News Intel Tiger Lake: Release Date, Specs, Benchmarks, and All We Know

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
Really? Intel thinks that a 4/8 CPU is going to compete with an 8/16 CPU that offers near desktop performance?

A lot of the benchmarks for the CPU side were AI driven and I would say Intel is vastly ahead of AMD in that market. This is much like QuickSync back with GPUs that were inferior to dGPUs but it still outperformed it. Having dedicated hardware and well written software can help that. I do wonder though if Intel is also leveraging its iGPU for some tasks though which would easily boost some of the performance numbers.

As I have said one area AMD needs to really pump their work up in is software and working with vendors. Its a major advantage to be able to work with vendors to develop this kind of stuff.
 
Apr 10, 2020
75
12
35
0
Intel should be aware they have two enemies today: AMD and Apple.
They already lost from third - Qualcomm.
Not to mention NVidia - why they bother with Xe? Only in laptops but everything else...

I'm sure Intel CPUs will be more powerful then AMD but this difference will be in specific tasks. AMD will reduce prices and new devices announced...
 
Sep 3, 2020
3
0
10
0
This is much like QuickSync back with GPUs that were inferior to dGPUs but it still outperformed it.
Yes, QuickSync has a nice hardware accelerated H.264/HEVC(H.265)/VP9 encoders. Its quality is ok for streaming online in realtime but most of professionals use software encoders for high-end quality. So you still need a high number of cores/threads for tasks as video encoding, rendering, compiling etc. Quad-core won't do.

In other words, QuickSync isn't replacement for extra cores.

Low number of cores (4 instead of 6, 8) and only mobile line (TDP only up to ~28W) speak of low yields of Intel's 10++nm. It's not part of design but rather a mitigation of a problem.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
Yes, QuickSync has a nice hardware accelerated H.264/HEVC(H.265)/VP9 encoders. Its quality is ok for streaming online in realtime but most of professionals use software encoders for high-end quality. So you still need a high number of cores/threads for tasks as video encoding, rendering, compiling etc. Quad-core won't do.

In other words, QuickSync isn't replacement for extra cores.

Low number of cores (4 instead of 6, 8) and only mobile line (TDP only up to ~28W) speak of low yields of Intel's 10++nm. It's not part of design but rather a mitigation of a problem.
I wasn't speaking to QuickSync as a replacement just rather an example of how Intel could easily outperform AMD in certain tasks with less cores.

AMD may have more cores and are using a more viable process node but Intel is usually further ahead in software development especially in more emerging markets. I do really still think AMD needs to put a lot of capital into catching up to Intel in that. They can throw more cores at the problem but if there is software with dedicated hardware that can outperform it then it wont matter.
 
Sep 3, 2020
3
0
10
0
I wasn't speaking to QuickSync as a replacement just rather an example of how Intel could easily outperform AMD in certain tasks with less cores.
It's not that linear (simple)
Performance gain for QuickSync comes with quality loss for an encoded video.
Hardware encoders aren't on par with software.
 

nofanneeded

Respectable
Sep 29, 2019
1,562
251
2,090
19
Intel will be in big trouble when AMD just adds few cu units to their APU , what are they going to do then to compete against 8/16 CPUs ?

These new intel CPU are only good in one thing : better gaming notebook with longer battery life . because their clock are higher . but nothing more.

yes we will see gaming tablets using these CPU's or maybe even with RTX 2060/GTX 1660 ti in thin and light gaming notebook . but thats all about it.
 

Chung Leong

Notable
Dec 6, 2019
359
121
860
0
These new intel CPU are only good in one thing : better gaming notebook with longer battery life . because their clock are higher . but nothing more.
No, Tiger Lake is punching Renoir's teeth in because Xe supports variable rate shading and the older Vega doesn't.

On the CPU side, Tiger Lake has 5M of L2 cache and 12M of L3 across 4 cores. The top-end Renoir has 4M L2 and 8M L3 across 8 cores. Unless Intel didn't do their homework, I'm pretty sure their configuration is more optimal for today's software.
 
Its quality is ok for streaming online in realtime but most of professionals use software encoders for high-end quality.
It's not that linear (simple)
Performance gain for QuickSync comes with quality loss for an encoded video.
Hardware encoders aren't on par with software.
When was the last time you saw something that wasn't a stream?
Did you watch it in pure software mode or did you use your GPU for acceleration?
I bet anything you want that most people don't even know that they are watching everything through qsv/nvenc/relive.
Quality is good enough for people not to see any difference unless you do a frame to frame comparison.
 

escksu

Prominent
Aug 8, 2019
301
95
760
0
Intel will be in big trouble when AMD just adds few cu units to their APU , what are they going to do then to compete against 8/16 CPUs ?

These new intel CPU are only good in one thing : better gaming notebook with longer battery life . because their clock are higher . but nothing more.

yes we will see gaming tablets using these CPU's or maybe even with RTX 2060/GTX 1660 ti in thin and light gaming notebook . but thats all about it.
Sure that AMD can add more cu, but can it stay within the 15-25W TDP? These are not desktop APUs where power and cooling is not a problem.

Thin and light gaming laptops using RTX2060?? Hope you know that its rated at 116W....even ths GTX1660ti is 80W. Even if power is not the problem, these laptops do not have the cooling capacity. Thats why they are using chips like MX150/250/350 and many are the 10w variant.
 

Makaveli

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2001
1,059
174
19,470
4
I was just looking at Puget Systems' Affect Effect benchmarks. A 64/128 Ryzen 3990X actually scores lower than a 8/8 Core i7.
Would love to see which one you were looking at.

 

spongiemaster

Respectable
Dec 12, 2019
1,201
559
2,060
0
Would love to see which one you were looking at.

He was looking at that one. Look again, the 64 core 3990x is 5th from the bottom, barely beating out a 6 core i5 10600K.

 
Sep 3, 2020
3
0
10
0
When was the last time you saw something that wasn't a stream?
You missread the whole point. A streaming in realtime (like online game on a twitch) not streaming as Netflix.

Did you watch it in pure software mode or did you use your GPU for acceleration?
Ouch, you confuse encoding vs decoding. :rolleyes:
I did't say anything about decoding. Both AMD and Intel have pretty full hardware support for HEVC/H.264/VP9 decoding.


I bet anything you want that most people don't even know that they are watching everything through qsv/nvenc/relive.
Again. You mix and shuffle the concepts and use cases of encoding and decoding. Companies like Netflix and Amazon (Prime Video) use primarily software encoders for 90+% of their videos.
 

ingtar33

Illustrious
intel doing what it does best, inventing new benchmarks for new encoders no one will ever use, all while comparing apples to oranges in a slick marketing promo to make the average reader miss the fact that 10nm is only going to be released in MOBILE (and might even be strictly a paper launch at that); all the while claiming it's the fastest game in town. They did the same thing back in the P4 days. Idiots fell for it then.
 
Reactions: johnc2
intel doing what it does best, inventing new benchmarks for new encoders no one will ever use, all while comparing apples to oranges in a slick marketing promo to make the average reader miss the fact that 10nm is only going to be released in MOBILE (and might even be strictly a paper launch at that); all the while claiming it's the fastest game in town. They did the same thing back in the P4 days. Idiots fell for it then.
It's the other way around, nobody is going to buy a low power laptop to do 3d rendering or CPU video conversions, benchmarkers are stuck in 1999 thinking that people on the go are doing the same stuff as desktop users.
Just ask any kid with a smartphone if any of these things would be something they would be using.
 

watzupken

Notable
Mar 16, 2020
378
148
870
1
A lot of the benchmarks for the CPU side were AI driven and I would say Intel is vastly ahead of AMD in that market. This is much like QuickSync back with GPUs that were inferior to dGPUs but it still outperformed it. Having dedicated hardware and well written software can help that. I do wonder though if Intel is also leveraging its iGPU for some tasks though which would easily boost some of the performance numbers.

As I have said one area AMD needs to really pump their work up in is software and working with vendors. Its a major advantage to be able to work with vendors to develop this kind of stuff.
I don't disagree that Intel is in the lead when it comes to the AI side of things. However the reality is that AI is still very niche at this point. I am using an Ice Lake U processor which is supposed to be better than AMD's Renoir in terms of AI as well. It is not as fast as Tiger Lake, but still supposed to be faster than AMD. Then again, I don't use any of those software that Intel benched in their announcement, and I suspect most people won't either.

As to software optimization, I agree with you as well that AMD will need to improve in this area. But I feel their smaller market share as compared to Intel may hinder their progress in this area. The situation is improving, I feel it will be a long drawn battle to try to keep ahead of Intel consistently in order to win over significant market share from Intel.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS