News Intel 11th-Gen Rocket Lake, Comet Lake Refresh CPUs Specs Emerge From Overseas

spongiemaster

Respectable
Dec 12, 2019
1,396
659
2,060
0
Ah yes, less cores. Exactly what we want.
According to steam, about 90% of the market has fewer than 8 cores and 1% has more than 8 cores. Those aren't numbers indicating anyone is clamoring for more than 8 cores. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that even enthusiasts get any tangible benefit either now or in the next few years for more than 16 threads. I am far more interested in faster cores than more cores at this point.
 

NightHawkRMX

Polypheme
Ambassador
There are plenty of workloads that benefit from it.
Sure, it might not benefit a lot of people, but that doesn't mean you aren't getting less for your money and it hurts performance in some cases.
 

JayNor

Commendable
May 31, 2019
298
42
1,710
0
"Intel is last to the party since PCIe 4.0 support was already present in AMD's previous-gen Ryzen 3000 (codename Matisse) processors that debuted one year ago."

Intel introduced PCIE4 in Tiger Lake laptop chips. Are those not considered mainstream?
 

NightHawkRMX

Polypheme
Ambassador
Yes but no.

A) tiger lake is mobile not desktop
B) tiger lake has a whopping 4 pcie 4 lanes. Good enough for storage which is the primary use of PCIe 4, but it doesn't seem like a proper implementation to me.
C) tiger lake is much newer than zen 2, so yes, Intel is late to the party.
 
Last edited:

FakeMike

Honorable
Jan 18, 2016
19
9
10,515
0
"Intel is last to the party since PCIe 4.0 support was already present in AMD's previous-gen Ryzen 3000 (codename Matisse) processors that debuted one year ago."

Intel introduced PCIE4 in Tiger Lake laptop chips. Are those not considered mainstream?
Tiger Like is a laptop CPU. This article is about PC CPUs.
 

neojack

Respectable
Apr 4, 2019
447
77
1,840
43
According to steam, about 90% of the market has fewer than 8 cores and 1% has more than 8 cores. Those aren't numbers indicating anyone is clamoring for more than 8 cores. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that even enthusiasts get any tangible benefit either now or in the next few years for more than 16 threads. I am far more interested in faster cores than more cores at this point.
ahah, im sure i can find posts from 2-3 years ago, from people like you, saying 4 cores 8t are enough, and the 8c/16t offered by the 1700/2700 will be useless.

guess what, now the 8 cores are still enthousiats-class, while the 7700k is considered entry-level, equals the gen10 i3 and ryzen 3100


as long as speeds are >4ghz, more cores are a great way to futureproofing a build
 

spongiemaster

Respectable
Dec 12, 2019
1,396
659
2,060
0
yea, cause everyone that plays games, uses steam.
Steam undoubtedly has a higher percentage of enthusiasts than the overall market, so if anything, using Steam gives a slanted view towards higher core counts market penetration. The overall market is going to have lower market share for 8 core or higher CPU's.
 

spongiemaster

Respectable
Dec 12, 2019
1,396
659
2,060
0
ahah, im sure i can find posts from 2-3 years ago, from people like you, saying 4 cores 8t are enough, and the 8c/16t offered by the 1700/2700 will be useless.

guess what, now the 8 cores are still enthousiats-class, while the 7700k is considered entry-level, equals the gen10 i3 and ryzen 3100


as long as speeds are >4ghz, more cores are a great way to futureproofing a build
Intel released it's first quad core CPU 14 years ago. I'd be willing to bet, 8c16t will have a longer usable life for mainstream users than quad core did. The majority of software isn't going to become magically highly multithreaded within the next 5 years if not more. The rate of progress on the software side is too slow to be able to futureproof on the CPU side.
 
The "core count" argument is always a "chicken and egg" type of discussion. Not worth even going into it. The only important aspect there is, for there to be progress you need either the chicken or the egg to exist.

Seems like AMD is pushing to have one on the market and use it as a competitive advantage that, while Intel has been dominating the benches, devs have had no real incentive to do much (and also the tooling, which is mostly Intel centric, like it or not) hasn't helped out much outside of the corporate world.

That being said, 8C/16T are still good and will be good for a while, so while Intel may not have a counter to the 8+ core count CPUs, I do believe that concentrating their TDP in performance per core is a better move than going wide this time around. Their 14nm anchor is heavy as their horrible stubbornness about NOT DROPPING THEIR FRIGGIN iGPU from their upper-mainstream CPU designs. That's a lot of die real-state they're just flushing down the toilet.

Cheers!
 

Conahl

Prominent
Apr 24, 2020
224
75
660
0
Steam undoubtedly has a higher percentage of enthusiasts than the overall market, so if anything, using Steam gives a slanted view towards higher core counts market penetration. The overall market is going to have lower market share for 8 core or higher CPU's.
yea ok sure. just using steam only, doesnt say what people are using. unless there is a data base that is able to collect ALL the cpu's that everyone uses, even the mighty steam, can, and could be off on how many cores people have in their comps.
 
Reactions: Soaptrail

Conahl

Prominent
Apr 24, 2020
224
75
660
0
devs have had no real incentive to do much (and also the tooling, which is mostly Intel centric, like it or not)
The majority of software isn't going to become magically highly multithreaded within the next 5 years if not more.
we can thank intel for stagnating the cpu market for that, and their BS quote " no one needs more then 4 cores " crap. no matter what the intel fans keep saying.
 

Soaptrail

Honorable
Jan 12, 2015
229
57
10,670
1
yea ok sure. just using steam only, doesnt say what people are using. unless there is a data base that is able to collect ALL the cpu's that everyone uses, even the mighty steam, can, and could be off on how many cores people have in their comps.
Agreed, nothing can be learned from Steam. I presume laptops are are also counted in Steam surveys and we already know anyone who logs into an internet cafe will be counted multiple times in steam surveys.
 

BogdanH

Notable
Sep 21, 2020
582
201
990
71
According to steam, about 90% of the market has fewer than 8 cores and 1% has more than 8 cores. Those aren't numbers indicating anyone is clamoring for more than 8 cores.
Keep in mind that majority of "gamers" are kids/students who can't afford more expensive CPU. Steam statistics only tells the situation -not what people wish or need. But agree: for gaming only, 6C/12T is more than enough (for now).

... I have yet to see any compelling evidence that even enthusiasts get any tangible benefit either now or in the next few years for more than 16 threads. I am far more interested in faster cores than more cores at this point.
You shouldn't generalize based on your PC use. There are "gamers" and there are a lot of those who (also) use PC for work -and I don't mean browsing and reading mails.
 
Reactions: Soaptrail

NightHawkRMX

Polypheme
Ambassador
8c16t or even 6c12t is plenty for your average person or average gamer. However, average people aren't buying $500 i9 CPUs.

The people that buy high end CPUs like an i9 or Ryzen 9 typically want to use their PC for things other than games, often things that can leverage a lot of cores, like blender rendering, for example.

Less cores will hurt performance. You can't help but think you are getting a lesser CPU in some ways compared to last generation.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS