News Intel Launches Tiger Lake: Up to 4.8 GHz, LPDDR4 Memory, Iris Xe Graphics up to 1.35 GHz

[st379]

Why would you choose to play any of those on a laptop? Gaming on a laptop is terrible, no matter how fast it is.

Why not playing battlefield on a laptop with rtx 2060?
I am not saying you sould but what is the problem if someone prefer something more mobile?
There are rtx 2060 laptops with ryzen 4800 in the 1k$ area.
Some people prefer a laptop over a desktop and quad core is pathetic in 2020.
Some work with a laptop and do video editing on it.
I connected my laptop to an external monitor.
There are lots of advantages to a laptop.
Quad core is just not enough not for gaming and not for some editing work.
You don't need a lot of power so buy an iphone.

 

[svan71]

Where are the 8 and 6 cores cpus?

Intel did not succeed with the shiny object over here with you, that's good.

 

[escksu]

Sorry but this is not good enough , no 6/12 CPU ? no 8/16 ?

Ryzen 7 4800U is an 8cores 16 threads CPU.

Its mobile cpu, not desktop. So good enough. More cores dont really bring more performance mainly due to tdp and thermal limits.

 

[escksu]

There are games that can use more than 4 cores. Are you living in 2006?
Consoles are going to push towards 16 threads and I did not see this gpu destroyng the rtx 2060 mobile fron Nvidia not to mention the stronger gpus.

It doesnt matter. These are low power mobile cpus. More cores are useless if it doesnt have to power nor thermal headroom to perform.

 

[escksu]

Why not playing battlefield on a laptop with rtx 2060?
I am not saying you sould but what is the problem if someone prefer something more mobile?
There are rtx 2060 laptops with ryzen 4800 in the 1k$ area.
Some people prefer a laptop over a desktop and quad core is pathetic in 2020.
Some work with a laptop and do video editing on it.
I connected my laptop to an external monitor.
There are lots of advantages to a laptop.
Quad core is just not enough not for gaming and not for some editing work.
You don't need a lot of power so buy an iphone.

How many pple game and do editing work on laptops?? How big is the market?? Very very small.

 

[st379]

It doesnt matter. These are low power mobile cpus. More cores are useless if it doesnt have to power nor thermal headroom to perform.

I suggest you watch the Lenovo legion 5 and Hp omen review before making all these claims.
I think you are still iving in a quad core bubble.

 

[PCWarrior]

1. Some people on here probably never heard of IPC or frequency or power efficiency and probably think that all quad cores are the same. They probably think that an i7 7700K is the same as an Intel Core 2 quad Q6700.

2. This is a quad-core but across the board it destroys the newest 8core/8thread (4700U) offering of AMD as well as Intel’s own 10th gen 6core/12thread 15W cpu (i7 10710u) not just in single threaded workloads but in multithreaded workloads too. And against the 8c/16t 4800U, there are plenty of workloads where Intel wins and in some it wins bigly.

3. These cpus have a nominal tdp of just 15W. Just 3 years ago if you wanted a quad core mobile cpu you needed to go for 45W skus (e.g. 7700HQ). Compare the i7 7700HQ in Geekbench 5 here (ST:829, MT:3417) versus the i7 1165G7 here (ST: 1533, MT 5769). So now you get 70% more multithreaded cpu performance (not to mention the 85% more single-threaded performance) for 1/3 of the power! And we are also talking about a large laptop versus an ultraportable.

4. Funny that some people mention gaming. These cpus pack immensely better integrated graphics - a 4x improvement over the UHD graphics of Cometlake cpus and 2x over Icelake cpus (which we know were on par with AMD’s apus).

5. These cpus are primarily meant for (i) thin-and-light ultraportable laptops and/or (ii)for laptops without a discrete gpu. They are not meant to be paired with powerful discrete graphics cards. But even if you were to pair them with a discrete gpu in beefier laptops, Intel wins in gaming cpu performance anyway. It wins even with their last-gen quad core cpus let alone these ones. And unless you are going to be playing games in 720p you would need a lot more gpu horsepower for such a quad core cpu to bottleneck the gpu. A mobile rtx 2060 ain't such gpu.

6. Even if you were to pair it with a better gpu you wouldn't leave too much performance on the table even in 1080p. And of course no bottleneck in 4K.

7. Speaking of pairing it with better gpus, a great thing about Intel mobile cpus is that they have thunderbolt. So you can buy a gpu-less laptop and use an e-gpu with thunderbolt only whenever you want to do heavy gaming. As it has been shown, the x4 PCIe3 interface of Thunderbolt, even with a 2080Ti, contrary to popular belief, only incurs about 10% of gpu performance loss.

8. In any case, if mobile, high-fps gaming is your focus you are better off buying a a laptop with a powerful discrete gpu and an H-series 45W cpu - the tigerlake H-series will be released in CES in January. And that to be paired with the right high-refresh ratio screen.

 

[Arbie]

This is a quad-core but across the board it destroys the newest 8core/8thread (4700U) offering of AMD.

Any third-party verification of such destruction? Any shipping dates? Do they even exist outside the lab? Any indication that, unlike so many of Intel's recent wonder products, they can actually make more than four or five?

I too used to believe what Intel said. But I got over that around 2017.

 

[spongiemaster]

Some people prefer a laptop over a desktop and quad core is pathetic in 2020.
Quad core is just not enough not for gaming and not for some editing work.
You don't need a lot of power so buy an iphone.

Brand new, just released Project Cars 3.

Look at how pathetic that Intel i3-9100 quad core is. Let's not sugarcoat this. The i3-9100 is no where near Intel's fastest quad core. This is a $110 Coffee Lake quad core/quad thread (no hyperthreading), and a single core boost of 4.2Ghz. It loses to the $430 12 core/24 thread 3900x by less than 1 frame/sec. 3x more cores and 6x more threads for 0.7% more performance. There are settings in this review where the i3 actually beats the 3900x. Also note, the 6/12 9600k comfortably beats the 3900x with twice as many cores and treads by 14%.

Brand new MS Flight simulator.

3900x with a huge win over the i3 here of almost 14%. Almost 4x the cost and 6x the threads for 14%. AMD should be proud of themselves. Except for the fact the 9600k beats the 3900x by that same 14% margin with half the cores and threads.

Now realize, the top end Tiger Lake CPU's just announced would pound the i3 9100 across the board. The i7-1185G7 is a quad core 8 thread CPU with an IPC boost of probably 20-25% over Coffee Lake with a 4.8Ghz single core turbo and a 4.3Ghz all core turbo. If you could drop a 2080Ti into a Tiger Lake motherboard, this is a low wattage mobile CPU that would undoubtedly beat the 3900x at any setting in Cars 3 and would give it a serious run for its money in Flight Simulator. If Tiger lake is a pathetic quad core, what does that make the 12 core AMD CPU that loses to it?

 

[PapaCrazy]

I'm waiting for Zen3, but results such as above dampen my enthusiasm. Even after all this time, I don't think they'll beat Intel at gaming. Maybe they'll tie up finally, but I just don't see them taking the gaming crown.

 

[nofanneeded]

Its mobile cpu, not desktop. So good enough. More cores dont really bring more performance mainly due to tdp and thermal limits.

no it is not enough , and actually more cores are always better for productivity on the go .

 

[watzupken]

It doesnt matter. These are low power mobile cpus. More cores are useless if it doesnt have to power nor thermal headroom to perform.

This is untrue. I think it's been proven since the release of Renoir earlier this year that the 8c Ryzen 7 series offers a significant improvement over existing Intel U series processor, particularly when multi core performance comes into play. Depending on the laptop configurations, it is also proven that the processor is able to sustain over a long duration. For professionals on the go processing videos, the 6 and 8 cores option from AMD have been proven to help substantially.

I won't sat 4c/8t us irrelevant in 2020, but it is a fact that Intel have not progressed in their offering over the years when competition is ahead if them in core counts and price. Them catching up in graphics is not a good achievement considering they have been offering the same UHD graphics since Skylake days. Its likely will be one of the key focus going forward which I think is good.

Tiger Lake seems like a great improvement at first glance, but I think it is (1)difficult to conclude how much better with no independent testing, and (2) prior to Ice Lake U, they have been very much stagnant in performance in the mobile space. I will not take the skewed benchmark results to make the determination. As exhibited in past few misleading benchmark results from Intel, the AMD system is always gimped to give them an advantage. For example, I feel the marketing material shows 63% improvement in graphic performance due to faster memory being used on the Intel setup.

 

[watzupken]

Brand new, just released Project Cars 3.

Look at how pathetic that Intel i3-9100 quad core is. Let's not sugarcoat this. The i3-9100 is no where near Intel's fastest quad core. This is a $110 Coffee Lake quad core/quad thread (no hyperthreading), and a single core boost of 4.2Ghz. It loses to the $430 12 core/24 thread 3900x by less than 1 frame/sec. 3x more cores and 6x more threads for 0.7% more performance. There are settings in this review where the i3 actually beats the 3900x. Also note, the 6/12 9600k comfortably beats the 3900x with twice as many cores and treads by 14%.

Brand new MS Flight simulator.

3900x with a huge win over the i3 here of almost 14%. Almost 4x the cost and 6x the threads for 14%. AMD should be proud of themselves. Except for the fact the 9600k beats the 3900x by that same 14% margin with half the cores and threads.

Now realize, the top end Tiger Lake CPU's just announced would pound the i3 9100 across the board. The i7-1185G7 is a quad core 8 thread CPU with an IPC boost of probably 20-25% over Coffee Lake with a 4.8Ghz single core turbo and a 4.3Ghz all core turbo. If you could drop a 2080Ti into a Tiger Lake motherboard, this is a low wattage mobile CPU that would undoubtedly beat the 3900x at any setting in Cars 3 and would give it a serious run for its money in Flight Simulator. If Tiger lake is a pathetic quad core, what does that make the 12 core AMD CPU that loses to it?

2 things I wanted to point out here. (1) The resolution @ 1080p is generally don't sync up with the user running a top end machine with a RTX 2080 Ti. This does show the weakness of the processor, but it depends on the user. I certainly will not be gaming at 1080p if I am running this sort of hardware. (2) Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 is bad example because it has been proven in reviews that it only fully utilizes 4 cores and I feel is badly optimized. Which is why a high end graphic card don't perform much better than a mid end card.

 

[escksu]

I suggest you watch the Lenovo legion 5 and Hp omen review before making all these claims.
I think you are still iving in a quad core bubble.

Then I suggest you go google up on difference between Ryzen 4800H and 4800U. (Intel has H and U series too). The keyword here is TDP. By default the 4800U has just 15W compared to 4800H's 45W. The desktop 3700x has 65W.

You can put as many cores as you want but you only have 15W to play with... Then, these CPUs are meant for ultraportables which has very little cooling capacity as well. Yes, you can increase the TDP to 25-28W, but thats provided the cooling can keep up.

So, more cores are useless if you can't really utilise it.

 

[Turtle Rig]

Good technology but who games on mobile now a days and if they do their spending 3k for a nice gaming laptop to begin with. Take can spend half of that and get a nice desktop and also the next half for a good video card and monitor and mouse and keyboard and what not. 🖐🖐💯👩‍🦲👩‍🦲✌

 

[Turtle Rig]

2 things I wanted to point out here. (1) The resolution @ 1080p is generally don't sync up with the user running a top end machine with a RTX 2080 Ti. This does show the weakness of the processor, but it depends on the user. I certainly will not be gaming at 1080p if I am running this sort of hardware. (2) Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 is bad example because it has been proven in reviews that it only fully utilizes 4 cores and I feel is badly optimized. Which is why a high end graphic card don't perform much better than a mid end card.

This is great but who plays at 1080p now a days lol. 🖐💯😲🙏🚓🏝✝🤷‍♀️👍

 

[watzupken]

I'm waiting for Zen3, but results such as above dampen my enthusiasm. Even after all this time, I don't think they'll beat Intel at gaming. Maybe they'll tie up finally, but I just don't see them taking the gaming crown.

Do you game at 1080p? It is a fact that the Zen 2 processors run slower in games, especially when you consider 1080p. However if you are looking at 1440p, that gap gets closed out quite a fair bit. At least for me, losing few percent don't hurt when I get much better performance doing any video editing work. So it depends on your usage.

 

[escksu]

This is untrue. I think it's been proven since the release of Renoir earlier this year that the 8c Ryzen 7 series offers a significant improvement over existing Intel U series processor, particularly when multi core performance comes into play. Depending on the laptop configurations, it is also proven that the processor is able to sustain over a long duration. For professionals on the go processing videos, the 6 and 8 cores option from AMD have been proven to help substantially.

I won't sat 4c/8t us irrelevant in 2020, but it is a fact that Intel have not progressed in their offering over the years when competition is ahead if them in core counts and price. Them catching up in graphics is not a good achievement considering they have been offering the same UHD graphics since Skylake days. Its likely will be one of the key focus going forward which I think is good.

Tiger Lake seems like a great improvement at first glance, but I think it is (1)difficult to conclude how much better with no independent testing, and (2) prior to Ice Lake U, they have been very much stagnant in performance in the mobile space. I will not take the skewed benchmark results to make the determination. As exhibited in past few misleading benchmark results from Intel, the AMD system is always gimped to give them an advantage. For example, I feel the marketing material shows 63% improvement in graphic performance due to faster memory being used on the Intel setup.

Reviews don't tell you everything. The problem with these U series is that their performance is entirely dependent on cooling and TDP. Although its 15W, you can run it at 25W provided you have enough cooling capacity. At 25W, it will be alot faster than 15W due to higher clockspeeds. Look at the cooling capacity of 2 laptops below. And then, Intel CPUs (at least in their NUC) are able to run at 45W for brief periods of time (PL1 limit). This makes them seems alot faster esp. if the benchmark is completed within the PL1 period.

Both i5-8565u and ryzen 4800U are 15W, configurable to 25W TDP. So, if both CPUs are at their max 25W TDP and 100% load, which one do you think will throttle first due to heat?

See this Ryzen 4800U, look at the cooling capacity.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/q2SzpEGVbkHTjbyGVPg7KC-650-80.jpg

Now look at this Dell 5300. Look at the cooling.

https://preview.redd.it/dqaoy3s4a63...bp&s=34da26f204b30120424fde5087b71b847ed2f009

 

[escksu]

Why not playing battlefield on a laptop with rtx 2060?
I am not saying you sould but what is the problem if someone prefer something more mobile?
There are rtx 2060 laptops with ryzen 4800 in the 1k$ area.
Some people prefer a laptop over a desktop and quad core is pathetic in 2020.
Some work with a laptop and do video editing on it.
I connected my laptop to an external monitor.
There are lots of advantages to a laptop.
Quad core is just not enough not for gaming and not for some editing work.
You don't need a lot of power so buy an iphone.

Those laptops are using the H series cpus which has 45w tdp.

 

[escksu]

I really hope we see a lot more support for 28W TDP modes on Tiger Lake laptops. Particularly for anything in the 15-inch range or larger, and even 14-inch ought to allow for more than 15W. There's a huge increase in performance (30-40%) when going from 15W to 25W on Ice Lake.

It depends alot on the laptop manufacturer. The cooling capacity has to be improved to handle the additional heat. Not going to be easy for ultraportables.

 

[PapaCrazy]

Do you game at 1080p? It is a fact that the Zen 2 processors run slower in games, especially when you consider 1080p. However if you are looking at 1440p, that gap gets closed out quite a fair bit. At least for me, losing few percent don't hurt when I get much better performance doing any video editing work. So it depends on your usage.

1440p but I'm a flight sim nut and that's always been, and will probably continue to be CPU intensive. I edit video but none longer than 30 minutes. And I've always been more patient with long renders than low framerates. Atleast I can go have a snack. For the first time in my life, I realized performance could be overshadowed by other factors. To put it in car terms... buying an Intel CPU right now feels like buying a 1995 Ford Mustang with a turbo charger and questionable oil/cooling system. Hot to trot and ready to rot.

 

[spongiemaster]

2 things I wanted to point out here. (1) The resolution @ 1080p is generally don't sync up with the user running a top end machine with a RTX 2080 Ti. This does show the weakness of the processor, but it depends on the user. I certainly will not be gaming at 1080p if I am running this sort of hardware. (2) Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 is bad example because it has been proven in reviews that it only fully utilizes 4 cores and I feel is badly optimized. Which is why a high end graphic card don't perform much better than a mid end card.

I think you've missed the point of this discussion. We're not talking about video card performance. Someone said that quad cores are pathetic for gaming today. If that's the case, then lowering the resolution should prove that point as you're shifting the bottleneck from the GPU to the CPU. Even with the odds stacked against Intel's quad core, it's still hanging tight with AMD's 12 core CPU. Which would indicate that these mobile Tiger Lake CPU's would be faster than AMD's 3900x in gaming despite the huge core deficit.

You want higher resolution? Here's Cars 3 at 4k.

i3 is now 0.3fps slower than a 3900x. Quad core again, not looking too pathetic to me. If I was building a rig to play this game, why would I pay $430 for 12 cores, when a $110 quad core would give me the exact same performance?

Flight Simulator is not an exception. The exception are games that gain anything worthwhile adding more than 6 cores. There are far more games that can't properly use more than 4 cores/8 threads than can utilize more than 6/12.

 

[escksu]

I think you've missed the point of this discussion. We're not talking about video card performance. Someone said that quad cores are pathetic for gaming today. If that's the case, then lowering the resolution should prove that point as you're shifting the bottleneck from the GPU to the CPU. Even with the odds stacked against Intel's quad core, it's still hanging tight with AMD's 12 core CPU. Which would indicate that these mobile Tiger Lake CPU's would be faster than AMD's 3900x in gaming despite the huge core deficit.

You want higher resolution? Here's Cars 3 at 4k.

i3 is now 0.3fps slower than a 3900x. Quad core again, not looking too pathetic to me. If I was building a rig to play this game, why would I pay $430 for 12 cores, when a $110 quad core would give me the exact same performance?

Flight Simulator is not an exception. The exception are games that gain anything worthwhile adding more than 6 cores. There are far more games that can't properly use more than 4 cores/8 threads than can utilize more than 6/12.

They all misses the point.....

the desktop i3 has 65W TDP. The ryzen 4800U has just 15W (by default). 4 core at 4GHz vs 8 core at 2GHz, which one do you think is faster? Its to say that more cores isn't necessary better.

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

Looking forward to reviews of actual laptops shipping with the processors. This might be a big improvement for the ultra-book and slim laptop market. Won't get my hopes up until I can see actual volume available though.

 

[Arbie]

Intel's "muddy the waters" crowd is here in force. The more desperate the situation, the longer their posts.

From empirical data, the best-fit equation is 3.4 words per unit despair.