Intel Demos 3D Transistors, RibbonFET, and PowerVia Technologies

[Prima.Vera]

What are you talking about?

I think he means power consumption wise.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I think he means power consumption wise.

Well ok, that's fair. However, AMD and Intel trade places every few years where power-hungry space-heaters are concerned. However, Intel does have the performance crown(only just) in the consumer sector, so for them to imply that Intel CPUs are lacking in the performance area is just blatant ignorance, or perhpas just silly fanboying...

 

[ratirt]

I think he means power consumption wise.

True but even thought the power is outrageous, it does not mean the CPU's Intel has released are not decent? Nobody says these are the best there are in general. The power is very high so it is an individual person's preference about it but the performance is there. The 14 gen series is debatable if you put 13th gen in the picture (14th does not bring much) but the arch in general is decent and the processors are too.
At least that is how I see it.

 

[Assimilator]

True but even thought the power is outrageous, it does not mean the CPU's Intel has released are not decent? Nobody says these are the best there are in general. The power is very high so it is an individual person's preference about it but the performance is there. The 14 gen series is debatable if you put 13th gen in the picture (14th does not bring much) but the arch in general is decent and the processors are too.
At least that is how I see it.

Intel CPUs' horrible energy inefficiency would be acceptable if they were the fastest by far... but they aren't.
And if they didn't make compromises with heterogenous cores (e.g. cutting AVX-512) as an attempt to overcome that inefficiency... but they did.

Do most end-users understand this or care? No. But as a technology enthusiast, I do. And in terms of technological innovation, Intel's CPUs are pathetic rubbish that are just compromises built on top of compromises built on top of an architecture that has been around for many generations too long.

 

[AusWolf]

Intel CPUs' horrible energy inefficiency would be acceptable if they were the fastest by far... but they aren't.
And if they didn't make compromises with heterogenous cores (e.g. cutting AVX-512) as an attempt to overcome that inefficiency... but they did.

Intel CPU's horrible inefficiency would be acceptable if it wasn't paired with near unsolvable heat production on higher end units... but it is.
I also agree on the heterogenous cores, which is a perfectly sound idea for mobile, but a red flag on desktop for many users, myself included (mainly due to the need to use Windows 11's scheduler).

My version of the story.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Looks like i need to burn my intel rig, crush it, then toss it in the trash and buy an AMD rig.

 

[AusWolf]

Looks like i need to burn my intel rig, crush it, then toss it in the trash and buy an AMD rig.

Why?

 

[ratirt]

Intel CPU's horrible inefficiency would be acceptable if it wasn't paired with near unsolvable heat production on higher end units... but it is.
I also agree on the heterogenous cores, which is a perfectly sound idea for mobile, but a red flag on desktop for many users, myself included (mainly due to the need to use Windows 11's scheduler).

My version of the story.

I agree with you especially with the heterogeneous cores but that does not mean these are not decent. Unless you want to talk about what do you mean about decent? Is it the best? Intel's CPUs are not the best obviously since they have wins here and losses there to AMD's counterparts. The CPUs will do everything you throw at them but are not the best, especially in terms of efficiency or power consumption if you will. The 14th gen is also a bit absurd considering the 13th gen is actually the same CPU but that does not mean the CPU's are not decent. Power consumption is one aspect but it is hard for me to discredit the entire line of CPUs by sheer power values. Could these be better? Absolutely. If the performance stayed as is and the power consumption dropped to match AMD's or hover around, would you say these are decent?

Looks like i need to burn my intel rig, crush it, then toss it in the trash and buy an AMD rig.

no one said that but do as you will

 

[AusWolf]

I agree with you especially with the heterogeneous cores but that does not mean these are not decent. Unless you want to talk about what do you mean about decent? Is it the best? Intel's CPUs are not the best obviously since they have wins here and losses there to AMD's counterparts. The CPUs will do everything you throw at them but are not the best, especially in terms of efficiency or power consumption if you will. The 14th gen is also a bit absurd considering the 13th gen is actually the same CPU but that does not mean the CPU's are not decent. Power consumption is one aspect but it is hard for me to discredit the entire line of CPUs by sheer power values. Could these be better? Absolutely. If the performance stayed as is and the power consumption dropped to match AMD's or hover around, would you say these are decent?

Oh absolutely! Actually, I think Intel's lineup up to Core i5 level is pretty decent. It's only i7 and above where things spin out of control.

The distrust in heterogenous architectures on desktop is a me-thing. I don't want to use Spydows 11 just to utilise my CPU properly, that's all.

 

[Assimilator]

To be clear, I don't have any issue with the concept of heterogenous cores; after all they've worked perfectly well in phones since forever. My issue is that currently, Intel uses them as a way to somewhat overcome its uarch and process node disadvantages, which results in customers getting an arguably inferior product to AMD CPUs - which don't have to resort to this.

Ultimately I do believe that heterogenous cores are the inevitable future on desktop and mobile - and Intel's investment into them may well put it ahead in the long term. But right now, they're just an inferior crutch; the right solution to the wrong problem.

 

[ratirt]

Oh absolutely! Actually, I think Intel's lineup up to Core i5 level is pretty decent. It's only i7 and above where things spin out of control.

The distrust in heterogenous architectures on desktop is a me-thing. I don't want to use Spydows 11 just to utilise my CPU properly, that's all.

How about this question. Would they be just decent or the best out there?
I dont have distrust but rather I have doubts it is that much better.

To be clear, I don't have any issue with the concept of heterogenous cores; after all they've worked perfectly well in phones since forever. My issue is that currently, Intel uses them as a way to somewhat overcome its uarch and process node disadvantages, which results in customers getting an arguably inferior product to AMD CPUs - which don't have to resort to this.

Ultimately I do believe that heterogenous cores are the inevitable future on desktop and mobile - and Intel's investment into them may well put it ahead in the long term. But right now, they're just an inferior crutch; the right solution to the wrong problem.

Oh that is so true.
But you also want to look for a way out from a check (chess analogy) the best way you can.
The next question is, is AMD going to do the same thing? What if they do?

 

[lexluthermiester]

Why?

He was joking.. Look at his system specs. He's got a very nice system.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Why?

Well going by the previous posts, i thought intel was trash, going by the opinions.

 

[Minus Infinity]

How about this question. Would they be just decent or the best out there?
I dont have distrust but rather I have doubts it is that much better.


Oh that is so true.
But you also want to look for a way out from a check (chess analogy) the best way you can.
The next question is, is AMD going to do the same thing? What if they do?

Well it appears not soon for desktop and certainly not for Zen 5 next year. Zen 6 may be a different story. AMD themselves have argued there is no need for dense cores on desktop. APU for mobile are a different matter.

Maybe if Intel's e-cores were more like AMD's dense cores and were logically the same to the OS and offered SMT it would be different but they don't even yield great battery life in mobile. Now Intel have low powered E cores to further complicate things.

I'm all in on Intel's tile approach and it's far more advanced than AMD's chiplets at the moment, who will no doubt be moving to something similar down the track. Maybe MTL won't be impressive, but you start somewhere and each gen will surely improve. I would never ever buy into a brand new first gen architecture on principle, but I do eagerly await Arrow Lake, and Panther Lake.

 

[AusWolf]

How about this question. Would they be just decent or the best out there?
I dont have distrust but rather I have doubts it is that much better.

I don't like speculating like that, but I'd be curious to try. I'm still not a fan of having to use Win 11 for the scheduler to properly work the heterogenous architecture, though.

Well going by the previous posts, i thought intel was trash, going by the opinions.

Intel's gaming / under load efficiency is trash compared to AMD. That doesn't mean it's objectively bad by any means. Even with so much crap 11th gen got from the media, I still love my 11700 to bits. Sure, with limits removed, it eats twice the power as my 7800X3D does, while scoring 25% lower in Cinebench all-core, but being limited to 65 W, it's still a decent HTPC CPU and more than capable of some light gaming (it's on par with a R5 3600 this way).

Nothing is objectively bad unless it explodes and sets your house on fire, or at least isn't working.

 

[ratirt]

I don't like speculating like that, but I'd be curious to try. I'm still not a fan of having to use Win 11 for the scheduler to properly work the heterogenous architecture, though.


Intel's gaming / under load efficiency is trash compared to AMD. That doesn't mean it's objectively bad by any means. Even with so much crap 11th gen got from the media, I still love my 11700 to bits. Sure, with limits removed, it eats twice the power as my 7800X3D does, while scoring 25% lower in Cinebench all-core, but being limited to 65 W, it's still a decent HTPC CPU and more than capable of some light gaming (it's on par with a R5 3600 this way).

Nothing is objectively bad unless it explodes and sets your house on fire, or at least isn't working.

It is not speculation it is asking a question to see a different perspective or how will it affect you or in case of AMD's chips the industry and CPU market for instance. Will it change anything in your point of view or everything would stay the same. It is a fair question for those who think Intel's CPUs are garbage or not good or not decent just because the power consumption is high. Another good question, to determine value of a CPU is what is the most important in the cpu. Power consumption or performance or price if you had to chose one. I'd go with performance but obviously there are boundries with any choice you make.

 

[AusWolf]

It is not speculation it is asking a question to see a different perspective or how will it affect you or in case of AMD's chips the industry and CPU market for instance. Will it change anything in your point of view or everything would stay the same. It is a fair question for those who think Intel's CPUs are garbage or not good or not decent just because the power consumption is high.

Ah, fair enough. Well, if they were equal to AMD in both power consumption and performance, it would definitely change the public opinion in their favour. As for me, I'd still avoid them due to the above reason (heterogenous architecture, needs Win 11's scheduler to work properly).

Another good question, to determine value of a CPU is what is the most important in the cpu. Power consumption or performance or price if you had to chose one. I'd go with performance but obviously there are boundries with any choice you make.

I don't like choosing one. I prefer looking at these values in relation to one another.

For example, if the price and power consumption is a little bit on the high side, but the performance is excellent, that makes a good enough CPU, in my opinion. Unfortunately, this is not the case with 12th-14th gen Intel i7 and i9, as while the performance is there, and the price isn't too bad, power consumption, and thus, heat, is through the roof. The three values you listed each have a certain threshold above/below which the other two characteristics can't help anymore.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Well, i can't wait to see what arrow lake is gonna be like, it's certainly a big change for intel. Here's hoping it is a good change from 12/13/14th gens in terms of power use, if so it might just be something special.

 

[ratirt]

I don't like choosing one. I prefer looking at these values in relation to one another.

The point here is, these are not equal in importance. In my opinion the performance is the most important but you have to put into account all aspects the same way as ratios among the three variables. It is not about choosing your favorite.

For example, if the price and power consumption is a little bit on the high side, but the performance is excellent, that makes a good enough CPU, in my opinion. Unfortunately, this is not the case with 12th-14th gen Intel i7 and i9, as while the performance is there, and the price isn't too bad, power consumption, and thus, heat, is through the roof. The three values you listed each have a certain threshold above/below which the other two characteristics can't help anymore.

I'd use a ratio to determine the value of the product but in each ratio, performance would be the main one. Performance per watt and performance per $.

Ah, fair enough. Well, if they were equal to AMD in both power consumption and performance, it would definitely change the public opinion in their favour. As for me, I'd still avoid them due to the above reason (heterogenous architecture, needs Win 11's scheduler to work properly).

My point was, they cannot be equal since these are different arch cpus and the difference will always be there. Heterogeneous is a different story here for me but like I said before. Not a fan of those hybrids and it would seem the entire premise (low power consumption) behind it has been somewhat abolished.

Well, i can't wait to see what arrow lake is gonna be like, it's certainly a big change for intel. Here's hoping it is a good change from 12/13/14th gens in terms of power use, if so it might just be something special.

As I see it for the 12th 13th and 14th gen, The performance per watt is not bad but if you need to squeeze whatever you can out of the processors due to keep up with the competition since you dont have anything else to offer, it becomes a problem. I'm sure Intel would not go with frequencies so high and the power consumption would have been lower but since they have to keep up with AMD, well, I guess they did not have a choice here but to make the 14th gen a hot and power hungry furnace.

 

[Assimilator]

Not a fan of those hybrids and it would seem the entire premise (low power consumption) behind it has been somewhat abolished.

It's not so much lowering power consumption overall, it's lowering it far enough that the entire CPU won't melt itself into slag when it tries to boost. Basically the same reason why AMD went with HBM for Vega.

 

[AusWolf]

The point here is, these are not equal in importance. In my opinion the performance is the most important but you have to put into account all aspects the same way as ratios among the three variables. It is not about choosing your favorite.

I'd use a ratio to determine the value of the product but in each ratio, performance would be the main one. Performance per watt and performance per $.

For me, performance has to hit a minimum value (of course I wouldn't buy a Celeron for gaming), but once it's there, I start looking at the other factors, which also have to be within acceptable limits. I'm happy to sacrifice some performance if it is 1. still within my expectations and 2. brings down price and/or power and heat considerably. A cheap dual-core CPU that can't run any modern game is just as useless to me as a million-core monster that melts your cooler and half of your motherboard at the slightest sign of boosting. My truth is in the middle. But each to their own.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Where power use is concerened, i really don't give a hoot as long as the performance is there. You don't buy a super car and whine about the 8MPG do you. Even though there may be some CPU's that might have the same performance with less power use, that is down to brand choice, and we all have one or the other we prefer, even though some fidiots call it being a fanboy, which imo it is not. At least Intel is innovating which will trickle to all the CPU manufacturers if these new CPU tech production methods work out to be pretty good, we will have to wait and see.

As long as you can cool the CPU, what does it matter. People seem to forget that both AMD and Intel design their CPU's to run at their max temp 100c for example, all day with no problems.

 

[Assimilator]

You don't buy a super car and whine about the 8MPG do you.

Intel's CPUs are not supercars. They are mass-market commodities.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Intel's CPUs are not supercars. They are mass-market commodities.

It was an analogy, google it

 

[Assimilator]

It was an analogy, google it

It was a shit analogy. Unless you want to argue that anyone with 300 dollars can own a supercar?