Ice Lake Tested: Intel’s First 10nm Benchmarks

joytech22

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2008
1,684
0
19,810
10
I'm very impressed by the performance, great to see so much punch with so little power.

Funny to think that if we took one of these "low power" mobile chips back to the early 90's it'd be one of the most powerful systems on Earth lol
 
Now, bring it out on the desktop, and have it outperforming the 9900K.....! (I'm not concerned about clock speed if the delivered performance is there)

What I DO NOT want to see is any truth to the rumors of an 18% IPC boost and a 20% decrease in clock speed...
 
The integrated GPU performance of this processor does look like a nice improvement over Intel's typical integrated graphics, and might even be slightly faster than the Vega 10 graphics found in Ryzen 7 3700U laptops, when optimally configured.

However, this is a reference system designed to show off the capabilities of Intel's new hardware, and performance might not be quite as good on most systems actually available for purchase. For example, system memory plays a big role in integrated graphics performance, and this sample system is outfitted with fast 3733 memory, while the systems its being compared against range from 1867 to 2400 memory speeds. RAM speeds are not a headlining specification, and often aren't even mentioned in product descriptions, so that's one area many manufacturers will likely be cutting corners, at the expense of performance, especially graphics performance. And of course, Intel didn't allow any battery or power consumption tests, so it's possible this system was configured for additional performance at the expense of battery life.

What I DO NOT want to see is any truth to the rumors of an 18% IPC boost and a 20% decrease in clock speed...
Well, the article does point out that the max single-core boost frequency for the 1065G7 is just 3.9 GHz, which happens to be 18% lower than the 8565U's 4.6 GHz boost frequency. In a device like a laptop that's often limited by thermals, it's possible that the 1065G7 might be able to maintain those boost clocks longer though, due to lower heat output, resulting in better performance overall, despite the lower-clocks negating its IPC gains.

When it comes to desktop processors though, performance is usually not nearly as limited by thermals, so lower heat output isn't likely to benefit performance much. If Intel were able to push clock rates high enough on 10nm to allow desktop chips to match the performance of their current Coffee Lake offerings, I would assume they would be doing so. Instead, next year's desktop chips are apparently going to still be built on the same 14nm Skylake architecture they have been using since 2015. So no, don't expect them to release a 10nm processor that outperforms a 9900K anytime soon. Maybe in 2021?
 

AlistairAB

Honorable
May 21, 2014
139
22
10,685
0
We have a massive improvement in transistor density, and Intel releases a ridiculous $430 4 core part. Where is the 6 core 25W CPU for a good price? Enough said. These new CPUs are terrible. It's like praising the 7700k a year later when we should have an 8700k in our laptops.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Herald
Now, bring it out on the desktop, and have it outperforming the 9900K.....! (I'm not concerned about clock speed if the delivered performance is there)
Well, according to recent roadmap leaks, Intel's desktop CPUs will remain on 14 nm for a couple more years. So, anything they do on the desktop won't be exactly this chip.
 
Jun 17, 2019
76
21
35
0
We have a massive improvement in transistor density, and Intel releases a ridiculous $430 4 core part. Where is the 6 core 25W CPU for a good price? Enough said. These new CPUs are terrible. It's like praising the 7700k a year later when we should have an 8700k in our laptops.
Actually there is going to be a 6-core Intel U-series mobile SoC but on 14nm Intel Comet Lake-U. Sources Geekbench4 leak and Notebookcheck Probably will not be seeing 6 to 8 core Intel Ice Lake U-series until Intel fully "mastered" their 10nm+ process (including the yields).
 

raycrayz

Prominent
Oct 12, 2017
8
0
510
0
@Paul Alcorn
Paul, I'd like you to do a comparison with a Ryzen 3700U, such as the Envy x360. It's time you provide a real comparison. I'm sure Intel wouldn't mind. Otherwise this review really doesn't stand out from the competition (Pcmag). Nobody needs to read a bunch of articles doing the same fluff work, and we know you're much more technical then that (3900x article).

Also, It seems that Intel added software specific optimizations to this generation of CPU's that could account for some of the performance boost. It could be one of the reasons why they're abondoning the desktop market to AMD. You should test the compatibility of that with a Ryzen system. In the past Windows would allow a complete change in hardware without a system re-installation. If this is still the case you should be able to swap the hard drive from the Intel system and stick it into an AMD system, install the AMD drivers to see if this performance boost is compatible. Software is generally poorly programmed with massive room for optimization, and I'd expect that these optimizations would work on AMD machines due to the 64bit instructions set.

Its a worthwhile experiment, looking forward to what you find.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS