Info INTEL Launches its first 10th Generation 10nm CPUs !

[Deleted member 2731765]

Hello,

OC3D actually posted an article, so I just thought of sharing this here at the FORUM as well. Some new info on INTEL's upcoming CPUs has been leaked. I will just quote their text here.

https://newsroom.intel.com/news/int...fining-next-era-laptop-experiences/#gs.swk3j4

Intel has officially launched its first 10th generation Core processors, revealing 11 10nm SKUs which are designed for sub-30W power draw in slim 2-in-1 notebook designs. These are Intel's first commercially available 10nm processors.

While Intel's product launch is today, the company has confirmed that system availability isn't expected from PC manufacturers until 2019's Holiday Season, making this a paper launch. Some OEMs may ship 10nm systems early, but not in large quantities.

These new processors all make use of Intel's 10nm manufacturing process, the company's Gen11 graphics (which support VESA Adaptive Sync) and the company's next-generation Sunny Cove core architecture. These processors are code-named Ice Lake. Intel has further confirmed that there will be "additional products in the 10th Gen Intel Core mobile processor family" which will target "increased productivity and performance scaling for demanding, multithreaded workloads". Intel has not stated whether or not these higher-end processors will utilise 10nm, only that they will feature "performance scaling for demanding, multithreaded workloads".

One of Intel's newest features with Ice Lake is support for Integrated Thunderbolt 3, WiFi 6 and support for AVX 512 and AI Inference instructions. This is a first for an Intel mobile platform.

https://newsroom.intel.com/news/int...fining-next-era-laptop-experiences/#gs.swk3j4

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...s_its_first_10th_generation_10nm_processors/1

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

LOL....

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Im more of a pyro or heavy myself.

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

Online MP games have always been popular. It wasn't just a few years ago that TF2 was still one of the top MP games on Steam and honestly I feel its still better than most as there is a balance the others still don't meet. Plus one is made by a greedy PoS company.

Hello , I would love to know which Gaming GENRE you actually prefer playing ? What all games do you like ? This is OT, but you post here, IF you wish. No compulsion from my side though.....

https://forums.tomshardware.com/thr...laying-game-on-your-pc.3508398/#post-21202711

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

On some other off topic, but related news, INTEL claims that their CPUs are much better than AMD. Does anyone agree with this ?

At this year's Gamescon, Intel started a new campaign against AMD with a point that Intel's CPUs are still better performers with "real world benchmarks" backing that claim.

"A year ago when we introduced the i9 9900K," says Intel's Troy Severson, "it was dubbed the fastest gaming CPU in the world. And I can honestly say nothing's changed. It's still the fastest gaming CPU in the world. I think you've heard a lot of press from the competition recently, but when we go out and actually do the real-world testing, not the synthetic benchmarks, but doing real-world testing of how these games perform on our platform, we stack the 9900K against the Ryzen 9 3900X. They're running a 12-core part and we're running an eight-core," he adds. "I'll be very honest, very blunt, say, hey, they've done a great job closing the gap, but we still have the highest performing CPUs in the industry for gaming, and we're going to maintain that edge."

Here Intel describes that AMD wins in synthetic workloads, while its CPUs win in a real world usage scenarios for applications like Microsoft Office, Adobe Lightroom, Photoshop and more. While they claim to posses better overall productivity performance, Intel also claims few other trophies in areas like gaming, where Core i7-9700K "is on par or better" than AMD Ryzen 9 3900X across many games tested.

In games, Intel continues to be leading with exceptions here and there. In 16 modern games, the Core i9-9900K was 6 percent ahead of the Ryzen 9 3900X, while the Core i7-9700K averaged 2 percent more power.

Otherwise, the Core i7-9700K is at least "on par". Curiously enough, Intel gives a value of "+/- 3%" for safety, as shown in the footnotes of the corresponding slide. In general, such an offset advantage could mean a clear victory. According to Intel, only two AMD games have AMD over the Core i7-9700K, while the Core i9-9900K is not even shown in more detail. These are Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation and Assassin's Creed: Odyssey. Intel mentions wins in some synthetics workloads and gaming

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/amd-great-job-closing-the-gap-highest-performing-cpus

 

[NightHawkRMX]

they've done a great job closing the gap, but we still have the highest performing CPUs in the industry for gaming...

It is hard to argue with this point.

Here Intel describes that AMD wins in synthetic workloads, while its CPUs win in a real world usage scenarios for applications like Microsoft Office, Adobe Lightroom, Photoshop and more.

I have seen quite the opposite.

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

Those are pretty BOLD claims made by INTEL though....

 

[Karadjgne]

Not really, Intel blows the doors off amd in Adobe CC in most of its apps simply due to the fact that it doesn't scale well at all past 8 threads. So after that, it's an IPC and clock speed race, and amd is considerably behind there in boost speeds.

The wild part of the claim is 'real world' usage. An extra second or two when compiling a photo doesn't make any difference at all. I love the fact that to get that performance edge you'll need to spend 2x-3x the price of an AMD based system.

 

[TerryLaze]

The wild part of the claim is 'real world' usage. An extra second or two when compiling a photo doesn't make any difference at all. I love the fact that to get that performance edge you'll need to spend 2x-3x the price of an AMD based system.

Nobody that spends 500+ on a CPU for real world usage is going to compile one single photo at a time.
2 seconds on 500 pics is more than 15min on top of the time it would take on the faster system.
Getting your trading info a second or two later than everybody else could mean that you won't be able to make a good deal, ever.
And so on.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Not really, Intel blows the doors off amd in Adobe CC in most of its apps simply due to the fact that it doesn't scale well at all past 8 threads. So after that, it's an IPC and clock speed race, and amd is considerably behind there in boost speeds.

The wild part of the claim is 'real world' usage. An extra second or two when compiling a photo doesn't make any difference at all. I love the fact that to get that performance edge you'll need to spend 2x-3x the price of an AMD based system.

Outside of enthusiast markets it doesn't work the same. People who use PCs for a living pay for every ounce of performance be it a few seconds or percent because the cost over the time of use is minuscule compared to those extra seconds added up.

In the server market there is still a lot of doubt. My boss has no plans to move to AMD, although for now our VMHosts will probably remain even after EoL as there is no need for the performance gains even on Intels side, mainly because AMD has been out of the market for a long time and a lot of people feel burned. It will take AMD time to rebuild good and strong relationships with OEMs and partners and regain the trust of IT professionals.

Either way Intel works with OEMs and partners a lot and markets very well. AMD needs to really engage those channels and bring their brand quality and recognition to that level to full compete.

I can say this much, when I think of Intel the first thing that comes to my mind is the Intel jingle for Intel Inside. Now being an enthusiast in the market for so long I know and use AMD but I can't remember anything similar thats easy to recognize for AMD. Maybe in the coming years with the success of Ryzen they will become more active in that realm.

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

INTEL inside, AMD outside more like, lol.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I mean. This is the front of my case currently.

https://ibb.co/dMrnsVq

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

LOL.

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

In the server market there is still a lot of doubt. My boss has no plans to move to AMD, although for now our VMHosts will probably remain even after EoL as there is no need for the performance gains even on Intels side, mainly because AMD has been out of the market for a long time and a lot of people feel burned. It will take AMD time to rebuild good and strong relationships with OEMs and partners and regain the trust of IT professionals.

I can say this much, when I think of Intel the first thing that comes to my mind is the Intel jingle for Intel Inside. Now being an enthusiast in the market for so long I know and use AMD but I can't remember anything similar thats easy to recognize for AMD. Maybe in the coming years with the success of Ryzen they will become more active in that realm.

Agreed. It's a shame that many people don't need to upgrade or don't see the need to upgrade. Makes sense from a business perspective, but if professionals won't upgrade with this kind of performance increase (See Rome) versus Intel, then the PC industry as a whole has already accepted monopoly and AMD should just quit now, maybe move to focusing on consoles or something.

If a genuinely better product can't win market share, then nothing will, cause its impossible for AMD to lobby partners more than Intel.

 

[-Fran-]

Interesting remarks by Intel, but they said as much before Ry3K was launched anyway.

This is also a good opportunity to take a step back and think about what really constitutes "good" in the gaming context. Maximum FPS is not the only metric. I take smoothness all day long over max avg-FPS. In this department, AMD and Intel are tied in my eyes and no CPU really stands out to give a "smoother" experience in either lineup. Both have hiccups at around similar points and there's just no way around some implicit limitations due to libraries used and GPU drivers.

As for the PR-speak itself. It's garbage as usual. The cherry-picking is obnoxious as hell and really misleads, even to Intel-enthusiasts. When they have 2 friggen' slides for foot-notes, you know you can't take what they say at face value, even if you agree with what they're saying at a first glance.

I'm still saying they just need to get rid of the iGPU or bring the not-quite-Xeons back to the Z-platform. Intel has to give and just accept they're under strong competition instead of whining like a lil' kid.

Cheers!

 

[jimmysmitty]

Agreed. It's a shame that many people don't need to upgrade or don't see the need to upgrade. Makes sense from a business perspective, but if professionals won't upgrade with this kind of performance increase (See Rome) versus Intel, then the PC industry as a whole has already accepted monopoly and AMD should just quit now, maybe move to focusing on consoles or something.

If a genuinely better product can't win market share, then nothing will, cause its impossible for AMD to lobby partners more than Intel.

The thing about the business world is the CPU is not as massive as it once was. A lot of work station jobs now use GPGPU since it performs vastly better and servers are now just blades mostly and SANs that have the storage space all connected by CAT 5e or newer ones that use SFP cables for 10Gb connections. All mostly VMWare and with AMD out of the market for so long support is not nearly as good. Then you have cross compatibility. You need to match servers spec for spec so swapping would be nodes at a time and be very costly.

As well just having more cores is not always a better performance. As I said a lot of stuff relies on GPGPU now and there are other features Intel has that AMD might now. AMD currently has no answer for Optane DIMMs which to me is the best way to move forward in the HPC market even over NVMe as latency is vastly better and will improve with newer generations.

If you couple those advantages with time in the market and the ability to work with partners and OEM channels, AMD will have a hard mountain to climb to really take server market share from Intel. They will but it wont be as some people expect it to be, a massive chunk at a time. It will be slow and steady and take many many years before AMD sees notable HPC market gains.

I don;t expect common people to understand it. Its a very different world, especially when you consider how we purchase vs how businesses purchase.

Interesting remarks by Intel, but they said as much before Ry3K was launched anyway.

This is also a good opportunity to take a step back and think about what really constitutes "good" in the gaming context. Maximum FPS is not the only metric. I take smoothness all day long over max avg-FPS. In this department, AMD and Intel are tied in my eyes and no CPU really stands out to give a "smoother" experience in either lineup. Both have hiccups at around similar points and there's just no way around some implicit limitations due to libraries used and GPU drivers.

As for the PR-speak itself. It's garbage as usual. The cherry-picking is obnoxious as hell and really misleads, even to Intel-enthusiasts. When they have 2 friggen' slides for foot-notes, you know you can't take what they say at face value, even if you agree with what they're saying at a first glance.

I'm still saying they just need to get rid of the iGPU or bring the not-quite-Xeons back to the Z-platform. Intel has to give and just accept they're under strong competition instead of whining like a lil' kid.

Cheers!

The only thing maximum FPS is ever good for is seeing CPU longevity. Its a pretty solid standard too considering much older Intel CPUs still perform very well to this day. But thats just gaming. Overall the pictures is different and what matters is the end users use of the products.

As for marketing, its marketing. AMD does the same so does any company. I have never seen a company not try to make their product look fantastic even when it wasn't. Intel did so with the Pentium 4, AMD did with the FX series.

And the iGPU is more useful than most people think. As said gaming is only one aspect. Some people actually utilize QuickSync and AMDs mainstream high end desktop chips have nothing to compete with that. Its also a nice test piece to help troubleshoot potential PC issues. While I don't personally utilize it I don't think removing it will benefit anything in the long run. Intel already gets 5GHz out of their 14nm parts and even without the iGPU I doubt the would go much higher than that.

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

The thing about the business world is the CPU is not as massive as it once was. A lot of work station jobs now use GPGPU since it performs vastly better and servers are now just blades mostly and SANs that have the storage space all connected by CAT 5e or newer ones that use SFP cables for 10Gb connections. All mostly VMWare and with AMD out of the market for so long support is not nearly as good. Then you have cross compatibility. You need to match servers spec for spec so swapping would be nodes at a time and be very costly.

As well just having more cores is not always a better performance. As I said a lot of stuff relies on GPGPU now and there are other features Intel has that AMD might now. AMD currently has no answer for Optane DIMMs which to me is the best way to move forward in the HPC market even over NVMe as latency is vastly better and will improve with newer generations.

If you couple those advantages with time in the market and the ability to work with partners and OEM channels, AMD will have a hard mountain to climb to really take server market share from Intel. They will but it wont be as some people expect it to be, a massive chunk at a time. It will be slow and steady and take many many years before AMD sees notable HPC market gains.

I don;t expect common people to understand it. Its a very different world, especially when you consider how we purchase vs how businesses purchase.

Optane DIMMs are nice and the other stuff is cool too and definitely true, but its not just my own opinion, but that of very qualified and professional people at Servethehome and other tech reviewers that do have a knowledge basis to stand on when talking about this.

Maybe its just that servers have reached an optimal state and that very little change is needed from now on. I certainly hope that isn't the case, but if it is, then the performance increases we should expect are even smaller.

For workstation jobs, Intel still has an advantage for a variety of reasons but on the server side where Rome is focused, they must gain significant market share.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Optane DIMMs are nice and the other stuff is cool too and definitely true, but its not just my own opinion, but that of very qualified and professional people at Servethehome and other tech reviewers that do have a knowledge basis to stand on when talking about this.

Maybe its just that servers have reached an optimal state and that very little change is needed from now on. I certainly hope that isn't the case, but if it is, then the performance increases we should expect are even smaller.

For workstation jobs, Intel still has an advantage for a variety of reasons but on the server side where Rome is focused, they must gain significant market share.

Again its a lot of factors beyond just more cores. The features Intel provides, the time in market (remember AMD essentially dropped out of the server and HPC market for quite a few years), the support level (Intel has one of if not the largest software teams in the world) and the close relationships with OEM channels, developers and hardware manufactures makes server and HPC a tougher market to claim market share in for AMD than the general consumer market.

As I said it will happen but very slowly and they will also need to up their game in more than just the product. Having more cores is great. But having the support and a massive software team behind those cores would go a much longer way than just having the product.

In workstations, the HEDT platform, the only advantage is support and software. Otherwise picking Epyc is not that hard to do over Basin Falls.

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

Again its a lot of factors beyond just more cores. The features Intel provides, the time in market (remember AMD essentially dropped out of the server and HPC market for quite a few years), the support level (Intel has one of if not the largest software teams in the world) and the close relationships with OEM channels, developers and hardware manufactures makes server and HPC a tougher market to claim market share in for AMD than the general consumer market.

As I said it will happen but very slowly and they will also need to up their game in more than just the product. Having more cores is great. But having the support and a massive software team behind those cores would go a much longer way than just having the product.

In workstations, the HEDT platform, the only advantage is support and software. Otherwise picking Epyc is not that hard to do over Basin Falls.

Agree with the software support side. That stuff important and nobody wants to use a product that's better on paper but worse cause of software.

 

[-Fran-]

The only thing maximum FPS is ever good for is seeing CPU longevity. Its a pretty solid standard too considering much older Intel CPUs still perform very well to this day. But thats just gaming. Overall the pictures is different and what matters is the end users use of the products.

As for marketing, its marketing. AMD does the same so does any company. I have never seen a company not try to make their product look fantastic even when it wasn't. Intel did so with the Pentium 4, AMD did with the FX series.

And the iGPU is more useful than most people think. As said gaming is only one aspect. Some people actually utilize QuickSync and AMDs mainstream high end desktop chips have nothing to compete with that. Its also a nice test piece to help troubleshoot potential PC issues. While I don't personally utilize it I don't think removing it will benefit anything in the long run. Intel already gets 5GHz out of their 14nm parts and even without the iGPU I doubt the would go much higher than that.

I mean... Max FPS is no longer the only factor to consider, nor the most important in the couple of metrics you have to take into account. I can OC my Sandy to 5Ghz and it will be about ~15FPS lower than the 7700K in most games; hell, you can even OC the 7700K and get about the same performance in games as the 9900K. Does that mean it's a great CPU for today's needs? Will it do everything I need for years to come? Nope, not at all. Having the best gaming performance is more than just having a good average FPS. That is the point we all need to understand here. Intel's trying to make it the biggest deal of the century (as any Marketing team would), so read a bit beyond it.

Plus, prices... AMD is, side by side, cheaper. Intel is hating that to no end and they're salty. Really salty.

The iGPU talk, we'll have to agree to disagree. I will not sacrifice silicon space in my CPU for hardware encoding that I won't be using for my things. Specially when the targeted segment is bound to have a dedicated GPU anyway. AMD is doing it absolutely right here: APU and CPU in the same socket. Not that garbage "HEDT" crap from Intel to make people pay more for a better CPU. Yes, there's TR, but Ryzen is more than plenty for 99% or people out there. We can all agree that TR is a unicorn that will only serve a handful of mortals, but plenty professionals.

Cheers!

 

[jimmysmitty]

I mean... Max FPS is no longer the only factor to consider, nor the most important in the couple of metrics you have to take into account. I can OC my Sandy to 5Ghz and it will be about ~15FPS lower than the 7700K in most games; hell, you can even OC the 7700K and get about the same performance in games as the 9900K. Does that mean it's a great CPU for today's needs? Will it do everything I need for years to come? Nope, not at all. Having the best gaming performance is more than just having a good average FPS. That is the point we all need to understand here. Intel's trying to make it the biggest deal of the century (as any Marketing team would), so read a bit beyond it.

Plus, prices... AMD is, side by side, cheaper. Intel is hating that to no end and they're salty. Really salty.

The iGPU talk, we'll have to agree to disagree. I will not sacrifice silicon space in my CPU for hardware encoding that I won't be using for my things. Specially when the targeted segment is bound to have a dedicated GPU anyway. AMD is doing it absolutely right here: APU and CPU in the same socket. Not that garbage "HEDT" crap from Intel to make people pay more for a better CPU. Yes, there's TR, but Ryzen is more than plenty for 99% or people out there. We can all agree that TR is a unicorn that will only serve a handful of mortals, but plenty professionals.

Cheers!

I basically explained it. Max FPS just shows CPU longevity. Thats it. And its not wrong. Back when Bulldozer came out at max settings you could get close to Sandy Bridge. But today Sandy Bridge still plays while BD is in the wind. Notice I also said overall picture is different. And thats per person. Like myself. I look at the entire system not just the CPU. To me being able to upgrade two or three generations of CPUs is nothing of value since I build to keep for 5 or so years but it is of value to others.

I eventually see Intel matching AMD on a per core for mainstream and HEDT. But that doesn't mean they should ditch the iGPU which a lot of people use, as it can still be utilized even with a dedicated GPU, for features like QuickSync.

 

[TerryLaze]

as it can still be utilized even with a dedicated GPU, for features like QuickSync.

It could, but dedicated GPUs have even faster encoders... I know,I have both.
But I do agree with you ,the iGPU is a good thing to have and if you don't need it you can get an F CPU that is usually cheaper as well.

 

[-Fran-]

I basically explained it. Max FPS just shows CPU longevity. Thats it. And its not wrong. Back when Bulldozer came out at max settings you could get close to Sandy Bridge. But today Sandy Bridge still plays while BD is in the wind. Notice I also said overall picture is different. And thats per person. Like myself. I look at the entire system not just the CPU. To me being able to upgrade two or three generations of CPUs is nothing of value since I build to keep for 5 or so years but it is of value to others.

I eventually see Intel matching AMD on a per core for mainstream and HEDT. But that doesn't mean they should ditch the iGPU which a lot of people use, as it can still be utilized even with a dedicated GPU, for features like QuickSync.

And I just explained it doesn't! XD

And IT IS WRONG. I just gave you the i7 7700K as an example.

Cheers!

 

[jimmysmitty]

And I just explained it doesn't! XD

And IT IS WRONG. I just gave you the i7 7700K as an example.

Cheers!

And my example was just as valid. How many FX CPUs are out there today compared to Sandy Bridge?

 

[-Fran-]

And my example was just as valid. How many FX CPUs are out there today compared to Sandy Bridge?

Quite a lot actually... And that is actually surprising to me. How many i5 2500K CPUs haven't been replaced yet by something with more threads? How are they faring compared to the i7 2600K? Other i5s? Hell, even the new i5s with 6cores are also faring quite poorly compared to their higher thread-count siblings when you look at more than just the average FPS.

Cheers!