Isn't the physics score basically a CPU score? Can you clock your 9900k at the same clocks this was running and tell us the physics score?For the curious, I just tested integrated graphics performance on UHD Graphics 630 -- using Core i7-9900K with DDR4-3200 memory, so basically as fast as Gen9.5 Intel GPUs get.
Fire Strike: 1341
Time Spy: 532
Obviously these Rocket Lake results are early and we don't know the GPU configuration, but that would be 30% faster on Fire Strike and 14% faster on Time Spy. Which is about half the performance you'd get from AMD's Vega 11.
While clocks might be production related,it's also a great way to sell a future refresh instead of doing a new arch.Clocks are pretty much bang on with what I expected, maybe 100-200 MHz more for the final product. I've been saying for a while that in Ice Lake, the architecture was mostly the limiting factor for clock speed, not the node. Sure, 14+++ allows higher clocks than 10+, but the difference isn't huge.
Yeah, sure ... It was actually a 9700K, I was mistaken. But the scores in Fire Strike and Time Spy are here:Isn't the physics score basically a CPU score? Can you clock your 9900k at the same clocks this was running and tell us the physics score?
They show it in the link.
That’s the question, of course: what is the GPU configuration in Rocket Lake S? There are good reasons for it to have at least a 64 EU graphics subsystem, like the fact that a lot of CPUs for desktop also go into notebooks. Given the performance, though, it seems like a 32 EU version. That or the drivers or clocks are very poor right now.https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/integrated-xe-intel-tiger-lake-gpu-outperforms-vega-at-7nm-from-ryzen-4000-for-notebooks.html
I think the Rocket Lake S is not a full 96EU like Tiger Lake - more like 24 or 32 EU. - so barely on par with the G7 Ice Lake variants. (~64 Gen11 = ~32 Gen12). This is a desktop flagship - so can't imagine anyone using the iGPU for anything other than curiosity.