Intel's Future Chips: News, Rumours & Reviews

Page 80 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jimmysmitty

Polypheme
Moderator
I am not sure the node race is getting tight. It may seem that way but considering the amount of money Intel puts into R&D alone I think it is a matter of just naming it to seem more competitive than they are.

I honestly would like to see a performance version of Samsungs 14nm compared to Intels current 14nm. The best comparison for Ryzen in terms of 14nm efficiency would be using Intel low power or mobile chips where Intel focuses on efficiency and power draw more than anything else.
 

minigaming

Reputable
Aug 5, 2015
27
0
4,530
0
I'm on 6600k, was hoping for better IPC and single core performance with the 8000 series. If it's not much better, will get a 7700k or consider ryzen considering the price will no doubt drop further on the release of these chips and make the value proposition higher.
 

juanrga

Distinguished
BANNED
Mar 19, 2013
5,278
0
17,790
1


LN2 get you in the 8GHz mark. And those turbos aren't the information I have.
 

juanrga

Distinguished
BANNED
Mar 19, 2013
5,278
0
17,790
1


IPC is a metric of the architecture and completely independent of the process node used. The process node used affects to other metrics such as power consumption, base and turbo clocks and overclocking capacity.

Skylake --> 14nm

Kabylake --> 14nm+ (higher clocks than 14nm)

Coffeelake --> 14nm++ (higher clocks than 14nm+)
 

juanrga

Distinguished
BANNED
Mar 19, 2013
5,278
0
17,790
1


That is what happens with GPU-bound and frame-limiting settings.
 

juanrga

Distinguished
BANNED
Mar 19, 2013
5,278
0
17,790
1


I just give Excel and x264. And both contain power consumption of RyZen chips at stock settings.



It is ~20nm vs ~16nm.

The SKL-X review has changed the measurement procedure, but the main conclusions are the same than in the old review.

Older review
i7-6900k: 198W
R7-1800X: 238W
Gap: 20.2%

Newest review
i7-6900k: 155W
R7-1800X: 193W
Gap: 24.5%

On both cases the '95W' chip is consuming more power than the 140W chip, specially when we consider platforms variations as dual-channel vs quad-channel.

Now on SKL-X on the new review, I am ignoring power consumption figures because many SKL-X tests used buggy BIOS launch, which affected turbo and p-state policies, and thus power consumption figures and overclocking capacities. THe own review mentions something about BIOS updates.
 


And you haven't even made half the effort of taking into account the buggy BIOS'es and AGESA upgrades for/from AMD in articles when laying out your points that mostly favor Intel.

Cheers!
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,250
13
19,965
85


You are WRONG! Watch the video, because your comments I know you didn't. Overclocking the mesh to 3GHz caused random game crashes, and on boot failure to find the SSD. The 7700K wasn't limited in the vast majority of the games and neither was the 7800X, and those were the games he focused on. The mesh for the most part gave 3-6% gains over stock performance, but once overclocked those gains diminished to 1-3% overall. Plus system instability.
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,250
13
19,965
85


You typically ignore things that don't help your point! Nevermind that 1st generation Ryzen is exactly that. The first generation. Intel has been optimizing the same uAch for the last ~10 years, and they have a superior process node. You pick a test that shows the greatest disparity between the two as an example which is ridiculous, because Ryzen as I stated before wasn't made to run excel it was made for multi-tasking. And when you compare the two on power consumption and performance Ryzen looks really good! And I think ASML who makes the machines for all the semiconductor foundries might have a better idea about how analyze the process nodes, and come up with an equation to do this better than random commentators on forums.
 

YoAndy

Respectable
Jan 27, 2017
1,255
0
2,660
166


Your statement makes no sense. You want better IPC than your 6600k But if is not good enough with the 8th generation you are getting Ryzen? Ryzen IPC still lower than intel.
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,250
13
19,965
85
Here is just a topic for fun. Hypothetically, we are coming to the barrier on process shrink. So, when we actually hit this barrier how do we continue to increase performance. More cores more threads seems like the only answer now, and programming will have to follow suite. Anyone else have any thoughts on what the future holds?
 

Wizard61

Prominent
Jun 22, 2017
89
0
660
10


The end of silicon and the dawn of carbon nanotube based chips.
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,250
13
19,965
85


Even then we will get down to the point where only a single electron can travel along a path. How do we increase performance when we hit the barrier.
 


As I've noted for, what, almost a decade now:

Games do not scale.

What's going to happen at either 7nm or 4nm [I have concerns about 4nm being commercially viable] is we're going to hit a computing brick wall. Servers and supercomputers will still scale by virtue of having workloads that scales to more cores, but Desktops are essentially going to tap out performance wise [CPU side at least] as normal desktop tasks don't need that much computing power, and the lack of scaling in games.

There really isn't much in the immediate horizon to address this issue. Optical chips have the major downside of being power hungry beasts, quantum computing isn't anywhere close to being ready or commercially viable, silicon alternatives [Graphene, etc] aren't there yet, and so forth.
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,250
13
19,965
85


I think it is likely we will see higher CPU counts, but with specialized cores optimized for specific tasks. And better optimizations for software to make use of these cores.
 


Non-uniform (non-binary?) ways of addressing performance.

The whole paradigm now is based on transistors that allow or deny electricity to travel. Get away from that computing paradigm and you can find new ways to extract performance.

Case in point: Quantum computing. That is the most famous one.

I like most analog theories on how to store data that deal with multiplanar/dimensional theories. It's fun, but just a tad complicated. It all boils down to how you can make the mathematical models adapt to what you can actually manufacture.



I don't think that question is related to games alone, though.

Like I said above, if we escape the binary paradigm imposed by transistors, we can extract more performance out of whatever material we choose to base manufacturing on.

Cheers!
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,250
13
19,965
85


Well, one instance of this is Samsungs 8 core. I think things of this nature will likely continue to expand, and become more specific to run individualized tasks better than an all around core could. Like adding an ASIC processor etc.
Octa-core vs Quad-core: Conclusion
"So, what’s the difference between octa-core and quad-core in the modern smartphone business? Very little, as it turns out.

That octa-core term is more than a little misleading, as it doesn’t mean the doubling of quad-core multi-core performance that it suggests. Rather, it represents two independently operating quad-core set-ups squeezed together on one chip for the purpose of greater energy efficiency."

http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinion/octa-core-vs-quad-core-what-s-the-difference-2932452
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,250
13
19,965
85


That is actually a great point. Escape the physical boundaries! I like it!
 


Well, you never escape the physics/physical boundaries. For manufacturing purposes, you can only go sub-atomic for tangible stuff. Until you can tap into untangible stuff (electromagnetic waves and light-based ones) with tangible (for humans) purposes.

There are a *lot* of ways to tap into them, but your most annoying barrier is usually cost and current calculation prowess of current computers (modeling).

Cheers!
 

goldstone77

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2012
2,250
13
19,965
85


Reducing the limitation placed by heat is a step in the right direction. And it will be interesting to see how they harness the power of quantum entanglement for distribution of information.
 


The problem with Quantum Computers I foresee is that while a certain subset of tasks are orders of magnitude faster to complete, the remaining tasks won't see any benefit. In that case, per-core performance and clocks will drive performance. And both those are likely to be SIGNIFICANTLY lower with quantum based CPUs.

I'll also say it again: 99.9% of desktop users are quite fine with an i3 class, if not a Pentium class CPU. I basically see 4-core + SMT becoming standard (with some 2+2 CPUs at the low end for budget/OEM builds), with everyone else being pushed more toward low-end server class CPUs. I don't see these high core count desktop CPUs having enough sales to justify production; there just aren't enough people out there who benefit from the performance of those amount of CPU cores in a desktop environment.
 

Yarvolino

Reputable
Sep 24, 2015
13
0
4,510
0


You made my day mate.

Cause I am not an OClocker, in your opinion, I can't buy a K CPU and complain it is slower in gaming than a year older CPU. Funny.

I am entitled to buy a K CPU even if I don't overclock it, that's because the 8700 without K doesn't have the same frequencies of the K version, therefore your statement pertains to those snob elitarian guys which OC CPU and think the non oveerclockers ones have to be wiped out from earth.

Wrong.

I have fiddled with OC a while in my life, I am just too old too get fun out of it anymore.

Intel is producing IMHO another Skylake X fiasco if to have the most FPS out of a game you are forced to buy an year old CPU called 7700k.



 

ASK THE COMMUNITY