Intel 10 nm CPUs to See Very Limited Initial Launch in 2017

[TheGuruStud]

Well, I'm envious of Ryzen's efficiency, personally (as a 7700k owner). But I don't see why you guys have to be so rude to each other. It's a just thread on CPUs.

That's how you treat degenerates.

 

[repman244]

AFAIK The new rog strix gaming laptop has a Full blown Ryzen 5 1600 & Ryzen 7 1700 option available with the B350M chipset

https://www.asus.com/Laptops/ROG-Strix-GL702ZC/specifications/

Exactly, it has a full blown Ryzen and not a mobile Ryzen.
Personally I don't care that much about some silly gaming laptops especially with desktop rated hardware which destroys battery life (the whole point of having a laptop) and is held back by cooling - I rather have a normal desktop.
What I'm after is a mobile workstation which would have a 6 core mobile CPU (45W part) - but we aren't there yet.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Dear delusional people, Ryzen 1700 is nowhere near 65W, get that through your skulls, tests prove it's got worse efficiency than Broadwell-E OC vs OC since low clocks are the only reason Ryzen is achieving pretty good efficiency figures at stock. Once you shoot for 4GHz the whole efficiency goes down the drain.

It's better in terms of efficiency than Skylake-X, that's for sure, but Skylake-X is not Intel's most efficient architecture. Broadwell is. Skylake-X is actually pretty friggin disgusting in terms of power draw. Still, it makes up for it with Ryzen-crushing performance.

 

[Durvelle27]

Dear delusional people, Ryzen 1700 is nowhere near 65W, get that through your skulls, tests prove it's got worse efficiency than Broadwell-E OC vs OC since low clocks are the only reason Ryzen is achieving pretty good efficiency figures at stock. Once you shoot for 4GHz the whole efficiency goes down the drain.

It's better in terms of efficiency than Skylake-X, that's for sure, but Skylake-X is not Intel's most efficient architecture. Broadwell is. Skylake-X is actually pretty friggin disgusting in terms of power draw. Still, it makes up for it with Ryzen-crushing performance.

Maybe I missed the memo

When did SkyLake-X. Last I checked Skylake-X was easily surpassed

 

[Vya Domus]

Power draw when overclocked. Yeah, totally relevant.

This thread really is something , I got to say.

 

[cucker tarlson]

of course it's relevant, we're talking about desktop parts since there's no mobile ryzen ones.

Maybe I missed the memo

When did SkyLake-X. Last I checked Skylake-X was easily surpassed

That's not a question, your statement makes no sense either. And you "pique" not "peak" sb's interest.

 

[ratirt]

of course it's relevant, we're talking about desktop parts since there's no mobile ryzen ones.



That's not a question, your statement makes no sense either. And you "pique" not "peak" sb's interest.

If you put that CPU in a desktop that would be a desktop processor. If it is in a laptop it will be a mobile processor. Don't compare parts from desktops for the mobile market stating that the power usage is big. Motherboards, ram etc. in a desktop market are different from laptop segment counterparts. Mobile market counterparts are set for low power usage. I remember the days when you would use an Athlon M (mobile) for desktop cause you could OC it better with it's TDP range. Does this mean it's a desktop processor? It is a processor and the question is if it is efficient enough for current mobile market requirements to be used as a mobile processor or not.
Giving an example as you did with the wattage draw is false cause it's done with the counterparts of a desktop computer not a laptop.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Giving an example as you did with the wattage draw is false cause it's done with the counterparts of a desktop computer not a laptop.

explain

 

[ratirt]

I'm gonna crap my pants laughing, take it down a notch big,serious boy
R7 1700 is nowhere near 65W processors in real life. AMD is claiming 65W TDP but their marketing has been known to be misleading since launch. R7 1700 is 65W, 6900K is 140W. In OCCT there's 20W between them, now look which company has a more honest approach. Ryzens don't have better efficiency than Intel's Skylake/Kablylake, at that comes from lower clockspeed. Look at 1300X at 3.5GHz pulling 10W more than 7600K at 3.8GHz.

Seriously, did you really believe AMD when they said they have a 65W 8c/16t chip to compete with Intel's 140W stuff

I gotta explain? You explain bro That's not mobile market ? Or i'm just talking shi..t

 

[xorbe]

If anyone stuffs this into a luggable laptop, I'll overlook calling it a mobile cpu. ;-)

# cat /proc/cpuinfo
...
processor  : 127
model name : AMD EPYC 7601 32-Core Processor
...
# top
KiB Mem : 52812924+total, ...

 

[Kanan]

I'm gonna crap my pants laughing, take it down a notch big,serious boy
R7 1700 is nowhere near 65W processors in real life. AMD is claiming 65W TDP but their marketing has been known to be misleading since launch. R7 1700 is 65W, 6900K is 140W. In OCCT there's 20W between them, now look which company has a more honest approach. Ryzens don't have better efficiency than Intel's Skylake/Kablylake, at that comes from lower clockspeed. Look at 1300X at 3.5GHz pulling 10W more than 7600K at 3.8GHz.

Seriously, did you really believe AMD when they said they have a 65W 8c/16t chip to compete with Intel's 140W stuff

Too bad OCCT Linpack is of no relevance in the real world. It's comparable to Furmark, so pretty much irrelevant. The real numbers say, that in normal every day situations the power usage is in fact around 65 W. The same is true for the 95W models of Ryzen. TDP is actually based on realistic usage and there it holds the numbers. Intel's Core architecture is outdated, it especially shows when you compare Threadripper to Skylake X models, even the 10 core uses much more power than the 16 Core Threadripper, let alone those with even more cores from Intel (14-18, named HCC CPU's).

 

[cucker tarlson]

Too bad OCCT Linpack is of no relevance in the real world. It's comparable to Furmark, so pretty much irrelevant. The real numbers say, that in normal every day situations the power usage is in fact around 65 W. The same is true for the 95W models of Ryzen. TDP is actually based on realistic usage and there it holds the numbers. Intel's Core architecture is outdated, it especially shows when you compare Threadripper to Skylake X models, even the 10 core uses much more power than the 16 Core Threadripper, let alone those with even more cores from Intel (14-18, named HCC CPU's).

Not based on realistic usage. TPU shows it drawing over a 100W in gaming.

 

[Kanan]

Not based on realistic usage. TPU shows it drawing over a 100W in gaming.

To be clear: if you use all threads of Threadripper and all threads of a 10 core Skylake-X the 10 core Skylake-X uses more power. And the ones with even more cores from Intel transform into a power hog. A architecture is inferior when it's way worse efficiency wise. Skylake-X has simply no point at all. Gamers buy Kaby Lake or Coffee Lake because it has the best performance, and workstation users are going for Threadripper because you get 32 cores for the same price as Intel's 18 core CPU, a laughable comparison by any imagination. Also the reason why Threadripper 1950X is pretty much one of the best selling CPU's right now.

 

[R0H1T]

To be clear: if you use all threads of Threadripper and all threads of a 10 core Skylake-X the 10 core Skylake-X uses more power. And the ones with even more cores from Intel transform into a power hog. A architecture is inferior when it's way worse efficiency wise. Skylake-X has simply no point at all. Gamers buy Kaby Lake or Coffee Lake because it has the best performance, and workstation users are going for Threadripper because you get 32 cores for the same price as Intel's 18 core CPU, a laughable comparison by any imagination. Also the reason why Threadripper 1950X is pretty much one of the best selling CPU's right now.

There are specific use cases, like AVX 512 heavy code, where SKLX has it's utility but they are few & far in between. I've seen people recommend SKLX though as a workstation CPU & OC it to match or exceed TR's more core advantage, an obvious to such advisors!

 

[Kanan]

There are specific use cases, like AVX 512 heavy code, where SKLX has it's utility but they are few & far in between. I've seen people recommend SKLX though as a workstation CPU & OC it to match or exceed TR's more core advantage, an obvious to such advisors!

That's true. And yeah, if you do that, the power consumption is ridicilous compared to Threadripper. I always tend to think workstation PC's are about power consumption too, they have to be efficient. I mean I understand when a gamer who plays 3 hours a day doesn't care about power consumption, but a workstation computer is often running on long hours if not always and on high usage too, so the power consumption is way higher and it has to be that less efficient CPU's shouldn't be really recommendable. Not even the platform itself is better, 60 PCI-E 3.0 lanes vs. 44 on Skylake-X (CPU vs CPU). In my books Skylake/Kaby Lake-X are a big fail, the whole platform is strange and skewed. I mean if Threadripper wouldn't exist, even then, it wouldn't look good, but because TR exists it really looks bad in comparison. The old Broadwell/Haswell architecture on X99 platform wasn't that inefficient, has to do with the changed cache structure afaik. I really do like X99 way more than X299.