Intel's Future Chips: News, Rumours & Reviews

Page 77 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


Hum, the mainstream six-core was in the roadmaps since 2015

20071514581l.jpg
 


The only slide wasn't released by Intel is the one about Zen 3/5/7 models. That was given here just to demonstrate that AMD does slides in chinese as well.

The Intel slide with the roadmap for 2016, 2017 and 2018 is well-known and reproduced in many places. We have known the existence of mainstream six-cores on Coffee Lake for years.
 


Okay, if there is "many" reproduce 1 official Intel slide from Intel not in a foreign language.
 


I have to agree there. It was in my radar as well. I'm not sure if it was specifically CL (I actually thought KL would), but I did have in my mind Intel getting 6C variants "soon".

Cheers!
 
Yes, I seen they were going to have a 6 core from rumors. No one knew for sure which segment it would fall in. And the debate was on weather it would be a threaded or non-threaded version for gaming. Not that it would replace i5 and i7 lines as mainstream processors.
 


The HEDT line of Intel has had six-cores since before Sandy Bridge. The six-core i7 980X was launched in 2010. It seems evident that the other rumored six-core would fall in the mainstream segment. Moreover, as shown above six-core Cofee Lake was in the official desktop roadmap since 2015.
 


I said that the slide with the roadmap was reproduced in many sites, not that there are many slides. There is not a supermarket of leaked slides where one can chose the color, language and information in the slide leaked. The leaked slides are what they are, and the earlier leaks are usually coming from china; there is not anything weird with that. Slides fully in English are leaked latter.

Currently Intel roadmap goes up to the 7nm Tiger Lake

IBaI2W7.png
 


Official
noun
1.
a person holding public office or having official duties, especially as a representative of an organization or government department.
"a union official"
And again this is nothing official from Intel. This was is a rumor. And it doesn't show any specific product segments.

Edit: Look at the date in the link 2016/09
https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/20071514581l.jpg

Here is a link to the official road map
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/public-roadmap-desktop.html

Intel Coffee Lake Mainstream 6 Core Processors Launching in Q1 2018 Alongside 300-Series Cannonlake PCH – Coffee Lake-X Details Leaked Too
Author Photo
By Hassan Mujtaba
Nov 19, 2016
http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-2018-cpu-details/

Ars Technica > Forums > Hardware & Tweaking > CPU & Motherboard Technologia
Intel 2017-2018 roadmap
https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1361753

They didn't know anything back in Nov 19, 2016.
 
Ok, it's been almost an entire page arguing over semantics already.

jaunrga is saying that it is an official slide, which was then leaked.

goldstone77 is saying the slide was not officially released, and therefore is not an official slide.

Since it's an argument about definitions now, can we agree you disagree and move on?
 


They'll glue a definition from this and move on... Or the posts will get un-glued from the thread by a mod.

Cheers! 😛
 


Technically, that is the definition!
 


I have no problem believing that is an official slide. Intel had the Purley platform mapped out in detail in 2015 as well:

https://www.techpowerup.com/212854/intels-post-2017-purley-enterprise-platform-detailed

TO assume that Intel did a massive change up to the CPU due to Ryzen is quite silly. There are some things they can change but throwing a 6 core CPU into the mix in a short 6 month period is not one of them.

Intel and AMD do not play off each other in that way. They do by pricing more than anything. I mean look at AMD. Took them 13 years to adopt Hyper-Threading, Intel first introduced it in 2004. It takes time to develop platforms and optimize.

Look at X299. Intel is not just throwing out some CPUs then maybe others later. Every CPU is planned for the platform and will be optimized for it.

http://www.universityherald.com/articles/51687/20161124/coffee-lake-release-update-leaked-intel-s-processor-roadmap-reveals.htm

That's from November of 2016. Intel nor the world had any idea of the true performance of Ryzen. Hell it could have been Bulldozer 2, yet it still talks about 6 core Coffee Lake CPUs and unless it has an X on the end it was always destined for the mainstream platform.
 


It takes what ~18 months to bring out a new product line? Add that to November of last year, and it looks like they are right on schedule? I'm not debating weather there was going to be a 6 core or not(they already have 6,8, and 10 cores). We all knew a 6 core was coming, but no one knew it would take the place of the i5 and i7 segments. From rumors the debate was over if they were just going to offer a 6 core non-hyper threaded version for gaming similar to the current quad cores. Now, what is debatable is Ryzen could have pushed this product segmentation to mainstream 6 cores for the i5 and i7 lines. After the latest product segment we can see Intel doesn't have a problem just throwing CPU's into product segments 12-18 core.

Edit: They knew about Ryzen performance in December
AMD’s Ryzen benchmarks get leaked and they’re jaw-dropping
By Darren Allan December 27, 2016
http://www.techradar.com/news/amds-ryzen-benchmarks-get-leaked-and-theyre-jaw-dropping
 


It is official and leaked as hundred other slides. Also the time a slide is prepared and the time a slide is leaked are two different concepts. For instance, the last Coffee Lake leak only gives part of the information is available. We will see further leaks in next months.
 


It takes much more than 18 months from paper outline to store availability. Moreover Intel works with roadmaps that go many years in advance. That is why you can see in the above table the products that will be released in 2020.

As demonstrated above, Intel introduced six-core in desktops before Sandy Bridge. It was evident to everyone that the new six-core was going to be introduced in the mainstream line to replace current quad-cores.

The analogy with the Skylake-X 12--18 core is incorrect. Those CPUs are repurposed server CPUs. Intel simply takes a defective Xeon die, print it differently and pack it in a different box. That is all. They don't have to design a different die.

Moreover, the 12--18 core SKL-X use a different die than the 6--10 core SKL-X. I don't remember now the names of the dies, HCC and LCC? Intel didn't take a 10-core die, did cancel it and redesigned a 18-core die in a pair of months because of TR. This is technically impossible. Both the 10-core die and the 18-core die were planned many many years ago.

Similarly the six-core Cofee Lake die was planned back in 2014 or earlier.
 
Even if it were an 18 month cycle originally, it isn't now. After Haswell arrived on schedule, every release since has experienced delays. Remember all the buzz over the death of the Tick-Tock model and Moore's Law? If anything, it seems like Intel intended to migrate to a higher core count much earlier, but couldn't keep up with their process shrinks. The only rapid releases have been the interim pao's like Kaby, whose designs are nearly identical to the preceding generations.
 


From an Intel perspective, there isn't a lot of reason to go out of their way to add more cores. More then four courses forces Intel to use a communication bus with a higher minimum latency (which they've since gone too), and additional cores drives up power consumption (leading to lower clocked CPUs).

Nevermind their primary market (gaming in this case) doesn't see any performance benefit (we've been through this before), which would result in such a CPU being a very low sale part, potentially not even justifying its production.

So yeah, I note the downsides to adding more cores that are not used by the system: Higher power draw, lower clocks, and increased communication latency. Oh, and higher cost.

For desktop users using the type of workloads that scale, there's always the Xeon line. For everyone else, going beyond a 4-core i7 isn't going to lead to any tangible performance benefit, and I suspect you'll actually lose performance due to generally lower clocks.
 


Moore's law refers to an observation made by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965. He noticed that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since their invention. Intel's product release cadence and Moore's Law has very little to do with how fast a product line can actually be brought to market on the same node! Lack of competition and complacency added with Intel's desire to increase it's profit margin by hanging longer on a process node. It's gets more expensive the smaller you go, and they were in no hurry anymore when they can just rebrand the same CPU's with a little higher clock speed. There ability to push a product out hasn't changed if anything it's improved. Their desire to is what has changed.
 
The Tick-Tock model was predicated on alternating dependable process shrinks with architecture redesigns. They weren't releasing architectural redesigns of existing product lines on the same node back then. The shrinks were based on Moore's observation as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Manufacturers strove to match it lest they be perceived as falling behind. It was later adjusted to 18 months, then 24, and then as I mentioned there were a slew of articles about "The Death of Moore's Law" and the end of the Tick-Tock cycle after Intel's pao announcement.

As the shrinks got harder and more complicated and time consuming, so did the architectural designs. They couldn't simply rely on the die shrink and power savings always being there. So they started to do refinements on the same node instead. GPU makers got the first taste of that when they had to skip the 20nm process, and we've seen the incredibly power hungry designs of that generation. Intel couldn't go that route given the sudden emphasis on power efficiency and mobile which occurred in the same time frame.

In comparison, AMD began work on Zen back in 2012 with the first models being released in 2017. Intel began work on Sandy Bridge in 2005, releasing their first models in 2011.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom