Thursday, August 1st 2019

Intel Launches First 10th Gen Core Processors: Redefining the Next Era of Laptop Experiences

Today, Intel officially launched 11 new, highly integrated 10th Gen Intel Core processors designed for remarkably sleek 2 in 1s and laptops. The processors bring high-performance artificial intelligence (AI) to the PC at scale, feature new Intel Iris Plus graphics for stunning entertainment and enable the best connectivity with Intel Wi-Fi 6 (Gig+) and Thunderbolt 3. Systems are expected from PC manufacturers for the holiday season.

"These 10th Gen Intel Core processors shift the paradigm for what it means to deliver leadership in mobile PC platforms. With broad-scale AI for the first time on PCs, an all-new graphics architecture, best-in-class Wi-Fi 6 (Gig+) and Thunderbolt 3 - all integrated onto the SoC, thanks to Intel's 10nm process technology and architecture design - we're opening the door to an entirely new range of experiences and innovations for the laptop."
-Chris Walker, Intel corporate vice president and general manager of Mobility Client Platforms in the Client Computing Group
10th Gen Intel Core processors are foundational to Intel's journey in enabling uncompromising and workload-optimized PC platforms with performance leadership across all vectors of computing. In addition to performance and responsiveness gains, AI, graphics, connectivity and I/O are optimized on the SoC for a solution that delivers a feature-rich suite of capabilities for OEMs to create laptops for people to watch, game and create more.

10th Gen Intel Core processors are the first purpose-built processors for AI on thin-and-light laptops and 2 in 1s. They deliver the intelligent performance needed for modern AI-infused applications, with a suite of features and capabilities:
  • Intel Deep Learning Boost, a new, dedicated instruction set that accelerates neural networks on the CPU for maximum responsiveness in scenarios such as automatic image enhancements, photo indexing and photorealistic effects.
  • Up to 1 teraflop of GPU engine compute for sustained, high-throughput inference applications like video stylization, analytics and real-time video resolution upscaling.
  • Intel Gaussian & Neural Accelerator (GNA) delivers a dedicated engine for background workloads such as voice processing and noise suppression at ultra-low power, for maximum battery life.
With double the graphics performance, 10th Gen Intel Core processors with Intel Iris Plus graphics make a reality gaming in 1080p and higher-level content creation, like 4K video editing, quick application of video filters and high-resolution photo processing on the go. Plus:
  • These are the first GPUs from Intel to support VESA's Adaptive Sync display standard, which enables a smoother gaming experience across games like Dirt Rally 2.0 and Fortnite.
  • Based on Intel's Gen11 graphics architecture, they are also the industry's first integrated GPU to incorporate variable rate shading for improved rendering performance.
  • With support for the BT.2020 specification, watch 4K HDR video in a billion colors.
Best connectivity: Increased board integration helps PC manufacturers innovate on form factor for sleeker designs with Intel Wi-Fi 6 (Gig+) connectivity and up to four Thunderbolt 3 ports - the fastest and most versatile USB-C connector available.

Product Line-up:
Intel is also introducing a new processor number naming structure starting with this first set of 10th Gen Intel Core processors. Read more about Intel processor numbers.
The processors, code-named "Ice Lake," are the first to debut in the 10th Gen Intel Core processor family and will be available in new designs from PC manufacturers for the holiday season. This year at Computex, Intel previewed some of the first systems expected to arrive and on track for verification through the innovation program code-named "Project Athena," including Acer Swift 5, Dell XPS 13 2-in-1, HP Envy 13" and Lenovo S940.

Today's announcement is just the beginning. Addressing the increasing diversity of modern computing needs, Intel will announce additional products in the 10th Gen Intel Core mobile processor family. The upcoming processors will deliver increased productivity and performance scaling for demanding, multithreaded workloads, including the flagship built-for-business Intel vPro platform. Expect to hear more details this month.
Add your own comment

53 Comments on Intel Launches First 10th Gen Core Processors: Redefining the Next Era of Laptop Experiences

#26
TheLostSwede
News Editor
cucker tarlsonthe perf/wat is probably good,better than anything out now.
I just don't understand "brings high performance to AI". What? A 12W CPU ? :laugh:
"Intel Deep Learning Boost, a new, dedicated instruction set" as per the press release.
Some new Intel only CPU instructions that may or may not take off...
Posted on Reply
#27
Crackong
1065G7: 15W/25W 4C8T 1.3 - 3.9GHz
8665U : 15W/25W 4C8T 1.9 - 4.8GHz

So Intel moving from 14+++ to 10nm causes 31.5% reduction in base freq. and 18.75% reduction in Max freq.

But AMD moving from 12nm to 7nm gains frequency.

How?
Posted on Reply
#28
1d10t
That base clock though o_O
Well if this for convertible than it'll make sense, but if they targeting casual audiences I find it really hard to combat (already) high base clock from Stoney Ridge.
Posted on Reply
#29
R-T-B
Prima.VeraSorry, but this is becoming a pattern here at TPU..
Uh, yeah. It's been their policy since day 1 to post press releases.

I've never understood why they aren't in a separate feed though...
Posted on Reply
#30
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
I was literally looking at these yesterday trying to figure out if Intel had the capacity yet to fabricate high-transistor count 10nm processors yet. I was sorely disappointed to discover that they couldn't. Just lower power, nothing to get excited about, ridiculously low core count laptop and tablet processor offerings. Can't even manage six cores. At least these have GPUs where Cannon Lake (first iteration of 10nm) didn't. It's an improvement but still underwhelming.

2.3 GHz at best. Psssh!
Posted on Reply
#31
Space Lynx
Astronaut
FordGT90ConceptI was literally looking at these yesterday trying to figure out if Intel had the capacity yet to fabricate high-transistor count 10nm processors yet. I was sorely disappointed to discover that they couldn't. Just lower power, nothing to get excited about, ridiculously low core count laptop and tablet processor offerings. Can't even manage six cores. At least these have GPUs where Cannon Lake (first iteration of 10nm) didn't. It's an improvement but still underwhelming.
yeah I noticed the no 6 cores yet as well... and its almost 2020... lol it's so sad I almost feel bad for how bad Intel has been managed (for that specific market)
Posted on Reply
#32
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Intel didn't just fall from their high horse, they got bucked off it and then squarely kicked in the head.

Yeah, I do feel bad for Intel just as I felt bad for AMD when they had terrible luck with die shrinks around 2006-2007 resulting in the formation of Global Foundries. Physics are relentless sometimes and it can't really be helped.
Posted on Reply
#33
THANATOS
i7-8569U
CPU: 4C8T Base: 2.8Ghz (Turbo: 4.7Ghz) ; IGP: 48EU 1.2Ghz ; TDP: 28W

i7-8557U
CPU: 4C8T Base: 1.7Ghz (Turbo: 4.5Ghz) ; IGP: 48EU 1.15Ghz ; TDP: 15W

i7-1068G7
CPU: 4C8T Base: 2.3Ghz (Turbo: 4.1Ghz) ; IGP: 64EU 1.1Ghz ; TDP: 28W

i7-1065G7
CPU: 4C8T Base: 1.3Ghz (Turbo: 3.9Ghz) ; IGP: 64EU 1.1Ghz ; TDP: 15W

i7-1065G7 is in Cinebench R20 on par with i7-8559U both in single and multicore score. In Cinebench R11.5 and R15 is faster by ~11% in multi. Review
Ice Lake has higher IPC which is good news, but also lower clocks than It's predecessor and that's bad news. I don't think in desktop the situation would be any different.
I am pleased with the IGP's performance. It's true that the CPU and 3733Mhz memory helps the performance a lot, but I consider this as Intel's advantage over AMD, which only offers Zen+ cores paired with 10CU Vega and only 2400mhz memory instead of Zen 2 paired with 8-10CU Navi and faster memory support.
As an "APU" Intel wins in this round.
Posted on Reply
#34
aQi
Prima.VeraInstead of this PR crap, can we have please a proper presentation article, something like the other quality sites are doing? Reading that PR shit just makes the whole article not worth reading anymore.
Sorry, but this is becoming a pattern here at TPU...

Back to topic, looks like intel is doing his shit again providing a Core i7 with the same amount of Cores and Threads as an i5. This pos trend for laptops needs to stop!
Its pure marketing tactics rather then performance oriented brand modifier. Personally i am not impressed except the fact about connectivity and hardware level AI instruction. What i along side other are waiting is what intel has to do with desktop and HEDT parts. As laptop these days dont have much to do rather then essential tasks.
Posted on Reply
#35
W1zzard
Prima.VeraInstead of this PR crap, can we have please a proper presentation article, something like the other quality sites are doing? Reading that PR shit just makes the whole article not worth reading anymore.
Sorry, but this is becoming a pattern here at TPU...

Back to topic, looks like intel is doing his shit again providing a Core i7 with the same amount of Cores and Threads as an i5. This pos trend for laptops needs to stop!
I didn't hear anything from Intel at all on this launch, so that's all we can do. I suggest you reach out to Intel, tell them how awesome TPU is and that they should send us more samples.
Posted on Reply
#36
HTC
Crackong1065G7: 15W/25W 4C8T 1.3 - 3.9GHz
8665U : 15W/25W 4C8T 1.9 - 4.8GHz

So Intel moving from 14+++ to 10nm causes 31.5% reduction in base freq. and 18.75% reduction in Max freq.

But AMD moving from 12nm to 7nm gains frequency.

How?
That's because moving from a super refined 14nm older process that can get very high clock speeds to a newer process that is nearing the limits of what is possible on a physical level gets hit ... hard ... with the realization that going with smaller nodes will cause, to some extent, reduced clocks and you'll need REAL improvements in the IPC department in order to counteract the clocks reduction under penalty of the newer chips not being an upgrade and being a downgrade instead.
Since Intel have been "lazy" in the improved IPC department, they were "caught off guard" by how much they were forced to reduce clocks and that had bad consequences ... for the 10nm node ...

AMD managed to not lose frequency due to their chiplet approach: AMD's Forrest Norrod explains it in this video.
Posted on Reply
#37
bug
W1zzardI didn't hear anything from Intel at all on this launch, so that's all we can do. I suggest you reach out to Intel, tell them how awesome TPU is and that they should send us more samples.
Except Intel didn't send samples at all this time. It was an invitation to test some reference design laptops within 8 hours at location of Intel's choosing.
Posted on Reply
#38
W1zzard
bugExcept Intel didn't send samples at all this time. It was an invitation to test some reference design laptops within 8 hours at location of Intel's choosing.
Ah ok, doesn't sound like the kind of thorough testing I'd usually do. And you can bet they hand picked the one sample that got reviewed
Posted on Reply
#39
bug
W1zzardAh ok, doesn't sound like the kind of thorough testing I'd usually do.
They were rather flexible about it. For example AT's Ian was able to install his own benchmarks and run whatever he wanted. Of course, he did all that at his own expense and as such only got two-two and a half hours of actual testing. He also said that he wished for two-days testing so that he could sit on the results of the first day for a while before deciding on how to follow up.
W1zzardAnd you can bet they hand picked the one sample that got reviewed
The sample didn't seem to be hand picked. It was just a development SKU (kind of what Qualcomm does for their Snapdragons). The only unrealistic part about it was the fan stuck at 100%. Plus, there wasn't much to hand pick, it's not like anyone tried to overclock that thing ;)

Bottom line, that thing was as good or better than a similar Whiskey Lake part, while running at 500MHz less base and 700MHz less turbo. Not too shabby, eh?
Of course, the question remains about the attainability of higher clocks. Because while those clocks may be fine on a laptop, they won't fly on a desktop. At all.
Posted on Reply
#40
efikkan
bugBottom line, that thing was as good or better than a similar Whiskey Lake part, while running at 500MHz less base and 700MHz less turbo. Not too shabby, eh?
Of course, the question remains about the attainability of higher clocks. Because while those clocks may be fine on a laptop, they won't fly on a desktop. At all.
This should give some hints about the potential of this architecture.
There have been several cases in the past where Intel or AMD have "regressed" in clock speed, but each time they have advanced in performance.

We shouldn't dismiss Ice Lake/Sunny Cove as an architecture based only on seeing the least interesting core configurations. While these lighter laptops certainly will benefit from any performance gain, the Y/U series will continue to perform poorly for the foreseeable future. Chips in this class perform very unreliably, and can only run "good clocks" in short bursts. It will get more interesting when we see server/workstation chips.
Posted on Reply
#41
bug
efikkanThis should give some hints about the potential of this architecture.
There have been several cases in the past where Intel or AMD have "regressed" in clock speed, but each time they have advanced in performance.

We shouldn't dismiss Ice Lake/Sunny Cove as an architecture based only on seeing the least interesting core configurations. While these lighter laptops certainly will benefit from any performance gain, the Y/U series will continue to perform poorly for the foreseeable future. Chips in this class perform very unreliably, and can only run "good clocks" in short bursts. It will get more interesting when we see server/workstation chips.
Worst case scenario, 10nm goes bust and Intel builds these on 7nm in a few more years. So yeah, the numbers are still interesting.
Posted on Reply
#42
john_
Do people really believe that OEMs will put 3733MHz RAM in their laptops and not something much slower and of course also cheaper?
Posted on Reply
#43
bug
john_Do people really believe that OEMs will put 3733MHz RAM in their laptops and not something much slower and of course also cheaper?
Usually RAM speed is not a problem. The problem is laptops that come with only one RAM slot populated.
But nice red herring ;)
Posted on Reply
#44
john_
bugUsually RAM speed is not a problem. The problem is laptops that come with only one RAM slot populated.
But nice red herring ;)
In fact if you have only one dimm, the frequency becomes even more important.
Posted on Reply
#45
notb
Crackong1065G7: 15W/25W 4C8T 1.3 - 3.9GHz
8665U : 15W/25W 4C8T 1.9 - 4.8GHz

So Intel moving from 14+++ to 10nm causes 31.5% reduction in base freq. and 18.75% reduction in Max freq.

But AMD moving from 12nm to 7nm gains frequency.

How?
Intel's starting point was much more polished than AMD's. That's about it.

5650U - the first Intel's 14nm mobile flagship - was a 2.2/3.2 GHz. In 3 years they've managed to squeeze 1.9/4.8 GHz (doubling the core count as well).

Remember this is a 15W mobile CPU. Low base clocks and high boost is what you want - not the other way around.

And yes... it's also a new arch with new instructions. Big jump, potentially great performance and battery life. And another 3-4 years of mobile dominance while AMD finds new ways to squeeze more cores in desktop CPUs.
john_In fact if you have only one dimm, the frequency becomes even more important.
It's LPDDR4X. AFAIK the standard is 3200+, but focus is on the top-end 4266.
You say RAM frequency is important and - instead of cheering very good RAM support on these CPUs - you're bickering that laptop makers we'll surely use something bad. What's your problem?
Posted on Reply
#46
Crackong
notbIntel's starting point was much more polished than AMD's. That's about it.
5650U - the first Intel's 14nm mobile flagship - was a 2.2/3.2 GHz. In 3 years they've managed to squeeze 1.9/4.8 GHz (doubling the core count as well).
Remember this is a 15W mobile CPU. Low base clocks and high boost is what you want - not the other way around.
And yes... it's also a new arch with new instructions. Big jump, potentially great performance and battery life. And another 3-4 years of mobile dominance while AMD finds new ways to squeeze more cores in desktop CPUs.
My question was simple.
Intel managed to have a 14nm+++++ 15W chip doing 1.9 GHz base freq but now the new 10nm 15W chip needs to start at 1.3 GHz.
The IPC boost is 18% claimed by Intel, but with this 31.5% reduction in base freq I am not so sure............
Isn't the smaller node supposed to save energy, so they should squeeze more freq out with the same TDP, not the other way around?
Posted on Reply
#47
efikkan
CrackongMy question was simple.
Intel managed to have a 14nm+++++ 15W chip doing 1.9 GHz base freq but now the new 10nm 15W chip needs to start at 1.3 GHz.
The IPC boost is 18% claimed by Intel, but with this 31.5% reduction in base freq I am not so sure............
Isn't the smaller node supposed to save energy, so they should squeeze more freq out with the same TDP, not the other way around?
A lot of this is spent on a larger integrated GPU and to some extent AVX512.
Posted on Reply
#48
notb
CrackongMy question was simple.
Intel managed to have a 14nm+++++ 15W chip doing 1.9 GHz base freq but now the new 10nm 15W chip needs to start at 1.3 GHz.
And the answer is simple as well. It's a mobile CPU. Lower frequency, if followed by lower idle power consumption, is an advantage.
CPU boosts when it has something to do. And early tests show this one is faster than earlier generations.

I also gave you the example of the 5th gen 5650U for a reason. 8th gen mobile CPUs have lower base clocks - despite being built on a more modern 14nm. And they are faster (when speed is needed) and a lot more frugal (when it isn't).
The IPC boost is 18% claimed by Intel, but with this 31.5% reduction in base freq I am not so sure............
Looking at base frequencies makes little sense. CPUs boost differently. You should only look at resulting performance.
Base clocks on these CPUs are enough for supporting the OS and showing 2D graphics - like when you code or edit a document or read something on a website. That's why laptops work for 15h today - not because they use less power under heavy load, but because they're more frugal in idle/light usage. But even basic tasks, like opening a new page, will make them shift to a higher state.
Posted on Reply
#49
Vayra86
notbLooking at base frequencies makes little sense. CPUs boost differently. You should only look at resulting performance.
Base clocks on these CPUs are enough for supporting the OS and showing 2D graphics - like when you code or edit a document or read something on a website. That's why laptops work for 15h today - not because they use less power under heavy load, but because they're more frugal in idle/light usage. But even basic tasks, like opening a new page, will make them shift to a higher state.
That really only flies for a selection of notebooks and often only the better/best/priciest ones. In many cases, what a high turbo means is that it will throttle like nobody's business in any half-serious use case and in all others, its practically idling and you lose any and all performance to do anything. The real question here is whether a baby step (because really, given all those factors that influence performance in a regular use case, that is what this is even with the constant shifting of base/turbo clocks) like this, with respect to the lowered base clocks, is really even worth mentioning.

I mean yes, in their very narrow use case, these 'U' parts shine. But their use case is doing as little as possible. If you're even half serious about even a little productivity, you avoid this line.

So TL DR I don't believe Intel has a very competitive part here because they managed to tweak things a bit. This 'new arch' is only worth a damn if it can scale to high performance parts. And I'm entirely with @bug in the thought they may scrap it altogether and feel forced to go 7nm after all for anything more than this PoC we've seen right now.
notbLooking at base frequencies makes little sense. CPUs boost differently. You should only look at resulting performance.
Correct, and the resulting performance really is just more of the same, in the end. So your battery may last 20 minutes longer, wooptiedoo :) That's not going to change a thing.
Posted on Reply
#50
notb
Vayra86In many cases, what a high turbo means is that it will throttle like nobody's business in any half-serious use case and in all others, its practically idling and you lose any and all performance to do anything.
Throttling won't matter if you choose the right laptop for your needs. Most people don't need laptops that can boost for long. They'd rather have extra few hours in low/idle.
The importance of high boost in these CPUs is to make laptops responsive. Launching software, opening/saving files, browsing WWW, running short jobs et cetera will look exactly the same on a slim ultrabook and a mobile workstation. And these tasks define how comfortable a laptop is for a vast majority of both private and pro users.

The idea is that you should be able to e.g. edit a model in AutoCAD. Or edit a movie in DaVinci Resolve. Both are mainstream and well tested on ultrabooks. They work flawlessly.
Of course once you run a render / calculations in AutoCAD or encoding in Resolve, a mobile workstation will need a lot less time to complete. But that's the compromise and ultrabook users are aware of this.
I mean yes, in their very narrow use case, these 'U' parts shine.
I have no idea what your definition of "narrow" is here. These 15W CPUs are the best choice for almost all mobile users apart from relatively rare cases like:
a) laptop gamers
b) people who run long heavy loads and don't have an alternative (they use just a single mobile PC - no access to cloud or a workstation).
If you're even half serious about even a little productivity, you avoid this line.
Again: why?
This is the naive idea of "productivity" that is dominating this forum (but you, seriously?). It's like if people here thought "serious PC using" means zipping files or rendering 24/7, because that's what appears in CPU "productivity" benchmarks.
Correct, and the resulting performance really is just more of the same, in the end. So your battery may last 20 minutes longer, wooptiedoo :) That's not going to change a thing.
People underestimate the importance of these small incremental improvements, because they aren't as sexy as big numbers on slides. Just like when AMD announced >50% IPC improvement of Ryzen vs previous generations and we had so many "Intel can only do 5%" comments. ;-)
Even if just 20 minutes, it's being squeezed from CPU optimizations, which makes it a fantastic achievement. Significant battery life gains usually compromises laptop usability - worse CPU/GPU/RAM, slower or smaller drives, worse screen, slower interfaces, weaker WiFi etc.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 23rd, 2024 06:08 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts