News Intel Unveils 10th-Gen Core Processors, 10nm Ice Lake, 18% IPC Improvement, Sunny Cove Cores, Gen11 Graphics, Thunderbolt 3

[Arbie]

Has Toms been hacked? It looks like Intel PR has broken in and is posting press releases as tech articles. And doing a good job of it too - from the title you might even think Intel has a 10 nm product that anyone will care about in less than two years.

Either that or... Intel is desperately calling in favors to get "10 nm" and "Ice Lake" some press, in the wake of AMD's killer announcements at Computex. Just look at how many recent Toms articles mention Intel, often for little reason.

 

[svan71]

"Ice Lake processors come with a maximum turbo frequency of 4.1 GHz, which is a notable step backwards from the 4.6Ghz peak boost clock speed of the previous-gen chips. "

Funny AMD's new chips are getting higher ipc and clock speeds not 400-500 mhz lower.

 

[svan71]

The article make me feel that Intel is quite desperate.
Those 18% increase of IPC do sound like they are comparing software-mitigated current CPUs with hardware-fixed new ones.

+18% ipc minus 400 or 500 mhz, does that sound good to anyone?

 

[jimmysmitty]

The article make me feel that Intel is quite desperate.
Those 18% increase of IPC do sound like they are comparing software-mitigated current CPUs with hardware-fixed new ones.

Which is why, as with any hardware numbers, its always best to wait until third parties have a chance to fully review the hardware. AMD, Intel nor nVidia have ever
been fully truthful with their numbers. The 18% could be real IPC without software patching but only in certain scenarios or applications. For gaming I highly doubt this or Ryzen 2 will make enough of a difference to justify upgrading. Especially since GPUs have pushed further and we now sit on the ability to almost do single GPU 4K gaming where a CPU will be even less viable for the performance.

What will matter most with Ice Lake is the performance per power.

Has Toms been hacked? It looks like Intel PR has broken in and is posting press releases as tech articles. And doing a good job of it too - from the title you might even think Intel has a 10 nm product that anyone will care about in less than two years.

Either that or... Intel is desperately calling in favors to get "10 nm" and "Ice Lake" some press, in the wake of AMD's killer announcements at Computex. Just look at how many recent Toms articles mention Intel, often for little reason.

You must be new. Computex is in session. TH covers all the major keynotes especially from AMD and Intel. There have been 4 AMD specific articles covering their keynote and 3 (5 if you count the OEM announcements with Ice Lake CPUs) specific to covering Intels keynote. TH does this every single year.

TH is not biased. Intel did not pay TH to post the articles, of which TH posted the same kind for AMD and were also not paid by AMD.

Seriously. Grow up.

+18% ipc minus 400 or 500 mhz, does that sound good to anyone?

This is a mobile chip, not a desktop chip. Power numbers matter more than peak boost rates.

"Ice Lake processors come with a maximum turbo frequency of 4.1 GHz, which is a notable step backwards from the 4.6Ghz peak boost clock speed of the previous-gen chips. "

Funny AMD's new process is getting higher speeds not 400-500 mhz less.

You mean Samsungs new process?

 

[Alexllte]

Must have been an Intel-Fanboy, Toms Hardware is own by Purch, which Purch is somewhat assoiated with Intel. http://archive.is/9oxp2

 

[joeblowsmynose]

So Intel has 18 percent IPC over 4 years, AMD does 15 percent in one year.

AMD did a 52% IPC improvement, then ~5% on the "tock", then another 15% on the next "tick". It's definitely better if you go back three years ... then again AMD did have Bulldozer before that, so the only direction was up. 😉

 

[joeblowsmynose]

Finally some good news from the blue camp! ... if you're into laptop performance ... Too bad this doesn't seem to be translating into desktop chips for a while. Isn't Intel 10th gen desktop (cometlake) supposed to stay on 14nm++++ for some time yet?

 

[joeblowsmynose]

+18% ipc minus 400 or 500 mhz, does that sound good to anyone?

Great point on the lower clocks ... not as exciting as AMD's 15%IPC + 5%+ on clocks, and I also suspect much better OC headroom and performance over prev Ryzen.

 

[Bamda]

These are laptop CPUs, I don't care about those.

 

[Arbie]

TH is not biased. Intel did not pay TH to post the articles, of which TH posted the same kind for AMD and were also not paid by AMD. Seriously. Grow up.

You mean Samsungs new process?

Straw man much? I didn't imply that Intel is paying off Toms, nor even that Toms is biased. I said "calling in favors", and that's exactly what such an uncritical re-posting of extravagant PR puffery looks like. It's very likely to mislead less-informed readers - which of course is Intel's intent. Toms needs to draw the line somewhere, and I think they missed that here.

And - it's TSMC's new process, not Samsung... you'll want to have that fact correct, going forward.

 

[svan71]

This is a mobile chip, not a desktop chip. Power numbers matter more than peak boost rates.



You mean Samsungs new process?

It's TSMC , So now we attack the the manufaturer? Is intels 18% increase on patched or unpatched coffelake? This is a 4 year late mobile chip and will be a 5 year late desktop chip, think the desktop chip will need a new socket? or perhaps same socket just a new chipset to use lower power chips Perhaps they should speak to Samsung or TSMC maybe get a little help, they need it.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Straw man much? I didn't imply that Intel is paying off Toms, nor even that Toms is biased. I said "calling in favors", and that's exactly what such an uncritical re-posting of extravagant PR puffery looks like. It's very likely to mislead less-informed readers - which of course is Intel's intent. Toms needs to draw the line somewhere, and I think they missed that here.

And - it's TSMC's new process, not Samsung... you'll want to have that fact correct, going forward.

Maybe not but the way you stated it, and others are, allude to it.

But hey its fine to basically post the information from AMD but not Intel? They are literally just reporting the information given. They do it for every major PR release from major companies. It doesn't mean the guy writing it is an Intel fanboy. Its just basic reporting.

They didn't miss any line anywhere. The article that missed the line was the "Just Buy It" article about nVidias RTX before the card launched. That missed the line. Reporting the information from Computex for both sides is not missing the line. Now if they said "Oh gee gooly, AMD is in for a world of hurt!!! 18% guaranteed gains!!!" that would be different but relaying Intels claims is not missing any line.

And correct. TSMC. I mixed them up but thanks for the correction.

This is a mobile chip, not a desktop chip. Power numbers matter more than peak boost rates.



You mean Samsungs new process?

It's TSMC , So now we attack the the manufaturer? Is intels 18% increase on patched or unpatched coffelake? This is a 4 year late mobile chip and will be a 5 year late desktop chip, think the desktop chip will need a new socket? or perhaps same socket just a new chipset to use lower power chips Perhaps they should speak to Samsung or TSMC maybe get a little help, they need it.

Not attacking any manufacture. AMD has not designed a process for quite a while but AMD is in no way responsible for any advancements the 7nm process brings to their CPU, that would be as I was corrected TSMC.

I have no idea how they did the 18%. I would assume unpatched as I would assume the fixed are built into the hardware. However if you look at the first line I said its best to always wait till third party sites get to test the products and that the 18% might only be certain scenarios.It may be late but what does that matter? if it truly is capable of an 18% IPC gain then late or not it doesn't matter.

My assumption would be new socket. Until we see what Intel has planned its all speculation. They plan to have 10nm server next year and I have not seen anything for desktop yet on 10nm but 7nm is supposed o be 2021. We shall see.

And considering that Samsung and TSMC normally work with entire collations on process tech vs Intel working alone I would say Intel did a pretty damn good job at keeping ahead of most of them. I don't think Intel would ask for the help, it might benefit them but they also push things further than Samsung or TSMC. Intels 10nm was going to be quite a bit more dense than TSMC and Samsungs 7nm (might have changed, not sure until we see it) when it was first proposed for a 2015 launch. Intels 7nm will also be more dense than Samsungs 5nm as of the last information I heard about it.

 

[TerryLaze]

It's very likely to mislead less-informed readers - which of course is Intel's intent. Toms needs to draw the line somewhere, and I think they missed that here.

Kinda like every site is trying to convince the less-informed readers that IPC=CB score ?
Something that seems to have worked very well on a lot of people.