.


As evidenced by the dozen of CPU models you can buy today, none of which is available for the desktop.
Intel may have figured out the process at long last, but they definitely still have an acute capacity problem on their hands.


----------



## jabbadap (Mar 22, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> Does anyone know what HBR3 means?



It's a displayport thingy, nothing new really.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 22, 2020)

Intel will have NOTHING worthy till 2023 ie 5 years since Jim Keller joined and it will the time for the first arch his team has created for Intel. 

All this we will have are tweaks, giving really diminishing returns, yet costing a lot of transistor budget. Simple as that. The arch has gained such point.


I suggest to watch the guy speak...


----------



## bug (Mar 22, 2020)

Ferrum Master said:


> Intel will have NOTHING worthy till 2023 ie 5 years since Jim Keller joined and it will the time for the first arch his team has created for Intel.
> 
> All this we will have are tweaks, giving really diminishing returns, yet costing a lot of transistor budget. Simple as that. The arch has gained such point.
> 
> ...


Except Intel's problem is not architecture (Sunny Cove looks darn good on paper), it's fab capacity 
If what Intel is telling us is true, while 10nm has been a train wreck, 7nm which was worked on in parallel was not. And that would mean 7nm will hit sooner rather than later, making ramping up 10nm at this point rather unattractive. Big if, grain of salt and everything...


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 22, 2020)

notb said:


> Man... you're writing posts from mid 2019 at best. 10nm is profitable already and used for mainstream chips.


Profitable as in sinking tens of billions to make it work & then getting a trickle of the planned capacity 5 years after it was supposed to come online?
You sure that's what you'd call profitable or "mainstream" 

Also if Intel's saying 7nm hits in 2021(?) I'll put mainstream availability around 2022 at the very least, their track record since *22nm* (late by 3 months or so) has been delays after delays & I'd rather see the products on shelves than believe whatever PR schtick they come up with next!


----------



## dicktracy (Mar 22, 2020)

My next upgrade if it delivers.


----------



## Imsochobo (Mar 22, 2020)

ohh a mainstream platform from intel which isn't totally horrible and crap and was good back in 2011 before invention of m2 and high bandwidth I/O.
Good!


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 22, 2020)

bug said:


> Except Intel's problem is not architecture



It is a problem, its still an evolution of Sandy Bridge in the core, not a new design. It plagues Intel especially with the vulnerability issues.

If you watch the interview you would get the idea... 5 years, new arch from the scratch. Fastest is 2023...


----------



## Dave65 (Mar 22, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> You don't necessarily have to have AVX512 in desktop or notebook chips & no we've seen this happen before as well, *IIRC* Maxwell was backported to 28nm. Intel needs this & it's certainly *cheaper than trying to fix* the train wreck that is *10nm* right now.



No expert but seems to me Intel is wasting resources with 10 nm, seems the better option would be to work on 7nm or even 5?


----------



## notb (Mar 22, 2020)

bug said:


> As evidenced by the dozen of CPU models you can buy today, none of which is available for the desktop.


They just don't make 10nm CPUs for desktops. It's a low priority segment.

I know desktops are important to you, but Intel is not a charity. They can make a limited number of 10nm CPUs and they put them where it makes a difference.


> Intel may have figured out the process at long last, but they definitely still have an acute capacity problem on their hands.


Likely more than AMD (or that'll happen in next few months). I'll leave it to you to decide if that's a lot or not. 


R0H1T said:


> Profitable as in sinking tens of billions to make it work & then getting a trickle of the planned capacity 5 years after it was supposed to come online?
> You sure that's what you'd call profitable or "mainstream"


So you've been writing from 2019 and now it's what: 2018? 2017?

I'm talking about today. 10nm works, delivers and appears in mainstream products: Lenovo Yoga, Dell XPS/Inspiron, Macbook Air and so on.

If you really want to criticize this tech because it didn't meet Intel's roadmap, do what makes you happy.
I guess it actually becomes a praise if this is the first (only) drawback that comes to your mind...


> Also if Intel's saying 7nm hits in 2021(?) I'll put mainstream availability around 2022 at the very least, their track record since *22nm* (late by 3 months or so) has been delays after delays & I'd rather see the products on shelves than believe whatever PR schtick they come up with next!


I have no idea when these dates come from. How is 7nm not mainstream already?

By 2022 Intel will likely move all their segments to 7nm or better. Is that what you mean?



Ferrum Master said:


> Intel will have NOTHING worthy till 2023 ie 5 years since Jim Keller joined and it will the time for the first arch his team has created for Intel.


What's wrong with Intel's architecture? They're new big cores are excellent. I guess you haven't been paying attention to Ice Lake benchmarks.
And they're launching a lot of new stuff all the time: all the AI stuff, 3D stacking, "big.LITTLE", networking.

You can't judge just based on gaming desktops - even if that's the only segment you're interested in.
If you want the best CPU for DIY desktop, just buy AMD.
Intel is losing in this niche right now and probably also loses interest in competing. Frankly, there's a chance this will never change. Seriously, never.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 22, 2020)

notb said:


> What's wrong with Intel's architecture? They're new big cores are excellent. I guess you haven't been paying attention to Ice Lake benchmarks.
> And they're launching a lot of new stuff all the time: all the AI stuff, 3D stacking, "big.LITTLE", networking.
> 
> You can't judge just based on gaming desktops - even if that's the only segment you're interested in.
> ...



You are on the brink getting into fanboyish attitude. Calm down. This old arch is a can of worms, it is just a matter of time for another Zero Day class exploit to emerge. The funny move omitting SGX, not fixing it instead to save from the dreaded LVI vulnerability is reason to think about it in general.

There is a lack of CPU's in 19Q4 and Price/Performance point of Rome ended up in 15% market shift in Server Market.... your so called DIY choice AMD is constructively gunning Intel in each crucial market point. And thanks to that we enjoy lower prices and better offerings for the same money.

Your mentioned 10nm parts are AWOL. PC OEM's did enjoy the squeeze first especially Dell. Due to lack of CPU's manufacturers are switching to AMD just because of that. Server market came afterwards...

You call that a niche? You are blaming dude about living 2018, yet missed the train about last quarter yourself.


----------



## ARF (Mar 22, 2020)

> Another interesting feature of the RKL-S is the addition of Xe graphics found on the CPU die, meant as iGPU. Supposedly based on Gen12 graphics, it will bring support for HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.



It's not interesting because the latest standards are HDMI 2.1 and Display Port 2.0..



bug said:


> Except Intel's problem is not architecture (Sunny Cove looks darn good on paper), it's fab capacity




Intel's problem is that its N10 node can't do 5 GHz which its cores desperately need in order to stay competitive with the higher IPC Zen 2 and Zen 3.


----------



## yeeeeman (Mar 22, 2020)

Vya Domus said:


> Many things announced, leaked, etc, few actually released.


Because they are leaked with as many as 2 years before. Until it actually launches people get bored of waiting and reading about them.


----------



## londiste (Mar 22, 2020)

Ferrum Master said:


> The funny move omitting SGX, not fixing it instead to save from the dreaded LVI vulnerability is reason to think about it in general.


Depends. How far along is the release? If they are planning this within 2020, they might not have enough time to have a fix for LVI in hardware and Intel cannot afford to skip a generation at this point.


ARF said:


> Intel's problem is that its N10 node can't do 5 GHz which its cores desperately need in order to stay competitive with the higher IPC Zen 2 and Zen 3.


That is not the problem. Ice Lake does pretty well. The changes we know about in Tiger Lake will put its single-core performance above Zen2, possibly competitive with Zen3.


----------



## yeeeeman (Mar 22, 2020)

Ferrum Master said:


> You are on the brink getting into fanboyish attitude. Calm down. This old arch is a can of worms, it is just a matter of time for another Zero Day class exploit to emerge. The funny move omitting SGX, not fixing it instead to save from the dreaded LVI vulnerability is reason to think about it in general.


I agree with you on Skylake being an old uArch. Ice Lake and Tigerlake are based on it and indeed they are starting to be like an open book for researchers, hence the numerous vulnerabitilies. Still, most of the consumers don't give a damn about this vulnerability craze, including myself. If one's CPU performs better I will buy it. So if Rocket Lake brings enough performance to the table, it will sell no problem.
Regarding the LVI vulnerability, they probably found about it too late in the development process so they just disabled SGX entirely, nothing surprising.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 22, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> Does anyone know what HBR3 means?





			DisplayPort High Bit Rate 3 (HBR3) [finally explained!]
		


Also, no chance this launches in 2020, expect it in 2021.


----------



## ARF (Mar 22, 2020)

londiste said:


> That is not the problem. Ice Lake does pretty well. The changes we know about in Tiger Lake will put its single-core performance above Zen2, possibly competitive with Zen3.



Ice Lake is terrible, to be honest. Only 4 cores at 3.6 GHz on the N10+ node.









__





						Ice Lake (microprocessor) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




18% IPC improvement on average compared to the 2015 Skylake.












						AMD Ryzen 7 3700X & Ryzen 9 3900X review
					

The 7nm revolution has arrived, join us as we review the new Ryzen 7 3700X & Ryzen 9 3900X processors from AMD. 7nm Zen2 processors have arrived. A new architecture, a chiplet design, X570 Chipset... Performance - CineBench 15 (and IPC)




					www.guru3d.com
				




Which would put it ~6-7% above Zen 2 but Zen 3 is expected to bring 15-20% IPC improvement when it comes, finally.


----------



## Alexandrus (Mar 22, 2020)

Maybe don't take those silly Cinebench figures as a measure for IPC. Just a thought.


----------



## Zareek (Mar 22, 2020)

Didn't Intel downplay PCIe 4.0 when AMD announced it by saying they would be launching PCIe 5.0 with the next generation???


----------



## efikkan (Mar 22, 2020)

VideoCardz have made up stuff in the past. While some of this may not or may be accurate, I wouldn't care too much until we have confirmation from reliable third-parties, or official leaks of course.



TristanX said:


> I doubt it will be backported to 14nm. Backporting CPU core and GPU core is way too much, especially that Willow Cove need large caches (for example for AVX 512). There may be two platforms at the same time: cheaper 400 series for big volume, and pricier 500 series for enthusiasts.


The caches of Skylake-X/-SP is pretty close in size and is not a problem on 14nm.



bug said:


> Except Intel's problem is not architecture (Sunny Cove looks darn good on paper), it's fab capacity
> If what Intel is telling us is true, while 10nm has been a train wreck, 7nm which was worked on in parallel was not. And that would mean 7nm will hit sooner rather than later, making ramping up 10nm at this point rather unattractive. Big if, grain of salt and everything...


Intel is ramping up 10nm as much as possible, and 10nm+ arriving this year (for Tiger Lake and Ice Lake-SP/X) and 10nm++ next year. Demand is much higher than expected in both laptop and server segments, so we shouldn't expect 10nm to reach the full lineup. But 7nm is still far away, low volume 2021 and medium volumes 2022 is a best case scenario.


----------



## ARF (Mar 22, 2020)

What's the point in releasing Comet Lake 10-core in April 2020 and Rocket Lake 8-core in December or November 2020 ?


----------



## londiste (Mar 22, 2020)

ARF said:


> 18% IPC improvement on average compared to the 2015 Skylake.
> Which would put it ~6-7% above Zen 2 but Zen 3 is expected to bring 15-20% IPC improvement when it comes, finally.


That was exactly my point. You said Intel needs 5GHz to stay competitive with AMD. It does not. Ice Lake - as you said - has better single-core performance than Zen2. Tiger Lake will bring some smaller improvements. That should put it on par with what we expect Zen3 to be.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 22, 2020)

notb said:


> Man... you're writing posts from mid 2019 at best. 10nm is profitable already and used for mainstream chips.



They're quite elusive for being mainstream buddy. Its pretty close to a paper launch with some samples out the door.

And profitable 10nm sure as hell is not. After all these years of development? lol



efikkan said:


> Intel is ramping up 10nm as much as possible



Are there actual numbers of this? And not those of investments in fabs, but of 10nm products sold.


----------



## Logoffon (Mar 22, 2020)

I might sound dumb here, but what is the exact reason for Intel failing to release 10nm a year after SKL, and then continuously failing to make that node in high yields?


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 22, 2020)

Logoffon said:


> I might sound dumb here, but what is the exact reason for Intel failing to release 10nm a year after SKL, and then continuously failing to make that node in high yields?



That is the million dollar question 

But 'they were lazy' is not sufficient to me. I do think this is really a difficult node. 7nm didn't come through easily either, new effects come into play as we go this small. Effectively the fabs need new machinery for it (EUV). That also has its early problems.


----------



## ARF (Mar 23, 2020)

londiste said:


> That was exactly my point. You said Intel needs 5GHz to stay competitive with AMD. It does not. Ice Lake - as you said - has better single-core performance than Zen2. Tiger Lake will bring some smaller improvements. That should put it on par with what we expect Zen3 to be.



How when Icelake simply doesn't clock anywhere near to the needed levels? You have 3.5 GHz - 4.0 GHz Icelake chips which are supposed to perform as well as the 4.7 GHz Ryzen 9 3900X !



Logoffon said:


> I might sound dumb here, but what is the exact reason for Intel failing to release 10nm a year after SKL, and then continuously failing to make that node in high yields?



The exact reason is that it was a premature jump of 2.3x the transistor density over N14 and there is currently no available equipment that can do it.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 23, 2020)

Intel putting out tigerlake quad core leaks...yeah, that's all you need to know about 2020 (poor attempt at fixing the narrative).


----------



## ARF (Mar 23, 2020)

TheGuruStud said:


> Intel putting out tigerlake quad core leaks...yeah, that's all you need to know about 2020 (poor attempt at fixing the narrative).



If it depends on Intel, they will increase the single-threaded IPC by 100% and continue to offer the holy quad-cores for another 10 years, at least.
Didn't they officially say that we don't need anything more than a quad-core?!

But when I hear about a quad-core of any type, I become like this:


----------



## londiste (Mar 23, 2020)

ARF said:


> Logoffon said:
> 
> 
> > I might sound dumb here, but what is the exact reason for Intel failing to release 10nm a year after SKL, and then continuously failing to make that node in high yields?
> ...


What is generally being suspected are:
1. Some aspects or measures of Intel's 10nm are the same or even beyond what TSMC's 7nm has (MMP comes to mind out of the major ones). Intel was trying to get there without EUV (this is the equipment availability question) and that backfired.
2. Replacing copper with cobalt is suspected to be a big suspect due to the nature of early errors. Intel has been pretty quiet about this.


----------



## notb (Mar 23, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> They're quite elusive for being mainstream buddy. Its pretty close to a paper launch with some samples out the door.


What?
Seriously, you're either not tracking the PC market at all or just ignoring mobile segment on purpose.

Ice Lake is available in normal, common notebooks. It's normally available in stores. And it's been there for a few months already.
You're repreating arguments from half a year ago or older. I don't understand why you're unwilling to just CHECK if they're still valid.
You really like Intel to fail and you're going to hold on to this narrative?


> And profitable 10nm sure as hell is not. After all these years of development? lol


Why would it not be? Why would Intel offer Ice Lake for mainstream products if it wasn't making money?
And at the end of the day Intel's profit margin is still way higher than AMD (even higher than TSMC's). And it already includes those years of 10nm development with no sales.
You want to deny that as well?


----------



## Bwaze (Mar 23, 2020)

Not all 10th generation laptop processors are 10nm Ice Lake. In fact, most of them are not:

On Geizhals.eu there are 780 10-gen laptops, 527 Comet Lake-U and only 253 Ice Lake-U. 

Ice Lake-U also caps at 4 core, 8 threads, and quite low frequency.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 23, 2020)

notb said:


> What?
> Seriously, you're either not tracking the PC market at all or just ignoring mobile segment on purpose.
> 
> Ice Lake is available in normal, common notebooks. It's normally available in stores. And it's been there for a few months already.
> ...


Sorry, but Ice Lake is available only in a rather limited number of SKUs, with Comet Lake making up the majority of current Intel-based ULV laptops. Ice Lake is absolutely out there, but if 10nm had reached high yields and ramped up properly, wouldn't they be reserving the desperately needed 14nm capacity for their server and workstation chips (where 10nm isn't used yet)? The only plausible reason for there still being a prevalent and widely available 14nm mobile lineup from Intel is that they are still struggling with that node.

As for profitability: recouping costs does not equal making money. Intel have spent several billion USD on developing 10nm, and are only now shipping in anything resembling volume. They will likely never make back their R&D costs on this process node, which means it will never be profitable.

Also: Intel's current, shipping, somewhat available 10nm node is ... not very performant. Ice Lake has a ~18% architectural IPC gain from SKL and its derivatives, yet Comet Lake (14nm ++++ SKL derivative) at 15W outperforms Ice Lake (10nm) even according to Intel itself. In other words the power and clock scaling disadvantages of the 10nm node are _still_ significant enough that Intel can't make it faster than their previous offerings _despite_ a significant IPC advantage. Have you seen how ridiculously low base clocks on Ice Lake chips are? Quad core ICL chips are barely faster at base clock than hexa core CML chips (1.3 v. 1.1 GHz). ICL is also the first ever generation where Intel has announced a top-end U-series SKU that is only available at 28W and nothing lower - the i7-1068G7, which btw  has yet to ship in any device - and even at 28W it only manages a 2.3GHz base clock.

Ice Lake is looking more and more like a beta release, with Tiger Lake planned to be the proper, widely available and actually performant part. Though we'll see if they manage to refine the node enough for that to launch in a timely manner.



Alexandrus said:


> Maybe don't take those silly Cinebench figures as a measure for IPC. Just a thought.


Do you trust SPEC2017? That's about as industry-standard as you get, and AnandTech's testing using it shows Zen 2 to be ~7% faster than Coffee Lake (~5% SPECINT, ~7.8% SPECFP, ~7.1% overall) (or, if you flip that around, CFL is ~6.7% overall/7.2% SPECFP/4.8% SPECINT slower than Zen 2).


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 23, 2020)

Logoffon said:


> I might sound dumb here, but what is the exact reason for Intel failing to release 10nm a year after SKL, and then continuously failing to make that node in high yields?



Sunk cost fallacy.

10nm should have been canned a long time ago, it's obvious that's never going to be a volume node, there isn't enough time left for that to happen and still stay competitive. The hallmark of a good node stands in server chips not mobile stuff, that's where yields/volume/performance are paramount. Since there are no 10nm Xeons right now, that should give you an idea of how useful this node is. 

14nm could have carried them to next node, ironically that's what is happening right now. They tried to boost 14nm capacity and work on 10nm at the same time, that was a mistake as well.


----------



## notb (Mar 23, 2020)

Bwaze said:


> Not all 10th generation laptop processors are 10nm Ice Lake.


Of course. I've never said all are.


> On Geizhals.eu there are 780 10-gen laptops, 527 Comet Lake-U and only 253 Ice Lake-U.


That's a very unorthodox way of measuring availability.
From what I've seen, this site sometimes shows different versions as separate items. For example, the 72 notebooks with Ice Lake-Y (which you forgot about) are all variations of Macbook Air.

That's why I'm suggesting a more qualitative approach, i.e. looking at what kind of notebooks get Ice Lake. Few months ago, at the moment @Vayra86 stopped updating, these were just a few low-volume products (expensive 2in1s).
Today 10nm is in many mainstream / bestselling lines.
Also, just the fact that Apple puts it into Macbook Air and Dell into XPS is a sign there are no quality / supply issues. They wouldn't take that risk.


> Ice Lake-U also caps at 4 core, 8 threads, and quite low frequency.


Which is an optimal configuration for 15W SoCs - the most popular type of consumer CPU we have today.
Smaller 10nm SoCs will arrive this year. Larger - this or next year.
Big desktop CPUs will come last... or never.


----------



## ARF (Mar 23, 2020)

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/439/AMD_Ryzen_7_Mobile_4800U_vs_Intel_Core_i7_Mobile_i7-1065G7.html


----------



## Valantar (Mar 23, 2020)

notb said:


> Of course. I've never said all are.
> 
> That's a very unorthodox way of measuring availability.
> From what I've seen, this site sometimes shows different versions as separate items. For example, the 72 notebooks with Ice Lake-Y (which you forgot about) are all variations of Macbook Air.
> ...


While I agree that counting available SKUs is problematic (as you say, there are dozens of Apple models as they have 3-5 options each for CPU, SSD and RAM, with GPUs added to that for higher end ones, making for a whackton of SKUs for each laptop line), but saying "they're in premium lineups so there's wide availability" is a fallacy. They're in premium laptop lineups because they're new and fancy and can sell on novelty (and not "Skylake 7.0!" or whatever). Premium devices are flagships and generally not mass-market devices (even if some lineups do sell a lot) - Dell XPS and Macbook Air are not "mainstream" by any stretch of the imagination, even if they aren't the most expensive devices out there. All this tells us is that there's enough availability for Intel to guarantee supply for these premium lineups, but nothing more. The true proof of wide 10nm availability would be that most/all laptops moved to this, or if cheaper, more mass-market SKUs adopted it. They have generally not, and will likely never do so.

And if we're talking putting chips where the profits are, Intel would have been pushing 10nm to the server world as soon as they could. Margins there are _much_ higher than in the mobile space, and volumes dramatically higher too. And desktop chips would then follow as soon as supply and demand evens out - desktop chips are essentially derivatives of low-end server chips, after all.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 23, 2020)

notb said:


> What?
> Seriously, you're either not tracking the PC market at all or just ignoring mobile segment on purpose.
> 
> Ice Lake is available in normal, common notebooks. It's normally available in stores. And it's been there for a few months already.
> ...



Well, since you seem to know, give us some numbers? What did Intel sell?

As for the second question, Intel offers Ice Lake for many more reasons than just 'profit'. Profit is also branding and mindshare. Not releasing 10nm is a failure and damages that. Another argument that isn't profit related is fab capacity. 14nm is still under pressure, so any available 10nm capacity, even if the yields aren't optimal, is still welcome to relieve pressure.

With 7nm this close, Intel is in a 'screwed if you do, screwed if you don't' situation, I think. Its not like I'm sitting here rubbing my hands and smiling for it. Its just my analysis of how this node develops for them. How it relates to AMD's market share is not even in my mind tbh.


----------



## bug (Mar 23, 2020)

ARF said:


> View attachment 148990
> 
> 
> http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/439/AMD_Ryzen_7_Mobile_4800U_vs_Intel_Core_i7_Mobile_i7-1065G7.html


That's useless, it only compares specs.


----------



## ARF (Mar 23, 2020)

AMD Ryzen 7 6800U laptops and 6850U, 5825U, 5800U models- complete list
					

This article provides a detailed list of all the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U laptops (or the pro-version Ryzen 7 Pro 6850U models) available in stores as of late 2022,



					www.ultrabookreview.com


----------



## bug (Mar 23, 2020)

So, nowhere near double the performance, despite twice as many cores and a frequency advantage. If you were trying to tell us Ice Lake cores fine, you've succeeded.


----------



## notb (Mar 23, 2020)

@ARF 
OMG, you're on fire man. And I'm called a fanboy around here...

Can you point me to the source of these graphs?
I would like to meet the person who got more fps from GT2 than from GT3e.

"Creators unleashed" slide figures don't make much sense as well - even just comparing Intel CPUs.


----------



## ARF (Mar 23, 2020)

bug said:


> So, nowhere near double the performance, despite twice as many cores and a frequency advantage. If you were trying to tell us Ice Lake cores fine, you've succeeded.



Exactly double the performance. You need to have the software right optimised.













						AMD Ryzen 7 4800U Laptop Processor - Benchmarks and Specs
					

Benchmarks, information, and specifications for the AMD Ryzen 7 4800U




					www.notebookcheck.net
				















						Intel Core i7-1065G7 Laptop Processor (Ice Lake)
					

Benchmarks, information, and specifications for the Intel Core i7-1065G7




					www.notebookcheck.net


----------



## Valantar (Mar 23, 2020)

ARF said:


> AMD Ryzen 7 6800U laptops and 6850U, 5825U, 5800U models- complete list
> 
> 
> This article provides a detailed list of all the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U laptops (or the pro-version Ryzen 7 Pro 6850U models) available in stores as of late 2022,
> ...


Let's wait for some independent/third party benchmarks, yeah? I'm not doubting the new APUs will kick currently available Intel chips' butt, but vendor-provided benchmarks are always fishy.

Also, how is this relevant to the topic, isn't the topic about upcoming desktop chips?


----------



## bug (Mar 23, 2020)

Valantar said:


> Let's wait for some independent/third party benchmarks, yeah? I'm not doubting the new APUs will kick currently available Intel chips' butt, but vendor-provided benchmarks are always fishy.
> 
> Also, how is this relevant to the topic, isn't the topic about upcoming desktop chips?


Dude, after 2,000 posts you're still stuck on "relevant"?


----------



## Cheeseball (Mar 23, 2020)

ARF said:


> Exactly double the performance. You need to have the software right optimised.
> 
> View attachment 149024
> 
> ...



I would hope the 4800U is near-double the performance of the i7-1065G7, considering that the AMD is a 8C/16T and the Intel is a 4C/8T.

Also, I don't see why Ice Lake is "terrible". It is a really good mobile x86 (e.g. low-power) chip. Intel just failed at bringing it to desktop, that's all.


----------



## ARF (Mar 23, 2020)

In the same power envelope! This means Renoir has got up to 100% higher performance per watt!

If Rocket Lake gets released in maximum 8-core flavour, imagine how competitive it will be against Vermeer with at least 16 cores, potentially even more.


----------



## bug (Mar 23, 2020)

ARF said:


> In the same power envelope! This means Renoir has got up to 100% higher performance per watt!
> 
> If Rocket Lake gets released in maximum 8-core flavour, imagine how competitive it will be against Vermeer with at least 16 cores, potentially even more.


Wth are you smoking? Zen2 doesn't have 100% better perf/W than _current_ Intel chips, how would making it into a mobile part do what you seem to think it does?

Would stopping the guessing and speculation be an option for you?


----------



## ARF (Mar 23, 2020)

bug said:


> Wth are you smoking? Zen2 doesn't have 100% better perf/W than _current_ Intel chips, how would making it into a mobile part do what you seem to think it does?
> 
> Would stopping the guessing and speculation be an option for you?



Are you hurt or what?
Ryzen 7 4800U at 15W achieves 3300 points in Cinebench 20.
Core i7-1065G7 at 15W achieves 1650 points in Cinebench 20.

What is the performance per watt difference according to you?


----------



## bug (Mar 23, 2020)

ARF said:


> Are you hurt or what?
> Ryzen 7 4800U at 15W achieves 3300 points in Cinebench 20.
> Core i7-1065G7 at 15W achieves 1650 points in Cinebench 20.
> 
> What is the performance per watt difference according to you?


From your own link:


> The TDP of the APU is specified at 15 Watt (default) and can be configured from 10 to 25 Watt by the laptop vendor.


----------



## ARF (Mar 23, 2020)

I've got another CB R20 result for the Ryzen 7 4800U and it is 3100 points https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-amd_ryzen_7_4800u-1142

Also, let's compare Ryzen 7 3700X at 65W - 22792 points in PassMark https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+7+3700X&id=3485
Core i7-9700K at 65W - 14554 points in PassMark https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-9700+@+3.00GHz&id=3477

Difference in performance per watt 57%.

Ryzen 7 3700X at 65W - 4760 points in CB R20 https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x-review,10.html
Core i7-9700K at 65W - 3656 points in CB R20 https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-intel_core_i7_9700k-888

Difference in performance per watt 30%.


----------



## bug (Mar 23, 2020)

Ok, you've got numbers to prove anything. We get it.


----------



## ARF (Mar 23, 2020)

bug said:


> Ok, you've got numbers to prove anything. We get it.



It may be a hint that the N10 process is broken..


----------



## notb (Mar 23, 2020)

ARF said:


> In the same power envelope! This means Renoir has got up to 100% higher performance per watt!


It's apparent that you know very little (which is absolutely fine), but I'm not sure if you're willing to learn something or not.
Because if you do, I'll try to be patient and helpful. If not, I'll keep having fun.

Clearly, you read a lot of benchmark results (more or less credible...). I hope you're using that PC for something else. 
BTW, I'm waiting for source of those earlier graphs. Honestly.


ARF said:


> It may be a hint that the N10 process is broken..


There is no N10 process.


----------



## ARF (Mar 24, 2020)

notb said:


> It's apparent that you know very little



Better than you that still knows nothing


----------



## notb (Mar 24, 2020)

ARF said:


> Better than you that still knows nothing


I'll know more when you finally share the source of the graphs you used in this thread.
So?


----------



## bug (Mar 24, 2020)

notb said:


> I'll know more when you finally share the source of the graphs you used in this thread.
> So?


Leave him be. You asked whether he was willing to learn, he answered. There's nothing more you, me or anyone else can do here.


----------



## notb (Mar 24, 2020)

bug said:


> Leave him be. You asked whether he was willing to learn, he answered. There's nothing more you, me or anyone else can do here.


But he's extremely active - flooding more and more threads with random comments (graphs, data). Don't you care at all?


----------



## bug (Mar 24, 2020)

notb said:


> But he's extremely active - flooding more and more threads with random comments (graphs, data). Don't you care at all?


I asked him a few questions, so that everybody can see he's clueless. Now I'm moving on. I'm not going to address each of his rants.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 24, 2020)

notb said:


> I'll know more when you finally share the source of the graphs you used in this thread.
> So?


If you are talking about the graphs in post #50 they are from AMD's Renoir launch presentation slides. As such not the most trustworthy source, hence my suggestion to wait for independent reviews above. We can't know the entire circumstances around the testing done for various leaked test results (such as TDP configuration) which adds too much uncertainty. Nonetheless we know that Ice lake has slightly higher IPC (~18% over CFL, which Zen 2 beats by ~7% (AnandTech), so ICL should beat it by ~10%) but Renoir clocks significantly higher as demonstrated by base clock numbers in the same TDP. 

Among the more trustworthy leaks I've seen: NoteBookCheck apparently failed to exclude their test data for the Lenovo Yoga Slim 7 with the Ryzen 7 4800U from their searchable results database, meaning it could be added to comparsion tables in any laptop review. Sadly the person screenshoting the results didn't add an Ice Lake machine to all of the comparison graphs, so some of them are rather AMD-heavy. Interesting nonetheless. Some sources report that laptop as configured to 25W, while others say it's a 15W but with an extended 25W turbo window when thermals allow for it - I guess we'll see which it is when the NBC review is published.


----------



## notb (Mar 24, 2020)

Valantar said:


> If you are talking about the graphs in post #50 they are from AMD's Renoir launch presentation slides.


From the CES keynote? Nope. They only shown 1065G7 vs 4800U. Values are the same for these 2 SoCs.

I've found this:








						AMD details Ryzen Mobile 4000: Performance, architecture, features and better quality laptops
					

We'll be able to show you and discuss our own Ryzen Mobile benchmarks next month, but for now we can show you the data AMD presented at...




					www.techspot.com
				



So the slides are from something called "AMD Tech Day".

So I tried to get that presentation from AMD's IR site, but it wasn't added:








						Past Events
					

View AMD's Past Events




					ir.amd.com
				



Nothing here either:








						Search
					






					ir.amd.com
				




Basically, the figures are weird and unrealistic - for example with GT3e being beaten in games by GT2, which has roughly half of the cores and performance.
And the results aren't coherent between games, so where different laptops used or what? Is this cherry-picked from multiple runs?
Bottom of the slide:
"See endnotes RM3-227. Results my vary."
Yes. *"MY":*


			https://static.techspot.com/images2/news/bigimage/2020/03/2020-03-16-image-27.jpg


----------



## Valantar (Mar 24, 2020)

notb said:


> From the CES keynote? Nope. They only shown 1065G7 vs 4800U. Values are the same for these 2 SoCs.
> 
> I've found this:
> 
> ...


Sorry, guess I got those two releases mixed up. Beyond that, you did see that I said that I don't see these as particularly valuable and that we should wait for independent reviews? You're barking up the wrong tree, my friend. Chill.


----------



## ARF (Mar 24, 2020)

notb said:


> Basically, the figures are weird and unrealistic - for example with GT3e being beaten in games by GT2, which has roughly half of the cores and performance.



That can be due to everything - different notebook cooling design, different configurations, different conditions which could have caused the i7-10710U to throttle its iGPU speed quite a fair bit.

In Audio LAME, the 8-thread Ryzen 7 4700U is faster than the 16-thread Ryzen 7 4800U.
How do you explain it ?


----------



## notb (Mar 24, 2020)

ARF said:


> That can be due to everything - different notebook cooling design, different configurations, different conditions which could have caused the i7-10710U to throttle its iGPU speed quite a fair bit.


That's why I wanted to get to the full presentation and read the footnote.


> In Audio LAME, the 8-thread Ryzen 7 4700U is faster than the 16-thread Ryzen 7 4800U.
> How do you explain it ?


Why would I explain that? 
I'm contesting these slides. You're using them to support your theories.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 24, 2020)

ARF said:


> That can be due to everything - different notebook cooling design, different configurations, different conditions which could have caused the i7-10710U to throttle its iGPU speed quite a fair bit.


Which is exactly why we ought to wait for independent reviews so that we can a) be aware of any configuration differences, and b) try to account for them when comparing.


----------



## ARF (Mar 24, 2020)

Valantar said:


> Which is exactly why we ought to wait for independent reviews so that we can a) be aware of any configuration differences, and b) try to account for them when comparing.



Notebookcheck and CPU-Monkey are independent enough.










						AMD Ryzen 7 4800U Benchmark, Test and specs
					

AMD Ryzen 7 4800U benchmark results and review of this cpu with specs including the number of cores, threads, memory bandwidth, pcie lanes and power consumption. Benchmarks in Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5




					www.cpu-monkey.com
				












						Intel Core i7-1065G7 Benchmark, Test and specs
					

Intel Core i7-1065G7 benchmark results and review of this cpu with specs including the number of cores, threads, memory bandwidth, pcie lanes and power consumption. Benchmarks in Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5




					www.cpu-monkey.com
				




Both are with configurable up and down TDPs of 25-watt and 12-watt.

i7-1065G7 is a bad CPU. Period.


----------



## notb (Mar 24, 2020)

ARF said:


> Both are with configurable up and down TDPs of 25-watt and 12-watt.
> 
> i7-1065G7 is a bad CPU. Period.


But why? Which part is so bad?

Features are quite even, IMO slightly better on the Intel side.
Performance... well, let's wait for the actual benchmarks.
Zen+ mobile APUs were also great on paper.

If you're amazed by the fact that AMD runs 2x more cores on 15W, don't be.
The real question is how they perform over longer period and how much energy they pull on the way.
All Renoir -U have 15W TDP - even the 4C/4T 4300U.

And of course by the time Renoir becomes available in mainstream products, it'll compete against 6 or 8-core Tiger Lake, not 4-core Ice Lake.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 24, 2020)

ARF said:


> Notebookcheck and CPU-Monkey are independent enough.
> 
> View attachment 149092
> 
> ...


...except that we can't actually _read_ NBC's review, so we can't know the details of the configuration of the device. Hence the need to wait and see, right? I don't doubt their findings whatsoever, it's just that the numbers alone don't tell the whole story.

As for the i7-1065G7 being bad? Nah. It has the best iGPU Intel has ever made - which is genuinely quite good - and perfectly adequate performance overall. It definitely shows the weaknesses of the 10nm node - I would expect higher clocks overall if that node wasn't still seriously flawed - but despite this it manages to be perfectly decent. And I personally value the boost in iGPU performance _far_ more than any boost in CPU performance at 15-25W. Still, I wouldn't buy a laptop with one, mainly because I think Renoir will be better overall (particularly in iGPU performance), but if I had the choice between ICL and CML I would definitely go for the former.


----------



## ARF (Mar 24, 2020)

Valantar said:


> As for the i7-1065G7 being bad? Nah. It has the best iGPU Intel has ever made - which is genuinely quite good - and perfectly adequate performance overall. It definitely shows the weaknesses of the 10nm node - I would expect higher clocks overall if that node wasn't still seriously flawed - but despite this it manages to be perfectly decent.



It competes with Ryzen 5 2500U, Ryzen 7 2700U, Ryzen 5 3500U and Ryzen 7 3700U. Or the previous generation AMD performance.


----------



## notb (Mar 24, 2020)

ARF said:


> It competes with Ryzen 5 2500U, Ryzen 7 2700U, Ryzen 5 3500U and Ryzen 7 3700U. Or the previous generation AMD performance.


Based on AMD's own numbers (the ones that you're promoting so much), i7-1065G7 should be more than capable competitor for 6-core Renoir U.
In Blender, which is probably the best case scenario for Ryzen, 4800U is just 40% faster.

But of course this year Intel launches Tiger Lake, which is a different beast. Most likely 20%+ faster cores and improved iGPU.
So even if Tiger Lake stops at 4 cores, it won't be far behind the best from AMD.

I'm not sure why you're so inclined to persuade us that Intel is so far behind. Roughly equivalent node, same scientific level, similar know-how and workforce quality. There's no reason why one company would make a product much better than the other.
There will be some nuances and some implications of architectures, but we should expect both companies to turn 15W into similar performance.


----------



## Parn (Mar 24, 2020)

The feature set of the 500 series platform look very promising. But I'll stick to my 9700k for another year or two. Hopefully both AMD and Intel would be on 7nm by then.


----------



## ARF (Mar 24, 2020)

Parn said:


> The feature set of the 500 series platform look very promising. But I'll stick to my 9700k for another year or two. Hopefully both AMD and Intel would be on 7nm by then.



AMD will 95% be on TSMC's N5 by then, for Intel we don't know - they can stay on their N14.


----------



## notb (Mar 24, 2020)

ARF said:


> AMD will 95% be on TSMC's N5 by then, for Intel we don't know - they can stay on their N14.


There is no N14 either. Seriously, are you unable to learn this or what? 


Parn said:


> The feature set of the 500 series platform look very promising. But I'll stick to my 9700k for another year or two. Hopefully both AMD and Intel would be on 7nm by then.


Well, so I thought: next desktop upgrade with DDR5 and all that.

But frankly, this would be fine as well. WiFi 6, USB 4, PCIe4, 2.5GbE, Xe GPU with all it's goodies.
10nm desktops would only add performance or lower power draw - something I can live without shopping for a mid-range i5.


----------



## ARF (Mar 24, 2020)

notb said:


> There is no N10 process.





notb said:


> There is no N14 either. Seriously, are you unable to learn this or what?




Everyone knows that these are only marketing terms which have nothing to do with the reality.

Give me a single transistors dimension on N10 and N14 that is equal to ten (or fourteen, for that matter) nanometres in length, width or depth!


----------



## Valantar (Mar 24, 2020)

ARF said:


> Everyone knows that these are only marketing terms which have nothing to do with the reality.
> 
> Give me a single transistors dimension on N10 and N14 that is equal to ten (or fourteen, for that matter) nanometres in length, width or depth!


Why are you making up your own node names?


----------



## ARF (Mar 24, 2020)

Valantar said:


> Why are you making up your own node names?



TSMC doesn't use "nm" in its production processes designation.

Because 10 nm doesn't correspond to the reality, to the set rules, and because it's easier to standardise across the board using something like N in front.
TSMC has 10FF.









						10 nm process - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Valantar (Mar 24, 2020)

ARF said:


> TSMC doesn't use "nm" in its production processes designation.
> 
> Because 10 nm doesn't correspond to the reality, to the set rules, and because it's easier to standardise across the board using something like N in front.
> TSMC has 10FF.
> ...


... so will you also start naming AMD's CPUs and APUs i3, i5, i7 and i9? Because that's what you're doing here, applying the marketing names of one company to another's products. Please stop, you're only sowing confusion. These nodes aren't directly comparable, so naming them by their marketing names (Intel 14nm (+/++/+++/++++/+++++/+++++++++++++), TSMC N7/N7P, etc) makes it _easier_ to understand what you are talking about, not the other way around.


----------



## ARF (Mar 24, 2020)

Valantar said:


> ... so will you also start naming AMD's CPUs and APUs i3, i5, i7 and i9? Because that's what you're doing here, applying the marketing names of one company to another's products. Please stop, you're only sowing confusion. These nodes aren't directly comparable, so naming them by their marketing names (Intel 14nm (+/++/+++/++++/+++++/+++++++++++++), TSMC N7/N7P, etc) makes it _easier_ to understand what you are talking about, not the other way around.




It's true that Intel's processes are more dense but to use nm in the name is misleading as well.

Everyone calls it 7 nm, I will call it "N10" or "10 nm".

What do you mean "These nodes aren't directly comparable"?


----------



## Berfs1 (Mar 25, 2020)

I thought PCIe 4.0 was going to be present but disabled since there were so many issues with it?



notb said:


> Based on AMD's own numbers (the ones that you're promoting so much), i7-1065G7 should be more than capable competitor for 6-core Renoir U.
> In Blender, which is probably the best case scenario for Ryzen, 4800U is just 40% faster.
> 
> But of course this year Intel launches Tiger Lake, which is a different beast. Most likely 20%+ faster cores and improved iGPU.
> ...


yeah except Ryzen has more than 2x the performance/watt. So yes, Ryzen will be SIGNIFICANTLY better than Intel in laptops since perf/watt matters. It doesn't matter in desktops, that's why Intel CPUs pull ahead because they are drawing much more power. Performance matters in desktops, Effficiency (perf/watt) matters in laptops.


----------



## notb (Mar 25, 2020)

ARF said:


> TSMC doesn't use "nm" in its production processes designation.


So? 


> Because 10 nm doesn't correspond to the reality, to the set rules, and because it's easier to standardise across the board using something like N in front.
> TSMC has 10FF.


Why would "10nm" correspond to anything real? And if yes, to which property of node? You've shown a few.

N6 is a marketing name, like Ford Focus. So you're now calling a competing car VW Focus, because you like that naming better and the car absolutely doesn't look like a piece of clothing.
And your wicked idea of "standarizing" is that we should call all compact cars "Focus", because you can't handle multiple naming schemes.


Berfs1 said:


> I thought PCIe 4.0 was going to be present but disabled since there were so many issues with it?


What's wrong with PCIe 4.0?


> yeah except Ryzen has more than 2x the performance/watt. So yes, Ryzen will be SIGNIFICANTLY better than Intel in laptops since perf/watt matters. It doesn't matter in desktops, that's why Intel CPUs pull ahead because they are drawing much more power. Performance matters in desktops, Effficiency (perf/watt) matters in laptops.


Ryzen will be significantly better in laptops than Intel's architecture that won't be used in laptops? I don't understand this comment. 
Rocket Lake S is a desktop platform. Intel will make mobile platforms using more dense nodes.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 25, 2020)

ARF said:


> It's true that Intel's processes are more dense but to use nm in the name is misleading as well.
> 
> Everyone calls it 7 nm, I will call it "N10" or "10 nm".
> 
> What do you mean "These nodes aren't directly comparable"?


Not directly comparable means that one fab's 7nm/M7/whatever they choose to call it node might be similar to one fab's 10nm/N10/whatever node, etc.

As for everyone calling it 7nm: well, no, TSMC doesn't, at least not in their node names.

And you fail to respond to the main point here, which is reiterated and exemplified beautifully by @notb above. Why do you insist on using one brand's marketing names on other brands' products?


----------



## Berfs1 (Mar 26, 2020)

notb said:


> So?
> 
> Why would "10nm" correspond to anything real? And if yes, to which property of node? You've shown a few.
> 
> ...


Intel was having issues implementing PCIe 4.0 in their next gen chips, that's what I meant. PCIe 4.0 as a whole is nice, but Intel reportedly was going to disable the feature because there were too many issues with the chipsets.



notb said:


> Ryzen will be significantly better in laptops than Intel's architecture that won't be used in laptops? I don't understand this comment.
> Rocket Lake S is a desktop platform. Intel will make mobile platforms using more dense nodes.


Clearly you have never heard of an i7-9750H or i9-9980HK or the upcoming 10th gen Comet Lake? Pretty sad.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 26, 2020)

Berfs1 said:


> Intel was having issues implementing PCIe 4.0 in their next gen chips, that's what I meant. PCIe 4.0 as a whole is nice, but Intel reportedly was going to disable the feature because there were too many issues with the chipsets.
> 
> 
> Clearly you have never heard of an i7-9750H or i9-9980HK or the upcoming 10th gen Comet Lake? Pretty sad.


You guys are just talking past each other. @notb is talking about Rocket Lake-S, which is what this thread is (supposedly) about, and which is a desktop platform like all other -S Intel Platforms. It'll likely be closely related to some form of Rocket Lake-H for high-end mobile, but again, not the subject of this thread. The i7-9750H and i9-9980HK are Coffee Lake-H, not Rocket Lake-S. If we are going to compare across generations or platforms let's at least ensure that we're all talking about the same things, eh?


----------



## THU31 (Mar 26, 2020)

Can someone explain all those Intel Lakes? Because I have lost count and have no idea what is what. We have like 1500 different Lakes, but every one seems exactly the same.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 26, 2020)

Harry Lloyd said:


> Can someone explain all those Intel Lakes? Because I have lost count and have no idea what is what. We have like 1500 different Lakes, but every one seems exactly the same.


That's because the majority of them are; just variations of the Skylake arch on variations of the 14nm node, with each one clocking slightly higher than the previous, some adding cores, and some adding hardware mitigations to security issues. Ice Lake (currently on the market, 10nm, mobile), Tiger Lake (upcoming, 10nm, mobile) and Rocket Lake (upcoming, ??nm desktop, possibly) are based on an updated architecture with better IPC. Though Rocket Lake is entirely unknown beyond vague rumors like this one.


----------



## efikkan (Mar 26, 2020)

I wouldn't put too much faith in any of the specifics of "Rocket Lake" yet. Whenever rumors are pointing in all kinds of directions it's usually a sign of people just speculating.

I find it a little odd that there is so little substantive about Rocket Lake, if it's supposed to be launched in a few months. I haven't found any references to it in the drivers either, while the Tiger Lake support was just updated a few days ago.


----------



## ARF (Mar 26, 2020)

This is a leak which states Rocket Lake will be 8C 125W max.
The link gives an error, but other sites redirect to it, so the articles are up and well.






			https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/PC_Shopping/M.1574942523.A.868.html


----------



## THU31 (Mar 26, 2020)

Gen12 graphics! Where can I pre-order?


----------



## bug (Mar 26, 2020)

Harry Lloyd said:


> Can someone explain all those Intel Lakes? Because I have lost count and have no idea what is what. We have like 1500 different Lakes, but every one seems exactly the same.


I've been with Intel since Sandy Bridge and i couldn't tell you that. I've lost count and the differences between them seem so minute, it's not worth keep an eye on them. I imagine it's a bit different on the mobile front, but that interests me even less.


----------



## ARF (Mar 26, 2020)

Harry Lloyd said:


> Can someone explain all those Intel Lakes? Because I have lost count and have no idea what is what. We have like 1500 different Lakes, but every one seems exactly the same.



Wikipedia can. At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_CPU_microarchitectures


----------



## ARF (Mar 26, 2020)

Valantar said:


> Someone random posting stuff on a random BBS is not a "leak", it's a rumor. For it to qualify as a leak there needs to be some level of trust backing up the information, which can be either directly attached to the source (has previously given accurate information ahead of time etc.) or through the leak being verified by well-connected journalists. Until then, it's a rumor and nothing more.



I disagree. We don't know actually if it's a rumour or a leak because there is no way to verify the information, obviously because of lack of CPUs in the wild.
But it more closely resembles to a leak by an internal for the matters person..

Actually, every single employee who has access to this data, can leak it anonymously and you will never know who exactly were they.

Rumour is information by a person who doesn't understand.
Leak is information by a person who has access to the proper data.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 27, 2020)

ARF said:


> I disagree. We don't know actually if it's a rumour or a leak because there is no way to verify the information, obviously because of lack of CPUs in the wild.
> But it more closely resembles to a leak by an internal for the matters person..
> 
> Actually, every single employee who has access to this data, can leak it anonymously and you will never know who exactly were they.
> ...






Your first paragraph succinctly explains why this is exactly a rumor and not a leak. It does not in any way qualify as a leak until the source can be somehow shown to be believable. Until then, it is by definition a rumor.

Pretty much anyone can fake the impression of veracity in something like this, all it requires is some superficial knowledge and the ability to type in a style similar to someone else. All you are saying here is that you are gullible enough to believe anything posted to the internet if it "seems true". Which is a very poor approach to judging the veracity of information. You would do well to turn up your skepticism dial significantly.

There's absolutely nothing in the definition of a rumor that says it originates with someone who "doesn't understand" or doesn't have the access to information. And rumors are prefectly capable of being true. This could be posted by Brian Krzanich himself and it would be a rumor until it is actually verified that the person posting it actually is him.

Damn, I'm so tired of the internet mixing these two up. These days you even see articles about "leaked" renders of consoles etc. that are very clearly nothing more than a fan-made model pulled straight out of someone's imagination. I think it's due to the appearance of "professional leakers" like EVleaks who post their stuff directly on twitter - that they do so and people immediately call it a leak leads others to think "oh, anything posted to twitter is a leak and not a rumor", disregarding the fact that these qualify as leaks due to the long history of accurate information from these sources. Of course even they are often wrong as many leaks are based on outdated information or are just poorly sourced. The point being: nothing is a leak until it can be said to come from a believable source. And "random person on Chinese BBS" is not a believable source.


----------



## ARF (Mar 27, 2020)

No, Chinese BBS is a verified source for information that could have quite high probability to be leaked of origin.

Rumour is when wccftech posts AdoredTV Jim educated/not-so-educated guesstimates of what exactly to expect.
Rumour is like a broken phone wire, one source | origin spreads information to another and during this process, you get the information modified or transfered with missing details, added false details, etc.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 27, 2020)

ARF said:


> No, Chinese BBS is a verified source for information that could have quite high probability to be leaked of origin.
> 
> Rumour is when wccftech posts AdoredTV Jim educated/not-so-educated guesstimates of what exactly to expect.
> Rumour is like a broken phone wire, one source | origin spreads information to another and during this process, you get the information modified or transfered with missing details, added false details, etc.


A BBS is not "a source". A BBS is essentially a forum. It may or may not be open for anyone to sign up (it might for example be invitation-only), but ultimately it is in no way a verified and trustworthy source in and of itself due to its open and/or unedited nature. Unless the BBS in question _only_ allows _verified _employees of tech companies to sign up, it cannot possibly be said to be a trustworthy source in and of itself, no matter how many well-connected and knowledgeable users might be there. Individual BBS users might be both trustworthy and well-connected sources, but that doesn't apply a blanket level of trustworthyness to the whole BBS. So unless you can provide some sort of documentation to verify that the specific user writing that post is indeed a trustworthy source, we have zero reason to treat it as anything else than a rumor.

And where do you think WCCFTech and AdoredTV gets their rumors from? Sure, from time to time they make up stuff all on their own, but the vast majority of time it comes precisely from internet randos like the Chinese BBS post you linked. And no, there's nothing in the meaning of the word "rumor" that says the contents and meaning will change in transmission. That can happen with any type of information, verified or not, if transmitted through word-of-mouth. That's a fault of the means of information transmission and not a function of the veracity of the information itself - and as said before, the difference between a rumor and a leak is exactly the veracity of the latter and the insecurity of the former. A rumor may or may not be true, while a leak must be true or have been true at some point (as there would otherwise not be any information to leak).


----------



## bug (Mar 27, 2020)

ARF said:


> No, Chinese BBS is a verified source for information that could have quite high probability to be leaked of origin.
> 
> Rumour is when wccftech posts AdoredTV Jim educated/not-so-educated guesstimates of what exactly to expect.
> Rumour is like a broken phone wire, one source | origin spreads information to another and during this process, you get the information modified or transfered with missing details, added false details, etc.


Unless there's a confirmed official document behind it, it's not a leak. Plain and simple.


----------



## efikkan (Mar 27, 2020)

It's remarkable that yet another discussion have descended into a war of semantics, just a few days after the war over the word "obsolete".
*Valantar* put it pretty nicely; a leak must originate from something real, a piece of evidence from someone with direct access to sensitive information, a standard which most claimed "leaks" fail to meet. This can, of course, include partners of Intel/AMD/Nvidia.

But it's important to remember that the credibility of the source is always important. Making something look official is easy, and so is tampering with something that is genuine.


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 27, 2020)

Perhaps "social distancing" is also the way forward around the internet these days? In the interest of everyone (sanity) involved please ignore six posts after yours


----------



## Berfs1 (Mar 28, 2020)

Harry Lloyd said:


> Can someone explain all those Intel Lakes? Because I have lost count and have no idea what is what. We have like 1500 different Lakes, but every one seems exactly the same.


Same architecture under the hood, basically marketing BS, but yes, Skylake will work on Z370 and Coffee lake will work on Z170/Z270.



ARF said:


> Wikipedia can. At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_CPU_microarchitectures


I helped edit the Skylake and Coffee lake pages!


----------



## Valantar (Mar 29, 2020)

ARF said:


> View attachment 149661
> 
> 
> https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/PC_Shopping/M.1585362219.A.BF9.html
> ...


Is there anything new or not rather obvious in any of that? Rocket lake desktop is LGA1200 and spans T- through K-series SKUs. RKL-U is seemingly essentially CML-U refresh it would seem, 6c in 15W, while TGL-U seems to be ICL-U refresh. Slightly boosted LPDDR4X to match AMD. And otherwise .... 

One interesting point for speculation I guess (assuming this has any degree of accuracy, which we can't know with rumors like this): if Rocket Lake is a new arch, would they keep doing the current double U-series lineup? I get that there are other differences (10nm vs. 14nm, iGPU, etc.), but why would Intel keep selling two different series of U chips if both are roughly the same arch? Why not then just stick to the one? The only explanation I can see is that they are either unable or unwilling to backport their new iGPU to14nm, as that would then be the only selling point for TGL. Another possibility I guess would be wanting to use 10nm for _something_ rather than just leaving it idle while refining it towards actual usefulness, but .... that's rather fatalist, no? Either way, if this turns out to be accurate Intel buyers are still stuck with the choice of either maximum CPU or maximum GPU performance. That's too bad.


----------



## notb (Mar 29, 2020)

Valantar said:


> Another possibility I guess would be wanting to use 10nm for _something_ rather than just leaving it idle while refining it towards actual usefulness, but .... that's rather fatalist, no?


First and foremost: why do people on this forum still think Intel's 10nm isn't working properly at that point?
Is there anything Intel could do to convince you?


> Either way, if this turns out to be accurate Intel buyers are still stuck with the choice of either maximum CPU or maximum GPU performance. That's too bad.


Bad? That's the only logical option.

Some chips are built around faster IGP, which makes them more usable for IGP gaming - a use case where stronger CPU wouldn't be utilized anyway.
Other (most) chips are CPU-oriented, which makes them better for everything outside of IGP gaming - and a much better companion for more powerful discrete GPUs.

If the top of the range SoC offered the best CPU and the best IGP in the lineup, it would mean all other chips are not opimal in use of package size or power consumption. It would make no sense.


----------



## efikkan (Mar 29, 2020)

Valantar said:


> if Rocket Lake is a new arch, would they keep doing the current double U-series lineup? I get that there are other differences (10nm vs. 14nm, iGPU, etc.), but why would Intel keep selling two different series of U chips if both are roughly the same arch? Why not then just stick to the one?


I would say, why not?
The majority of laptops and desktops are low-end/cheaper models, so there is certainly a demand for CPUs that are just "good enough", and Intel can't meet demand as of right now. I suspect 14nm will account for a solid portion of Intel's production volume until at least 2022, and I don't see the need for bringing everything quickly to the lower end.



Valantar said:


> The only explanation I can see is that they are either unable or unwilling to backport their new iGPU to14nm…


The GPU might be a factor. I know some rumors claim "Rocket Lake" will use a 10nm GPU, but very cut down. Either way, the new iGPU ported to 14nm would probably eat a good portion for the U-series power budget, so it probably makes more sense to just keep the old one, as it is a low-end market anyway.</speculation>


----------



## notb (Mar 29, 2020)

efikkan said:


> I would say, why not?
> The majority of laptops and desktops are low-end/cheaper models, so there is certainly a demand for CPUs that are just "good enough", and Intel can't meet demand as of right now. I suspect 14nm will account for a solid portion of Intel's production volume until at least 2022, and I don't see the need for bringing everything quickly to the lower end.


People forget that even AMD, having just a fraction of Intel's CPU sales, probably has way over half of manufactured "total die area" on 14nm.
Every Zen2 chip has a massive 14nm I/O die. Mobile SoCs are generation behind - still 14nm. And of course AMD still makes and sells Zen and Zen+ desktop/server parts as well.

In fact, I'd love to see their ratio of 14nm vs 7nm wafers. I bet it's 2:1 at best at the moment.


----------



## efikkan (Mar 29, 2020)

notb said:


> People forget that even AMD, having just a fraction of Intel's CPU sales, probably has way over half of manufactured "total die area" on 14nm.
> Every Zen2 chip has a massive 14nm I/O die. Mobile SoCs are generation behind - still 14nm. And of course AMD still makes and sells Zen and Zen+ desktop/server parts as well.
> 
> In fact, I'd love to see their ratio of 14nm vs 7nm wafers. I bet it's 2:1 at best at the moment.


True, and two more important facts;
Despite all of Intel's "failures" on 10nm, they are probably close to matching AMD's 7nm in terms of units shipped, while having only a tiny fraction of their total volume on 10nm. By the end of this year Intel will very likely use make more wafers as well, but even then it will not be enough for the majority of their products.

AMD have been lucky to have TSMC's high power 7nm capacity mostly for themselves, but that is changing.

So the reality is more nuanced than most people think.


----------



## Valantar (Mar 29, 2020)

notb said:


> First and foremost: why do people on this forum still think Intel's 10nm isn't working properly at that point?
> Is there anything Intel could do to convince you?


Absolutely! They could make a 10nm product line that isn't outperformed in the same segment by their own 14nm line (according to their own numbers, no less). They could also phase out 14nm entirely for one or more segments (which would make sense to alleviate the ongoing shortage), as that would demonstrate that 10nm yields are ramping properly - it's not like 10nm and 14nm are made at the same fabs, after all. Though at this point they are even admitting in their own financial disclosures that 10nm is likely never going to be profitable, and that 7nm will likely be outperforming it out of the gate when it launches in late 2021 or early 2022 (barring any delays, obviously). If 10nm was "working properly" it would be able to at least match 10nm on performance when it also has an 18% IPC advantage, or at the very least perf/W compared to a 14nm process that has seen several revisions focused on increasing clocks, not efficiency.



notb said:


> Bad? That's the only logical option.


No. The logical option for a part meant for diverse use cases (like any CPU) is to give it as much performance as possible in all types of workload, and then let the system balance which part gets how much of the power budget under what workload. That would give the best possible performance under any workload, with the only downside being a minor increase in die size (as long as the chip has fine-grained power and clock gating to keep idle components from drawing too much power).



notb said:


> Some chips are built around faster IGP, which makes them more usable for IGP gaming - a use case where stronger CPU wouldn't be utilized anyway.
> Other (most) chips are CPU-oriented, which makes them better for everything outside of IGP gaming - and a much better companion for more powerful discrete GPUs.
> 
> If the top of the range SoC offered the best CPU and the best IGP in the lineup, it would mean all other chips are not opimal in use of package size or power consumption. It would make no sense.


Uh ... so Intel's own laptop lineup up until the 10th-gen has made no sense? 'Cause up until then they have essentially had what you describe. Sure, there have been Iris-equipped SKUs, but those have been rare to the point of nonexistent (outside of Apple 13" laptops). The thing is, what you're describing here is a scenario with essentially a single workload for each machine, which is unrealistic in general, but particularly on low-power laptops. For most people a device like this is their only device, and as such they are likely to be used for anything from photo and video editing (mainly CPU bound, but benefits greatly from GPU acceleration) to CAD to light gaming to pretty much anything else. This is why forcing users to choose makes no sense for this segment. For higher power segments it makes a lot _more_ sense to have a singular focus on CPU performance as the chance of then having an iGPU is much higher.

Also, what you're saying seems to take for granted that there has to be several pieces of silicon within a market segment, which ... no, there doesn't. A single top-end SKU with everything enabled with lower-end SKUs with parts of the iGPU disabled, some cores disabled, or just lower clocks, makes _perfect_ sense as long as that top-end SKU isn't an overly large die. That's how chips are binned to reduce waste, after all. If all you need is CPU performance that top-end SKU will not in any way be handicapped by also having a powerful iGPU - it will simply be idle. The same goes for the other way around. But users will have the option for better performance in other workloads, which you are arguing against for some reason.


efikkan said:


> True, and two more important facts;
> Despite all of Intel's "failures" on 10nm, they are probably close to matching AMD's 7nm in terms of units shipped, while having only a tiny fraction of their total volume on 10nm. By the end of this year Intel will very likely use make more wafers as well, but even then it will not be enough for the majority of their products.
> 
> AMD have been lucky to have TSMC's high power 7nm capacity mostly for themselves, but that is changing.
> ...


That is true, but then Intel is the market leader and recently had a 9:1 or higher sales advantage across _all_ segments (so it would be _really_ weird if AMD somehow had them matched on volume at this point - even with AMD buying wafers from others that tells us Intel has had the capacity to produce enough chips for 90% of the market), and also has a massive fab operation while AMD contracts chip production to TSMC. Thus AMD has to share fab space with TSMC's other customers, including behemoth Apple which has until recently likely occupied the majority of TSMC's 7nm fab capacity, or at least a very large portion of it. There's no such thing as "TSMC's high power 7nm capacity" - there are different design libraries and different revisions of each node, but all TSMC 7nm is still made across the same selection of fabs and on the same equipment (though they obviously keep anything that can be made at a single fab to one locale). So despite Intel shipping Ice Lake in "significant numbers" (though currently limited to a relatively small selection of thin-and-lights, with Comet Lake being far more prevalent), there is currently zero reason to believe Intel's 10nm node is anywhere near the kind of yields you would expect for a high volume node, nor that its performance is where it should be.  If it was, they would be transitioning 14nm fabs to 10nm (to increase chip output per fab on the denser node), which would then likely mean transitioning all mobile chips to 10nm while freeing up 14nm capacity for the lucrative server and enterprise markets, while also readying 10nm designs for all market segments. There is _nothing_ indicating that any of this is happening. So no, Intel 10nm is by no means working as it should. All signs (including Intel's own public plans) point towards Intel planning to keep 10nm limping along, with 14nm as the backbone of the company's production, until 7nm arrives to get things going as they should.


notb said:


> People forget that even AMD, having just a fraction of Intel's CPU sales, probably has way over half of manufactured "total die area" on 14nm.
> Every Zen2 chip has a massive 14nm I/O die. Mobile SoCs are generation behind - still 14nm. And of course AMD still makes and sells Zen and Zen+ desktop/server parts as well.
> 
> In fact, I'd love to see their ratio of 14nm vs 7nm wafers. I bet it's 2:1 at best at the moment.


Not forgetting anything. There is however a significant difference between continuing production of a previous-generation product (which Intel also does) to fulfill long-term contracts and maximise ROI on already taped-out and mature silicon, and making brand-new designs on an old node. AMD absolutely makes a lot of 14nm stuff still, but they aren't announcing new products on the node. Bringing the I/O die into this argument is also a bit odd - it's not a part that would benefit whatsoever from a smaller node (physical interconnects generally scale poorly with node shrinks), so why use an expensive smaller node for that when it's better utilized for parts that would benefit? If Intel did an MCM part I would absolutely not criticize them whatsoever for using 14nm or even 22nm for parts of it - that would be the smart thing to do.


----------

