Intel Core i3-1115G4 Tiger Lake CPU Surfaces on SiSoftware Sporting An Incredible Base Clock

[Raevenlord]

Database spelunker TUM_APISAK has brought to the surface another revealing entry regarding Intel's upcoming Tiger Lake CPUs. Discovered in SiSoftware's database entries, the Intel Core i3-1115G4 has reared its head sporting a mightily impressive base core clock set at 3.0 GHz. Compare this to the Ice Lake-based Core i3-1005G1, which while making use of the 10 nm process itself, only managed to run on a 1.2 GHz base clock. This increase speaks to Intel's refinement of the 10 nm manufacturing process (even sporting its well-known woes) and the usage of the new Willow Cove architecture core that will power the i3-1115G4.

Whilst still being a 2-core, 4-thread processor (ehrm), the new i3-1115G4 based on Tiger Lake sports a number of improvements on both its CPU and GPU core design. The new architectural improvements baked into Willow Cove are aided by an L3 cache boost from 4 MB to 6 MB, and its GPU is expected to make use of Intel's Xe graphics, featuring 96 EUs (compared to the 64 EUs in Ice Lake's 12th Gen graphics). It remains to be seen exactly how competitive Tiger Lake will be compared to AMD's current (and future) Ryzen offerings, but these are some encouraging leaks.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Sykobee]

2 cores, wow. We have made a lot of progress in the past 15 years haven't we!

2C is why the base clock can be decently high in that 15W (I presume) TDP.

 

[john_]

Do we know the TDP? Without TDP we can't make assumptions.

 

[Dredi]

It might also be just a change from intel on how they report the base clock. Is that with AVX2, AVX512 or neither?

 

[Daven]

While comparing this leaked result to Intel's current 10 nm offerings looks like progress, should we really consider this a good result? Shouldn't we really be comparing to the capabilities of the best sub 14 nm processes (i.e. 7 nm TSMC)? This is why the industry is so frustrating to end-users right now. Everyone just wants Intel as if they have to have Intel and only Intel because its Intel.

In my view, this is a crap result compared to 8 core / 16 thread processors that reach over 4 GHz on a single core and 3.0 GHz+ across all cores in a 10-15W envelope. I mean answer me this, would you buy a 3.0 GHz Core i3 dual core just because its from Intel and better than the previous generation Intel or would you buy any compatible processor with higher performance? We don't need Intel until they produce something better than their competition. We can just chose the competition.

 

[Dave65]

Intel still trying to polish a turd.

 

[Hemmingstamp]

War, what is it good for..............2 Cores, what are they good for?, absolutely nothing, say it again!

I'll pass and wait for AMD's offerings.

 

[watzupken]

Being an Ice Lake laptop user, the 3 Ghz base clock on Tiger Lake sounds like a big jump from the base clock of Ice Lake processors, but I don't think that is the case in reality. Based on my observations, Ice Lake chips generally don't clock down to their base clock unless the cooling solution is absolutely hopeless. It seems like Intel is trying to inflate the base clock to make it seem more attractive. In any case, we should know what kind of performance it will deliver in less than a month.

2 cores, wow. We have made a lot of progress in the past 15 years haven't we!

2C is why the base clock can be decently high in that 15W (I presume) TDP.

I don't think Intel have a choice. They will pursue their ultra fine product segmentation as usual. With Tiger Lake U capped at 4 cores/ 8 threads, I am not surprise the i3 gets a 2c/4t config. Move up to i5, you may get 4c/4t unless Intel feels generous you may get a 4c/6t or 4c/8t config, and with a slower boost speed and graphics.

But I have to agree that no matter how good Tiger Lake U is, 2c/4t is unlikely to dull the onslaught of AMD processors. The base Ryzen 3 Renoir is 4c/4t and move up a notch and you get 6c/6t. Unless Intel is again feeling generous, I am not expecting them to price it competitively as well, i.e. i3 = Ryzen 5 pricing.

 

[Crackong]

Notebookcheck.com says it is 15W

 

[davideneco]

Notebookcheck.com says it is 15W

Its 15W yes

We have PL1-PL2-PL4 of Tiger Lake U and Y (2 core and 4 core)

For Tiger Lake U 2 core 4 thread its
tdp_pl1_override = 15,
tdp_pl2_override = 38,
tdp_pl4 = 71,

But dont forget they can configure for higher or lower TDP

 

[ymbaja]

I don’t think they used the term “incredible” correctly. 6Ghz would have qualified as incredible. 3Ghz is so unimpressive it warrants calling out the the clickbait title.

 

[Ruru]

War, what is it good for..............2 Cores, what are they good for?, absolutely nothing, say it again!

I'll pass and wait for AMD's offerings.

For basic usage 2c/4t is fine. I have no problems using my laptop with i5-4210M (2c/4t) for typical desktop usage and lightweight gaming for those games which HD 4600 can run.

Three years ago I had a Pentium G4560 in my gaming PC and I had zero problems since it was the budget king back then.

 

[HugsNotDrugs]

For basic usage 2c/4t is fine. I have no problems using my laptop with i5-4210M (2c/4t) for typical desktop usage and lightweight gaming for those games which HD 4600 can run.

Three years ago I had a Pentium G4560 in my gaming PC and I had zero problems since it was the budget king back then.

I just recently went from an i5-5300u (2c4t) to a i5-8350u (4c8t). It's a massive performance jump very noticeable in day-to-day usage.

 

[Ruru]

I just recently went from an i5-5300u (2c4t) to a i5-8350u (4c8t). It's a massive performance jump very noticeable in day-to-day usage.

Yea I know, I just mean that basic tasks can be done fine with a 2c/4t. Been thinking of upgrading it to a 4c/8t i7 4000 series CPU.

 

[Hemmingstamp]

For basic usage 2c/4t is fine. I have no problems using my laptop with i5-4210M (2c/4t) for typical desktop usage and lightweight gaming for those games which HD 4600 can run.

Three years ago I had a Pentium G4560 in my gaming PC and I had zero problems since it was the budget king back then.

So did I, for mainly watching Youtube. Like yourself I did some casual gaming with it. Wouldn't own a 2C CPU again with AMD's low prices for quad cores alone.

 

[watzupken]

For basic usage 2c/4t is fine. I have no problems using my laptop with i5-4210M (2c/4t) for typical desktop usage and lightweight gaming for those games which HD 4600 can run.

Three years ago I had a Pentium G4560 in my gaming PC and I had zero problems since it was the budget king back then.

I don't disagree that dual core processors can still hold out, especially if you are not using it for some heavy lifting. However as more and more software companies started optimizing their software/ games for multi cores, I feel dual core processors will suffer big time in terms of performance. The sweet spot in my opinion is somewhere between a 6 or 8 cores, which AMD Is targeting and selling the bulk of their CPU to retail.