They can't increase the core count for the CPU portion since they have dedicated significant die space to bump up the graphics. Considering this Xe graphic solution seems like a significant improvement from the ones found in Ice Lake, I believe this does not come cheap when it comes to die size requirement.

This also is a sign that Intel's 10nm is not doing well at all when you compare it against TSMC's 7nm. Intel's 10nm is supposed to bring benefits close if not better than TSMC's 7nm, but if AMD can squeeze 8 cores and a powerful GPU in their 4xxx APUs with the same low power requirements of 15W and up to 25W TDP up, while Intel remains at 4 cores with what we assume is a significant improvement in GPU, then I think there is a problem.

Other question is at what TDP does this chip operations. We know at the top end of Intel's ULV series, the chip typically have a 28W TDP. If that is the case, the the comparison with the Ryzen 7 4800U with a TDP of 15W may not be fair since despite it may boost to 25W TDP, but it likely cannot sustain at the boost clock, unlike a chip with a higher native TDP.

I look forward to see how this performs when the product gets released. While it is exciting to speculate, but there is a lot of assumptions in leaked results since the specs are not clear and no idea on the test bed too.

"One thing for Intel fans to look forward to is the graphics score of 1296 from the internal Xe GPU which puts it at 5% faster than the Ryzen 7 4800Us iGPU."
I'm not a "fan" of any company but I do hope Intel manages to create a viable GPU solution and hopefully break into the discrete GPU market at some point. This duopoly, which in practice is a monopoly, has become beyond tiresome at this point. As for the CPU side.. it looks laughable but looks can be deceiving so I'll wait for actual reviews before I judge it's capabilities.

watzupkenThey can't increase the core count for the CPU portion since they have dedicated significant die space to bump up the graphics. Considering this Xe graphic solution seems like a significant improvement from the ones found in Ice Lake, I believe this does not come cheap when it comes to die size requirement.

This also is a sign that Intel's 10nm is not doing well at all when you compare it against TSMC's 7nm. Intel's 10nm is supposed to bring benefits close if not better than TSMC's 7nm, but if AMD can squeeze 8 cores and a powerful GPU in their 4xxx APUs with the same low power requirements of 15W and up to 25W TDP up, while Intel remains at 4 cores with what we assume is a significant improvement in GPU, then I think there is a problem.

Other question is at what TDP does this chip operations. We know at the top end of Intel's ULV series, the chip typically have a 28W TDP. If that is the case, the the comparison with the Ryzen 7 4800U with a TDP of 15W may not be fair since despite it may boost to 25W TDP, but it likely cannot sustain at the boost clock, unlike a chip with a higher native TDP.

I look forward to see how this performs when the product gets released. While it is exciting to speculate, but there is a lot of assumptions in leaked results since the specs are not clear and no idea on the test bed too.

Original 10nm was intended to be similar to TSMC 7nm, but as time went by and things didn't work out they relaxed the parameters of the process so now features are bigger and density is worse. I think their problem is more related to power consumption/bugdet more than die size. They will have 8 core models in the H series.

Now we will truly see how much market demand there is for Intel's decade-long quest for 20% more iGP performance per... yeah. What actually?

The fact they achieve this on a 10nm node and leave the CPU part behind is... well. 11th gen is fast going the way of a PoC that is obsolete on launch, and was actually also obsolete prior to its launch. Nobody cares about this improved IGP, at least not at this rate. Applications get more demanding too. The bar is fast moving nowhere like this.

AMD tried and is still better at this, too, go figure. The CPUs THEY sell now, don't even mention the IGP performance. They just sell on their core business and those cores are pretty much identical to their best ones; not a slower, heavily limited alternative. And Intel NEVER sold a single CPU because of its IGP either. We bought them for Core. Not Iris. I also vaguely remember how AMD's A10 was going to change entry gaming PCs. Mhm... even today their CPU arch is lagging a gen behind on the APU range :D

Bottom line, I don't think 11th gen, even on 10nm and even on the supposed 4.3 Ghz, is going to make waves. Its 2020, top end 4c8t is yesterday's news.

cool that the IGPU is improved, would be cool if we can do 1080p 60hz livestreaming using Quicksync with that igpu in good quality but... regarding the comparison, I think people who get laptops with an AMD 4800 will either get it for the cpu itself and what it can do for their work and if the aim is gaming they will just get a laptop with a dedicated gpu anyway.

Wonder what the TDP for that 11th gen Intel CPU is. That is the main factor here if you wanna go against AMD's mobile processors. Especially if you're going to compare it to the 4800U version.

Increasing the core count is just a copy paste of 40mm2 4 core block. But intel are very shy and undecided about a simple copy paste, what can you do.