A new post on TSMC’s website pulls back the curtain a bit about the company’s 7nm process.
TSMC Celebrates Making Over a Billion 7nm Chips : Read more
TSMC Celebrates Making Over a Billion 7nm Chips : Read more
In related news. Intel's process engineering team has announced they have managed to successfully boil water in a pot.A new post on TSMC’s website pulls back the curtain a bit about the company’s 7nm process.
TSMC Celebrates Making Over a Billion 7nm Chips : Read more
TSMC 7nm ~= Intel 10nm
Meh TSMCs node is limited to 3.9Ghz all core before needing 1.5Vcore and water cooling, to get up to the 10900k stock all core of 4.9Ghz ryzen needs liquid nitrogen,intel wouldn't even bother to release such a crappy chip...which is what they are doing.In related news. Intel's process engineering team has announced they have managed to successfully boil water in a pot.
Not mathematically but in terms of process node names. I'm not particularly well informed, but it goes something like this: those names have become total marketing bs. Intel named theirs 10nm so Samsung said ours will be 8nm, and TSMC then said well our has to sound better so we'll name it 7nm, although they are roughly the same density. There are several relevant ways to compare process nodes, number of same-type transistors per mm2 for example. So TSMC's N7 node is roughly equivalent to what Intel calls their 10nm node. When Samsung went to develop theirs, they named it 8nm, and then improved it, and again, so now their 3rd iteration of "8nm" is called 5nm, although it is still roughly comparable to Intel's 10nm node. Marketing..How come 7nm equals 10 nm ? Please elaborate
Most of those chips most likely have been manufacturered without EUV. N7 and N7P do not use EUV even on a single layer.
N7+ uses EUV, however it was introduced a lot later and still (to my knowledge) is not used for very high volume products (snapdragon 865, AMD Zen2, and so on are all N7 or N7P).
oh ? tell that to my 3900X that is currently running @ 4250 mhz, all core, according to cpuz and ryzen master, cpuz says its using 1.240v,and ryzen master says its using 1.099 volts. this is with a Noctua NH-d15, and under load, 68C on all the cores. if any cpu needs liquid nitrogen to run at those clocks, its the intel chips.Meh TSMCs node is limited to 3.9Ghz all core before needing 1.5Vcore and water cooling, to get up to the 10900k stock all core of 4.9Ghz ryzen needs liquid nitrogen,intel wouldn't even bother to release such a crappy chip...which is what they are doing.
Luckily it doesn't have to get up that high to do the same amount of work. And it does it using less power.Meh TSMCs node is limited to 3.9Ghz all core before needing 1.5Vcore and water cooling, to get up to the 10900k stock all core of 4.9Ghz ryzen needs liquid nitrogen,intel wouldn't even bother to release such a crappy chip...which is what they are doing.
The pot placed on a processor of course OC-edIn related news. Intel's process engineering team has announced they have managed to successfully boil water in a pot.
How do you know it's the process holding back the clock speeds and not the architecture?Meh TSMCs node is limited to 3.9Ghz all core before needing 1.5Vcore and water cooling, to get up to the 10900k stock all core of 4.9Ghz ryzen needs liquid nitrogen,intel wouldn't even bother to release such a crappy chip...which is what they are doing.
Congratulations you got me,I meant it runs 3.9 stock and reaches 4.1-4.2 before needing way too much cooling and vcore.oh ? tell that to my 3900X that is currently running @ 4250 mhz, all core, according to cpuz and ryzen master, cpuz says its using 1.240v,and ryzen master says its using 1.099 volts. this is with a Noctua NH-d15, and under load, 68C on all the cores. if any cpu needs liquid nitrogen to run at those clocks, its the intel chips.
It doesn't need to get to those clocks because it does need more cores to do the same work,yeah agreed.Also I've never seen a power draw bench with the 10900k running at 3.9 all core so it's in the air if it really uses more power or not.Luckily it doesn't have to get up that high to do the same amount of work. And it does it using less power.
Either way...they are stuck at low clocks.How do you know it's the process holding back the clock speeds and not the architecture?
Congratulations you got me,I meant it runs 3.9 stock and reaches 4.1-4.2 before needing way too much cooling and vcore.
put a " simple air cooler " on an intel chip, and it will throttle more then it will even stay at your praised 4.9 ghz.The 10900k runs at ~20% higher clocks at stock at 4.9 and does so with a simple air cooler,ryzen can only dream of such clocks.
and it STILL uses LESS power then the intel chips, point is ?It doesn't need to get to those clocks because it does need more cores to do the same work
I mean everybody tries to compare IPC by clocking both CPUs at 4Ghz or some other low clocks but somehow when comparing power draw on intel everybody uses the highest clocks with all TDP settings turned off...
just like intels 10nm cpus ?Either way...they are stuck at low clocks.
Don't link to reviews without even reading them,come on it looks like you are pulling at straws here.this here : https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-review/2 shows this cpu uses FAR MORE power then the 3900x. 328 watts for the 10900k vs 114-117 for the 3900x.
Intel set its official new PL2 watermark at a 250W TDP, which is double the 125W PL1 rating, and recommends that motherboard makers keep boost activity limited to 56 second bursts (Tau).
most motherboard vendors feed the chip up to ~330W of power at stock settings, leading to hideous power consumption metrics during AVX stress tests. Feeding 330W to a stock processor on a mainstream motherboard is a bit nuts, but it enables higher all-core frequencies for longer durations, provided the motherboard and power supply can feed the chip enough current, and your cooler can extract enough heat.
Yes, that's with the processor configured at stock settings. For perspective, our 18-core Core i9-10980XE drew 'only' 256W during an identical Prime95 test. " thats at STOCK. the fact that intel allows motherboad venders to feed the chip up ~330w is the only way intel keeps its performance advantage, where it still is able to get it.
What is it with you linking things without reading them just because you like the title...?come one terryblaze, do you actually believe intels TDP ratings ? intel sets their TDP at BASE clocks. under usage, the power their cpus use, can be higher, in some cases MUCH higher, as shown here : https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-draw-more-power-than-expected-tdp-turbo
and BTW, the title of the article on here i linked to, should of been the dead give away on how much power this cpu uses " Intel Core i9-10900K Review: Ten Cores, 5.3 GHz, and Excessive Power Draw " the key word here, is the excessive part. from the reviews verdict : but the extra performance comes at the cost of incredibly high power consumption. seems the only way for intel to get this cpu to have the performance levels it gets, is to let it take all the power it needs, " To find the power limit associated with our chip paired with the Gigabyte Aorus Z490 Master motherboard, we ran a few Prime95 tests with AVX enabled (small FFT). During those tests, we recorded up to 332W of power consumption when paired with either the Corsair H115i 280mm AIO watercooler or a Noctua NH-D15S air cooler. Yes, that's with the processor configured at stock settings. For perspective, our 18-core Core i9-10980XE drew 'only' 256W during an identical Prime95 test. " thats at STOCK. the fact that intel allows motherboad venders to feed the chip up ~330w is the only way intel keeps its performance advantage, where it still is able to get it.
but believe what you want
When the system has a substantial workload applied for a length of time, in this case ‘tau’ seconds, the firmware should immediately invoke PL1 as the new power limit. The turbo tables no longer apply, as those are PL2 only.
If the workload applied results in power consumption levels above PL1, then the frequency and voltages are adjusted such that the overall power consumption of the chip is within the PL1 value. This means that the whole processor reduces in frequency from its PL2 state to its PL1 state for the duration of the workload. This means that temperatures on the processor should decrease, increasing the longevity of the processor.
However, this is where it gets really stupid: the motherboard vendors got involved, because PL1, PL2 and Tau are configurable in firmware. For example in the graph above, we can set PL2 to an unlimited value, and then PL1 to 165W and 95W respectively.
Again from the article that you linked to, even though you did it by mistake.the fact that intel allows motherboad venders to feed the chip up ~330w is the only way intel keeps its performance advantage, where it still is able to get it.
Either way...they are stuck at low clocks.
Wow, how much mental yoga do you have to do to come up with that?Right, because clocks are all that matter. So, clearly, the FX-9590 is superior to Ryzen, by your narrow perspective?
At least the FX's thermals would be similar to Intel.
And there is nothing wrong with it, be it the arch or the process ryzen has more instructions but is stuck at much lower clocks which is why they can't get ahead of intel,just as intel is still stuck with less instructions but has higher clocks.You chose your particular phrasing, not me.
Not even,unlocking TDP doesn't change the max clocks that the CPUs reach,they will still stop at the stock all core clocks andYes, and we could also get into the thermals which you say are the fault of the motherboards not using the power levels properly, but then that excessive power is what's used to show results, and I don't see how you think obeying the TDP limits, thus requiring lower clocks and voltages, will allow Intel to maintain its clock speed and performance advantage.
What is it with you linking things without reading them just because you like the title...?
And in this case you are even linking one review but quoting a different one, those quotes are not found on the review you linked.
the link i posted. was to show you that intels TDP ratings, are basically meaningless, i guess you didnt bother to read it, did you? yet you accuse me of not reading? yea ok, sure. unlike you, i do read most of the articles that interest me, you on the other hand, obviously do not, cause as i said, the title for the article on here, the DEAD give away that this cpu using lots of power is the word " excessive " but i guess you didn't read that tooAgain from the article that you linked to, even though you did it by mistake.